I'd agree, that guy was kind of an idiot, but the interviewer really didn't help. He gets going and she butts in and starts asking "Name one thing..." That kind of question never leads to constructive discussion; the one replying to that question can either ignore it or give an example that the asker is then free to dismiss however they please.
I guess there is a third option, but it's just as low. He could have responded "Name one thing Barack Obama has done.....ever."
(Note: this is not to say either side is right or wrong or anything, just pointing out that the "interview" was horribly conducted and really wasn't for the purpose of having a fair discussion.)
Mark - welcome to my blog! I don't know which Mark you are. And I actually think it's a great interview - yes Campbell jumps in, but it's because Tucker is completely avoiding the questions. He doesn't answer a single thing she says in any way that satisfies me. But that might be just me, and I love getting some discussions going here.
This isn't Bill O shouting someone down because they disagree with him. The reason Ms. Brown begins to interrupt this poor shmuck (who obviously just got handed the worst job in the world) is because he refuses to answer one very simple question. She asks him about Palin's experience and he answers with McCain. She asks him again and he answers with Obama. She asks him again. He responds with Commander of the National Guard??!! So then a fair follow-up question. Name one decision she has made. There is no answer so he resorts to whining about the media beating up on them. "Why do you have to belittle her decisions?" There was no decision to belittle. I guess you have to give him credit for at least trying the "Look over there!" trick twice before falling back on the tired old Republican chestnut "You media people hate us."
Seriously Mark, if you were trying to interview someone and you asked, "What is your favorite color?, and he responded, "Pizza". And you say, "Um, no I didn't ask you what your favorite food was, I asked you your favorite color, and you say, "No I don't swing that way, I'm totally straight." "Uh, sorry, your favorite color please, not your sexual orientation." (Then you pull out the Sherwin-Williams paint chips to demonstrate what colors are.) And he says, "Why are you so mean to the paint chips?", don't you think you'd get a little frustrated as an interviewer? He should have just pulled a McCain and said, "I'll have to have my staff get back to you on that. Oh, wait a minute, I am the staff. Why didn't someone let me go vett this trainwreck before I had to come out here and try to defend her record."
And you're right about your proposed third option. What a clever retort "Name one thing Barack Obama has done. . . ever" would be. If you were at recess and in kindergarten.
Wait, do they have recess in kindergarten? I know who we could ask: Sarah Palin. I think she has some experience in the PTA.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about the presidential nominee himself being qualified to be commander and cheif?? The interviewers persistency in this area was merely to cause controversy. Palins job as commander and cheif exists if and only if the president is unable to serve. Of the 40 some men that were vice presidents only 9 assumed the position of president. 4 because the presidents were assasinated. 1 because the president was terminally ill and the rest were merely cuz the president died...something that was more common back then. The chances that if Mccain were elected to office that he would be assasinated or become terminally ill are not very likely. I am not trying to argue and I am not taking sides...I just fail to understand the constant attacking of the vp candidate.
A valid point - but McCain would be the oldest president ever elected if he were. He's 72 now and by the time he got out of office he would be 76. Just because he's spry now doesn't mean it isn't a risk. If she's one step away from the presidency, we have to know how she would do if she had to step up, don't we?
To add a little to the last point, McCain has had four bouts with melanoma. That's skin cancer, by the way. Some one needs to tell that guy that he lives in Arizona and should wear a hat. So actually his chances of becoming terminally ill are pretty darn good. We face the very, very real possibility of this woman becoming the most powerful person in the world at a moment's notice. Don't you think we ought to take a good hard look?
Agreed. But it seems like everything is being based on what ifs and age. What if a sibling were to die tomorrow...should we mourn today just in case it happens? And in response to the PTA comment, I did not know that having kids and being involved in their lives automatically disqualifies you.
Ok, in answer to the first question he launches in on some background to frame his answer in. I don't know if he was thinking that he had like 10 minutes to respond or something, but I agree that her stopping him and trying to get him back on track was a good idea.
His response to her second question is a valid point, albeit one that doesn't directly answer her question, that she runs over with another question. He says, essentially, that Gov. Palin has just as much or more experience than Sen. Obama. Indirectly, that is saying that she has enough experience not be labeled with Sen. Obama as "inexperienced." It really isn't a good answer, so the interviewer presses more, but she's letting her frustration get the better of her.
About halfway through the clip we finally get to the question (phrased rather rudely as a "Will someone please explain to me..."). The interviewer wants to know how to justify Gov. Palin as a VP when experience has been made into such an issue.
He responds by laying out her experience. He includes at the end of his response that she was Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. The interviewer ignores everything else he's said and asks him to name one thing Gov. Palin done in that capacity.
This is where I think the interview breaks down considerably. She wants her "one thing." He even calls her out that asking a question like that is belittling her service in that post. It is entirely possible that her service as Commander-in-Chief involved nothing more than visiting the troops abroad. Does that mean she doesn't know how to deploy the National Guard if a situation should arise? Does that mean she has no grasp of the budgeting requirements involved in maintaining a military force? Just because she hasn't ordered the Alaskan National Guard to invade Kamchatka doesn't mean she isn't experienced in that post. That is why I say "Name one thing..." is a bad question and reflects poorly on the interviewer.
At the end of the interview she allows the poor guy to say what he wants to say, and he does his supporting McCain song and dance.
So what was the point of the interview? Was it to help the viewers understand how the Republicans justify choosing Gov. Palin as a VP given the emphasis on experience, or was it to hammer home the point that Gov. Palin hasn't made any decisions as Commander-in-Chief? If it was the latter, then I guess I'd have to agree that she did a good job, but then we'd have to discuss the validity of journalism of this nature.
It doesn't. But a lot of people have been holding that up as part of her experience in office. My mom was PTA president too, but that doesn't qualify her to run the country. I'm not saying that Palin doesn't have more experience than my mom, but why are they even bringing that up? Even Cindy McCain cited that as one of the reasons Palin is qualified. My brother's comment was supposed to be satirical, but not sexist. (Because I would beat him up if it were.) Also, I hope this is a discussion in the spirit of enjoyable political banter, not a blog fight. :)
Well Treb, I would expect a professional interviewer to maintain their composure and point out that the response didn't answer the question. Regardless of how frustrated she got, she shouldn't have let it show.
