Is Palin Smarter Than a Fourth Grader?

I missed the Couric-Palin interview televised this week. Fortunately we live in the age of the internet, so things like conflicting time slots do not mean that you can't see 2 things scheduled at the same time - you just may not be able to see one of them until later.

Anyway, Saturday morning, while perusing all the news sites I like to keep up with, I found clips of the interview. I put one on to listen to while in the kitchen, and I admit it was the morning, and I had only had about half of a pot of coffee, so when I heard Palin's answer to Couric explaining why she believed the $700 billion bailout was better funneled to Wall Street firms than the middle class, I just assumed I didn't hear her correctly. Or, being under-caffeinated, I just hadn't understood her.

But no.

It wasn't my lack of brain-stimulating chemical, it was Palin's lack of brain cell utilization. Because earlier today I read the response, and I still couldn't understand what she was saying. And I guess that's not surprising, since half of it consists of either incomplete or run-on sentences. And I'm not going to address the content - I wouldn't even know where to start.

" . . . where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

My 9 year old son is working on sentence structure and composition in 4th grade right now. He wrote better constructed sentences for his homework last weekend.

Dan Quayle may not have been a good speller, and his blunders were great for a laugh, but at least he could put a subject, verb, and direct object together. And sometimes he'd even throw in a prepositional phrase or two.

Why McCain Lost Women Friday Night

I have to admit I haven't been able to watch an entire presidential debate since 1980 and the "Cleveland Clash" between Reagan and Carter. I was just a kid watching it with my parents, but even at my young age it was easy to tell who was the brighter, more competent man (ok, I may have been young but I was really smart back then). Carter proved himself to be a thoughtful and intellectual statesman, knowledgeable about most of the issues broached during the debate. Reagan proved himself to be, well, pretty stupid. But imagine my amazement when the next day, most people were talking about how handily Reagan had won! I guess I was too young to notice and be wooed by Reagan's outward persona, but instead paid attention to what he was actually saying. But obviously I was in the minority in this country. As Reagan's campaign manager William Timmons apparently stated before that debate, "appearance is far more important than a bunch of facts". And so was the reality back then, and in virtually every presidential race since. For myself, knowing that appearances trump all else makes these debates so painful to watch - the candidates side by side, direct comparisons unavoidable, combined with the frustrating knowledge that the more attractive or charismatic candidate will win regardless of the candidates' actual performances makes these spectacles really hard for me to sit through.

But I managed to sit and watch most of the debate last night (well, I did have to leave the living room and my boyfriend a couple of times) and I was struck by something that has barely been covered by the news media. Aside from the actual knowledge base of each man, accuracy of statements, and their political views (because after all, the debates are not about content but presentation), I was thunderstruck by McCain's demeanor towards Obama. McCain treated Obama with absolute condescension, referring to Obama as one would refer to a child, correcting him with a patronizing tone (even when Obama was actually right and McCain wrong), and refusing to even look at him.

And it felt way too familiar.

I don't know a single woman who has NOT been treated at some point in her life just like McCain treated Obama. We have all had the experience of being made to feel unimportant by a man who believed he was better than us, just because he was a man. We have all had the guy who has less education than we do talk to us as if we had just learned that the alphabet ends with the letter "z". And who hasn't had the older man say kindly "you don't have to worry yourself about all those facts, honey" in order to exclude us from a process that we are more than capable of understanding? As a white woman, I can't comment as to whether or not blacks (both male and female) might have had some of the same experiences with white men in their lives, but I suspect that many have.

So based on the demeanor of both men, their body language, and the tone of their words, it is no surprise to me that women didn't like John McCain in the debate as much as they did Barack Obama. McCain presented himself as a condescending jerk, and we all felt it.

And for once, I think evaluating the candidates' performances based solely on their appearance is just the ticket.