In defense of Sarah Palin

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the initial surprise effect was extremely strong and she became an overnight celebrity. But I doubt that the campaign was betting on that momentum to carry over for the next 60 days.
I believe they have a strategy and her being sequestered is part of that. I can only speculate why, but from the two interviews I've seen it seems that a major part is minimizing any possible damage (which will be amplified by her celebrity status). I think the idea is to rely on few strong and very orchestrated performances in front of a friendly public, and minimize any exposure to any kind of hostility.
My feeling is that the goal of the campaign is to win the election, even if that may not be the same thing as making the best long-term choices.
In any case she is the pick for a VP, not running for president, I would be more worried if the spotlight continues to be placed on her, or if shortly before the election she is catapulted again in another celebrity orbit. The discussion should be mostly who of the two candidates will make a better president, and their choice for the potential replacement is just plan B. In theory the better president will also have a better plan B, but as I said at this stage it seems that the campaign goal is to win the election no matter what.

I don't think this is the positive view you are looking for, but I don't think it's negative either.

When one of the candidates is 72 years old has had two bouts of melanoma his plan B has a lot of relevance? When he said he puts country before winning the election his choice of VP candidates sort of puts that in question too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

YouTube - Jack Cafferty Tells Us How He Really Feels About Sarah Palin

What Cafferty is thinking.

---

Wow.

I hadn't seen that before.

She makes GW Bush look like a lucid linguist.



I also appreciate Cafferty for speaking his mind.


Sarah Palin came out of the blocks like a ball of fire. I was pretty much impressed with her convention speech. She was kickin ass.


Anybody else see the CNN coverage of her meet & greet with world leaders?

The Pakistani leader was about to accost her!

She is absolutely clueless. Even senior McCain aides are saying see is clueless. It's so laughable that it is pitiful. Just what were they thinking?
Looks like political suicide. :roflmao:roflmao:roflmao

The look of confusion on Katie Couric's face is priceless!

EDIT: Just dug up the entire interview. Wow again. McCain should have picked Katie Couric as running mate. Really, somebody else besides Sarah.

I can see hwere if McCain went and met with her he thought she was the right choice, as she strongly seems to share many of his viewpoints. I can see if you are maybe discussing something with her that both you and she agree on, then she can speak with authority (perhaps that's why she did so very well at the convention? She was "preaching to the choir" in effect. But when an interviewer like Katie Couric serves up softball questions,and she can't even process them, it is just not a good situation to be in. For McCain, or us.

I'm not a huge Obama fan, but wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denmason

She is absolutely clueless. Even senior McCain aides are saying see is clueless. It's so laughable that it is pitiful. Just what were they thinking?
Looks like political suicide. :roflmao:roflmao:roflmao

---

Sort of :OT

Just made the 'political suicide' comment myself this AM. Personally I don't think either JM or BO are fit to lead our country and I couldn't in good conscience vote for either one - but that's a different discussion.
Choosing Palin drove a dagger in the heart of his presidential aspirations - picking OJ Simpson might have been worse but it's hard to say. Prior to that I thought McCain was a sure winner; now I think he's sure to lose.

Hi All,

Well, I've given this question a little time, in hopes that a Palin supporter would explain something to me and others. I can't help but think that even the Republican true believers can't come up with a logical, yet positive reason for her isolation. Not one member has come out and defended that strategy as being a strong and effective one in order to help convince voters that she's right for the job.

Ok then, I'll figure I asked an unanswerable question to the Republicans reading this post. I think this is something they also can't quite get a handle on, and maybe it DOES confuse and worry em a bit. I mean, how can you put a positive spin on the obvious lack of transparency and access to a VP candidate. Really, it's a tall order, even for the true believers. Not answering is much easier than coming to grips with an unpleasant realization, so maybe that's one reason for the silence. Maybe there IS no logical reason for keeping a supposedly capable politician under wraps and safe from questioning.

