I was unable to watch last night for a variety of reasons, but the first reviews are kind of interesting.
Apparently, in the most low-key of settings with a sweet, ole' guy interviewer, Palin didn't do too well, except if you're judging on personality and tone. And as the New York Times TV reviewer reminds us, that may be all that matters to some. (Apparently the Times thinks American voters are a tad stupid.)
Slate: The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur
Salon: Making a mockery of 9/11. Writer and Salon Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh gets the award for the best line of the day. In talking about the Palin interview, she wrote:
It's the day we learned beyond any doubt that John McCain put his manhood in a blind trust to win the presidency.New York Times: Showing a confidence in prepared answers. The Times TV reviewer thought tone mattered more than, well, expertise or competency.
Kevin Drum does his own review of reviews and notes one attitude from the right: The idea that Charlie Gibson had some gall to actually ask Palin substantive questions and expert real answers from a person who could become president.
James Fallows: Palin's lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine probably disqualifies her for the job.
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.Josh Marshall calls this moment "painful" and provides the video to prove it.
[updated 11:21 a.m. Central]
More links to reviews.
Hat tip to Media Bistro for providing the first few links in its Morning Newsfeed.