I don't care in a complaining sense. If you read the entire post (a lot of work, I know), you'd see I only care about the entertainment value of a train wreck debate.

It cuts both ways though - the Obama camp knew about the moderator all along too, so they'll have to deal with complaints that she's trying to make Palin look bad. They had a chance to take that excuse away and didn't, so I assume we won't see any Obama supporters bitching about that.

That interview is going to be remembered forever, the hits just keep on coming.

Palin is an embarrassment, but I really hope this doesn't start a trend of "quiz" journalism. I've never seen anything like it outside of Chris Matthews (perhaps just because there's not as many hilarious soundbites in regular interviews). It's pretty obnoxious - maybe Kouric should have just handed her a written quiz and then reported on the results.

I'm sure Obama, or even highly intelligent Democrats like Bill Clinton (or anyone, in any party) could be stumped by certain quiz questions at certain times. I don't know what that really tells us about anyone's ability to lead (again, Palin is off the charts here, I'm not defending her, though I'll probably get attacked anyway). We could just nominate Jeopardy contestants to run for president, they can spew knowledge.

You'll have to pry my trout and out of my cold, dead hands!

I agree as well. It was like when Bush couldn't remember or pronounce the name of a world leader of a small country. It is not a sign of lack of intelligence to not know everything. Bush isn't the sharpest tool and the shed, and Palin probably isn't either, but I doubt either have a very low IQ. Just not a real high one.

couldve also been stuff taught between her semesters in college(s). ;)

I think Palin is going to be decent tonight, but there's no way this has all been a ploy. She is almost solely responsible for the complete erosion of independents' support of McCain.

It should be a good debate. Hoping for a couple of wacky Biden moments and a couple of nervy Palin moments to make things interesting. Most likely what is going to happen is Palin will be stretching questions to remain on the 8 talking points she knows, and Biden will continue to hammer home that he loves McCain personally, but how can he be such an idiot.

It gives me no more of a warm feeling to know that a person with just as limited experience may be president right off the bat rather than VP. As Joe Biden said, he's "well-spoken". His speaking skills are the only difference at this point.

Can't speak for Vic, but the big problem for 538 right now is a lack of a record. He did well in the primaries, but he hasn't done a general election before, so we don't know how accurate he can be. I'm a fan, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him need a few election cycles before he's very accurate.

I think there's a chance of some of this. The deer in headlights look she gets in these couple of interviews just doesn't mesh with being a public figure, being a skilled debater in the past, and being a decent interviewer. Just like Obama last week, she has a chance to go out there tonight and move that "has confidence that she is qualified" number a whole lot. And if she does well, they don't have to trot her out much again because this will be by far her largest audience and news cycle to establish her as the VP.

Second point- people always say the VP never mattered. I think in this election, it very much would have. She pretty much breathed life back into a floundering campaign and made it a toss-up. Even after the vetting of her, which was horribly mishandled by the McCain camp (why lie about so many things that were immaterial?!? I get why any politician lies about important stuff but why about the immaterial)- it was a dead heat.

However, in the end, she won't matter now. One, her image has been completely changed. But, more importantly, it's the economy, stupid. An economic event on the magnitude of a major terrorist attack happened. If you're Obama, this helps you on Election Day. If it had been a national security issue, this race would be 8 points in McCain's favor and all but over.

SI

I LOL'd :D

SI

I've heard more than one media outlet put out articles this morning stating that Palin is the real reason why the ratings will be so high tonight. They're either tuning in to see a train wreck or a crowning moment, depending on which side you're on.

Also, I've seen mentioned that Biden will serve more as a second moderator than a true opponent in the sense that he'll push the discussion, but his performance tonight will likely not affect whether voters switch towards or away from Obama. All of the movement of polling tonight will hinge on Palin's performance.

Both sound like pretty reasonable arguments to me.

I think you're largely right Mizzou - although I think there are scenarios where Biden could affect the vote (although I concede that they will likely require Palin too). Nothing Biden says in and of himself is going to make people vote for Obama, but if Palin says something clueless and Biden can turn it and give a great response to it (not necessarily attacking her, but just demonstrating his knowledge) that might help. But like I said, I do recognize that that requires Palin too. Nothing Biden says on his own without involving Palin is likely to sway independents.

"Ken Jennings '12: It's time we nerds started taking over!"

SI

Replace debates with a week's worth of Jeopardy games hosted by Alex Trebek to determine who knows the most? I think Ralph Nader would perform very well.

There's no way in hell they'd prepare her for a question like that. In addition, this is a perfect example of what I believe has been a critical flaw thus far in the advisor's handling of Palin. It was obvious that she was so busy trying to go through the file of talking points in her brain while putting together a response that she flustered herself and ended up fumbling around in the end. They're better off letting her speak openly than worrying about making a mistake. As I mentioned before, this same approach did in the Dole ticket in '96.

FWIW.......I think the question was a lousy in regards to the qualifier of Roe vs. Wade. She would obviously be passionate about that ruling and I'm sure that people on both sides would have loved to hear her points on that ruling. Honestly, she may have hurt her cause by speaking about that topic as many would disagree with her views. With the qualifier, we don't get much info, which defeats the purpose of the interview unless the questioner was trying to do exactly that. What more do we know about Palin if she says 'Brown vs. Board of Education'? If she says that, all we'll here is how the advisors did a great job preparing Palin, but it does nothing for her as a candidate. It's a no-win situation.

The practice of 'gotcha' questions rather than trying to draw more information is bad journalism, though it has become the norm unfortunately.

But these aren't silly pedantic quiz questions as the previously mentioned "who is the President of Pakistan".

These are open ended interview questions that she's fumbling. "What's a Supreme Court case you disagree with" or "What's an example of John McCain being a maverick". You could pretty much come up with any half-baked anecdote that's barely related to the question and we just move on.

Hell, "what newspapers do you read"- in any other interview, that's a softball just to get people talking. It's an amazing amount of skill (or gross lack thereof) to turn that into a national story.

SI

It's shocking she doesn't have a stock, "I'm not going to second guess..." answer for these types of questions. Part of her problem is that she's trying to answer questions when she should just deflect them.

The fact that people are calling the Kouric questions 'gotcha' journalism is laughable. The original question was incredibly simple to answer - a softball question to get her talking about her political views. "What other SC cases do you disagree with?"

But when it became clear that Palin couldn't answer it, what is Kouric supposed to do? Just let it go, pretend it didn't happen, and pat her on the back for a job well done?

But let's be perfectly clear. She was not asked 'What's a Supreme Court case you disagree with?'. Couric created a qualifier in the question because she knew exactly which ruling Palin would be most passionate about. There's no reason to make a qualifier at that point. She could certainly asked about any others after that in a follow-up, but to do it right off the bat reeks of well-laid trap.

I'd also argue that the majority of Americans couldn't think of a case outside of Roe vs. Wade. Granted, they're not up for VP, but we have lawyers and advisors for a reason. No one's suggesting that Palin is terribly knowledgable from a political perspective. However, for a lot of people, that's one of the main reasons she's an attractive candidate. People are really tired of 'knowledgable' people like Frank, Dodd, Bush, etc. leading us into a mess and then suggesting they have all the answers on how to get out of that mess.

Off the top of my head, by name I can't think of any case other than
R v W that's a GOP talking point case though.

I could name some general areas that are sources of disagreement but by name? Nope.

Totally agree. The political tact is totally missing. Filling her with information in advance as they're trying to do doesn't help her a bit. She needs to make a straight answer or play it off much like Biden does in his interviews. He's very good at changing the focus when needed, which isn't something you learn overnight.

I think I predicted my neutral comments would be attacked. Only 100% loyalty to our next Supreme Leader is allowed around here.

Palin's a complete idiot. Perhaps the dumbest person ever to be on a major ticket for president. Not sure how much clearly I can say that I'm not defending her, and that she should have been able to answer those questions.

But I can see journalists, from all politican leanings, trying to come up with "stumping" questions that sounds simple but might trip someone up. Chris Matthews has become a youtube sensation because of it. Couric knew she was dealing with an idiot and was intentionaly trying to create some infamous moments as well (IMO). It has the potential to be a bad trend.

- Bangs head against wall.

People don't want knowledgable, informed leaders... sigh.

- Looks at our current president.

Obviously you're right.

Palin has criticized the Exxon ruling and hit Obama for his support of the Boumediene decision in her convention speech. There's every reason to ask her about SC decisions when she's used them as talking points.

Agreed. A much better question would have been to ask her about each of the various controversial case matters rather than pull a question about specific case names. Ask her about her feelings on teaching creation in science classes. Ask her about abortion. Ask her about torture and whether it's right. Ask her if the 2004 election decision was correct. Ask her about all those things, but a question about specific case names is something that few outside of die-hard politicos and most lawyers would be able to summon quickly. You'll get the same information, but only one way of asking the question is meant to make that person look bad. The other will provide an informative forum for all voters as to how she would act if elected.

Absolutely! So why did Couric choose to phrase her question in a manipulate way rather than directly asking about why she criticized Obama's stances in those situations? Because Couric knew that the way she phrased the question could throw off Palin, leading to Couric's mug being plastered everywhere and giving name recognition to her struggling nightly news. To assume there's not multiple motivations for Couric to ask the question in this manner is flawed logic at best.

It's attacking when you're disagreeing with things I'm not even saying.

Given Palin's Pro-Life stance, I'm suprised she didn't mention Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a missed opportunity, and Justice Souter as not the kind of judge she'd like to see on the bench. Both are very stock GOP talking points.

Given her role as McCain's running mate, it's pretty astonishing she couldn't mention Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld or Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, or just "The Guantanamo Cases". This is especially surprising given the way she otherwise goes on and on about protecting the country from Terror. Again, both cases are parts of stock GOP talking points.

Are you saying people attacked you for post #6365?

Once again, a total mischaracterization of my point. We've got a whole lot of idiots in government right now. Anyone who listens to members of Congress in some of these hearings on a regular basis would know that. The fact that Palin is considered a better option by a large segment of the population than what we currently have speaks far more to the inept nature of our current President and our Congress than anything Palin has done during her brief career and campaign. I put ticks around the word 'knowledgable' for a reason. The fact that our current government is lead by Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank is frightening at best.

You're right, and I think part of her problem is that she's not a lawyer. She has a very uninspired academic career, and then a regional political career. It's not out of the realm of possibility that everything she's ever known about the Supreme Court, she's learned since she was named running mate. When would she ever come across Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

And that's McCain's fault for picking her, of course. I wonder if it's possible that they were gambling that the American people would either not care about such a background, or even find it somehow charming.

I actually agree with you that if it became trendy it could be a bad thing and destructive to journalism in that people wont want to cooperate for fear of the "gotcha" moment.

i think couric would have been okay with palin saying "oh i forget the name, but the case involving xyz." I don't think most people are saying she should have a knowledge of all cases argued before the court by name and subject, but at least be able to talk about the subjects!

Tonight will be an excellent measuring stick of exactly that. Does she do well from an answer perspective? If not, does she come off as 'real' enough to override any deficiencies in her answers?

In absolute sincerity, if you asked me "what other SC decisions do you disagree with", I would interpret that just as I did here: as asking for cases by name.

As an old journalist, if I had used those same words, that's the level of response I would have been looking for (doubt I would have phrased the question that way myself regardless, unless I was trying to lead them to something very specific anyway).

If I was looking for areas, I would have phrased it more like "what other areas do you find yourself disagreeing with SC rulings about" ... but maybe that's just a difference in questioning style {shrug} I can't say one way or the other for sure about that. But for me, it was usually easiest to get the response I wanted if I phrased the question in a way that lended itself most to what I was looking for.

And I've already addressed that point, which has nothing to do with the question. The topic concerning Couric's question and the topic concerning the screwed-up way they are handling Palin are two totally different topic. I agree that they are turning her into mush by trying to stuff her full of talking points, but that doesn't change the fact that the question was meant to cross her up.

Please. Politicians will appear with Colbert, you think they're smart enough as a group to react by avoiding this sort of situation? Remember, it was never impossible to find a CEO willing to sit down with Mike Wallace.

+1. I currently do a lot of interviews in an arena outside of politics. I thought the exact same thing when I heard the question and it was obvious that Palin did as well.

exactly

Biden handled it well, though he did it by not answering the question, which is once again something I've already pointed out (lack of tact by Palin in interviews compared to Biden).

-------------------------------------------
COURIC: (to Biden): What are the Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
BIDEN: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court. Meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said no that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction and I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce. Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said there is an impact on commerce but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it. I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
---------------------------------------------

Seems to me that's a Supreme Court decision right there. Now given, it's a decision not to hear a case versus a ruling on a case, but it's also an issue that he was very involved with so that's okay by me. Particularly because in large part, a decision by the Supreme Court to refuse to hear a case is in itself a judgement on the case (even if it's for statutory reasons).

Funny like from Klein on this mess:

Um, if she says Brown v. Board of Education, then Obama is up by like 20 points right now and McCain is on his knees begging Romney to be his new VP candidate. So maybe she did think of other cases but was smart enough not to answer them.

She could have scored points by mentioning Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. I'd really like to hear her opnions on Griswold. Of course, to be honest, it wouldn't much matter what she answered. Palin could save a drowning baby that Biden pushed into the river and it still wouldn't change my vote.

Of course. I just pulled out a case name. My knowledge of exact case names isn't much better than Palin's in that regard.

That would be totally awesome if she said that...maybe tonight.

I know there are Palin supporters who really want to believe that she doesn't answer questions like the Supreme Court one, or how McCain is a reformer, or even what newspaper she reads, because she has some sort of built-in political instinct that alerts her to a potential trap and allows her to avoid it.

Fine.

Is it too much to ask that she be able to think on her feet enough to say something coherent? To at least give a non-answer that makes sense? I don't mean politically, I mean something that's recognizable as english.

I think it goes far beyond her not being a lawyer. We're talking, after all, about SCOTUS decisions that have been GOP talking points for some time now.

It just seems crazy that on two of the GOP's biggest issues she can't even reference in general terms SCOTUS decisions with which she disagrees.

Let's assume her focus has just been regional, though. Well, she's a firm supporter of states' rights, right (she even says so to Couric). How about 2004 Alaska Dept of Environmental Protection vs. EPA, where the "liberal" wing of the Court wrote in favor (5-4) of the EPA over Alaska on environmental protections vis-a-vis mining?

How about 1997 United States vs. Alaska (revisited in 2005) where the court ruled that the Fed owns submerged lands off of Alaska's coast, not Alaska?


I think you're probably on the money here.

I would bet good money (if this bet could actually be done) that if you asked the Supreme Court question of all the GOP Governors, you'd get, right off the bat:

1. Some case specific to their State that their State just got zinged on.

2. Hamdan/Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (or just "The Guantanamo Cases")

3. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey

I'd also bet that a good portion of them would reference Kelo as a case that blew their mind (and probably reference state legislation they introduced specifically to mitigate Kelo).

Again, a total mischaracterization of any post concerning Palin's answers. Absolutely NO ONE has claimed that she's avoiding answering the question because she has political instinct that alerts her to a trap. As many have already said repeatedly in the past couple of pages, the Republican advisors have chosen to try to stuff her full of information to prepare her for these interviews, which most believe is a tactic that has fallen flat on its face. If they continue to do that in preparation for tonight's debate without working on her 'defensive answering' skills to give good evasive answers when she doesn't have a great answer, she'll fail just as badly tonight and this election will be over. Her failure tonight would be a death-knell to the ticket. If Biden screws up, it's just Biden being Biden. No one will care if he does well either for that matter.

Maybe, but I don't see how a governor of any state, especially Alaska, would need to know any of that, especially if they weren't in office when the cases came down. (And in the case of #2, has absolutely nothing to do with her job).

She was mayor of a pretty small town, what, 2 years ago? I doubt she spent meant must time reading up on Supreme Court activity.