"Disastrous"

[Erik Mitchell]

Re: "Disastrous"

I thought the debate was on Thurs.?

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

^^it is -- 9 pm Eastern

[palmer]

Re: "Disastrous"

Did you see Tina Fey's skit mocking the Couric interview? For one of the responses -- and keep in mind that this is a comedy sketch -- the vast majority of Fey's answer was lifted directly out of Sarah Palin's ACTUAL RESPONSE to the same question. She literally didn't have to change the answer to get a laugh. It was funny and horrifying at the same time.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

At around 2:50 is pretty good.

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

I'm a bit concerned about that, too. The problem, though, is that keeping expectations low is one thing, but you can also perform so badly in the run-up to a debate that a "better-than-expected" performance won't save you. She might be past that point, as a lot of people have already made up their mind on Sarah Palin, and the impression they have isn't good.

As I think about this a bit more, it could also be the case that her expectations are now so low that people will be expecting the gaffes and slip-ups, and that they will be the focus of the debate even if she does better than expected overall. They fit into the pre-existing storyline for Palin, so unless she's mistake-free, which we know isn't going to happen, that's what is going to get all of the attention.

Ironically, Biden is almost immune from his inevitable gaffes, also because they are expected. When Biden goofs something up, the reaction is almost like, "Oh look, Biden did it again." When Biden says that Roosevelt got on TV in 1929 to calm the nation, he gets a pass because (1) he is known for mixing things up, and (2) we all know from his history as a Senator that he misspoke, that he doesn't really think that Roosevelt went on TV in 1929. He makes mistakes, people roll their eyes, but he ultimately gets away with it. Palin won't have that luxury because she doesn't have the credentials where we can all assume that she just misspoke about something.

[88Mariner]

Re: "Disastrous"

I'm a bit concerned about that, too. The problem, though, is that keeping expectations low is one thing, but you can also perform so badly in the run-up to a debate that a "better-than-expected" performance won't save you. She might be past that point, as a lot of people have already made up their mind on Sarah Palin, and the impression they have isn't good. She's gone from rock star to punchline in the matter of a couple of weeks.

Did you see Tina Fey's skit mocking the Couric interview? For one of the responses -- and keep in mind that this is a comedy sketch -- the vast majority of Fey's answer was lifted directly out of Sarah Palin's ACTUAL RESPONSE to the same question. She literally didn't have to change the answer to get a laugh. It was funny and horrifying at the same time.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that as much as I'd like to see Biden tear her a new one, Biden can only hurt himself by engaging her, because it would be tough to not be condescending to such absurdity.

yes i'm aware of this.

biden's going to fuck up. I had a dream about it last night. in the dream he was debating palin and all of a sudden, he couldn't answer a question, and then started walking over to edwards' children, yanked them in front of the tv cameras, and said, "do you want your children growing up like this".


i woke up in a cold sweat. i'm dead serious about the dream too.


also, i've been reading rumours that CBS has two more clips from that interview not yet posted. I can guess that if they'll be using this friday after the debates. which might be fresh fodder for SNL (who is doing an 8-week Palin intro sketch lol)

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

i'm dead serious about the dream too.


also, i've been reading rumours that CBS has two more clips from that interview not yet posted. I can guess that if they'll be using this friday after the debates. which might be fresh fodder for SNL (who is doing an 8-week Palin intro sketch lol)

You're dreaming about political debates? And I thought I was obsessed...

I've heard about these clips, too. Evidently, one of them is her being asked to discuss a Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v Wade. Not a particular decision, mind you, but any decision she thought was important or that she cared about. That question was met with silence -- no scrambling, bullshitting or talking point-dropping, just silence. Haven't seen it yet, though, and haven't heard anything at all about the other clip.

[88Mariner]

Re: "Disastrous"

You're dreaming about political debates? And I thought I was obsessed...

I've heard about these clips, too. Evidently, one of them is her being asked to discuss a Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v Wade. Not a particular decision, mind you, but any decision she thought was important or that she cared about. That question was met with silence -- no scrambling, bullshitting or talking point-dropping, just silence. Haven't seen it yet, though, and haven't heard anything at all about the other clip.

yes. i'm also having nightmares about law school exams too. it's another two and a half months away. fvck. heh.

as far as Roe goes, the epic lulz about this is, from what i've read, that she knows of no other supreme court ruling. none. zilch.

i know that she had to have been asked about Roe at some point (probably a debate question, too). so this isn't too far a stretch if it's a rumour.

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

as far as Roe goes, the epic lulz about this is, from what i've read, that she knows of no other supreme court ruling. none. zilch.

i know that she had to have been asked about Roe at some point (probably a debate question, too). so this isn't too far a stretch if it's a rumour.

I'm going to reserve judgment on this for now, because depending upon what question was asked, she might not have had any good reason to have another case handy to discuss. If she was unable to name another Supreme Court case, that's pretty pathetic, but I doubt she was just asked to name another case. More likely she was asked something along the lines of other SC decisions she'd like to see overturned or some shit like that -- that wouldn't explain her sitting there quietly like a moose in the headlights, but she might actually be OK with the other SC rulings as they currently stand. There are only a few that I can think of that I care enough about that I'd actively like to see overturned, and no one outside of my line of work probably gives a flying fuck about those cases...

[88Mariner]

Re: "Disastrous"

Heller????

i would not believe a gun-owner has never heard of that one. no friggin way.

or the Exxon-Valdez one where they capped the damages.

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

Heller????

i would not believe a gun-owner has never heard of that one. no friggin way.

or the Exxon-Valdez one where they capped the damages.

Well, she'd agree with both of those decisions, I suspect, but that's not really the point. I'm just saying that I'm going to reserve judgment on this until I hear the question she was actually asked. If the question was "Name a US Supreme Court case" and she couldn't do it, she's even more of an idiot that we ever dreamed. I can't imagine it was that cut and dry, though.

[toasty]

Re: "Disastrous"

OK, it looks like the question was:

“Why do you think Roe v. Wade is a good or bad decision? What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?”

http://wonkette.com/403181/much-hyped-pinnacle-of-palin-retardation-to-air-tonight