quote:

ORIGINAL: csl7037

I hope it's OK to start a new thread with this thought. It seemed like it could've fit so many places but it's really a different issue altogether.

So much of what I'm hearing about last night's interview with Charlie Gibson is that she sounded coached or canned in her responses. People wanted to hear what she really thinks about issues. And we definitely need to know what we're getting and who she is. But, at this stage of the game, it's really not very important what she thinks. She was invited to join the McCain campaign, she didn't start her own campaign. For the next couple of months, her job is to help him get elected, to talk about him, not promote her own thoughts and opinions.

She's in a weird place because her nomination has attracted so much attention and thrown her into the spotlight. But I think it's a very skewed view we're taking on her and is putting her in a very different position than really any VP pick before - except possibly Ferraro but I don't even think she was put under the same microscope. The VP candidate is really, amost always, a footnote in a Presidential election. This is an extreme anomally. So what is she to do? Indulge our fascination and step into the media's full on assault of her or do what the VP nominee is supposed to do - back up and promote the Presidential candidate?

I want to see more of her - to get a feel for who she is as a person and watch her temperament and demeanor in this overwhelming place she finds herself. But, right now, it's really not her place to be out promoting her opinion on issues so if her answers sound like she's parotting John McCain maybe that's because that's what she's supposed to be doing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Especially since an equally inexperienced PRESIDIENT CANDIDATE isn't beng scutinized with that same fervor by the old media.