Soob

Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

The thing made my teeth hurt. I'm reserving my personal final judgment of Sarah Palin until after the VP debates but thus far I'm less than impressed. The "good guy/bad guy" methodology regarding whether or not the US should second guess Israel seemed to be less about fervent support and more desperation, clinging to a popular right wing talking point in light of her very apparent ignorance of the region, it's players and disputes. The bit on the US economy was a WTF? moment as was the "Putin rears his head" bit. All in all an uncomfortable experience.
Part of the interview below.

23 comments:

Adrian said...

According to Howie Kurtz, CBS is sitting on the two most embarassing clips from the interview. For some reason they don't want to release it. Meaning it gets worse.

Eddie said...

Part of me hopes it is somehow a trap set by the McCain camp for her VP debate performance to massively exceed expectations and bring forth flattering press of her again until November.

Or this woman really is not only as ignorant as she seems but as woefully unprepared to admit it, a reckless combination toxic to this country's interests.

She is mostly a myth. Nearly everything about her record in Alaska is mythical, with the truth quite harsh once partisan blinkers are turned off.

There is no doubt she is a talented pol. But the myth may have been too much to keep up in the national spotlight at this point.

Her incessant need to lie about things big and small far more than the average politician probably helped that along though.

Claims that the Dems have treated her harshly are bogus as well besides the baby story. I would be running ads about her charging rape victims for rape kits and for opposing abortion even in case of rape. Or just playback loops of her repeated lies on everything from the Bridge to Nowhere to meeting Russian trade missions.

Jay@Soob said...

Adrian, interesting. Though I can't imagine why CBS would hold such a thing back. Perhaps their version of an October surprise? Doubtful, even if CBS is in the Obama camp that'd be a bit too obvious.
Perhaps they don't want to come across as "bullies?" Interesting.

Jay@Soob said...

Eddie agreed and it'd be a brilliant bit of subversion if her making an ass out of herself was a calculated act!

Eddie said...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx

I apologize for mentioning the rape kit issue. That was explained a while back and somehow I had missed it.

Jay@Soob said...

No worries.

Adrian said...

Marc Ambinder says that CBS is withholding two more answers because they are planning on running them Wednesday and Thursday along with some Biden interviews.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_two_missing_cbs_palin_answ.php

Jay@Soob said...

I'll take the high road and envision ratings motivated reasons and not politically motivated reasons in light of the upcoming VP debate. Maybe a collage of Biden and Palin gaffes?

Eddie said...

Oh no! She could not name a single Supreme Court case after Roe vs. Wade... umm, wow.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/In_reintroduction_Palin_to_do_more_interviews_and_tell_her_story.html?showall

The Red Son said...

Wow... You would think that the McCain Campaign would have trained her better by now. I guess you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a bimbo politician who was very poorly vetted.

Jay@Soob said...

Not a bimbo politician (I'm still firmly against the Palin=idiot bit) but perhaps unprepared for both the national scrutiny and the political savvy/background required for global presence. I'll have a more personally definitive account after the VP debate this friday.

Adrian said...

Palin refuses to name any newspapers she reads:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/221008.php

This is just weird. Maybe she just couldn't think of any conservative newspapers that would please the base?

The Red Son said...

"(I'm still firmly against the Palin=idiot bit)"

from LA times

"Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said."

"Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks,"

Maybe blatantly ignoring science isn't a lack of intelligence, but it certainly doesn't give me any faith in her.

Eddie said...

"I'll have a more personally definitive account after the VP debate this friday."
A shame you say that, because its mostly a fraud. They've rigged the rules to compensate for her and I am all but certain she will come out smelling like roses afterward because of dramatically low expectations, something which is sickening to say in the same sentence as vice president or president.

When she survives a 30 min. press conference with follow-ups, I might respect her intelligence and ability, but until then, given how much of everything she did in Alaska is either coated in scandal, overestimation or outright myth, she's a sick joke that is dangerously close to the Presidency.


Courtesy of the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221944424-M80ol3HyyXHv4YOA0dtK0w&pagewanted=print


"At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive."

Ymarsakar said...

Classical liberal leaders and beliefs have always been underestimated, seen as Reagan esque idiots, and expected to fail simply due to people believing what they want to be true.

In reality, however, classical liberal beliefs and leaders present the closest a human being can get to the truth of human existence and human solutions.

Ymarsakar said...

When she survives a 30 min. press conference with follow-ups, I might respect her intelligence and ability

When the press has somebody with intelligence, ability, and integrity. Until then, keep that dream alive.

Ymarsakar said...

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

What they should be concerned about is how Obama supporters slipped in an Obama partisan as moderator by hiding her conflict of interests from the McCain Campaign.

Jay@Soob said...

ymarsakar, can you honestly tell me you watched the Couric interview and thought Palin's performance was acceptable?
The Ifle conflict was, predictably, a non issue. I'll have a post up regarding the debate later on today.

Ymarsakar said...

