Sarah Palin isn't looking good - because they aren't letting her look like Sarah Palin.
I stand by my earlier assessment - if you want Palin to charm the electorate, you have to let her BE HERSELF.
It's like they put her into some sort of candidate boot camp, in an attempt to break her down and build her back up. Pick a running mate for her obvious appeal as an outsider and then do your best to turn her into just another candidate.
Johnny Utah seems to agree with Kathleen Parker that Palin is not good, though he thinks she is, perhaps, just not good yet.
The question, though, is whether she's not good period, or whether she's not good yet. If she were a total natural, she would have been as impressive in her Charlie Gibson interview as she was in her convention speech. If she were a semi-natural, she would have been as impressive in her Katie Couric interview as she was in her convention speech (having needed a few weeks to hit the books). She's obviously neither a total natural nor a semi-natural. That doesn't mean she can't become comfortable and impressive through practice and hard work.
I disagree, I think she is not good anymore. It seems that all the practice and hard work is what is ruining her.
Kathryn Lopez sees it, too
She looks like a woman who’s been cramming talking points and great Matt Scully lines and Mark Salter-McCain war stories and Steve Schmidt marching orders into her head since that first plane ride from Alaska. She looks like a woman who has ceased being the confident, successful executive who got herself elected mayor of Alaska without the full force of her party behind her and managed to have an approval rating of which most can’t even dream.
I am not sure they can recover, having already tested out this Stepford candidate - it will be hard to go back. But so much more effective if they would.
Posted by Vox at September 26, 2008 09:59 AM | politicsCertainly possible, considering that the Gibson interview was better than Couric interview. That would support your belief that the more they try to prepare her, the worse she does. If that's true, then my practice and hard work line would apply only to mastery of the facts and of her opinions. (It's doubtful, to me anyway, that she had considered subjects such as the Columbia free trade deal before she was named as McCain's running mate.) Maybe the McCain people need to say, "okay, here are the situations you're going to be asked about, here are the basic facts, here are Senator McCain's positions, the rest is up to you."
Or are you imagining something different?
In further support of your argument, her answer to the "why no passport?" question was great, I thought. And it was NOT the sort of answer I think a campaign would program. Her answer was, "Look, I wasn't a trust fund kid. I've worked two jobs most of my life, including when I had children. That kind of travel has been a luxury for me." Honest. And perfect.
The question is whether she'd achieve the same result when asked about nuclear proliferation or a flat tax...
P.S. Laura Ingraham also wants to test your theory by putting Palin on conservative talk radio, where she'd have a chance to talk substance, at length, but without having to worry about TV cameras and gotcha questions. Ingraham says that the campaign, though, has not made her available. It's crazy; they bitch about mainstream media bias, but then they don't make her available to the alternative media (other than Hannity).
Posted by: Special Agent Johnny Utah at September 26, 2008 11:06 AMActually, SAJU, her "no passport" response strikes me as EXACTLY the kind of question for which a calibrated response was developed by the campaign - BUT - the response was calibrated to sound like Sarah Palin - so they got it right. My point? I don't think there's much left to chance here, and in all the pre-interview preparation, they sometimes get the feel right, but most of the time, they miss the mark. Turn her loose and let her knock 'em dead - here's my post from this morning:
http://voiceoflibertypodcast.com/2008/09/26/wouldnt-want-to-be-at-the-bottom-of-kathleen-parkers-inbox-today.aspx
Vox has it right - let her off the leash!
Posted by: John McJunkin at September 26, 2008 11:24 AM