No Palin Interview Until She's Treated with "Deference"

[Malerin]

"Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., just told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin won't subject herself to any tough questions from reporters "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html#comments

Incredible. And the American people seem to be buying it. McCain is up 3 points over Obama in the latest Gallup poll: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[Wangler]

"Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., just told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin won't subject herself to any tough questions from reporters "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html#comments

Incredible. And the American people seem to be buying it. McCain is up 3 points over Obama in the latest Gallup poll: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Newsflash:

The American people are actually pretty smart, and most can discern between useful fact finding and smear campaigns.

[Ausmerican]

Like the respect and deference we treat Cheney, Biden, Gore and other VPs and VP wannabees with? Done. Take Cheney for instance. I am sure Palin gets far more respect than the current VPOTUS. Or Gore.

[Ausmerican]

Speaking ofCheney though, you cant just demand that sort sort of respect, especially when you haven't proven yourself to have earned it. Damn it woman, dont whine about it, if you want that sort of respect get out there and shoot a lawyer in the face!

[NorfolkAtheist]

Newsflash:

The American people are actually pretty smart, and most can discern between useful fact finding and smear campaigns.

Giving an interview is not the same as being smeared. In fact, interviews are a great way to combat smears because you get to address your detractors claims when the interviewer brings them up.

Interviews also give the public a sense of how well you can think on your feet, unlike stump speeches read from teleprompters which only convey how well you read and enunciate.

[Malerin]

Newsflash:

The American people are actually pretty smart, and most can discern between useful fact finding and smear campaigns.

How is going on a show like "Meet the Press" (which has a standing invitation to both Palin and Mccain) anything like a "smear campaign"? Hell, she won't even go on Chris Wallace's show. Is Fox part of the liberal MSM? :rolleyes:

[Meadmaker]

I think we'll see a Sarah Palin interview soon? Why? Because the campaign manager spoke very stupidly saying that she wouldn't give interviews. Now, she'll have to.

They can't hide her forever.

I, for one, really want to see her. She gave an amazing performance in front of a microphone, but as others pointed out, that's easier. I'm looking forward to seeing how she handles herself off script. If the campaign continues to keep her away from such moments, I, and the rest of America, will assume it's because they are afraid of what she might say.

[Wangler]

How is going on a show like "Meet the Press" (which has a standing invitation to both Palin and Mccain) anything like a "smear campaign"? Hell, she won't even go on Chris Wallace's show. Is Fox part of the liberal MSM? :rolleyes:

I didn't say that it was....

You posted that the "American people are buying it".....

I only assume you meant that they were buying the Republicans stated reason: "call off the witch hunt, get sensible, and we'll talk".....

That's why Obama has been trying to tell his camp to let her be...there is already the beginnings of a public backlash to the rough handling she has received, as evidenced by the poll you linked.

That was my point.

Americans are smart, despite contrary opinion.

[RandFan]

If she can't take the heat then she doesn't deserve to be VP. Screw all the pre-qualifications. I don't know if it is true but there was some scuttlebutt that Hillary was known for taking a dim view of reporters that were impertinent and that being so would guarantee that you not get a future opportunity to ask questions. She, supposedly, also had requirements that had to be signed before she would do one on one interviews.

If this is true it's pure nonsense. That said, I would be really surprised if Palin isn't able to handle questions.

BTW, if the rumors about Clinton are not true then my appologies. I'm too lazy to verify before passing it on. I know, sue me.

[BenBurch]

In other words, she is a freaking coward.

[Wangler]

In other words, she is a freaking coward.

Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward.

[RandFan]

In other words, she is a freaking coward.Good god. She stood before 30 million people and gave an amazing speech. She took on an entrenched establishment in Alaska as a political outsider and won.

I rather doubt she is a coward. This is more likely a political ploy. Odd that a politician would behave in a political way given that she is part of a political machine that is trying to win what is arguably the biggest political prize on earth.

Still, coward is good as far as political rhetoric and strategy goes so let's all chant it. Perhaps a T-Shirt is in order.

[RandFan]

Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward. I thought he was talking about Palin.

If I was wrong, ditto for Clinton. No Coward.

[boloboffin]

As Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214375.php) put it:

Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States in four and a half months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview.

That's really all we need to know. Yes, she's off being prepped at some undisclosed location. And I've little doubt that by the time her debate rolls around she'll be sufficiently pumped full of slogans and bromides to make a show of it. But now, this moment, is the one that tells us all we need to know.

As is so often the case, Palin is the incarnation of the Republican slurs. The darling of the hard-right; she gives stem-winding speeches. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions. Not even on Fox. They know she's not ready and probably never will be. But they think the politics might work for them.

How about a little deference and respect for the American people to whom Sarah Palin is applying to be our civil servant?

[BenBurch]

Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward.

No, I mean Caribou Barbie.

[Malerin]

Good god. She stood before 30 million people and gave an amazing speech. She took on an entrenched establishment in Alaska as a political outsider and won.

I rather doubt she is a coward. This is more likely a political ploy. Odd that a politician would behave in a political way given that she is part of a political machine that is trying to win what is arguably the biggest political prize on earth.

Still, coward is good as far as political rhetoric and strategy goes so let's all chant it. Perhaps a T-Shirt is in order.


A political ploy is done to gain some political advantage. What's the advantage to be gained from shielding Palin from reporters? There is none. It rasies the obvious question of readiness. The only reason they would cocoon her like this is fear of embarassment. They're prepping her like mad and stalling for time. Courageous behavior? Hardly. If she were courageous, she would have been out there giving interviews from day one, not waiting 9+ days. That's hardly a profile in courage.

[Wangler]

That's hardly a profile in courage.

Yeah, RandFan, we post our opinions anonymously on the internet, so we know all about that courage thing!

:rolleyes:

[Malerin]

"Ferraro was being interviewed within four days of being announced. Dan Quayle gave an interview one day after being selected.

We are now on Day Nine for Palin and are told to expect another thirteen before she's ready.

This is a pitbull with lipstick? More like a cowering chihuahua.

(I'll keep you posted on the other precedents. I should have asked how many days it took Eagleton to speak to the press.)"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/when-real-candi.html

[BenBurch]

The same economists whose advice got us in this horrific mess in the first place? I'll pass on their advice.

EDIT; Whoa! Software bug. I posted this in a whole 'nother thread!

[Malerin]

Yeah, RandFan, we post our opinions anonymously on the internet, so we know all about that courage thing!

:rolleyes:

If we lowly anonymous MB posters don't know anything about courage, why did you post this: "Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward."

Maybe you want to try again?

[Brainster]

I agree that it's probably a mistake, but they could just be building up the anticipation, which certainly worked for them last time.

The McCain team is very, very smart; I've been awed by the way they've played chess over the course of this campaign. I'm not going to start second-guessing them now.

[Ausmerican]

Good god. She stood before 30 million people and gave an amazing speech. She took on an entrenched establishment in Alaska as a political outsider and won.

I rather doubt she is a coward. This is more likely a political ploy. Odd that a politician would behave in a political way given that she is part of a political machine that is trying to win what is arguably the biggest political prize on earth.

Still, coward is good as far as political rhetoric and strategy goes so let's all chant it. Perhaps a T-Shirt is in order.

RandFan you are one of my favorite posters here. Even when I dont agree with what you say I admire the way you say it.

This is one of those times I dont agree however.

I really dont see the "amazing" in her speech. From everything I have read she didnt write much of the speech, just delivered it. Her delivery wasn't too bad. Not great. And as I recall she was a journalism major and a sports reporter. Therefore I am assuming she can read lines and is used to being in front of a camera.

And please she was not in front of 30 milion people unless TV has become a 2 way viewing device lately. She was in front of a partisan crowd that would have cheered if she had said "I had Cheerios for breakfast this morning" as thye cheered at the end of just about every other sentence she uttered.

If this is an "amazing" speechgiver than what adjective does Obama rate?

The rest of what you said, I agree 100%.

[RandFan]

A political ploy is done to gain some political advantage. What's the advantage to be gained from shielding Palin from reporters? There is none. It rasies the obvious question of readiness. The only reason they would cocoon her like this is fear of embarassment. "Only reason"? Shirley you jest.

Hardly. If she were courageous, she would have been out there giving interviews from day one, not waiting 9+ days. I'll have to agree with Clark Griswold. You're the expert here Malerin. No need to critisize your silly arguments.

Wangler

Yeah, RandFan, we post our opinions anonymously on the internet, so we know all about that courage thing! :)

[Malerin]

On the Fannie/Freddie bailout:

Obama: Talked about it in an interview with George Stephanapolus
McCain: Talked about it on "Face the Nation"
Biden: Talked about it on "Meet the Press:

Palin: Sarah Palin, said a "McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need them." Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo, where the candidates were campaigning, did not elaborate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26577811/

Truly, a courageous and knowledgeable candidate.

[BeAChooser]

If this is an "amazing" speechgiver than what adjective does Obama rate?

Dishonest? You saw my thread taking apart the veracity, logic and consistency of his acceptance speech didn't you? :D

[RandFan]

RandFan you are one of my favorite posters here. Even when I dont agree with what you say I admire the way you say it.

This is one of those times I dont agree however.

I really dont see the "amazing" in her speech. From everything I have read she didnt write much of the speech, just delivered it. Her delivery wasn't too bad. Not great. And as I recall she was a journalism major and a sports reporter. Therefore I am assuming she can read lines and is used to being in front of a camera.

And please she was not in front of 30 milion people unless TV has become a 2 way viewing device lately. She was in front of a partisan crowd that would have cheered if she had said "I had Cheerios for breakfast this morning" as thye cheered at the end of just about every other sentence she uttered.

If this is an "amazing" speechgiver than what adjective does Obama rate?

The rest of what you said, I agree 100%.Hey, I'm happy to concede that the "amazing" is subjective. That said, I've got to say, going into the speech I was very anti-Palin. I had read articles and watched videos and thoroughly disliked her (see Average Isn't Good Enough (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3068,Palin-average-isnt-good-enough,Sam-Harris-Los-Angeles-Times) by Sam Harris). Perhaps my low expectations were a factor. Perhaps I was swayed by much that was not objective. I'm honest enough to admit that.

At the end of the day though, and in all honesty I was blown away by that speach. In toto I'm against Palin but if I said that I thought the speech wasn't amazing I would be lying.

[RandFan]

Truly, a courageous and knowledgeable candidate. Truly doesn't follow. But hey, what the hell does objective and logical analysis have to do with anything?

[Malerin]

"Only reason"? Shirley you jest.

I'll have to agree with Clark Griswold. You're the expert here Malerin. No need to critisize your silly arguments.

:)

So what is the upside to sequestering her for 9+ days? And you and Wangler are defending her remarkable courage. Apparently you two feel qualified enough to talk about it, so I guess it's on the table for all of us: ducking reporters and hiding behind an excuse of "deference" does not exactly make her the Audie Murphy of politics. As Andrew Sullivan points out, even Quayle was out there fielding questions a day after being picked.

