She doesn't care

One of the clearest and most concise explanations of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown that I've found is a special report that This American Life produced back in May called "The Giant Pool of Money."

You can download a podcast of that report from the show's online radio archive. If you're unclear as to what exactly happened and how and why, or if you just want a wryly engaging refresher on the subject, I recommend that you give it a listen. It's an hour well-spent.

The same team -- producer Alex Blumberg and NPR reporter Adam Davidson -- have now produced a similar report on the current financial crisis. You can read/listen to a nine-minute teaser version of this report now at NPR.org ("The Week America's Economy Almost Died"), or you can catch the full report on the radio this week or download the podcast from TAL's radio archive once they get it posted (should be some time this week).

If, like me, you're a little rusty on the inner-workings of things like commercial paper and how that relates to money market funds, then I really recommend checking this out.

I also urgently recommend both of these special reports to the short-straw staffer on the McCain campaign whose job it is to get vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin up to speed on this financial crisis. Go buy her an iPod with one of those velcro straps for runners, load it up with the two reports from Blumberg and Davidson, and don't let her go jogging without it.

Sadly, I don't really think these would help Palin to understand this financial crisis. These reports are excellent and richly informative, but after watching Palin's interview with Katie Couric, I realized that Palin's problem is not primarily a lack of information or a lack of knowledge of the facts of the matter. Yes, she is appallingly ill-informed, but I think that's more a symptom than the actual disease.

We've seen this disease before. We've been watching it for eight years now. This is ignorance born of incuriosity. And that incuriosity arises from a lack of empathy. Like President Bush, Gov. Palin doesn't know because she doesn't care.

Here is the video of the section of the Couric interview on the economy, and here is the transcript. Note this section:

COURIC: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

PALIN: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing -- whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.

COURIC: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?

PALIN: I have not.

COURIC: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

PALIN: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.

COURIC: By consumers, you're saying?

PALIN: Consumers -- and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.

The question was to name some "pros and cons" of "a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes." This is a bit like the old routine about "What was the color of George Washington's white horse?" -- part of the answer is contained in the question itself. The "pro" side of helping average Americans keep their homes is that you're helping average Americans keep their homes.

And yet Gov. Palin wasn't able to come up with even that. She doesn't seem to comprehend or be capable of imagining the downside of mass foreclosures. In 2007, 1,650 families in Alaska lost their homes, but their governor is unable to say for sure whether that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

Palin's problem, in other words, isn't that she's been inadequately briefed about the housing crisis or the consequences of foreclosures, or that she lacks a grasp of the policy options for addressing these problems. Her problem in this interview is that she can't be bothered to imagine what this means for real families who are really losing their homes. Not a lack of information, but a lack of empathy.

That's troubling, because a lack of information can be fixed. Someone who doesn't yet know enough can set out to learn more. But someone who doesn't care about other people because they are other people, well, I don't know how to fix that. I'm not sure it can be fixed.

Comments

[JadeSerpent]

I know this is a cheap shot, but here's a though:

Sociopaths are usually smoother than Sarah Palin appears to be, better at manipulating others.

But she might be a solpsist...

Anyway, mid-time lurker of the Left Behind review de-lurkifying. I was directed to read your amusing reviews by Shiftercat

[Elmo]

It isn't just the Gov. of Alaska, it's the entire neoconartist crowd that has given us almost 30 years of policies which favor their cronies. Bill Clinton did it too so I'm not just whipping on Republicans but since they've been in charge for most of that time and they're the ones that are tight with the Club for Growth, the Project for a New American Century, etc., they get the lion's share of opprobrium from me. How else can you explain the latest laugher from the House Republicans -- they actually wanted to cut taxes even more and remove what regulations are left to cure the problem caused by cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating the universe?

[NDog]

And how much, exactly, does Barack Obama know about this? Isn't he actually GOING to be president if he is elected? Talk about appallingly unprepared. Obama won't be any better. I'm about tired of the Palin/McCain bashing now, Fred. I can't wait for this election to be over so you can get back to your version of 'fair and balanced' criticism. This finanacial crisis has as much to do with Democrats like Chris Dodd as it does with George W. Bush and the Republicans. Blame your f%@kin two party system for this one.

