Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 8, 2008

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE PALIN INTERVIEW.... Following up on an item from yesterday, the McCain campaign announced that Sarah Palin will sit down with ABC's Charles Gibson for her first interview this week. The AP added a few additional details as to what viewers can expect.

Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter. [...]

Salter said the offer was made the day after the Republican convention and that there were no ground rules on what could be asked.

It just so happens that only one network journalist got an exclusive sit-down interview with John McCain during the Republican convention, and that too was ABC's John Gibson. McCain appeared to enjoy the discussion -- he claimed that Palin opposed earmarks, Palin's physical proximity to Russia amounts to foreign-policy experience, Obama believes Iran is a "tiny problem," and one of Palin's "primary responsibilities" as governor is "national security." All of these claims are demonstrably false, but Gibson didn't challenge McCain on any of them.

It's not too big a surprise, then, that Gibson will be rewarded for his deference.

It's also interesting that Gibson will travel to Alaska for the interview(s). It reminded me of then-Gov. George W. Bush's demand to Tim Russert that he'd appear on "Meet the Press," but only if Russert traveled to Texas for the interview.

So, what should viewers expect? From Palin, I suspect she'll be fine. A couple of weeks of intensive prepping for a capable politician, coupled with an ability to dodge and filibuster, all on her home "turf," should be more than enough to get through the interview without any trouble at all. Those expecting Palin to make embarrassing mistakes will likely be disappointed.

From Gibson, after watching him with McCain last week, my expectations are considerably lower. I suspect part of him realizes he earned this special opportunity because the McCain campaign expects him to ask softball and/or predictable questions, and there may be some inkling to prove them wrong, but I doubt it. Gibson no doubt knows the McCain campaign punishes networks that ask forceful and substantive questions, and he probably doesn't want to lose his shot at the first exclusive sit-down with Todd Palin.

Given this, Josh Marshall predicted that the Gibson interview "will be unwatchable." I'm afraid he's probably right.

Steve Benen 8:53 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

John Gibson? I think you mean Charles Gibson in the fourth paragraph.

Posted by: buffalonian on September 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Well, given some of the things Charlie Gibson has said during the current election cycle, maybe Charlie Gibson and John Gibson (who works for Faux News) are really the same guy; you've never seen them together, have you?

Posted by: Spanky on September 8, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Off thread, but I just saw on msnbc.com that McCain has pulled ahead in a new poll.

How on earth can that be?

Posted by: citizen_pain on September 8, 2008 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Do not overestimate the media, and do not underestimate the Republicans.

They've created an instant celebrity (there's that word) in Palin, and as long as they keep her name and personality at the forefront, no one in the media's going to give a flying frisbee about Obama and Biden.

Posted by: Don B on September 8, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

This is gonna be a fluff piece. No substance. Just "Here's where I went to High School, here's my office, here's where I buy moose-shootin' ammo", and so on.

Posted by: TNeedle on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Just as a contrast to what we can expect, I would point out one question posed to Biden from Tom Brokaw yesterday on Meet the Press.

The final absurd question was whether it wasn't inapropriate for Biden's 38 yr old son to be working for MBNA Bank while Biden was advocating for a bankruptcy bill the bank would benefit from. But the leadup to the question included 10 accusations -
1) He's a neighbor to the Duponts
2) The bankruptcy bill he voted for benefitted banks
3) He has ties to trial lawyers
4) He has ties to lobbyists
5) He favors pork barrel spending
6) He collected 6.5M since 1989 from trial lawyers, lobbyists and bankers
7) His family has "business dealings" with banks and lobbyists.
8) MBNA wanted to see the bankruptcy bill passed.
9) He voted against an ammendment on preditory lending
10) The bill opposed protection of people in bankruptcy.

Naturally Biden committed the sin he is best known for - giving a long answer. He responded to most of the accusations, rather than answering the absurd question that followed. He was actually quite efficient in doing so, but if you are trying to create an image of a windbag, this is how Brokaw decided to do it.

