Steve Skojec

WND reports that Gwen Ifil, who will moderate Thursday’s VP debate, is writing a book due out on Inaugeration Day 2009 which is pro-Obama, and focuses on blacks who are ‘forging a bold new path to political power’:

The moderator of Thursday’s vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to “shed new light” on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other “emerging young African American politicians” who are “forging a bold new path to political power.”

Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program “Washington Week” is promoting “The Breakthrough,” in which she argues the “black political structure” of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.

Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, “I can respond, Gwen, but it’s going to take more than 30 seconds.”

“Well, that’s all you’ve got,” she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they “thought I was being snippy to Cheney.” She explained that wasn’t her intent.

But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.

Some viewers complained of a “dismissive” look by Ifill during her report on Palin’s speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of “disgust” while reporting on the Republican candidate.

At that time she said, “I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy.”

[snip]

In the Amazon.com promotion for her book, Ifill is described as “drawing on interviews with power brokers,” such as Obama and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

In an online video promoting her book, she is enthusiastic about “taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it.”

It focuses on four people, “one of them Barack Obama of course,” she said.

“They are changing our politics and changing our nation,” she said.

I’m sure she’ll be completely objective.

A bit overdone, but nonetheless, the point about political dualism is well-made:

Carriere’s at his best when he’s being funny, but he still has a way with words when he’s being serious:

The shine is off. The Pollyanna set of the pro-life movement will be disappointed again by Canada’s Prime Minster Harper, like Americans may be who hoped in Palin.

But we have made an oracle of a whoremonger, and we are fools to persist. Rather, let this be for us inoculation against what liberalism may yet infect our minds.

Do not look to the State. It is only a procurer; a pimp. A pimp purloins one to pander to another; it is not there for leadership. Don’t look to it for answers.

Instead, let us remember, what we do not solve ourselves will not be solved. What culture we do not make will not be made. If we find public opinion to be misguided, we must be for it a guide. The State is not there for leadership.

It will not cure your ills. It will not keep you safe. It will neither educate your children nor care for your elders. It will not feed you. It will not clothe you. It will not be your guide.

Freedom beckons. Put on your big-boy pants, Good Citizen, and look to yourself.

Do you agree? Was it gotcha journalism? Are you convinced that she’s “ready, willing and able”? Do you think that just saying that their administration wouldn’t “lay the cards on the table” when dealing with terrorists negates the fact that Palin already, well, laid the cards on the table?

I’m not impressed with their PR strategy. Just pretending like there isn’t a problem (or that the problem is someone else’s) doesn’t make the problem go away. The McCain camp needs to stop blaming the media, and start holding itself accountable.

Media bias is one thing. Capturing foot-in-mouth disease on tape is another.

Ross Douthat seems to think so. His theory is an interesting one:

The most likely scenario, as of 3 PM this afternoon: The stock market continues to drop. Some version of the bailout passes in the next week. The American economy staggers into a recession, but passes through the storm without 1930s-style suffering; the Republican Party is not so fortunate. Even though most Americans claim to oppose the bailout [update: not anymore], the House GOP’s obstructionism is widely viewed as having worsened the economic situation; the fact that these are contradictory positions does not faze an electorate that wraps all of the country’s current troubles up, ties them with a bow, and lays them at the feet of the Bush-led GOP. John McCain loses by a landslide in November. The Democratic Party regains years or even decades worth of ground among the white working class, consolidates the Hispanic vote, and locks up a large chunk of highly-educated voters who might otherwise lean conservative. The much-discussed liberal realignment happens. And a politician running on a Ron Paul-style economic platform does very, very well in the GOP primaries of 2012.

The underlying theme here is more imminently frightening - despite the fact that the GOP was joined by 95 House Democrats in voting down the bailout plan, GOP “obstructionism” will bear the blame for the market’s nosedive yesterday, and whatever subsequent problems arise from the failure to implement an immediate fix.

