It's an easy question.
Anchorage Daily News
Washington Times (good conservative that she is)
NYTimes

Is that so hard?

Rob, I'm feeling you. I'll say it again:

NOBODY BLACK, who was this obviously incompetent and stupid, would be taken seriously. The excuses made for White mediocrity are glaring.

I'm really hoping she reads the Ladies' Home Journal and was just embarrassed to admit it.

Or, she coulda just said 'The Times.' No need to specify! Blizzard of words, indeed.

but white mediocrity just may get you the vice presidency. so much for post-racial america.

She outdoes herself every day.

(oh, and i love jackandjillpolitics.com!! keep rockin it!!)

It's the fact that she's a Republican.

The modern Republican Party has made a virtue of anti-intellectualism. Dogma, rather than knowledge, is what they want to hear from their own - and even many that are sympathetic to them are turning against this woman.

On another note, consider this. Had Hillary won the nomination, instead of Obama, would the Republicans have tapped a black conservative republican of the Clarence Thomas sort to be McCain's VP - regardless of how qualified or not that individual was? I tend to think it's at least a plausible scenario, given the apparent motivators for McCain's pick of Palin.

If such a hypothetical black republican's 'conservative bona fides' (i.e., hardcore right-wing culture war type) were acceptable to the base, they'd probably be just about as supportive (at least publicly).

"Americans who support Palin are not fools, peasants or theocrats. They have reasons, which elites may not agree with, but cannot dismiss. Many are attracted to her because she embodies the values of the American West, which they find superior to the values of coastal elites... It's not irrational or simplistic for voters to prefer candidates who reflect their deepest values."

Reading Gerson it finally dawned on me that Republicans really don't value competence, education, or relevant experience. Michael Brown was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association before being picked to head FEMA.

That Palin has so far exhibited not a shred of evidence that she is competent, has any knowledge of how our federal government works (um...is supposed to work), or is even well-read!

Evidently, only "coastal elites" worry about things like that. Republicans like her because she embodies the values of the American West!

When you set the bar that low, you can understand why we're in two endless wars, a major financial meltdown with a $10 trillion national debt, and a country that can't do anything right anymore.

You know, I was watching the Stephanie Tubbs funeral, and I'll be honest with you; half the black congressmen/congresswomen who spoke there were plainly idiots (Kendrick Meek, noticeably, was not). Now I don't know how seriously Carolyn Kilpatrick is taken by the nation at large, but Detroit seems to take her seriously.

There was a perfectly reasonable black female candidate for VP this time around. Condi Rice. She's very conservative and knows something about something, even if she can't execute. She wouldn't've get sent through the wringer in the same way Palin has. She'd blow straight through the interviews, picking up considerably more independent votes.

Problem is, Condi can't be a Republican VP. As a black woman that's allowed being a black woman to shape some of her opinions, her beliefs that racism actually still exists and women shouldn't be conscripted into being broodmares would make her unpalatable to the majority-male, overwhelming-majority-white Republican Party. That's just the way it is.

Palin's incuriosity is a feature, not a bug. The only way a woman in her mid-forties can have perfectly orthodox conservative views is if her life experiences exist entirely independent of her political philosophies. Being a woman and a conservative sands certain sharp corners (like, for instance, rape and incest exceptions) off your conservatism in the same way that being a white dude and a liberal sands certain corners off your liberalism. If you're spouting off like Limbaugh in lipstick, you are either (a) lying, like Ann Coulter, or (b) haven't given a moment's thought to the consequences of what you believe.

Plus, if McCain fired Palin at this point, he'd flat-out lose. His only hope at this point is to try to ride it out.

-- ACS

Rejoice. This woman isn't even as good a politician as she's been reported to be. How could she not give a shout out to her own local periodicals, at the very least? They're the ones who are closest to the scandals they can cover, and probably the best ones to profit from it.

She's ridiculous, and people know it.

As far as Palin goes, she must be out-thinking herself (which can't be that hard). I.e., she doesn't remember which publications are approved by the conservative base without provoking mockery from the mainstream press. Or else, she was afraid she would be asked, in a follow-up, to mention some story she'd read about in the news, and was so petrified of that possibility that she just stalled out.