Posted by: Danp on September 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah...

(Wistful sigh)

Remember back in the 70s and 80s when Charles Gibson was the Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC news? Back when he was still a journalist, and not a morning show host or a talking head? He could ask some pointed questions then. Maybe he'll have a tummyache at the last minute and they'll send Sam Donaldson instead.

Posted by: Spanky on September 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

"...the Gibson interview "will be unwatchable."

Yet they'll be glued to every word, as if it were Osama bin Laden.

Will somebody please tell me where the fighting surrogates are? Bill? Hillary? Anyone?

Posted by: MsMuddler on September 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

The interview will not be about Palin. Gibson will allow her to turn it into a denigration fest aimed squarely at Obama, Biden and liberal/progressive causes. And if he pushes back? Well, sessions #2-3-4? might not happen. Insufficient deference. Gibson's exercising unreasonable control over the subject matter. This won't be an interview, it'll be a nationally televised rebroadcast of her convention speech with closer camera angles, better makeup and whiter, toothy smiles.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 8, 2008 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of TV journalism, if there is such a thing, I notice MSNBC has opted to replace Olberman and Matthews with David Gregory for election coverage. Apparently there was too much "squabbling", when everyone can see that what is wanted is waves of soothing marshmallow that warm and numb you and make you just want to go along...

orange

Posted by: Mark on September 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a little more hopeful. After all, Gibson's reputaton will rest on this interview, and he wants to keep his chair at ABC. Unless he asks some penetrating questions and refuses to accept evasions and pettifogging, his reputation will lie in shattered shards around him. He should be reminded of this daily.

Posted by: Ted Lehmann on September 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

I would have thought Gibson got the message that he is viewed as a right wing hack when the debate schedule was announced and he ended up being the only non-Fox anchor not to moderate a debate.

Posted by: Napoleon on September 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie Gibson: Thanks, Ms. Palin, for agreeing to this rigorous interview...
Sarah Palin: Okey, sure, no pr-ah-blem
CG: Mooseburgers, huh?
SP: Yah!

Interview ends

Posted by: rusrus on September 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

And how about that loving valentine to Palin's motherhood on the front page of today's NYT? What do you all think of it? Is it an act of contrition for the articles last week that dared to question how well McCain vetted her?

In today's NYT article, we learn that Palin hid the fact that the baby would have Down's even from her own family- including her 14 year old daughter. Evasion seems to be a recurring theme.

Posted by: Karen on September 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

The fix is in bigtime:

MSNBC Drops Matthews, Olbermann As Anchors.
And check out the current post about MSNBC at TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214545.php

The game is up.
We will see a steady erosion of Barack's numbers.
The debates won't matter. They never do.

This is trench warfare time. Not a game for effete elites. You either bring ads to destroy Palin-McCain's character or you suffer steady erosion day by day...

Barack is looking more and more like Kerry every day.


Posted by: koreyel on September 8, 2008 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie should show a clip of the Gov. debate where the moderator's question assumed that Congress had already cut funding for the Bridge to Nowhere. She not only supported the Bridge to Nowhere, she supported the road to Nowhere. Her first appearence before a national audience, that Bridge thing, simply not true. Oh I forget, that's issues, voters don't care about issues.

Please do not feed the trolls today. They are feeling really giddy about their new GWB in a skirt. Looking at the WallStreet Journal, her track record in government looks about as distinguished as Bush's. Plus, I hear Jesus talks to her on her blackberry. That should give all American's comfort.

Posted by: Scott F. on September 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Off thread, but I just saw on msnbc.com that McCain has pulled ahead in a new poll.

How on earth can that be?

Off-thread response: Actually, as of Sunday evening, I saw three major pools (Zogby, Gallup, USA Today) with McCain several points ahead.

Likely a result of the convention/Palin "bounce". Worrisome if the trends continue, since don't Dems typically do better in polls at this stage?

Posted by: pencarrow on September 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Indeed, from an informational/factual/objective reality point of view it will be unwatchable, but objective reality has nothing to do with modern "journalism". It will be a ratings hit because it is being deftly handled by the GOP to be a ratings hit.

