Katie Couric asked a follow-up question.
When Gov. Sarah Palin, Couric's interviewee on CBS Evening News tonight, failed to answer the question before her ("You've said, quote, 'John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.' Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more examples of him leading the charge for more oversight?"), Couric did what reporters too often don't do: she asked again.
COURIC: But [McCain's] been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
(Yeah, that was a question.) And when Palin again failed to answer ("He's also known as the maverick though..."), Couric... asked again.
COURIC: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
And when that version, too, went unanswered, Couric -- this time, almost apologetically -- asked again.
I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
At which point Palin promised, "I'll try to find ya some and I"ll bring them to ya."
Kudos to Couric for continuing to ask (that is, for doing her job) rather than giving up and moving on. Couric followed up. (Will Palin?)
Overall, solid work on Couric's part. She kept focused on the economy; she didn't let a vague talking point/assertion go unchallenged (when Palin said, "Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this [Palin licks finger and holds it aloft] see what way the political wind's blowing?" Couric asked what she was talking about, particularly in light of recent poll numbers hinting otherwise); she maintained her gravitas face, for the most part, (even when Palin used the m-word!).
We'll see what happens when more of the interview airs in the coming days.
OH KITTY I MEAN KATIE YOU REALLY HAD THE CLAWS OUT TYPICAL OF A FEMALE WHO CANT HANDEL BEING AROUND A FEMALE THAT SHE IS OF NO CAMPARIBLE MAGNITUDE WITH.
Katie you where going down in ratings so you saw a potential for a come back & you have Obama as your selection so big opportunity for you shame shame on you!!!!!!!!!!! you don't you don;t hold a candel to palin and what you said about her Interview was so cold !!!!!!!!! I don;t like you any more catty lady
she didn’t let a vague talking point/assertion go unchallenged
I hope Jim Lehrer reads this before the debate tonight.
PS Are the previous two comments snark?
aw ladies, whose claws are really out? truth hurt? a bimbo is a bimbo no matter how you dress it up! Free Sarah! She's muzzled, leashed and shackled!! We're finding out why!
First off, a couple moments with the editor:
>OH KITTY I MEAN KATIE YOU REALLY HAD THE CLAWS OUT [insert punctuation] TYPICAL OF A FEMALE WHO CANT [this is a slang dialect. I assume you mean "can't"] HANDEL [his "Messiah" was particularly good. You mean "handle"] BEING AROUND A FEMALE THAT SHE IS [ok. not sure what to do with that grammatical construct. I'll git back to ya.] OF NO CAMPARIBLE [some odd conjugation of "to live"?? You mean comparable] MAGNITUDE WITH.
Katie you where [where? not here. you mean were] going down in ratings so you saw a potential for a come back & you have Obama as your selection so big opportunity for you shame shame on you!!!!!!!!!!! you don't you don;t [apostrophe, not semi-colon] hold a candel [candle] to palin and what you said about her Interview [no caps, please] was so cold !!!!!!!!! [use! less! of! these! they don't create emphasis.] I don;t [see above] like you any more [insert comma] catty lady
OK. So, that being said, I know my above editing will seem elitist by some, but if it is the illiterati who are drawn to her... whoa, boy. This modern illusion that we are to elect 'one of us' - the "common man" (or woman) - is dangerous. We ought not want to be led by someone we can "have a beer with" - the very nature of the leadership position requires that it be someone with above-average qualities. Small town mayors may be great - at small towns - but can we step back, please and really LOOK at who we're going to have representing us in world affairs?
And hey, Republicans, she WILL be your candidate in 4 or 8 years if y'all win this thing. Homework: please define the following term: pyrrhic victory