As you probably know by now, ABC's Charles Gibson, the hack/anchorman whose performance at the ABC Clinton/Obama debate was so pathetic that he was actually booed by the audience, is getting the first interview with Palin. One can more than likely expect nothing but fluffy, softball questions with no follow-ups, delivered with that serious “I'm a real journalist” face that Gibson puts on that is usually enough to convince the clueless that it's a “hard-hitting” interview.
It really seems like the Alaskan media seems to be doing the actual hardest-hitting journalism when it comes to the idiocy/corruption/incompetence of Sarah Palin. Why not? They know her better than anyone, aren't trying to fulfill some pundit-psychological need, and the “hockey mom” nonsense probably isn't as alluring in a state where every other mom is probably a hockey mom. The Anchorage Daily News put out a tough op-ed yesterday listing off the questions that should be asked of Palin (but probably never will, as they are both relevant and complex, something she more than likely can't handle). Jump below the fold for more, as well as a question for you, dear readers, about “issues”.
Two of the questions from the ADN:
• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?
• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?
These are the kinds of questions we need asked (and the questions of this depth should bE asked of all of the candidates – in the meantime we're going to have to settle for “Does your preacher love America? Do you like donuts?“) Don't hold your breath, because any journalist that would ask them wouldn't be able to get within 100 feet of Smilin' Sarah.
And that brings me to my other notion: why Americans continue to fall for the fluff instead of the substance. By and large, we're a pretty ignorant lot, even many who feel they are well-informed. And, no, it's not just the conservatives, even though they've done a masterful job of elevating anti-intellectualism as a form of personal virtue.
Yesterday at Five Before Chaos, I did a “Dumb American Voter Linkdump”, as there are several new books out upon the matter. Voting really is an emotional, not intellectual excercise for most Americans. And my friend Scherpschutter, who lives in Belgium, summed up the problem nicely:
In the US (and Italy) this general conscience seems to have imploded: both the left and the right have their own set of values, completely different from each other. We are good, They are bad. In such a situation an accusation of fraud, corruption or whatever isn’t harmful: it comes from a bad person, who is trying to hurt me, a good person. That is a dangerous, very harmful situation.
There's a lot of wisdom to be had there, and it does indeed explain it to an extent.
Another angle: LeftField's diary “It's the Issues, Stupid”, brought up some valid points, about how Obama's losing ground because he's not taking a bolder stand on the issues. I can agree with that sentiment, but on another level, it's not working for me, simply because it's assuming we have an informed electorate that is voting based on “the issues”. We don't. But they sure are flocking to get those Kawaski eyeglasses that Palin wears. Good to know we're paying attention to the things that matter.
It was said at the GOP convention that “this campaign isn't about the issues, it's about character”. I suspect, given the tendencies of the electorate, that it really wouldn't matter if it was.
So, there is indeed a huge challenge for the Obama team. Calling McCain's lies out as they occur is only going to go so far, as huge swaths of the public fall for that “if you repeat a lie enough it becomes true”. So, putting aside Dem capitulation, similar positions on some things, and all those other factors, how do we proceed? What does one do when “talking about the issues” doesn’t matter?
So, readers, there's the big question I'd like you to answer. Also, I'd be interested in reading your questions for Sarah Palin, as well.