Skip to main content

Many have expressed disdain over the Sarah Palin diaries here.  I've not said it, but I have strongly felt it.  Some things are missing in these commentaries.

Did anyone consider that this interview (en toto) airs on a Friday night?  You know, that whole strategy of "dumping" the bad stuff on a weekend so the MSM barely touches it?  It didn't work.

(note: any quotes in this diary were transcribed directly from my recording of the interview)

After the fold:

I think that is what the McCain camp was going for.  Add to that the fact that they picked ABC/Charlie to conduct the interview in quite an automatonic fashion.  Admit it.  That's what WE expected.  That is what ticked us off after the horrible show of Gibson during the debate.  Not an unreasonable assumption, by the way.

But Charlie played hardball (for him) with Palin.  I was quite pleased.  He called her to task on a number of issues.  She didn't deliver.  And I have to say, as an aside, Gibson peering over his reading glasses during his delivery is priceless!  (Okay, I had this Spanish teacher in 7th grade who did the same thing and she scared the crap out of me!).

Gibson

Didn't George Bush come to Washington eight years ago talking about reforming Washington in the same kind of language?  Ran as something of a Maverick, actually . . . hasn't changed the ethos of Washington in eight years.  Why are you any different?

Palin

We're promising the reform.  We are mavericks.  There's no doubt now in anybody's mind now across America who is paying attention to the presidential race here that I am a Washington outsider . . . I don't have those allegiances to the power brokers; to the lobbyists.  We need someone like that in Washington somewhat committed to the American people and implementing their will -- not the power broker's will.

(emphasis mine)

Sarah, is your plan (should you become vice president) to just be somewhat committed to implementing the will of the American people?  Not that I believe you would be the SLIGHEST bit interested in the will of the American people.  If you're going to tell a whopper, you may was well state you are COMPLETELY committed to that goal.  You're not such a great liar after all.  

And you have no allegiances to the power brokers?  Well, what about this little ditty from:

http://www.usnews.com/...

$27 million: Amount that a lobbying firm, which Sarah Palin employed, secured for the town of Wasilla, Alaska, when Palin was the mayor

  1. The minimum number of earmarks that the lobbyist secured for Wasilla between 2000-2003

$4,000: Amount per person the lobbying firm secured for the residents of Wasilla

Sarah?  Did you forget about that or the fact that said lobbyist has ties to Jack Abramoff?

Read about that here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

Moving on in the interview.

Gibson:

Why do you both [Palin and McCain] keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes.  It's been pretty clear what he intends.  He's talked about middle class tax cuts; extending Bush tax cuts to everyone who [sic] $250,000 a year.  It cuts taxes in over 91% of the country.  Why are you keep saying he's going to raise people's taxes?

Go Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!  In this instance. a nauseating repetition of interviewer's name is in order!

His mission is not to increase taxes.  He's had 94 opportunities to either vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases . . . he's been on the other side of what I believe the majority of Americans want.

Now, I'm retracting my Charlie cheer.  He friggin dropped the ball!  The question should be, what is your source for this assertion?  Whatever.

Okay, I'm skipping the whole "Bridge to Nowhere," story as it has been beaten to death!

Charlie revisits the lobbyist question (that's what I get for trying to do this without watching the entire thing before starting this diary).

When you were mayor of Wasilla you hired a very prominent lobbyist to get Wasilla money.

Palin:

We did.  We paid $30,000 for a lobbyist who was in DC because we're thousands and thousands of miles away from DC.  It would have cost us a lot more to be travelling back and forth from this small community.

Okay, then.  Charlie?  What are you doing?  Why aren't you hammering away at her for this stupid answer?  Wait a minute!  I get it now!  You know she doesn't really know what she's talking about so you've decided to let her words hang in the air in order for her true colors to come out.

Oh, Charlie!  You're brilliant!  Swoon.

On to the issue of abortion.  Never mind.  I can't go there.  I'll get too angry.  I'll paraphrase.  Palin believes Roe v. Wade s/b overturned.  But she believes it is a very personal issue.  Oh, and she respects other's opinions on it.  Huh?

