It has been an interesting pivot, to say the least.

Shortly after McCain announced Palin as his running mate, the buzz was that she couldn’t be trusted to campaign on her own.  She would need some serious cramming before she was “ready for primetime”.  Her acceptance speech was written feminized for her, and her joint appearances with McCain following the Republican convention featured little more than the “greatest hits” from her convention speech.

By all accounts, of course, her interview with Charlie Gibson revealed even greater ignorance than expected.

So one would expect that she would continue to cling to John McCain, passing up the opportunity to campaign alone in order to double the coverage, while she crammed even more for the upcoming debate.

Makes sense, right?

But in the bizzaro world that defines this election season, the narrative has shifted.  Now, we learn that McCain and Palin will continue to campaign together not because she can’t be trusted to go out on her own (oy!) but because he can’t be trusted not to put the audience to sleep.

Anyone have any ideas about why this has happened?  After all, it’s not like he wasn’t snooze-inducing before.  Nor has she shown herself to have any better command of the issues and facts than he does.

4 Responses to “Whiplash”

  1. gcotharn says:

    Synergy. Excitement. He looks revitalized next to her.
    She won’t be trapped alone with media gotcha questions.
    He won’t be embarrassed by drawing smaller crowds than she does.

  2. DrGail says:

    That sure doesn’t reflect well on McCain, does it? In fact, it seems to be an even worse situation than GWBush, who needed Cheney’s hand up his back to activate his Charlie McCarthy routine. In this case, McCain is more like Pinocchio who needs his Gepetto (Palin) to breathe life into him.

  3. tas says:

    So asking a candidate for the second highest office in the land what the “Bush Doctrine” is — which is a fundamental polisci question that high school students must answer — is now a media “gocha” question? Are you fucking kidding me?

  4. gcotharn says:

    Dr. Gail,
    It doesn’t reflect well on McCain EXCEPT insofar as it reflects on McCain’s strategic brilliance in taking the risk to pick Palin. If Palin is breathing life into McCain, as least he was wise enough to grab for oxygen.

    Actually, it is a gotcha question, as the media has defined “Bush Doctine” in four different ways over the years. I always thought it was “with us or against us”. Charlie Gibson thinks it means preemptive military action. Many think it means spreading democracy into troubled regions. Both Charles Krauthammer and Wikipedia claim Krauthammer originated the term, and his original use of it referred to:

    “the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. ”

    I think I saw, further back in this blog, some of you guys sneering that Palin did not know the “Bush Doctrine”. However, if you guys honestly sat around and discussed, the group of you would come up with different answers for the meaning of “Bush Doctrine”.

    And here’s the thing: had she ever heard of the Bush Doctrine(?) — it doesn’t matter! If it mattered, Barack would’ve never defeated Hillary. Voters know Palin and Barack are not Colin Powell, but rather will be taking advice from Colin Powell. The voter’s gut question is not about their knowledge, but rather about their demeanor and their decision making judgment.

    The key thing Palin said was: you can’t blink when making big decisions. Voters will remember: she’s run a state with that demeanor and by not blinking in the face of big decisions. The specifics of the rest of her answers are already fading into unimportance in the minds of voters.

    Voters will also remember how Barack (running a campaign qualifies me for POTUS) has reacted to Palin in the race.

    I thought ABC interview-raped her with their scatter-editing. I read a full transcript of the interview. In places where she might’ve given a 6 sentence answer, ABC might’ve removed the middle two sentences of her answer. IMO, the editing was intentionally malicious – never more so than in the instance of “you can see Russia from Alaska”. They removed 50+ words she said spoke before that answer, and they removed 50+ words she spoke after that answer, and they presented “you can see Russia from Alaska” completely devoid of the context in which she spoke the words, and they did their best to make her look like an airhead, and they succeeded. It was interview-rape.

Leave a Reply to DrGail Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook