Palin- The Couric interview

[Btodd]

I defy you to tell me she's really sharp, has the necessary knowledge, and the ability to handle the tough questions a Vice-President will have to take. Here's Couric's final attempt (after two prior attempts) to get answers to a simple question about McCain and the financial crisis:

COURIC: I'm just gonna ask you one more time, not to belabor the point....specific examples, in his 26 years, of pushing for more regulation.

PALIN: I'll.....try to find you some, and I'll bring 'em to ya!


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6176751229111585300&vt=lf


Please, please send her back to the hockey game. This is embarrassing for the entire country. Pay particular attention to her giving, almost verbatim, the same answer twice in a row about Rick Davis. Awful.


Btodd

 

[Axioma]

See, she promised that she'll bring him some examples! You're not suggesting that she would say that if those examples didn't exist, do you? I mean, the Republican party wouldn't lie to us.

 

[Staccato]

Frankly painful to watch. If she can't handle an interview with Katie Couric then she should probably give up right now. Katie is hardly an 'intensive' interviewer.

But no doubt there will be those who will defend this pitiful showing. Somehow.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Well she is a Republican, so she can do no harm and is perfect in every way. Couric was just out on a witch hunt and obviously is sexist!!

[/republican defense]

 

[Verv]

I love questions like that...

I hope Biden gets asked these questions about Obama, our very own Senator "Present," because the embarrassment will come by the fact that he has only 12 years of public life to look at and has done essentially nothing but vote against giving our troops money and empowering our federal agencies to keep better track of terrorist threats on our own soil.

"Tell me about someone else's record..." what a great question, Katie!

"Give me details and specifics about this particular topic, possibly going back 26 years."

It's lke asking a candidate who is the President of the Czech Republic.

 

[AirPo]

It's lke asking a candidate who is the President of the Czech Republic.

Well we know McCain couldn't answer that one!

 

[oldbetang]

I defy you to tell me she's really sharp, has the necessary knowledge, and the ability to handle the tough questions a Vice-President will have to take. Here's Couric's final attempt (after two prior attempts) to get answers to a simple question about McCain and the financial crisis:

COURIC: I'm just gonna ask you one more time, not to belabor the point....specific examples, in his 26 years, of pushing for more regulation.

PALIN: I'll.....try to find you some, and I'll bring 'em to ya!


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6176751229111585300&vt=lf


Please, please send her back to the hockey game. This is embarrassing for the entire country. Pay particular attention to her giving, almost verbatim, the same answer twice in a row about Rick Davis. Awful.


Btodd

What was the similar question that Couric asked of Biden? I'd really like to know. It was a gotcha type of question. Contrast that with the Biden interview in which Biden seemed to be ganging up on himself. Which is more embarassing, not being able to quickly name a single piece of regulatory legislation that McCain has sponsored, or not Knowing who was President of the United States in 1929?

 

[Btodd]

I love questions like that...

I hope Biden gets asked these questions about Obama, our very own Senator "Present," because the embarrassment will come by the fact that he has only 12 years of public life to look at and has done essentially nothing but vote against giving our troops money and empowering our federal agencies to keep better track of terrorist threats on our own soil.

"Tell me about someone else's record..." what a great question, Katie!

I think you're missing the point. When asked about the financial crisis, Palin refers to what John McCain stands for, again repeating their brand-new 'reform and change' mantra. So it's natural to wonder what evidence we can see from a 26-year track history, and whether or not the VP candidate is even familiar with her running mate, and the stance she will be sharing.

"Give me details and specifics about this particular topic, possibly going back 26 years."

You've got it backwards. She's allowing Palin to pick more than one example, anywhere in a 26-year time span, not a complete history of ALL examples dating back 26 years. It should have been simple. Not only was her answer 'Ill get back to ya' pathetic, it was also very snotty.

Btodd

 

[JustOneWay]

Which is more embarassing, not being able to quickly name a single piece of regulatory legislation that McCain has sponsored, or not Knowing who was President of the United States in 1929?

