Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While I certainly disagree with many of Sarah Palin's professed beliefs, I believe that much of the criticism leveled toward her is based not on reason but on simple elitism.

Honestly, as much as I detest the woman, I feel bad for her. I truly think she is a perfect example of what happens when you jump into the national scene before you're ready. She let the McCain campaign tell her what to do because she didn't know any better, and ended up stuck with the consequences.

Her voice occasionally makes my spine hurt, like when 10 year old girls go supersonic.

But there is a market in the tea parties. That is a growing force that is not being covered by the maintstream media. Much as the Repblicans woul.d like to catch a hold of it they haven't. Both Rick Perry and Cornyn (US Senator and a bit of a power) were booed at the recent one they went to. People misperceive big time whats growing with that movement. It may be a nascent 3rd party. Frankly we need new blood, anything to get rid of the Washington Party.

I took 2 double shots after the wink.

I think part of the reason that McCain picked her was because she was far off the radar. Which meant that it took the Dems about a month to dig up dirt on her. But, she was off the radar for a reason. She wasn't ready to be put on the national stage and was there to appeal to the religious right wing (imho). I hope she doesn't run for president in 2012, although I think she'd have an uphill battle for the job. She's like the Republican version of Hillary - you either loathe her or love her.

dogma wrote:Honestly, as much as I detest the woman, I feel bad for her.

How can you detest her, you don't even know her. All you know about it is how the media portays her.

I'm not a Palin bandwagoneer by the way. I think she was a terrible choice for VP, and contributed greatly to Mccains loss.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
How can you detest her, you don't even know her. All you know about it is how the media portays her.

I'm not a Palin bandwagoneer by the way. I think she was a terrible choice for VP, and contributed greatly to Mccains loss.


GG

I know she can't interview, and that she fancies herself as a small town type of girl. That's pretty much my antithesis.

Also, she flumoxed an FP question, which is my primary area of knowledge.

I'm sure she is a fine person, but I would never choose to be around her.

How many interviews have you been on Dogma with people playing "stump the Dogma?"

Frazzled wrote:How many interviews have you been on Dogma with people playing "stump the Dogma?"

I'll guess 7!

Whats an FP question?

GG

Frazzled wrote:How many interviews have you been on Dogma with people playing "stump the Dogma?"

15 college radio (it was very Frasier), 4 local TV, 1 network (WGN).

generalgrog wrote:Whats an FP question?

GG

Foreign Policy

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How many interviews have you been on Dogma with people playing "stump the Dogma?"

15 college radio (it was very Frasier), 4 local TV, 1 network (WGN).

so, er none then.

I am not saying I'm better, but there's three worlds of difference between college radio and an entire TV news network looking to find the bomb that kills you.

In fairness I'd imagine he'd, you know, maybe mug up a bit on the topic if he was asked to do an interview. So he wouldn't come across as a moron.

And I'm sure he knows the difference between a country and a continent.

..his lipstick application skills is something I'm not even going to go near.

Frazzled wrote:
so, er none then.

I am not saying I'm better, but there's three worlds of difference between college radio and an entire TV news network looking to find the bomb that kills you.

Yeah, I was a talking head on network. Local I was a 'person of interest', but nothing Palinesque. But I'm also a grad student, not a Governator. She wasn't hit with anything difficult, and failed hard. Hell, my person of interest questions ("What is the population dispersal of Tutsis in Rwanda?") were harder

Probably helped if I watched her interviews in the first place...

The trick is to avoid anything that can be referenced.

Don't say "in 1842".

Say "in the 1800s"

I guess my standard response of
"what kind of stupid question is that? Gak what a waste of skin," or "I have no recollection," probably wouldn't be the best answer then?

One of my answers on college radio was 'can I have another drink?'

dogma wrote:One of my answers on college radio was 'can I have another drink?'

Sounds like a quality response to me.

What gets lost in all the modern spit and polish of modern TV politics is that just because you don't interview well, doesn't mean your a moron or a good candidate. I often wonder how well Abraham Lincoln or George Washington would have done in todays political atmosphere. Teddy Roosevelt or John Adams would probably have done fine.

GG

Don't forget Lincoln debated for what hours or days or some nonsense? I'm thinking that boy could TALK.

generalgrog wrote:What gets lost in all the modern spit and polish of modern TV politics is that just because you don't interview well, doesn't mean your a moron or a good candidate. I often wonder how well Abraham Lincoln or George Washington would have done in todays political atmosphere. Teddy Roosevelt or John Adams would probably have done fine.

