<p><span style="font-size:19.5pt;"><font face="Verdana">Palin vs. 'Oprah': the anti-smackdown</font></span>

<span style="font-size:7.5pt;"><b><font face="Tahoma">By Mary McNamara</font></b></span>

<span style="font-size:9pt;"><font face="Verdana">When former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska this summer, she explained that she felt she could effect more change and deliver her message more effectively as a private citizen than as a lame-duck official. During an appearance on Monday's "Oprah," Palin's first major appearance on her "Going Rogue: An American Life" book tour, her message seemed simple enough: None of what happened during the 2008 presidential campaign was her fault because she was beset by manipulative handlers and a hostile, badgering media. In the course of the one-hour interview, Palin referred to those who reported on her daughter Bristol Palin's pregnancy as "haters" and called Katie Couric "the perky one."

"You're talking about Katie Couric," Oprah Winfrey interjected as Palin was explaining her annoyance the Couric couldn't let her just enjoy the "incredible rush of energy" she felt after a rousing John McCain rally. "Because you're pretty perky yourself."

The only thing she, Palin, did wrong was ... well, going by just her conversation with Winfrey, she didn't do anything wrong. She and McCain lost because the economy tanked and Couric had an agenda to present her in the worst possible light no matter what she said.

Palin said she wished she had not been subjected to such a "double standard" in the media about her campaign wardrobe clothes and her children. And about that look of disappointment you saw on her face when she was not allowed to speak after McCain's concession speech ... well, she had wanted one more opportunity to say that Americans needed to keep moving forward and that "united we stand."

Even the inevitable "Levi question" could not take the lovely smile from her lips. Winfrey, hoping (as those badgering media types do) for some sort of emotional shift from her resolutely upbeat guest, pressed Palin about her feelings toward Levi Johnston, Bristol's ex-fiancee. Johnston, who because of his connection to Palin has become a C-list celebrity (posing most recently for "Playgirl"), cannot say enough bad things about her, some of which Winfrey felt compelled to recount.

But Palin remained firmly on message: She was not going to discuss the intimate workings of her family on national TV. But she said she was sorry that Johnston was following a path of porn and profit and that she was praying for him and that he was certainly welcome at Thanksgiving dinner because he would always be the father of her beautiful grandson.

Charming, articulate, unflappable and firmly in control of her material, this was the Palin the McCain campaign had no doubt dreamed of all those long months ago. Of course, Winfrey wasn't pushing her on the Bush Doctrine or even the newspapers of her choice, but watching a polished and possessed Palin as she once again made her case -- she's just an ordinary working woman trying to do right by her kids and serve her country and is guilty of only a little naivete -- it's hard not to see the formidable candidate she could have been if she had been given a little (OK, a lot) more time to prep. Or even if she had watched a few more episodes of "West Wing."

"Do you wish you had just named some magazines?" Oprah asked Palin of her fateful Couric interview in which she seemed unable to name a news source she consulted regularly. "Yes, of course," Palin answered, making it hard to know which was more worrisome: that Oprah used the word magazines (presumably because she doesn't own a newspaper) or that Palin chose to not actually name one even now.

The two were quite fascinating to watch together, steel-spined divas treating each other with a graciousness Jane Austen would appreciate -- Winfrey called Palin's book "interesting;" Palin thanked Winfrey for being an inspiration to her. In a clip available on the "Oprah" show's website, the two had a bonding moment over "journaling" -- both are practitioners and Palin's lifelong habit is one of the reasons she believed she could write a book. Both women have created "regular-folk" brands that belie their actual socioeconomic status, and no one knows better than Winfrey the power an individual can have over culture and policy.

Which may explain why, though Winfrey ended the interview by asking Palin if a talk show were in her future (a question Palin adroitly did not answer), she began the show by addressing the rumor (long forgotten, it must be said, by pretty much everyone) that she Winfrey had snubbed Palin during the campaign by not asking her to appear on her show. (After endorsing Obama, she had no political candidates as guests.) Palin, bless her heart, looked Winfrey straight in the eye and said she had no idea that this was even part of the media conversation. "No offense to you," Palin said with a winning smile, "but it wasn't the center of the universe."

Which certainly marks a milestone of some sort.</font></span>

<span style="font-size:7.5pt;"><b><font face="Tahoma">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/11/palin-vs-oprah-split-decision.html</font></b></span></p>

Edited November 17, 200916 yr by Sylph

I wish Palin would just sit down some where and be quiet

I wish Palin would just sit down some where and be quiet

I wish Palin would just sit down some where and be quiet

I agree. I cant stand her. Her running for President is laughable.....she doesnt have a chance....hell will freeze over if she wins...cant stand the woman.

The interview was a waste of time really...... Sarah is supposed to be "unscripted" here? Every answer she gave Oprah was just as informative as any answer she gave during the campaign. All politicians are transparent, but it appears as if Sarah Palin doesn't even try to hide her true agenda. Even if Palin tries and runs for the Rep. ticket in 2012, she won't make it to the convention.... if she does.... then really the republican party is clearly out of touch with reality.

Esp when Oprah asked her if LEVI was coming to Thanksgiving dinner.

The interview was a waste of time really...... Sarah is supposed to be "unscripted" here? Every answer she gave Oprah was just as informative as any answer she gave during the campaign. All politicians are transparent, but it appears as if Sarah Palin doesn't even try to hide her true agenda. Even if Palin tries and runs for the Rep. ticket in 2012, she won't make it to the convention.... if she does.... then really the republican party is clearly out of touch with reality.