People will watch it, see nice, cozy kissass questions like those that Barbara Wawa would spew or Katy Couric would burp up. It will paint the bitch (I mean that in the most perjorative way) Wolf Killer Palin as a saint and well informed. Gibson will go out of his way to paint her as ready to take over from Foot-in-the-grave McCain.

People (mostly being total idiots) will watch it and will fall for it.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

As I've been saying on Steve's comment threads for a long time, the media are Republican. The major media personalities (the execrable Gibson, Brokaw, the late Tim Russert, etc.) are extremely wealthy and thus predisposed to favor the party that helps enrich them. Even if the corporate ownership of the media outlets wasn't avidly pro-Republican, the on-air talent is hopelessly compromised.

And it shows. They don't even bother trying to hide it anymore.

Posted by: jimBOB on September 8, 2008 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Brainwashed Barbie. Millions will tune in, there will be no gaffes, no sign of the real Sarah Palin. Everything, including AIP, radical church, abortion, lies on the stump, etc., etc., will be tied up in a pretty pink bow and glossed over. Gibson's star will rise with the GOP, as will Palin's, and low info viewers will gulp it all down, licking their lips. I've never been involved in elections before, but signed up as a volunteer for Obama/Biden. They just HAVE to win....for the good of the country, our communities, our families.

Posted by: Just Us League on September 8, 2008 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

The fix is in bigtime:

MSNBC Drops Matthews, Olbermann As Anchors.
And check out the current post about MSNBC at TPM: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214545.php

The game is up.
We will see a steady erosion of Barack's numbers.
The debates won't matter but a percentage point or two. They never do.

This is trench warfare time. Not a game for effete elites who are afraid to attack and afraid to trade lie for lie. You either bring ads now to destroy Palin-McCain's character or you suffer steady erosion day by day...

Can you say: John Barack Kerry?

Posted by: koreyel on September 8, 2008 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

It isn't going to help us, you can be sure. This proximity to Russia arguement has to stop, unless they want to also address the fact she is not remotely close (out-of-touch) with the lower 48.

Posted by: beans on September 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Is it any mystery that an anchor at ABC who has taken his cues from Pentagon propaganda and White House talking points would be the perfect "deferential" interviewer?

Watch for very careful "poll" management and the hyping of a sudden lead by McCain/Palin. It's only the Government media preparing to tag team with Diebold & Co. Hello, Big Brother is here to tap your phone, provide your info and send you a text message to let you know you lost again!

Obama/Biden, stand up and fight! There's plenty of ammo over at The Daily Show.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on September 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, its that wonderful time of the year where panic runs rampant and everybody suddenly knows how to run the campaign better than the candidate himself. Nevermind that Obama beat Hillary and all the leading indicators are in his favor - McCain got his campaign bounce and rallied the twenty-eight percenters! AIIIEEEE!!!

Ugh. Time to cut down on my blog reading and go watch some football until November...

Posted by: Doug H. (Fausto no more) on September 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Do not overestimate the media, and do not underestimate the Republicans.

They've created an instant celebrity (there's that word) in Palin, and as long as they keep her name and personality at the forefront, no one in the media's going to give a flying frisbee about Obama and Biden. "

This is dead on. And keep in mind one of the real reasons why.

I thought in the end, after their traditional fawning over John McCain, the media would turn full force towards Obama after the conventions and through the final weeks of the campaign. Why? Because President McCain isn't worth much to them. President Obama would be a gold mine. It would be huge for the media in the aftermath of the election and all through his first term. They would need Obama to win for their own profit. But Obama had the rug pulled out from under him by the last minute appearance of Sarah Palin. She's newer, she's stranger, she has a Jerry Springer-esque family and the public can identify more with her. Vice President Palin would be bigger for the media than President Obama.

So expect the media to do what ever it takes to see that she land right where they need her.

