The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Nina — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:07:53 -0000

To Socrates:

I understand your comment and of course I am not defending Sarah Palin's intelligence, much less fitness to be VP.

I am just not wanting us to fall into the smug Democratic trap of underestimating "folkiness" as a shrewd political strategy engineered by Karl Rove and now, Steve Schmidt. Who, by the way, guided the Terminator to a gubernatorial win in supposedly blue, blue, progressive, enlightened, etc. California (my home state). They came in like smooth-talkin'snakes; he's now on his second term.

I have been reading Alaska press, watching her carefully on the stump, trying to glean a understanding of her personality... and it can't be denied that she a) enjoys being ruthless towards political enemies, and b) has a carefully honed media-friendly "shtick" that she can turn on when she is in familiar territory. Yes, Katie Couris freaked her out. But in other interviews and debates I've watched she is able to conceal her ignorance, sound halfway coherent, and clown boring stale liberals (who yes, may be smarter than her but less media-savvy).

Know your enemy is all I'm saying.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Socrates — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:09:10 -0000

"Well, I'm not sure I would get the exact name of a number of supreme court cases correct."

Jeepers - so what?

Are you on the ticket?

Would it be okay with you if we expect something more from our potential leaders than we would expect from the commenters on a blog?

Can we please have a higher standard for potential presidents?

Thanks so much.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Libertarian — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:51:22 -0000

Well, I'm not sure I would get the exact name of a number of supreme court cases correct.

I read the entire decision and both disents on the Second Amendment case, but I have NO IDEA what the name was. I think Hamedi vs. Rumsfeld was the name of the case on enemey combatants where it was ruled that O'Hare Int. Airport is indeed American soil, but I'm not sure, since there have been a number of enemy combatant cases. I don't know the names of recent affirmative action cases either, but I know the main points in the decisions....I also read the entire opinion and dissents on the 'partial birth' abortion case but have no idea the names of the cases.

It depends on how the question was asked...Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board of Education and Times vs. Sullivan are the only three 'actual names' of Supreme Court cases that I can name offhand, but I can speak/write fairly intelligently about a lot of cases...

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

MJ — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:48:07 -0000

I read that she told Charlie Rose she likes to read CS Lewis and Runners World. Maybe not answering was just as well.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Pronk — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:26:26 -0000

This is possibly Palin's dumbest answer yet. It seems that she's so scared of giving a "wrong" answer that she gives the vaguest answer possible.

Seriously, Palin must know the names of major publications like Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal. But, she was either scared of getting caught in a lie (it would've been very hard to prove that she never reads Newsweek) or saying something that sounded like either a not serious enough publication or something that isn't read by Joe Sixpack, so she just didn't answer.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Jon O. — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:57:45 -0000

Libertarian:

For the sake of argument, let's say that there's some good reason for her not being able to answer a question that, for a politician and stateswoman, ranks in difficulty somewhere around "What are your favorite TV shows?" Let's assume that her answer to this question doesn't imply anything at all about the development of her worldview, and imputes nothing about her intellectual curiosity. And when I say "intellectual curiosity", I don't mean elitist proclivity, I mean "a tendency to think over and research solutions to problems."

That said, also note that she was unable to name any Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

If you think the question on newspapers and magazines is just fluff, are you going to mount the same defense in the face of her ignorance of our judicial system?

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Socrates — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:33:13 -0000

"Sounding smart doesn't matter. Getting voters to like you better, is all that matters."

Just let this comment sink in for a minute.

That's all that matters?

Is this really what's become of us?

All that really matters is to get voters to like you better?

Sad. Very sad. I hope this isn't true.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

nolo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:16:53 -0000

She could at least have mentioned the Anchorage Daily News . . . oh, wait. They're beating her like a rented mule over Troopergate.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

goldnick — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:55:52 -0000

People, don't forget her DEGREE is in journalism so clearly this question is below her. It would be like asking someone with a degree in English who their favorite author is or someone with a BA in history to tell you about their favorite historical figure, it won't happen!

