Palin sends the cringe meter off the dial

[independent_uk]

 No one will be more relieved than John McCain if a major crisis erupts on Thursday to overshadow the debate between the vice-presidential candidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

Alaska's one-term governor is hugely popular with voters, but she is also a liability for the Republican ticket, as her painful-to-watch interview last week with Katie

Comments

[in_tro_]

at first, Sarah was really a refreshin' new face, cause she actually stopped 4 some time that very Obamamania. she's a beautiful women, and then all that photos appeared, and the public's attention was focused on her. I saw the polls --- she was so popular, that she was on the second place accordin' to the people's choice, when they were asked whom they would like to meet in real life. but then this wave of interest began to go down, cause nothing new of interest about her could be found.
I'm sure Biden would beat her, he's an experienced guy.

Palin is a "train wreck"

[srusso1964]

Sarah Palin is what we call a train wreck. McCain's people are doing her a disservice by not allowing her to answer more questions, as the more you answer, the better you answer. I know that you may not agree, considering the fact that she has had several tries at the Foreign Policy question and has yet to give an answer that any of us can understand, or that the Republican party doesn't have to come out and try to "explain"

She has no idea of what she's doing, and I think she was idiotic to try to tackle being a VP with so little idea of how things really work in the "lower 48"

She needs to go home and look after things there, and let McCain find someone who won't be such an embarrassment every time they open their mouth.

Re: Palin is a "train wreck"

[credendovides]

But that would qualify as blinking, and she doesn't blink. (Her eyes must be VERY dry by now.)

My theory has been, from the beginning, that the republicans chose her not for her experience, or what she could bring to the table, but as a distraction for the media so they wouldn't have to face any real issues. With all the various scandals against her, she gets to play the victim, so anything more bad against her would just cause people to roll their eyes instead of consider if there is any merit.

The big flaw with the plan, of course, is that two months is a long time to keep someone under wraps. I think that is starting to come out, and no matter how much they tried to dumb down the VP debate for her, I have a feeling train wreck will be a very good description of what happens next Friday.

Re: Palin is a "train wreck"

[emmyjag]

It's better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

The McCain camp knows she's from some back woods place and doesn't know shiyt. It would be stupid to let her go on tv and show everyone else how little she knows. Thats why all her speeches have been carefully scripted, and she's not allowed out in public.

Re: Palin is a "train wreck"

[pennyann]

Is it just me or should the McCain campaign do a better job for Sarah Palin?

I mean, I agree she is a total train wreck. I also know they never in a million years would have picked a man with her lack of qualifications. But they did pick her, so why aren't they preparing her better? Why aren't they telling her how to approach things beyond the talking points?

The McCain campaign staff is FAILING. I'm thankful that they are failing, because I get to see how little Mrs. Palin really knows... but have no doubt that in the realm of politics and successful campaigning... they are FAILING.

Barak has always looked prepared, for all the shouting about his "lack of experience". He has never said (to my knowledge), "I'll have to get back to you on that." The McCain campaign is just not doing their job.

[fauxklore]

The importance of vice presidential picks is that they give some idea of how the candidates think about building their team. One of the most important things a president does is choose cabinet members (and, even more so as they have life appointments, Supreme Court justices).

I've never seen any evidence, however, that the general public pays much notice to who the vice presidential candidate is.

[credendovides]

I've never seen any evidence, however, that the general public pays much notice to who the vice presidential candidate is.

Very true. History has shown that VP pick has never had a huge impact on the polls. But then, I'm not sure if there have been very many VPs who have drawn so much attention. She's gotten more media coverage and more interest than any of the major candidates, despite the protection from the media she has been getting.

[hoppytoad79]

My dad pays attention to the VP candidates and their debates. If she's as 'good' at the debates as she was with Katie Couric Joe Biden's going to look very, very good.

[credendovides]

I'm really looking forward to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in a couple weeks after the VP debate, if you know what I mean.

[miss_sunshine82]

She can only be seen as a liability - due partly to her inexperience and partly to the fact that she has very uncompromising views which she doesn't seem to have the wit to temper at all. I'm not saying she should prove fickle in her views, but she has to realise that she has to govern an entire and very diverse country - not just the far right,oil-drilling, gun-toting, abortion-hating demographic. The rest of the country needs to see that she can put her personal beliefs second to what's best for the majority. There's been no evidence of that so far - it seems to be her way or the highway

[izuko]

It's always amusing to watch the spin. What is uncompromising in a conservative is "principled" in a liberal.

Oh, and as far as living and letting live, with the exception of abortion (which I really don't care to get into right now), just about all of her "sins" have been of the "this is what I believe, but if you don't, it's ok" variety.

On the other hand, Obama wants to confiscate the wealth of the rich and of the corporations. Yeah, I know, y'all have no sympathy for them. There are good victims and bad victims I notice. He wants to disarm the population (he only switched to supporting the second amendment when the Supreme Court ruled, and his voting record sets lie to his words), and has twice tried to use law enforcement to silence his opposition.

I love watching the left resort to their old stereotypes.

[adamwolf]

I love how you reduce the left to old stereotypes as well. 'Confiscate the wealth of the rich'? How about 'redistribute common wealth'? Especially in the case of businesses and corporations, the gain isn't personal or individually gained, and as an ecomonical factor it belongs to everyone. The idea of sharing commonly gained profits with those unable to gain similar profits is not the same as 'confiscating' or stealing.

[izuko]

It's not a stereotype for me to say it's confiscation. It's a matter of perspective. When you take what someone owns, using the police power of the state, it's confiscation. Now, in certain cases, it can also be redistribution. However, in the majority of cases, it's just plain ol' theft. Most of the rich have earned their money through hard work, perseverance, and good decisions. Your doctors and engineers are entitled to every cent of what they have. Your small businesses who took a risk, backed it with their own assets, and worked their tails off are entitled to every cent.

When you take money from them, via the police power of the state, it's confiscation.

Businesses and corporations don't belong to everyone. Their belong the the entrepreneur who started them, or jointly to the shareholders who own their stock. So, yes, it IS confiscation to take from them.

So your accusation of stereotyping is soundly rejected. As is the unspoken implication of hypocrisy.