On that part, look no further than this snippet from the NYT coverage of the speech.

The convention had gathered here to try to turn the activism of the Tea Party rallies over the last year into actual political power. Her speech was the keynote event of the convention, and the big draw for many of the 600 people who had paid $549 to attend – another 500, organizers said, paid $349 just to see for her speech alone.

That's $174,500 just on tickets for the speech, basically $75k profit for the group (minus related expenses covered with the additional money & then some) off that one night, never mind donations and the influence on the number of full event attendees.

They wanted to draw a paying crowd, she delivered that for them. End of mystery on part one.

I was saying that I would never entertain the possibility. I fully understand that she has some appeal to the type of people who would attend that event. I have not been able to grasp what that appeal is based on, though.

Well damn, I assumed you meant "the royal I" as it were. If you aren't in charge of speakers for an event that could max their revenue by booking her, not entertaining the possibility makes perfect sense.

I think the better question Tekneek is trying to get some insight into is "What is her appeal to the person who is paying $349 just to hear her speak?"

I would hope that, were I in charge of an event, it would be for people who would be more inclined to deal with substance/reality. I cannot honestly say that I aspire to perpetrate that kind of fraud. That I would pocket money for parading somebody like that in front of them. It seems like the kind of thing only a con artist would do, since I cannot understand why anybody would pay any sum of money to see her speak. Going to Toastmasters would probably be more enlightening.

As I've said before in this thread & others, that is a tougher proposition. But there's clearly a combination of her looks, her gender, and some form of "it" charisma (as in "whatever it is, she's got it) in play.

Then you can add factors like the sheer level of annoyance she brings to the left, that's not a drawing card that should be ignored. Anyone who can rile 'em that much has to be reasonably okay in most cases.

She is capable of hitting the long ball very quickly & in few words (her "how's that working out for ya" riff this weekend was a line drive rocket that splashed into the bay)

She's not the dismal lukewarm disappointment of McCain, probably can't count that out either.

A man certainly familiar with the whole charisma thing (whether I saw it or not) is Bill Clinton. And his comment during the last campaign was this:
Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well."

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin's appeal by adding, "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.'"

Clinton said voters would think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ntonpalin.html

Regular contributor to the NYT Stanley Fish said about her book that "I find the voice undeniably authentic (yes, I know the book was written “with the help” of Lynn Vincent, but many books, including my most recent one, are put together by an editor). It is the voice of small-town America, with its folk wisdom, regional pride, common sense, distrust of rhetoric (itself a rhetorical trope), love of country and instinctive (not doctrinal) piety."

Combined, those describe another part of her appeal, the image (myth?) of being "one of us", and seemingly able to do it to multiple constituencies at the same time. Much like the old gag about how important sincerity is ("once you can fake that then you've got it made"), part of her appeal lies in her talent for making people see her as they want to see her. If you can do that then you've won a big part of the battle. Don't ask me to explain how she does it, if anyone could fully do that then they'd be a far sight wealthier than I am today.

I think if you're looking for any one answer, or even a fairly narrowly defined answer then you're probably going to be disappointed. Her popularity doesn't seem to be about any one thing, it's the combination of those things that makes up the whole.

I've tried to address some of the "why she appeals" stuff in another post but seeing this one afterwards, let me try it again.

Here's the "reality": Hearing her deliver a few rips on Obama is worth $349 to enough people to fill the room. You're talking about enlightenment, they were looking for entertainment, that's two really different things.

Let's be clear, I'm not personally sold on Palin long term. I've said that several times previously, still say it today. But if I'd been in a position to comfortably pay $349 for the speech, I'd probably feel like I got my money's worth based on the single quote I mentioned earlier alone. It conveyed an adequate amount of contempt for the target, tweaked their minions, all the while dismissing the target at the same time. That pretty much summed up the feelings of the room in a nice neat ball, not unlike a song that manages to cover a lot of ground with a well turned lyric or two. I believe you're completely out of synch with the purpose of hearing her (or most speeches) if you're looking for something enlightening. This was about being entertained, probably simultaneously validated by hearing from a (seemingly) kindred spirit, same paying big bucks for a concert from a favorite band.

People ultimately like having their point of view validated by someone else. That is what they are paying for.