Not knowing your running mate's stance on individual issues is far more embarrassing because it is relevant to the campaign. I though that was a no-brainer?

 

[paperkate]

Absolutely embarrassing, and very painful to watch!

 

[Btodd]

What was the similar question that Couric asked of Biden? I'd really like to know. It was a gotcha type of question. Contrast that with the Biden interview in which Biden seemed to be ganging up on himself. Which is more embarassing, not being able to quickly name a single piece of regulatory legislation that McCain has sponsored, or not Knowing who was President of the United States in 1929?

Biden would answer based on his own history, and his own knowledge. Couric didn't ask Palin about McCain originally....Palin simply defers to McCain in her answers (a lot), and then when she's asked to even support that, people STILL think it's unfair and she's still really impressive! If your point is that Obama doesn't have a history, that's fine....but if you were to ask Obama, and he simply deferred to Biden's history out of lack of knowledge, but couldn't give you any examples.....wouldn't you find it apalling? And I don't think Obama would be quite so snotty about his failure, either....at least he can dodge a question properly.

I really can't understand where anyone has gotten the idea that Palin is even remotely qualified to handle a press conference, let alone the Vice-Presidency. That interview was nothing compared to the pressure and tough questions she'll have to deal with if she makes it.

I really think, and it's just my opinion, that the majority of her appeal has to do with being an Evangelical Christian. I really do; I think after many people heard that and were convinced of her sincerity....that any shortcomings will be brushed off as irrelevant, because to those people, they are. Pro-life? Anti-gay? Pro-Israel? Right, she's in.

Edited to add: Almost forgot about your Biden question. Yeah, I think that was an embarrassing error, but let's not pretend it's relevant in the way that not being able to support a mantra of 'reform and change' with any examples out of a 26-year career is. She is obviously scripted in just about everything she says, because she can't ever elaborate. This involves the most pressing problem of the day, and they can't seem to do anything but give the usual pat answer and pretty smile. Then when called out on it, we get a 'I'll have to try and dig up an answer, and get back to ya' with all the sincerity of a sarcastic teenager.


Btodd

 

[AirPo]

Biden would answer based on his own history, and his own knowledge. Couric didn't ask Palin about McCain originally....Palin simply defers to McCain in her answers (a lot), and then when she's asked to even support that, people STILL think it's unfair and she's still really impressive! If your point is that Obama doesn't have a history, that's fine....but if you were to ask Obama, and he simply deferred to Biden's history out of lack of knowledge, but couldn't give you any examples.....wouldn't you find it apalling? And I don't think Obama would be quite so snotty about his failure, either....at least he can dodge a question properly.

I really can't understand where anyone has gotten the idea that Palin is even remotely qualified to handle a press conference, let alone the Vice-Presidency. That interview was nothing compared to the pressure and tough questions she'll have to deal with if she makes it.

I really think, and it's just my opinion, that the majority of her appeal has to do with being an Evangelical Christian. I really do; I think after many people heard that and were convinced of her sincerity....that any shortcomings will be brushed off as irrelevant, because to those people, they are. Pro-life? Anti-gay? Pro-Israel? Right, she's in.


Btodd

That's exactly what her appeal is and why she was picked.

Don't you remember the infamous Michael Scanlon memo?

To that end, your money is best spent finding them and communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet, and telephone trees.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think you're missing the point. When asked about the financial crisis, Palin refers to what John McCain stands for, again repeating their brand-new 'reform and change' mantra. So it's natural to wonder what evidence we can see from a 26-year track history, and whether or not the VP candidate is even familiar with her running mate, and the stance she will be sharing.

Palin was claiming that McCain was for more oversight, more regulation. Couric was asking her to give an example to support that claim.

You've got it backwards. She's allowing Palin to pick more than one example, anywhere in a 26-year time span, not a complete history of ALL examples dating back 26 years. It should have been simple.

She's asking Palin to pick one, any one from a 26 year history.

Not only was her answer 'Ill get back to ya' pathetic, it was also very snotty.

Not snotty at all - just patheticly desperate.

And kind of dumb.