Home › Blogs › Kristen Soltis's blog ›

Where's Sarah? The Palin Interview, Night One

Submitted by Kristen Soltis on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:17
in
If Democrats and the media can't stop talking about Sarah Palin and "The Bush Doctrine" for the next week, take heart - it's going to be OK.
 
Following the first night of the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson, the big headlines of "Sarah Palin: Tough on National Security, Unsure of Bush Doctrine, Disagreed with McCain on ANWR" are fine by me.   And I don't think that America is going to laugh Sarah Palin out of presidential politics for not knowing what "the Bush doctrine" is. (In fact, I thought she handled the question pretty well.  Sure, she didn't state the academic "Bush doctrine", but her description of the Bush foreign policy worldview wasn't wrong.)
 
Her segment talking with Charlie Gibson about pipelines and her disagreement with with McCain over ANWR were both smart and charming.   She presented a view of global warming that I think can sit well with many Republicans and independents who don't write global warming off as a myth but aren't convinced it's all our fault.   She espoused a consistent, tough foreign policy, and handled questions about her views of God with humility and grace.
 
It's not the big headline grabbers that have me nervous following this interview.  
 
 
It was the fact that it didn't quite feel like the Sarah Palin I've come to adore. 
 
Perhaps I'm being unfair.  An interview is of course dramatically different from a speech.  The calm and poise that can come from speaking to a cheering stadium of adoring supporters is certainly going to be harder to find when being grilled by Charlie Gibson.  And with so much pressure on this interview, to take each word and each statement very carefully is smart.
But something felt off.  And in a way, it felt like deja vu.
 
The big strengths of Palin thus far have been her freshness, her confidence, and her authenticity.  In a world of politicians parroting talking points over and over and over until you're not even sure they believe that they're saying, Sarah Palin is different.  Sarah Palin is not canned. 
 
Sarah Palin last night felt canned. 
 
Maybe I am just one of those cynical Beltway insiders. (I would have given anything to be able to do a dial test of the interview last night with independent voters).  Maybe I'm being too critical.
 
But the assets that Sarah Palin has going for her - her authenticity, her freshness, and her confidence - were somewhat missing last night.
 
There were oh so many times when I could practically envision the talking points. "We shouldn't second guess Israel.  No matter what, they are our ally.  We don't second guess Israel."  And so it went. "We can't second guess Israel, Charlie."  
 
Whether that's the correct policy or not what I'm debating.  What matters is that it didn't seem like it was really her opinion. I can't see inside the mind of Sarah Palin, so I have no place saying if it is ACTUALLY her opinion or not.  But the feel of it? It didn't feel genuine.  It felt like a repeated talking point.  It felt "done".
 
And if you're going to try not to sound political, of all the things you can't afford to do, it's sound like Bush. Remember - he was the candidate of cowboy authenticity, shoot-em-straightness, of "lets do this thing, lets get them terrorists".   No doubt Palin has been prepped by Steve Schmidt (Rove's protege), Nicolle Wallace (former Bush staffer).  So maybe that's why I'm so sensitive to Bush-sounding language.  But this exchange in particular had me scratching my head, feeling I'd heard this before. 
 
GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
 
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
Immediately after, the dodge of the Pakistan question had me on edge.
 
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
 
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
 
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
 
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

It's not the policy here I'm critical of.  It's a tough question.  There's no easy answer.  You're stuck between "No, we have to wait for Pakistan to OK our moves" and "Yes, we should disregard Pakistan and risk harming our security relationship with them."  There's no easy way out.   But while I appreciate the old Cuban Missile Crisis "blink" imagery, there's something about the "don't blink, just do" philosophy that feels rather Bush-ian to me.  

Maybe I'm overreacting.  But something about it all just made me feel uneasy, like I'd seen it all before in an exchange between President Bush and Helen Thomas...and I didn't want to see it all again.

I don't know to what extent anyone else out there in Cleveland or Richmond or Albuquerque felt what I felt last night.  But for the rest of the campaign, Sarah Palin has got to get back to being Sarah Palin again.   The assets she brings to the ticket are plenty, and to let them get drowned out or suppressed is something the McCain-Palin ticket can't afford.  I'm anxiously looking forward to tonight's portion of the interview, in hopes that maybe, just maybe, the real Sarah Palin will please stand up.

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Comments

The word I would use is "edited"...

Submitted by rsb1 on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 16:40.

Sarah Palin last night felt "edited" - at least to me.  I am in the Albuquerque area, BTW, but the sync between her lips and her voice was so noticeably off that I wondered what had been clipped and moved around.  The sync problem was not visible when the shot was of Gibson, which tends to make me even more suspicious. 

She appeared to be framing her words carefully, I would guess in response to Gibson's "gotcha" tactics and repetitions to try to get her to say what he wanted her to.  For a first appearance with a reporter who was trying to create his agenda out of whole cloth, using her as a useful prop, I think she did quite well.

I am willing to wait and see what subsequent interviews look like before I worry too much.  I would also like to see what the unedited footage looks like, as some have already called on ABC to release it.