This means that the election probably just got pushed back into the Obama column, making VP debate this Thursday potentially all the more damaging to the Republicans if Palin shows up as unprepared as she has to her media interviews. We already know that she’s incredibly weak on the financial crisis, so bet your bottom dollar that the moderator and Biden will go after her for clarity and specificity on that point, particularly if another, more agreeable measure doesn’t get passed in the next 24-48 hours.

Nobody seems to agree on what should be done. It’s a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t scenario, and it puts economic nincompoops like me into a tailspin when I try to settle on what my position should be. In the mean time, I’ve designed what I suspect may be our country’s new flag:

Whatever you think about the bailout, whether you believe it’s necessary or it isn’t, the American Bolsheviks must be immensely pleased. As we create our new socialist enterprise, who better to lead it, really, than Komrade Obama? I’m sure the voters will agree.

And yet I hope - dear heaven do I hope - that Douthat is right. We could certainly use a Ron Paul-style third party who actually succeeds in the GOP primaries next time. This time, it seems that the McCain window of opportunity is closing, and fast.

Jeff Culbreath has reached a (disappointed) conclusion about Sarah Palin, and he hits the nail squarely on the head:

There just isn’t any doubt at this point: Governor Palin is in way over her head. And Senator McCain had to have known this would be the case. His luring a good but unqualified woman - a woman, moreover, with serious responsibilities at home - into a bruising and cynical national campaign is inexcusable. Even more disturbing is the way she has been coached to bluff her way through interviews, pretending to have answers to questions she doesn’t begin to understand. It is impossible to watch this CBS interview without feeling acute embarrassment for her…

[snip]

Seriously, her dishonesty in this interview is systematic - not incidental to a particular question - and is evidence of personal corruption right out of the gate. She is not only corruptible, but she’s already internalizing the corruption of her handlers.

Now then, it seems that most politicians do this routinely. McCain, Obama, and Biden are experts at pretending to have answers they don’t have. Obama is so smooth he can make a journalist forget what the question was. So why pick on Palin?

I’ll tell you why. Sarah Palin is still an essentially honest person who isn’t good at telling lies. She averts her eyes. You can see the conflict in her face, you can hear the doubt in her voice, and it all betrays her words. You know her conscience bothers her and she’s going to feel terrible about this interview when it’s over.  Dishonesty doesn’t come easy to her … yet.  Perhaps a few more interviews like this one and she’ll get better at it.

But no! I don’t want this for Sarah Palin. I want Sarah Palin to go home, protect and re-build her integrity, and take care of her family and her state.

Dishonesty. It’s a tough word, but it fits. (It also can be applied to her “thanks but no thanks” comment about the “bridge to nowhere” in the stump speech.) Jeff is right - she doesn’t seem comfortable with deception, but she’s on the spot, and she desperately wants to give an answer that will take the heat off the fact that she just. doesn’t. know. the. answers.

Which us to another point - one I’ve been discussing with a friend today - why can’t politicians just be allowed to tell the truth? Jeff touches on this, posting a mock interview with a news network in which the candidate admits that they are still studying the issues.

In Palin’s case, that’s the kind of PR strategy McCain’s camp should have had from the beginning. Everyone knows she lacks experience - it’s manifest from the short amount of time she’s spent in politics. But what she appeals to - and still does, even after these horrible performances in the media - is the normal people. The people who root for her because at last, there’s someone they feel is really like them. Someone who doesn’t talk middle-class values from inside of a suit that costs as much as their car.

Would it be so bad if she were to say, on the issue of foreign policy (or economics, etc.), “You know, I’ve been deeply committed to running the State of Alaska for the last two years, and while I’m aware of many of these national issues, I don’t know all the details. That’s why I’m spending as much time as I can before the election getting up to speed on the most important challenges facing our nation. No Vice President, or President for that matter, can know everything about every issue. It’s why every administration draws upon the best experts and policy advisors they can to get the job done. A shift in focus from the state to the national level means a steep learning curve for me, but I’m up for the challenge.”

Could you imagine? Sure, the left would attack her, and say, “See - even she admits she doesn’t know anything!” But it would demonstrate honesty and integrity on her part and shore up her support on the right. It would keep the Average American’s B.S. detectors from going off whenever she opens her mouth and starts firing off mixed talking point messages, and she’d be in no worse situation than she is now, when she’s proving not only that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but she’s willing to try to hide that through a smokescreen of nonsense words.