Posted by: on September 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Interview by the default infotainer of the default VP pick by the default GOP nominee. Seems like 3 stand ins for the real deal. Where's the democracy?

Posted by: lou on September 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Vice-presidential nominee will submit herself to questioning"

Amazing how this is even news. I hope somebody questions the very fact that people are getting excited about it.

Posted by: Ohioan on September 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

It seems safe to predict this will be a low-information voter's dream --- the illusion of being open to press questioning and she'll do fine with the softball questions that Gibson will toss to her.

On the McCain bounce in the polls, I'm a little worried but I also wonder whether McCain/Palin are peaking too soon. If they both go into the debates with strong poll numbers aren't they sort of risking being set up in the expectations game? McCain, clear front-runner, walks into a debate with Obama and they fight to a draw --- people start to look seriously at Obama again. Meanwhile, Palin, media darling, debates Biden and he defeats her, making people wonder what they saw in her.

I'd love to see Obama winning big right now, but doesn't trailing by a bit reinforce the idea of underdogs fighting against an entrenched party that's trying to hang onto power? Aren't the GOP supporters going to start getting complacent one of these elections?

Posted by: paul on September 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

What liberal news organization has ever asked Obama the tough questions? The DNC gives the lib news organizations their marching orders since they favored Obama over Clinton before the start of the Democratic primaries. Journalism...haha...infomercials really.

Posted by: Hilda Swank on September 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie Gibson is an actor, who plays a journalist on TV.

He will be reading from a script written by the Rove-Palin campaign.

His job as an "on-air personality" for the corporate-owned mass media, for which he is paid enough money to actually benefit from the Bush-McCain tax cuts for the ultra-rich, is not to conduct an interview that will inform the American people about Sarah Palin's views and her record in public office.

Charlie Gibson's job is to work closely with the Rove-Palin campaign to construct a propaganda event that looks like an interview.

Since this propaganda event is aimed at a mass audience of mainstream Americans, rather than narrowly focused on the lunatic-fringe, so-called "Christian" right-wing extremist base of the Republican Party, its purpose will be to disguise Sarah Palin's hateful, extremist views, and cover up her "executive experience" of mismanagement, incompetence, negligence, corruption and vindictive abuse of power.

(The interview targeted at the Republican base, in which Palin says that the invasion of Iraq was a "task from God", calls for the government to force rape victims to give birth to the rapist's offspring, proposes teaching the Biblical creation myth in science classes, etc. will be on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.)

Democrats really, really need to shake off the delusion that the corporate-owned mass media is some kind of neutral party, performing a public service by impartially informing the American people about the candidates and their positions.

The corporate-owned mass media is the propaganda arm of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. and the Republican Party is its political arm, and they work together to advance the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's corporate aristocracy against everyone else.

During presidential campaigns, the role of the corporate-owned mass media is to glorify the Republican candidate and character-assassinate the Democratic candidate.

That's exactly what they did in 2000. That's exactly what they did in 2004. And that's exactly what they are doing this year, only it is worse and more blatant than ever, because they have learned from the last two elections just how much they can get away with.

Democrats need to realize that the corporate-owned mass media is their adversary, and deal with it.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

I suspect part of him realizes he earned this special opportunity because the McCain campaign expects him to ask softball and/or predictable questions, and there may be some inkling to prove them wrong, but I doubt it.

I think this is possible as well, but I'm not sure he's bright enough to understand what the best way to do this is. This is the guy who asked Obama and Clinton if they should just agree to run on the same ticket because the runner-up got to be VP over 200 years ago. This is the guy who asked Obama about wearing a flag pin because people were talking about it on the internet. And this is the guy who premised his questions on taxes on the belief that a $200,000 household income isn’t all that high. His questions aren't based on facts or policies, he's more concerned with media narratives and gotcha questions. If Gibson does feel he needs to get a little tough to prove he's not the pushover the McCain campaign thinks he is, he's not going to respond by pressing her on foreign policy or the economy, he's going to press on things like the Alaska Independence Party and Troopergate. They have their cake and eat it too - Palin gets a bunch of easily deflected questions about her personal controversies rather than actual issues, and they can still say she was treated unfairly and shouldn't have to answer any more questions. Gibson is the perfect tool for this.

