Sarah Palin, like George W. Bush before her, is wholly unprepared for high office. Neither had displayed any depth of knowledge about the world, nor any curiosity at all about national policy issues before running for high office. Neither had traveled outside the country. Neither read newspapers or even serious books (other than the bible). Neither were policy wonks. Both were in bed with big oil. Both were folksy and eloquent reading/parroting other people's words, and embarrassed themselves when having to speak off-the-cuff on issues for which they did not have talking points. Both were the public face of neoconservatives who were actually running the show, and orchestrating their speeches and public performances.
Since Sarah Palin became the Vice Presidential nominee we have had the opportunity to see her deliver a brilliant acceptance speech--one she did not write. As a former TV sportscaster, she was comfortable and convincing before cameras and teleprompters. Everyone, including the newsmedia acted as if we had been shown a window into who this candidate was, rather than commenting on the fact that she was no different than a Hollywood actor, delivering a good performance. What we saw was not what we were going to get.
The Katie Couric interviews showed us who Sarah Palin was when she did not have memorized talking points for the questions that were posed to her. She demonstrated a frightening lack of knowledge about world events--not even knowing who Hamas was; a lack of familiarity with national issues--unable to speak about Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade; a lack of familiarity with the world--she never traveled abroad or even had a passport until recently; and just like Bush did not have enough curiosity about civic issues to read newspapers or news magazines, and couldn't even name one that she regularly read.
Then came the debate and we saw what script preparation can do for a candidate. Does anyone actually think that Sarah Palin voiced a single opinion (other than drilling in ANWAR) which she came to on her own after thoughtful deliberation? It was painfully obvious that she had memorized her talking points, and delivered them well. When asked a question for which she did not have specific talking points, she answered irrelevantly by parroting the talking paragraphs she had memorized about a wholly different issue in order to run out the clock.
So what does this tell us about Palin? Nothing. The same nothing that we knew about Bush when he took high office. It had all been smoke and mirrors. Folksy candidates that Joe Six-pack could relate to, convincing them they had the down-to-earth common sense to run things up there in Washington. Like Bush, should Palin actually get to Washington, she will be controlled by those who surround her and actually do know how things work, and have an agenda.
So shouldn't we be looking at who Sarah's coaches, advisors, and speechwriters are? THEY ARE THE SAME NEOCONSERVATIVE operatives that have been running the Bush administration for 8 years. If you have candidates like Bush and Palin who were/are clueless, then, haven't we learned its imperative to see who his/her advisers are? Because once in office, its the neoconservatives (Cheneys, Rumsfields, and Roves) who actually are running the show behind the scenes, and telling the President what to say.
With McCain old and a cancer-risk, Palin could very well become our President. So shouldn't we look at who is coaching her? Who is writing her talking points? Her speeches? All are Bush operatives--past, present, and current. Most are part of the same neoconservative anti-democratic clique that has been running the Executive branch for the last eight years. Palin is Bush with lipstick, and its ludicrous for the media and serious journalists to fail to look deeper and see this.