Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Palin on Defense

Sarah Palin gave an extensive interview to Sean Hannity. The questions weren’t aggressive, but she demonstrated an ability to convey her ticket’s message better than anyone else, including, quite frankly, John McCain. She had this to say on the economy:

I believe that the narrative has finally changed. There’s been more revelation there about what Barack Obama’s true intentions will be. He spoke plainly, finally, to Joe the plumber. He said yes, he wants to spread the wealth. And to Joe the plumber that sounded like socialism. And Joe speaks for a lot of Americans, who hear some suggestion in there that taking more from our small businesses and from our individual families and then spreading their hard-working money around, according to a politician’s priorities, that certainly would kill the entrepreneurial spirit that helped build this country, made it the greatest country on earth. I’ve got a problem with it, and a lot of Americans are gravely concerned about that plan that Barack Obama has with his tax cut, he calls it. Really, it’s a tax credit. Really, it is, just spreading the wealth. There’s a problem with that.

Palin on Joe the VP’s blunder:

And it wasn’t just Biden making that comment. That was confirmed by former secretary Madeleine Albright, where she said yes, she believes that Biden was just stating fact. Now I don’t want a president who invites that kind of testing. We cannot afford that on the homeland. So, that’s a very discouraging to hear, Barack Obama’s only running mate proclaiming that, that Barack Obama would be inviting an international crisis that would adversely effect this country, is what he was saying there. What that statement did was confirm what Barack Obama had been referred to by Joe Biden throughout the primaries and in their debates. Remember, that he was untested and wasn’t ready for the presidency. Joe Biden has said he would be honored to run with John McCain as his running mate on his ticket and that way the country would be better off.

On Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, she doesn’t mince words:

I feel strongly about these associations, that it’s fair game to discuss them. In fact, even Barack Obama had to admit that it was fair game. He challenged John McCain to speak on the issue of Ayers in the debate. And McCain took him up on it, thankfully. But the issue, too, about the judgment and the trustworthiness also and the candidness, it’s fair game. And you see what I go through and what John McCain goes through when we do bring up the associations.

But perhaps the most telling part of the interview was on the infamous wardrobe issue. She gives a remarkably straightforward response, one which no one in McCain camp could manage in two days to get out in defense of their own VP candidate:

First, the RNC spending money on clothes. Those clothes are not my property. We had three days of using clothes that the RNC purchased. If people knew how Todd and I and our kids shop so frugally. My favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet. And my shoe store is called Shoe Fly in Juneau, Alaska.

You have to wonder what is going through the minds of campaign advisors who let their candidate twist in the wind for days on this. Are they all job hunting already? Have they so lost perspective that they can no longer assess when their silence is feeding, rather than quieting a story? Perhaps the vaunted team which botched her introduction to the national stage has figured out that their futures don’t rest with any potential Palin ticket. (So let her explain it herself, right?)

But aside from that intrigue, what comes across in the interview is a candidate who has learned to be a candidate. Those who hold up interview skills as the definitive test of a candidate forget that a smart, attractive politician can master it in a matter of weeks. She certainly has. One thing is for certain: she’s learned through this campaign how dangerous it is waiting until the last minute to tell the voters your message, hiding from or screaming at the media, and failing to take control of your own image. If she chooses to run again for national office, I doubt she’ll repeat those errors.

Introducing Commentary Complete

17 Responses to “Palin on Defense”

  1. jjv says:

    Can’t we now call it Geneva I and not “Durban II?”

  2. Los Angeleno says:

    The scandal here is that the AJC has backed Obama on this. (I say this as an AJC supporter).

  3. Mahon says:

    A State Department press release speaks of “taking these decisions?” Englishmen take decisions; Americans make decisions. If Foggy Bottom cannot always advocate for American interests, can they not at least speak and write like they live here? (or “as though,” but that’s formal) No doubt they take lifts up to their flats as well.

  4. Jonas Menchik says:

    This is so obvious. Its the same delay strategy used with the stimulus. If the public and press have questions, hide the facts, and release it right at the time that it must go forward.

    Its only been a month, and the New Age transparency is looking more like Cuba every day.

  5. Seth Swirsky says:

    All you have to understand to already know America is attending this sick, racist, virulently anti-semitic “summit”/”conference”/Jew Bash is Obama’s lust to talk to Iran’s Ahmadinejad. He wants to be “open” and talk to “all sides”.

    My Jewish friends will then be forced to defend the Obama administrations, immoral stance towards Israel and Jewry. And defend it they will because their own self identity is defined by their membership in the cult of Liberalism than it is in the values of Judaism and the survival of their brethren (and ultimately, themselves).

  6. Margo says:

    Well, it’s all pretty transparent, isn’t it–in the old sense rather than the new. Mask decisions already taken in a fake process of decision-making until the decision is upon us and there’s no time to debate. As another post has shown, the media henchmen are talking up Ahmedinejad as a great moderate talking partner.

    Mahon, I do think the State Department guys are “taking” decisions–from the glorious leader–rather than “making” them.

  7. Bob Miller says:

    The Arabs and sympathizers in Obama’s camp must be chuckling when some Jews do their heavy lifting for them. This is what near-total assimilation can do.

  8. soccer dad says:

    In Anne Bayefsky’s second account we had the American delegation effectively acquiescing to a provision to make the Holocaust debatable. This is unconscionable.

    As far as I can tell, the only Obama supporter who’s started to question the President is Martin Peretz. I wish he were a bit more emphatic, but his realization is a start.

  9. Jonas Menchik says:

    Although frightening, I must say that Seth sums it up very well. Liberalism is a cult that blinds people to reality, esp the Jewish followers. Where is Alan Dershowitz, who promised us that Obama’s pro-Israel credentials were solid? Seriously, attending Durban II was supposed to be a posting in the Trinity church, not the State Dept. hmmmmmm.

  10. ian says:

    The principled stand after Durban I, which was a horrendous event, was to boycott the conference outright. Durban II was intended to implement the agenda spelled out at Durban I, and if that caused nations to literally walk out, including the US, it was foolish if not completely dishonest to argue that we would attend to “change the direction” of an already pre-set agenda. Not only did this fail, as was easily predicted, by it gave undeserved legitimacy to the whole charade.

  11. LEONARD EDELSTEIN says:

    Just in time for April 20 — Hitler’s birthday.

  12. Cas Balicki says:

    Oh where oh where is Mel Brooks, when we need him most.