As a student of the Art of Propaganda, whenever interviews get edited, I am assuming there is a reason behind it. And given the current political/financial crisis and Couric's "gotcha" line, I presume she was looking for some kind of weak statement from Palin. The fact that she got it doesn't mean anything. It only means that Sarah Palin keeps having interviews with people whom's audiences are not strong Republican voters.

Why do you think Obama interviewed with O'Reilly? O'Reilly and not Gretha or Bill Hume? It was for the audience, Soob. You know that.

On an objective level, Bill would have produced a better interview with Sarah Palin than Sarah has with her last two. It would have been nice to see their personalities conflict, since that would resolve some things I'm curious about.

Unless I'm seeing the real deal, Soob, I don't take an "interview" past my mental defenses and simply accept them, whether intellectual or emotionally, on a basic fundamental level.

There are four basic reactions to propaganda. You agree with it and don't respond emotionally to it in the way it was designed to make you respond. You agree with it and you do respond emotionally the way it was designed to make you respond. You disagree with it and you respond emotionally the way it intended for you to respond and you disagree with it but you don't respond emotionally according to script.

My honest opinion is that I hold none of the aboves. It is not about liking Sarah's message but refusing to feel the way Couric wanted me to feel. Nor is it agreeing with how Couric wanted her audience to feel about the interview and also disagreeing with Sarah Palin.

What you have here is a conflict. The reactions for Palin and Couric are crossing each other and creating interference. Since I cannot have an honest and clear perception of Palin's propaganda message, since Couric cuts it off and interjects her own message by controlling the format and editing (well, her editors presumably), I refuse to let the interview influence me in any way, shape, or form.

This is not immunity to propaganda. This is just refusing to decide until it has become clearer.

After having watched 1/2 of the VP Debates, I'd say that Sarah's voice quality was much worse in the interview than in the Debates. Her answers in the debates were strong as well and more concise. More offensive and aggressive based in getting the other side to react to you, as per Boyd's recommendations.

Again, however, I haven't watched all of the debates and only a few select scenes from the interview. The difference is that I watched the debates on my terms. I saw the beginning and the stuff I needed to see. The Couric interview gave me what they thought I needed to see.

That's not going to be workable here.

The Red Son said...

Regardless of edits, Palin sounded incoherent in that interview. What newspapers does she read? All of them? How is that an answer?

Jay@Soob said...

Ymarsakar, I specifically reserved judgment of Palin (here at least) until after the debate for some of the reasons you state above. Interviews can certainly be creatively edited to nudge the overall message and delivery in one direction or the other. However, Palin's bumbling and at times incoherent answers were her own and I have yet to hear anyone claim CBS manufactured those answers and somehow plugged them into her mouth. I have heard Palin defend them with what is essentially "she (Couric) was missing opportunities to ask me questions I wanted to answer," and such. Perhaps that's the case. Though I very much have my doubts.

As for the debate being a clean platform for truly seeing Palin, it hardly was. As noted in the original post the McCain camp specifically demanded shorter question/answer times and little interaction between the two candidates. She was, in my opinion, fed talking points that she in turn fed to those watching her. The only articulation that I could see that actually came from her experience and not her memory was clouded by populist nonsense.

Ymarsakar said...

However, Palin's bumbling and at times incoherent answers were her own and I have yet to hear anyone claim CBS manufactured those answers and somehow plugged them into her mouth.

And what does that mean? Does that mean Palin is counted out? That she lacks knowledge or ability?

No, it doesn't. It's just advertisement. Some are good, some are bad, and most are mediocre.

And the debates are just part of the same thing.

As noted in the original post the McCain camp specifically demanded shorter question/answer times and little interaction between the two candidates.

I saw plenty of interactions between Biden and Palin. I don't know what debate you were watching that had less.

As for what the McCain camp specifically "demanded", they could have demanded that the moderator bone up on her book deal and bias and conflict of interest but... well that's politics for you. People do what they can in the time they are allowed, not what is deal or optimum.

She was, in my opinion, fed talking points that she in turn fed to those watching her.

You should watch her debates in Alaska gubernatorial. She is the same way there and I don't believe McCain was around to feed her talking points at that time given her budget, at least.

experience and not her memory was clouded by populist nonsense.

The Democrats have ridden the wave of populism to control of both Houses, Soob. Populism is neither nonsense nor wisdom. It just is. If you don't recognize, if you underestimate it or discount it, you are missing an essential portion of what an accurate analysis requires.

Ymarsakar said...

She was, in my opinion, fed talking points that she in turn fed to those watching her.

However, Palin's bumbling and at times incoherent answers were her own and I have yet to hear anyone claim CBS manufactured those answers and somehow plugged them into her mouth.

The same premise behind both of these statements about two separate objects of analysis are the same, Soob. That is extremely vulnerable to leakage.

Deductive logic using a premise and saying to yourself "if this premise is true about Sarah, what else must be true" and then comparing Sarah's performance with both the premise and its ancillary logic statements is one thing, but if you just group together all kinds of deductions and observations and continue to use the single premise as the foundation, then it is no longer deductive logic. It is just some mishmash of deductive and inductive reasoning: the way most people think in everyday life.