The amazing incoherence of Sarah Palin
Anonymous Liberal thinks it's possible that McCain's whole "suspend the campaign" gambit really may have been an elaborate attempt to distract the media from the disastrous Sarah Palin interview on CBS, as I half-jokingly suggested last night. "I think the McCain campaign knew the Couric interview would be a disaster as soon as it was done taping and spent much of the day [Wednesday] frantically trying to think of a way to push it out of the headlines," A.L. writes. "I'm serious." Michael Crowley speculates along the same lines, and Ben Smith sorta kinda hints at it, too.
I doubt this is actually true, but it's not totally implausible, particularly given that McCain didn't actually cancel his Letterman appearance so he could fly to D.C., but rather so he could sit down with... Katie Couric. At the very least, the distraction caused by the high-stakes bailout negotiations -- and McCain's bogus campaign "suspension" -- is a very nice side benefit for McCain, because Palin's interview with Couric really, truly was startlingly, frighteningly bad. It's hard to put into words, really, but... well... just watch for yourself, her latest "greatest hits":
Her answer on Israel isn't much better, even if you 100% agree with her policy position.
What can one say? It's just unbelievable that this person is on a major-party ticket running for national office. Her problems go well beyond inarticulateness -- though she does make George W. Bush sound like a great orator by comparison. But this is incoherence. Her responses betray, by all appearances, a total inability to organize her thoughts in any meaningful way. Unreal.
Ezra Klein's take is worth reading:
I mentioned earlier that Palin's responses seem to "betray a total inability to organize her thoughts in any meaningful way." Actually, come to think of it, her "answers" -- such as they are -- do not reflect thought at all. She is not speaking so much as reciting. (And poorly.) She is doing nothing more than trying (and failing) to regurgitate things that she has been trained to say by McCain's handlers. What other explanation can there be? Conservatives, Republicans, Palin defenders: watch the clips, be honest with yourself, and tell me I'm wrong. ... No, no, I said be honest with yourself. Try again.
Of course, all politicians speak, to some degree, in platitudes and generalities and talking points. All politicians dodge some questions. But Palin does nothing else. She shows no ability whatsoever to think on her feet. She simply tries to recite what she's been told to say, and often gets hopelessly lost in the process. This is not a legitimate candidate for national office -- this is a talking head, and really, really bad one at that.
She should be Eagleton'd. She won't be, but she should.
I really cannot understand how anyone, of any ideology or party, can watch these clips and then defend Palin's readiness for office. I can understand Republican partisans and conservative ideologues defending her in a relative sense -- i.e., "yeah, she's bad, but Obama and Biden are worse" -- but I truly cannot understand, at this point, defending her in an absolute sense, or making a positive argument for her candidacy. How can any thinking person believe this woman is ready to become President of the United States at a moment's notice? Please, someone explain it to me! It makes no sense!
Some conservatives, at least, are beginning to put down the kool-aid. Beliefnet's Rod Dreher, until recently a Palin enthusiast, writes:
I have some more thoughts on this issue, specifically on concept of the presidential election as a lengthy "job interview," and how the respective candidates' "applications" differ. But I gotta go to bed now, so I'll perhaps write another post about that stuff later.
P.S. And don't get me started on equating Palin's incoherence to Biden's "gaffes." First of all, the relative "newbies" in this race -- Obama and Palin -- are necessarily, and properly, held to much higher standards in their introductions to the public than the known quantities, McCain and Biden. Obama passed his test, in my view, though others are of course free to disagree. Palin has failed her initial test, miserably, and anyone who disagrees with that is quite simply deluding themselves.
Secondly, and more importantly, foot-in-mouth disease of Biden's sort is annoying, but ultimately not disqualifying, sort of like Dubya's rhetorical foibles. Palin's problem goes waaay beyond that. Again: she is not merely inarticulate, but incoherent -- and, to the extent she's saying anything decipherable at all, her words reflect no actual thought or intellectual engagement in what she's talking about. Pardon my French, but her "answers" very strongly suggest that, on many if not most of the big issues of our time, she has no fucking clue what she's talking about.
If John McCain truly believes in "putting country first," he will drop Sarah Palin from the ticket and choose a new runningmate. It's as simple as that.
I doubt this is actually true, but it's not totally implausible, particularly given that McCain didn't actually cancel his Letterman appearance so he could fly to D.C., but rather so he could sit down with... Katie Couric. At the very least, the distraction caused by the high-stakes bailout negotiations -- and McCain's bogus campaign "suspension" -- is a very nice side benefit for McCain, because Palin's interview with Couric really, truly was startlingly, frighteningly bad. It's hard to put into words, really, but... well... just watch for yourself, her latest "greatest hits":
Her answer on Israel isn't much better, even if you 100% agree with her policy position.
What can one say? It's just unbelievable that this person is on a major-party ticket running for national office. Her problems go well beyond inarticulateness -- though she does make George W. Bush sound like a great orator by comparison. But this is incoherence. Her responses betray, by all appearances, a total inability to organize her thoughts in any meaningful way. Unreal.