GG

Hmm. That's interesting, because I always figured that public speeches and debates were a bigger part of a campaign then than they are now.

generalgrog wrote:What gets lost in all the modern spit and polish of modern TV politics is that just because you don't interview well, doesn't mean your a moron or a good candidate. I often wonder how well Abraham Lincoln or George Washington would have done in todays political atmosphere. Teddy Roosevelt or John Adams would probably have done fine.

GG

I wouldn't take the historical angle that you did, but I agree about the relevance of public appearances to political ability.

Check out this video on Palin's hypocrisy (yea yea big deal that a politician is hypocritical but its right up this topic's alley):

Sarah Palin: 'Whining' about media coverage 'bothers me'

Palin is known for her hostility towards the media. But she has not been so quick to decry tough scrutiny when it is pointed at other female targets: Hillary Clinton, example.

In August 2008, Palin lamented Clinton's complaints about unfair media coverage as 'whining' that is bad for female candidates everywhere

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_225955.html
__________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA15XU23kEc&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/sarah-palin-flashback-whi_n_225955.html&feature=player_embedded


----

generalgrog wrote:What gets lost in all the modern spit and polish of modern TV politics is that just because you don't interview well, doesn't mean your a moron or a good candidate. I often wonder how well Abraham Lincoln or George Washington would have done in todays political atmosphere. Teddy Roosevelt or John Adams would probably have done fine.

GG

I think 8 years of Bush Jr. proves your point wrong. I don't think Lincoln is the best example either since he was a master-debater (say that 10 times fast) and coined a type of competitive debate still going on today - Lincoln/Douglas Debates. According to his wiki he was known as the best Republican speaker after those debates.

Both my Republican Grandmothers voted for Obama because of Palin. The last time my maternal Grandmother voted for a Democrat for President was John F. Kennedy.

Just sayin'.

I don't know if it was because of Palin or what but my mom who has never voted Democrat voted for Obama this year. It blew me away.

GG

Frazzled wrote:Her voice occasionally makes my spine hurt, like when 10 year old girls go supersonic.

But there is a market in the tea parties. That is a growing force that is not being covered by the maintstream media. Much as the Repblicans woul.d like to catch a hold of it they haven't. Both Rick Perry and Cornyn (US Senator and a bit of a power) were booed at the recent one they went to. People misperceive big time whats growing with that movement. It may be a nascent 3rd party. Frankly we need new blood, anything to get rid of the Washington Party.

Yeah, the American version of the BNP doesn't get much media coverage. The left wing prefers to act like they are just country bumpkin extremists (as they usually are) and the right wing prefers to pretend they don't exist because they are country bumpkin extremists. Amazingly enough the tea parties got huge right wing coverage due to foxes financial and media support of them, which is hilarious because they did so much to further hurt the image of the splintering conservative base. The right really needs to find it's center before it's extremists and moderates tear the party in half.

Yes! God bless America!

It is true that politics is based largely around appearances. The ability to provide succinct catchphrases is a lot more important than the ability to fully understand an issue. This is why Bush was able to survive in debate with Gore despite Gore’s greater understanding of issues. To some extent it may even be a good thing, as you don’t necessarily want the guy with the most knowledge running the show, you want an effective communicator and leader.

But that was never the issue with Palin. She wasn’t struggling to properly express a complicated position. She just had no position, because she had no knowledge of national politics. As much as modern politics is all about maintaining message and keeping to key phrases, there is a minimum level of skill needed, below that it will become apparent even with the softball media most politicians stick to. Palin didn’t have the level skill needed to reach that bar, and it became obvious in an interview with Katie Couric.

I mean honestly, if you get hammered by Katie Couric it’s time to try your hand at something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote: While I certainly disagree with many of Sarah Palin's professed beliefs, I believe that much of the criticism leveled toward her is based not on reason but on simple elitism.

There is a difference between standards and elitism. Perhaps some of the criticism of Palin was simple class snobbery. But the presence of poorly based criticism doesn't dismiss the abundance of legitimate criticism. Palin lacked basic knowledge in national politics. It is not elitism to say so.

Attacking her children had nothing to do with basic knowledge in national politics. The mainstream media crossed the line with her family, something they would never have done with any Democrat. Attacking her clothing purchases was sexist as well.

Thats what gave her support. Had they indeed, attacked her like any other candidate, much of that support would have fallen by the wayside.