[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I still don't see how "what magazines do you read" is a gotcha question.

So how did Obama answer that when he was asked? If he wasn't asked, but Palin was, why do you think that is, if not to find some route in which to mock her values or intellect?

I think we've had this SNL conversation before, but don't feel like searching for the thread. Basically, SNL goes for the easy joke. The Couric interview skit was almost word for word from the real thing. No one twisted her words.

Obama not knowing how many states there are, how to pronouce "corps"and not seeming to be able to do well with speeches off the cuff, without a propter, would seem to be a target rich environment. On the rare occasion that they might mock something about Obama, here's how the media responds...

CNN’s SNL ‘Fact Check’ Generates Backlash - TVNewser

Palin on the other hand, they just chuckle and replay the Tina Fey clips over and over.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

First off, getting into Columbia University isn't simple.

Are you sure about that? I'd argue that for some people it would be exceedingly simple to get into Columbia University. It just depends on their background.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So how did Obama answer that when he was asked? If he wasn't asked, but Palin was, why do you think that is, if not to find some route in which to mock her values or intellect?

I don't recall if Obama was interviewed by Couric. But interviews are not debates where everything has to be the same. I imagine such a softball question was asked as a way to show the candidate's human side, just as valid or important as the infamous "boxers or briefs" question, or what's your favorite beer/pizza/car/animal/musician. Soft. Ball. Lob. Did she catch it, or not?

Don't deflect this and make it about Obama. Again, in a world where there's no Obama, this gaffe would still be a gaffe.

[OAW]

If we are talking about the infamous interview Palin did with Katie Couric interview ... I wholeheartedly agree. That was about as soft ball as you could get. I mean we are talking about Katie freaking Couric here! Definitely not someone who's known as an aggressive interviewer. Anyone who watched that interview could see that Sarah Palin became downright incoherent with some of her answers. And she has nobody to blame but herself for that. Does that mean she's "stupid" as some on the left like to claim? I think not. It seemed to me that it was more indicative of someone who was simply uninformed about the issue at hand and fumbled terribly when trying to regurgitate the talking points that her handlers fed her. I'd have had a modicum of respect for her if she would have just acknowledged that she messed up and that she would be better prepared for her next interview. But her (and her supporters) knee-jerk reaction to blame the "lamestream media" and its so-called "gotcha questions" whenever she's in the wrong about something is really tired.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I don't see why anyone is engaging stupendousman in this debate. This very thread is littered with conservatives airing their disdain for her. As a political candidate, her lack of qualifications is subject to rare bi-partisan consensus.

[screener]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't see why anyone is engaging stupendousman in this debate.

Because it's fun?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I don't recall if Obama was interviewed by Couric?

That wasn't the question I asked. Palin was asked a question I've seen thrown to conservatives (by people other than Couric) and those not particularly liked by the media, but not supposed "smart" liberals. The question is, why? If this was important to be asked of Couric, why not Obama?

Don't deflect this and make it about Obama. Again, in a world where there's no Obama, this gaffe would still be a gaffe.

I'm not. I'm making it about how the media deals with the gaffes of politicians. Obama and Biden are a treasure trove of gaffes, however they choose to focus on every minute thing Sarah Palin says - even making a big deal about HOW RIGHT she was on certain subjects when they can't paint her as completely uninformed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by screener 

Because it's fun?

Now that is debatable.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't see why anyone is engaging stupendousman in this debate. This very thread is littered with conservatives airing their disdain for her. As a political candidate, her lack of qualifications is subject to rare bi-partisan consensus.

The problem is that Obama's lack of qualifications never registered with the left, or the media, and we are all left to suffer due to this double standard.

My debate point never was that Palin was the best candidate for office. My point was that compared to the guy who won, she holds her own ground.

[screener]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Now that is debatable.

Start a new thread?

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My point was that compared to the guy who won, she holds her own ground.

Now that's funny.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So how did Obama answer that when he was asked? If he wasn't asked, but Palin was, why do you think that is, if not to find some route in which to mock her values or intellect?



Obama not knowing how many states there are, how to pronouce "corps"and not seeming to be able to do well with speeches off the cuff, without a propter, would seem to be a target rich environment. On the rare occasion that they might mock something about Obama, here's how the media responds...

