"We need to be extraordinarily cautious. First, I don't see how anybody who is not directly involved in these presidential campaigns can treat them with anything other than contempt. You have two very good candidates trapped in a theatre of the absurd where they have to constantly posture and attack each other politically and issue sound bites as if they were plans and policies. Any adult who can take that seriously is either mentally defective or emotionally disturbed. And this is particularly true in the case of Iraq. I would hope that everyone realizes that whoever becomes president next January is going to have to start coping with reality rather than slogans. None of us knows what is going to take place in the course of the next year."That from Tony Cordesman, fairly clued-in foreign policy analyst. Smotes nail most verily - although I may take issue with his assurance that "we have two very good candidates": I obviously don't much like Obama, but as well my estimation of McCain is in serious decline. One takes a few steps back and left wondering what the charade is about, how does one make sense of it, and what exactly does it mean to be qualified for the job? It's as if one can only say a candidate is qualified for the process of getting the job - but for the job itself? Who knows.
Which beings me to Palin's big[?] interview. I tend to agree with one reviewer that people will think what they are predisposed by political affiliation to think about it. Then again, what I was really looking for was evidence of a supple, subtle mind behind the celebrity. Didn't see it. The fuss over her hesitation vis the 'Bush doctrine' is only half fair: there are several separate but related elements to the so called doctrine so her asking for clarification is not unwarranted; that being said she quite obviously went deer in headlights over question - although, on plus side, did not panic, kept her cool, which is something. Her answer to the NATO/Georgia question, which also is being criticized, was essentially I think on the mark although not well nuanced, so the left's jumping on her comments as if she were engaging in war mongering is entirely misplaced. That being said, her comments lacked substance and sounded like they had been memorized. It wasn't a disastrous performance, but neither was it impressive. Bereft of her rote answers I have trouble believing she would have had anything thoughtful to say - unfortunately, one could probably say that about a lot of politicians. I was left with the impression that she doesn't yet know how to sound like she knows something when she in fact doesn't: she's gotten where she has on the force of her personality and good ol' American styled gumption - but in venues that were not, policy wise, very demanding relative to the national stage, and therefore venues that were much more manageable. Completely different game at the top and saw nothing in interview to suggest she's especially up for it - except, as mentioned before, you definitely do get the feeling she's cool under pressure and a rather fierce competitor, which suggests you may see a marked improvement in her next interview.
In short, the clouds threatening to overwhelm her still somewhat sunny nomination linger unabated.