[Drocket]

*And how much, exactly, does Barack Obama know about this?*

Quite a bit. He's given many, many, MANY deep, extremely well thought out speeches covering this, and his plans to fix it. His website has a detailed rundown of Obama's plan. If you haven't heard any of this from the media because they're too covering flag pins and bowling scores, the reason is quite simple: they don't care either.

[emjaybee]

The lack of empathy (caring about others) and of imagination (simply being able to visualize their problems/points of view) are endemic to Republican conservatism. But which came first? Was it mental dullness that made them callous, or callousness that dulled their mental faculties?

[damnedyankee]

And how much, exactly, does Barack Obama know about this? Isn't he actually GOING to be president if he is elected? Talk about appallingly unprepared. Obama won't be any better. I'm about tired of the Palin/McCain bashing now, Fred. I can't wait for this election to be over so you can get back to your version of 'fair and balanced' criticism. This finanacial crisis has as much to do with Democrats like Chris Dodd as it does with George W. Bush and the Republicans. Blame your f%@kin two party system for this one.

His blog, his selection of topics. And believe it or not, the selection of the country's next president and vice president is of passing interest to at least a few Americans.

Shorter version: Shut up, Scott.

[Naked Bunny with a Whip]

And how much, exactly, does Barack Obama know about this?

I love how Obama is treated like a mystery by some people despite having a good amount of material on his website and having written two large books about his history, his beliefs, and his policies.

Isn't he actually GOING to be president if he is elected?

Yes, and very possibly so would Palin. McCain is deteriorating fast. Is he still refusing to release his medical records? It's been a few hours since I checked.

[seebs]

Oh, it's learnable. I have as close to no "hardware" empathy as I have seen in anyone who is cognitively aware that other people exist... But I've learned to care quite a bit about them.

I think Gov. Palin needs to listen to a lot more Grateful Dead. That was what did it for me back around 1989.

[Bronwyn]

I believe the usual cure, at least in fiction, is to have the protagonist suddenly join the other people in their misfortunes. Even scummy protagonists then tend to make the connection between how they feel and how the other people must feel. If they don't, that's generally the sign that the protagonist is hopeless as a human being through sheer nonempathy even when lacking in deliberate malice.

Clearly, the next step is to fire/lay off and then foreclose on the Palins!

[Majromax]

But which came first? Was it mental dullness that made them callous, or callousness that dulled their mental faculties?

Speaking as a former teenaged-Libertarian (reformed now), I can say neither.

Fiscal conservatism offers clear, simple rules: the Government should Stay Out of Private Matters. When taken in isolation, it's a very attractive ideology for a person who feels fundamentally competent and in control. Much like Aristotelian mechanics, it's clean, logical, and fundamentally flawed.

Once someone goes down the Dark Side, however, forever will it domi... er... selection bias takes over. People really don't want to challenge their beliefs, even to the point of ignoring contradictory information.

So, your conservative is going to pay lots of attention to lines at the DMV, road construction delays, and reports of social assistance abuse, but at the same time the conservative is going to ignore or downplay disaster assistance, regulatory successes (especially fraud prosecutions), or stories about people who didn't starve/freeze because of social assistance.

None of this makes the conservative any less intelligent, and assuming conservatives are stupid automatons is truly disingenuous.

For bonus points, reflect that the truth is often subtle and multifaceted, yet nuanced thoughts are difficult to succinctly express. Relate this to modern political campaigns.

(One note: I'm talking about fiscal conservatism here, not social. Both Libertarian and Authoritarian social policies are prone to identical problems, but with opposite conclusions.)

[Robb]

And how much, exactly, does Barack Obama know about this?

To add to the other dissenting voices: Obama knows enough to discuss the issue intelligently & articulately, so he's either masterful at constructing sentences while simultaneously formulating lies to account for his lack of knowledge, or he's read up on the issue and has consulted with a number of experts considerably more involved in the greater processes. The latter is the most important fact of all, IMHO - Obama is realistic enough to know that he doesn't have the know-how to do everything right by himself, and relying on others with the key knowledge is going to help him (and the country) far more than bullshitting his way through a solution via an underling (as Bush is doing via Paulson).

Shorter version: Shut up, Scott.

Is it just me, or has Scott become like Snowball in Animal Farm?

[Spalanzani]

Robb: "Is it just me, or has Scott become like Snowball in Animal Farm?"

