Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
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.
|
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