"And you're right about your proposed third option. What a clever retort "Name one thing Barack Obama has done. . . ever" would be. If you were at recess and in kindergarten."
That is exactly what I'm saying. That kind of question doesn't belong in a professional interview.
By the way, my comment was in response to Sami's, not Mark's. Mark, clearly we are seeing this interview in very different ways, probably because of our different opinions on the candidates themselves. I think the point of the interview was your first part - they just wanted some justification for the choice after an entire platform of experience. I didn't think they gave it, you did or thought it was a bad interview. Such is life with the media. But isn't if fun to get all riled up about it?
Now I really don't understand your argument. You were the ones who brought up the litany of vice-presidents who have assumed the office because the president died. (You forgot to mention the one who resigned in shame - Nixon). 9 (using your calculation) out of 43 equals 20%. Do you think those are good odds. If so, I'd like to take you to the racetrack.
The PTA comment was admittedly a little low (we call that an ad hominem attack), but I never claimed it disqualified her for the office. That is not and has never been the question. The question is, what DOES qualify her for the office? By her own admission, she doesn't even know what the VP does.
haha, i am not in the spirit of fighting. On matters such as politics i generally stay quiet because it usually results in an argument. But i enjoy talking about it. I did not take the comment as sexist...I more understood it to be an attack on her age, which involves a young family. But i understand the attack on her age would be a silly one because she is only three years younger than obama.
I've had numerous family members with melanoma, most of them first had those problems taken care of in their 40's. They've gone on to live much longer than 4 years. Heck, the oldest one I know about is still getting around into her 80's. It is definitely a health risk, but not nearly as severe as most other types of cancer. I agree with Megan that his old age is more of a concern, but definitely not an indication that he will die within 4 years.
Who knows why they are saying that the PTA is good experience? I probably wouldn't have emphasized it, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have any other experience.
As for not knowing what the VP does, I am sure she knows the basics (running the Senate, stepping up if something should happen to the President). However, John Adams said of the post he first occupied, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." Even if she doesn't know exactly what the VP does, do you think she's not going to start doing a bit of research?
Sami, does this mean you won't give me an ugly haircut next time I come begging for a good one? :) And you're right Mark - if McCain was really expecting to die, he wouldn't be running in the first place. It's just something that should be part of what you put into your personal "deciding on who to vote for" stew. There are all kinds of considerations, and this is not a small one for me.
You make very good points about the spirit of "gotcha!" media. I don't like this style of interviewing either. But there are times when it is called for. Ms. Brown is clearly responding to the fact that no one in the McCain camp can satisfactorily explain this absurd choice and so they have come up with absurd answers. For months on end, everyone (both camps) have carped on experience and issues because this is such a serious election. The Republicans just picked someone who has NO experience with ANY of the issues they have put on the table. And they had a lot of really qualified people to choose from (Romney among them). Rick Davis just said that the election is no longer about issues. As an American, I find that insulting and cynical.
I also find "gotcha!" journalism to be insulting and cynical, but this is such a clear illustration of the frustration with there being no there there after the media thought they were going to have something meaty to discuss.
To be clear, no sexism or ageism, involved in my critiques.
But the "what if he dies?" question seems perfectly valid. Which leads to the question once again: Do you really want this person in the Oval Office?
I'll admit McCains dude looked like a clown here and I agree Tina Fey was maybe not the greatest choice for VP but this interview (by the way I loved Campbell Brown when she was on the Today Show...now not so much) is the whole reason the news is unwatchable. The media, who is supposed to be unbiased, is Osama Bin Bamas biggest campaigner. He can do no wrong and everything the Republicans do is ridiculous. If you’re going to watch CNN Meg watch more Glenn Beck and less Campbell Brown.
I agree, a VP should be looked at as a possible President. McCain being elected and dying before year 4 is up is a valid scenario to think about. Palin is definitely a figure with much less experience than many other people that would have been a good choice for VP. I don't know that I would call the choice absurd. It has definitely given rise to many questions about her, and her experience should definitely be the first question on the minds of voters. I would think that these questions are more than meaty enough for the media, and that finding the answers would amount to a bunch of good reporting on her past.
But I will have to disagree with you. I don't think this "gotcha!" style of interviewing, as you put it, has any place in serious journalism. I don't think there is anything in this world that calls for being rude and deceitful. Treating people decently will always be the better choice in my mind.
Out of the 9 Presidents that died and were preceded by their vice president, four of them were assasinated...that is nearly half. Were they placed in the what if he dies category when they were inaugurated? Most definitely not. But it still happened. If Mccain is being placed in the what if category than statistically Obama should be in there too.
You're absolutely right, Sami. But Obama's running mate actually has more experience than Obama himself does, so no one has been making a big deal out of that. Biden's ability to be the president should, of course, be considered.
Just to add a little info to the debate, the last sitting senator to become president was JKF (assassinated). Every President since then has had executive experience. So, for 45 years the American voter has said through their vote that executive experience is important. Obama/Biden have zero executive experience. By historical standards, McCain/Palin are very thin on executive experience. It would follow that the McCain people would be making the most of what they have since some is a lot more than none. If the rolls were reversed, Obama/Biden would do the same.
Also, I would encourage careful scrutiny of the questions. Often times answering the question as asked means that you accept the basis or premise of the question. In the present climate of advocacy journalism, many politically savvy people will not answer the question as asked because the question has bad info as its basis. It is the classic 'Why do you beat your spouse every night' situation. Therefore I would contend that both parties need to be viewed with a critical eye, understanding that both have a agenda and a spin that they are trying to get across.
Really good points, anonymous. I don't know why you're hiding your identity when you're making intelligent, well-researched comments! And you're right, of course, that both candidates should be scrutinized. I think that my last comment made my stance on that unclear. I meant that people in general haven't been making a big deal about Biden, not that his qualifications shouldn't be scrutinized just as closely. Of course everyone has their spin - it's part of the game, isn't it? This is why it's so hard to be objective when making choices. But I think it's part of what makes trying to inform yourself politically exciting. (My friend Jennie would disagree with me there - she hates the games with a burning purple passion.) I can't wait to see where all of this goes.
