I just saw more of her interview. She is much more comfortable talking about things other than foreign policy. She still does not come across as a terribly deep or astute student of the ins and outs of tax policy or entitlements or anything of that sort. But she is much more relaxed and in her comfort zone. 

She also has certain openness and seeming vulnerability that many may find appealing. And I'm sure that now that she has basically flubbed her first foreign policy interview, she will be much better next time. By the time the debate rolls around, she may be able to bring that same relaxed folksiness to bear on foreign policy discussions. 

My point is that we shouldn't underestimate her appeal. When she gets off the details of arcane policy and onto personal narrative and when she is allowed to talk those domestic issues at which she isn't a total dunce, one can see that she has a certain appeal 

For example, even though her personal views on issues like abortion are quite conservative -- even to the right of her running mate's views -- she didn't come across as an intolerant right-wing loonie. She acknowledged the diversity of views on this score and she managed to sound like a politician who is more interested in finding reasonable compromises than one who is dedicated to fighting pitched battles. Of course, she could just be a wolf in sheep's clothing. On that I think the jury is still out. But its clear that McCain and Palin are counting on the base staying energized more by her personal story and personal commitment than by any explicit promises to do their bidding. This is the same kind of trick that Ronald Reagan successfully pulled on the prolife movement. He gave them the theme music constantly. But he didn't actually advance their cause all that much. 

Anyway, the question with Palin is how far beyond the Republican base she will appeal. The folks who are in play, I'm guessing, are independents, weak dems, and/or weak republican constituencies. Whoever grabs the lion share of those folks wins the election. 

I don't have any particularly startling thoughts right now about what we can do to diminish her appeal. I think on issues we win. I think if its more about personal narrative and a sense of identification, Palin gives their ticket a potential leg up. 

Bottom line, I do think it would be a mistake to just ignore her, as somebody suggested we do on another thread. She is not out of the game. She had a bad debut in her first face to face interview -- a really bad debut. But her second act showed her strengths. They are not insurmountable. But they are real. 

Obviously, the McCain campaign will not let her do any heavy lifting on foreign and international affairs (except on questions about oil and energy independence) except when they are force to. She is very much out of her depth on these topics, obviously. But one can see what they see in her, despite that. When she is on her "home turf" she has a simple, understated appearance of authenticity that I do believe many will find appealing. 

Maybe the key is to not let her play on her home turf very much. But I'm not sure how one goes about making that happen. That's not something our side really has much control over. THe press, I guess, could be a big help here. If the press decides it has a duty to make it plain that Palin is way out of her depth on C-in-C kinds of issues, that could be a big, big help.

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.