Print This Post
Sep
28
Wow - only four weeks ago this past Friday GOP candidate for president, Senator John McCain announced his selection of Alaska Governor Palin as his vice presidential running mate?
1. Okay - so, on the what voters I know are saying: spoke with two undecideds last night. Both women, both Jewish, both parents, both working, both married.
One outright said that she’s not sure the country is ready for Obama and when pressed, said that to her, that meant that she doesn’t think enough voters will vote for a black man. She thinks the country is more ready for a woman (we didn’t get into white or other but I’m assuming she means white).
She first asked me if I got anything out of the debate Friday night and I said that since I was already a decided voter, not much that I thought would really be so relevant to undecideds. But then I recounted some of my observations that I would think might matter to an undecided (for example, Obama’s depth of knowledge and facility with moving from one topic to the next, in contrast to McCain’s constant repetition of platitudes, anecdotes and attacks on Obama, rather than providing specifics about his alternatives for any specific issue; McCain’s angry yet detached tenor and Obama’s warmth and intensity while still addressing McCain directly).
I also told her about the Israelis for Obama video and she was extremely interested to have me email that to her.
She then said that she got absolutely nothing out of the debate because she wants to hear both of them provide very specific plans for how to get out of our financial mess. We talked about how economics is not either candidates strong suit and she acknowledged that, but she still feels that they owe this to us and she’s hoping that in the following debates between McCain and Obama, we will hear something along those lines.
I will only say this once because although my tweets get pretty histrionic at times, I prefer to leave that there than bring it here, however, both of these women described Sarah Palin as a total non-starter. This first woman specifically said, as I’ve heard others say (Jewish and other) that while they were thinking of McCain, once he selected Palin, it forced them to reconsider Obama. That’s not the thing I’ll only write once. This is that: Both of these women specifically used the word “stupid” to describe Palin. The second woman I spoke with used it over and over and over, with enormous gesticulation. I should add that I went to law school with this second woman, and the first woman happens to have been a journalism major in college (OSU) but has done primarily corporate and PR work for the last 20 years or so.
On to the second woman: as mentioned above, most of her chat with me about politics centered on her exasperation at what she sees as Palin’s failings and resentment toward McCain that he would choose her and put voters in such a position. I mean, this woman really really really is angry about the Palin pick. However, as a voter, she says she remains undecided.
2. On Friday, I wrote about how Sarah Palin’s lack of fluency in any meta-language other than one that involves pretty much anything Alaska and energy in so much as it has to do with Alaska as this problem of hers relates to her repetition about never second guessing Israel. TIME columnist Romesh Ratnesar echoes that perception in this piece (long excerpt that leads up to this point):
Then there was her pained, and painful, response to Couric’s questions about the Bush “freedom agenda” — the goal of spreading democracy in the Islamic world. Predictably, Palin repeated standard Bush platitudes about making “every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism. It’s not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.” That theory, though, has been discredited by the debacle in Iraq and years of inconvenient outcomes in the Middle East, in which elections have brought to power parties that are more extreme, not less. As a result, the Bush Administration abandoned the lofty talk about transforming the region roughly, oh, three years ago. Couric pressed Palin on this:
Couric: What happens if the goal of democracy doesn’t produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.
Palin: Yeah well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we’re seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadenijad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel … and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.
Couric’s question was beyond difficult — it’s the most vexing question that has faced US policymakers over the last seven years. What do you do when democracy produces results you don’t like? There’s no good answer, but there are many ways to grasp at one. Palin could have said that elections are only one component of democracy; that bringing extremist groups into the political process helps to moderate their behavior; that extremists tend to lose support once in power, because they don’t know how to govern. She could even have said, Those are the breaks — we don’t get to choose.
Instead, she changed the subject to the threat Iran poses to Israel. Why did she do this? Was it because she didn’t want to acknowledge that democracy sometimes produces undesired results? Did she calculate that, since Gaza shares a border with Israel, she could use it as an opportunity to turn the discussion to Iran, where McCain and Obama disagree? Or did she just not know what Couric was talking about?
If she didn’t, that’s understandable. Most Americans are not particularly interested in the nuances of politics in Pakistan or the Middle East. But we should expect our leaders to be fluent in at least the basics of foreign policy. So far Palin is still struggling for words. [my emphasis]
Although it’s not the proper comparison to talk about Barack Obama and Palin, in this one context, his facility to discuss such matters (as was evident in Friday night’s debate) is in blinding contrast to Palin’s inability.