Three out of the four candidates were on Sunday talk shows this morning. Guess which one wasn't :)

[RandFan]

So what is the upside to sequestering her for 9+ days? No controversy there. This is, politically, one of the biggest prizes in the world. Palin is going to be subjected to some intense scrutiny. It's completely plausible that she is willing to face the fire right now but McCain and his handlers want her better prepared to avoid any missteps. Hardly earth-shattering.

Of course, considering other options that don't fit with your preconceived notions is not really conducive to one's ego but it is consistent with skepticism and critical thinking.... oh hell, this is JREF, who do I think I'm kidding.

Go on with the speculation and mind reading Sylvi.. I mean Malerin.

And you and Wangler are defending her remarkable courage.
Given that most people couldn't and wouldn't do it, uh, yeah.

Three out of the four candidates were on Sunday talk shows this morning. Guess which one wasn't :) {He said in CT tones}. Ooooohhhh.... it can only be for the worst possible reasons.

[dirtywick]

A political ploy is done to gain some political advantage. What's the advantage to be gained from shielding Palin from reporters? There is none.

It's essentially putting forth not to trust the media until they say it's OK to trust them. It's a play off of all the affair and baby nonsense that's been floating about; anyone spreading that can't be trusted to put out a fair interview. A biproduct of that, of course, is that she will be more ready to give an interview than she is currently and puts pressure on the media to report on some of the positives she's done in Alaska because if they don't they can claim "see?".

It's a good move, and really the media sensationalism of skirting the issues and focusing on her family, as well as how they did Obama the same way earlier in the year, gives it justification.

Just my opinion though.

[Wangler]

If we lowly anonymous MB posters don't know anything about courage, why did you post this: "Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward."

Maybe you want to try again?

Why, I stand by what I said.......

:confused:

[RandFan]

Why, I stand by what I said.......

:confused:Me too. I mean I'm curious as to the point and I agree what you said about Hillary. Who knows?

[Malerin]

Truly doesn't follow. But hey, what the hell does objective and logical analysis have to do with anything?

You're absolutely right. When the potential leader of the free-world dare not be asked about the impact of a govt. takeover of multi-trillion dollar organizations, we can't make any assumptions, can we? It certainly would never occur to anyone that she's totally clueless about all things non-fundie and non-Alaska.

That certainly wouldn't occur to us after finding out she took 6 years (and 6 colleges) to get a four-year journalism degree, doesn't know what the VP does, thinks the Iraq war is "a task from God", thinks creationism should be taught side by side with evolution, thinks AO eduction is effective (what do you think, Bristol?), and belongs to a church sponsoring a conference to "cure" gays through the "power of prayer".

I'm sure she has remarkable insight into the housing crisis and bailout of Freddie/Fannie. She's just.... waiting for the right reporter to come along! Yeah, that's the ticket! ;)

[Wangler]

Me too. I mean I'm curious as to the point and I agree what you said about Hillary. Who knows?

Just to further clarify, for Malerin and others, my original post about "anonymous posters" was meant to be a sarcastic spin on the fact that a large majority of the folks around here throw around perjorative comments about her with no rationale whatsoever.

"She's a coward, she's probably begging the people to keep the press away as long as possible!!!!"


Plllleeeezzzzzzeeee.......it would be laughable if only it wasn't so asinine.


I will say the VP debates will be worth watching..I think she'll do o.k.

[Malerin]

It's essentially putting forth not to trust the media until they say it's OK to trust them. It's a play off of all the affair and baby nonsense that's been floating about; anyone spreading that can't be trusted to put out a fair interview. A biproduct of that, of course, is that she will be more ready to give an interview than she is currently and puts pressure on the media to report on some of the positives she's done in Alaska because if they don't they can claim "see?".

It's a good move, and really the media sensationalism of skirting the issues and focusing on her family, as well as how they did Obama the same way earlier in the year, gives it justification.

Just my opinion though.

Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, or Brit Hume can't be trusted to give a fair interview to the GOP VP candidate? This isn't the liberal MSM she's avoiding. If they don't even feel they can let her go on Fox, she must be really way in over her head.

[RandFan]

I'm sure she has remarkable insight into the housing crisis and bailout of Freddie/Fannie. She's just.... waiting for the right reporter to come along! Yeah, that's the ticket! You are being ridiculous and engaging in straw men. I'm against a number of Plain's positions but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Is it prudent to give Palin some preparation before she answers questions?

In a word, yes.

[Malerin]

Why, I stand by what I said.......

:confused:

Um, because you said this: Yeah, RandFan, we post our opinions anonymously on the internet, so we know all about that courage thing! :rolleyes:

And then this: Hillary Clinton is a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but I don't think she is a coward.

And really, you don't see the contradiction there?

[dirtywick]

Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, or Brit Hume can't be trusted to give a fair interview to the GOP VP candidate? This isn't the liberal MSM she's avoiding. If they don't even feel they can let her go on Fox, she must be really way in over her head.

It wouldn't work if they picked certain media outlets; it's all or nothing or it appears to be a sham.

[Wangler]

It wouldn't work if they picked certain media outlets; it's all or nothing or it appears to be a sham.

That is true, for sure. Obama went on O'reilly, and it turned out to be a great interview for Obama, I think.

If they pick and choose, that is a legitimate gripe, and a bad move.

[Whiplash]

It wouldn't work if they picked certain media outlets; it's all or nothing or it appears to be a sham.

