Help! Rachel Maddow had Andrea Mitchell on a few minutes ago to discuss, among other topics, the Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin. Mitchell conceded that Palin was "not ready for prime time" in terms of foreign policy but then said that some viewers/voters might not see it that way because they might have focused on the fact that a male interviewer was being "condescending" toward Sarah Palin.
Mitchell said that she had spoken to some of the women in the newsroom and had the sense that they might have been offended by Gibson's "condescending" attitude toward Palin. Is this what it has come to in this country? That women will overlook Palin's obvious lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge, not to mention her absolutely terrifying answers about Russia, because they think an interviewer was being "condescending?" Oh, good lord. First, how quickly and far we've fallen. A few months ago, we had a woman who more than held her own in interview after interview and debate after debate. I didn't support Hillary Clinton in the primaries but anyone who watched her had to come away with the feeling that she knew as much about foreign and domestic policy as any of her opponents as well as any of the interviewers or moderators. All those cracks in the glass ceiling were deserved. Now we have a "folk heroine" whose resume is probably 1/1000 (maybe 1/10,000) of Hillary Clinton's, attempting to slither through those cracks. If Hillary's campaign proved one thing, it was that she was ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Palin's interview with Gibson proved that she is utterly unfit to be vice-president. Second, do women really want to complain about Gibson's "condescending" attittude toward Palin? I don't remember the Obama campaign complaining that Gibson and Stephanopoulos were condescending toward Obama in the ABC debate? Double standard, anyone? If you can't play in the big leagues, Sister Sarah, don't complain about the referees. Just go back to the minor leagues because you are not going to make it easier for the next qualified woman who comes along. Third, I find it absolutely shocking that women are more concerned about the perceived condescension of the interviewer than Palin's revealed ignorance, incompetence and downright scariness about foreign policy. But maybe it's because I have kids and we live in New York City and maybe foreign policy knowledge and experience are more important to me than whether one of the most puffball interviewers on tv was "condescending" to her. With Obama and Biden, we have two people who have thought and worked extensively on the foreign policy issues to which Palin either gave superficial -- Foreign Policy 101 -- answers or to which she gave naive saber rattling answers or to which she gave b.s "I'll talk my way through this and hope that the interviewer doesn't figure out that I have no idea what I'm talking about" answers. Let's hope that Andrea Mitchell was wrong and that women voters are smarter than she gives them credit for.