“I was not speaking of her gaffe, but her entire really shallow, amateurish response.”
It was a quick radio interview spot, one among about 6 she did in a short time frame. Hardly the place to get into the deep policy statements that you are looking for.
Hell, Romney won’t even talk, let alone criticize Obama, I don’t see anybody critiquing any of the other potential nominees and a lot of double standards toward Palin.
There will be plenty of time to get into more detail on policy as candidates announce.
Romney doesn’t have the image of being lightly qualified and desperately ambitious. The context doesn’t stick. The answers do. And every time her answers come up shallow it only reinforces the “I can’t see her as president” impression.
“Hell, Romney won’t even talk, let alone criticize Obama, I don’t see anybody critiquing any of the other potential nominees and a lot of double standards toward Palin.
There will be plenty of time to get into more detail on policy as candidates announce.”
+++++++++++++++
Good points.
No excuse for being shallow. One can be brief and not shallow.
I don’t see anybody critiquing any of the other potential nominees...
Although I can't speak for "anybody," I can for myself. I said, "We should be demanding more of all the candidates, not excusing their weaknesses."
Adding here that we are two years out from the next presidential election. I am keeping an open mind. Anyone who takes the next presidential election seriously will do the same until primary season. Not only making a candidate selection now, but becoming the worst kind of blind fanboy or fangirl this early reveals a narrow, closed mind. There are other conservatives who might become candidates. I want to hear from them all before making my choice.
At present, I see Palin as a shallow, glib gadfly celebrity. I'm one voter who wants to see genuine substance in any candidate I support. It's a candidate's responsibility to demonstrate it, not mine (or any voter's) responsibility to excuse their lack of it.