By the way, can you tell that I hate anonymous comments? It bugs me not to know who's reading my blog. :) Maybe I'll change it so that I don't allow them anymore.
Wow... who knew that the two hottest topics you would ever write on were dating and politics??? LOL.
So... my paltry two cents. The first problem with this interview is that Campbell Brown is the interviewer. I flat out don't respect her at all. I think she's pushy, rude, and rarely really interested in listening to anybody but herself. That said, Tucker was in a bad, bad spot. And his answers were dumb. It was like nobody even prepped him at all. What he should have said was: No. Sarah Palin doesn't have much experience in foreign affairs. But John McCain does. And John McCain and Sarah Palin are a pair.
I read a book once where this CEO had been interviewed, and asked how his company became as successful as it did. He said, "Well, I know that I'm really, REALLY good at two or three things. And I'm smart enough to know that I'm really, REALLY lousy at about a million other things. So I hired people who were great in the areas that I wasn't." I think that's what McCain was trying to do by asking Palin to be his running mate. There's absolutely nobody who will make a perfect VP, or President, or Speaker of the House, or Senator or whatever. But she has some strengths (and oddly enough, some differences of opinion) in some areas where he's a little weak.
I also really think that this thing about age is getting about as annoying as anything else. So he's old. Obama's young. Palin's young. Big fat deal. I don't think age says anything about ability to lead. And yeah, McCain might kick the bucket before he's done. But Obama might die in a plane accident from Washington to Denver. McCain might get skin cancer, but Obama could easily end up with pancreatic cancer (think of somebody like Randy Pausch - young, in good health, etc. the disease comes from nowhere!) and also be done for. The dying question is obviously more of a concern in McCain's situation than Obama's, statistically, but I don't think it's something to really fret over. Think of all the leaders of the church - they're VERY old, and we still function when they die. America will still function if a President dies.
And honestly... the PTA comment? I don't know why that SHOULDN'T be mentioned. Every little boy who becomes the president has a mom. And those mom's form people. There's nothing wrong with adding the PTA to your list of experience. I think it was Barbara Bush that said, "It doesn't matter what happens in the White House, what matters is what happens in your house" (or something to that effect).
Anyway. It was not a good interview on either side. Brown is a lousy interviewer, Tucker was ill-prepared.
This election is a beast. And boy, I bet Obama is annoyed that Sarah Palin seems to have been the major focus of the week. For better or worse. I'm starting to feel annoyed about it myself.
Preface: I'm in the Jenny camp of "[hating] the games with a burning purple passion" but I found this interesting...so I comment.
I think many people have pointed out great things for both parties, but what about all those women voters who would have voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman? Perhaps McCain realized this small part of the market would go elsewhere if he didn't make a move to get a [hopefully qualified] woman VP? It definitely throws the gender card back in the election.
Good point, Elise - but I think that's both sad and silly if it happens that way. If someone who was going to vote for Hilary switches to Palin, it's without any consideration for the issues, since the two are pretty much opposite. There was something on the Daily Show about this that I thought was absolutely hilarious, but didn't feel that I could post here. Voting for someone just because they are black or female or male or white or Mormon or evangelical or anything else is not my idea of a good way to pick. But it could have been one of McCain's considerations.
On the other hand (and let it be known that this was just a stray bizarre thought that I'm not sure I actually believe... I'm just gonna throw it out there).
We do tend to be drawn to people we trust - for whatever reason. Usually because we feel a connection to them, we "get" them, they "get" us, etc. So while someone being female or male or Mormon or whatever should not be the ONLY reason we vote for them, I don't think it should totally be off the table for consideration. I know that because of what I know about Mormonism, I would feel much more comfortable with a Mormon in the White House than someone else - if all other things were equal. Maybe it's awful, but it's true. The young are scared of McCain being old because they've never been old. The old are afraid of Obama being young because they worry they won't be represented or taken care of... I don't know. Just a thought.
Yes, Makayla--that's what I was aiming for. I wholeheartedly think it's silly to not stand on principle when voting. Going for one major aspect of a persona (like the fact that Obama is black, Palin is a woman etc.)is crazy but that doesn't mean there won't be those people out there that do just that. Hopefully most of us have escaped this shallow high school mentality by the time we can vote.
Thank heavens this is a small percentage compared to the principle-based voters.
Ok first of all- Hi Treb, haven' seen you in like 16 years! Second of all I love this discussion even though I SHOULD be doing something else. I love Campbell Brown and I think this is a great interview, I'm stealing it for my blog although technically I'm not stealing it if it is public domain. I don't know Gov. Palin. I can't say if she'd make a good vp or if it is a stupid choice. Rash- yes, risky- yes. The truth is 1/5 of vp's eventually have become presidents through death or election and if this person is worthy of being an American President she'd better prove herself worthy.
I already know my vote. Republican values such as the question of abortion cannot be compromised or reconciled in my mind- Because McCain is so wishy washy on these and other values I can't vote for him and must chose to vote ON THE ISSUES. Although I would consider myself a republican, ok more of an independant I guess...I've made my choice for November 4th
By the way, I disabled the anonymous comments, but have re-enabled them in the name of free speech. You can comment anonymously if you like - it will just bug me to not know who you are. Thanks for your comments, everyone. Good thoughts all around. And Elise - for the record, I was agreeing with you even though I was sad about the fact that people will vote that way.
Wow Megan! I had no idea how controversial your blog is! A few more comments, and you will be up there with my brother's blog!
Blast those anonymous comments! You should see my inside look into those comments littered through out my brother's blog. I delve into what is really going on inside their heads. Those anonymous people just LOVE their faceless state. And I love to mock that.
Very interesting debate going on here. I won't say anything, as I really am not too much into the presidential stuff going on. I figure no matter what happens, the world is going to get so bad that Christ is going to have to come and bail us out. It will be interesting to see what happens along the way, eh? Ha ha.
There, one more comment to ad to your mid 30s status!
1. Lili, you crazy girl, does Jeff even use your blog? Why don't you change it to your name, or to at least say both of your names?
2. Holy crap Megan. This is what I get for not checking your blog for... one day. Of all the ridiculous! I was going crazy trying to finish reading all the comments before I posted my own!
3. So WOW. My response to the video itself--Tucker Bounds doesn't know how to answer questions. I'll admit I don't know anything about Campbell whatsherface other than what I've see here, but based on this interview, I like her. I don't think she did anything wrong--if I'm conducting an interview and the person I'm talking to won't answer my questions, I'm going to get annoyed too; meaning I'm not going to sit there and let him ramble on and take up all my time, I'm going to try and get him back on track. And what is this, the Victorian age? If she's annoyed, why shouldn't she show it? I find a little straightforwardness in political journalism refreshing, especially when the alternative is people like Tucker. I agree with Makayla--why couldn't he just say "No, she doesn't have a lot of experience" since we all know it anyway? Good grief. Heaven forbid they admit something about their candidate isn't perfect, because as long as they keep pretending she is, America won't think otherwise. Is that it? 3. Phew! Side note. I don't think it'll be many of the Hillary fans who are going to vote for her (they're just going to write in for Hillary), but I do think that McCain upped his chances of winning by a REALLY high percentage by picking Palin. Whether or not the gender card was taken into account when he MADE his choice I can't say, but I don't think we can deny that it has been put back in regardless. 4. I hate to bring up the PTA thing, but... wow. Really? No, the fact that she's a fairly young mother shouldn't be any of our business--I really liked what Biden just said about that, actually--but I have a hard time seeing how experience in the PTA is REMOTELY like experience that will help her in office. It's a little bit of a ridiculous thing to say.
HAHAHAHA my numbering system got a little crazy there. That's what happens when I try taking notes as I read the comments so I remember what I want to say. For the record, everyone, I am not retarded. :)
Since when does being straightforward necessitate being rude and abandoning tenets of professional journalism? I agree that he wasn't being very direct in answering the questions, but is it too much to ask for the interviewer to politely point that out and re-ask the question? Heck, she even does that and gets her answer. If the interview ended there, I'd have no beef with it.
The problem I have is with Ms. Brown trying to disprove his answer. She asked for the justification the campaign used in picking her given their point of emphasis on experience. He gave it to her. She then asks for proof of their justification in the form "Name one thing..." That isn't a question meant to ascertain the truth and will never yield a satisfactory answer. She could have asked any number of things, such as "The experience you've mentioned has been called into question by your opponents. How would you respond to their statements that her experience as Commander-in-Chief isn't extensive and shouldn't be relevant to this discussion?" I guarantee she would have gotten a better answer, and nobody would be complaining about the interviewing style used.
If she was trying to get him to say that Gov. Palin doesn't have much experience, she asked the wrong guy. He's never gonna say that. I like what the anonymous poster said above, that both the interviewer and the interviewee have goals they are trying to accomplish with this interview and because those goals are so different, the interview ends up being worth very little.
As for PTA experience, I also like what the anonymous poster said in the comments on the blog below this one. He or she said that the Democrats are touting Sen. Obama's service as a community organizer in Chicago as valid experience. I'd say service in the PTA is very comparable to that, and if one side gets scrutinized for using a post like that, both should.
I don't think she was being rude. I didn't think Campbell Brown was even a little bit impolite in the whole interview, and I didn't think she was trying to disprove anything. The only thing she contested was whether or not the governor actually is personally responsible for sending the National Guard overseas, and then Tucker responded by saying she's responsible for the National Guard if there's an emergency in Alaska. That's not even the same thing. MY problem with the interview is that Tucker Bounds doesn't seem to know how to answer the question he's asked. He didn't answer the original question until she'd asked three times, and even then he could barely get five words out without trying to change the subject to Obama or McCain. You can't blame that on the interviewer.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with asking for an example of a decision Palin has made in that capacity. I've been asked questions just like that in job interviews many times, and isn't this campaign, in essence, a lot like a job interview? It's a valid point--people want to see examples of things she's actually experienced, not just the titles she's held.
As far as the two sides having different goals, um... so what? You can't have a normal human-style conversation with someone if you aren't both saying the same things? What would be the point in watching an interview like this if there weren't two sides trying to get different things across? We wouldn't learn anything, or be able to form our own opinions on the subject.
From what I've read about Obama being a community organizer, he's mostly talking about it to show how that part of his life affected him as a person, his growth and knowledge of people and community. I respect that--something doesn't have to be really high-profile to have a big impact on a person. As far as it being comparable to the PTA, I don't agree--I think working with city officials and an entire community is a little larger-scale than working with the parents and teachers of one school--but I don't think that's the point anyway.
Tucker Bounds is a goober, I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. :)
Asking for an example of Gov. Palin's Commander-in-Chief experience is a very valid question. The way Ms. Brown goes about it is incredibly rude. If a job interviewer looked at your resume and asked "Name one thing you did while working at Quik-e-Mart. One thing." with the same tone of voice Ms. Brown uses, you'd think that the interviewer didn't believe you actually worked there. If the interviewer asked "What is an example of your responsibilities at Quik-e-Mart?", it would change the entire tone of the interview. Mr. Bounds picks up on that, which is why he makes his comment on belittling.
All I'm saying is that this interview was not conducted professionally. There were definitely some very professional parts, but it degenerates rather quickly into a slugfest, and the point of the interview is completely lost.
If Sen. Obama is saying that his time as a community organizer affected him as a person, his growth and knowledge of people and community, isn't he just saying that he has experience? What is political experience, if not growth and knowledge of people and community? I'll give you that being on the PTA at a school of under 1,000 kids probably isn't the same as being a community organizer of eight Catholic Parishes, but, as you say, something doesn't have to be really high-profile to have a big impact on a person.
39 comments:
Wow, that guy was kind of the most annoying person I've ever heard.