Unfortunately, while I am a pretty optimistic Obama supporter (and don't think the end result of the election will be that close), I think the press will cut her some slack on the debate. She'll avoid answering any questions and go straight into vapid, angry denunciations of Obama. The press seems to love this (remember her convention speech?) and will pronounce it a great improvement.

Because damnation is a power reserved for God. The rest of us have to work and hope for the best. At this point, that's Obama.

As for the issue of race, no doubt that Palin would be torn apart were she African American. But, honestly, I'm pretty sure any liberal candidate would have been torn apart by now as well. The fact that she's a female conservative insulates her somewhat from the media, as they are terrified of betraying anything that might be perceived as liberal media bias.

In addition, I think Palin has been somewhat insulated by McCain's mavericky, country first, media darling persona. Had a different, more acceptably questionable candidate had selected Palin, the outcry against her candidacy would likely have begun much sooner. Because she has John McCain, America's one true patriot, as her surrogate, media types have been afraid to openly laugh her out of the room, as to do so would be to laugh at Johnny Mac.

What Palin represents goes beyond any type of Stereotype.
In effect she is a female version of George W. Bush. I think the republican party is using Palin the same way Bush was used in the 2000 election. The only major difference is this time the guy with experience (McCain) is running for president and the anti-intellectualist is the vice president.

I think in effect a McCain-Palin ticket is really the Bush-Cheney Dynamic turned on its head.

Palin clearly decided not to answer the question. That's fine, politicians do it all the time (see Obama, Barack in response to the three debate questions about what programs he will cut). She didn't have a prepared answer, and rather than just saying the first thing that came to her mind (cf. Biden, Joe) she decided not to answer. If Coates thinks this is some kind of definitive proof of illiteracy, then he's dumber than he claims Palin is. She's not an idiot, and she sounds fine discussing issues she's familiar with, those just don't happen to include foreign policy or national economic policy (both, by the way, areas which are not strengths of Coates either).

Sorry to disrupt the echoes on here, but Coates writes so well about some issues that it's really embarrassing to see him posting "hah, hah, look how stupid the other people's VP candidate is,"....when his preferred V.P. candidate is Joe "FDR & the TV" Biden.

Oh, just those two tiny little areas, huh? (You left out judicial matters, by the way. And a few other things.)

Why not just run an actual pig for VP, then? Sounds like the pig wouldn't be too far behind your beloved Sarah.

Palin can learn about judicial nominees, foreign policy, economic policy, and whatever else you'd like to mention. That's a matter of finding the right talking points, and because of how things worked out htis year with the Olympics, she has less time than a VP would typically have to get up to speed.

It's not like Obama really has any foreign policy or economic experience; he's just learned how to talk about them since he started running for national office. He still says plenty of moronic or deceptive things (energy independence within 10 years anyone, a tax cut on 95% of Americans with crushing budget constraints); it's not like these are good ideas, they are just talking points.

These policies don't show any substantive knowledge, or if substantive knowledge is presumed, they show dishonesty and demagoguery. Look, Obama's a great politician, but he's just as full of s--t as any politician. Pretending like Palin's an idiot because she hasn't learned in five weeks how to couch the lies politicians tell the American public on almost every issue is either dishonest or ignorant.

I think we've found out what she thinks the Bush Doctrine is. Choosing not to answer any question you find isn't worth answering.

Her lack of preparation combined with her lack of curiosity and her determination do make her scary. I don't even understand why people are calling her likeable, but I think somehow Republicans are suspending their disbelief. It's almost as if liberals finding her unqualified means Republicans should love her. The enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

That is the lamest sort of hyperbole imaginable. And really, wouldn't we sleep better knowing that when "Putin rears his head into our airspace" Palin can at least read the intelligence reports?

Are you fucking serious?!?! Ta-Nehisi Coates is not running to be a 72-year old, cancer stricken heartbeat away from the presidency. It's not okay for her to only to be fluent or coherent on issues she's familiar with---not at this point in the race. With only 35 days left to go she needs to be on top of everything. And she isn't. And it isn't her fault necessarily. Obama has sit through 25 debates and untold interviews and press conferences and has had two years to talk about and refine his positions, whether you agree with them or not. She has had 30 days. That is not enough time for someone with twice her IQ. She is not ready and cannot become ready in the alloted time--it really is just that simple.