Absolutely correct. If she were to only appear with O'Reilly or Hume and no one else for several weeks, I can only imagine the cacophony of "propoganda" and "bias" claims. This is a no win with anyone on the left. No matter what she does, there will be some room for complaint and accusation. No matter what.

[Malerin]

No controversy there. This is, politically, one of the biggest prizes in the world. Palin is going to be subjected to some intense scrutiny. It's completely plausible that she is willing to face the fire right now but McCain and his handlers want her better prepared to avoid any missteps. Hardly earth-shattering.

That wasn't my question: What is the UPSIDE to sequestering her from the press for over a week?

It's completely plausible that she is willing to face the fire right now but McCain and his handlers want her better prepared to avoid any missteps.

Well, that's not really couraegous now, is it?
Palin: "I'm ready guys! I can face the fire! Can I at least go on Fox?"
Palin handlers: "No."
Palin: "OK."

Such courage!

[Ausmerican]

Dishonest? You saw my thread taking apart the veracity, logic and consistency of his acceptance speech didn't you? :D

No I generally pass on threads you start as I find you as far out there as the "Palins baby is really her daughters" crowd. Perhaps moreso with your constant "teh Clintons are eeeevul murderers" and your constant use of Weird Nut Daily as a source.

Besides I was talking about Obamas ability in giving a speech, not the content of any given speech.

[Malerin]

Absolutely correct. If she were to only appear with O'Reilly or Hume and no one else for several weeks, I can only imagine the cacophony of "propoganda" and "bias" claims.

You're already hearing it because she's not being asked questions by ANYONE.
At least going on Fox would amount to being asked questions by SOMEONE in the press. Hell, even I would give her credit if she did Chris Wallace's show. Fox is slanted, but they're not complete shills for the Right. O'Reilly and Obama both acquitted themselves well in that interview.

This is a no win with anyone on the left. No matter what she does, there will be some room for complaint and accusation. No matter what.

Huh? If she goes on MTP next week and handles everything thrown at her, you don't think they'd be short-stroking that for weeks? What, do you really think she can dodge the press for the next MONTH until the V.P. debates? The longer they coccoon her, the worse it's going to look for Mccain- after claiming his VP should be ready on day one, Mccain picked someone who couldn't even do an interview until X number of days.

[Meadmaker]

Well lookee lookee:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1

Palin to Offer First Interview to ABC News (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1)

[dirtywick]

Malerin, if you think nobody is going "You know what, the media is being unfair to Palin" there's not much more to say here. And frankly trying to spin this with more hollow criticisms of cowardice is probably the worst move they could make because it only makes it look more true.

[Wangler]

Well lookee lookee:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1

Palin to Offer First Interview to ABC News (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1)

You've got to be kidding...ABC News? They'll treat her with kid gloves!

:rolleyes:

[Brainster]

Gibson's a good pick; I've always found him fair and while he asks the follow-up, he doesn't hector the interviewee.

Looking forward to this.

[Malerin]

Well lookee lookee:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1

Palin to Offer First Interview to ABC News (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1)

Good, I think this was coming to a head. Mccain had to field a question this morning about when she's going to do an interview. I think they realized that "deference" line wasn't going to go down too well. But why this?

"An ABC News spokeswoman said the network had no comment."

Seems that would be a huge ratings draw. I went to ABC's website and couldn't find any confirmation.

[Malerin]

You've got to be kidding...ABC News? They'll treat her with kid gloves!

:rolleyes:

Gibson's been around forever. He's not going to risk his reputation by lobbing a bunch of softballs at her. I'm sure she'll be hit with Troopergate, earmarks, bridge-to-nowhere, and a whole bunch of domestic/foreign policy questions. She'll have been prepped for almost two weeks by the time the interview happens, so she'll probably do OK.

[Wangler]

Gibson's been around forever. He's not going to risk his reputation by lobbing a bunch of softballs at her. I'm sure she'll be hit with Troopergate, earmarks, bridge-to-nowhere, and a whole bunch of domestic/foreign policy questions. She'll have been prepped for almost two weeks by the time the interview happens, so she'll probably do OK.

How often have the candidates been giving interviews?

I think that if she does good, they would want her to interview once a week or so.

She does poorly, and won't they seclude her again for a while?

[RandFan]

That wasn't my question: What is the UPSIDE to sequestering her from the press for over a week? If you are going to be intentionally obtuse there is nothing I can do about it. I clearly and directly answered your question. If you are sincere then get your fingers out of your ears and stop humming.

Well, that's not really couraegous now, is it?
Actually, yes. It is. Declaring that it isn't doesn't an argument make. You have an opinion as do I.

Do you have anything substantive?

[elbe]

That wasn't my question: What is the UPSIDE to sequestering her from the press for over a week?
An attempt to build up interest in her for increased ratings, for both the numbers game and actual viewers to learn about her, and hope to win over all the anxiously waiting politics followers by being clever and knowledgeable?
If they can keep interest in her up, but play down her need for practice and education (and all the negative stories that keep coming out), they may be able to pull out a decent, probably short term boost out of it.

[kallsop]

I'm sure she'll be hit with Troopergate, earmarks, bridge-to-nowhere, and a whole bunch of domestic/foreign policy questions.


I dunno. Book bans, her new baby is really her daughters, she wants Alaska to leave the US of A, called Obama "sambo", lied about selling the plane on ebay, had an affair and divorce records were sealed, and on and on and on and on. These are the issues that matter in the media over the last week.

More slime this week I expect.

