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!).
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?
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.
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:
$27 million: Amount that a lobbying firm, which Sarah Palin employed, secured for the town of Wasilla, Alaska, when Palin was the mayor
- 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:
Moving on in the interview.
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.
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?
Embryonic stem cell research. John McCain has been supportive of it.
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.