The thing is, I hear ZERO complaining from the Republican faithful about this issue. They seem not to be concerned in the least about not knowing more about who Mrs Palin really is. I'd think they'd want to be able to brag about their candidate, and rightfully so. You'd think it would be frustrating for them, having so little ammunition to fight with. I can't recall any of em complaining though, and it's not even being mentioned as far as I can see.

Well, I admit to being a little disappointed none of Mrs Palin's supporters mentioned how they felt, either pro OR con, but ignoring this obvious issue seems to be the way to deal with it. Guess I'll just draw my own conclusions based on what little I've been allowed to see and hear.

I'd leave the invitation open to any reader supporting this way of acting, if anyone cares to try that some time. Doesn't seem like it's possible, sad to say. Sigh.....so much for the benefit of any doubt given to her and whoever designed this strategy. This looks very very bad. Hehe, good thing the Republicans can see this to be so clearly wrong thinking on my part. Problem is, they can't seem (or don't even bother) to defend their position, which makes it tough when speaking to an independent thinking person. To me, it looks like their party is asking more of them than usual this time. Seems like the strategists are doing their followers a disservice by not showing more of what Mrs Palin is about........unless they feel like it will help somehow. That's one thing that looks so bad......the putting something over on their followers kinda feeling.

Ok, I'm done for now,
Martin

Remember there are lots of levels to a party, Mc Cain isn't a Republican golden boy, no matter how hard he tries to be right of George Bush, he's burned bridges and lots in his own party don't trust him and have no use for him. With the economy tanking some might like to write this election off, and give it to the Democrats let them take the blame for the next four years of pain. If things drag on and are bad it will be hard to string two terms together. Mc Cain could be looked at as a place holder candidate. The RNC and DNC may both just be playing for the next election of Hillary versus the next Republican.

Sarah Palin is a cheerleader, nothing more, they taught her the talking points, unfortunately you can't answer direct questions with talking points, well actually you can but you look like an idiot, just like the Palin interview.

Look at this, the next President gets an unpopular war in Iraq, a growing problem in Afganistan, the Wall Street mess, a recession at best a depression at worst and a country that is as severely divided as it was during the civil war. Who in their right mind would want this, it really is a no win situation for whom ever wins.

It's like applying for the position of Captain on the Titanic as it is sinking.

Seeing the last interview with Katie Kouric unfortunately only deteriorated my previous impression of Palin. I thought that allowing negativity to build by limiting access to her is done to increase the dramatic effect of her next strong performance, when she comes back (presumably at the debate, where there's no editing).

However after seeing the three interviews (gibson, hannity, kouric) this scenario looks very very unlikely.

From interviews from before she got picked as VP, she does seem fully capable to deliver a coherent answer to the question she's asked. Apparently the McCain campaign does not think this is the correct way to interact with the voters. On this particular point the contrast with the Obama campaign is rather stark - they are no less controlling, but at least they seem to understand what things they can manage and what things can only be mismanaged - I'd take all of Biden's gaffes any time to the impression an interview with Palin leaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Seeing the last interview with Katie Kouric unfortunately only deteriorated my previous impression of Palin. I thought that allowing negativity to build by limiting access to her is done to increase the dramatic effect of her next strong performance, when she comes back (presumably at the debate, where there's no editing).

However after seeing the three interviews (gibson, hannity, kouric) this scenario looks very very unlikely.

From interviews from before she got picked as VP, she does seem fully capable to deliver a coherent answer to the question she's asked. Apparently the McCain campaign does not think this is the correct way to interact with the voters. On this particular point the contrast with the Obama campaign is rather stark - they are no less controlling, but at least they seem to understand what things they can manage and what things can only be mismanaged - I'd take all of Biden's gaffes any time to the impression an interview with Palin leaves.

---

This is not about Sarah Palin, or shouldn't be about Palin in any case. Place this in a very real context. McCain chose her as a vice presidential candidate. This is who he thinks should be leading the country in the event he has a problem?? Even I can't believe that. He chose his VP out of political expediency, and squelched his own very real concerns about the leadership CRISIS he would be creating if anything happened to him. This is not the level of responsibility we should be placing in a president.