Both by body language and occasional quavers in her voice, Palin seemed nervous. She kept trying to shift into the person-to-person informality in which she is comfortable, but gravitas was needed. Palin did about what might be expected from a first-term governor who has unexpectedly been thrust into a hostile national spotlight. Her insecurity is the counterpart of the teleprompter-less Obama's uh's and um's.
Gibson was a pompous jerk who deserved a cream pie in the face. IMO Palin's objectively best move was to counterattack like George H.W. Bush did during Dan Rather's 1988 ambush interview. She doesn't yet have the experience to be confident about using such a tactic, but it might have worked anyway.
Hostile interviewer Gibson underperformed more badly than Palin did. Most of us have had to endure sessions with smug, arrogant, unfair, entrenched, incompetent authority figures--teachers, bosses, interviewers, reviewers, bureaucrats, etc.--, and that's how Gibson came across. Many voters, women in particular, may get so angry at Gibson that they will overlook Palin's deficiencies. Gibson made a much stronger case for media bias than he made against Palin.
There is considerable merit to Glenn Reynolds' suggestion that candidates bring their own cameramen to interviews. I can't help wondering if the VP debate will be manipulated via preferentially leaked gotcha questions.
The Gibson interview was an early round of a match between a fast-learning rookie and a bunch of know-it-all veterans. Hopefully Palin will correct her deficiencies faster than the MSM correct theirs.
Addendum. My impression is consistent with UPI's Martin Sieff's:
...Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.
No comments:
Post a Comment