I don’t know if it’s too late for a shift in direction, but if McCain wants to keep Palin from making the rapid transition from rising star to political millstone, he’d better consider it. He’s got nothing to lose.

Brian Saint Paul posts about the growing conservative concern over Sarah Palin at Inside Catholic:

While Governor Sarah Palin’s popularity continues among social conservatives and the Religious Right, a growing number of Republicans — including former supporters — are concerned.

Very concerned.

Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson was embarassing, though his obvious hostility provided a saving distraction. That wasn’t the case with subsequent interviewers: Sean Hannity was generally supportive and Katie Couric was neutral.

It didn’t help. Those exchanges were even more cringeworthy than the spot with Gibson. The problem wasn’t simply nerves — though she was understandably nervous. Rather, to put it bluntly, on a range of issues, she just didn’t seem to know what she was talking about. It was as if she’d memorized a dozen campaign soundbites that came tumbling out — regardless of relevance or coherence — with the first question.

[snip]

As Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria described it, “This is nonsense — a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head.”

And this opinion isn’t exclusive to the Left. National Review editor Rich Lowry found her performance “dreadful.”

[snip]

With Thursday’s vice presidential debate fast approaching, word is coming out from the McCain campaign that preparations aren’t going well. Populist/progressive radio show host Ed Schultz has been hearing murmers himself (and in case you’re inclined to dismiss him as a liberal propogandist, Schultz isn’t the only one getting negative reports):

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

Ultimately, Thursday’s debate will reveal much. If Palin performs well, all the negative pre-event publicity will have so lowered expectations that she’ll be the clear winner. But if she turns out to be the empty power dress that some now suspect… we might end up seeing the landslide Obama’s people are cautiously predicting.

UPDATE (12:10pm): Things are not getting better for the McCain campaign.

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz reports “the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.”

Politico’s Ben Smith has more:

A source familiar with CBS News’ plans clarified that this is part of the “Vice Presidential Questions” series with Biden and Palin. The recorded segments are scheduled to air Wednesday and Thursday before the vice presidential debate.

In addition to those sources being cited by Saint-Paul, Rod Dreher weighed in last Thursday with his own disappointment:

Watch the Couric interview here. Couric’s questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin’s just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero.

[snip]

I remember the morning I woke up in my college dorm room and went in to take my final exam in my Formal Logic class. I knew I was unready. Massively unready. And now I was going to be put to the ultimate test. I sat down in Dr. Sarkar’s class and resolved to wing it. Of course I failed the exam and failed the class, because I had no idea what I was talking about. I wasn’t a bad kid, or even a stupid kid. I was just badly unprepared, and in way over my head. Seeing the Palin interview on CBS, I thought of myself in Dr. Sarkar’s exam. But see, I was a college undergraduate who had the chance to take the class again, which I did, and passed (barely). I wasn’t running for vice president of the United States.

UPDATE: New Palin excerpt up, in which she discusses why having Russia next to Alaska gives her relevant foreign policy experience. I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she’s a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck…

“She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero” is a classic - very quotable. I would be really surprised not to see that on t-shirts by the end of the week.

I managed to get through about the first forty minutes or so, at which point my eyes rolled back in my head and I popped in a DVD instead.

I really don’t enjoy listening to either one of these guys, and the part I saw followed such predictable lines it may as well have been scripted. Nobody in debates seems interested in directly answering questions; everyone does, however, try to shoehorn as many talking points and put downs of the other guy as they can into the answers they do give.

In the part I saw, at least, McCain had the (marginally) more substantive remarks. Obama, however, has a natural orator’s style - even if some of the rhetorical notes he hits are pretty flat - that gives him an edge in stage presence. He seems self-possessed, confident, and in control. He’s quick on his feet, and answers in a more clean, straightforward way than politicians often do, even if once you dig down you realize he still hasn’t told you very much. But his thought comes across as neatly organized and he quickly responds with concise, bullet-pointed answers that lend an air of credibility to him. “Oh,” you think. “This guy sounds like he knows what he’s talking about and has been giving it a lot of thought.”