I'd agree, that guy was kind of an idiot, but the interviewer really didn't help. He gets going and she butts in and starts asking "Name one thing..." That kind of question never leads to constructive discussion; the one replying to that question can either ignore it or give an example that the asker is then free to dismiss however they please.
I guess there is a third option, but it's just as low. He could have responded "Name one thing Barack Obama has done.....ever."
(Note: this is not to say either side is right or wrong or anything, just pointing out that the "interview" was horribly conducted and really wasn't for the purpose of having a fair discussion.)
Mark - welcome to my blog! I don't know which Mark you are. And I actually think it's a great interview - yes Campbell jumps in, but it's because Tucker is completely avoiding the questions. He doesn't answer a single thing she says in any way that satisfies me. But that might be just me, and I love getting some discussions going here.
This isn't Bill O shouting someone down because they disagree with him. The reason Ms. Brown begins to interrupt this poor shmuck (who obviously just got handed the worst job in the world) is because he refuses to answer one very simple question. She asks him about Palin's experience and he answers with McCain. She asks him again and he answers with Obama. She asks him again. He responds with Commander of the National Guard??!! So then a fair follow-up question. Name one decision she has made. There is no answer so he resorts to whining about the media beating up on them. "Why do you have to belittle her decisions?" There was no decision to belittle. I guess you have to give him credit for at least trying the "Look over there!" trick twice before falling back on the tired old Republican chestnut "You media people hate us."
Seriously Mark, if you were trying to interview someone and you asked, "What is your favorite color?, and he responded, "Pizza". And you say, "Um, no I didn't ask you what your favorite food was, I asked you your favorite color, and you say, "No I don't swing that way, I'm totally straight." "Uh, sorry, your favorite color please, not your sexual orientation." (Then you pull out the Sherwin-Williams paint chips to demonstrate what colors are.) And he says, "Why are you so mean to the paint chips?", don't you think you'd get a little frustrated as an interviewer?
He should have just pulled a McCain and said, "I'll have to have my staff get back to you on that. Oh, wait a minute, I am the staff. Why didn't someone let me go vett this trainwreck before I had to come out here and try to defend her record."
And you're right about your proposed third option. What a clever retort "Name one thing Barack Obama has done. . . ever" would be. If you were at recess and in kindergarten.
Wait, do they have recess in kindergarten? I know who we could ask: Sarah Palin. I think she has some experience in the PTA.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about the presidential nominee himself being qualified to be commander and cheif?? The interviewers persistency in this area was merely to cause controversy. Palins job as commander and cheif exists if and only if the president is unable to serve. Of the 40 some men that were vice presidents only 9 assumed the position of president. 4 because the presidents were assasinated. 1 because the president was terminally ill and the rest were merely cuz the president died...something that was more common back then. The chances that if Mccain were elected to office that he would be assasinated or become terminally ill are not very likely. I am not trying to argue and I am not taking sides...I just fail to understand the constant attacking of the vp candidate.
A valid point - but McCain would be the oldest president ever elected if he were. He's 72 now and by the time he got out of office he would be 76. Just because he's spry now doesn't mean it isn't a risk. If she's one step away from the presidency, we have to know how she would do if she had to step up, don't we?
To add a little to the last point, McCain has had four bouts with melanoma. That's skin cancer, by the way. Some one needs to tell that guy that he lives in Arizona and should wear a hat. So actually his chances of becoming terminally ill are pretty darn good. We face the very, very real possibility of this woman becoming the most powerful person in the world at a moment's notice. Don't you think we ought to take a good hard look?
Agreed. But it seems like everything is being based on what ifs and age. What if a sibling were to die tomorrow...should we mourn today just in case it happens?
And in response to the PTA comment, I did not know that having kids and being involved in their lives automatically disqualifies you.
Ok, in answer to the first question he launches in on some background to frame his answer in. I don't know if he was thinking that he had like 10 minutes to respond or something, but I agree that her stopping him and trying to get him back on track was a good idea.
His response to her second question is a valid point, albeit one that doesn't directly answer her question, that she runs over with another question. He says, essentially, that Gov. Palin has just as much or more experience than Sen. Obama. Indirectly, that is saying that she has enough experience not be labeled with Sen. Obama as "inexperienced." It really isn't a good answer, so the interviewer presses more, but she's letting her frustration get the better of her.
About halfway through the clip we finally get to the question (phrased rather rudely as a "Will someone please explain to me..."). The interviewer wants to know how to justify Gov. Palin as a VP when experience has been made into such an issue.
He responds by laying out her experience. He includes at the end of his response that she was Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. The interviewer ignores everything else he's said and asks him to name one thing Gov. Palin done in that capacity.
This is where I think the interview breaks down considerably. She wants her "one thing." He even calls her out that asking a question like that is belittling her service in that post. It is entirely possible that her service as Commander-in-Chief involved nothing more than visiting the troops abroad. Does that mean she doesn't know how to deploy the National Guard if a situation should arise? Does that mean she has no grasp of the budgeting requirements involved in maintaining a military force? Just because she hasn't ordered the Alaskan National Guard to invade Kamchatka doesn't mean she isn't experienced in that post. That is why I say "Name one thing..." is a bad question and reflects poorly on the interviewer.
At the end of the interview she allows the poor guy to say what he wants to say, and he does his supporting McCain song and dance.
So what was the point of the interview? Was it to help the viewers understand how the Republicans justify choosing Gov. Palin as a VP given the emphasis on experience, or was it to hammer home the point that Gov. Palin hasn't made any decisions as Commander-in-Chief? If it was the latter, then I guess I'd have to agree that she did a good job, but then we'd have to discuss the validity of journalism of this nature.
It doesn't. But a lot of people have been holding that up as part of her experience in office. My mom was PTA president too, but that doesn't qualify her to run the country. I'm not saying that Palin doesn't have more experience than my mom, but why are they even bringing that up? Even Cindy McCain cited that as one of the reasons Palin is qualified. My brother's comment was supposed to be satirical, but not sexist. (Because I would beat him up if it were.)
Also, I hope this is a discussion in the spirit of enjoyable political banter, not a blog fight. :)
Well Treb, I would expect a professional interviewer to maintain their composure and point out that the response didn't answer the question. Regardless of how frustrated she got, she shouldn't have let it show.
"And you're right about your proposed third option. What a clever retort "Name one thing Barack Obama has done. . . ever" would be. If you were at recess and in kindergarten."
That is exactly what I'm saying. That kind of question doesn't belong in a professional interview.
By the way, my comment was in response to Sami's, not Mark's. Mark, clearly we are seeing this interview in very different ways, probably because of our different opinions on the candidates themselves. I think the point of the interview was your first part - they just wanted some justification for the choice after an entire platform of experience. I didn't think they gave it, you did or thought it was a bad interview. Such is life with the media. But isn't if fun to get all riled up about it?
Sami and Mark,
Now I really don't understand your argument. You were the ones who brought up the litany of vice-presidents who have assumed the office because the president died. (You forgot to mention the one who resigned in shame - Nixon). 9 (using your calculation) out of 43 equals 20%. Do you think those are good odds. If so, I'd like to take you to the racetrack.
The PTA comment was admittedly a little low (we call that an ad hominem attack), but I never claimed it disqualified her for the office. That is not and has never been the question. The question is, what DOES qualify her for the office? By her own admission, she doesn't even know what the VP does.
haha, i am not in the spirit of fighting. On matters such as politics i generally stay quiet because it usually results in an argument. But i enjoy talking about it. I did not take the comment as sexist...I more understood it to be an attack on her age, which involves a young family. But i understand the attack on her age would be a silly one because she is only three years younger than obama.
I've had numerous family members with melanoma, most of them first had those problems taken care of in their 40's. They've gone on to live much longer than 4 years. Heck, the oldest one I know about is still getting around into her 80's. It is definitely a health risk, but not nearly as severe as most other types of cancer. I agree with Megan that his old age is more of a concern, but definitely not an indication that he will die within 4 years.
Who knows why they are saying that the PTA is good experience? I probably wouldn't have emphasized it, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have any other experience.
As for not knowing what the VP does, I am sure she knows the basics (running the Senate, stepping up if something should happen to the President). However, John Adams said of the post he first occupied, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." Even if she doesn't know exactly what the VP does, do you think she's not going to start doing a bit of research?
Sami, does this mean you won't give me an ugly haircut next time I come begging for a good one? :)
And you're right Mark - if McCain was really expecting to die, he wouldn't be running in the first place. It's just something that should be part of what you put into your personal "deciding on who to vote for" stew. There are all kinds of considerations, and this is not a small one for me.
Mark,
You make very good points about the spirit of "gotcha!" media. I don't like this style of interviewing either. But there are times when it is called for. Ms. Brown is clearly responding to the fact that no one in the McCain camp can satisfactorily explain this absurd choice and so they have come up with absurd answers. For months on end, everyone (both camps) have carped on experience and issues because this is such a serious election. The Republicans just picked someone who has NO experience with ANY of the issues they have put on the table. And they had a lot of really qualified people to choose from (Romney among them). Rick Davis just said that the election is no longer about issues. As an American, I find that insulting and cynical.
I also find "gotcha!" journalism to be insulting and cynical, but this is such a clear illustration of the frustration with there being no there there after the media thought they were going to have something meaty to discuss.
To be clear, no sexism or ageism, involved in my critiques.
But the "what if he dies?" question seems perfectly valid. Which leads to the question once again: Do you really want this person in the Oval Office?
I'll admit McCains dude looked like a clown here and I agree Tina Fey was maybe not the greatest choice for VP but this interview (by the way I loved Campbell Brown when she was on the Today Show...now not so much) is the whole reason the news is unwatchable. The media, who is supposed to be unbiased, is Osama Bin Bamas biggest campaigner. He can do no wrong and everything the Republicans do is ridiculous. If you’re going to watch CNN Meg watch more Glenn Beck and less Campbell Brown.
I agree, a VP should be looked at as a possible President. McCain being elected and dying before year 4 is up is a valid scenario to think about. Palin is definitely a figure with much less experience than many other people that would have been a good choice for VP. I don't know that I would call the choice absurd. It has definitely given rise to many questions about her, and her experience should definitely be the first question on the minds of voters. I would think that these questions are more than meaty enough for the media, and that finding the answers would amount to a bunch of good reporting on her past.
But I will have to disagree with you. I don't think this "gotcha!" style of interviewing, as you put it, has any place in serious journalism. I don't think there is anything in this world that calls for being rude and deceitful. Treating people decently will always be the better choice in my mind.
Out of the 9 Presidents that died and were preceded by their vice president, four of them were assasinated...that is nearly half. Were they placed in the what if he dies category when they were inaugurated? Most definitely not. But it still happened. If Mccain is being placed in the what if category than statistically Obama should be in there too.
Megan, I would never intentionally give a bad haircut ;) You can count on me!!
You're absolutely right, Sami. But Obama's running mate actually has more experience than Obama himself does, so no one has been making a big deal out of that. Biden's ability to be the president should, of course, be considered.
Just to add a little info to the debate, the last sitting senator to become president was JKF (assassinated). Every President since then has had executive experience. So, for 45 years the American voter has said through their vote that executive experience is important. Obama/Biden have zero executive experience. By historical standards, McCain/Palin are very thin on executive experience. It would follow that the McCain people would be making the most of what they have since some is a lot more than none. If the rolls were reversed, Obama/Biden would do the same.
Also, I would encourage careful scrutiny of the questions. Often times answering the question as asked means that you accept the basis or premise of the question. In the present climate of advocacy journalism, many politically savvy people will not answer the question as asked because the question has bad info as its basis. It is the classic 'Why do you beat your spouse every night' situation. Therefore I would contend that both parties need to be viewed with a critical eye, understanding that both have a agenda and a spin that they are trying to get across.
Really good points, anonymous. I don't know why you're hiding your identity when you're making intelligent, well-researched comments!
And you're right, of course, that both candidates should be scrutinized. I think that my last comment made my stance on that unclear. I meant that people in general haven't been making a big deal about Biden, not that his qualifications shouldn't be scrutinized just as closely.
Of course everyone has their spin - it's part of the game, isn't it? This is why it's so hard to be objective when making choices. But I think it's part of what makes trying to inform yourself politically exciting. (My friend Jennie would disagree with me there - she hates the games with a burning purple passion.)
I can't wait to see where all of this goes.
By the way, can you tell that I hate anonymous comments? It bugs me not to know who's reading my blog. :) Maybe I'll change it so that I don't allow them anymore.
Wow... who knew that the two hottest topics you would ever write on were dating and politics??? LOL.
So... my paltry two cents. The first problem with this interview is that Campbell Brown is the interviewer. I flat out don't respect her at all. I think she's pushy, rude, and rarely really interested in listening to anybody but herself. That said, Tucker was in a bad, bad spot. And his answers were dumb. It was like nobody even prepped him at all. What he should have said was: No. Sarah Palin doesn't have much experience in foreign affairs. But John McCain does. And John McCain and Sarah Palin are a pair.
I read a book once where this CEO had been interviewed, and asked how his company became as successful as it did. He said, "Well, I know that I'm really, REALLY good at two or three things. And I'm smart enough to know that I'm really, REALLY lousy at about a million other things. So I hired people who were great in the areas that I wasn't." I think that's what McCain was trying to do by asking Palin to be his running mate. There's absolutely nobody who will make a perfect VP, or President, or Speaker of the House, or Senator or whatever. But she has some strengths (and oddly enough, some differences of opinion) in some areas where he's a little weak.
I also really think that this thing about age is getting about as annoying as anything else. So he's old. Obama's young. Palin's young. Big fat deal. I don't think age says anything about ability to lead. And yeah, McCain might kick the bucket before he's done. But Obama might die in a plane accident from Washington to Denver. McCain might get skin cancer, but Obama could easily end up with pancreatic cancer (think of somebody like Randy Pausch - young, in good health, etc. the disease comes from nowhere!) and also be done for. The dying question is obviously more of a concern in McCain's situation than Obama's, statistically, but I don't think it's something to really fret over. Think of all the leaders of the church - they're VERY old, and we still function when they die. America will still function if a President dies.
And honestly... the PTA comment? I don't know why that SHOULDN'T be mentioned. Every little boy who becomes the president has a mom. And those mom's form people. There's nothing wrong with adding the PTA to your list of experience. I think it was Barbara Bush that said, "It doesn't matter what happens in the White House, what matters is what happens in your house" (or something to that effect).
Anyway. It was not a good interview on either side. Brown is a lousy interviewer, Tucker was ill-prepared.
This election is a beast. And boy, I bet Obama is annoyed that Sarah Palin seems to have been the major focus of the week. For better or worse. I'm starting to feel annoyed about it myself.
Preface: I'm in the Jenny camp of "[hating] the games with a burning purple passion" but I found this interesting...so I comment.
I think many people have pointed out great things for both parties, but what about all those women voters who would have voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman? Perhaps McCain realized this small part of the market would go elsewhere if he didn't make a move to get a [hopefully qualified] woman VP? It definitely throws the gender card back in the election.
Good point, Elise - but I think that's both sad and silly if it happens that way. If someone who was going to vote for Hilary switches to Palin, it's without any consideration for the issues, since the two are pretty much opposite. There was something on the Daily Show about this that I thought was absolutely hilarious, but didn't feel that I could post here. Voting for someone just because they are black or female or male or white or Mormon or evangelical or anything else is not my idea of a good way to pick. But it could have been one of McCain's considerations.
On the other hand (and let it be known that this was just a stray bizarre thought that I'm not sure I actually believe... I'm just gonna throw it out there).
We do tend to be drawn to people we trust - for whatever reason. Usually because we feel a connection to them, we "get" them, they "get" us, etc. So while someone being female or male or Mormon or whatever should not be the ONLY reason we vote for them, I don't think it should totally be off the table for consideration. I know that because of what I know about Mormonism, I would feel much more comfortable with a Mormon in the White House than someone else - if all other things were equal. Maybe it's awful, but it's true. The young are scared of McCain being old because they've never been old. The old are afraid of Obama being young because they worry they won't be represented or taken care of... I don't know. Just a thought.
Yes, Makayla--that's what I was aiming for. I wholeheartedly think it's silly to not stand on principle when voting. Going for one major aspect of a persona (like the fact that Obama is black, Palin is a woman etc.)is crazy but that doesn't mean there won't be those people out there that do just that. Hopefully most of us have escaped this shallow high school mentality by the time we can vote.
Thank heavens this is a small percentage compared to the principle-based voters.
Ok first of all- Hi Treb, haven' seen you in like 16 years! Second of all I love this discussion even though I SHOULD be doing something else. I love Campbell Brown and I think this is a great interview, I'm stealing it for my blog although technically I'm not stealing it if it is public domain. I don't know Gov. Palin. I can't say if she'd make a good vp or if it is a stupid choice. Rash- yes, risky- yes. The truth is 1/5 of vp's eventually have become presidents through death or election and if this person is worthy of being an American President she'd better prove herself worthy.
I already know my vote. Republican values such as the question of abortion cannot be compromised or reconciled in my mind- Because McCain is so wishy washy on these and other values I can't vote for him and must chose to vote ON THE ISSUES. Although I would consider myself a republican, ok more of an independant I guess...I've made my choice for November 4th
By the way, I disabled the anonymous comments, but have re-enabled them in the name of free speech. You can comment anonymously if you like - it will just bug me to not know who you are.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Good thoughts all around.
And Elise - for the record, I was agreeing with you even though I was sad about the fact that people will vote that way.
Wow Megan! I had no idea how controversial your blog is! A few more comments, and you will be up there with my brother's blog!
Blast those anonymous comments! You should see my inside look into those comments littered through out my brother's blog. I delve into what is really going on inside their heads. Those anonymous people just LOVE their faceless state. And I love to mock that.
Very interesting debate going on here. I won't say anything, as I really am not too much into the presidential stuff going on. I figure no matter what happens, the world is going to get so bad that Christ is going to have to come and bail us out. It will be interesting to see what happens along the way, eh? Ha ha.
There, one more comment to ad to your mid 30s status!
By the by, Jeff=Lili.
1. Lili, you crazy girl, does Jeff even use your blog? Why don't you change it to your name, or to at least say both of your names?
2. Holy crap Megan. This is what I get for not checking your blog for... one day. Of all the ridiculous! I was going crazy trying to finish reading all the comments before I posted my own!
3. So WOW. My response to the video itself--Tucker Bounds doesn't know how to answer questions. I'll admit I don't know anything about Campbell whatsherface other than what I've see here, but based on this interview, I like her. I don't think she did anything wrong--if I'm conducting an interview and the person I'm talking to won't answer my questions, I'm going to get annoyed too; meaning I'm not going to sit there and let him ramble on and take up all my time, I'm going to try and get him back on track. And what is this, the Victorian age? If she's annoyed, why shouldn't she show it? I find a little straightforwardness in political journalism refreshing, especially when the alternative is people like Tucker. I agree with Makayla--why couldn't he just say "No, she doesn't have a lot of experience" since we all know it anyway? Good grief. Heaven forbid they admit something about their candidate isn't perfect, because as long as they keep pretending she is, America won't think otherwise. Is that it?
3. Phew! Side note. I don't think it'll be many of the Hillary fans who are going to vote for her (they're just going to write in for Hillary), but I do think that McCain upped his chances of winning by a REALLY high percentage by picking Palin. Whether or not the gender card was taken into account when he MADE his choice I can't say, but I don't think we can deny that it has been put back in regardless.
4. I hate to bring up the PTA thing, but... wow. Really? No, the fact that she's a fairly young mother shouldn't be any of our business--I really liked what Biden just said about that, actually--but I have a hard time seeing how experience in the PTA is REMOTELY like experience that will help her in office. It's a little bit of a ridiculous thing to say.
HAHAHAHA my numbering system got a little crazy there. That's what happens when I try taking notes as I read the comments so I remember what I want to say. For the record, everyone, I am not retarded. :)
Since when does being straightforward necessitate being rude and abandoning tenets of professional journalism? I agree that he wasn't being very direct in answering the questions, but is it too much to ask for the interviewer to politely point that out and re-ask the question? Heck, she even does that and gets her answer. If the interview ended there, I'd have no beef with it.
The problem I have is with Ms. Brown trying to disprove his answer. She asked for the justification the campaign used in picking her given their point of emphasis on experience. He gave it to her. She then asks for proof of their justification in the form "Name one thing..." That isn't a question meant to ascertain the truth and will never yield a satisfactory answer. She could have asked any number of things, such as "The experience you've mentioned has been called into question by your opponents. How would you respond to their statements that her experience as Commander-in-Chief isn't extensive and shouldn't be relevant to this discussion?" I guarantee she would have gotten a better answer, and nobody would be complaining about the interviewing style used.
If she was trying to get him to say that Gov. Palin doesn't have much experience, she asked the wrong guy. He's never gonna say that. I like what the anonymous poster said above, that both the interviewer and the interviewee have goals they are trying to accomplish with this interview and because those goals are so different, the interview ends up being worth very little.
As for PTA experience, I also like what the anonymous poster said in the comments on the blog below this one. He or she said that the Democrats are touting Sen. Obama's service as a community organizer in Chicago as valid experience. I'd say service in the PTA is very comparable to that, and if one side gets scrutinized for using a post like that, both should.
I don't think she was being rude. I didn't think Campbell Brown was even a little bit impolite in the whole interview, and I didn't think she was trying to disprove anything. The only thing she contested was whether or not the governor actually is personally responsible for sending the National Guard overseas, and then Tucker responded by saying she's responsible for the National Guard if there's an emergency in Alaska. That's not even the same thing. MY problem with the interview is that Tucker Bounds doesn't seem to know how to answer the question he's asked. He didn't answer the original question until she'd asked three times, and even then he could barely get five words out without trying to change the subject to Obama or McCain. You can't blame that on the interviewer.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with asking for an example of a decision Palin has made in that capacity. I've been asked questions just like that in job interviews many times, and isn't this campaign, in essence, a lot like a job interview? It's a valid point--people want to see examples of things she's actually experienced, not just the titles she's held.
As far as the two sides having different goals, um... so what? You can't have a normal human-style conversation with someone if you aren't both saying the same things? What would be the point in watching an interview like this if there weren't two sides trying to get different things across? We wouldn't learn anything, or be able to form our own opinions on the subject.
From what I've read about Obama being a community organizer, he's mostly talking about it to show how that part of his life affected him as a person, his growth and knowledge of people and community. I respect that--something doesn't have to be really high-profile to have a big impact on a person. As far as it being comparable to the PTA, I don't agree--I think working with city officials and an entire community is a little larger-scale than working with the parents and teachers of one school--but I don't think that's the point anyway.
Tucker Bounds is a goober, I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. :)
Asking for an example of Gov. Palin's Commander-in-Chief experience is a very valid question. The way Ms. Brown goes about it is incredibly rude. If a job interviewer looked at your resume and asked "Name one thing you did while working at Quik-e-Mart. One thing." with the same tone of voice Ms. Brown uses, you'd think that the interviewer didn't believe you actually worked there. If the interviewer asked "What is an example of your responsibilities at Quik-e-Mart?", it would change the entire tone of the interview. Mr. Bounds picks up on that, which is why he makes his comment on belittling.
All I'm saying is that this interview was not conducted professionally. There were definitely some very professional parts, but it degenerates rather quickly into a slugfest, and the point of the interview is completely lost.
If Sen. Obama is saying that his time as a community organizer affected him as a person, his growth and knowledge of people and community, isn't he just saying that he has experience? What is political experience, if not growth and knowledge of people and community? I'll give you that being on the PTA at a school of under 1,000 kids probably isn't the same as being a community organizer of eight Catholic Parishes, but, as you say, something doesn't have to be really high-profile to have a big impact on a person.
Post a Comment