[elbe]

I dunno. Book bans, her new baby is really her daughters, she wants Alaska to leave the US of A, called Obama "sambo", lied about selling the plane on ebay, had an affair and divorce records were sealed, and on and on and on and on. These are the issues that matter in the media over the last week.

More slime this week I expect.
Even if they all turn out to be nothing, the sheer amount of these issues coming out so quickly is going to hurt.

[Malerin]

An attempt to build up interest in her for increased ratings, for both the numbers game and actual viewers to learn about her, and hope to win over all the anxiously waiting politics followers by being clever and knowledgeable?
If they can keep interest in her up, but play down her need for practice and education (and all the negative stories that keep coming out), they may be able to pull out a decent, probably short term boost out of it.

That was what Brainster said and I agree with him that it's not too likely. There already is an intense interest about her and her dodging the press was starting to attract negative attention. The Mccain people must have felt likewise, ergo the announcement of her ABC interview. As it is, the interview will be around 2 weeks after her "roll out" date. I can't remember a VP candidate being secluded from the press for so long.

[Malerin]

I dunno. Book bans, her new baby is really her daughters, she wants Alaska to leave the US of A, called Obama "sambo", lied about selling the plane on ebay, had an affair and divorce records were sealed, and on and on and on and on. These are the issues that matter in the media over the last week.

More slime this week I expect.

Which media are you talking about? Tabloids? I haven't heard any of that on the cable talk shows, but I don't watch them round the clock. Do you have a link where a MSM outlet alleges her baby is actually her daughter's or that she had an affair or that she called Obama "Sambo"?

[RandFan]

I dunno. Book bans, her new baby is really her daughters, she wants Alaska to leave the US of A, called Obama "sambo", lied about selling the plane on ebay, had an affair and divorce records were sealed, and on and on and on and on. These are the issues that matter in the media over the last week. But we are all good little skeptics. We wouldn't demand that absence of evidence to the contrary proves that these are true, right? We wouldn't demand that failure to assuage our concerns immediately proves anything, right?

Palin's Plane (http://www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2008/09/05/lklv.tsr.romans.palin.plane.cnn.cnn).

[RandFan]

As it is, the interview will be around 2 weeks after her "roll out" date. I can't remember a VP candidate being secluded from the press for so long.No kidding. It's like the fall of building #7. I can't remember a building that ever fell like that. It sure is proof of something. Not sure what exactly but hell, anything that fits a preconceived notion.

[elbe]

That was what Brainster said and I agree with him that it's not too likely. There already is an intense interest about her and her dodging the press was starting to attract negative attention. The Mccain people must have felt likewise, ergo the announcement of her ABC interview. As it is, the interview will be around 2 weeks after her "roll out" date. I can't remember a VP candidate being secluded from the press for so long.
Ah, I must have missed it.

I wonder if, perhaps, her being secluded is only as interesting as it is because of her being so, I don't know, unknown and surprising. If someone who's been in national politics for much longer, say like Biden in this case, were to be as unavailable it may not illicit as much response. Or maybe not.
Maybe it could be said that a candidate who doesn't appear in interviews may just seem out of touch with Americans.

[Wangler]

Sad thing is, it won't matter what she says in the interview:


She "blows" it: McCain's a doofus for picking someone with so little experience!

She "aces" it: Of course she aced it, after being secluded in Republican boot camp for two weeks! Who wouldn't have?

[mhaze]

But we are all good little skeptics. We wouldn't demand that absence of evidence to the contrary proves that these are true, right? We wouldn't demand that failure to assuage our concerns immediately proves anything, right?

Palin's Plane (http://www.cnn.com/video/savp/evp/?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2008/09/05/lklv.tsr.romans.palin.plane.cnn.cnn).

Good summary of the facts.

[mhaze]

Sad thing is, it won't matter what she says in the interview:


She "blows" it: McCain's a doofus for picking someone with so little experience!
She "aces" it: Of course she aced it, after being secluded in Republican boot camp for two weeks! Who wouldn't have?

Why not expect...

More Surprises?

[leftysergeant]

There is no reason not to think that the reason she has gone into purdah is to hide the fact that she is not ready. I don't think she ever will be ready. So she gave a competent speech, written for her by someone else. We still have no idea how bright she is, but plenty of suggestions that she is in about the same cartegory with Dan Quayle. Let her speak her own mind off script, if you want us to think she is more than a fundie bubblehead.

And I do not think she is such a maverick. She has the backing of the Eagle Forum. They have inordinate power in Alaska and Arizona. Wouldn't be surprised to find that she was a member of EF.

[Malerin]

No kidding. It's like the fall of building #7. I can't remember a building that ever fell like that. It sure is proof of something. Not sure what exactly but hell, anything that fits a preconceived notion.

Right, because of her education, vast resume, name recognition, knowledge of all things domestic/foreign, and detailed knowledge on the duties of the VP, it's not like they needed to prep her or anything :rolleyes: If McCain's VP pick was a high school drop-out who drooled on himself, might you think, 'Well, never seen that before."? Can you think of a more uneducated inexperienced VP pick in the last 30 years? 50 years? 100 year? And that's not noteworthy. Riiight.

Why are you arguing this? Do you believe, for a second, they haven't been prepping her like mad this whole time? That someone who thinks we're in Iraq because its "a task from God" has detailed positions on foreign policy? She admitted in an interview that she doesn't even pay attention to Iraq because she's too focused on her state job. They were prepping her before her speech, and that was just reading from a Teleprompter!

