1 Boring Old Man

Palin Takes Reporters’ Questions

^{But on Thursday, despite the McCain-Palin campaign saying they would suspend campaigning until Congress had dealt with the financial crisis, Ms. Palin made a campaign stop at ground zero in Lower Manhattan, and finally “fielded” four questions…}

1. ^{“Do you agree with the way the Bush administration has carried out the war on terror? Is there anything you would have done…”}
   ^{Ms. Palin interrupted to answer: “I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them"…}
2. ^{“Do you think that our continued military presences in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflamed Islamic extremists?” another reporter asked.}
   ^{“I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there"…}
3. ^{“Do you support the re-election bids of embattled Alaska Republicans, Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens?”}
   ^{“Ted Stevens’ trial started a couple of days ago,” she said, “We’ll see where that goes.”}
4. ^{“What do you think of the bailout package before Congress?”}
   ^{“I don’t support that until the provisions that Senator McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson’s proposals.”}

Having seen Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric, I can see why they’ve had an iron curtain around her as far as the Press is concerned. If you’re a mayor, or even a governor, reporters ask you straightforward questions and print your answers. In the world of national politics, every question is a confrontation, and the reporters are as informed, if not more so, than the person being interviewed.

To answer their questions, you have to know what they’re talking about – the topic/issue. You have to know the challenges mounted on the "other side" of the issue. You have to know where you stand and how firmly you stand there. And so, the political interview involves answering the "implications" of the question and knowing the "implications" of your answer. It helps to undercut the challengers’ argument in the process.

Cheney is a master of this skill. Obama is also a master, maybe better than Cheney because he’s less "hurt" by being challenged than Cheney. Obama invariably reframes the question prior to answering it, and he does it without being hostile in the process. Cheney’s narcissism is too much on the surface, so he reverts to attack much too frequently. Obama’s greatest strength is the silent answer. When he was asked about the New Yorker cover that portrayed him as an Arab Muslim and Michelle as an Angela Davis figure, he had a slightly exasperated and pained look, then shrugged his shoulders. That was all he did, and that was all that was needed.

In the Couric interview, Sarah Palin knew what she was supposed to say and had been well briefed on McCain’s position on the various issues. She seemed oblivious to the implications of Couric’s questions, and the implications of her answers. But she has no depth of understanding about the questions. In her defense, it would be surprising if she did. What made the interview cancer for her was her attempt to appear to know what she didn’t and couldn’t know. In the Charlie Gibson ABC interview, it was the Bush Doctrine. She didn’t know what he was talking about [Pre-emption, Unilateral Action, Overwhelming Strength, and Evangelical Democracy]. With Katie Couric, it was everywhere, but most notably about McCain’s voting record about regulation of the economy. Couric asked her to name one example where McCain supported regulation of the financial markets [there are none]. Palin wrinkled her nose cutely like a seductive preadolescent girl and said, "I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya’."