All the while, he’s dodging, say, the implications of his spending plan in the face of monumental economic challenges while being unwilling to commit to fiscal priorities.

The problem with this is pretty straightforward - if you’re not looking for what’s wrong with his ideas, you’re not going to see the problems therein. You’re going to see a poised, strong, leader persona who says what you want to hear.

And lots of people want to hear it. I worked an event for a client on Saturday in Arlington, Virginia, which was essentially a huge block party catering to tens of thousands of attendees. The event was perhaps unavoidably politically charged this close to the election, with a heavy demographic emphasis on left-leaning sensibilities (as evidenced by the fact that about 85% of those in attendance were wearing Obama paraphernalia of some sort). The demographics I saw were fairly predictable for an area so close to D.C. The group seemed to consist mostly of young urban professionals (remember when we called them Yuppies?) in two flavors - the single, attractive, on the prowl sort, and the small, carefully-planned family variety; and in smaller proportion, a number of aging hippies who still think tie-dye, frizzy hair, and bra-less post-menopausal women is a good idea. A smattering of others were mixed in, including a fair share of average joes.

I had the unique privilege of being accosted by a guy approaching sixty who was wearing baggy pants and carrying a skateboard, and he made sure over the course of our entirely-too-long conversation that I knew:

a.) How smart he was.

b.) How badly Americans are being misled.

c.) How the future of our country depended on my voting for Obama.

d.) How smart he was, and how I should vote for who he told me to, because he was so smart. (Did I mention that he was smart?)

Since I was there in a non-political role, representing a client, the best I could manage was to mostly just smile and nod, hoping he would leave, with the occasional furtive objection I quickly reigned in once I realized it would cost me another 7 minutes in the penalty rant box.

A co-worker related to me that while I was grabbing lunch, an NRA member and McCain supporter who was wearing a holstered pistol (legal in Virginia as long as it isn’t concealed) was confronted by someone who told him the only thing he should do with his gun is pull it out of its holster and blow his own brains out. (And here I’ve been having it told to me that all the crazies are on the Religious Right.)

It’s interesting - and frightening, when it comes right down to it - to see up close and personal how energized Obama’s base is. McCain’s supporters don’t treat his campaign like a religious movement, but there’s definitely a Jim Jonesian feel among those willing to slap Obama bumper stickers on the slings holding their broken arms, or wear buttons announcing his candidacy in every language known to man all over their t-shirts. Meanwhile, people were walking around handing out Unicef boxes to all the little future-liberals, so that kids can learn that charity means sending your money to a hungry foreign country so they can prevent or kill unwanted children.

It all really makes me wish that I liked McCain more. I guess I just have trouble swallowing the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Then again, it’s still funny. After the hellacious Couric interview, SNL did a pretty amusing sendup of Palin vs. Couric:

More to the point, someone on the InterTubes made a comparison between Palin’s performance and that of Miss South Carolina on questions of foreign policy:

Miss South Carolina

Mrs. Palin:

Watching the Couric clips again, I can’t think of another word to describe the interview other than “embarrassing.” If she doesn’t improve soon, she’s going to become a bigger liability to McCain than Biden has been to Obama.

I finally got a chance to watch Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. Yikes. It was more uncomfortable than watching a marathon of Full House. It seemed as if she wasn’t really prepared for the questions, so a bunch of mixed up talking points came out after falling into what sounded like a verbal blender.

Kathleen Parker at National Review has had enough. She can’t take any more:

When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

[snip]

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

I don’t know if it’s time for that yet, but I think Ms. Parker has a point. I hope Palin does better in the debates, if for no other reason than that I’d really like to hear her articulate policy positions in her own words. I want to hear her talk about important issues and make some sense. I want to know if she’ll be a McCain parrot (likely) or offer her sincere take on things.

I’d like to hear her talk foreign policy, economics, immigration, and even more importantly, life issues. I want to know what she cares about and exactly how she’s going to work to make it happen.

Considering the power she might obtain, it’s too important not to know.