"Palin, a relative unknown on the national political scene who was chosen as McCain's running mate last Friday, had been holed up in her suite in the Hilton Minneapolis since Sunday night. A parade of McCain's top advisers have briefed her on the nuances of his policy positions, national politics and, above all, how to introduce herself to the national audience she will address Wednesday night at the Republican convention."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090301176.html?nav=rss_email/components

I'm sure she'll have done her homework, will know who Putin is and all the countries neighboring Iraq, and afterwards all the fundies will say, "She's the second coming!"

Edit: Or maybe Gibson will stumble upon an area they didn't get to and blow her out of the water. But it's more likely what someone else said: after two weeks of cramming, she'll probably answer all the quesitons well enough and give Mccain a bump.

[leftysergeant]

If she wasn't ready to hit the ground running on Day One, she is not up to the job.

I don't think she is or ever will be up to it.

[Alferd_Packer]

"until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."


In other words, only if the reporters ask the kind of questions that the campaign wants to answer. i.e. "What's your favorite color?"

[Wangler]

If she wasn't ready to hit the ground running on Day One, she is not up to the job.

I don't think she is or ever will be up to it.


Ahh, everyone not already 100% in the fold is unworthy.

You see Lefty, this is just the kind of Washington insiders party that McCain and Palin are trying to crash.

I imagine that is why everyone is so freaked.

[leftysergeant]

She has already had time to know what we are doing in Iraq. She has had time to think what impact her environmental policies might have on wild life.

Are they teaching her not to blurt out "Saddam had WMDs?"

She has no excuse not to know something about foreign policy already, if she wants to be VP.

She's getting coached into what she should already know.

I know high school kids who could tell you what the Iraq war is about. Why can't she? Why can't she explain in terms that rational people can grasp how she figures humans know better than God how many wolves there should be in Alaska?

Maybe they are trying to teach her some throw-out lines to make her sound like there might be some element of feminism in her ideology.

Smells like cowardice and fear of exposure as an empty suit to me.

[Malerin]

Ahh, everyone not already 100% in the fold is unworthy.

You see Lefty, this is just the kind of Washington insiders party that McCain and Palin are trying to crash.

I imagine that is why everyone is so freaked.

I agree with you on this, and was skeptical of Obama when he first announced. I thought Hillary and her machine would clean the Freshman senator's clock. But that was a year ago. Since that time, Obama's taken a position on every issue, been vetted by millions of voters, been in over 20 debates, run a nearly flawless national campaign that's smashed fund-raising records, been on countless talk shows, and beaten the biggest name in Dem politics. I can easily picture him as presidential now.

Palin just doesn't have enough time to prove her bona fides. She'll have maybe a couple interviews and one debate.

[Meadmaker]

She's getting coached into what she should already know.


If she manages to learn it in a week, I would be very impressed.

Let's be real. Most of us still know almost nothing about Sarah Palin. She may very well implode when she goes off script.

However, we don't know that, and I'm amused at the left wing amateurs who are firing shots at lousy targets. Before The Speech, the left wing buzz around here was how John McCain was going to find a way to dump Palin and what a horrible mistake he had made. Meanwhile, the blogosphere started digging dirt and slinging mud, and came up with idiot ideas like Palin had faked childbirth and would withdraw because her daughter was pregnant. They were talking about Thomas Eagleton II. Suddenly, after The Speech, that talk sort of died down. On the other hand, it took almost 24 hours to die down. The morning commentators I heard on Air America were still saying how awful the speech was, and how it only appealed to the yahoos at the convention. Then, as polls and commentary started rolling in about this incredible new kid on the block, they changed to....well, yeah, but without a teleprompter we'll see what a lightweight she is.

Maybe we will, but that's a bit hard to say, isn't it? Most of us don't know anything about how she will handle herself. If she comes on strong and makes a good impression with the American voters, what will you say? That she had to be coached? No one will be fooled. You can spend a week touching up a few specifics, but if you don't know the material going in, you can't fake it with a week's worth of study.

Palin will start giving interviews, and either she will fall apart and say stupid things, or she won't. I think the left wing hit squads would be wise to wait and see what she does, and attack her on whatever real targets she presents, instead of wasting their ammo on a target they can't see.

[leftysergeant]

Don't forget that with his skills in organizing and speaking, Obama smacked down one of the most formidible campaigners in the country.

Has Palin ever had to put together a campaign against someone who was not a despised putz?

[RandFan]

Why are you arguing this? Because it is one of the silliest and most moronic things I've heard on this forum in a long time. Because it's embarrassing for a supposed skeptics forum to engage in such obvious idiotic rhetoric.

Do you believe, for a second, they haven't been prepping her like mad this whole time? What "whole time"? When did they decide on Palin? How the hell should I know how long it would take to prep her for what the handlers will feel comfortable with given the proctology exam she is about to experience.

This is just really, really dumb. Still, it's just another day at JREF.

[mhaze]

I agree with you on this, and was skeptical of Obama when he first announced. I thought Hillary and her machine would clean the Freshman senator's clock. But that was a year ago. Since that time, Obama's taken a position on every issue, been vetted by millions of voters, been in over 20 debates, run a nearly flawless national campaign that's smashed fund-raising records, been on countless talk shows, and beaten the biggest name in Dem politics. I can easily picture him as presidential now.

Palin just doesn't have enough time to prove her bona fides. She'll have maybe a couple interviews and one debate.Obama displayed ignorance on topics (well, what do you expect?) and had numerous gaffs on subjects he wasn't familiar with, for which he did not know the preferred, politically correct spin.

Coal, for example.

If Palin does fairly well without a year+ of practice, that is telling.

