The short answer period without follow ups worked better for Sarah than the free wheeling format of interviews. A pretty substance free performance on her part, about the only thing she managed any substance on was gay marriage. It was disconcerting to watch her not answer a question and use the time to say what she wants.
She did not demonstrate the incurious anti-intellect lowest common denominator tenor of her interviews. Some of it was simply rehearsed speechifying that had some relationship to the question. Some of it seemed to be ground she was comfortable with, not flailing about. Whether she demonstrated competence or not is open to question.
"A white flag of surrender in Iraq," is going to go down pretty roughly with any but the BushCo dead-enders. Better to have left that line alone.
Sarah Palin did not fail, she did not prove herself incompetent, she did not win. She survived with some dignity. For those who wished an implosion, disappointment. I did not wish that, I did not wish a factual demonstration that American politics had descended into a morass of politically driven incompetence. I don't believe she'd make anything like a good President, I don't think she'd be a disaster as VP - that is VP. The problem is, VP is a conditional position, it could be something else.
Feel free to call me full of stuff in comments. This stuff is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception. Don't forget, the debates are aimed at media coverage and low information/low interest voters. Political junkies like me are around to be amused.
2 comments:
Biden should have won hands down, but his ego and display of contempt worked against him. I call it a draw. It's the old choir thing on both sides.
I wouldn't have taken Biden for egotistic and contemptuous, he flatly doesn't like McCain's policies and didn't care for Palin's lies and distortions but I thought he was just short of damn nice to her when he wasn't boring at the beginning. Like I said, it isn't objective.
Post a Comment