Seem that way. The funny thing is, Scott himself predicted that would happen.

[Allan W.]

My gut reaction to Palin's avoidance of a decision on foreclosure aid to homeowners seems more rooted in conservative ideology: bailing them out would mean "the market" wasn't allowed to be "free". Those who made foolish financial decisions must be allowed to fail under this view. Oh, wait, what about those giant financial firms... apparently they don't count.

[Jeff]

From everyone at the Big Meeting: The Dems deferred to Obama, who asked Paulson many questions, and impressed even the Republicans. McCain asked not a single question, despite "suspending his campaign" (and pissing off one of the most influential men on television), and gave no ptreferrence for any plan.

In short, shut up, Scott.

[Monkay]

Simplex, Complex, Multiplex; the theme from the Samuel Delany novel Empire Star. I was going to link to a site and make some funny comment about how it applies. Then I went looking through Google results and found a "conservative" site with a badly written (sentence fragments, spelling errors, the usual suspects) post about how liberals say that conservatives are simple-minded but no, it seems that it's the darned liberals who are really unable to comprehend the complexity of the Iraq situation and how the WMD were really found (there was a link) and I was going to leave a comment, politely pointing out the errors in sentence construction and spelling, but I couldn't, only team members are allowed to leave comments (of which there were none) and then on the blogger profile there was an email address, apparently it was the author's wife's address, and I just gave up, it wasn't worth it.

[elef]

Elef jr. recommended "The Giant Pool of Money" to me last week, so I read the pdf transcript . It explains a lot that I had absolutely no idea about, but I wondered about one thing:

The banks made the loans. They were indeed pressured to make NINAs (no income no asset loans). BUT ... years before, there was such a thing as bank regulations that prevented banks from making such loans. Why did those regulations disappear? Which congress critters made them disappear? (And are any of those lawmakers running for national office in the next election?) A whole one-hour show without the words "regulations" or "congress" or "President" or "government"?

[Ryan Ferneau]

But someone who doesn't care about other people because they are other people, well, I don't know how to fix that. I'm not sure it can be fixed.

Clearly, the next step is to fire/lay off and then foreclose on the Palins!

Suddenly I remember why SWEET REVENGE! is so popular.

[Rhoadan]

It occurs to me that the folks here might be interested in the discussion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Sarah Palin on Making Light wherein the idea that she just might be a narcissist is discussed (ignore the parts about McCain's melanoma; those parts are not written by anyone with medical qualifications). Anyway, a couple of the notable things about narcissists are a complete lack of empathy and a tendency to live in a fantasy world.

[The Amazing Kim]

Grateful Dead. That was what did it for me back around 1989.

Oh I'm so sorry.

[Praline]

Consumers -- and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.

Strategy again, I'd say. She's trying to be all things to all men. Here's the thing: if she actually came down on the side of a decision, people could find fault with it - because whatever decision you take, some bugger somewhere won't like it. So what does she do? She equivocates, umming and erring, making vague verbal swipes towards every side of the equation so she can pretend she's addressed the question ... and then gets back to doing what she's really interested in, which is saying 'We're really good people here and you should like us!' - which is why she got to 'We are getting into crisis mode here'.

Note that every other sentence in the paragraph is weak and lacking in any real information. The only memorable phrases she uses are 'long-term solution' and 'crisis mode'. Nothing she says gives any suggestion that she actually has a solution, or that 'crisis mode' involes doing anything - but because the rest of what she says is forgettable, the hope is that people listening will forget the umming, remember the catchphrases, and associate them with her.

And because she offers nothing but catchphases, there's nothing else to distract people from them. Trusting people will assume she wouldn't have said them if she didn't mean them, and possibly even find it easier to picture what Sarah Palin has in mind - a crisis-driven solution - than Obama, who actually goes into details that take up more of your verbal memory.

It's a classic neocon response: 'Um, well, y'know, America and we've got to remember and you should think about - and we're really great guys who care about you!'

In short, Palin isn't profferring a solution, she's proffering a brand, and the name of the brand is 'Solution'. It will no more fix the economy than Sunlight soap will give you fine weather, but that's not the point. The point isn't what the product will do, the point is getting you to buy it.

[Brandi]

The funny thing is, Scott himself predicted that would happen.

