So far, the reaction to Sarah and Charlie’s big night seems to be that she didn’t do anything to embarrass herself. In short, no gaffes.
A gaffe, of course, is defined as an unintentional, embarrassing blunder—usually a quick, cringe-inducing, irrevocable verbal slip. It can be on a matter of substance (“Poland is free”) but usually isn’t. Gaffes make great sound bites, which is part of the reason why the media makes so much of them.
Here’s what Bill Sammon, Fox News’s Washington-based deputy managing editor, said this morning on Fox and Friends:
The gaffe issue is the most important test she could have passed. There are a lot of critiques out today or tomorrow nibbling around the edges … What that tells you is that no major gaffes were made because we would be having a very different conversation if she screwed up.
I can’t disagree with that. If Palin had, say, fallen out of her chair, cried, called Obama “uppity,” or cursed, well, yes, we’d be having a very different conversation.
But it’s not like she didn’t give us enough to talk about.
She didn’t recognize the term “Bush Doctrine,” a key foundation of the administration’s justification to invade Iraq; nor was she able to explain its premise.
She suggested that Alaska’s proximity to Russia—so close that you can see!—gives her foreign policy cred. (I can see a film school from my desk window, so I’m expecting an offer from a Hollywood agent any day now.)
She circled back to repeated talking points at every opportunity, betraying a lack of substantial knowledge on any foreign policy issue she was asked about.
That’s the easy stuff, all of which can—and should—be pointed out without provoking debates about the soundness or wisdom of the answers she did give. Yes, Palin had to perform, but she also told us about the policies and perspectives she’s just learned she’ll be advocating for.
And on that front, there is a lot of ground for fruitful press discussion. Does Palin disagree with her running mate over the propriety of pursuing al-Qaeda members in Pakistan without that government’s approval? What exactly, is Palin’s understanding of the murky start of this summer’s Georgian-Russian war that leads her to state, unequivocally, that Russia’s invasion was unprovoked?
Add it all up, and it looked to me like a pretty disastrous outing for Palin. Gibson was firm and sensible, and didn’t dabble in the transparent gotcha. But he netted no gaffe. So what does that mean?
“She didn’t do anything that would hurt her cause or the McCain ticket,” said Ken Rudin, NPR’s political editor, on today’s Morning Edition.
That’s one way of looking at it.
It seems we have set the bar awfully low here. The questions you suggest the press ask about her foreign policy claims (Does Palin disagree with her running mate over the propriety of pursuing al-Qaeda members in Pakistan without that government’s approval? et al), as general as they are, clearly go into areas where she does not have expertise and cannot offer useful answers, and so the dialogue ends. You saw this with their exchange on the question of the Georgian conflict. Palin offered what is quite obviously the entirety of her knowledge of the situation in her answer. Gibson's attempts at a follow up only received a repetition of the original answer. The newsworthy conclusion here is that Palin is woefully underprepared, but to point this out would appear partisan, so we have this ongoing charade about a search for gaffes. The whole damned interview was a gaffe!
What McCain has done with Palin is to offer up a challenge, both to voters and the press. How little do we want to know about the outside world, and how little do we want our leaders to know about it?
Evan, don’t pound the keyboard and get your panties all up in a bunch. Palin did well in the interview. Speaking of which I hope someone (hows bout a “self anointed” media watchdog) takes ABC and Gibson to task for the editing job they did on the interview which seems to have been designed to make Palin look like a novice at best or a dolt at worst. I felt a bit like Evan did before I saw a more complete version of the interview on You-Tube, minus all the ABC editing. .
Care to link me? I'm unsure how the exchange regarding the Bush Doctrine could have been edited. She responded sarcastically as if he was asking a trick question. If you'd like to suggest that the "Bush Doctrine" is a "liberal media" conceit invented to trip up the poor ol GOP and twist George Bush's intentions around, I'd like to hear your defense.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aR3HQTi9bw
Plenty of serious conservatives are expressing their concerns with Palin's qualifications for the job, I'll take your stupid jokes as your way of doing the same.
Ha Ha, made you look.
I have my own reservations about Palin's qualifications, but she seems as qualified for VP as Obama is for POTUS. Ask Obama backer and Illinois governer Rod Blagojevich.
I'd love to hear from these "serious conservatives".
Charlie Gibson should interview Palin while she is directly connected to the Holy Spirit via talking in tongues.
Charlie: What should we do with Iran?
Palin: HardashadrakaBidaBO.
Charlie: McCain was for amnesty for illegals. Are you more conservative?
Palin: Greasawetabackahumpajumpabeana.
Charlie: Should we give civil rights to sodomites?
Palin: Buggermuggerslugger.
Charlie: Should a black be president?
.
Palin: Spadernuggarpicaniner
Palin's answers on Pakistan were a mirror of Obama's, which McCain criticized him for having. And no one seems to have noticed that. For shame.
She claimed Alaska provides 20% of America's energy. Who cares about gaffes when you can have downright lies?
Let me tell all you word folks. This sophisticated approach to the notion of irrelevancy journalism is growing sour in all that I sense. I'm not alone.
And your point is?...
great "Charlie" (the tuna) now that this is record it is for the people to assess,....
next question!
The audience here is simply to "feminized." The traditionalistLESS, 3rd generation deep, downhill slimeslide of our culture,
Let people do their job. We can go back and forth, just like children, yeah, yeah ya ya yeah...grow up.
I have learned that those that have to resort to that behavior is typically because the argument they wish to sell isn't being bought...so now the personal attackis....grow up America...for more of this streetjive, from an Ex-con now publisher, redemption notwithstanding...isn't sexy, isn't accepted, and the life I led and experiences I have supercede any nonsense you can throw at me.
http://www.beyondpuke.com
She's Harriet Miers in designer glasses.