Seriously though, how hard is it to show a little loyalty and give a shout out to your local papers or something that all the "common people" like her read such as Time or Newsweek?

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Deborah — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:52:02 -0000

"What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?" is a softball question. It's easy. And it's an expected getting-to-know-you trope. Unless you don't read, and you're surprised anyone expected you to. I can't believe this is being taken on as some sort of super-insulting and overly difficult query--it's not.

She could have answered that she gets her news from Fox rather than papers. You don't have to subscribe to read--maybe 3 times a week she picked up the Anchorage paper on the way to work. Anything to suggest she tries to keep abreast of the news, or even gets that we like to think our top candidates have a clue about the news.

For most people, the notion that leaders don't ever look at the same media we do is worrying--it's the bubble effect, where you only get the news your staff thinks you can cope with.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Libertarian — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:50:38 -0000

LOL, no the official 'take' on her comment is that she is so stupid and unlettered that she can't even remember the names of major US and Alaska news organizations.

In effect, you get to call her a liar for refusing to name what you assume to be whack job and embarrassing news sources and you get to call her stupid for not being able to name any MSM sources.

I've got to call Palin Derangement Syndrome on this.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Stacyq — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:39:30 -0000

Also, she claimed to read 'all of 'em.' Have there been any demands to see her subscriptions? Has she been asked to prove that she reads all of them online?

Stop.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

JordanT — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:38:20 -0000

Why Couric felt the need to ask her 3 times is beyond me, I can understand pushing her on BOOKS, that's a fair question, but periodicals?

Because Palin didn't answer the question. When I ask somebody what music they like and they say "everything" it's a BS answer that tells me nothing. If they start naming specific genres or bands then I get to know the person better. If they can't do that, my assumption is that they don't really listen to music (which is fine) or they are embarrassed by what they listen to.

It's a simple softball question that Palin couldn't answer. She either doesn't really pay attention to the news or is embarrassed by what her news sources are. But honestly, nobody could read the mythical all of them.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Stacy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:37:46 -0000

Again, you are full of shit. The MSM hasn't even called her out on most of her lies. If she would have given a real answer, it probably would have been edited out of the interview that aired. You are delusional.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Libertarian — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:33:08 -0000

You think if she claimed to read Time or Newsweek magazine, that there would be an investigation into whether or not someone has seen her read these?

-------------------

Yep. Absolutely. I absolutely believe if she had named any specific publication there would have been demands to know what she subscribed to, if she had ever been seen to read this publication and if it could be proven whether or not she read it online.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Leaking Geek — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:32:29 -0000

If the stories are ture, the other side of this discussion is that the good Governor from Alaska wanted books banned. She could have pivoted on Couric and said, "I read books like X, Y and Z - and thats why I wanted books 1, 2 and 3 banned. They were obscene and a threat to our children and community."

She could not do this because she was probably reading off a list of book titles someplace. But even that would have meant reading a magazine or newspaper. She is as intellectually incurious as President Bush, and is hoping there will be someone in the administration to do the intellectual heavy lifting for her.

Seriously, she is just really unqualified.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Tessa — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:27:23 -0000

Libertarian says: Maybe, like George Bush, she doesn't want to admit to reading a publication, like the NYTimes that is dedicated to destroying her, maybe she was afraid of being called a liar by having everyone whose ever seen her in Alaska asked if they'd ever seen her reading Newsweek or Vanity Fair, and then headlines would scream "No witnesses to Palin reading Time Magainze, another lie"...

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with with Libertarian on this one.

Scary.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Stacy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:26:45 -0000

"asked if they'd ever seen her reading Newsweek or Vanity Fair, and then headlines would scream "No witnesses to Palin reading Time Magainze, another lie"..."