[RandFan]

Don't forget that with his skills in organizing and speaking, Obama smacked down one of the most formidible campaigners in the country.

Has Palin ever had to put together a campaign against someone who was not a despised putz?:rolleyes:

Odd, I thought it was McCain's campaign.

I'm voting for Obama and I sure hope the level of discourse by his supporters is a bit higher than this.

Are you sure you are not on McCain's side? Are you really a McCain shill and this is all a joke?

[Malerin]

Because it is one of the silliest and most moronic things I've heard on this forum in a long time. Because it's embarrassing for a supposed skeptics forum to engage in such obvious idiotic rhetoric.

What "whole time"? When did they decide on Palin? How the hell should I know how long it would take to prep her for what the handlers will feel comfortable with given the proctology exam she is about to experience.

This is just really, really dumb. Still, it's just another day at JREF.

Palin seems to have touched you in a special way. Maybe the question should be posed to you a different way: What has Palin done or said that makes you think she hasn't required extensive coaching? I've supported my argument of her unreadiness to answer questions with fundi-extremist quotes/positions she's made, lack of higher education (six years to get a 4-year journalism degree? Uh huh), no knowledge of her own duties (should Mccain win the election), admitted ignorance about the Iraq war, and extensive prepping before her acceptance speech (read by teleprompter, questioned by no one).

I think it's obvious now why they've kept her in seclusion- she's totally *********** clueless. Until you offer evidence to the contrary, that's the best explanation for why she's been kept away from the press for so long. Just saying "how the hell should I know" and being insulting isn't really advancing your argument.

And what is your argument, BTW? Do you think she's some foreign/domestic policy wonk genius who's been kept away from the press for reasons we can only guess at?

Edit: Oh, and do you dispute my claim she's the most unqualified uneducated VP candidate in 100 years?

[Malerin]

Obama displayed ignorance on topics (well, what do you expect?) and had numerous gaffs on subjects he wasn't familiar with, for which he did not know the preferred, politically correct spin.

Coal, for example.

If Palin does fairly well without a year+ of practice, that is telling.

Obama was also ridiculed for his position that we should attack targets in Pakistan without having to go to them, hat-in-hand, for permission. Lo and behold, we've gotten some pretty high targets that way.

What were the "numerous gaffes"? There were the "bitter" remarks, and the Rev. Wright business, but those don't really apply to policy decisions.

[Wangler]

If she manages to learn it in a week, I would be very impressed.

Let's be real. Most of us still know almost nothing about Sarah Palin. She may very well implode when she goes off script.

However, we don't know that, and I'm amused at the left wing amateurs who are firing shots at lousy targets. Before The Speech, the left wing buzz around here was how John McCain was going to find a way to dump Palin and what a horrible mistake he had made. Meanwhile, the blogosphere started digging dirt and slinging mud, and came up with idiot ideas like Palin had faked childbirth and would withdraw because her daughter was pregnant. They were talking about Thomas Eagleton II. Suddenly, after The Speech, that talk sort of died down. On the other hand, it took almost 24 hours to die down. The morning commentators I heard on Air America were still saying how awful the speech was, and how it only appealed to the yahoos at the convention. Then, as polls and commentary started rolling in about this incredible new kid on the block, they changed to....well, yeah, but without a teleprompter we'll see what a lightweight she is.

Maybe we will, but that's a bit hard to say, isn't it? Most of us don't know anything about how she will handle herself. If she comes on strong and makes a good impression with the American voters, what will you say? That she had to be coached? No one will be fooled. You can spend a week touching up a few specifics, but if you don't know the material going in, you can't fake it with a week's worth of study.

Palin will start giving interviews, and either she will fall apart and say stupid things, or she won't. I think the left wing hit squads would be wise to wait and see what she does, and attack her on whatever real targets she presents, instead of wasting their ammo on a target they can't see.

Hitting the nail on the head, Mead Maker.

That newsweek article I posted to earlier gave some good insight on her McCain "indoctrination".

Basically, they threw a bunch of McCain policy papers and speech texts at her, and told her to pony up.

Those in the campaign were impressed with the questions that she had for them, how quick of a study she was.

Remember, teleprompter or no, this is a woman who had mere days to prepare for a keynote speech on National TV at the RNC.

Expecting her to completely crash and burn is just wishful thinking.

Methinks she's gonna have 'em all sweating before the end.


(Democrats, I mean).

[applecorped]

we can only guess at?



Why not wait and see? Why guess? Patience.

[RandFan]

Palin seems to have touched you in a special way. No. I'm against most of what she stands for. Your claims have touched a nerve given that your speculation is the kind of woo JREF tries to guard against.

Maybe the question should be posed to you a different way: What has Palin done or said that makes you think she hasn't required extensive coaching? I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm asking what is the point?

I think it's obvious now why they've kept her in seclusion- she's totally *********** clueless. You are free to think anything you want.

Until you offer evidence to the contrary, that's the best explanation for why she's been kept away from the press for so long. What has this to do with anything? And BTW, you are asking me to prove a negative? Really? Dude, you do know this is a skeptics forum, right?

Just saying "how the hell should I know" and being insulting isn't really advancing your argument. What argument?

And what is your argument... {smacks head}

Your claims about Palin are speculative, idiotic and offensive to JREF. That is not an argument. It's trivially true.

BTW? Do you think she's some foreign/domestic policy wonk genius who's been kept away from the press for reasons we can only guess at?No. I think she is being prepped to avoid any misstep given that THIS IS THE BIGGEST POLITICAL CONTEST IN THE WORLD!