I don't actually assume most of the woeful new posters are Scott-- indeed, I want to hear their special, unique tales of woe (though I imagine the suboptimal quality of Cheetos-tainted spittle mixed with the hot, snotty tears of loneliness and failure as a lubricant may well be a recurring motif).

[Praline]

I'm concerned about this troll business. It seems like we may be at risk of conflating two things, a) genuine trolls, and b) people with questionable manners who happen to hold different political opinions from us. In the case of Aunursa, for instance, he doesn't even have bad manners, he just says things few people here agree with, which can make us cross because politics is an emotional business.

If someone's genuinely trolling, then the only right thing to do is ignore them. Anything else, even insulting them, is positive-reinforcing them. By nature, a troll tends not to mind being insulted; he rather likes it, because it means he's pissing people off, which is mission accomplished.

If somebody's just being rude, then we shouldn't be rude back. That's just sinking to their level. And there's always the possibility that it might just be somebody with poor social skills who doesn't realise how badly they're coming across; insulting them will leave them hurt, angry and confused, but none the wiser.

If someone just disagrees with us, then tearing their heads off is counter-productive. We have good arguments, evidence is on our side in many if not most cases, and there's no reason not to have a civil discussion, however much we dislike someone's opinions. Calling names never changed anyone's mind, but reasonable conversation sometimes does - especially if we act like civilised people. Insulting someone who says something controversial is about as good an advertisement for our opinions as a guy yelling everyone to damnation on a street corner is an advertisement for Christianity. Let's not actually put people off people like us.

In short, if we don't like rude people, let's not be rude people. It's one thing to say 'That post was so garbled and provocative I'm going to assume it was a troll', but another thing to start throwing around ugly names, get sucked into slanging matches, or otherwise lose our cool. Either rudeness is okay or it isn't, and that cuts both ways.

[Fred Davis]

So to get back to A topic... Am I understanding correctly that the republican party's political strategy involves selling the lie that people like Paris Hilton are the down to earth freinds of the common man?

[Elmo]

seebs spoke thusly:
Oh, it's learnable. ... I think Gov. Palin needs to listen to a lot more Grateful Dead. That was what did it for me back around 1989.

I think it was The Maltese Falcon that did it for me. The scene where Sidney Greenstreet discovers that the Falcon is not gold but lead. He immediately forms a new hypothesis -- it's a fake and the real one is still in Istanbul (or some other place). His belief is so strong that he can not so much as imagine that the whole thing could be no more than a legend. Bogart, as Sam Spade, is more of a realist -- when Ward Bond asks him what that thing is, he misquotes Prospero and says it is "The stuff that dreams are made of."

[indifferent children]

> Is it just me, or has Scott become like Snowball in Animal Farm?

When I think Scott, I more think Snowball from Clerks.

> Either rudeness is okay or it isn't

I don't think that rudeness is the big problem. Showing up on someone's blog and calling them an ass for something they said is rude, but may be constructive and a service to humanity. Showing up frequently on someone's blog and calling them an ass for something that they didn't say, putting words into their mouth, is rude but also stupid, pointless, boring, and annoying.

[Geds]

Showing up frequently on someone's blog and calling them an ass for something that they didn't say, putting words into their mouth, is rude but also stupid, pointless, boring, and annoying.

Totally. I had to deal with that a couple of months ago, which was a real problem since I happened to know the troll in real life. He was my friend's oldest brother and the pastor at said friend's upcoming wedding, wherein I was Best Man.

Either way, he showed up and tried to proselytize to me on my own blog, to which I did not respond well and told him to shut up and go away. Then, in recognition of the fact that I would have to deal with him, I offered a truce. The very first thing he did was show up and put words in my mouth and attribute to me the absolute worst possible motivations for saying things that I never actually said anywhere but in his head. When I again told him to STFU, he got in a huff about how I was a jerk for offering an olive branch and then being a jerk.

Then he quoted the Biblical passage about not leaving pearls before swine (although he used "pigs," which indicates a preference for the NIV, which in and of itself is pretty ugh) and left. And I'm sure he slept soundly that night, warm in the comforting embrace in self-created and self-defined persecution...

[Ursula L]

Then he quoted the Biblical passage about not leaving pearls before swine (although he used "pigs," which indicates a preference for the NIV, which in and of itself is pretty ugh) and left. And I'm sure he slept soundly that night, warm in the comforting embrace in self-created and self-defined persecution...

Someone threw out the "pearls before swine" line on a thread on another forum I read, recently. Most of the non-Christians who were discussing on the thread, and several of the Christians, started sprinkling their posts with the word "oink" thereafter. Others took offense at being called swine/pigs because the poster disagreed with their religious belief. But that was all fairly mild.

The real stink came from the poster who called everyone else pigs, because by taking offense to the insult, and by making a joke of the "oink", OMG you're Mocking the Word of God and Opressing Meeeee!!!!

[inge]

Palin's problem, in other words, isn't that she's been inadequately briefed about the housing crisis or the consequences of foreclosures, or that she lacks a grasp of the policy options for addressing these problems. Her problem in this interview is that she can't be bothered to imagine what this means for real families who are really losing their homes. Not a lack of information, but a lack of empathy.

What confuses me here: Even someone who's completely lacking empathy can memorize a bunch of data and some talking points if it means they get the job they're trying to get. Pretending to care about things they don't feel anything about is a basic skill for a politician. So either she's not even trying, or she doesn't consider her performance on these question as having any effect on her getting the job or not. Or she tried to memorize it and didn't succeed.

[Jeff]

how the WMD were really found

Someone on another forum posted how "we" had found yellowcake uranium in Iraq. Whe it was pointed out that if we had, it wouldn't have been "top-secret", it would have been shouted from the roof-tops, he slunk away.

[Lee Ratner]

I never saw the Palin-Couric interviews and I do not attend to, it might upset my stomach, but if they are disasterous as everybody tells me than I can see why the McCain camp is trying to keep her away from the baneful eye of the press. I heard on the Fray, Slate.com's message board, that the McCain campaign wants to change the form of the debate to prevent Palin from either receiving a hammering from Biden and/or to prevent her from making a fool of herself. I really think that the McCain campaign is hitting themselves because they choose Palin.

This is not a very appropriate feeling but I feel very gleeful when Palin makes these mistakes because I think it makes most Americans scared of her. The Republican base loves her but most non-Republicans look upon her with feelings of otter repugnance and believe that she will be a disaster for the nation.

[indifferent children]

> This is not a very appropriate feeling but I feel very gleeful when Palin makes these mistakes

Schadenfreude

> The Republican base loves her but most non-Republicans look upon her with feelings of otter repugnance

Actually, a few of the dumber libertarian-types are attracted to her, but for the most part her support comes from fundagelical Republicans (a strong part of the Republican party, but not a majority AFAIK). Most traditional conservatives are shocked/scared/horrified at the thought of her. And yes, I also abhor those slippery, weaselly otters.

[Jenny Islander]

OK, I need a fact check from somebody who watched the interview:

Did Governor Palin actually say that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was inserted by the Founding Fathers?

[Raka]

As usual, I want to play Devil's advocate here and object to specific criticisms of people I don't much like. Praline already did a better job of raising more relevant points, but I want to chime in regardless.

I think it's very presumptuous to assume anything about Palin's empathy (or lack thereof) from her interviews. She interviews terribly. Almost unbelievably so. It's obvious that she can't put her thoughts into words extemporaneously, so it's disingenuous to read the tea leaves she dribbles out and pretend that they present a clear representation of... well, anything. Her inability to speak extemporaneously is a problem by itself, to be sure. But it's a different problem. And she may very well completely lack empathy (elements of her governing history do seem to back this interpretation). But I've dropped the ball myself when asked questions, and my flustered fumblings and embarassing omissions of the obvious were not revelatory of anything other than failings in my oratorical abilities.

Rhoadan: I have an automatic objection to any long-distance psychiatric diagnoses, particularly from non-professionals. There should be a Godwin corellary for statements that boil down to "Some aspects of your behavior can reasonably be described by the colloquial definitions of words X, Y, and Z; when X, Y, and Z are used as terms-of-art they are associated with psychological disorder Q. I'm just sayin'...". There are some circumstances under which the comparison is legitimate even for a layman, but by and large it's just a smear. A way of emphasizing objectionable behavior with the big filthy brush of "mental illness". I'm disappointed that Teresa lowered herself to using the technique.

FWIW, I would rather see my Golden Retriever serve as VP than have Ms. Palin one heartbeat away from the big chair. But if people were objecting to my dog's candidacy on the basis of unpalatable socialist tendencies they'd inferred from his eating habits, I'd argue that, too.

[Tonio]

This is not a very appropriate feeling but I feel very gleeful when Palin makes these mistakes because I think it makes most Americans scared of her.

I have that same feeling and I also feel guilty for having it. How would you feel if a scandal forced her to step down from the ticket?

[Robb]

The Republican base loves her but most non-Republicans look upon her with feelings of otter repugnance

I disagree, I would say it's more of a moose repugnance. [in lieu of "Oink", insert an onomatopoeia for a Moose Call here]

I never saw the Palin-Couric interviews and I do not attend to

Must . . . not . . . make . . . another. . . snarky. . . comment. . . on . . . grammar...

*****

How would you feel if a scandal forced her to step down from the ticket?

Ain't gonna happen - if she's blowing off troopergate the way she is now, unless it turns out DNA tests prove Trig is actually her daughter's child, or something similarly major, she's not going to bother with it.

[Tonio]

unless it turns out DNA tests prove Trig is actually her daughter's child, or something similarly major

My question assumed a scandal of that magnitude. I'll ask another way... would it be better for Obama if McCain kept Palin on the ticket and continued to alienate the non-fundamentalist conservatives? Or would Obama benefit from a Palin departure that would reveal the depth of the disarray in the McCain campaign?

It could be worse - McCain could have courted the African-American vote by picking Alan Keyes, who is so Dominionist he makes Palin look like Richard Dawkins. I met Keyes briefly when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1992.

[Tonio]

picking Alan Keyes - that would have been an attempt to court both fundamentalists ans African-Americans.

[Praline]

I've dropped the ball myself when asked questions, and my flustered fumblings and embarassing omissions of the obvious were not revelatory of anything other than failings in my oratorical abilities.

True, but you're not running for Vice President. Someone who can't cope with a simple interview question should not be trusted to represent their nation. Empathy aside, it suggests a basic level of incompetence that unfits them for the job.

[RobotMan]

"Someone on another forum posted how "we" had found yellowcake uranium in Iraq. Whe it was pointed out that if we had, it wouldn't have been "top-secret", it would have been shouted from the roof-tops, he slunk away."

Actually, there *was* yellowcake in Iraq, but the stuff is commonplace and utterly useless for WMDs. The fact that yellowcake was used in our country's justification for invasion is even more embarrassing.

[JayDeeJaye]

It's obvious that she can't put her thoughts into words extemporaneously, so it's disingenuous to read the tea leaves she dribbles out and pretend that they present a clear representation of... well, anything.

But Raka, her interviews and unscripted speeches (which I hope we'll see in the VP debate coming up) are the only vehicles we have for learning what she's about. It's not unreasonable to expect a candidate for such a high office to have opinions and be able to communicate them. For all I can tell, her deepest convictions are that John McCain is Truth and everything he says is all she needs to know.

John McCain didn't pick a pit bull, he picked a parrott (publicly, anyway). To think he is implying she will be anything but a token in his administration makes me sad. To think that any of my fellow fems, regardless of party, believe him makes me embarassed.

[Froborr]

Raka: While I agree that long-distance pop-psychologizing as a form of argument is both uninformative and unfair, I have real problems with the "inability to speak extemporaneously" defense in general.

I recognize that some people really aren't good at speaking extemporaneously (my father, for example, was rather infamous for his verbal gaffes). However, speaking extemporaneously means speaking without preparing beforehand. If somebody is going to claim that as a defense of a lousy answer to a question, then they have to explain why they weren't prepared.

It's one thing if the interviewee is ambushed or the question is a complete surprise. But if it's a major national issue that's dominated the headlines for over a week? Any competent campaign would have registered the likelihood of a question like that coming up and rehearsed possible answers with their candidate (which is one reason why, in interviews and debates, candidates often answer a question similar to, but slightly different from, the one asked; the other reason, of course, is when they're dodging the question).

For example, when he goes to a press conference, the Secretary of State's (and, I assume, other major political figures, but the Secretary of State is the only one I know about firsthand) staff prepare a folder, broken down by region, in which they cover everything newsworthy from that region, up to a matter of minutes before the meeting, any important background on the news items, and the agreed upon State Department response, if any. He takes that folder to the podium with him, just in case some newspaper decides to bring up something obscure that was in one wire story ten minutes before the conference.