Posted by: ibid on September 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, I can't wait to hear Sarah Palin talk about all the culture crap she stirred up at the RNC!

NOT!

She's a culture war harpy who brings nothing but reckless inexperience and negative appeal, McCain is a doddering fool, end of story. Get some self determined faith people, the neocon dream is over! The economy is going to tank even harder, put your lipstick on that Sarah Palin and tell us again about the bridge to nowhere you hateful bitch.

Obama '08!

Posted by: Mommie Dearest on September 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yep... I think they're all pretty much unwatchable. I haven't seen Biden yet questioned about his penchant for lying and plagiarism...ANYWHERE! But I guess that's okay since he's a "foreign policy expert".... hahahaha. Anyone who reads a newspaper knows as much or more about foreign policy as he does.

Posted by: Gerry in Maine on September 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

In a perfect world, when a candidate "shuts off" media access to outlets who they disaprove of, then the media outlets in question would simply end any story about said candidate with the disclaimer "The candidate and his organization refuse to respond to our inquiries" and after enough outlets were cut off, and a list started growing of who the candidate refused to talk to, that list would become a political liability to the candidate. That's how things might work, if the media had any balls. Oh well. "So it goes", to quote one of my heros.

Posted by: Wacky Librul on September 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

When oh when will we return to the yesteryear of journalism? I am longing for it.

Posted by: iggy on September 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

The problem lies in the fact that political reporters do not actually do any reporting any more. All they do is repackage and report information that is already available.

Therefore their success is totally dependent on getting access to politicians, which is why most of them will bend over backwards to score a plum interview.

Posted by: mfw13 on September 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

In lieu of asking whether a baby's life begins at conception, I would just ask for her views on when life on this planet began.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by: altara on September 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

America, Land of the Pet Rock, gives us the Mr. POW/Caribou Barbie 2008 GOP ticket... And the crowd roared its approval.

Posted by: Mark Cartwright on September 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I detect a little bitterness amongst the posters here. The facts are she is someone people from all over the country can relate to and that Barack is far from that. With leaners McCain is up by 10 POINTS in the recent USA/Gallop Poll. I suppose that they are biased and part of the horrible right wing. Get over it and tell your party to wake up. The democratic party started its slide once Howard Dean took over and fell the feet of the MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos crowd. Its going to take a long time to get your respect back

Posted by: Michael P on September 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

A fluff piece? Huh, kind of like all of the Obama interviews after Hillary until Oreilly? Turnabout is fair play, wouldn't you say. Oh, no, your probably wouldn't. Obama or die is the quote I belive from a certain rapper Obama supporter? Hooray for everyday American moms!

Posted by: LW on September 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Obama supporters complaining about the media making Palin an instant celebrity. Tell me about the pot calling the kettle

Posted by: J. G on September 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

MP, LW, and JG should get over the fact that Hillary lost, and assuming their respective uteri aren't too shriveled up from age that they still care about reproductive rights for other women, get back on board the Dem bus.

Fortunately, their generation of old white people will be dead soon, and the ability to "relate to" a candidate will broaden to encompass other races.

Posted by: Gonads on September 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

So my generation of old white people? hhmm. I am 35 years old. You are so blind with most of the people on this post. First of all, has Palin or McCain ever tried to stop Roe V Wade? No they havent. These are scare tactics. First of all, no one will try to overturn it but only reinforce the limits such as third trimester except for certain instances. Second, its not about race you bigot, its about policy. I dont want damn nanny state where everyone thinks they should get bailed out by the government when things get tough. Everyone is crying about the economy. Sure its tough but unemployment is at 6.1% during the '91 recession it was at 7.8% and 6.3% after 911 so wake up and look at the facts.

Posted by: Michael P on September 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

That McCain is "another Bush" will be repeated often enough that wishful thinkers will believe it. This, it seems, is the only hope for Obama.