I'm just tired of divisive politicians. (insert typical panerd post here). the right and the left are both just playing semantic games and fiddling while rome burns at this point, and feeding into the cycle of divisive politicians is not helping that...it's not helping the person on "main street" (who ironically she pretends to be, all the while being that same divisive-type politician) to have any greater voice in government, or a government that looks out for them anymore.

basically i feel sorry for people that support her, because i think in a lot of instances they are genuinely good people, but they've just been totally hoodwinked by this latest "establishment wrinkle" into thinking that she represents them, when really she's just "politics as usual" with a sheep-skin over it. Maybe in a lot of instances they're very "simple" folk also - i don't know. that's the impression i get from the limited number of them i've seen on tv...generally older voters, typically white, lower-to-middle class. they may (note i said MAY) lack the sophistication to see that they're being hoodwinked.

I suppose, then, that it will never make sense to me. Until she started talking, it didn't really matter to me. When you crash and burn so hard when being interviewed by Katie Couric (known softball thrower, and I don't mean fast pitch either), you scare me. When you go out purporting to support various medical research causes, while deriding grants that actually go towards such research, you frighten me more. She seems incredibly ignorant to me, and worse is that she doesn't admit it. When asked about something that she cannot answer, she seems to just make something up. Like the kid in class who didn't read the chapter last night, but hopes they can pull a bullshit answer out real quick and get by.


Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

All of them? Any of them? That's a BS answer, on a softball question.

Yeah, I think you're probably going to struggle with grasping her appeal, because there's a great number of people who could care less about what magazines she reads and found the question even dumber than you find her answer.

I guess that's the thing I don't get. The last thing I want out of a President is someone like me. I like to get drunk, play video games, procrastinate, and watch TV. I don't want someone who enjoys watching a Hoarders marathon on A&E, I want some geeky person who cares about nothing but the country and the different aspects of it.

Sort of like a Doctor. If I'm going into surgery, I don't want some guy I can relate to. I don't want the guy who spent his Thursday nights in college getting hammered and taking home fat chicks while skipping class the next day. I want the nerdy kid who didn't leave his dorm for years and dedicated his life to studying medicine.

Someone I can relate to is fine if it's someone I want to watch a ballgame or go to Vegas with. Not someone I want to run the free world.

I appreciate you trying to help me understand. I feel closer to understanding why somebody might pay for that, although it seems rather expensive to me. It seems unlikely that it will ever make sense to me, but it does not have to.

Really? That's a perfectly valid question to ask a candidate for the executive branch of government, and a pretty big softball question IMO. Who are these people who don't care about how she formed her worldview and can we send them down to your part of the country before we proceed with the partitioning? Because I don't want anybody that....whatever that is, up here.

Seriously. Why wouldn't you want the most educated person you could get (or at least a person who is highly educated) to be entrusted with such an important role? What's the appeal of having Homer Simpson in the White House?? I honestly don't get it.

I suggest, young padawan, that your lack of confidence is an indication of how far you still have to go ;)

Okay, more seriously now, here's where I think you part ways from a lot of the country on that. Without hesitation, I can say I believe I'd be happier with the state of the nation right this second if I had been running the country for the last 8 years. I believe that a lot of other people would say the same thing (about themselves, not about me).

Since we aren't in a position where that's likely to come up, what's the next best thing? Either find someone whose positions we like better than our own (dunno about you but those are pretty rare animals for me) or the next best option might be to find someone who seems to relate to us, hoping even against hope that they might do the right/best/correct thing just as we believe we would have done ourselves if given the chance.

+1


It's not a valid question in the eyes of people who view intellectualism with disdain and the mainstream media with derision. And these people a) make up the Tea Party and b) make up a significant core of today's GOP.

I have to say, you cannot be informed about what is happening in the world if you aren't reading any newspapers or magazines (at that level). It seems as if you think the magazine part refers to rags like People. There are plenty of good magazines that she could have named, like National Review, New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Globalist, or Harvard International Review. I'm just touching on a few that come to mind. That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.

Shit - I think the American people would have accepted "Time" or "Newsweek" for chrissakes.

Yeah, it's almost as if she just makes decisions from the gut. I don't know anyone in today's America who would prefer that to a well-educated, well-read, "elite" President.

:D

Oh hell, that one is easy to answer (FINALLY, an easy question in today's portion of the thread).

Because a lot of us have had too much first hand experience with "educated idiots" and believe that Homer Simpson could do better than the majority of them.

I suppose I don't understand the mindset of those who view intellectualism with disdain. Maybe that's a broader question that deserves it's own thread, but what's so disdainful about intellectualism and being intelligent? Why this romanticism about stupidity or ignorance?

