OK, a few days ago I was speculating that Sarah Palin might be playing dumb to lower expectations for the debate (I didn't really think that). Scratch that. They couldn't possibly be stupid enough to do this on purpose.
1. In more clips of the Couric-Palin interview, Katie asked her about the export of democracy. "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."
Jeffery Goldberg says, "The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, . . . . The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power."
2. It's also being leaked out that, asked to talk about Supreme Court cases, the only one she could discuss was Roe v. Wade. She didn't even try to change the subject but just sat there in silence.
3. Palin and McCain went back for a do-over interview with Katie, and there's a clip up of their discussing her gaffe about military action in western tribal areas of Pakistan, where she contradicted McCain's position and took Obama's position.
Sitting there in the interview, McCain and Palin side by side, across from a serious looking Couric, it looked like nothing more than a father having been called in by the principal because his daughter has gotten in trouble. And he, like an indulgent father, was chuckling and saying "of course she didn't mean that; it's was just gotcha journalism." In truth it wasn't a journalist at all but a voter who asked her the question.
How does she stand it? Or maybe she really doesn't realize, and doesn't feel, the humiliation that we all experience vicariously in listening to her cluelessness.
I'm not even sure any more than I can enjoy Thursday night's debate; it might just be too painful to watch. Schadenfreude has its limits.
Ralph
Posts
Cartoon: Security flaw found in Americans' brains
59 minutes ago
4 comments:
It's getting hard to distinguish SNL skits and the real thing. Tina Fey's lines in the last show were close to verbatim from Palin's interview, with a few choice additions.
I saw the McPalin interview with Couric, too. Talk about patronizing. She couldn't even speak for herself? He had to answer the questions for her, until the very end where, basically, he told her to speak? She's not capable of answering Couric even with Daddy sitting there to give her support? And why did he even attend the interview? Was he worried hsi little girl couldn't handle the big bad interview? Could you picture Hillary, or Condileeza Rice, being unable to answer questions on their own?
I am shocked that women's groups have been so silent on the blatant sexism in the way McCain et all are handling Palin.
Campbell Brown on CNN did rake the McCain campaign over the coals one day last week for just this, saying how outrageous it is the way they are treating her -- as though she can't speak for herself.
I didn't hear it but only read about it. But, as I remember, she was making the case that this is an insult to women, for treating her like a child who has to be shielded and protected.
It was not so much a defense of Palin but an indictment that McCain chose a woman who is so unqualified that they can't afford to let her speak for herself. Which, in itself, is also an insult to women, that they didn't choose a qualified women.
Here's another feminist signing on:
Rebecca Traister at Salon.com says:
"Yes, as a feminist, it sucks -- hard -- to watch a woman, no matter how much I hate her politics, unable to answer questions about her running mate during a television interview. And perhaps it's because this experience pains me so much I feel not sympathy but biting anger. At her, at John McCain, at the misogynistic political mash that has been made of what was otherwise a groudbreaking year for women in presidential politics."
Well said.
Post a Comment