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.

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.

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?

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.

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.