Gibson:

Embryonic stem cell research.  John McCain has been supportive of it.

Palin:

We're seeing great progress in adult skin cell research that's proving productive towards curing these diseases.

Oh, YES SHE DID SAY THAT!  I replayed it several times.  Se called it SKIN cell research!  Okay, then.

Book banning and troopergate next.  No need to go into that here.

Oh, except she's not worried about subpeonas on the troopergate thing.  Right.

The rest involves a panel discussion (haven't watched yet) on the interview.  I'll not burden you with those details.  Instead, I will share my final analysis of the interview.

I'm not so sure Charlie played Hardball with Palin as first described.  He was MUCH better than I expected.  And I suspect his notes were disgruntled b/c it would have worked much better had he raised the $30,000 lobbyist issue at the top of the interview when Palin denied ties to lobbyists.  That was beyond a faux paus.

Sarah's repetitive first-name references of "Charlie" seemed like some sort of mnemonic device to avoid terms such as:  "huh?" "what?" "Um."  But that's just me.  Olbermann said on his show Friday that interviewees are taught to frequently repeat the name of the interviewer within the actual interview.  Can't say that I've ever seen that before.  But okay.

Finally, I see this as a reversal of yearly Peanuts cartoon where Lucy holds the ball for Charlie Brown to kick it.  She has always pulled it away when Chuck is in fervent motion to blow it out of the park.  Then Chuck falls on his ass and looks like a sucker.

This time, Charlie is holding the ball for "Lucy" (Palin) to give the big kick-off.  "Lucy" fully expects Chuck to pull that ball away -- after all, she did it so many times to him.  So, "Lucy" isn't going to be as stupid as to approach that ball with any level of effort.  No way will she be humiliated into falling on her arse.  But Chuck doesn't pull that ball away -- he's not quite as slimey as "Lucy" is.  The "big kick" becomes a serious fumble.  The ordinarily raucus stadium is silent because they cannot believe their star player completely humiliated her team.

Originally posted to RoseZ on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:42 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? (8+ / 0-)

    PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

    Sarah Palin: "If the Pledge of Allegiance was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me!"

    by assyrian64 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:52:16 PM PDT

  •  You did great (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ghostlawns

    to stay away from the bits already done to death, and explore a few new ones.

    Lest we get complacent though ..... she has (right now) an appeal to a great many people. Mostly due to ignorance of how her view of the World could impact on theirs.

    We need to keep hammering the lies until the REAL Sarah Palin is exposed.

    Good Job!

    We do not forgive our candidates their humanity, therefore we compel them to appear inhuman

    by twigg on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:52:47 PM PDT

  •  I wish for my heartburn (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RoseZ

    that she would have never done this interview.  I was perfectly content to think she was a mean vindictive person, but clueless as well?  Ugh its like a mash up of the worst parts of Bush and Cheney, surrounded by the loving embrace of religious wingnuttery.

    We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

    by Tzimisce on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM PDT

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tzimisce

      I'd almost say I felt she was calculating (kind of close to mean and vindictive).  But she is dumb.  

      Like Bush, she expects the rest of us to be more idiotic than she is so she can win this thing.

      I really thought it was McCain keep her sequestered.  After reading more about her today (NYT), it's all her.

      Why would a pompous guy like McCain want her on his ticket?  Oh, yes.  The same reason McSame has moved in lock-step to the Bushies.  To win the election, which has NOTHING to do with the betterment of our country.

  •  Gibson Blew It (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeremyA, Pecola

    On many questions, particularly the question about her attempt to ban books.  She distracted with comments about bogus rumors on the internet (there are bogus rumors on the internet on virtually any topic in the world) and he nodded his head, agreed, and laughed.  End of question.  He did not even mention that she had in fact fired the librarian soon after asking about whether she could ban books from the library.  ABC did not show the Bush Doctrine exchange at all on Friday, although they featured the Palin "interview" on World News Tonight, 20/20, and Nightline that night.  That's 1 1/2 hours of news programming, most of it redundant footage from the interview, and nary a second of not only the most damaging, but simply the most newsworthy thing that came from the interviews.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site