And while I am liveblogging, Schumer and Graham are on explaining the senate vote and schumer has awful 5:00 shadow.

Palin doesn't have problem with English the way Bush does. Her problem is that she doesn't know what to say and couldn't hide that fact with BS. It's all about lack of knowledge. Those executive experience that make some people proud seems to be quite worthless. It's just that she's not dealing with Alaska anymore. Being good with a steering wheel won't make one a good train operator. The VP for dummy crash course she's taking just won't cut it.

Btw, what's your definition of disaster? If Palin doesn't work for you, would you vote Obama?

Wizard, I actually do agree with you - the ability to name a case or four off the top of your head shouldn't be a requirement to hold higher office. I wouldn't have asked it of Reagan and I don't, technically, care that Palin can't do it.

What I do care about is that she can't so much as articulate her own worldview. She doesn't need to say "Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas and Exxon v. Alaska and..." but, ffs, the least she can do is reply "I think the Court got {insert Alaska case here} wrong." When you say things like "she panics when she's not prepared" - and, btw, I disagree with you here, because one thing I haven't seen in any of these interviews is a sense that she's panicking; she simply word salads every reply - what does that say about her preparedness to hold this office?

She's the Matt Leinart behind the Kurt Warner of this election.

It's not just that she can't name a Supreme Court case. What bugs me with her answer there, like in other situations, is that she seems to be PRETENDING or FAKING that she knows what she's talking about.

Had she said (to take an arbitrary example), "Katy, I can't name a case off the top of my head, but I think the court has gone too far in protecting the rights of criminals," that would have been ok.

wow. I saw him speak a few years ago and he came off as a borderline-crazy libertarian.

I disagree with this. You are running for freaking Vice President. You should have a basic understanding of major Supreme Court cases, even if you can't discuss them in depth (which , frankly you should also be able to do).

She is a professional politician. It's her full time job. To not have a ****ing clue as to hugely important supreme court decisions is unacceptable.

Awesome.

You're nothing but a liar.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../04/gb.01.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-to-question/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...und-questions/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...amoff-scandal/

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../25/gb.01.html

Damn, I hate to say this, but I wouldn't call Palin an idiot. But she IS dangerously uninformed and inexperienced, intellectually uncurious, with nearly no extemporaneous speaking ability. She's like the third girl we all dated: She was hot, interesting, and seemed fun for the first couple weeks, and you wonder why a girl like her wasn't already snapped up.

Then you find out why.

It's absolutely inexcusable for someone in her position not to be able to name decisions like Kelo, etc. that are prime examples of the "legislating from the bench" that Republicans hate so much and I'm sure Palin herself has complained of in the past.

First of all, I think it should be a requirement to be President or Vice President, since one of the major responsibilities of the White House is to name Supreme Court Justices.

Second, when someone goes about railing against "liberal activist judges," it's not too much to ask for them to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what they're arguing so vehemently against.

that was so not the third girl I dated

How many current Supreme Court justices can she name?

yes, note how none of them are 'Obama loves terrorist' and instead cover it in the context of other people speaking of it.

Did you GET to three?

It sounds pretty tedious and apparently has to do with whether the state controls certain land, but the Supreme Court ruled against Alaska on Alaska v United States about a year and a half before she took office. I mean, it was before, but it seems like that case should at least be somewhere in her mind.

Also, I'm not sure at all but I would guess there are cases concerning Alaska Natives that have a direct effect on the decisions she would make as governor.

ugh i'm stuck at two

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court reduction of punitive damages against Exxon cost Alaska billions of dollars. You'd think she'd be familiar with that.

what about the Supreme Court ruling three months ago to drastically cut the punitive damages in the Exxon oil spill case?

wouldn't she have knowledge of this/be involved as governor?

isn't her husband a ****ing fisherman????


why couldn't she at least come up with this????




edit- damn u riverman

Are we talking "give 9 names and see how many are right" or "name one at a time until you get one wrong"?

o/u for first method is 6.5, second method 5.5 imo.

You mean you are still on the fence? I am shocked that some of you can be happy with so little from someone running on your premiere ticket.

I wish I could ask Palin which SCOTUS justice she most aligns with and why

This is a REALLY good analogy. Well done!

LOL I would pay so much to hear an interviewer ask her this. I'm setting the o/u at 2.5.

And I'm with Riverman, Noah, et al that the person whose job it is to appoint federal judges should at least have a cursory knowledge of some important SCOTUS cases.

Edit: OMG this Bay Buchanan lady on AC360 trying to make excuses for Palin (essentially "she had a brain fart it could happen to anyone") is making me want to punch a kitten.

I got to about eight, but I went roughly sequentially upwards so three was...not good imo