And FYI, earlier in the interview Palin had said she'd learned about the world through books and magazines since was couldn't afford to travel. That Couric would ask her about the material she's read that influenced her worldview is a totally logical follow-up to Palin's answer---especially since we know so little else about her. I mean all she had to do was name a book---one fucking book, and she couldn't.

Talk about weak sauce...

Just admit it, rab, you've got nothing. She's a terrible choice, and pretending Biden is in her same league of worthlessness just makes you look as stupid as she is.

So for your own sake, give it up. Really, you're embarrassing your entire family.

With all due respect I do not think that most people object to Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge or experience. As you say the question isn't whether or not she has the knowledge anyone can learn. So I don't think that a lack of knowledge is per se a disqualifier for seeking public office.

Rather I think that what most people object too is her lack of judgement. Judgement is a different skill from knowledge and it goes hand in glove with basic problem solving ability. Lack of knowledge does not necessarily mean that a person lacks the ability to solve problems. However the inability to admit one's own ignorance does in and of itself show a lack of judgement. Personally that is what I find most objectionable about Mrs. Palin, not that she is ignorant but rather that she is either unwilling or unable to admit her own ignorance.

Decisiveness and an inability to regocnize one's own shortcomings make for bad decisions. I think that is what is so scary about Palin.

I agree with Sorn. More than lack of knowledge, it's her lack of judgment and basic curiosity about how the world (and policy... and economics... etc) works that's scary.

I'm happy to come across this blog today - been a fan of your articles!

That's horse shit. McCain locked up the nomination in March, and could have quietly chosen Palin as his running mate during that time and had her work on getting her policy chops up to snuff. Instead, he waited until after Obama had made his selection so that he could use his pick as a response.

Unless Governor Palin was competing in Olympic shooting unbeknownst to me, I fail to see how this explains her ignorance of the issues.

T: Happy birthday, man! Hope you had a great one. I've been absent from comments for a while due to the hurricane and the market meltdown, but I'm still picking you up in the feed reader daily, nodding my head. Hope to visit the real site more frequently to drop my two cents.

Because she knows her to responses will be looked into, and that another lie will be revealed. It will turn out that she doesn't subscribe to any magazines, or that she subscribes only to bizarre wackaloon ones. It will turn out that she bragged to people about not having time to read. Or something. With Palin, there's always a lie.

She is what she is. She's an uninformed dumbass.

However, don't underestimate her ruthless political skills and ability to "sound smart" (or at least snappy) in her familiar territories: oil exploration, privatization, "terrorism," etc.

Remember what happened last time we thought a candidate was stupid, simple, and meaningless?

We had no idea we were in for this.

If a woman is on a major party ticket, I want it to be because they are credible. Unfortunately I think you are right about if she was black, she wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

My concern is that what percentage of the population sees through this charade. I'm concerned that people will buy into this, she is not one of the elite and she is like us, blah, blah, blah.

I wonder why Hugh didn't bother to ask about how Sarah and her family manage their family finances with the help of that handy per diem? Most working families probably do not even know what one is.

I was a little concerned that she might manage to exceed expectations at Thursday's debate. This makes me feel a lot better and pretty much confirms my suspicions. I just can't imagine how she could make it through a 90 minute debate without sounding like an idiot at least once.

I don't think firing her or not has anything to do with race. It's very unusual for a candidate to dump their running mate and the one modern case it happened, Eagleton, was a disaster for the candidate. If he had picked a Pro-Life Hispanic or African American politician, who also turned out to be a bit oblivious or whatever, he would've had to stick with that too.

Seriously, outside of what, the Dakotas, Wyoming or Montana, is there any other state that doesn't have at least one city more populous than the whole of Alaska?

The argument isn't that there are no ignorant black public officials--there most certainly are. The argument is that there is no way they'd ever be governor of anything, much less VP.

"Equality is not in being great. Great black people
have always been compensated. The true equality is
the equality to suck like a white man"

I'm not sure whether it's a phrase being fed to her or if it's her own personal coping mechanism to create the illusion that she has been around or at least paying attention for something more than all these weeks.

Just did a Google search for "Sarah Palin 'All these years'" and came up with 72,200 responses.

You see, this simply is not true. Not true. This comment simply reflects your biases, and nothing more.