Ezra Klein's take is worth reading:
The fact that Palin's responses to questions are becoming increasingly incoherent rather than rapidly more polished is interesting. ... Palin's worst answers are not on the questions she isn't expecting, but those that she's got to be prepared for. Russia and Alaska, for instance. Or [the] Dadaist trainwreck on why it's better to spend $700 billion on financial bailouts than broad-based economic help. ...See also Obsidian Wings:
These aren't lies she's telling. It's not misdirection, or deception. It's just nonsense. It exists in a realm beyond where truth is a relevant concept, more akin to the utterances of sleeptalkers than to the prevarications of politicians. I always figured that Palin's trouble on the trail would come when she was exposed to the obscure questions of governance: Queries on drug policy and Afghani tribes and Medicare reimbursement. But instead, she's collapsing on the big questions, the issues that she should be able to dispatch with a memorized soundbite. What's going on?
Sarah Palin has been described as a quick study. But she has been surrounded by briefers for nearly three weeks, and she's still completely unable to string together an intelligent thought on the mortgage crisis. ... It would be nice if the running mate of one of the oldest candidates for President ever had some ideas about these issues. Since she's been prepping constantly, it's pretty alarming that she doesn't.On the other hand, Ross Douthat says, "hey, maybe it's all just effing brilliant rope-a-dope for the Biden debate." Heh.
I served with quick studies. I knew quick studies. Quick studies were a friend of mine. Sarah Palin: you're no quick study.
I mentioned earlier that Palin's responses seem to "betray a total inability to organize her thoughts in any meaningful way." Actually, come to think of it, her "answers" -- such as they are -- do not reflect thought at all. She is not speaking so much as reciting. (And poorly.) She is doing nothing more than trying (and failing) to regurgitate things that she has been trained to say by McCain's handlers. What other explanation can there be? Conservatives, Republicans, Palin defenders: watch the clips, be honest with yourself, and tell me I'm wrong. ... No, no, I said be honest with yourself. Try again.
Of course, all politicians speak, to some degree, in platitudes and generalities and talking points. All politicians dodge some questions. But Palin does nothing else. She shows no ability whatsoever to think on her feet. She simply tries to recite what she's been told to say, and often gets hopelessly lost in the process. This is not a legitimate candidate for national office -- this is a talking head, and really, really bad one at that.
She should be Eagleton'd. She won't be, but she should.
I really cannot understand how anyone, of any ideology or party, can watch these clips and then defend Palin's readiness for office. I can understand Republican partisans and conservative ideologues defending her in a relative sense -- i.e., "yeah, she's bad, but Obama and Biden are worse" -- but I truly cannot understand, at this point, defending her in an absolute sense, or making a positive argument for her candidacy. How can any thinking person believe this woman is ready to become President of the United States at a moment's notice? Please, someone explain it to me! It makes no sense!
Some conservatives, at least, are beginning to put down the kool-aid. Beliefnet's Rod Dreher, until recently a Palin enthusiast, writes:
Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero. ...Dreher is right. Watching Palin in these clips is beyond painful. I'm embarrassed for her, too, and afraid for my country -- or should that be, afraid of my country, in the sense that I'm afraid my country's voters may yet elect this person? Either way, I get no schadenfreude from watching these clips. On the contrary, I wish, for everyone's sake, that Palin were surprising me by demonstrating that she is fit to lead. After all, there's at least a 40% chance she's going to be the next Vice President of the United States come January. Which means there's -- what -- maybe a 10% chance she'll become President sometime in the next four years? Heaven help us.
I remember the morning I woke up in my college dorm room and went in to take my final exam in my Formal Logic class. I knew I was unready. Massively unready. And now I was going to be put to the ultimate test. I sat down in Dr. Sarkar's class and resolved to wing it. Of course I failed the exam and failed the class, because I had no idea what I was talking about. I wasn't a bad kid, or even a stupid kid. I was just badly unprepared, and in way over my head. Seeing the Palin interview on CBS, I thought of myself in Dr. Sarkar's exam. But see, I was a college undergraduate who had the chance to take the class again, which I did, and passed (barely). I wasn't running for vice president of the United States. ...
I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck[.]
I have some more thoughts on this issue, specifically on concept of the presidential election as a lengthy "job interview," and how the respective candidates' "applications" differ. But I gotta go to bed now, so I'll perhaps write another post about that stuff later.
P.S. And don't get me started on equating Palin's incoherence to Biden's "gaffes." First of all, the relative "newbies" in this race -- Obama and Palin -- are necessarily, and properly, held to much higher standards in their introductions to the public than the known quantities, McCain and Biden. Obama passed his test, in my view, though others are of course free to disagree. Palin has failed her initial test, miserably, and anyone who disagrees with that is quite simply deluding themselves.
Secondly, and more importantly, foot-in-mouth disease of Biden's sort is annoying, but ultimately not disqualifying, sort of like Dubya's rhetorical foibles. Palin's problem goes waaay beyond that. Again: she is not merely inarticulate, but incoherent -- and, to the extent she's saying anything decipherable at all, her words reflect no actual thought or intellectual engagement in what she's talking about. Pardon my French, but her "answers" very strongly suggest that, on many if not most of the big issues of our time, she has no fucking clue what she's talking about.
If John McCain truly believes in "putting country first," he will drop Sarah Palin from the ticket and choose a new runningmate. It's as simple as that.
posted by Brendan Loy at
9/25/2008 11:59:00 PM
