Ask and ye shall receive
Jay Aitch made the reasonable request that we not excoriate Sarah Palin on the basis of one bombed interview question. So I submit a few examples below:
Sarah on the Bush Doctrine, a term she appeared to be unfamiliar with at the time:
On whether she's ready to be president if necessary:
Paraphrased, her answer is that "you have to be committed, and not blink." Flog me, folks, I know plenty of really idiotic people who are committed to their ideas; how does that in any way address the issue of whether you're the right person for the job? How about saying that this is a serious responsibility, and I thought long and hard about it, and concluded I can do the job well...?
A non-answer WRT national security:
On war with Russia "perhaps so":
And it's not so much the *position* -- the question of who to include in NATO is a complex one -- the problem is that her approach of total conviction, of "don't blink" make her say "Absolutely, Ukraine, yes Georgia" -- she appears not to have thought thru the ramifications of that policy. When Gibson asks her "Wouldn't that mean we might have to go to war with Russia?" she doesn't answer like a person who's even considered the answer and come to a reasoned conclusion -- she blinks once, then charges ahead like a pit bull (with lipstick), and forcefully reiterates NATO's policy of mutual support as if Gibson doesn't understand it, when it was actually the basis of his question. She seems to have achieved most of her success thru her appearance of conviction, rather than on substance.
Rhetoric vs Truth issues, per CNN and others:
On the earmarks issue, I don't fault her as much for taking federal money -- one can make the case that that's doing her job, representing her city or state. I do have a problem with pretending to have said "Thanks, but no thanks" when you actually took the money.
But my basic issue is this: If SP had done dozens and dozens of interviews where she demonstrated her knowledge and preparation, I'd be more inclined to cut her slack if she messed up once. But on the big issues that require careful thought, her percentage is terrible. The more I listen to her, the more I think there's no *there* there. It feels like her popularity is based on people liking the *person* she seems to be: strong successful woman, cool hockey mom, dedicated and directed, easy on the eyes, conservative religious family-values person. None of which qualify her in the slightest to be vice-president, or (God forbid) president.
Let's face it, the presidential election is mostly a popularity contest with the majority of voters. None of us is immune to the "feelings" thing: I don't like Hillary, not because of her policies, it's just visceral. But who we elect is going to inherit extremely challenging economic & foreign policy issues, not to mention likely have a big influence on shaping the supreme court. At some point it seems like we should also check into whether a person could actually do the job we're electing them for.
(Okay, that last one wasn't fair, but I have to say SP reminds me a lot of Miss Carolina...)