Just read the Hugh Hewitt interview. Read it and weep. They are softball questions, not about policy or governing, but about how Palin feels and how she sees things from a personal perspective.

And her answers are those of someone in high school. And not doing well in high school.

Her language, sentence structure, and critical thinking are all simply ridiculous. If these answers were a class paper in high school, she'd get a D.

All of this "Palin isn't stupid" is just a crock of Right Wing denial. A crock. She's over-coached, she's nervous, blah, blah, blah. Pathetic excuses.

She is, in fact, stupid.

That IS the problem.

This just makes me insane.

Where is the ANY evidence for this. ANY?

Not once, since being nominated, has Palin ever "sounded smart", "sounded snappy", or demonstrated "ruthless political skills".

Not once. Can we please stop this insanity. Please.

If she said she read the NYTimes she'd be called a liar, if she said she read Newsweek, they might find out she doesn't subscribe and would be called a liar. WHATEVER she said would be used against her.

I mean do you really think she doesn't know the names of the NYTimes, Washington Post, the name of the major Alaskan papers, CNN, ABC, etc?

No, She didn't name anything specific so as not to give her enemies more ammunition, but instead her crazed enemies choose to interpret this that she is SO STUPID SHE CANNOT EVEN NAME THE WASHINGTON POST OR THE NEW YORK TIMES.

I've got to call this as totally deranged commentary. You hate her so whatever she said would be mocked, why not say 'all of them'...since only a really crazy person would think she can't name the top periodicals in the US or Alasksa. This is getting really stupid.

She asks a question. Palin doesn't know any answer, so she bullshits.

Couric knows it, and asks the deadly follow-up: what do you mean by that, can you give me some examples, what are the pros and cons, etc.

It's vicious.

But to me, the most interesting question of all is, why does Palin submit? In particular, why the second interview with Couric?

Weird psychology, man. Weird.

No. This is wrong.

We know that she could name The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The reason she isn't willing to name these papers or any other papers or news magazines is because she doesn't read any of them.

She'd get caught in that lie.

But also, to understand why this is being mocked, you have to go back to her answer and read the last response again, the defensive one about Alaska is a "microcosm".

Pure stupidity. Pure and beautiful stupidity. She just floats on air, she soars with astonishing stupidity. She's a virtuoso of stupidity. She's fearless.

It's like watching the world's greatest conductor, but instead of music, it's stupidity.

This argument holds very little water. It's not as if you need a subscription in order to be allowed to read something. No subscription to Time? "Why, that's because I read Time online, silly." Same goes with most publications, these days. Case in point: I personally read the Atlantic, but I've never so much as seen a copy of it in print, and there's nothing resembling a paper trail to prove that I read it. Why didn't she just tell the truth?

Ruthless political skills are not about smarts, they're about instincts; and I would venture to say that most voters do not resemble Socrates. Sarah Palin has proved herself able to get more votes, repeatedly, than her opponents who -- repeatedly -- thought she was too stupid to pull it off. Having lived in Alaska, I can tell you that her opponent, Tony Knowles, was not exactly a babe in the political woods, and certainly he's a very smart man, but who's governor now?

Great article on Politico today about her ability to win debates even as her more experienced opponents thought it was all about their smarts:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14158.html

Why Couric felt the need to ask her 3 times is beyond me, I can understand pushing her on BOOKS, that's a fair question, but periodicals? Give me a break.

I'm sure if she said she read the Washington Post and didn't subscribe to it, and then said she read it online that there would be FOIA requests for the logs of her computer to determine if she 'really' read it online or not.

I can't wrap my mind around why with all of the LEGITIMATE reasons for criticism of her, that anyone would choose this soundbyte to even comment on, it is just stupid.

Maybe you were underpaid because you can't spell. You need another "R" in "EMBARRASSED."

You are so full of shit, Libertarian. You think if she claimed to read Time or Newsweek magazine, that there would be an investigation into whether or not someone has seen her read these? For as dumb as everyone knows this woman is, I don't think anyone would doubt her if she claimed to read Time magazine. I kind of thought all adults that kept up on news read these types of magazines in some form or another. This is what makes this type of thing so bizarre. There are so many answers she could have given to avoid anything being interpreted in this way. She claimed to 'read them all.' And you, somehow, are defending this response, and blaming Katie Couric for tossing her meaty, slow-pitched softball. Bizarre.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with with Libertarian on this one.

Scary.

Yep. Absolutely. I absolutely believe if she had named any specific publication there would have been demands to know what she subscribed to, if she had ever been seen to read this publication and if it could be proven whether or not she read it online.

Because Palin didn't answer the question. When I ask somebody what music they like and they say "everything" it's a BS answer that tells me nothing. If they start naming specific genres or bands then I get to know the person better. If they can't do that, my assumption is that they don't really listen to music (which is fine) or they are embarrassed by what they listen to.

It's a simple softball question that Palin couldn't answer. She either doesn't really pay attention to the news or is embarrassed by what her news sources are. But honestly, nobody could read the mythical all of them.

Stop.

LOL, no the official 'take' on her comment is that she is so stupid and unlettered that she can't even remember the names of major US and Alaska news organizations.

In effect, you get to call her a liar for refusing to name what you assume to be whack job and embarrassing news sources and you get to call her stupid for not being able to name any MSM sources.

I've got to call Palin Derangement Syndrome on this.

She could have answered that she gets her news from Fox rather than papers. You don't have to subscribe to read--maybe 3 times a week she picked up the Anchorage paper on the way to work. Anything to suggest she tries to keep abreast of the news, or even gets that we like to think our top candidates have a clue about the news.

For most people, the notion that leaders don't ever look at the same media we do is worrying--it's the bubble effect, where you only get the news your staff thinks you can cope with.

Seriously though, how hard is it to show a little loyalty and give a shout out to your local papers or something that all the "common people" like her read such as Time or Newsweek?

Just let this comment sink in for a minute.

That's all that matters?

Is this really what's become of us?

All that really matters is to get voters to like you better?

Sad. Very sad. I hope this isn't true.

For the sake of argument, let's say that there's some good reason for her not being able to answer a question that, for a politician and stateswoman, ranks in difficulty somewhere around "What are your favorite TV shows?" Let's assume that her answer to this question doesn't imply anything at all about the development of her worldview, and imputes nothing about her intellectual curiosity. And when I say "intellectual curiosity", I don't mean elitist proclivity, I mean "a tendency to think over and research solutions to problems."

That said, also note that she was unable to name any Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

If you think the question on newspapers and magazines is just fluff, are you going to mount the same defense in the face of her ignorance of our judicial system?

Seriously, Palin must know the names of major publications like Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal. But, she was either scared of getting caught in a lie (it would've been very hard to prove that she never reads Newsweek) or saying something that sounded like either a not serious enough publication or something that isn't read by Joe Sixpack, so she just didn't answer.

I read the entire decision and both disents on the Second Amendment case, but I have NO IDEA what the name was. I think Hamedi vs. Rumsfeld was the name of the case on enemey combatants where it was ruled that O'Hare Int. Airport is indeed American soil, but I'm not sure, since there have been a number of enemy combatant cases. I don't know the names of recent affirmative action cases either, but I know the main points in the decisions....I also read the entire opinion and dissents on the 'partial birth' abortion case but have no idea the names of the cases.

It depends on how the question was asked...Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board of Education and Times vs. Sullivan are the only three 'actual names' of Supreme Court cases that I can name offhand, but I can speak/write fairly intelligently about a lot of cases...

Jeepers - so what?

Are you on the ticket?

Would it be okay with you if we expect something more from our potential leaders than we would expect from the commenters on a blog?

Can we please have a higher standard for potential presidents?

Thanks so much.

I am just not wanting us to fall into the smug Democratic trap of underestimating "folkiness" as a shrewd political strategy engineered by Karl Rove and now, Steve Schmidt. Who, by the way, guided the Terminator to a gubernatorial win in supposedly blue, blue, progressive, enlightened, etc. California (my home state). They came in like smooth-talkin'snakes; he's now on his second term.

I have been reading Alaska press, watching her carefully on the stump, trying to glean a understanding of her personality... and it can't be denied that she a) enjoys being ruthless towards political enemies, and b) has a carefully honed media-friendly "shtick" that she can turn on when she is in familiar territory. Yes, Katie Couris freaked her out. But in other interviews and debates I've watched she is able to conceal her ignorance, sound halfway coherent, and clown boring stale liberals (who yes, may be smarter than her but less media-savvy).

Know your enemy is all I'm saying.