Please join us at

Get the posts on my new blog by e-mail. Enter your e-mail address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

New posts on

Friday, September 12, 2008

Things I learned from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (Part One)

Pit bulls with lipstick need to be shown deference. They should not be challenged on their statements. That's why they only give interviews to People Magazine.

It is totally sexist to expect women to be able to answer the same questions that would be posed to men. Also, women should be promoted to positions of authority even if they are not qualified. That'll really show those affirmative-action lefties.

The best way to prove your strength under fire is to only take part in highly scripted events.

Apparently there are extreme Islamic terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America. Or something like that. It may have come up a few times.

Stopping to think about job offers would be proof that you do not care about the troops. It must be a lickety-split decision made in the blink of an eye. Even if it's a ridiculous idea.

She is TOTALLY ready to be president, even though she's not even ready for this interview. This isn't politics as usual! Americans don't WANT someone who's qualified!

We gotta keep an eye on Russia. And guess what? You can SEE Russia from Alaska!

Something called "nuke-you-lar" weapons are really dangerous. We can't second-guess our friends like Israel. This is clearly written in a briefing note somewhere, because she repeated it several times. I presume this means that nobody should second-guess her, either.

Cutting down on pollution is urgent. This point is best made while standing next to a gas pipeline and insisting on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Yeah, THIS is a great plan.


Cindy said...


OK, can you say over-messaged?

Seriously, Palin needs more info and less messaging.

And more experience.

And she needs to keep her paws off the ANWR.

Still like her "personally", though, Megan, and admire her grit and her achievements while raising a large family.

The Coconut Diaries said...

Oh, good, I thought it was just me. Thrusting your thumb at me and saying the word "Americans" 6 times does not make you qualified to be VP. And just because you can see Russia, doesn't mean you know anything about their politics. I can SEE size 2 clothes, but that doesn't mean my ass will squeeze into them.

And why are we praising her for working and raising 5 kids? If you have 5 kids, you SHOULD work! That's like people praising men for paying child support and spending time their kids. You're SUPPOSED to do that!!

My favorite part was when Charlie says "I'm sorry, I just got lost in a blizzard of words."

Anonymous said...

OK, OK, she didn't do too well...

Charlie's tone was snide, and his questions were belittling, and Sarah should have slapped him and walked out.
We'll get our revenge on Election Day.


Anonymous said...

Honestly I haven't been paying a lot of attention to American politics. This, however, is one bitch I can't help but notice. I'm flabbergasted.

Megan said...

His tone was snide and his questions were belittling?

In what respect, Charlie?

allmycke said...

Scary stuff!

Noelle said...

The one that cracks me up the most is that they keep repeating that Russia is near Alaska and that somehow makes her a foreign policy expert. But news flash?

Alaska is close to SIBERIA. Chicago is actually closer to Moscow than Alaska. Sorry, come up with something better, please.

Cindy said...

Um, coconut, how many kids do you have? I ask simply because you don't seem to have a grasp of the economics of a family with kids in it.

They're simple and go like this: it is often less expensive for a large family to have a stay-at-home parent than it is to have both spouses work, because of the atrocious cost of child care.

This often isn't the case with one child, but any more than that and you risk working only to give 100 per cent of your take-home pay to the babysitter.

I have three kids. Only one of them is in school. My child care cost, before my live-in nanny arrived, was $1800-2000 a month. Now that our nanny is here, it is about $1400 a month.

Think about the cost for five children. You'd need at least two nannies. Now add the cost of overtime for the nannies, if you are a woman with a political career (night meetings, etc.)

It is expensive and daunting.

Beyond the expense, there is the emotional toll of being away from your kids. Speaking from experience again here: it is much harder to work FT with three than it was with one, because when I get home I have two hours for the kids before bedtime, and have to connect with all three of them meaningfully in those two hours, while also supervising meal, bedtime, etc.

It is HARD.

Yet another thing: Five children means 5x the doctor and dentist appointments, 5x the school plays and parent teacher conferences (a little less, since Trig is a baby, but replace that with breast pumping sessions.) You can't send your nanny to do this stuff, and most parents don't want to. We want to be there for our kids.

Finally, while you saw a mom of a large family SHOULD work (outside the home; I would remind the feminists here that Steinman et all fought for years to have mothering recognized as true work), is SUPPOSED to work, many people will argue the exact opposite. She should "be there for her children." So you are f*cked if you do and f*cked if you don't.

I know you might answer, "well don't have so many!" As a feminist and a woman with three kids, I resent that people seem to think women should only aspire to greatness if they have the correct number of kids. That's anti-feminist bullsh*t.

My point is a mother with a large family is judged harshly on her choices, no matter what they are. And raising a large family is a huge task. Adding a governorship to that, along with time for fitness, etc, makes me greatly admire this woman's time- and life-management skills.

Megan said...

Nobody doubts Ms. Palin's commitment to her family. I applaud it.

I'm sure that she's a perfectly lovely person, and I would really like to see her as a rising star. In fact, that's what Obama did four years ago. He was an unknown until the 2004 DNC, but he has spent the years since then running for president. He's been flying around the country, talking to people and developing his platform.

Ms. Palin, on the other hand, never thought outside the borders of Alaska until two weeks ago. That could not be more obvious. And why should she have? She was the governor of Alaska, for pete's sake. On national and international issues, she has no ideas of her own, only lines that have been fed to her. I can tell when a politician doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

I want her to go away and spend a few years gaining more experience. I'll welcome her back in 2012. But it is insulting to think that she is even the tiniest bit qualified right now.

The Capitalist said...

What? Nothing about the "bridge to nowhere", or luxury jet???

I think Charlie was merely trying to get her to answer the questions rather that side-stepping them, which is one thing she actually seems to be experienced in doing...

Anonymous said...

What I learned from the Charlie Gibson Interview? When you claim to be using exact words, get the whole quote (otherwise your entire interview is going to be questioned).


Anonymous said...

Looks like Sarah Palin has made as much of a splash up there as she has down here!

Take a look at Camille Paglia's recent reflections:


Megan said...

A splash?

No. We're insulted.

Sorry, Mom.

Anonymous said...

Did you read Paglia?

Anonymous said...

Wow!! I just finished watching the first part of Charlie Gibson's interview, and he comes across as a major jerk!

I am very disappointed. He just hurt us.

His behavior was not what you'd expect from a seasoned reporter. No wonder we hear how the media is pro-democrat!

Try Paglia here:

This is a liberal that can speak with insight and intelligence.

Megan said...

Who the heck is "us"?

Perhaps you're not aware that Mr. Gibson was criticised for being mean to Mr. Obama the last time he interviewed the candidate. He asked if he was making "rookie mistakes". Nobody likes it when their own guy goes under the microscope, I guess.

Or perhaps you're not aware that Mr. Gibson has been doing this a long time and has moderated presidential debates.

Or perhaps you're not aware that asking tough questions is the media's JOB. If anything, I don't think he was tough enough on her.

I look forward to additional Palin interviews. Or -- the saints preserve us! -- an actual news conference. You know, the stuff that any governor should be able to do.

The media is NOT pro-Democrat. If anything, they came into this pro-McCain. Who are you kidding, anon?

Cindy said...

I'm not insulted. I just don't think she's ready yet.

And I also think she needs to keep her hand off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (sorry, broken record.)

Going to read Paglia, always a favourite of mine.

Anonymous said...

Charlie Krauthammer,the guy who coined the term "Bush doctrine", has something to say about Gibson's definition here:


Megan said...

Let's just accept that Palin's a loser. This is starting to feel like laughing at Rebecca Eckler.

Charles Gibson asked the other candidates the same question and they answered it. Glenn Greenwald has the relevant quotes, but the full transcripts are here and here.