Well, this is a "duh" diary for MYDD readers. What I find annoying is the defense of her by right wing apologists. No wonder the George Will types are getting a lot of heat. This is addressed to any right wing people who read this blog out of curiosity.
Yes, she is no Quayle. Quayle was more knowledgable even if he wasn't the brightest bulb in the business. I do not know how dumb Palin is, but she is definitely an ignoramus of the highest order for someone aspiring to be in national office. But she has one thing over Quayle. Quayle possessed a mediocre intellect with no real accomplishment. Palin's strong attribute is her singleminded drive. That is a good trait that can take an average person far in life.
OK, I am going to start my case against her to be discussed with your right wing friends who will be pooh poohing her treatment by the media elite. Feel free to offer your own suggestions or any fact checks of my criticisms of her . Here are some points I came up with after noticing her in interviews.
1) The Bush Doctrine question: Well, I thought Charlie Gibson was too insistent on that term. But nothing stopped palin from saying "hey, I do not care what it really means. but I will say what I would do the same as Bush and what I would do differently" . She could not even articulate that. And you know why? She has no thoughts on it. Not too long ago, she openly mentioned she had no thoughts on the Iraq war other than maybe we should have some kind of exit plan. That is pretty much proof she doesn't have any interest in such matters to come up with her own doctrine or follow someone else's.
2) The Newspaper question by Couric: I have heard people defend her on this saying answering trivia like that doesnt mean anything. Say what? She is a journalism major. Even if she is no longer a "journalist", wouldn't anything she deals with in that line of work be ingrained in her brain at some level? The fact that she can't even name a SINGLE newspaper source (hell, just say FOX NEWS) on the spot shows me that she doesn't give a crap about any newssource. Not even the Washington Times, you right wing freak? How about the Wall Street Journal - a paper that combines excellent reporting with a right wing biased editorial. Not even that? How does an "executive" get by without reading that?
3)Her ignorance of history. Once again, people will mock this criticism as "who cares about historical trivia.". Well if you fail to know the mistakes and successes of the past, how are you going to govern well in the future? You do not govern by reinventing the wheel. So when she doesn't even know when the Under God phrase was tacked on to the Pledge Of Allegiance, that shows an ignorance not becoming of a possible leader of the country. how is she going to assess controversies when she doesn't know the context of how certain things started? if she never bothered to learn about her own country, does she really care about it? Who shows more interest in their country? Someone who blindly recites the Pledge of Allegiance? Or someone who takes the trouble to read up on the history of their own country?
4) A leader who condones a secessionist element: If Obama associated with anyone advocating secession from the US, he would have been crucified. Country First? How about Alaska First. Palin attended a convention of the Alaska Independence Party. Her husband was a member. She has a right to do so. But then do not pretend to care about the country as a whole.
5) International Travel and the Russia question: True, while it would be preferable to have a leader who traveled a lot, it is not a mandatory qualification. The "trade missions with Russia" claim has already been exposed as iffy. And even if they did happen, she showed with her response that she didn't really learn anything from those missions because she just recited them like it was some school outing. She then belittled college backpackers who travel by saying she had to work and did not have that luxury. Well, in the movie "The namesake", the father tells his son that books can take you to places where the body can't travel to" or something like that. She exhibits no sense of that kind of alternative experience. She could have easily said "I keep up with them. I read this book XYZ. Or watch this series of documentaries. Or I check out international sites on the web out of curiosity". NOTHING. TOTAL BLANK. Hell, she could have said that she has had conversations with immigrant students while in college and got to learn more about their countries that way. If she was Alaska governor, that's fine. But not fine when you run for national office.
6) She mocked the Democrats attention to torture in Guantanamo during the convention. Gained a lot of applause. But doesn't that show she is so stupid that she didn't realize that it clashes with mcCain's policy on torture?
7) Small Town Values and A leader who excludes: She looks down on a segment of Americans while she acts like her small town values are the only good values. Is that something a national leader should do? She has put down east coasters.Also if her small town values are so great, why is Wasilla the meth capital of the US? For as polarizing as Republicans think Clinton is, he NEVER made fun of a segment of Americans who did not agree with him. He may have clashed with political leaders, but he never insulted the voters who supported his opponents. Kerry didn't when he campaigned for President. So why is it OK for Sarah to do so while she gets defensive over people making fun of small town Americans as she believes? Dare your right wing friends to come up with a single instance of Clinton bashing ordinary americans from the mountain states when he was President. A person is free to say what they want when they are not running for national office. Is it more acceptable to bash NYers and Los Angeles residents? Aren't they real Americans too? And is any liberal pundit more elite than the likes of Peggy Noonan or Dinesh D Souza?
8) Do we really want someone who thinks humans coexisted with dinosaurs to really set the new education agenda during such a crucial time of decline of America's dominance in the world? OK, on second thoughts, this point might actually work in her favor with the idiots on the right.
9) The Supreme Court question about cases she did not agree with. Well, I can condone her if she cant remember case names. That is no big deal. But she showed a total lack of interest other than Roe vs Wade by not even using regular common language to hint at cases she did not agree with. Or she could have just said "i am happy with the way our SC has operated over the years. No complaints."
When people make excuses for her that many people put on the spot won't come up with the right answers on gotcha questions, I want to scream at them what is so gotcha about some basic knowledge we expect from national leaders. The key words being NATIONAL and LEADER, not local and average joe.
We do not care that she lacks enough experience. We care that she does nothing to substitute for that experience with a natural interest in things on a national scale over the years. Since such matters do not interest her, why let her do a job she is not interested truly interested in but for the power of the position?