-
sponsorship
Damn, man, whatever happened to Schadenfreude? Isn’t anyone here going to enjoy seeing Sarah Palin struggle tonight? God knows I can identify with the sympathy angle—I once gave a job talk at Brown that felt, from my end, a lot like that Katie Couric interview – but in no way does that translate into hoping she does well enough to redeem herself in the debate, in order to somehow represent on behalf of women in general. On the contrary: I’m looking forward to watching Palin flail (and come on, people, in an unscripted and explicitly polemical format she’s going to flail like an Alaska salmon on the dock.) To me, watching her incompetence get exposed is like payback for the last eight years of staring at a naked, and thoroughly unattractive, emperor. And you know what? I was a lot more qualified for that Brown job than Palin is for VP, but I still wasn’t the best candidate, and my prospective employers deserved to find that out.
I think both compassionate people like the rest of you and spiteful harpies like myself can agree that cutting Palin extra slack – whether because of her gender or her supposed persecution at the hands of “the press” – is a profoundly unfeminist thing to do. And while I agree that strategically, Biden will be wise to tiptoe around Palin’s gender (avoiding the appearance of condescension, etc.), I look forward to a brave post-feminist world in which, one day, the debate partners of lightweights like Palin will be at liberty to mop the floor with said lightweights—not because they’re women (or men), but because they’re arrogant fools.
-
sponsorship
A lot of liberal bloggers are crowing this morning about Sarah Palin's concession to Katie Couric that the Constitution protects a right to privacy. I don't think that's nearly the monster gotcha they seem to believe. Couric asked "Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?" Palin responded "I do." Chief Justice John Roberts, at his confirmation hearings, also agreed that the constitution protects a right to privacy. So did Justice Samuel Alito. (And in strikingly similar language!!!) What Palin said to Couric is hardly a dramatic departure from that line. Nor does it open the door to any kind of wobbliness on choice (see also, Roberts and Alito). That said, I can't agree with Ann Althouse that Palin handled the court questions with any real degree of skill. I found the segment to be yet another painful instance of the Palin method-acting approach to interviews: rote repetition of blurry talking points, fused with blurry confusion over issues to which she has not given any kind of serious thought. Nevertheless, I don't expect Palin to collapse in a verbless heap at tonight's debate the way she has done for Couric. The McCain campaign has already set up moderator Gwen Ifill as a "hater." So long as Palin can keep her cue cards straight and twinkle intermittently on cue, she'll likely battle Joe Biden to a draw.
-
sponsorship
E.J. thanks for sharing Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin. All I have to say is OMG indeed! If this election weren't so serious, John McCain's pick would be one continuing laugh riot. I have lost all respect for him, not just because of Palin -- although she's the icing on the cake -- but because he has betrayed every single one of his many stated principles. McCain may not want to "lose a war in order to win an election," as he said of Obama, but he is certainly willing to compromise on everything else in order to win this election including possibly placing the country in the hands of a vice-president who is sooooo not ready for prime time.
I love how McCain is now trying to get out of debating Obama on Friday after a bad week of press coverage and an uptick in the polls by Obama. What a cynical stunt that reeks of fear, desperation, and shameless political posturing. So a two hour debate is going to somehow cut into his time single-handedly solving the economic crisis between now and Friday?