Sarah Palin on Oprah – UPDATES

Okay, I broke down and watched Oprah Winfrey interview Sarah Palin.

Color me underwhelmed. By both women.

It was like watching two lightly muzzled Doberman Pinschers, behaving because they have to, but with an undergrowl that translates, roughly, into “if we’re ever alone together in the yard, you’re going down…”

Oprah needed Palin for the ratings; Palin needed Oprah to push the book,
Going Rogue; An American Life. Both endured hour of excruciating discomfort for the sake of their respective ends.

Oprah tried to be magisterial on her turf; she was professional and polite, which is really all she needed to be. But beneath the cool, calm exterior, there was that sense of an impatient leash-tug. Her questions were alright, but I do wonder whether Oprah would have asked Palin the very stale question about whether she could be a veep with five children, had she had a D after her name.

Palin gave a stale answer, “I would do it the same way men do it.”

To which Oprah responded, “but they have wives!”

And Palin went off on some spinny herky-jerk when all she had to say was chuckle and say, “and I have a very capable husband.”

Such a response would have gotten a big round of applause from the mostly-silent audience, and it would have reinforced the whole sense Palin wants to convey, that her marriage is “equal,” and “strong,” without her having to say so as she did, later. Showing is always better than telling; actions more convincing than words.

And a little chuckle with flippancy signals that you’re not taking the interview too seriously, that the interviewer is not the Alpha dog.

Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive.
Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had anything else to say, and Palin unwisely blurted out, “you can’t turn off my mic…” which was very revealing. As I said over two twitters:

there is a brittle defensiveness to Palin that was not there before; she’s clearly carrying scabs from being savaged in ’08 BUT…you can’t do that in politics. She was treated (IS still treated) abominably by press, but if she can’t transcend that she’s out

Okay, political analysis in 140 characters doesn’t really work, but yeah, it seems to me that Palin is showing her scars from the detestable way the press descended on her and her family like a pack of rabid canines and worked to literally destroy Palin when she emerged in ’08.

But the press tried to destroy Reagan, and they tried to destroy Bush; they could only get so far, because both men were able to shake the rutting mutts off their legs with aplomb, and look forward. It is a quality of character, part of it comes from knowing who you are and -as we see happening- it encourages people to take a second look, or a third, if need be.

I have suspected that Palin does know who she is, but she’s been rattled, and it shows. And so, she is talking about media mistreatment; her charges are not untrue, but tonguing the wounds will not help her with the people she needs to win over. They will see it merely as an unattractive, vindictive quality, rather ala Obama. Who wants more of that?

In September ’08, Camille Paglia rightly called Palin “a natural”. She was so natural, that she was a terrifying powerhouse to the left, hence the immediate and fevered rush to destroy her. Recently Paglia wrote:

Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor. She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it. Palin should not have gotten into a slanging match with David Letterman or anyone else who has been obsessively defaming her or her family. Let surrogates do that stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree. I know Palin is a tough, frontier spirit, and that serves her well in many ways, but she needs to learn to delegate the punches, so that she can remain above the fray, or she will never get past this guarded, watchful, overly-cautious and defensive vibe that rang out of her like waves from a tuning fork on the Winfrey show, today. She has to know that someone else will throw the punch for her, and she has to learn to be okay with that. She also needs to do better explaining her strategy in quitting the Governor’s post; reasonable people can understand the distraction of incessant and bogus “ethics” charges, but she needs to tell it better. There is nothing smooth; it’s all disjointed and halting. That won’t work.

So, not that my opinion on Palin matters at all, I give her a B- for the Oprah show. Nice video of the family, good response when she was pitying the pathetic Levi, and talking about how he is still “part of the family,” but she should have left the “Ricky Hollywood” gag home. The rest was kind of just okay.

The New Republic: Was more impressed than I, so, there you go.

I know the folks that really adore Palin will not like my assessment, but I think I’m being fair, here. When I see tweets from people who love Palin saying that they hate the interview and they want it to end, then I know they too did not see the Palin they really, really were hoping to see.

Legal Insurrection roundsup the lefty bloggers who live-blogged the “event” and laughs: Get a life, people. Palin is so far into your head she’s about to give you an aneurysm. That’s quite true, which is why if she can soften her edges, she can, I think, still recapture the middle. But she is not there, yet.

UPDATE I : Palin’s Facebook complaint about Newsweek’s cover illustrates what I am talking about. If this can’t roll off the back, nothing will. If she wants to be a serious contender for high office, she can’t even notice magazine covers; that is someone else’s job. This is a very “Obama-style” bit of micro-image-managing complaint. It’s small, picayune and it is not becoming, not when she does it, and not when Obama does it. Obama gets away with it, because the press helps him, but even with their protection, his thin-skinned brittleness is turning people off. Palin does not have that sort of political capital to spend.

UPDATE II: Melissa Clouthier is writing about Palin on Rush today, and she says on substantive issues, Palin was “flawless” and “like a breath of fresh air” – do go read her take, which is very interesting and serious. The Rush Transcript is here.

Sorry about the photoshops! Mean it!
Malkin: Female Conservative Derangement Syndrome
CNN Palin-Forum: Defining Obama-approved Journalism
Baseball Crank: Always well-reasoned
Allahpundit: has video
Gay Patriot: Has Palin learned how to play the victim card? Actually, I think she hasn’t; which is why she does it poorly.
Al Gore: Keeping it classy in business
Rich Lowry tweets that Going Rogue is a good, “dishy” read
Rasmussen: 59% of voters say share Palin’s values
More Gay Patriot: Why Palin Matters
Althouse: A pleasant chat

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: Sarah Palin Interviewed By Rush And Oprah, A Study In Contrasts « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

  • Pingback: Sarah Palin Interviewed By Rush And Oprah, A Study In Contrasts | Right Wing News

  • Momma K

    Dear Anchoress,
    I read your review with interest and rewatched the interview–I have to take issue with you on one point, when Sarah says “You can’t turn off my mike”; it is because she is paying Oprah a lovely complement. She isn’t being brittle and defensive, but saying the equivalent of “I’m going to complement you and no you can’t stop me”. If you rewatch that part of the interview you’ll see that there is no defensiveness there, Sarah is talking about how Oprah inspired her when she was a stay at home mom.

    [Interesting. I will have to rewatch; I've never said I can't be wrong about anything! :-) -admin]

  • dry valleys

    You say you would prefer others to Palin, if they were not as utterly antithetical to you as Obama, Pelosi etc.

    It might be a choice you soon end up having to make what with the likes of Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee etc. sniffing around.

    In a Republican primary I would support whoever was the most secular, libertarian-minded & likely to withstand the ultra-hawks on foreign policy. I dread to imagine Obama facing an opposition made up chiefly of people like Charles Murray etc. But I might not support Democrats at all if the GOP were made up of people like that.

    (Which it isn’t & is unlikely ever to be).

    [I would have a real problem with Huckabee, because he comes off, for me at least, too much like a car salesman. I don't know enough about Pawlenty and Romney...ugh, I don't know. They're all so stale and used-up. We really need new blood, and I am convinced that we may have to step outside of career politicians to find it -admin]

  • dry valleys

    By “support” I don’t mean cynically, I mean in the same way you’d presumably want Clinton or the like amongst leading Democrats.

    I am not by nature partisan- none of my British pals actually knows which party I support & I enjoy teasing them at every election by inviting them to speculate :)

    Though I wouldn’t call myself a centrist as I am more likely to agree with the “left-wing” than the “right-wing” position. But it is my view that different parties may meet the needs of different times.

    I also think that long incumbencies of whoever it is (step forward Blair/Brown & their right-wing predecessors) are bad news, which is why the 2-term rule in America works so well. I am particularly intrigued by the idea that Gore may have differed from Clinton in 2000 (though I think he wouldn’t be anything like as much of an eco-warrior in office) or McCain might have turned away from some Bush policies. In a similar way to Bush I’s differences of emphasis from Reagan.

  • Nelly

    Have any of you seen the interview she did with Charlie Rose back in 2007? You can see some of it here. Gosh, does she ever come across differently than she does now, or than she did during the 2008 presidential campaign. Business-like, smart, cool. If she could just get back to that. But, as the Anchoress said, she’s been badly rattled, and I think she may never be able to regain her composure. A pity. In any case, I don’t think many of us would be able to endure the truly ugly and cruel onslaught that just keeps coming her way, and her family’s way.

  • kt

    Why is everyone so into Liz Cheney on this thread? Unlike Palin, Liz Cheney has never held executive office, so I can only conclude you like her for the same reasons people liked Obama — she speaks well in front of the media. You make the same mistake as Obama supporters here when you interpret obsequeiousness from the media as an indicator of competence on the part of the candidate. How ironic, given your lengthy explanation of how dangerous it would be to mimic the democrats in the nomination process.

    BTW Anchoress I’m not new to this blog. I lurk here often. I usually find your points very substantive and hard-hitting, which is why I frankly was disappointed by this post.

    [I am sorry to disappoint, but as I say, I can only speak as I find. Considering all the positives I have to say about Palin - and they are and have been many- I am amazed at the energy you have put into pushing against my ummm...perceived heresy here. That's a joke, btw. Still, your passion is surprising. I didn't think she did better than a B- on Oprah; you thought she was an A+. As Dubya used to say, "this is just a difference of opinion."

    Liz Cheney has not held executive office, but Palin only held hers for two years and -like it or not, even though we may find her resignation from office understandable under untenable working conditions- her resignation will weigh very heavily on her recovery in the perceptions of many. I am not at all sure where you see obsequiousness from the media re Liz Cheney. If they do not savage her as they did Palin, then they are "obsequious"? I think they're just keeping their powder dry. They have not savaged Cheney YET because she is, so far, not running for political office. If that changes, you will see the press change in how they treat her, but I am pretty sure we will not see Cheney rattle. Yes, she speaks well, but everything she has ever written that I have read has been intelligent and her competency has not -as yet- been questioned. Why must you -again- imply that I am some useful idiot who is buying into a media-peddled illusion of Cheney, or that I am "sold on superficials" like an ability to speak well? An ability to speak well is not a superficiality, but it is also not something that sways me overmuch, as you -as a longtime reader- doubtless can recall my affection for George W. Bush, and his speechifying. I never thought any reader would agree with "all" of my postings, so I can accept that you disagree with me. Why can't you accept that I disagree with you? :-) As I said, I'm sure you would have hated me, back when the immigration issue was burning hot, in election year 2006. -admin]

  • Bender

    Why is everyone so into Liz Cheney on this thread?

    Because she is smart and tough and no-nonsense. She also has extensive experience in foreign affairs, international finance, and national security. She actually does have experience, unlike that poseur Barack Obama.

    [To praise Liz Cheney is not necessarily to "diss" Palin, either. It is simply praising a praise-worthy woman-admin]

  • Western Chauvinist

    “Finally, even if Palin manages the growth I do think she is capable of, if the Cult of Sarah Adoration That Will Not Tolerate A Critical Word Against Her persists, I still may not vote for her, because we already have one thin-skinned president with a Cult of Personality behind him; we don’t need two. -admin]”

    Bingo! This is my concern. I admire Palin tremendously for her values, courage and authenticity. But, I am concerned about a movement among conservatives like what we saw among liberals with Obama and still see in the polls today. People find him personally likable, they just detest his policies (now that they have been revealed in action rather than speeches). I don’t think I’d dislike her policies, but I also don’t think she could win at Obama’s “magnificent me” game.

    Still, I hope you don’t mean that you wouldn’t vote for her in the general election, Elizabeth, if she were the GOP nominee?

    [I have never automatically voted for a president based on his party. I was still a registered Democrat when I -very enthusiastically and with great pride- voted for Dubya the first time. I have already said that if Palin were running against Obama, I would vote for her. The truth is, the Democrats have gone so utterly insane in the past year that I cannot off the top of my head think of any moderate Democrat who would get my vote over a Palin. That however, is not an automatic endorsement of Palin over other Republicans, and it does not preclude my wondering if we do not need someone else on the scene -in both parties- because so much within each party is stale, or corrupt, or caricatured into international uselessness.

    Super Off-topic: I was thinking today that in some ways, Obama has made me miss Hillary Clinton, and that even she would have been better on Health Care, she would be treating our allies better, and I am convinced she would not be trying KSM in NYC. I honestly think she should resign from this administration, where she is not shining as SecState, and where she is being treated shabbily by the O's, and try something else, like heading the Red Cross or something, and see where that takes her. -admin]

  • Bender

    Bender, if the boldface is for my benefit . . .

    Not necessarily. It is in order to highlight a major point about Palin’s motivations. Too many people out in the world are operating under this false premise that Palin is running for political office. It is pretty clear that she is not. It was abundantly clear when she resigned from the governor’s office.

    Because she is not, she does not need to win over elites or liberals or Dems or anyone. Rather, she is interested in everyday Americans, middle America, getting their country back. She is interested in those simple, hardworking, common people having their voices heard. And she can do that because she is one of them (us).

    She does not need to be president. I’m pretty sure that she does not want to be president. But she does want a better America. And that is her motivation.

    [And if that is all she is looking for - to be a player, a kingmaker, a force for representing an ideology and an advocate for policies that can strengthen and better America, I think she's quite up to the job. But while it is clear to you that she is not interested in running for office again (and I think you've hit a big nail with her resigning her Governorship) it is not clear to many, and Palin is not outright saying it. "It's not on my radar" is not a clear and unambiguous "no." But I think if she had said "no" yesterday on Oprah, she would have upset many in her base. She would also have instantly raised her stock with the MSM, though, so kudos to her for not playing that game. We'll have to play along with her ambiguity for a while, though. -admin]

    MORE::: I am enjoying the debate in this thread. Melissa Clouthier is discussing Palin on Rush today, which unfortunately I did not hear, and she describes Palin as “flawless’ and “like a breath of fresh air.”

    I will check out the transcripts later, (linked to in this comments thread by Bender) admin]

  • Pingback: Palin on Limbaugh » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  • Bender

    Audio available at Real Clear Politics.

  • Bender

    I don’t believe she is running.

    And if she were elected, she would not be a particularly successful president.

    Why? Not because she is not up to the job. She absolutely is. But because the left would not let her be successful. Like with George W., they would torpedo each and every thing she tried to do. It takes more than being competent or good or even great — it takes the willingness of the other side to cooperate. Even if you are great, the left will not let you do anything.

    She knows this. Hence, she is not running. Only if the left started beating its collective breast, mea culpa, mea culpa, would she seriously consider it. But that doesn’t mean that she won’t posture, especially if it sends the other side into a tizzy.

    [And too, let's face it, if you're hawking a book, you're not going to tell your fans that a run for the WH is out of the question. As evidenced by some of the comments here, it's what they're dreaming about. -admin]

  • kt

    My point about Liz Cheney is that we need to have a political process where a non-connected, non-DC-insider can run for office and get respect on her own merits…even if said outsider has a wacky accent, poor syntax, and winks at the audience. Palin has displayed those qualities, but also she is intelligent and can give a speech like nobody’s business. (It isn’t exactly easy to go live in front of millions and debate Joe Biden, or give a convention speech. Most of us can barely imagine doing such a thing. She has real political skill and is developing before our eyes. )

    I lived in DC for 13 years. The town is incredibly harsh toward people who didn’t go to the right schools or know the right people …. which would be okay, i guess, if those “right” people actually could run a government with some degree of competence and ethics. But they can’t, and DC desperately needs some fresh blood. Conservatives really have to stop kissing up to an incompetent and unimpressive establishment. It’s time to think outside the box.

    [You're very harsh on the rest of us, aren't you? I and others here have said she "has real political skill" we've called her "a natural" but it is, as you admit, "developing." It's not there, yet. It seems unless we bow down and concede the Unconditional Wonderfulness of Sarah, nothing else will satisfy, and that -again- is too much like Obamaworship for my liking.

    I don't really care how hard it is to debate live in front of millions of people; that's what politicians do, so it should not be remarkable that Palin has done it. Yes, DC has a terrible prejudice against people who don't have ivy degrees; I have defended Palin's schooling in the past. No one is arguing that we don't need fresh blood. Must you keep implying, though, that those who do not share your unquestioning passion for Palin are ignorant pawns "kissing up to" or "dancing with" the establishment and media we despise? Telling people who disagree with you and dare to think for themselves that they're not thinking for themselves? It's...such a lefty thing to do! :-) And I know whereof I speak, having left the left because of just that sort of attitude, one that can't show respect for the opinions of others, but must instead sneer about "kissups" and such. Time to think outside the box? Sure. Also time to stop denigrating people for having honest (and reasonable) differing views. -admin]

  • sandpaper

    Anchoress, it is a joy to read your blog.

    I relentlessly defended Sarah Palin during the campaign because she was treated with merciless condescension and contempt. I don’t know if I would ever support her as a presidential candidate, perhaps we shall see. I have been impressed with Liz Cheney. It seems to me just as wrong to dismiss her because of her lineage and education as it was/is to dismiss Palin because of her background. Of course Liz Cheney will be equal-opportunity crucified by the mainstream media for paternal association alone. Maureen Dowd has already looked down her dripping nose at all of the Cheneys; what’s in their name if not reason to link then sink?

