First, I'm not sure who "they" are. This was an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network. And, it wasn't a "trick" question. It was a straight-forward question, to which, she gave a ridiculously rambling and remarkable incoherent answer. I've read it three times, and I still don't know what she's saying, and I'd wager neither does she.
That is why I don't think Palin is remotely qualified for the office she may (or may not) aspire to. It has nothing to with Alynsky et. al. It does, however, have everything to do with Palin, her own fumbling of the English language and her persistent inability to craft intelligent and interesting answers to the most elementary of questions. What happens when Palin has to sit down with hostile journalists? Do you actually believe she'll be able to manage combative journalists without sounding shrill and unprepared? I sure don't.
Take Palin's extemporaneous speaking ability and place in comparison to Paul Ryan. Frankly, there is no comparison. Ryan's harshest critics call him a lot of names, but stupid isn't one of them. Why? Because it wouldn't stick. No one watching or listening to Paul Ryan is going to walk away from that experience thinking he's unprepared and possibly speaks English as a second language, no matter how much they may disagree with his politics - the same would be true of Barbour, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune and even Romney and Hucklebee. They are all smart guys. You may have policy disagreements or character questions with or about some of them, or all of them, but no one is going to be able to paint any of them as incompetent or bumbling.
Palin has already been painted as a buffoon, and with the broader electorate,it has stuck. Politics is about perception, and her perception is that she's intellectually empty. While I do think that her grass roots support gives her a puncher's chance to capture the nomination, she would get crushed in the general. That's why I can't support her presidential candidacy. 2012 is too important to entirely cede the election to Obama, letting him win in convincing fashion and possibly giving him some coattails to hold the Senate, and possibly gain ground in the House. America wouldn't survive that.
Palin has already been painted as a buffoon, and with the broader electorate,it has stuck. Politics is about perception, and her perception is that she's intellectually empty.
And... so you'll just concede to the state-run media? Thanks for nothing.
If this were October 2012, I might agree with your implied conclusion that the incorrect public perception of Palin can't be corrected.
But it isn't 10/2012.
We have TWENTY MONTHS until that point. Perspective. You need some, it seems.
I dissected the double negative here at #146 , sorry I didn't ping you:
Back to your observations. If we are supposed to claim now that CBN asked her a question to ‘trick’ her to defend her on this, then what would we be required to claim as reality if she really RAN for president and had to tolerate an unfriendly interviewer? How obvious must it be and still not be understood?
I thought Romney was the sole 'gay Republican''s candidate. She sure is making it easy for him.
It was a softball, and she produced a hairball for an answer.