The Media Interview

There are three possible explanations for GOP Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s poor showing in her first two major media interviews: 1) she is receiving no media coaching 2) she’s receiving very poor media coaching or 3) she’s receiving good media coaching and is not yet able to implement it.

What is even more startling than the prospect of any of these explanations is that the questions she had the most trouble with were the most obvious questions. They were - forgive the unintended pun - the “elephant in the room” questions for which she should have had good answers. I’m not talking about answers which would have satisfied people on a policy level (that would never happen in politics), but answers which would have satisfied at the level of basic competency.

I’m thinking here of her responses to Charlie Gibson’s questions about the Bridge to Nowhere and about the Bush Doctrine. Palin’s answers made it seem that she hadn’t seen those coming.

And Palin and her advisors had to know that Katie Couric would ask about Palin citing Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of her qualifications on the foreign policy front. Is this how to respond?

Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state. [my emphasis]

What kind of preparation leads you to say “it certainly does” when asked about a comment that was so irrelevant and ludicrous? Palin needed to acknowledge her original gaff in some small way, and move quickly to what she sees as the elements of real substance. For instance: “What I was trying to convey was that because of our proximity to foreign nations such as Russia and Canada, I’ve had some experience dealing with foreign nations on trade issues.”

Now the focus is turned from a frivolous comment to an actual claim of experience. No doubt that claim would be challenged, but at least there’s something real to talk about. And to that end, it would be important for Palin to acknowledge that this is not a lot of experience, but it’s also not “no experience at all.” Again, that would take the wind out of an interviewer’s sail and show that the candidate isn’t trying to snow us.

Of course it’s a major task preparing for lengthy, nationally-televised interviews, but surely you can be prepared for the most obvious questions. Getting blind-sided by the obvious is never a good sign, and brings me back to the three possible explanations above…