I personally wouldn't characterized Sarah Palin as "dumb" or "stupid" and haven't. But I do see her as largely uninformed about national or global issues. If she had had the runway to prepare herself for the VP job (i.e., through running for a national office), I think she might have been more formidable and we would not be hashing over her poor performances in interviews. While I don't agree with Palin's ideology in any case, I feel she was thrown into the pot at the last hour and simply has too sharp a learning curve to be taken seriously at this point. Obama grew tremendously through the winnowing course of the primary fight and had at least been required to address national issues in his run for the Senate. In four years, Palin may indeed be a challenger. She's just not ready now at all, and it has shown.
I've seen Camille in person. She's terrific. On stage she is compelling; we spoke with her after the show (60 Minutes was there! early 90's) and she's is a cool, sexy dame. Well, was, maybe.
My favorite feminist. Well, her and that Wolf gal.
Palin was never dumb overall. And the criticism of her as being dumb overall is off base.
What she is, is dumb in areas of foreign policy, economics and other nation-scale issues because that was never her focus as mayor or governor.
That's not a knock on her. It's the truth. She comes off as dumb in the interviews because they are asking her questions about stuff that just 6 weeks ago she didn't give a **** about because it didn't concern her as governor.
That's like asking a female Mensa member who has no interest in football, to break down game film and describe what role each player had. She would look like a moron because she couldn't answer the question but, of course, she is far from being stupid.
Palin is having a crash course in all this stuff in 5 weeks while Obama has had nearly 2 years with these issues.
You may disagree with Obama on foreign policy but he has shown himself to be versed in the topic. That's why he doesn't seem like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about during the debates.
So we're clear, I'm not saying that Obama has foreign policy experience, per se, just that he has become knowledgeable about the subject, something Palin is not.
Graduated from Columbia University with degree specializing in international relations.
Sponsored a bipartisan nuclear proliferation bill in his first months as a US Senator.
Outlined the exact reasons why a war in Iraq is a bad idea before it started.
This may not satisfy your standards, but I will take this over "I can see Russia from my home state" any day.
When I think of Palin I think of Molly Ivins assesment of Bush...
"He's not stupid, but he's smart on a very narrow bandwidth". She says the time to climb under the table is when Bush starts talking about his gut instinct: "When he says that he hasn't any evidence but he feels in his gut that he's right, that's when he tries to do something crazy, like invade Iraq."
Ok - so the Dem Presidential candidate *may* be better than the Repub VP candidate. How about Presidential to Presidential? And on a side note: how does Palin compare to Dan Quayle?
I like the team Obama has in place, and I like some of the rumored names that may be potential cabinet members.
I also think that an Obama presidency will result in the Republicans winning the mid-term elections, and so far, it seems that a Dem pres and a Pub congress work better than any other combination I have seen.
Experience is an overrated trait, because nothing truly counts as experience in relation to the presidency.
If people who tout experience as a major issue, then why aren't they pushing Cheney as a candidate? He probably has the most experience out of anyone who was running in either party.
I think what gives her the perception of being dumb overall is the terrible way she handled "the interview". In this way, she can be compared to Dan Quayle for the spelling error from hell. But Quayle's was still worse Imo.
in case you hadn't noticed, intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite for being an effective leader. also, by any measure the general population of our great country (and all others) is also dumb. that's why the average iq score is around 110 and genius is 130 or so and above.
but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is boy barack's intelligence or lack thereof. i have not heard of one original thing out of his mouth about anything and in the debates, he spews only marginally more apparent facts and figures than does mccain. the problem is that his "facts" are interpretations bordering on outright lies. case in point. boy barack says his plan will not raise the taxes on 95% of the population. in fact he says he will cut taxes. however, about 45% of the population pay no federal income tax so is he going to just cut them a check? i guess if i were in the lower 45% and getting free money, i would be plenty happy but what about the folks above 45%? they still pay taxes even though they get their check but they will also be relied upon being taxed to make up for the shortfall. as much as the dems want to redistribute wealth from the wealthy, the wealthy are in a special position. they have the ability to move elsewhere and evade the taxes so in the end who pays? isn't this reckless spending in a time of economic chaos? and this coming from a guy who said that the $600 stimulous check that W handed out wasn't big enough. well i would have to say that put in that perspective, neither will be this $1000 handout. and what about this 95% cutoff line and his statement that he will raise taxes on people making over 250K? well as it turns out, at the 95% cutoff line the average income is about 187K so what happens to the people between 187 and 250K. you see it's really a very dumb plan and conceived just to get chump votes.