I simply cannot believe that any candidate for any office would go to an important interview without rehearsing beforehand.

[Geds]

More importantly: Can any of us really take seriously someone who fails at an interview with Katie Couric?

Should we just send her to Barbara Walters and see what happens?

[Geds]

In other news: The House actually defeated the bailout bill. More Republicans voted against it than Democrats, but that really shouldn't be a surprise, what with the general lack of backbone the Democrats have shown lately and the fact that some Republicans are still actually fiscal conservatives...

[Raka]

Praline, JayDeeJaye and Froborr: I agree that "ability to answer easily-predictable questions in a friendly interview that one has had ample time to prepare for" is a good trait, and its absence implies all sorts of things about basic competence. But drawing the "she lacks empathy" conclusion from her incoherent non-answers is assuming that those answers accurately represent her outlook. And that's just absurd.

her interviews and unscripted speeches ... are the only vehicles we have for learning what she's about
I don't think I accept that. I think interviews and unscripted speeches do reveal quite a bit, but at a certain point when "inability to communicate" is what's being revealed, we can't reasonably get a lot more out of the attempts at communication themselves. We can say that the only information about her character she's able to convey is incompetence and hedging, which seems like a pretty good deal-breaker to me. We can say that her inability/unwillingness to meaningfully communicate character issues one way or another is another perfectly reasonable deal-breaker. But Fred appears to be saying "Empathy was an easy, simple, and very natural response here. The fact that it didn't occur to her to use it can be read as a lack of capacity for empathy." Which I would agree with (if not taking it as an absolute), except for the fact that complete sentences and any responses that were something other than stuttered half-remembered generic talking points obviously cribbed from her preparatory notecards would also have been the easy, simple, and natural response to any of the other questions.

I guess one can say that her empathy failed to overcome her inability or unwillingness to reveal any personal aspects of her own thought processes. However, I think that says not much about her empathy, and a great deal about said inability or unwillingness. And again, that's entirely sufficient right there. Why try to chase it further into dubious speculation?

[Drake Pope]

More importantly: Can any of us really take seriously someone who fails at an interview with Katie Couric?

Katie Couric? Really? I wouldn't say that Palin necessarily failed. She doesn't have to get the questions right; or even understand what was being asked. All she has to do is work in God, Christ, or family values somehow. Everything else -- such as, I dunno, knowledge and experience -- is really what McCain is there for. Which is why I'm going to watch the Biden/Palin debate. McCain and Obama both seemed way too intelligent to be interesting to watch, the equivalent of watching two Harvard professors of equal intelligence debating whether or not cheese sandwiches taste better than bologna sandwiches. But Biden v. Palin... that should be a show!

[Lee Ratner]

How would Keyes be courting the fungelical voters? He's religious but I thought he is a Roman Catholic and not a Protestant. I also believed he told Deborah Solomon of the NYT that he loved Tolkien and this would not please the fungelical. Most African-Americasn seem to view him with disdain to.

[Froborr]

Drake: I found the debate surprisingly boring, but for a different reason. It really felt more like a debate between a Harvard professor who expected a debate on something else entirely and was a professor of a totally unrelated subject anyway, versus a machine that just regurgitated pre-scripted talking points.

[Lee Ratner]

I think it would be better for Obama if Sarah Palin removed herself or was removed from the Republican ticket because it would reveal too many bad things about the McCain. It would show that he is impulsive and that Palin was an impulse pick. It would show he could not run an organization smoothly and I think most Americans do not want a President that can not handle running the White House. Plus, it would through McCain's campaign into such chaos that it is unlikely that McCain could recover. Who could they get in such a short amount of time?

Palin staying on the ticket is not a bad thing either because she is very scary to non-fudgelical Americans and will continue to scare people as Bush in a dress.

[Geds]

Who could they get in such a short amount of time?

I hear Karl Rove doesn't have much going on these days...

[Froborr]

Because Keyes is anti-choice, homophobic, and claims to be Christian.* That's all you need to get into the Fundie Club. Once you're in the club? You can say, do, or be anything you want, you're in the club. "Say the magic words, and you are forgiven," is their rule for politics, too.

*He actually is, but he's not what a fundie would consider Christian.