Posted by: Larry Boyle on September 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

That McCain is "another Bush" will be repeated often enough that wishful thinkers will believe it. This, it seems, is the only hope for Obama.

Posted by: Larry Boyle on September 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

If Palin gets into trouble with her narrative, she can always borrow Neil Kinnock's life from Joe Biden.

Posted by: Michaelonio on September 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

If Palin gets into trouble with her narrative, she can always borrow Neil Kinnock's life from Joe Biden.

Posted by: Michaelonio on September 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

If Palin has trouble with her narrative, I am sure Joe Biden will loan her Neil Kinnock's life.

Posted by: Michaelangelonio on September 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to tell the Dems, but this is the perfect scenario for old Hill and Bill. They are loving this and will do nothing to help Obama. Hillary will most likely get a shot in 2008 and might just win, unless Palin is running, too. That would be awesome! Two women running against each other. Girl Power!

Posted by: Casey Ridgeway on September 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is a high roller. Obama is grandma at the slot machine with a bucket of nickels with McSame written on them. No matter how many nickels Granny puts in that machine, her dreams will never come true. But she sits there at the slots pouring those nickels in, and shouting Damn You McSame every time she loses. Poor Granny Obama. So cautious, so dull, so completely out of touch.

Posted by: Danno on September 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Complaining about a fluff interview with McCain? LOL!

That's all Obama has had since he started. Not a single person has asked about his ACORN ties, or followed through with Bill Ayers. None.

He also refused any interviews with Fox until last week.

Pot... meet Kettle.

Posted by: ster on September 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

If McCain is Bush's third-term, then Obama is Carter's second.

Except for the fact that McCain is much farther from Bush than Obama is from Carter.

Posted by: ster on September 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Gibson the fellow who, during a debate between Obama and Clinton, berated Obama for failing to wear an American flag pin? Very important issue, no? Tho Obama didn't point it out, no one on that stage, including Gibson, was wearing one of the pins.

Let's see if Palin is wearing one when she goes on with him, and if so, whether he mentions it.

Fat chance.

Posted by: David Reich on September 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Sarah Palin's appeal to rank-and-file evangelicals is the most over-rated story of this cycle. If her ability to pull Christian women in the heartland base to McCain is the calculation here, it's badly mistaken. She engenders ambivalence at best, and her inexperience tips them away. Her sharp words and attack speeches are the last straw, seen as ungracious. If McCain admits he doesn't understand economics, he understands evangelicals even less.

Posted by: DaveH on September 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Second, its not about race you bigot, its about policy. I dont want damn nanny state where everyone thinks they should get bailed out by the government when things get tough. Everyone is crying about the economy. Sure its tough but unemployment is at 6.1% during the '91 recession it was at 7.8% and 6.3% after 911 so wake up and look at the facts.
Posted by: Michael P

Fuck you, you condescending 35 yo jackass. And try for some consistency. It's a little difficult for you to claim your infatuation with Palin is because you like her "policies" when you write this:

The facts are she is someone people from all over the country can relate to and that Barack is far from that.
Posted by: Michael P on September 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM

If this were about policies, then you'd be enthusiastic about the miniscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton. But you aren't, and are looking for ways to not vote for a black man you can't "relate to." Anyone who casts their vote based on this kind of personality litmus test should probably be lobotomized. You're voting for an entire platform and an entire administration, you self-centered prick, not just a candidate who you personally like.

And as for your concern regarding a nanny state, this Bush administration, which you seem keen on continuing with your vote for McCain/Palin (for personality reasons, dipshit), has already bailed out airlines and autos, and is about to bailout Fannie/Freddie at enormous cost to taxpayers. Voting for these assholes guarantees a continued nanny state.

Posted by: Gonads on September 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Palin says nukuler instead of nuclear in this interview .

Posted by: Pete on September 12, 2008 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

UGi2Wx comment4 ,

Posted by: Ajdzlbes on June 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly