Can You Turn Stop The Cameras While I Google That

One of the wonders of cable TV is that at any hour of the day or night a person can turn on their TV, flip through a few channels, and find himself watching a panel of pundits expounding on the issues of the day. We truly do live in a modern age, and though I don't have the exact figures in, my guess is that for every minute of news we can now get about 59 minutes of analysis - something our parents and grandparents could only dream about.

I happened to catch a panel of pundits on CNN tonight talking about the Sarah Palin interview, with all the usual back and forth. The secret to good punditry, it seems, is to say the most outrageously partisan things in the most gossipy and jovial manner. I think they call it banter, and when done well the audience doesn't even realize that if these people weren't on TV they'd probably all be institutionalized at some quiet retreat with long halls and plastic dinnerware.

Anyway, the analysis of the Palin interview was that these types of things (interviews, debates, etc...) don't really make much of a difference because supporters and detractors will always take what they want from such events with nothing gained one way or the other. Well, if that's true, then why even hold elections in the first place? If the electorate is so predisposed then why not just count up the number of Democrats and Republicans and settle the issue solely on the demographics?

Luckily, the founding fathers didn't listen to pundits and decided instead that matters such as the Presidency should be put to a vote. Good thing too, because despite the apparent contempt that the pundits may have for the voters at large, there still may be those outside the partisan rank and file who actually pay attention to what the candidates say and do.

Not me, of course, although I did watch the interview. Maybe you did too and maybe you even formed an opinion of it. I know I did, and to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I'd say that Governor Palin's grasp of foreign affairs runs the gamut from A to B. Yeah I know that people vote for Presidents, not Vice Presidents, but still that was not a very impressive performance.

The part that really sticks out in my mind is that little dance she did when Charles Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. I thought it was a totally fair question to ask. After all, the Bush Doctrine is not some arcane piece of trivia buried deep in the past. It is, after all, the entire basis for our involvement in Iraq, and I think it would be helpful if those who would be our nation's leaders were at least acquainted with it. And yes I understand that the Bush Doctrine is probably not relevant to the day-to-day management of the State of Alaska, but she's not running for the governership of Alaska, is she?

At least the interview answered the questions about her foreign policy experience, though unfortunately that answer is none. As for the necessity or relevancy of such experience I can only say that if Senator McCain were President I would feel completely safe knowing he was in charge of our national security, and if Senator Obama were President I would feel somewhat safe knowing he was in charge, provided Senator Biden was in the same room with him. However, if Governaor Palin was President, well...er...it's still early. She still has time to get up to speed.

In all fairness to her, though, she made a much better showing during the last part of the interview when she was discussing energy and energy policy. She did not seem briefed or coached but much more comfortable and in command of her facts . There is no question that she is a very smart and capable woman, and when we see the next part of the interview covering the domestic policy side of things, I expect she'll do much better. Still, her lack of foreign policy expertise is troubling. Fortunately for her, I'm sure the Democrats will show mercy and refrain from exploiting such a glaring weakness.

If not, then she'll just have to hope that the pundits are right and none of this makes any difference.