To me, this is such a hysterical "phenomenon", I just can't stop laughing at this woman!

I have no idea who gave her the idea she can run for President.

Thanks for the warning.

This will be ONE MUST MISS Oprah show.

She has about as much substance as "The Teacher" or "The Librarian" from the pictorials in my dad's old HUSTLER maqazines.

She's "The Governor"

Some people, more than you think, believe she should be "The President"

I need a hug now.

Keep in mind, most major cities in the United stated have WELL over 1 million people. The entire state of Alaska has only around 600,000. She just a glorified MAYOR.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Palin is unlikely to be the GOP nominee for president in 2012. That's because the party establishment knows what a train wreck her candidacy would be, and will do everything to try and stop her. (And, in sharp contrast to how it works in the Democratic party, it is virtually impossible to get the Republican nomination without the support of the establishment.)

The poster above me made a good point regarding the fact that being governor of Alaska isn't good preparation for the presidency since that state has such little population. Nevertheless, I find it hypocritical that the left would bring this up since the candidate they embraced in 2004--Howard Dean--was the governor of tiny Vermont (which is one of only two states that has a smaller population than Alaska).

Unfortunately for Democrats, Palin is unlikely to be the GOP nominee for president in 2012. That's because the party establishment knows what a train wreck her candidacy would be, and will do everything to try and stop her. (And, in sharp contrast to how it works in the Democratic party, it is virtually impossible to get the Republican nomination without the support of the establishment.)

The poster above me made a good point regarding the fact that being governor of Alaska isn't good preparation for the presidency since that state has such little population. Nevertheless, I find it hypocritical that the left would bring this up since the candidate they embraced in 2004--Howard Dean--was the governor of tiny Vermont (which is one of only two states that has a smaller population than Alaska).

Who do YOU want running for the Repubs in 2012, Max?

Were it not for the fact that he'd be too old, I really would like to see a McCain-Obama re-match in 2012. (With a different running mate for McCain, of course). Aside from this, my first choice for the GOP nomination would be Rudy Giuliani (although there's virtually zero chance that he'd win the nomination).

Among the candidates with a realistic chance of getting the GOP nomination, any of the following would have my support:

*Mike Huckabee--While I'd prefer a moderate to get the nomination, Huckabee is definately among the best the conservative wing could do, since he's charismatic, articulate, and tolerant of the moderate wing of the party.

*Bobby Jindal--Like Huckabee, Jindal is from the right wing of the party. However, because he possesses the same qualities that I mentioned above for Huckabee, he would be able to attract moderates and thus become a formidable opponent to Obama.

*Chris Christie--Few have heard of the charismatic Christie, who is the governor-elect of New Jersey. However, he will definately be a rising star in the coming years since he is a pro-life "moderate-conservative" who managed to win a statewide election in an overwhelmingly blue state. Unfortunately, I highly doubt Christie will run in 2012 since he'd still be in his first term as governor.

*John Kaisch--Kaisch is another moderate-to-conservative Republican (like Christie) who possesses a likeable personality. Although he is currently running for governor of Ohio, he had a national profile back in the 1990's when he served as Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Were it not for the fact that he'd be too old, I really would like to see a McCain-Obama re-match in 2012. (With a different running mate for McCain, of course). Aside from this, my first choice for the GOP nomination would be Rudy Giuliani (although there's virtually zero chance that he'd win the nomination).

Among the candidates with a realistic chance of getting the GOP nomination, any of the following would have my support:

*Mike Huckabee--While I'd prefer a moderate to get the nomination, Huckabee is definately among the best the conservative wing could do, since he's charismatic, articulate, and tolerant of the moderate wing of the party.

*Bobby Jindal--Like Huckabee, Jindal is from the right wing of the party. However, because he possesses the same qualities that I mentioned above for Huckabee, he would be able to attract moderates and thus become a formidable opponent to Obama.

*Chris Christie--Few have heard of the charismatic Christie, who is the governor-elect of New Jersey. However, he will definately be a rising star in the coming years since he is a pro-life "moderate-conservative" who managed to win a statewide election in an overwhelmingly blue state. Unfortunately, I highly doubt Christie will run in 2012 since he'd still be in his first term as governor.

*John Kaisch--Kaisch is another moderate-to-conservative Republican (like Christie) who possesses a likeable personality. Although he is currently running for governor of Ohio, he had a national profile back in the 1990's when he served as Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

No Haley Barbour?! For shame! And you call yourself a Republican!

I love Huck and he is "tolerant" of the moderates in the Republican Party, but I don't think that would stop his social agenda(i.e. gay marriage, health issues, etc.). I think what I like most about him is that what he says is what he'll do. How that comes into play whenever he would be minted into the White House remains to be seen.

There's no way the Republicans will put up Jindal because he's another minority. I think the Republicans will use, not only Obama's overspending, but the race baiting will be huge in 2012.

Christie barely managed to win against the wildly unpopular Corzine, and was also unable to answer the attacks against his ethics or the claims that he had few fiscal plans for the state. He ended up complaining about people saying he's overweight, and running on banning gay marriage. I'm sure the latter would work in a national campaign but everyone running on the GOP side will probably run on banning gay marriage.

I think Tim Pawlenty or Romney will be the 2012 nominee.

Edited November 22, 200916 yr by CarlD2