    David Brooks reached a new level of spineless mediocrity when he called Sarah Palin a joke. What Sarah Palin represents to millions of Americans is no joke at all. She stands for values and liberty amidst the current regime. Anyone willing to stand up as Palin and Liz Cheney are is worth a look, in my book.

  • http://disqus freelancer

    Candidates can and do develope maturity and expertise as they campaign for office. I was not impressed with George Bush the first few times I saw him with other presidential candidates. It was some months later that I was able to observe him in person at several events and he was far more at ease than earlier on and able to project himself to an audience in a memorable way. He might not have won without his personal appearances and growth during the months preceeding the election. Once Sarah joined the McCain campaign she overshadowed him to the extent that Obama seemed to think she was his opponent. I think Sara is already a match for anybody now considered a viable presidential candidate. While she may have to declare her intentions in nine months or so, she can and will continue to study and keep abreast of national interests, some of which are not even evident today. Nine months from now is only the beginning if Sarah chooses to run for office. I hope she does but have to agree with the poster that says America does not deserve her.

  • kt

    Sorry Anchoress, but as you said before I calls it like I see it too. You say Palin is ineffective with the media establishment and this failing makes her “unready” for public office. But you provide no defense or explanation for this assertion. Skills at handling biased, mediocre, unfair interviewers are utterly unrelated to skills relating to executive governance and forming effective public policy. Indeed the obverse is true: someone adept at handling the media is probably too concerned with image to be an effective leader.

    By the way, when did I ever demonstrate “unquestioning passion” for Palin? What I have unquestioning passion for is the idea that someone shouldn’t have to be an insider to get ahead in politics. The founders shared this passion, you may have noticed.

    [Ronald Reagan handled media beautifully and was an effective leader, or does that no longer count, now that we have to promote Palin, with weaknesses intact? As I said, there is absolutely no way I could offer anything to you that would satisfy, and so I am not going to try; my intention was never to try to convince you of anything except that other people could have reasonable positions and not be the useful idiots you imply they are. Never have I implied in any way that someone has to be an "insider" to get ahead in politics, and I don't like having words put in my mouth. I also get bored when I am presented with straw men such as that one, and so I think I'm done, here. It's been interesting talking to you. Peace -admin]

  • sandpaper

    Actually, kt, since you bring up the founding fathers, do consider that Jefferson was born to a family that was quite influential and wealthy, he was well educated, considered an intellectual and a creature of comfort. I hardly think you would dismiss Jefferson as you did Liz Cheney. True, she is from “an established Washington family” as you say, but the other founding fathers welcomed Jefferson’s fine mind, and it was put it to good use!

  • kt

    Sarah Palin was also educated. Or are you saying that only people inside the beltway can be considered to have “fine minds”?

    You’ve made my point for me. My work here is done.

  • sandpaper

    I’m saying you have a double standard in dismissing Liz Cheney for the reasons you dismiss her.

    I have not dismissed Sarah Palin, alleged nothing even close to your beltway comment, defended Sarah, and said, if you read my previous comment, that I think it is wrong to disimiss either of these women because of their backgrounds.

    Yes, your work may be done, if your mind refuses to open.

  • kt

    Liz Cheney lives works and has her being inside the beltway. Her daddy was vice president. She got the inside-the-beltway jobs she got because of daddy. That’s how Washington works. You have offered nothing that indicates Liz Cheney would be a superior candidate to Palin, a former governor, so I have no clue why you are even talking about Liz Cheney. In addition, if you can’t comprehend the argument that it’s positively un-American to have familial dynasties ruling in DC then perhaps you are the one who should reacquaint yourself with American history.

  • Jeanette

    I can’t even remember the last time I watched Oprah. I began to find her off the planet on some things I care deeply about. When she said, “God is jealous of me?” she ended it for me.

    What would she have that God is jealous of except her soul, which she appears not willing to give to Him.

    Sarah can give a very simple explanation for resigning as Governor of Alaska: She wanted to be in the lower 48 to help candidates she believed in and it would not be right or fair to the citizens of Alaska for her to do that.

    She could add all the vicious ethics charges but that seems like whining.

    She has been picked apart like a left-over turkey at Thanksgiving. She must have something going for her or the press and Democrats would not be still talking about her.

  • Kris, in New England

    Teddy Kennedy was being called a MURDERER for his entire life….he just went back and WORKED, and passed laws and did charible acts, and WORKED, and amassed an impressive body of solutions. His personal redemption.

    Oh, so if you leave someone to die, but go back to work and do good things, then you are redeemed?