What about that don't you get? It's a smart move given her inexperience in the national spotlight.

[RandFan]

Why not wait and see? Why guess? Patience.:D

No *********** kidding. If Malerin's psychic abilities are right she will fall flat on her face in two weeks.

[Meadmaker]

I think it's obvious now why they've kept her in seclusion- she's totally *********** clueless. Until you offer evidence to the contrary,

She will offer the evidence...either to the contrary, or to confirm.

[Malerin]

No. I think she is being prepped to avoid any misstep given that THIS IS THE BIGGEST POLITICAL CONTEST IN THE WORLD!

What about that don't you get? It's a smart move given her inexperience in the national spotlight.

Uh, that's MY position- she's so INEXPERIENCED she needs extensive PREPPING before even agreeing to an interview. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?

And do you believe there are unicorns on Pluto? After all, why not wait and see till we get there, right? :rolleyes:

[Malerin]

She will offer the evidence...either to the contrary, or to confirm.

Yes, but till then it's a guessing game, like this entire election. When has that ever stopped anyone from speculating about it? What are you going to do, post "Wait until November" on every thread in the forum? The best guess so far is: she doesn't know jack and it took Mccain's people about 2 weeks to get her up to speed.

[MattusMaximus]

I think it is interesting that Biden is talking her up as a "skilled and tough politician" while many other Dems are doing likewise.

It's called the "expectations game" - if you put your opponent on a pedestal and they perform well, no biggie; but if you prop them up and they don't do at least that well, then it looks bad for them.

That ABC News Interview will be interesting to see. I also cannot wait for the debates.

[RandFan]

Uh, that's MY position- she's so INEXPERIENCED she needs extensive PREPPING before even agreeing to an interview. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?Do you?

That she needs prepping given that this is a national election doesn't prove much. That's been my position from the first post. Nothing concrete can be gained. She could be very experienced but is being prepped to make certain there are no land mines given that this is a big contest and there will be some very tough questions.

You are trying to draw conclusions from something that you can't draw conclusions from. I think it likely she doesn't know a hell of a lot about international affairs but that is just idle speculation.

You are speculating about something you don't know about and madly flailing your arms about won't change that.

But keep demanding you know what is in her mind like some mind reader. You don't know squat.

[RandFan]

Yes, but till then it's a guessing game... Yes, a "guessing game". If that had any merit Randi's money would be gone by now.

[Meadmaker]

Yes, but till then it's a guessing game, like this entire election. When has that ever stopped anyone from speculating about it? What are you going to do, post "Wait until November" on every thread in the forum? The best guess so far is: she doesn't know jack and it took Mccain's people about 2 weeks to get her up to speed.

It's a bit like what Maximus said, but more so. The smart Dems, i.e. the ones on the ticket and their handlers, aren't calling her a lightweight. However, the amateurs in the blogosphere are shooting off their mouths. This is part of what helps create buzz for her. If she turns out to be a lightweight, then nothing the GOP can do will salvage anything for them. If she wows people like she did at the convention, then they get an additional boost by the attacks on her. If people like her, they will be mad at the people saying nasty things about her.

Will that influence people to vote differently? A few. It's a close election at this point. In 2000, the margin of victory in Florida, and therefore the electoral college, was 1 voter in 10,000. All this Palin bashing will create at least that many sympathy votes if it turns out that people like her after all.

[RandFan]

It's a bit like what Maximus said, but more so. The smart Dems, i.e. the ones on the ticket and their handlers, aren't calling her a lightweight. However, the amateurs in the blogosphere are shooting off their mouths. This is part of what helps create buzz for her. If she turns out to be a lightweight, then nothing the GOP can do will salvage anything for them. If she wows people like she did at the convention, then they get an additional boost by the attacks on her. If people like her, they will be mad at the people saying nasty things about her.

Will that influence people to vote differently? A few. It's a close election at this point. In 2000, the margin of victory in Florida, and therefore the electoral college, was 1 voter in 10,000. All this Palin bashing will create at least that many sympathy votes if it turns out that people like her after all.Good post.

[mhaze]

Uh, that's MY position- she's so INEXPERIENCED she needs extensive PREPPING before even agreeing to an interview. Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?

And do you believe there are unicorns on Pluto? After all, why not wait and see till we get there, right? :rolleyes:YouTube - Governor Sarah Palin's reaction to Exxon Valdez decision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34&feature=related)

YouTube - Charlie Rose - Sarah Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbSlc4XGGnk&feature=related)

YouTube - Palin's savings plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAsgJR5Im5c&feature=related)

YouTube - America Meet Sarah Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0darQB7r4&feature=related)

YouTube - Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY&feature=related)

YouTube - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Larry Kudlow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY&feature=related)

YouTube - Alaska Governor Palin's Address to the AIP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8&feature=related)

YouTube - Governor Palin - IOGCC Midyear Meeting, Calgary 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h2W9ZEwuM&feature=related)

YouTube - Sarah Palin or Ralph Nader -Alaska Dividend idea- National Oil Revenue & Pollution Fines, invested in Alternative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gxNBC8BmW0&feature=related)

YouTube - Governor Sarah Palin (R) 1 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rijm1-l_yWs&feature=related)
etc, etc, etc...

[Alric]

Favorite author: CS Lewis. augh..

Could anyone point out anything she's said that is not a platitude.

[FaisonMars]

Thanks for linking to these... I'd love to see her on Charlie Rose post-nomination. Or better yet, Bill Moyers (a smart but not-too-scary interviewer).