In a previous post about Palin, I said in the comment section that if Palin does well at the debate it would be fair to forget the Couric interview. When I said that though, I was proceeding from the assumption of only two possible outcomes. Either:A. The depth of Palin's knowledge and preparation would be shown for the shallow level that it is and she would lose horribly.
B. She would hold her own very well, and the Couric interview was just a bad day or a case of the jitters.
However, I did not consider the third possibility:
C. She would be instructed to memorize her talking points and not to deviate one iota from them, lest McCain put his foot up her rear (metaphorically speaking) after the debate.
I was suspecting C throughout, but she clinched it for me when she said that she was not going to answer their questions, but rather speak to the American people. I imagine her handlers gave her that line for when she was really, really stuck. The format of the debate allowed the C option to be pulled off and Palin was able to keep her head above water. I will be surprised if we see her in any open interviews from this point on.
I don't like to be this harsh because I am sure that she is a pleasant enough person to hold a conversation with while your kids play soccer - but LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD?? I kept asking myself during the debate - What, What, What made McCain choose Palin over Romney?? Is his Mormonism that big of an anchor? I think Biden would have had his hands full with Mitt.
HT for the chart: Shuck and Jive
4 comments:
That was really funny and so true. I watched the debate with Tammy and felt sorry for her. I said to Tammy, "Biden has been dealing with these issues for 30 years. They oooze out of him." Her answers were like she just crammed for a test. I give her credit, she crammed pretty good. But still, it was obvious that Biden was the much more knowledgeable of the two.
I am trying so hard not to get caught up in this stuff. It is all so disturbing, really it is. That debate was no debate.
this explains it
I want to say how I love the way you and Steve dialogue on these topics. Even when you disagree, it is always respectful and clear back and forth.
You're right, Mit would have been a better choice but I think McCain was going after the evangelical vote as well as the women's vote.
I think Romney would have had a difficult time in the debate as well. It is tough to debate a senator with a lot of experience (probably the reason Dems have nominated senators for VP since 1984). Biden makes it especially tough because he has a smooth and passionate way of just throwing stuff out there. Fred Thompson probably would have been a better match in terms of going back and forth over facts.
Here is a question I still have not been able to get an answer to. What in the world did Biden mean in this statement?
"No one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden...
“When we kicked – along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know--- if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.’
“Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.”
Since the debate, I have been looking for a reasonable explanation (maybe he meant Syria?) (still doesn't fit).
Post a Comment