Carl has said it already today, but the Palin decision is looking like a really bad idea as the days go by. What we are hearing about her experience in the various forms of media has failed to impress, and it certainly seems that she is being defined by her critics before she can define herself. THE REALLY BAD NEWS, however, is that the McCain campaign appears completely clueless about how to respond to this criticism thus far. A recent CNN interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds regarding Palin is making the rounds on the internet. Is the following video simply an example of a single poor interview, or a sign that the McCain camp dropped the ball?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qCL3G4DZSc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I actually watched this interview live last night and thought the exact same thing. It seems that there has been a serious disregard on the part McCain campaign in its inability to properly vet or even consider the LONG TERM implications of Palin as a VP pick.
Again, I would refer to the idea that Palin may begin to seriously offend voters, especially women, as to the nature and political ramifications of her as the VP selectee. Katy made mention of a website or article (and I will ask her to post it if she can remember who it was or where it was) of a woman who supported Hillary Clinton who is now on the McCain bandwagon due to her excitement over a woman having the possibility of being in such a "high-power position." My instinct is that the desired SHORT TERM affect of snatching up independent female voters who once supported Clinton is a serious issue that may come to the fore front in the coming weeks.
My question would then be, how bad did McCain do in picking Palin for deep rooted political reasons? Or, am I just missing McCain's "strategery" in the grand scheme of things?
I can't find a way to link to it exactly, but if you search Yahoo! News for Palin's mixed messages, it's the first video result. It's sort of a political round table. The woman doesn't say she was a Hilary supporter, but that she's a 'pro-choice moderate republican' and goes on to say that she probably has very different opinions from Palin, but that she's never been as excited about a candidate from the 'historical' point of view of a woman being nominated.
A lot of the independent woman voters I've seen talked to on the news have been really excited about Palin. Maybe it's a good strategy after all?
First off, I never thought I would read a blog post that back me. So I thank you. That aside, the most interesting thing in this video for me was his comment at the end of the interview that said at the end of the day, it is the top of the ticket that matters. In that one sentence, he completely wrote off the political importance of the VP, and reduced the discussion to what will get people elected. Again, it is this short term political maneuvering that sets us up for a rocky future.
Apparently McCain's camp is ticked off about this interview and pulled out of an interview that McCain was supposed to do with Larry King. They think it was over the line and therefore pulled out of the interview with CNN. Interesting.
OVER THE LINE!?!?! You have got to be kidding me? Was it over the line because the reporter, for once, actually called the guy on his blatant attempts to avoid the question? More importantly, why wasn't this kind of journalism not over the line when reporters were asking Obama supporters for one piece of legislation that he has done? This is absolutely sickening. I would love to see reporters continue to drive at real answers, and if the McCain camp wants to avoid these situations, then let them fade away into obscurity.
Nice post Ryan.
I saw this interview yesterday live in the midst of some readings for a Tuesday class. I normally have an apt ability to ignore much of what's going when mainstream media is on.
Cross examination in debate is often heated, rapid, and contentious. Questions are asked, if the debater is not happy with the answer, they'll use a follow up question to further push their opponent to cut the fat and get to the point of the matter. This interview is a breath of fresh air in a media that is so worried about serving up softballs for questions...
Tough journalism, rational questions, logical analysis of responses, and active journalism is exactly what I think is missing from political discourse. While blogs berate their opponents, but fail to interact with one another, this instance of the media playing its fundamental role is beautiful.
I'm sick of the presidential debates, including the one's with youtube, and Town Halls, where the questioner is provided with limited time to ask the question, and they have few, if any opportunities to press for a better answer.
I couldn't agree more Brian. I think to characterize this interview as aggressive and over the line is ridiculous. This is exactly what we need to see in media coverage - and leveled consistently at both sides. We need journalists to engage with the political spin machine and make sure to take them to task on their carefully articulated strategies. A spokesman for any campaign should be capable of answering relevant questions without pivoting ungracefully to the record of the candidate at the "Top of the Ticket."
I think it is remarkably clear that the Palin choice is one that has and will continue to cause the party some problems and tonight is her chance to address those and to provide a clear narrative and construction of herself for the American people. Something tells me Palin won't have such a hard time answering those questions.
Post a Comment