Like I said to Jon - I don't want those type of people here when we repartition the country, so can we just send them all down to his neck of the woods? He seems to be more okay with that (note: not saying you're anti-intellectual Jon, because frankly I don't think you are.)

Call me crazy, but I'd rather an educated person dealing with issues like the deficit or international relations than Homer Simpson with his finger on the button and the ability to send American men+women to their deaths.

At least an educated person is more willing to listen to different opinions (as shown by Obama, who if anything is listening to too many opinions) rather than just "leading from the gut" (which if you'll recall is how we ended up with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are turning into quagmires, and eroded the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration.

If one (speaking in the generic 3rd person to avoid making it personal - so let's avoid a tangential back-and-forth hmm?) has had too many experiences with what one claims are "educated idiots" then perhaps one owes it to themselves to look in the mirror and consider whether the problem is not with the "educated idiots" but with oneself.

The world's a nicer place when everything can be simple and black and white. Tea Partiers see it this way, and distrust intellectuals who see a lot of shades of grey.

"You're either with us or against us."

the funny thing is, in many aspects of my life (say the legal system for example) I am a very black-and-white person. one reason why people say i would have made a good cop, or a good lawyer. but when it comes to things of increasing complexity one has to realize that with the multitude of inputs into a given system the resulting output is going to be some shade of grey.

I think tea partiers hate the the intellectuals who sit in their "ivory towers" who come up with theories but don't actually have to apply any of them. They can sit there thinking but not actually produce anything but bullshit.

They like the people with who become entrepreneurs that create jobs and actually have to abide by the "real world".

I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier but am interested in any movement that shakes up the current system.

Being an entrepreneur doesn't mean that somebody isn't an intellectual though.

Honestly in most/a lot of cases, it takes more intellect to be an entrepreneur than to go work for "COMPANY X" on the assembly line, or whatever else. Because as an entrepreneur (says the entrepreneur here), a lot of what you are seeking to leverage and succeed based on, is your intellectual capital advantage.

I'd disagree in that what they give you is their slant - good, bad, indifferent - on what's happening in the world. And with a subtext of whatever they'd like you to think/believe about topic X.


No, and you'll have to trust me, that's not it at all. I get what Couric was shooting for, I just draw a different conclusion to their relevance.


Will you at least grant me that I'm current on topics at a rate ahead of the general population of 50% +1? Screw what my take on them is for this purpose, just that I'm aware of the existence of issues X, Y, Z? If not then you can ignore the rest of this because you kind of have to accept that stipulation for this point to work. If so, then let's carry on to the point.

How is it possible that I'm fairly aware of the issues at hand but can't tell you what magazine I read last? Or that I can't name a single magazine I read on a regular basis? The sheer number of sources available plus the incredible accessibility of information in today's multimedia not only means there's a lot out there but that there's also less brand awareness than probably ever before. Did I read article X on ajc.com, onlineathens.com, or latimes.com? Who the fuck knows, the content was largely the same regardless of the source. Did something come from The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute or The National Review? Hell if I know, once I've vetted the source to my own satisfaction then the specifics of where it came from matter only insofar as someone needs me to point them to a copy and a little Googling tends to turn that up.

The other thing that I'm starting to sense here is what I kidded RainMaker about earlier in the thread: a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs/thoughts/ideas.

I'm quite well behind the concept of taking relevant input into a situation -- i.e. give me everything you've got about the status of North Korea's governmental stability, weapons/military capability, detailed economic situation, cultural interpretations of various stimuli, etc, etc, and et al -- but at the end of the day, those inputs combined with what should be simple common sense to determine a course or courses of action concerning them. I don't doubt my ability to grasp whatever information is relevant to a given situation, I don't believe Palin does either (and I suspect that's a portion of her appeal as well), but sincerely believe that more often than not the general direction of what to do/where to aim is reasonably obvious & then it becomes a matter of tweaking those to fit as well as possible to at least move in the desired direction.

In short, it's not all brain surgery. Now ask yourself another question or two: How often does a voter find themselves thinking "damn, how stupid does a politician have to be to get ISSUE X wrong?". And how often is that same stupid politician carrying one or more degrees, three allegedly intellectual magazines in their briefcase, and a staff of speechwriters (and/or lobbyists) still needed to make them sound like they have even the slightest clue? Combine the correct answers to those questions & you'll see where the magazine flap is a non-issue for a lot of us.

Fantastic

I don't mind Palin. In fact, I think she can be very funny and knows full well what she's doing. I think she's actually savvy.

Having said that, I am perfectly fine with her having a speaking career and staying out of elected office.

I know this wasn't to me, but let me chime in.

Yes, magazines/websites/MSM/whatever all give you news with a slant. It's up to you as an educated reader to take their bias into account when reading them and mentally "correct for it." The process of doing so is a key piece of being a critical thinker, and it's something that is a good thing for an elected official to have, the ability to manage multiple inputs and evaluate them and determine a course of action based on the sum of the parts rather than one part that is just "particularly shiny" or whatever.

I would grant that you are more educated and up on the issues than the majority of the population yes. And to be honest, I couldn't tell you what was the last article I read in a magazine either. Although I'd venture it would be "The Nation," and if you were asking about a newspaper it would be the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Just the fact that me (or you, or whoever) can rattle those off is enough though. I don't think Couric was going to come back and say "what article?" and start trying to hit her hard on that. She just wanted some creampuff "I read the New York Times over coffee on the plane or in the hotel every morning" type answer.

And I personally doubt Palin's ability to grasp whatever info is relevant to a particular situation. She's not exactly "educated" by most senses of the word. How long did it take her to finish college, community college no less (right?), after how many transfers, with a degree in communications? After which she went on to be a tv news anchor. Not exactly a job requiring intelligence and critical thinking. She quit her only real job requiring intellect and difficult decision-making halfway into it. Not a great track-record. She's yet to demonstrate the ability to grasp information relevant to particular situations on anything more than a surface level.

As far as your comments about "ISSUE X," this is where I think the disagreement comes in. Me personally, if I see an educated person come to a conclusion different than my own I don't immediately go "man that person is so stupid, their decision was wrong...how can intellectuals be so stupid!" I might disagree with it from a policy level, or believe that they didn't weigh all the factors correctly, but if they're reasonably well-educated then I am at least open to considering the possibility that they might in fact be smarter than me, or have access to more information than I have, or be considering additional follow-on actions, or factors that I didn't consider.

None of which explains why she said, "All of them? Any of them?" It is one thing to find them completely irrelevant, by conscious decision, and seek other sources. I'm not sold that this is some calculated decision by her, but rather a lifestyle. Even saying "I start off at news.google.com and don't target specific sources" would've gone a long way. The fact that nothing came to her quickly reflects that staying informed is simply not a part of her life, which goes right along with all of her other interviews and speeches.

It's why she goes out ridiculing fruit fly research, while at the same time claiming she is totally for Autism research, blissfully unaware that there are established connections between fruit fly research and Autism research. The contradiction is important. Her reluctance to be informed directly contributed to a contradiction in what she claimed to be important. Not everything in the world can be boiled down to what somebody from a small town thinks is "common sense." Her "common sense" told her there could be no connection, but it was wrong. Her ignorance led her to draw the wrong conclusion. I have no doubt that her choice of being blissfully ignorant would lead to many more bad choices, based on a "common sense" view that doesn't allow for the complex reality we live in.

There is a difference though in knowing what you want and knowing how to implement it. If I had a tumor, I know I'd want it out of my system as fast as possible, but I wouldn't be the one telling the doctor how to do it.

And I guess you can call it a lack of self-confidence, but I think it's also just being realistic. I can give an opinion on how I think an economic matter should be handled, but I've never studied economics in depth and dedicated my life to understanding it and the impact various events have on our economy. My opinion would be as educated as my opinion on how to remove a tumor from my body.

This is an area I think Palin is actually smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. No matter what answer she gives to the question, it's a losing proposition to the majority of people since there's no publication that gets the endorsement of the majority. In short, it was a no-win question & even if it was more instinct than planning or preparation, I believe there's a very good chance that she knew that at some level.

Let's be honest, if she says something the NYT then she loses credibility with some potential voters. If she says some publication from The Cato Institute she gets vilified by highly unlikely voters same as she got anyway.

For as dumb as she is alleged to be, she's sitting a hell of a lot closer to the WH than a lot of alleged geniuses.


Let's take those possibilities at the end one by one:
-- Smarter? First, that doesn't always equate to "right" or even "better". The much-maligned financial bigwigs are definitely "smarter" or "wiser to the ways of" uber-money than I am. But I haven't bankrupted a company (not yet anyway).

-- More info? I think it's reasonable to believe that a President can pretty much get whatever info they want and in whatever format they want it.
I believe that point gets rendered largely moot once you're in the office and ultimately it matters not one iota whether I've got most of it sitting here in Athens nor whether she had a lot of it sitting in Alaska or even on the campaign trail. Neither of us were going to be able to do a damned thing with most of that information until we get to that seat, otherwise it's a ultimately the equivalent of an intellectual (or more base, information junkie) sex toy for mental masturbation.

-- Other/unintended consequences -- That last one might just come down to a matter of trust. Whether you believe a person is capable of consistently considering those factors before setting a final course. Goes back to what I said earlier about basic principles + relevant info --> best available course.

The thing with Palin is that I don't think she is authentic at all. I think she tries to play to a base and says what she's told to. I just don't see a lot of creativity or innovation from her.

While I believe Bush was a really bad President, I also felt he was authentic. I truly believe he felt what he was doing was best for the country. When watching Sarah Palin, I kind of feel like I'm watching an episode of Spin City. Some smart people behind her trying to mold a blank slate into something they want her to be to a group of people.

Jon is just knocking them out of the park in this thread, it's like watching the home run derby.

On the specific issue of the Couric/Palin interview talking about news media, I think you have to keep in mind the deep contempt that most of Palin's intended audience has for the major media outlets. I'm not sure I totally agree with the calculus here, but when asked basically "what papers do you read?" she likely realized there's the potential to trigger a landmine there... say you read the New York Times or some other highly credentialed paper, and you come off like you're sleeping with the enemy. Say that you mostly read the Anchorage Salmonwrapper (or whatever it is) and you come off like a backwoods rube. What if you go to a standard conservative bastion like the Wall Street Journal -- that plays against your plain-spoken hockey mom persona. So you say what? Some Moonie paper? Some hackjob right-wing rag from San Jose? Nah, at that point you're just at risk of endorsing something that might get you into trouble. If you smell this question as a political landmine... and again, it's your own base that sets it up this way... then the best answer, in a flash of judgment, may well seem like a non-answer deferral. And that's what she did.

So, in my view, it wasn't that she is/was too stupid to be able to name a newspaper. She was actually evidencing some degree of "thinking on her feet" albeit maybe not that artfully handled.

Damn, I was typing as Jon ran over the same point that occurred to me.

If those are the right people with the right intentions then I don't particularly give a fuck, y'know? But at the same time, I think there's more of her in the gimmick (to borrow the wrestling term) than anyone else, but as with any candidate there are people working on how to sell the image(s).

Ultimately though my concern is, pretty much as with anyone else, what their percentage of getting stuff right will turn out to be.

Damn, thanks.

Just imagine if I was actually sold on her and could do more from firsthand instead of it being a somewhat intellectual exercise (weak pun intended)


And that's something she's going to need to get better at between now & any eventual run. Some degree of "not slick" comes off okay, but she probably needs to improve on the response time between her brain saying "landmine" and her mouth starting to move in a given direction.

Well, I think, based on the quotes out of McCain's camp and their book, I'd say your giving her a lot more credit for gameplannig and strategy than they did just a year and half ago. Fair points though that if you agree she was being that strategic she may have been pondering the ramifications of Answers (A-E) or whatever time would allow before answering. Doesnt change the fact that she thought writing things on her hand for a speech to be televised around the world, or a Q & A session to just as many people wherein she felt it A) appropriate or B) did what one might do in school when cheating to find the answer on your hand.

If that group told me the time I'd check two watches and the Naval Observatory website. They've got slightly more credibility with me at this point as Jon Stewart .


I don't actually think she's gotten practiced enough to have been reading all the various routes, more likely to me at this point that she went through something that sounded like "oh shit, here comes a LB, who the fuck is open ... dammit, somebody get open before I'm ... whew, that was close but incomplete is better than a sack any time"

I agree with Jon on the newspaper/magazine question. Really a no-win for her. If she says the New York times she hurts herself with the base. If she says Fox News, she gets labeled a right-wing quack. If she says a local paper she's going to be labeled out of touch with the rest of the country.

I think her answer could have been more convincing which is the biggest problem with it. She kind of came across confused and wasn't expecting the question. If she casually just said "I sift through most of the major newspapers and news magazines out there and pick the stories I feel are most relevant. I don't particularly have a favorite publication as I feel each outlet offers a unique perspective". She would have been fine.

So, there are people who think she bumbles her way through these things because it is what her supporters want? She wants to be known for this? That is her plan for victory?

I think the charisma portion can't be discounted too much (though it is). She may be a horrible policy person (I guess depending on your point of view), but she can sure deliver a speech. She has personal charisma in spades. A lot of times that can be enough to go far.

straight-up...thanks for the reasoned and thoughtful response to my points.

I think what it comes down to is that the people not understanding her appeal (including me) don't agree with her politics or her worldview. It would be like convincing me why John Calipari is a good coach. I don't like the guy at all and continuously question his methods but in the end there is no questioning his results. People can question Palin but she sure gets asses in the seats.

With that said if I had to choose between Democrats, Republicans, and the supposed third entity Tea Party and they chose to run Palin for president I would be sitting out or voting for another Bob Barr like candidate that has no chance of winning. I have only had a chance to skim this thread (appreciate the shoutout DT :) ) so forgive me if I am repeating something already said on pages 1-3. But I think the establishment knows exactly what it is doing by sending Palin after this voting block. In the end she is ultimately just another supporter of big federal government, policing the world, war on drugs, etc that both the Republicans and Democrats have traded being in favor of (or against if they were the minority party) every time they were in power for the past 30+ years.

Ultimately cooler heads will prevail and we will have our typical two party race with both parties coming up with new ways to spend our money and money they don't have. Mark my words there will be some crisis in Fall 2011 that will call for immediate attention by both candidates because the future of mankind depends on them acting now and worrying about silly things like debts and deficits later.

I tend to believe what the McCain camp has said about her - when that many people come out and all their stories agree on the broad brush-strokes it's difficult to imagine they're all in collusion to make her look bad. Particularly when a lot of them could be out there working for her and using her to springboard them to positions of more influence and $$.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...sometimes it really is a duck, and not some liberal conspiracy to make a wolf into a duck.

Really? All the head bobs and winks just make me laugh. It doesn't win me over. I am not getting this "charisma" thing. She has had quite the opposite effect on me. The more I see/hear/read about her, the less I like her.

If McCain was more like McCain 2000, and didn't have the Palin albatross around his neck, he would've had a good shot at my vote. Bob Barr was going to be a tough sell (and that's after voting for the Libertarian candidate in '96, 2000, and '04), given his history (it didn't help when his VP candidate professed his love for Palin, as well).

This has already been retread a couple of times in this thread but I've always thought it an interesting moment in the 2008 election (clarification: it wasn't really a pivotal moment as the bottom falling out of the economy pretty much wrote that part of history).

That somehow became this odd job interview question for Sarah Palin. I don't think it was Curic trying to bury Palin but it was a high inside pitch which looked like a softball. HR people always tell you to answer every question, even if it's a bad answer (that's a lie: I'm pretty sure that your interview is over once you answer the "Talk about a time you disagreed with your boss" question with "Well, there was that time I almost punched him").

As JIMGA and other mentioned, it was a bit of a no-win question but she needed to do her best to thread the needle. Instead she just took a mulligan, which was the unspoken option number 3. It became a big deal for people and one could argue overblown (tho I'd counter that most who that mattered for only had a skin-deep view of the election and hadn't really been paying attention).

But that did give you a great example of what punting on a job interview question looks like. While it might have been the right answer for that particular question, maybe it cost her in the long run as it inadvertantly fed another perception.

SI

That was not a deal breaker for me (by itself), but it is an example of the things she did that made it hard for me to accept her being that close to the office. Were McCain twenty years younger, it might not have bothered me quite as much. There were other problems I had with McCain's 2008 campaign, but bringing Palin along forced me to do what I could to try and keep them from winning.

Yes, really. Why exactly do you think she is so popular when there are plenty of Republican pols who can express the same things as she has?

Boobs.

That's the only thing I can come up with, too.

I'm sorry, I still don't buy the idea of Palin quickly doing some mental calculus during the Couric interview about which periodicals she reads.

Given everything we know about her now, plus knowing that at the time the McCain campaign was trying to coach her, it really seems to me that the most likely scenario is that she froze because:

1. She doesn't actually read anything regularly (news-periodical-wise), getting her news from the TV instead

2. She felt (remember, this was before she rejected her "coaching") that it wouldn't be a great answer to say "none"

3. She wasn't quick on her feet enough to come up with a milquetoast answer, which is what these interviews are all about, after all.


Here's the interesting part, though: I'll bet that her most ardent supporters already suspected that she wouldn't do anything such as regularly read national news periodicals and that's one of the things they like about her. So why not just say that? Well, as I said, I think she was still suffering under some terrible coaching from the McCain campaign and felt she couldn't say that. Maybe she'd say something different now.

Or would she? Note her response to a more recent softball from friendly interviewer Glenn Beck: Beck Calls 'Bullcrap' On Palin's Non-Answer About Favorite Founding Father (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire


Sarah Palin is a person with strident views, an incurious intellect and is a poor student of, well, everything. But this is exactly why her supporters like her. She believes in things and is willing (or gives the impression she is willing) to fight hard for them, even if the "facts" show that she's wrong.

Which illustrates the converse. The problem with educated people, to Palin's supporters and the Tea Partiers, is that they let "facts" have an inordinate amount of importance in their decision-making, as opposed to just belief.

I don't think this should be a new concept to anyone. Arguably most of the major decisions of the Bush presidency were based at least as much on belief as facts and data. Palin's just taking it a step further. This is also why it's not worth arguing with Tea Partiers. All your facts and logic and well-reasoned arguments mean nothing to their belief. You might as well be talking to a wall.

Washington is probably the only one she knows. And he's not even really a "founding father" in the typical sense of the word.

Explain her and not Michelle Bachman, for one example, then.

She's just dumb and she melts under pressure.

I mean, she's probably of above averge intelligence relative to the general population, but she has no academic background whatsoever, and she's completely out of her league intellectually at the national level.

She's also a pretty amazing success story, that story should have just ended as hugely popular and effective governor of Alaska. That's all a pretty cool story - it just went one step too far.

2 things:

1) Bachman has gotten a lot further than she should given her insanity and intellect, so she's likely had the benefit of the Boob Factor as well.

2) Michelle's boobs aren't as nice as Sarah's.

A good post by Marc Ambinder on Palin's appeal:

Bachman went to my alma mater which depresses me everytime I see her in the news saying some dumb thing.

In sort of a twisted way, I'd honestly like to see what kind of hypothetical path a President Bachmann would take this country in.

President Palin would be one thing, but President Bachmann?

Or maybe we can see a woman power Republican ticket of Palin/Bachmann

:)

Damn, this paragraph is one of the best summaries I've ever seen of just about anything.


I've read it three times marveling at seeing someone -- on either side of the aisle, in any profession -- actually manage to pull most of the relevant strands together that well. I'm pretty much awestruck by how much he gathered into a reasonably sized paragraph.

Anyone who doesn't understand Palin's appeal but legitimately wants to, no matter what they think about it personally but genuinely wants to understand what people are looking for & seem to be finding in her, he's hit the marks incredibly well.

I don't say this often but it gets my highest praise: damn, I wish I had written that (especially since I spent a lot of yesterday trying & didn't even come close to doing it this well).

I honestly don't think she would understand what half those issues are. Perhaps the people that are propping her up want that and are pushing it, but I still contend she's a puppet that has a lot of powerful people pulling strings on.

Kinda reminds me of that Obi Wan Kenobi quote: "Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?"

His speech was the standard dark people are ruining the country bit. He held out from calling them spics and n------, but insinuated as much.

Pretty much. You know, I don't travel in the South much I'll admit (out of personal choice), but if that is really the way it still is down there...that explains a whole lot - none of it good.

If she manages to address those items to my satisfaction then I don't care if she came from here

and has this living inside her

Here's what I know, his description of Obama voters was so spot on that it made me wonder whether he visited Athens, GA on election day.

Who? Harry Reid?

Really Jon? C'mon...I'd expect more from you than that.

What % of Obama voters do you think could not spell the word "vote?"

I'm willing to bet...considering it's a 4 letter word, that it's probably miniscule.

Well, since Jon's spelling of 'vote' includes '(R)', and he believes that the least intelligent Republican voter is infinitely smarter than any Democratic voter, he probably thinks he is 100% correct.

Of the ones in Athens? Probably 2/3rds.

IIRC I commented about that on election day, it was truly one of the more disturbing scenes I've ever seen & did much to reinforce my already strong support for considerable limitations on voter eligibility.

LOL

:lol:


I know you're just trying to make a point here, but you've clearly lost it.

In hindsight, I should have bolded the "2/3rds" part.