RSB1 is correct.

Submitted by Steve007 on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 19:05.

Note the brief time between question and answer, This was due to editing, and  it was a SETUP to make her seem canned,nervous and unsure. Gibson had to get his street cred back among his liberal colleagues after his honest performance in the last Obama/Hillary debate.

At 9 Central on Tuesday, she wil be interviewed by the non-supercilious non-lib Sean Hannity on FNC who will let her talk.

Watch then.

That's not all that was edited

Submitted by lagomorph on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 19:28.

According to Fox, ABC News also edited her statement on the will of God so that they could ask if her inner right-wing evangelical apocalyptic wacko believes that Iraq is a Holy War.  I watched the original video on H&C last night, and it had been edited substantially from its original content. 

Interestingly, UPI put out this statement on how ABC grilled Palin, but it may backfire. 

Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?

Whatever her inexperience and other shortcomings, Palin did not fall into that trap in her ABC interview. At no point did she appear fearful or threatening. Gibson's aggressive questioning on her religion and her son's coming military service in Iraq, by contrast, runs the risks for the Democrats of strengthening support for Palin among working-class, married women, especially those with husbands or sons serving in the military.

The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.

 

 

Sarah's there

Submitted by jvermeer51 on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 20:35.

I felt the same way as Kristen.  However, let's remember we probably only know Gov Palin from two instances: her introduction as VP on Friday Aug 29 and her convention speech on Sep 3.  Since the convention speech I've seen earlier interviews with her.  She never seems relaxed; perhaps she is an intense person. Even when she was interviewed at her breakfast table with Todd, it was not relazed.  Second, the tone of her voice is not soft and pear shaped.  There's no anger, just a voice that could not be confused with Nat King Cole. Yes, I love her also.  We have to accept her as she is.

empty vessel

Submitted by chris m on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 23:33.

Look people, you all just poured your idea of your favorite Republican into this blank slate of a politician. And now evidence is finally appearing, not everybody is going to be happy. Grow up.

Chris, if you're an Obama supporter

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 14:42.

Then isn't that a little like the pot calling the kettle black?  It appears to me as though the Left has written every diverse aspect of itself onto the blank slate of the nuanced and chameleonlike Barack Obama since Day One.  Sarah Palin seems to have a much stronger, well formed personality.  Her reputation as a maverick reformer reaches all the way back to her City Council days, as we are now learning from the great documentary work being done to introduce us to her career and life experience.  I think it goes without saying that Republicans and conservatives of all party and non-party affiliations have longed for a leader like her with whom they could fully relate, but the blank slate shoe does seem to fit Obama better than Palin. 

Not so, Chris.!

Submitted by Steve007 on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 00:39.

She is holding fast to  her small governnment, low tax, free market  pro-gun muscular democracy-based  foreign policy foundation.

Now she just needs to sparkle  more.

ABC engaged in mean "gotcha" journalisn and meaner "gotcha" editing. Note the brief time between question and answer, This was due to editing, and it was a SETUP to make her seem canned, nervous and unsure. Moreover, Gibson had to get his street cred back among his liberal colleagues after his honest performance in the last Obama/Hillary debate for which he was roundly criticized by libs.

Still, she did pretty well. But after a hard fight, it's only sensible to take on an easier one while preparing for the next war.

Hannity will be non-supercilious and non-interruptive. He will let her talk, and by doing so will allow her views and personality to be seen fully. She will be conversational; when she is, her narrative, her persona, her charisma will benefit her greatly. And it will do so in front of the largest audience on cable.

I'm really looking forward to Palin's O'Reilly Interview

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 14:35.

Gibson and Hannity will be left and right book-ends, but I do think O'Reilly has the capability of representing the Indy Centrists.  His interview with Hillary was the first time I ever actually liked her, and his interview with Obama revealed what a bloviating beta male Obama really is - even though O'Reilly played nice with him.  The way Obama kept trying to reach out and touch O'Reilly just made me cringe.  I'm an alpha male kinda gal, which is why I prefer conservative men to liberal men every single time. 

O'Reilly will neither coddle nor play gotcha with Palin.  He'll let Sarah be Sarah under just enough pressure to show her off in a fully dimensional manner.  Plus she'll have a little time to study her previous interviews by then and grow into herself on the national stage.  When it comes to making progress, not perfection, she'll do just fine.  LoL - knowing O'Reilly as I think I do, I'm quite certain he can't wait for this interview, either. 

Editing issues

Submitted by rsb1 on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 15:58.

I still want to see the unedited footage.  Some unedited transcripts are starting to come out and they indicate that ABC deliberately edited negatively instead of reporting on a journalistic basis.

Perhaps the media should be encouraged to post raw footage after they have had the initial showing and ratings, so everyone can make their own decision (and judge the reporter, as well).

Breitbart TV's B-Cast exposes camera angles used by ABC

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 21:57.

This is a long clip, but it has a fascinating segment on the input from a conservative Hollywood Director who storyboards exactly how the camera angles were used to minimize Palin and maximize the authority of her "host".