More things that Sarah Palin doesn't know!

[GG]

The problem was, of course, that he knew nothing about her. That it completely shot his "experience" advantage that he had. But moreso, and the death knell, was that it completely shot his Country First slogan. There was no chance in hell this was putting the country first. This was putting the country last, because it was so reckless. Even if she turned out to be great it would have been reckless.

 

Woa, hold on a sec. Why is McCain's hope that an unproven candidate could turn out great, still be considered reckless, yet there's global celebration over the same hope for the POTUS-elect?

[Kelly the Dog]

Woa, hold on a sec. Why is McCain's hope that an unproven candidate could turn out great, still be considered reckless, yet there's global celebration over the same hope for the POTUS-elect?

Because it's still reckless offering the job of VP, a heartbeat away from the most important job in the world, knowing absolutely zero about her. In other words, completely and utterly reckless. That's putting the country in severe danger. That means you have no regard for the job or the office.

[SDS]

Because it's still reckless offering the job of VP, a heartbeat away from the most important job in the world, knowing absolutely zero about her. In other words, completely and utterly reckless. That's putting the country in severe danger. That means you have no regard for the job or the office.

 

Let's assume that NYT piece is more or less accurate. Although they didn't spend months together - the staff and McCain himself spent a decent amount of time with her. It is really hard to imagine how the conversations went w/o them being alerted to any potential shortcomings.

[Steely Dan]

It just dosnt make sense. How could the campaign not forsee that she would be exposed as a fraud and running joke. No she war added for more than just a hail mary. Im hearing bill Kristol was responsible for the pick which is all anyone needs to know.

 

Incompetence.

 

 

this guy Robert Draper of the NYT had a number of interviews of high level staffers and McCain advisers.

 

They just vetted her past. I'm sure it never occurred to them that she was totally uneducated about the problems in the world.

 

 

you don't know this. again, these are 2nd hand reports from staffers who ran an incredibly poor campaign. Maybe she didn't prepare, but this would go against all the reports of her previous campaigns in Alaska. It doesn't pass the smell test at all.

 

If you are trying to defend her then stick with the unprepared story. It's frightening to believe that her performance was the result of a lot of preparation. If she prepared and was thrown off by the very simple question of "What magazines do you read" it's a sad, sad commentary on her. If she prepared and had to say "I'll get a staffer to get back to you" It's a very sad commentary on her.

 

 

Woa, hold on a sec. Why is McCain's hope that an unproven candidate could turn out great, still be considered reckless, yet there's global celebration over the same hope for the POTUS-elect?

 

If you're comparing Obama's knowledge base on things to Palin's knowledge base then you're comparing filet mignon at a fine restaurant to a McDonald's hamburger. Caribou Barbie would lose on are you smarter than a fifth grader when it comes to geography and world diplomacy.

[Kelly the Dog]

Let's assume that NYT piece is more or less accurate. Although they didn't spend months together - the staff and McCain himself spent a decent amount of time with her. It is really hard to imagine how the conversations went w/o them being alerted to any potential shortcomings.

I think, and supported by the article, McCain spent less than two hours with her, total, in his life, before he made the selection.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Let's assume that NYT piece is more or less accurate. Although they didn't spend months together - the staff and McCain himself spent a decent amount of time with her. It is really hard to imagine how the conversations went w/o them being alerted to any potential shortcomings.

 

Not knowing what countries are in NAFTA isn't a "shortcoming". It's an appalling lack of civic knowledge for someone aspiring to be first in line to succeed a 72 year old disable cancer survivor.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Woa, hold on a sec. Why is McCain's hope that an unproven candidate could turn out great, still be considered reckless, yet there's global celebration over the same hope for the POTUS-elect?

 

"But she has executive experience!"

[Steely Dan]

Fox New Anchor with Carl Cameron.

 

interview with Bill O'reilly.

 

Oddly O'reilly defends her.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

They just vetted her past. I'm sure it never occurred to them that she was totally uneducated about the problems in the world.

the article states that in the author's opinion, Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis "neither apparently saw her lack of familiarity with major national or international issues as a serious liability."

 

I can't figure out if it means that:

 

A) they knew she didn't understand basic issues and thought they could bring her up to speed fast enough so as not to hurt the campaign

 

B) they really didn't know how little she understood about these things because she hadn't been vetted properly

 

C) they knew and didn't they didn't think it mattered as long as she was "handled" properly, meaning she didn't need "campaign for POTUS/VPOTUS camp", keep her away from the media, etc.

 

I'm guessing probably some combination of the three, but mostly A.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Fox New Anchor with Carl Cameron.

 

interview with Bill O'reilly.

 

Oddly O'reilly defends her.

yes, he tries, but I was a little surprised he backed down, due to the obvious evidence against her, at least as presented by Carl Cameron. Bill O is rarely logical...

[Kelly the Dog]

the article states that in the author's opinion, Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis "neither apparently saw her lack of familiarity with major national or international issues as a serious liability."

 

I can't figure out if it means that:

 

A) they knew she didn't understand basic issues and thought they could bring her up to speed fast enough so as not to hurt the campaign

 

B) they really didn't know how little she understood about these things because she hadn't been vetted properly

 

C) they knew and didn't they didn't think it mattered as long as she was "handled" properly, meaning she didn't need "campaign for POTUS/VPOTUS camp", keep her away from the media, etc.

 

I'm guessing probably some combination of the three, but mostly A.

I'm thinking that they simply didn't know the extent of the lack of knowledge, probably not even close to it, because they would never bother to ask her simple geography questions or whether she ever read the constitution. And they figured they could coach her enough to get by on the issues. Then it just backfired.

[SDS]

I'm thinking that they simply didn't know the extent of the lack of knowledge, probably not even close to it, because they would never bother to ask her simple geography questions or whether she ever read the constitution. And they figured they could coach her enough to get by on the issues. Then it just backfired.

 

FWIW, it is a he said/she said situation:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-aide-offe.html

 

I can understand that someone who doesn't speak on national issues makes a verbal gaffe. The explanation given in this article is entirely plausible.

 

Now, that isn't to say she was indeed knowledgeable on these matters, just that some internal people may had already turned on her and are now taking things out of context to paint her in the worst possible light.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You should beat her. That will probably make you very happy.

 

Why can't you both be happy?

 

Tack old Sarah onto your sig site... For the right price she will make some dude happy!

 

Baada bing...Baada boom... Stupid and happy in the room!

 

[SDS]

I think this is a HELL of a lot more credible than "anonymous sources" from the losing campaign.

 

Palin and Africa, Etc. [Rich Lowry]

 

I talked to Steve Biegun, the former Bush NSC aid who briefed Sarah Palin on foreign policy, and he considers the leaks against her on the international stuff "absurd."

 

He says there's no way she didn't know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn't must be distorting "a fumble of words." He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton's AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.

 

On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him "somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness." He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, "Ok, who's in NAFTA, what's the deal with CAFTA, what's up the FTA?"—her way, Biegun says, of saying "rack them and stack them," begin again from the start. "Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously," he says.

 

In general, according to Beigun, Palin had a steep learning curve on foreign issues, about what you would expect from a governor. But she has "great instincts and great core values," and is "an instinctive internationalist." The stories against her are being "fed by an unnamed source who is allowed by the press to make ad hominem attacks on background." Biegun, who spent dozens and dozens of hours briefing Palin on these issues, is happy to defend her, on the record, under his own name.