Wolf Blitzer's interview with Sarah Palin is unremarkable, a typical interview with a politician. But that makes it exceptional, inasmuch as Palin was judged to be significantly below typical.
Palin, it seems, does have a political future. Her discourse is cliche-ridden but fluent and coherent, about what we've come to expect from national leaders.
7 comments:
In spite of my son's and another dear friend's opinion, I still love this woman!
Admittedly far better than any of her public presentations so far, if only because she didn't seem like a robot. I still can't make heads or tails of her syntax.
This is what the campaign should have done earlier: let Sarah be Sarah. She is probably not the smartest person ever to be in public office, but certainly not the dumbest. More importantly, she is honest and has character. You can't say that about a lot of politicians, especially in my neck of the woods.
I would love to see her as the Republican nominee, because we will not win unless we have a telegenic candidate. I knew that Obama would win simply on looks and the way he presents himself. This has been true for every presidential election in my lifetime. The more telegenic candidate always wins. (It is not always true for primaries because they are more about substance, but the main election is all about image.)
Christine, do you mean to imply that Jimmy Carter was more telegenic than Jerry Ford?
Calus, we must assume that in Alaska "progress" is now a transitive verb.
Additional to Christine: was Nixon more telegenic than Humphrey and Wallace?
Note that we get your point but just want to lampoon the utter unattractiveness of some candidates.
Christine: I'm starting to think that Palin may be too attractive to have been elected, given some of her other shortcomings. (Note Calus's comment.) I know several men that simply refused to take her seriously. The comments they made led me to believe they thought of her as a Miss America contestant ("I want to travel around the world and make peace") rather than a serious candidate. Even Alec Baldwin on SNL couldn't resist treating her as a sex object ("I have to say, you're even hotter in person.") Of course, Alec Baldwin no doubt has a one-track mind, but you get my point. (By the way, didn't he promise to move to France back in 2000 if Bush won?) I'm afraid that too many men (and women?) believe that women as attractive as Palin can't have much substance. An ugly prejudice, but there it is. So unless she remakes herself as anything less than a policy wonk, I doubt she'll have much of a chance winning a natiional public office in the future.
SWIND,
Nixon and Humphrey were about equal. (Both somewhat unattractive, although fairly good speakers) Wallace was a little more telegenic, but of course, he was the third party candidate. (Although unlike most in modern times, he actually carried a few states)
Since I was very young in 1968, I don't have first hand knowlege of that election but I wonder if Wallace helped Nixon.
Carter was more telegenic than Ford and as now, the country wanted "change." (and boy did we get it)
JB, in four years, Palin will be more "mature" and less "hot." I know because I am about her age and this is an unhappy reality. But she will still be attractive in the sense that she will be able to draw crowds and have them listen to her. She has the same quality as Obama (whose speeches are no more substantive than hers). She has charisma.
Post a Comment