In complete seriousness? Given that roughly one voter in three in that line was, at best, functionally illiterate (demonstrated by the conversations in the line, the number of people that my wife & I had to help fill out their little slip you hand over to the person to move through the line, and the steady stream of people getting helpers to go behind the curtain with them) I'd say there's a very good chance that at least a quarter of them couldn't have spelled vote unless you spotted them the "e".

DT, it had been a long while since I'd seen anyone actually "make their mark" instead of signing their name. I saw it more than once that day.

Obama won the vote on all levels of education. In fact, there was an 18% gap in those with postgraduate degrees. The Red states which McCain won are in fact the states that rank the lowest in education in our country. While your viewpoint in Athens may have been different, from a national standpoint, the statistics tell a completely different story.

If Tancredo is talking about education level, it shows that he is unable to read a simple exit poll and should be one of those made ineligible to vote by his standards. But I think we both know he wasn't talking about education level.

+1 for RainMaker bringing the logic to the discussion.

Heck, I'll give him a +1 for bringing us back to my "educated idiots" reference from yesterday.

-10 for STILL trying to get him to let the facts get in the way of his preconcieved notions. Has he not read this board before?

So what is the criteria for a non-idiot? Success in the real world? Obama won by 6% in people who made $200,000 ore more a year. The blue states are considerably more succesful financially than the red states.

What statistics are to be used here in determining this intelligence? If Tancredo is right, we have a ton of PHDs making a lot of money who can't spell the word vote.

Come on now, you know his answer to that is race.

Odd that you'd make an argument for a minimum educational standard for voting when you also argue that "experts" don't know what they are talking about and regular folks' instincts are often a better predictor of what's right.

Those are the elite that we cannot trust and must seek to destroy.

typical right-wing elitism. :p

Re-read what I said


Education might be part, but definitely not all, of the eligibility requirement.

Which is exactly what I said from the start. His speech wasn't on education, it was on race. Going on about how they're ruining the country is basically what you find out of most white supremacist literature and speeches these days.

Yawn. Do you honestly think that me or Tancredo give a flying fuck what color somebody is if they're on the right side of key points? Or for that matter that color is going to outweigh being dead wrong consistently?

But just for fun, check out this Esquire magazine piece from June 08. Amusing read with the political leanings of five avowed racists (four white, one black) in advance of the election
Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama - Esquire
If you haven't read it before, trust me, you aren't likely to be able to predict the outcomes or the commentary

edit to add: Well, you couldn't have predicted it if the linkage didn't give the results away ;)

i think we can all pretty accurately imagine what the rest of it would be.

Honestly...Yes I do. And you haven't really done much of anything over the course of my time here to convince me otherwise (not that of course you convincing me of that should matter a flying fuck of course...just saying).

Then you really haven't been paying attention. Being right about the right things is pretty much at the top of my list (hence my criticism of Bush II on immigration for example, and the lack of faith in Tancredo for being dead wrong on drug laws which reduces him to "right at times" but leaves me cold short on full endorsement)

again - you're not denying it, you're just saying it's not on the top of your list.

Look people, we've been over this:


Plus, for context:


I almost always disagree with Jon's conclusions, and clearly I have a very different worldview from him, but one thing Jon is, perhaps more than anyone else on this board, is logically consistent in his views.

I'm going to guess:

1. Able to pass a moderately difficult civics test

2. Citizenship

3. Not a felon

4. Property ownership?

More? I am curious, Jon.

I don't think it's that complicated.

1) Votes the way Jon thinks they should vote.

I don't know how to reliably determine that, but I'd bet the end goal is to deny voting rights to those that vote differently from Jon.

You did pretty well there, especially since I would have expected most people to have overlooked #3 on their first pass through. I'd likely raise the age limit by some amount & definitely eliminate eligibility for those on the non-retirement dole.

This also works quite well for me. I'm all about the moderately benevolent dictatorship as long as I'm the dictator.

So, items #1 - #3 I could get behind as criteria. I think the problem with using property ownership as a criteria is that it probably inadvertently eliminates a lot of people in a way that's inconsistent with the other criteria. For instance, the bar for home ownership in the cities is much higher... ah, I see where you're going here. ;)


Do we also put in an age cap? Or do we use the requirement "able to pass a civics test" as a way to weed out the senile?


Interesting. How far do you go here? Any form of welfare? Why allow those who are subsisting on social security? What about being the recipient of tax breaks?

If you were the dictator I think it's more likely we'd have a moderately malevolent dicatorship. :p

:confused: methinx you're being too understated

I only wanted to change one word. Otherwise it's not as clever. :D