She is a dumbass and. I'm not sorry to say it in the least. Did you notice how Charlie Gibson almost explained the Bush Doctrine up front when he realized she didn't know what it was, then pulled back and asked "What does it mean to you?" Then, when she gave a totally stupid answer, he went on to explain it. Not bad, Charlie. Not bad at all.

I don't wear lipstick.
And I no longer vote Republican.
And I know a superficial VP when I see one.
And I know pandering when I see it.

And I feel pretty confident that the more Palin is viewed by members of her own party, she will make even them cringe.

And I know that Obama is going to win this. And I know that we are all gonna have a SERIOUS party afterwards.

Gibson's questions were totally unfair and out of line. Here are the sort of questions a responsible journalist would have asked:

1. Who was a better President: Dennis Haysbert in 24 or Martin Sheen in The West Wing?

2. Glenn Close was kind of wishy-washy as the VP who had to take over in Air Force One when Harrison Ford and the plane were taken captive by Russian terrorists. Would you be a better job than her?

3. Speaking of those Russian terrorists in Air Force One, why hasn't President Bush taken action against them, and what will you and McCain do to show them we mean business?

4. How would you compare yourself to Joan Allen as the prospective VP in The Contender?

5. M*A*S*H or China Beach?

Biden was being a friend, a good campaigner, and a gentleman of a certain generation who would almost be expected to make a self-effacing comment like that. (I can say as someone of that generation also.) He was just fine and did good .... and WILL be the candidate and, it looks now, the next VP.

Genghis, loved your post. I was so perturbed by Hillary during the primaries (at least until about the last month) that I was one of those planning to vote for McCain .... thinking he was still John McCain, 2000 version. (Actually, that would have gone out of the window after his comments on the habeas corpus decision.) But watching that interview I was livid, utterly LIVID on her behalf!! How dare they think that this perhaps nice and spunky (perky?) small town woman with a nice presence and shallow mind would deserve to "follow in the footsteps" of Sen. Clinton! What an insult to her (Clinton) and to women in general. And what a disservice to Gov. Palin, for that matter.

Someday maybe we'll be able to learn how that decision, to offer the position to her, was really made. John McCain is not THAT dumb - to some extent he had to be relying on someone, or several someones, who badly, badly misled him.

Palin isn't dumb, but she is ignorant of foreign affairs. Whether she's as intellectually lazy as McCain is hard to say.

Not fair to all the other dumbasses . . .

I think the most effective argument against Palin is that she has come out of the gate lying, plus the ethics investigation. She isn't trustworthy. The whole Pentecostal thing is downright scary too. But the focus needs to get back on McCain. I'm so sick of the media obsession with Palin. I'd like to see a campaign with the theme "Where's John McCain?" that focuses on him being unrecognizable as the maverick he once was, and also "where's John McCain?" on the issues - that he doesn't address issues and focuses on shallow stuff.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am fairly well convinced at this point that it is only a matter of time (and not even a long period of time, at this rate) before the Republicans nominate a chimpanzee for president and run on the platform that the Democrats' criticism of the chimpanzee's obvious lack of intelligence (or ability even to communicate his wishes and judgments) demonstrates that they are snotty elitists who hate real Americans. The current Republican ticket is really only a few degrees removed from this absurdity.

All I can say is that, as an eternal optimist, I am counting on America to see through this inanity. Please, dear God, do not let me be disappointed in this hope.

Yeah, I'm sure Joe Biden going a bit off-message in a way that will upset nobody portends a major shake-up in Obama's campaign.

Maybe you should go read a book. Or write a poem. Or make a sandwich.

'Cause you're a bust at this "commenting" stuff.

Pillsy, I believe that it's quite obvious who is a "bust at this commenting stuff."

Please read. Voters">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/voters-dont-vote-on-the-issues.php>Voters Don't Vote On the Issues or How Obama Can Win!

Obviously, Palin ain't no HRC. And well put, Genghis. Yes, to the extent some ex-Clinton supporters might drift in her direction, that matters. But that's not the comparison that worries. The real conundrum posed by Palin is the comparison with Barack. Bear with me for a sec, I understand there is no real comparison. Barack is an accomplished person and politician, but with a comparatively thin resume. This to some degree inoculates Palin from criticism of her glaring lack of qualifications. To do so invites comparison to Obama and allows the Republicans to paint him as unqualified - which we know is bunk. So the question becomes how do we expose her as the sallow, callow, shallow, punchline-spewing, thoughtless petty tyrant she seems to be without framing it in the context of her "lack of foreign policy experience," which is how it is being discussed? Put another way, how do we get past the platitudes to the complete absence of any thought given to the serious national and international issues that will face the next President? That is a tricky task.

Great post, Genghis. Dija, I don't think Palin is ten times smarter than Bush, or even smarter than Bush, not at all.

There is a tone-deafness and cluelessness to her posturing, both pre and post nomination. To paraphrase William Hung, she clangs.

I think what has happened here is the TV-talk-show-ization of the Pres and VP. We Democrats tore down the mantle of the older white Christian man as the only ticket-inhabitants. People can imagine anyone on the ticket now. And the Republicans have fallen into, no they aren't smart enough to have envisioned this, but they have fallen into the "she looks like me" thing.

It's how TV shouty shows ostensibly about social topics but really about daily dramas arose in the 70s. Palin is the analog to the breaking of that barrier between journalism and onanism. She's not real, like a national figure is real, but her base doesn't give a shit, and there are enough independents who'd like to carpool with her, or go to church with her, or hear her thoughts about life over coffee. They are largely low-information, Perot-like independents.

That's the problem with the 45-45-10 split in the electorate. The remaining 10% who don't have commitments in the major arguments of our time are bought off by Phil Donahue and Sally Jessy Raphael. At least we still have Oprah, our true secret weapon against Sarah Palin.

There is another issue here that I think is huge and hasn't received any attention. I have seen in comments in locations all over the web and heard from others an argument from women that goes something like this:

"I don't agree with Sarah Palin on abortion but I like her (enter something here relating to image/personality, not issues). I'm not worried about the abortion issue because they won't be able to overturn it. Congress would never allow it, women would march, there's too much opposition to making it illegal."

I keep hearing this - I think this view is prevalent in the women who are drawn to Palin. These women need somehow to be reached so they understand that roe vs. wade will indeed be overturned with McCain. That it is a supreme court decision not congress and that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint supreme court justices in his administration and McCain states explicitly that he will appoint justices to overturn it.

Love it! Great post! So true too.

I too have the virtue of ovaries. Perhaps Obama should have picked me for VP. Just saying. ;)

B. Hussein Obama is no Hillary. Barry = Loser.

McCain 2008; Clinton 2012!

We all voted for Barack over Hillary because he is a "hope monger" and she was too smart. Made us feel bad about ourselves.

I have to object to the "We all..." part. I had no beef with either Obama or Clinton being smart - in fact, I prefer my Presidents to be academically accomplished.

Besides, Obama certainly came across as "smart". In fact, before the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner in late '07, the rap against Obama was that he was too professorial on the trail. He held a lot of town hall-type campaign stops, and people felt he was too wonky. Then, after he lit up the J-J dinner, he went to big rallies.

I can't speak for everyone else, but Hillary Clinton's academic and political intelligence were selling points for me, and the reasons why I started out pulling for her in late 2006.