    And if you work hard your entire life, put yourself thru college rather than be born into a life of untold privilege and protection – you are a vaudeville act who desires nothing but money?

    Gotta love that double-standard. You think the Kennedy’s did what they did for the joy of it? The fact that they made ridiculous amounts of money while doing it, living a jetsetters life, doesn’t matter.

    Sarah Palin is raw, yes. But with time, training and more experience in the public eye, she could have a political future as bright as Reagan’s.

  • SKAY

    “and amassed an impressive body of solutions”

    His pro-abortion votes among them. I see little to admire in Ted Kennedy.

  • emjay

    I tire so much of incompetent, power-seeking, money-hungry ‘Christian’, ‘right-wing’ ‘conservative’ (since when is buying votes a conservative thing? Palin demonstrably did that one in Alaska by taxing oil corporations and handing the money out as a ‘bonus’ check)white women being given chance after chance to ‘get up to speed’.

    Palin gets to prance around being overtly sexual and then my fellow conservatives rush to defend her, even though she’s the one who specially chooses to leverage her (for politics) above-average looks.

    Palin doesn’t have to learn anything, conservatives just keep claiming she’ll pick it up in time, no biggie.

    It is ridiculous that slack is cut to Obama, and it is even more ridiculous that Palin gets cut even MORE slack. Palin has a history of quitting jobs out of boredom, greed, or both. She’s not a Christian role model, she is actively anti-Christian just for the fact that she resigned because as governor she would have been unable to accept such a large book advance.

    And conservatives line up to purchase her book and further support her greed for that of this world. It is obvious that all Palin cares for is money and being in the spotlight. That people who claim so loudly to be Christian and seek after Christ would deign to support her at all is what is so depressing.

    Conservatives should be honest and admit they would have no pretty compliments for her if she weren’t attractive for a female politician. She would not have been selected and groomed for office by the Alaska political machine if she were plainer. And that is the pink elephant in the room. She wouldn’t be in our radars, or Alaskans’ radars if not for the looks, but people keep pretending she brings anything else to the table. She brings nothing whatsoever, not even actual Christian values.

    The dishonesty regarding why Palin is a politician at all is perhaps the worst aspect of Palin’s public existence.

  • Miss Marple

    I am late to this thread, but I would like to make a couple of points:

    1. Oprah was the questioner, so to cater to her audience (and keep viewers there for the entire hour) there were no policy questions, but rather personal, gossipy stuff. I thought Palin handled those questions well, considering how intrusive they were. (So, would you invite the jerk who impregnated your teenage daughter and then went to Hollywood to make porn movies and trash your family to Thanksgiving dinner?)

    In addition, Oprah wasn’t about to ask any policy questions because that would involve discussing what Obama’s doing, and Sarah (as heard on Hannity last night) had some very blunt and critical things to say about the man Oprah annointed as “The One.”

    So criticizing her for not discussing policy is simply silly, since in an Oprah interview that wasn’t going to happen.

    2. I EXPECT a mother to defend her family. If she hadn’t, we would be having a conversation about how she seemed detached from her family. If you will remember, Mike Dukakis lost his debate with Bush because he answered the “what if your wife were raped and murdered” question in an analytical manner, rather than being outraged.

    I am not certain Palin WANTS to be president. She isn’t going to let people know for some time because as long as the media thinks she might run, they cover her every pronouncement in order to give Obama cover. Interestingly, the Obama camp can’t seem to ignore her. It may be that she doesn’t care if she holds the office, as long as she gets the country headed in the right direction. The worry that she MIGHT run is driving other candidates to the right (witness the flurry of support for the conservative Hoffman in NY 23 after her endorsement).

    Finally, Anchoress, I must point out that while you criticize Palin for being defensive, there is a fair amount of defensiveness in your responses on this thread. It isn’t very easy to answer critics and strike just that perfect tone.

    I am weary about hearing how the most charismatic and conservative potential candidate in decades isn’t quite up to snuff. Palin is smart enough to know what she needs to do, IF she chooses to run.

    Meanwhile, democrats NEVER admit that Obama is a BORING speaker and can’t think on his feet without a script. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to chip away at their own people, as we have seen from 8 years of people on OUR side participating in the destruction of George Bush’s reputation.

  • kt

    From one “unquestioningly passionate” cultist of the “Unconditional Wonderfulness of Sarah” to the other, I’d like to thank Miss Marple for her contribution to this thread.

  • Pingback: Palin Press: Putzes in Print » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog