MIke,

Have you seen her debates from 2 years ago in Alaska (www.youtube.com/watch)? How do you explain this new Palin? Do you think she a) had a stroke, b) is just faking it, or c) is totally overwhelmed by the increase level of scrutiny? Seriously...

". . . .and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today. "

Ignorant of the ways of the Dark Side are you.  Paying attention to Lord Darth Cheney for 92 months have you not.

Perhaps Gwen Ifil should just abandon her own questions and choose ten questions from the Naturalization Test released today, such as:

1) What is the supreme law of the land?

2) What does the Constitution do?

3) The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?

4) What is an amendment?

5) What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?

6) What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?

7) How many amendments does the Constitution have?

8) What did the Declaration of Independence do?

9) What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?

10) What is freedom of religion?

Surely, if we expect aspirant citizens to be able to answer any of these we could expect the same of an aspirant Vice President.

usgovinfo.about.com/.../blinstst_new.htm

I don't think the fact that she can't name another Supreme Court case she disagrees with.  It's that she fundamentally doesn't understand Roe v. Wade or the seminal case of Griswold v. Conn.  If she agrees that the Constitution  has an inherent right of privacy, she CAN'T oppose Roe on a state's rights ground.  Someone needs to explain that to her before the debate tomorrow night.

Video: www.cbsnews.com/.../watch

Text: www.cbsnews.com/.../main4493062.shtml

Are mulligans allowed in the v.p. selection process?

HOW CAN YOU NOT EVEN THINK OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OMFG!

Unbe-freakin'-lievable.

To be fair, she can't really say that she *disagrees* with Brown.  But yeah, the privacy answer was actually the worst part, because it shows that she doesn't know anything about Roe other than the fact that it guarantees the right to abortion.  

I realize she has been a trainwreck with the Couric interview thats seems like its been spread out over a lifetime at this point, but the question had a gotcha type quality to it. She is not a lawyer and should not be expected to name specific cases...they are questions that are asked at nomination hearings for appellate and supreme court nominees.

I thought this question and response (which immediately precedes the above declaration of support of an inherent right of privacy) pretty underscores how much she doesn't understand what the hell she is talking about:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting she should oppose Brown v. Board of Ed. I just feel like she should have been able to cite even a counterfactual to the quesiton, like Brown.

Stop, stop, stop.  No more lowering the bar.  She is the smartest person in America.  She will stomp Biden into the terra.  It will be ugly.  Hunter Thompson will rise from the grave to mock him.  If she doesn't reason like Aristotle and speak with Shakespear's flair then the campaign is over.  

No more foolin' around on this issue.  She is the greatest rope-a-dope practitioner since Ali.  All is lost in the face of such a ferocious mind like that.   If she doesn't live up to my expectations the Republican party should simply concede.

Get on the right side of this damn issue.  No more selling her short. She is Semiramis reincarnate, if she so much as fumbles one syllable she has given away the game.  Raise the bar.  Raise the bar.  Raise the bar.

Her performance on the national stage has been an embarrassment to her constituents (at least to this one). She has flopped more thoroughly in unscripted situations than I ever suspected based on her past performance in Alaska. I think there are several reasons.

(1) At times in her interviews with Couric, she has given the impression of really being spooked -- especially in the first sequence. She may be feeling overwhelmed. Her mediocre performance despite Hannity's cheerleading for her is hard to explain in other ways. She has not looked relaxed and confident in any of these interviews.

(2) I've said from the start that she has never really thought about many if not most of the national issues. She's being forced to answer questions about things she doesn't know anything about, but should if she is to be VP. There is too much of a knowledge gap to cram and fake it.

(3) The national media does a much better job of asking follow-up questions than the in-state press does (plus a lot of the in-state press was in the tank for her because she won the R primary). She could get away with shallowness and evading the question in the past, and not really be called on it. But Katie Couric in particular has devastated her simply by forcing her to follow up and answer the question. And once her first try is used up, she has sometimes talked herself into a corner or just blithered because there was no depth to back it up.

(4) The McCain campaign has set up some of her worst moments with their ridiculous attempts to puff up her resume. The "see Russia" = "foreign policy expertise" howlers were triggered by McCain and Co. claiming that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her experience and insight into Russia, and both Gibson and Couric called her on it. And there was nothing rational she could say, because the entire premise of her position was laughable. She should have been coached to admit it was an exaggeration when it was asked first, and then segued to some statement about having a different perspective on the map or something like that. In short, they should have given it up and cut their losses instead of doggedly trying to defend the indefensible to the extent that it became self-parody. Then it would be like the "visited Ireland and Iraq" exaggerations/lies, mostly forgotten. Instead, we all know she can see Russia from her house.

I think #4 fed back into #1 -- she may have lost confidence because she blundered into some earlier failures. Had her first interview gone reasonably well, it might have all turned out well for her. Probably several short 2-3 questions mini-interviews would have been a better strategy, but they blew it.

I'm coming around to the "fakin' it" option.  Surely an elected governor who went through an election can discuss a major and controversial issue -- which she admits is important to her -- in a slightly more coherent way.

She could have begun with "Well, of course I'm not a constitutional lawyer . . . " which is a good CYA move for then discussing the issues in a non-technical way.

I know you're asking Michael, eweiss. But I'll give it a shot.

Those earlier debates focused on issues that dominate Alaskan politics. It was her world -- the one she'd lived in most of her life. The terrain she has to cover now is so much bigger. And it's filled with bogs and pits and quicksand. I think she's overwhelmed by the extent of the terrain rather than by the new level of scrutiny. She may also be a little unnerved by all those potential pitfalls. (She knows how high the stakes are.)

I bet she just didn't stop to think about how big the world outside Alaska really was before saying 'yes' to McCain's VP request.

That said, if she's absorbed the key information that her handlers feed her for the debate, I think she'll do just fine. She's very good at delivering attack lines that have been prepped for her. (Sneering seems to be one of her strong suits.) So I expect she'll turn every question into an opportunity to deliver digs at Biden and Obama. That way she'll have less time to spend on outlining her own positions. Poor Biden, he won't be able to counterattack. Not directly. Maybe he can blunt her attacks by saying things like, "Barack understands that partisan sniping gets in the way of fighting for hard-working Americans."

To be fair (and really, it's not my natural inclination), the question was "what supreme court decisions do you disagree with?"  If she'd mentioned Brown v, Board of Education it would have been mind-boggling, and it's possible that there's really only one she's thought hard enough to disagree with.  Though it's clear from her responses that she hasn't thought *that* hard about the single decision she apparently disagrees with . . .

    It appears that Palin is ignorant of the fact that the U.S. Constitution applies to all of the people in all of the states.  Amazing, but hardly surprising.  I hope that at least one journalist asks Palin this question: Do you support the passage/ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?

How about opposing Dred Scott?!?!    "That whole slavery thing, katie, I think slavery was f*cked up."  Done.  Did this woman pass a high school civics class?  I mean seriously.

Um... One can believe in the right to privacy embodied in, say, the 4th Amendment and still not think that some generalized notion of a woman's "Right to Privacy" should be used to legislate abortion rights by judicial fiat!  Roe happens to be the shittiest piece of judicial reasoning in decades.  And all of you know it.  You just happen to adore the public policy it legislated.  Palin's dislike for Roe only strengthens her cause, and the fact that she justifies her dislike for it by talking about federalism should be welcomed by the libs reading this blog.  After all, Palin could have just stated, "Well, I don't believe in abortion, and Roe gave us abortion."  First, such a statement would have shown a much more absolutist view than does the states' rights argument; second, such a statement would not have demonstrated any understanding whatsoever about Roe itself -- and why legitimate criticisms of it can be made...  

Good Lord that's a softball question.  Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson are the standard, uncontroversial answers, but there are plenty of other easy ones out there.  Hell, *this summer* the Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees had a right to habeas corpus petitions.  I don't personally disagree with it, but it's an easy decision for a conservative to rail against, as Romney did in his convention speech.

Exactly Nolo...being a lawyer myself, I can appreciate when I had not yet taken a con. law course that specific cases, especially by name, is not something many government policymakers are going to be on top of. Couric should just have centered on Palin's position on specific constituional principles, ie., states rights....privacy..etc.

Um, Dred Scott

It's too bad she didn't just say, "To tell the truth, I'm not that familiar with Supreme Court decisions."

It's a problem that Palin's unprepared. I happen to think a larger problem is that she's been trying to fake it. In other words, she's a fraud. Ignorance, to some extent and in some cases, we can forgive--the person's a quick study, will have assistance down the road, doesn't need the information at the moment.

What I find intolerable is her disrespectful, arrogant, smug, dismissive sanctimonious refusal to admit who she is.

Nice try nturner, but Palin didn't say a word about the legal reasoning of Roe.  To say that it should be up to the states is simply to say that Roe produced the wrong outcome, not why it was the wrong outcome.

At least she seemed to know what federalism was.

Jack:

Let's try your approach for a second:

"She is not a lawyer and should not be expected to name specific cases...they are questions that are asked at nomination hearings for appellate and supreme court nominees."

Freezing on the Bailout

"She is not an economist and should not be expected to address specific issues...they are questions that are asked at nomination hearings for Treasury Secretaries and Federal Reserve Governors."

Freezing on AIDS/health matter

"She is not a doctor and should not be expected to address specific medical issues...they are questions that are asked at nomination hearings for the Surgen General."

Freezing on the Mission to Mars

"She is not a rocket scientist and should not be expected to name specific missions...they are questions that are asked at nomination hearings for NASA chairmen."

Etc.  Anyone running for the vice-Presidency of this country should know at lease some basic stuff that they teach in grade twelve history.  People have mentioned Dredd Scott and Plessy (to disagree with).  Why not just talk about a constitutional principle, or just FUCKING ADMIT she does not know, as Bill Yard said.  It is yammering, the endless yammering, the ceaseless yammering, yammering on that gets to me.

Good response icarusr, but as I pointed out, the question could have been poised differently by Couric on the issue. Additionally, she should be more prepared from a policy wonk standpoint on economic and healthcare issues then pure constitutional issues. Look, I'm a D, but have been personally offended by the press coverage since the primaries commenced, so I'm a bid jaded. Other portions of the Couric interview were well done by Couric and exposed Palin for who she is, but I am not sure if Biden would be asked what specific supreme court decisions he disagreed with...of course he would have answers:)

William Y nails this one better than anyone has come close to doing.  

It's the fraud that's so unacceptable - how sick and tired are we of having our intelligence insulted?  This is also that main reason that she comes across as so devious and empty to so many of us. Her bridge to nowhere lies were just the start of that intelligence-insulting nonsense.  

Its beyond belief.

And as far as lowering expectations for our public officials:

I don't know which offends me more, that this woman could not name Dred Scott or Brown Versus Board of Education (which most of us could do by 4th grade) or the fact that people are contorting themselves into bizarre shapes to rationalize this woman's unacceptable ignorance.  

These are the same people caterwauling about Obama's dangerous lack of experience starting two years ago, natch.

PS Michael, the Make it Stop headline was perfect.

Kelo?  Hamadi?

There are lots of cases people on the Right can get hissy about.  She is even less curious than George.

Coming up with cogent answers is not difficult when you're in the shower and you've been well briefed. I have done training of actors and political candidates, and the challenge in both cases is not simply to get them to perform well, but to perform well under pressure. No one realizes until they step onto the BIG STAGE just how much that affects your psychology. Remember all that talk during the primaries about how the tough primary would make Obama a better candidate? Well a year ago he couldn't have done the debate he did last week. Sarah Palin has had to climb that curve in hours instead of months, and she did so with an education that was not as good a preparation.

No battle plan survives the first encounter with the enemy, and the true test of the warrior is how they act when the fog of war sets in. The most important key to almost any human conflict is to get the opponent to make mistakes and avoid making mistakes yourself. I expect to see one of two things on Thursday:

1) Palin back on her game, determined and focused. If so she will give answers that display sincerity and feeling for the common American, and it will inspire a lot of people and she will be successful. She will deliver some zingers, her timing will be on, and she will firm up her base and prove to a lot of  people that she's not as dumb as people say and the media critics will lose credibility. Her answers will display no depth of thinking, because she has none.

2) She will continue to feel overwhelmed, as she has been. I'm familiar with the syndrome of small western state inferiority complex. They talk about how great the U of Idaho's journalism program is, but there is a substantial amount of Harvard envy. If that kicks in -- and I believe that is the explanation for Palin's abysmal performance on the national stage -- then it could be a the night when the McCain campaign truly ends.

The key is whether she stays relaxed and really believes in herself. What I've seen recently is a woman who is obviously aware at least on a subconscious level that she is not up to the job. Her fearless leader running around like Napoleon on crack can't be helping.

AlanSP, your post reminds me that in her convention speech, Palin sneered at Obama for wanting to read terrorists their rights. But presumably she just read that, didn't write it. If she had thought about it, she could have pointed out the Guantanamo decision and referred to her own speech.

But I just don't think she has thought about this before!

Jack writes,

"Other portions of the Couric interview were well done by Couric and exposed Palin for who she is, but I am not sure if Biden would be asked what specific supreme court decisions he disagreed with...of course he would have answers:)"

Watch the video (it's up on Chis Orr's post over on The Plank).  Biden was indeed asked about specific decisions he disagreed with.  He answered with a decision about his own Violence Against Women Act, one with which he's obviously quite familiar.

As it turns out, Biden was asked the very same questions. ndmackenzie gave the link, which I repeat below. Needless to say, Biden had no problem going into specifics.

www.cbsnews.com/.../main4493062.shtml

I still say its all an act, like the old Phil Hartman impersonation of Ronald Regan . Tomorrow she's going to snap out of it BACK TO WORK www.jibjab.com/.../170859

she has to be faking it. how can she possibly say what she said about a constitutional right to privacy? faking it...

Biden is a lawyer who has been on the judicial committee for decades, so of course he had the answers. I knew he would.

Also, Jack, nobody would care if she couldn't name the cases by name.  Just  a basic description would have been fine.  She doesn't have to know that the Guantanamo Bay decision was Boumediene v. Bush, but she should probably know that there was a very recent decision granting detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment (I won't even ask for the term "habeas corpus").  Likewise, even if you can't point to Plessy by name, "separate but equal" should probably ring a bell.

The ignorance is even more amazing given that her party and her running mate are so fond of bashing "activist judges."  Is it too much to ask for one example of that aside from Roe?

Dudes and dudettes.  The question  of what Supreme Court decision do you disagree with is a bit of a toughie.  I thought originally when I heard about this question that it was a more open question of name one Supreme Court decision.

When I thought about it, I could not name one decision because I was thinking in terms of CURRENT Supreme Court decisions that are still good law.  When Biden answered the question he named a recent Supreme Court decision ruling against Federalizing domestic violence crimes.  I did not interpret Couric's question to mean bad Supreme Court rulings that have subsequently been overruled.

But Palin clearly interpreted Couric's question to mean historically bad decisions.  She should have been able therefore to name Dred Scott, Plessy, etc.  So she is the fool.

And even if she had interpreted the question to mean only CURRENT bad Supreme Court law there is still no excuse for her.  As Keith Olberman pointed out after the Exxon Valdez case this past June in which the Supreme Court lowered the punitive damages of victims of the spill in Alaska,PALIN ISSUED A STATEMENT EXPRESSING HER DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE DECISION!!!  What a moron!  As an expert in oil and all such matters, as the Governor of the state where this massive tragedy occurred, and after publicly expressing disappointment in this Supreme Court decision, one would think this Exxon case would be in her head somewhere.  

I mean she must remember the spill, right?  How many national disasters have occurred in Alaska over the last two decades?  Just this one, right?  And the Supreme Court just this past June issued this decision.  And she was governor and expressed her disappointment publicly.  Just how many times has she had the chance to express disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court while governor?  One?  This one?  She is a dolt.

By the way, AlanSP, that's very interesting angle you've mentioned there.  What's Palin's attitude toward the Violence against Women Act, I wonder.  If it comes up in questioning , it'll be hard for her to be hostile to Biden in that (limited) context.

Wasatcher----

Thank you. "Napoleon on crack"?

That is precisely the ground zero of this election choice. Palin, good or bad, is entirely irrelevant.

woland makes a good point.  She probably does know a few rulings about Alaska that she doesn't like.  Either she is a dolt, or as wasatcher suggestions, she froze up.  This is too much too quickly for her.  Single A to the majors over night.  Too bad she wasn't left in Alaska to fill out her term and maybe serve a second.  She might have had promise down the road.

woland makes a good point.  She probably does know a few rulings about Alaska that she doesn't like.  Either she is a dolt, or as wasatcher suggestions, she froze up.  This is too much too quickly for her.  Single A to the majors over night.  Too bad she wasn't left in Alaska to fill out her term and maybe serve a second.  She might have had promise down the road.

rozenson, I think Palin is more of a Plessy v. Ferguson type.

www.latimes.com/.../la-na-palindebate1-2008oct01,0,113995.story

yes, I agree. This is like watching someone salt a snail, night after night. It is no longer funny but frightening and ghastly. How could John McCain do this to this affable dope?  I really think that The Mummy should pull the plug, put his kiss ass Joementum on the ticket.  Really, how could it get any worse?

Mr. Yard sums up my feelings entirely. Palin is failing so far not because she can't recite facts to a reporter, but because she's obviously trying to BS her way through stuff instead of admitting to limited knowledge and moving on. Not that most politicians ever say, "Well, that's not my area of expertise," but most have developed some technique for moving the conversation onto friendly ground. Palin doesn't do either. Instead, she fakes it, like the guy who doesn't watch football in the company lunchroom on Monday:

"So, did you see any of the games on Sunday?"

"Yeah, I watched most of them. I'm a big fan of the NFL, of football."

"What games specifically? I'm curious."

"Um, all of them, any of them that were on TV all day."

"Can you name any of them?"

"I have a vast variety of channels where I watch the games."

It's of a piece with her inflated or simply false claims about her own record -- "I said no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere," "I sold the plan on eBay," "I was against pork" -- in that it all amounts to resume padding. Which ought to piss off anyone who's ever had to interview for a job, or ever had to hire someone.

Intellectually, the danger is not so much the fraud, but the fact that the person who habitually fakes her way across chasms of ignorance prevents herself from learning important new information and thereby correcting the ignorance. Worse, the habitual BS artist usually comes to believe that faking it is good enough in general, or even that the ability to BS past trouble is knowledge, and so perpetuates her ignorance not merely by missing opportunities to learn but by actively avoiding them.

Aye, that's the Rhub.

It isn't just the Exxon Valdez decision.  She (or her handlers) do not seem to think creatively under pressure.

Consider the following answer to the question of FP expertise and the proximity to Russia:

"Well, no, of course just being close to Russian does not give me any particular foreign policy expertise.  But Russia is a petro-nation, dependent on oil exports for it's power.  Alaska is a petro-state, one whose economy and way of life depend on fossil fuels.  I think that gives me some understanding of Russia's role in the world."

It would still be bullshit, but it sure would sound better than Putin invading Alaskan air space.  And yes, I'm not a lawyer, and I can think of a few cases I disagree with, even if I can't always name them.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, Tinker vs. Des Moines Schools...

What if kgrant is right, and Palin's purposely lowering the bar?  Ouch!

I am almost willing to bet that Palin would not score well on the US Citizenship Exam that immigrants are required to take.  I won't go so far as to say she'd flunk, but I do believe she'd struggle with some of the Supreme Court and Constitutional portions of the test.

I can't imagine that I'd ever have found my way into grad school or landed a decent job if I ever responded to the questions of men and women of reasonable intelligence with the sort of lame-ass (and fucking stupid, to be honest) responses that Palin has spewed out.

Biden is not flawless, by any means.  And I'm not going to argue with anyone who has a legitimate point to make about his shortcomings.  But I think we can agree that he's - at the very least - rational and intelligent and well informed.  So it blows my mind that Sarah Palin is going to be standing on that stage with him as if she has any right to be there.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

Minor v. Happersett is my least favorite.  But the 19th Amendment and the Voter Rights Act of 1965 fixed that.

I am definitely not a lawyer but I don't need Alan Dershowitz to tell me: Bush v. Gore.

All conservatives seem to hate Wickert [sp?] v. Fillmore, but what am I even talking about? Dollars to Donuts McCain doesn't know that case. Since it's economic and all. Man I hate him. He is absolutely doubling down on this crazy sh!t, and why? Because he's crazy. I mean "maverick". Maverick means never having to get your facts straight, do your homework, or avoid crashing jet after jet after jet after jet until someone imprisons your ass and saves the taxpayers some more money.

aculimic: Bravo! "Less curious than George" is brilliant.

Please, someone make T-shirts and bumper stickers. So many clever phrases pop up in posts, but "Less curious than George" is one of the best.

We should all follow Bill Clinton's advice - don't attack Palin, woo the women leaning her way. Don't attack her character or intellience, but having fun with her lack of curiosity is a great to undermine her credibility.

I also agree w/ ironyroad:

Bilden should talk about violence against women. That, along with healthcare, early childhood education, and the Republican party's historical indifference to women's issues, should do it.

I've watched the so-called Alaskan debate where she sat at a cozy table, in a studio, with prepared notes. Palin's never been in a forum like this. The audience won't laugh at her wisecracks, she's never had a challenger like Biden, and Gwen Ifill will come in prepared and pissed off.

The attacks on Ifill were a mistake for a lot of reasons, but Ifill is a very proud, successful and skilled journalist. To attack her only days before the debate - what we're they thinking?

I've seen Gwen on "Meet the Press" over the years, when she's clearly offended or angry. You can see it in her eyes. But she stays calm, doesn't lose her temper, and then goes for the kill. This should be fun tonight.

Woland,

Bad decision that has not been overturned: FCC v. Pacifica.

As if knowing and understanding Hamden is too much to ask a potential President in Nov 2008!!!  Jesus, she's terrifying!

Marbury v. Madison is what she meant to say.

Regarding Palin's behavior in interviews, and this one in particular, a remark of Frankfurt's is worth quoting:  "It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as the essence of bullshit."

Another thought on Palin's failure to names a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with is this.  As a liberal, I myself was unable to think off the top of my head of a Supreme Court decision I disagreed with (I should have but didn't think of Gore v. Bush) because we as liberals when we think about the Supreme Court do not think in terms of changing justices in order to change the current laws.  When we think about the Supreme Court we are focused in on holding on to the liberal seat we do have and increasing their number if possible in order to PROTECT the rulings we agree with from conservative justices overturn them.

Conservatives like Palin, OTOH, are rabidly all about appointing conservative justices in order to CHANGE rulings that they disagree with like abortion, flag burning, prayer in public schools, habeas corpus for Guantanemo detainees, and possibly Miranda rights.  Conservatives continually rail about all this legislation from the bench.  Therefore, the fact that Palin could not name a decision other than Roe that she disagree with shockingly shows her lack of intellectual depth.  For Christs sake the woman in her one claim to national fame so far, her acceptance speech at the convention, even alluded to the Supreme Court's habeas corpos detainee case when she accused Obama of wanting to read terrorists their rights.  Did she not know that this is what she was referring to when she parroted this line?  Apparently so.    

I don't think she could have brought up the Valdez punitive damages decision.  While it screwed some Alaskans, it was still a wet dream for tort "reform" conservatives.  If she criticizes it, she alienates the Chamber of Commerce crowd bigtime.

Bill Yard is right - she would do better to admit that she doesn't know something than to offer up incoherent sentence fragments that seem not only evasive but also suggest a deeply muddled mind and profoundly empty head.

She can't see the Supreme Court from Alaska!  Stop hounding her already!

"She can't see the Supreme Court from Alaska!  Stop hounding her already!"

Ironyroad is right. She spends too much time protecting America's border with Russia to be able to keep up to date on SCOTUS stuff. Cut her some slack!

Maybe what she needs most is a pair of Army-issued high-powered binoculars.

I've read that Palin generally is not good with details *unless she is motivated* to attain an objective, such as win a fight with a legislator. She's strongly goal oriented, but otherwise tends to be lax. I don't know what her expectations were for the Couric interview. Obviously she hadn't prepared for the kind of questions she was asked. Perhaps she had prepared for a different kind of interview, more personal and sociable. In the event, yard said about her actual answers. "I don't know" or "As governor of Alaska, these weren't issues I had to handle on a day-to-day basis"  are a reasonable and legitimate responses. As yard said, the BSing didn't help her and possibly exposed a lack of interest in things and people that aren't important *to her.*

tomeg, you can stop at "unless".  Joementum already went there:

"She's not lived in the world of Washington, so she doesn't know every detail of all the questions senators deal with," Lieberman told NBC's Andrea Mitchell. "But, frankly, that's her strength. I think that's why a lot of regular people out across America think she's going to be their voice."

Evidently, he think that she is not good with details, period.

About my opinion/theory, stated above  ("I bet she just didn't stop to think about how big the world outside Alaska really was before saying 'yes'" to McCain): I guess we can't know for sure why Palin performed so much worse with Couric than in her gubernatorial debates, since she doesn't seem willing to give the press free access to her, to ask the kind of questions that might address such mysteries!

The press should be demanding greater access.

At least she didn't bait Biden, during the debate, into saying something stupid.