Palin fumbles Couric question... in her own endzone

This is some pretty amazing footage - another piece released by CBS News from the now infamous interview of Sarah Palin by Katie Couric. The entire interview has been discussed ad nauseum, but the piece above is simply breathtaking.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but...

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of... any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

The reaction by Repubes has been largely predictable - that it was a "gotchya" question. I mean, seriously, if a candidate can't think of one Supreme Court case that she disagrees with, she not only has no business being vice president, but she has no business even being on the ticket.

Palin even got dissed by Elizabeth Hasslebeck on The View today! That's quite an achievement, as she's a GOP stooge of the highest order.

I was discussing this with a conservative colleague today, and he agreed when I had this to say... ANY politician could have and should have had some sort of a semblence of an answer, even if that answer didn't answer the question. It could have involved turning around the question and talking about some positive cases (How ya doin', Bush v. Gore?), or something.

And she was wilting under the tremendous weight of Katie Courics softball queries. I cannot even imagine, nay, I shudder at the thought of Palin sitting on the other side of table across from the Iranian or North Korean dictator.

Anyway, on to the debate in a minute. ...

As if it couldn't get any worse for Palin...

As if it couldn't get any worse for Sarah Palin, the embattled GOP Vice Presidential Nominee, she has sat down for another interview with Katie Couric, but this time she has her dad babysitter running mate with her, John McCain. I can't wait to hear the hackneyed cries of lib-rul media from Republicans, because in this segment (like many others from last week) she comes across as beyond pathetic. Quickly now - does any American with an ounce of gray matter want her sitting across the table from a world leader making life and death decisions? It's a real possibility if the Palin/McCain McCain/Palin ticket wins on Nov. 4. To say the least, McCain has not been forthright about his health, nor has he released his health records.

And for the record, these were hardly hard hitting questions. But, it certainly is a legit one to ask about Pakistan, since McCain was so vehement in denouncing Barack Obama's stance on Pakistan during last Friday's debate.

Again, it's a typical Republican meme - whenever you're asked something unpleasant or you're exposed for being uninformed or just plain stupid, it's all the media's fault! The scary part about it is that it largely works to an unwitting public - the vast majority of voters make critical voting decisions based on 30-second political ads and political catchphrases.

Scott McClellan's book raising plenty of press issues

Scott McClellan's book is touching off lots and lots of important issues, and at least for that, he's to be applauded (cue the cliché Better late than never). One of the big issues that has received a great deal of coverage from this past week from his book is the press' coverage of the Bush administration leading up to and during the War in Iraq.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but thE four-minute video clip above is one of the most outrageous I've seen during these last eight years. I don't mean to interject some Keith Olbermann hyperbole here - I don't write a sentence like that lightly. But, there are some pretty serious assertions brought up in this piece, specifically by Couric, where she says (I'm paraphrasing) that someone from the Bush administration called to complain that he didn't like the tone of the interview questions during the run-up to the war. According to Couric, she said, "well, tough," and the unidentified person said that access would be restricted when the war began. In one word: OUTRAGEOUS.

My thought when I heard Couric say this was, "Why are we only hearing about this now?" Scott McClellan is taking lots of heat (and rightfully so) for not standing up and saying something when he saw and heard many of the allegations discussed in his book. Fair enough. But, what about the press? As best as I can remember, save for a few isolated incidents where journalists were trying to make names for themselves by asking very probing questions, I don't remember any prominent anchor or reporter raising the issue that Couric asserts above.

There are many reasons and root causes for the War in Iraq, and plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle (but more on the GOP side, without a doubt), but the press is complicit, too. Hopefully McClellan book brings more of these facts to light, and lots of analysis about how our supposed free press failed America, Iraq, and quite frankly, the rest of the world, too.

As for Charlie Gibson, he's either mixing medications, or he slipped and bumped his head. "All of the questions were being asked," Charlie? C'mon - I'm not even going to dignify that remark with any sort of response, other than to say that with that attitude, it's little wonder why the ratings of network news have been free falling for years.

Tom Brokaw joined the "Who, us?!?" chorus during an interview the other night on the broadcast he used to host, NBC Nightly News...

This is a pretty disgusting interview given by a once respected journalist news anchor. (People who sit behind desks and read off of teleprompters aren't journalists in the traditional term, in my book.) "All wars are based on propaganda," Tom? Wow, I'll file that one away. Brokaw has a firm grasp of the obvious, but the big elephant in the room when he's talking about war propaganda is that the press is under NO responsibility to disseminate that propaganda, which our corporate media did so willingly before and during the war (& actually, it's continuing to do to this day).

I got pretty angry watching Brokaw blamestorming all sorts of individuals and groups who were responsible for the war. It's too bad that even after he's given up the NBC anchor desk, he couldn't be open and honest about his network's (as well as the press') shortcomings on covering the war. Instead, we just get more spin and obfuscations. Who knows - with this ability to banter & bullshit, maybe we're looking at Bush's next press secretary. As Crooks & Liars' John Amato so succinctly pointed out the other day, members of Congress & others certainly bear some blame in this war, but members of Congress aren't responsible for the press' coverage of this war.

Brokaw is correct in bringing up the context of the time following 9/11, and that's important. But, it doesn't explain away all of the cozy press coverage that the Bush administration received on the eve of war. There was strong pressure in most aspects of American society, not just from this administration, to "go along" and "support the president." I experienced this a great deal in my own life following 9/11, when I was critical of Bush on some occasions - some of my friends and family were livid at me for having the temerity to question Bush's motives & conduct. I had three words for all of them - Too freakin' bad. Anyway, the context and political climate do explain away a small part of the press coverage before & during our invasion of Iraq, but it doesn't even come close to explaining away everything.

Color the above video clips as the 8,422,900th reason to not trust our corporate media, and to get your news and commentary from multiple sources.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.