You are so full of shit, Libertarian. You think if she claimed to read Time or Newsweek magazine, that there would be an investigation into whether or not someone has seen her read these? For as dumb as everyone knows this woman is, I don't think anyone would doubt her if she claimed to read Time magazine. I kind of thought all adults that kept up on news read these types of magazines in some form or another. This is what makes this type of thing so bizarre. There are so many answers she could have given to avoid anything being interpreted in this way. She claimed to 'read them all.' And you, somehow, are defending this response, and blaming Katie Couric for tossing her meaty, slow-pitched softball. Bizarre.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

PhillyGuy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:22:35 -0000

I don't understand the angst in these posts. Everyone needs to take a step back, have a swig of their local micro-brew and enjoy the ride. Have you seen the polls lately? O's got this! Just focus on the goal and let Palin and McCain flail about blaming everyone and everything for their demise. It's a beautiful thing, really.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

paid male peer — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:02:37 -0000

Jill says, "As a woman who has worked on Wall Street and in technology, and have known that I have been underpaid relative to my male peers, I AM EMBARASSED that Palin is on the ticket."

Maybe you were underpaid because you can't spell. You need another "R" in "EMBARRASSED."

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Libertarian — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:34:34 -0000

Maybe, like George Bush, she doesn't want to admit to reading a publication, like the NYTimes that is dedicated to destroying her, maybe she was afraid of being called a liar by having everyone whose ever seen her in Alaska asked if they'd ever seen her reading Newsweek or Vanity Fair, and then headlines would scream "No witnesses to Palin reading Time Magainze, another lie"...

Why Couric felt the need to ask her 3 times is beyond me, I can understand pushing her on BOOKS, that's a fair question, but periodicals? Give me a break.

I'm sure if she said she read the Washington Post and didn't subscribe to it, and then said she read it online that there would be FOIA requests for the logs of her computer to determine if she 'really' read it online or not.

I can't wrap my mind around why with all of the LEGITIMATE reasons for criticism of her, that anyone would choose this soundbyte to even comment on, it is just stupid.

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Anna K. — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:33:01 -0000

Sounding smart doesn't matter. Getting voters to like you better, is all that matters.

Ruthless political skills are not about smarts, they're about instincts; and I would venture to say that most voters do not resemble Socrates. Sarah Palin has proved herself able to get more votes, repeatedly, than her opponents who -- repeatedly -- thought she was too stupid to pull it off. Having lived in Alaska, I can tell you that her opponent, Tony Knowles, was not exactly a babe in the political woods, and certainly he's a very smart man, but who's governor now?

Great article on Politico today about her ability to win debates even as her more experienced opponents thought it was all about their smarts:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14158.html

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

colleeniem — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:29:57 -0000

Darn right, Libartarian.

We would have got her coming and going.

'dems politics.

She is a bad politician. McCain's a bad politician for picking her.

What the hell else is a VP, if not a politician?

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Whitey — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:29:11 -0000

"If she said she read the NYTimes she'd be called a liar, if she said she read Newsweek, they might find out she doesn't subscribe and would be called a liar. WHATEVER she said would be used against her."

This argument holds very little water. It's not as if you need a subscription in order to be allowed to read something. No subscription to Time? "Why, that's because I read Time online, silly." Same goes with most publications, these days. Case in point: I personally read the Atlantic, but I've never so much as seen a copy of it in print, and there's nothing resembling a paper trail to prove that I read it. Why didn't she just tell the truth?

Re: Sarah, we are very different, you and I

Socrates — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:28:28 -0000

"No, She didn't name anything specific so as not to give her enemies more ammunition, but instead her crazed enemies choose to interpret this that she is SO STUPID SHE CANNOT EVEN NAME THE WASHINGTON POST OR THE NEW YORK TIMES."

No. This is wrong.

We know that she could name The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The reason she isn't willing to name these papers or any other papers or news magazines is because she doesn't read any of them.

She'd get caught in that lie.

But also, to understand why this is being mocked, you have to go back to her answer and read the last response again, the defensive one about Alaska is a "microcosm".

Pure stupidity. Pure and beautiful stupidity. She just floats on air, she soars with astonishing stupidity. She's a virtuoso of stupidity. She's fearless.

It's like watching the world's greatest conductor, but instead of music, it's stupidity.