The other thing I want to mention about the TIME column, is that in this post at Nix Guy, Dave drags out a comment exchange after he mentions to another commenter that 70% of Americans don’t have passports. I respond (as you can read there) that this shows the preference of the Bush Administration, among others, to keep us insular - or inward-only focused. I specifically mention, in a positive way, the value of curiosity of that which exists beyond our borders and so on. Dave breaks it down to a binary thing (no surprise) by saying it’s a political position preference: conservatives being American-centric versus liberals giving more weight to foreign interests. I think that’s pure nonsense, but again, you can read the exchange there.
The TIME column states and echoes my position in that same column about Palin:
It takes a hard heart not to like Sarah Palin. She has a winning personal story. She can be poised, charming and funny. As she showed at the Republican National Convention, her ability to deliver set-piece speeches — a big part of the job for all politicians, but especially Presidents — is considerable. On balance, she’s probably an asset to John McCain. But we should stop pretending that she is ready now or anytime in the forseeable future to be Commander-in-Chief.
I reached this conclusion after watching the foreign-policy portion of her disastrous Sept. 25 interview with Katie Couric. A number of commentators, including The Atlantic’s James Fallows and Slate’s Christopher Beam, have said that Palin resembled, in Beam’s words, “a high-schooler trying to BS her way through a book report,” which is an insult to both high-schoolers and B.S. Palin’s answers were hesitant, convoluted and at times — like when she appeared to suggest that Vladimir Putin might be preparing a one-man airborne invasion of Alaska — downright loony.
But the more worrisome responses were the ones that betrayed her lack of curiosity about current events and reliance on bumper-sticker wisdom over complex thoughts. There were moments, in fact, in which you wondered whether she had been paying any meaningful attention to the world outside Alaska before McCain picked her as his running mate a month ago.
In fact, in one of my 57 reasons to vote for Obama posts, I wrote (more specifically in a comment) about how Alaska-centric I thought she was, and at least one commenter challenged me on how I saw that. This TIME columnist explains it perfectly.
3. SNL continues to deliver. First on Palin and Katie Couric, then on Bill Clinton and his support for Obama.
4. My debate plans will probably involve viewing with some other women but I said that we have to promise not to talk so much that we don’t hear the debate. Assuming there’s much worth hearing, obviously. Here’s a blog entry from News Hounds that contradicts what we’ve seen of Palin in a debate format; the analysis is by Neil Cavuto of Fox:
This is Neil Cavuto this morning (September 27, 2008) during a segment with Bill Kristol on what Sarah Palin is up against come Thursday’s VP debate: “What would she have to do to surprise on the upside? ‘Cause I’ve caught a lot of these interviews and, and, you know, the issue is, you know, she’s new at this and I understand that but she’s in against a guy who’s steeped in Washington ways; knows all the capitals of all the countries. You know what I’m sayin’? And, that, I don’t know how you go up against that.”
Comment: What? My head is exploding. Foreign policy amounts to knowing “all the capitals of all the countries” and Palin is “up against that” but she might not even be able to pull that off?
New at what? Debates? She took on her 2006 gubernatorial candidates plus two journalists for an hour (watch here), did well and went on to win her race. Even the Obama campaign is being honest about her apparent debate skills as shown in the past.
Frankly, how Palin performs has a lot to do with the questions moderator Gwenn Ifill chooses to ask her on Thursday night. That’s going to be very hard for her to do - and viewers will be loving to second guess Ifill’s selections (that was too easy! that was too hard!) depending on how well Palin can answer.
Of course, this is all still a charade because the key word here is “perform.” People pulling for Palin are looking to see how she does that, while most of us, even some of those in the first group, know that how well she “performs” in the debate with Democratic vp nominee Joe Biden has little connection to her fundamental unreadiness to be vice president or Commander in Chief.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:15 am September 28th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin, WH2008
Comments
14 Responses to “The Palin Pick, four weeks in: voters, fluency, funnies & the next debate”
Leave a Reply
-
Upcoming
Good post Jill. You do a great job of tracking the cultural waves the Palin pick has left in its wake.
I have a question for you though: what do you think about the description of Palin as “stupid”? Are you suggesting that what reads as stupidity is more linguistic naivete rather than cognitive or education deficits?
I love your idea that “Sarah Palin’s lack of fluency in any meta-language other than one that involves pretty much anything Alaska and energy” (almost as much as I love imagining Palin watching the Silverman video!).
But does the “lack of fluency in any meta-language” indicate a linguistic/ rhetoric problem, a failure of abstract thinking or both?
Is it that she hasn’t yet “learned the cliches” (as Kevin Costner says to Tim Robbins in “Bull Durham”) of national and international politics? Every politician learns his cliches, then adaps them into the catch phrases and sound bites he uses when asked a question he can’t — or doesn’t want to — answer. Does Palin just need someone to script her better quality cliches?
Or are you saying that Palin’s “lack of a meta-language” indicates a deeper problem — she doesn’t speak in meta-languages because she doesn’t understand the world in a “meta” way? She’s not cognizant of the complexities of the regions and conflicts she’s asked about, and so she’s unable to reflect that complexity in her answers (relying instead on “on bumper-sticker wisdom over complex thoughts”).
Like the friends you mention, I’m constantly tempted to call Palin stupid, by which I really mean provincial, unenlightened, unreflective and poorly educated. At the same time, I think she must be pretty savvy. I think she must possess an enormous amount innate cunning — enough that were McCain to win (god forbid) she would never be the poster child for stupidity the way Dan Quayle was.
And how’s that for damned with faint praise?
(PS Sorry this is so long. Don’t have time to make it shorter right now.)
[...] The Palin Pick & The Next Debate September 28, 2008 at 1:41 pm [...]
Seems to me the question at hand is only whether how fast Palin can get up to speed on the intricacies of national politics. That she has the smarts and fire for public office should be beyond question. That she is articulate also should be beyond question. If you doubt me google the charlie rose interview, the Knowles debates, etc.
Jill is hitting on the salient point here, but the media consensus appears to be settling on “airhead” which is unfortunate and untrue, but very possibly a good indictment of her handling so far. We’ll know in a week or so.
<strong>What’s the Point of a Hail Mary If You Can’t Catch The Pass?…</strong>
Sarah Palin, with a 10% favorable rating, now has the lowest approval ratings of any candidate in the 2008 election:
Maybe it was those incredible interviews she did this week?
See Also: Palin’s Favorables Slip To - 10, The Palin-Couric intervie…
@Dave -
One question - the Knowles debate - that’s not the one I linked to?
Comment:
I think you are being fair, enough. I would still wager that while she may, when pressed, be able to eventually absorb acceptable quantities of information about any and perhaps even all topics, my opinion only remains that she does not have the ability or facility, intellectually, to use that information in new and abstract ways. I feel that this compromises the desirability and ability of her to be CIC - permanently.
I accept that that’s my threshold, but what I want in a CIC involves that kind of facile handling of knowledge. Clinton is perhaps the best example of that, but I would argue that LBJ because of his congressional experience and Carter too had a similar ease. Reagan actually was pretty good too - but I think he had a somewhat limited capacity.
Dave - are you talking about the 3 mins. thing on Charlie Rose or the one from last year when you mention the Charlie Rose appearance?
The one from last year with Janet Napolitano. it was during the Women Governor’s conference in NYC.
No one shined in the debates, no one. But Obama certainly represented more of my views than McCain did. But I am not undecided. You go through the points well as usual!
I was at a wedding (family) yesterday; large family and a few discussions about the election. Lots of negative McCain talk at the lunch I went to with about seven of my relatives. And at the church, after the wedding ceremony, one relative came up to me to say ‘you should be happy to note I’m going to vote for Obama’ (I have an Obama button on my purse).
Thursday will be mind bloggling, no doubt. I don’t think Pallin is stupid at all, just under informed. It should be interesting to see how much she can cram by then.
We have diplomatic communications with Syria,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080927/wl_mideast_afp/mideastsyriausundiplomacy
not with Iran with them we have very little. But then we have this; http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/biden-fact-check-no-us-diplomats-in-tehran/
Ms. Couric asked her questions firmly but gently, careful not to seem flippant or condescending. But she ended on a “gotcha” moment. After Ms. Palin attacked Senator Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, Ms. Couric reminded the governor that she recently met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who supports direct diplomacy with both countries. “Are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve?” Ms. Couric asked. Ms. Palin replied, “I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.’ ”
After the interview, Ms. Couric faced the camera and added a postscript. “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview,” she said, explaining that Mr. Kissinger supports talks “without preconditions.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26watch.html?ref=television
Below is a complete transcript of the interview which aired on Fox News Channel at about 5:15 p.m. on Saturday, September 27:
BARACK OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisors, who, along with five recent Secretaries of State, just said that we should meet with Iran, guess what, “without precondition.” This is one of your own advisors.
JOHN MCCAIN: Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to-face meetings between the President of the United States and the President, and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
MEGYN KELLY: The candidates sparring last night over whether a United States President should sit down without preconditions with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is something that Barack Obama wants to do and something McCain says is not only naive, it’s downright dangerous. Each man claiming that Kissinger supports his position. So what’s the truth? Well, joining me now, on the phone, is former Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford, Dr. Henry Kissinger. Mr. Secretary, good evening to you.
HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Nice to talk to you.
KELLY: Nice to have you here. All right, so what is the truth? Do you support the notion of an American President sitting down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions?
KISSINGER: No, I don’t. I have argued that, at some point, negotiations with Iran are important. But it is my view that they should be on the working level, and that the President should not be involved until we know that we are close to an agreement, or that we know what the nature of the agreement is.
KELLY: So, in other words, you favor negotiations at the lower level, perhaps all the way up to the Secretary of State, but you do not believe an American President should sit down without preconditions, as Barack Obama says he would like to do.
KISSINGER: That is correct.
KELLY: What is the danger in having a President do that?
KISSINGER: First of all, we have to understand that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that will be a dramatic change in the situation in the most explosive region of the world today in the Middle East. It will give Iran a capability to protect [UNINTELLIGIBLE] … with a set of nuclear weapons, and it will demonstrate that the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, which asked Iran to desist from building nuclear weapons, has been totally ignored, and therefore it would start an arms race for nuclear weapons in that region. A whole number of countries have declared that nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. So what we need is a definition of what we mean by “unacceptable,” and what we’re going to do if diplomacy does not succeed. It’s in this context that I believe negotiations should be conducted to demonstrate either that we can achieve what we define as unacceptable, or that other measures have to be taken. But in order to do this, it has to be at a level in which one can test the various issues that are raised by such an effort. And if you start with the President, then that – Presidents and generals should not be the first negotiators because if a negotiation at that level fails, you really have no other recourse, and it would be in the conditions of a country that has declared America as the principle enemies, to start at that level would be to legitimize their conduct over a whole period of time.
KELLY: And let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, one of the things John McCain says is that it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the eyes of the world. In other words, you give this man who says Israel should be wiped off the face of the map legitimacy by even having that sort of photo-op with him. What are your thoughts on it?
KISSINGER: I think McCain is right, and I think that it is unwise to sit down with Ahmadinejad. If Iran really wants to negotiate with us, they will find a negotiator who has the prospect of achieving something that needs to be done. And, secondly, if progress is to be made, there have to be a lot of exchanges at other levels. Before Mao and Nixon sat down, there were two years of exchanges at lower levels.
KELLY: Understood. And the candidates are at issue on that and many other items. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming on, setting the record straight. We appreciate it.
I am beginning to think that Palin should say very little and let Biden fill the air, she should yield her remaining time to him. Couric got away with something, shame on her people believe the media, check them they make so many mistakes, they all do. Check this out: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/katie_couric_thinks_cindy_mccain.html I would like to yank on her hair, a few times harder each time.
In someway I actually hope Palin goes off at the debate, maybe even break down in tears. Like Voinovich, I am trying so hard….and people are making fun of me.
I am not a big Fox Fan, they are a sick bunch, they actually growl and snarl as the oblige any alternate perceptions. Megyn Kelly needs to be pushed around real hard, what the heck is with her name was she named after her mothers gynecologist? I wonder what Kissenger get per hour to grumble out basics in diplomacy. Do woman still think he is sexy?
Jill wrote:
“she does not have the ability or facility, intellectually, to use that information in new and abstract ways.”
Okay, that’s what I was wondering. I feel the same way.
The other component for SP in the VP debate whether she can develop the ability to really *listen* to the questions she’s being asked, to absorb the nuances and be aware of what part(s) of the questions will work most strategically in her favor.
That’s part of why she blew the Couric interviews. In the questions about Russia and foreign policy, if she’d been able to begin with the end of her answer (with trade missions and spy planes) instead of with geographic literalism (”there’s a thin maritime border”), she wouldn’t have been so easy to mock on SNL.
A personal pet peeve of mine is when people complain that they “didn’t hear specifics” during the debates. Specifics can’t be delivered in 2 or even 5 minute responses. In this day and age, with access to all of the issues and positions on each candidate’s website, I find that type of response insulting. But that’s part of the reason McCain can run months of lies - a large number of voters refuse to educate themselves. So frustrating.
Agree with Foss on the educated voter position.
As for a woman first: I’ve long thought the country would elect a black man president before a woman. Although it’s just your friend and I, I suspect that anecdotal evidence represents a broader gendered response.
[...] The Palin Pick, four weeks in: voters, fluency, funnies & the next debate [...]
[...] The Palin Pick, four weeks in: voters, fluency, funnies & the next debate [...]