CNN’s SNL ‘Fact Check’ Generates Backlash - TVNewser

Palin on the other hand, they just chuckle and replay the Tina Fey clips over and over.

so you still think "What magazines do you read?" is a gotcha question?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My debate point never was that Palin was the best candidate for office. My point was that compared to the guy who won, she holds her own ground.

Well considering your vociferousness on the whole "birther" thing I imagine you've thoroughly convinced yourself of this foolishness as well. Carry on ....



OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by screener 

Start a new thread?

Straight to poll.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

so you still think "What magazines do you read?" is a gotcha question?

Based on who is doing the asking, and who they are asking, yes. That is what is intended. Otherwise, that wouldn't just be the sort of question left-leaning pundits asks right of center politicians. "What kind of books" is asked for an entirely different reason than "boxers or briefs."

Originally Posted by OAW 

:Well considering your vociferousness on the whole "birther" thing I imagine you've thoroughly convinced yourself of this foolishness as well. Carry on ....

Considering that like that thread, you have to fall back on lame insults and other logical fallacies, I think I'll carry on very well without, thanks.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on who is doing the asking, and who they are asking, yes. That is what is intended. Otherwise, that wouldn't just be the sort of question left-leaning pundits asks right of center politicians. "What kind of books" is asked for an entirely different reason than "boxers or briefs."

really? can i ask you what magazines you read?

if i offend please forgive me. you can ask me...or doesn't it work that way?

and why is asking what kind of books do you read is a bad /unfair question?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on who is doing the asking, and who they are asking, yes. That is what is intended. Otherwise, that wouldn't just be the sort of question left-leaning pundits asks right of center politicians. "What kind of books" is asked for an entirely different reason than "boxers or briefs."

Can you provide a list of questions that would be appropriate to ask of a Republican politician?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

really? can i ask you what magazines you read?

Sure you can. I"m a semi-anonymous guy not running for office, who you aren't going to be able to try to paint as a non-intellectual to the general public for not subscribing and reading the politically correct and approved periodicals du jour. I have nothing to lose.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Can you provide a list of questions that would be appropriate to ask of a Republican politician?

Pretty much anything in regards to policy or position that you'd also ask of opposition.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Pretty much anything in regards to policy or position that you'd also ask of opposition.

Maybe the interviewers tried that, but policy and position questions didn't make it through her pre-screening?

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on who is doing the asking, and who they are asking, yes.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Pretty much anything in regards to policy or position that you'd also ask of opposition.

So the reporter in Boston that asked what she would take away from her visit was out of line and her excuse for her "gaffe" was, "it was a gotcha question".
Wow.

And you just don't get that we're laughing at you because of your dopy defense of her.
That's why this thread is so entertaining, to me anyway.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Maybe the interviewers tried that, but policy and position questions didn't make it through her pre-screening?

In interviews like that, I don't believe there is such a thing. If they can pre-screen questions, and she didn't like that one, then they wouldn't have asked that either.

Originally Posted by screener 

Hard to argue with such a thorough rebuttal! :roll eyes:

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

So the reporter in Boston that asked what she would take away from her visit was out of line and her excuse for her "gaffe" was, "it was a gotcha question".

What "gaffe?" We've already went over this:

How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR

While the question itself wasn't a "gotch," to begin with, they tried to turn her answer into one due to their knee-jerk reaction and irrational hatred for her. Sarah was smarter than those who sought to criticize here her, and they are the ones left looking stupid. When you consistently try and paint an answer to a question that even expert historians have claimed was right on all the basic facts as a "gaffe" as evidence that there is something wrong with Palin which makes her unqualified, while being silent or defensive about Obama who makes more than his fair share of some real factually incorrect gaffes, you'll understand why your laughter isn't really all that much to be concerned with.

I'm betting for everything Palin has said which could be found to be factually incorrect or not seeming very bright, I can probably find 2 for Obama. From not knowing how many states there are to claiming to have met dead people, to thinking that some people spoke "Austrian", to making very basic spelling errors on personal notes to people - the list is a mile wide and not really covered by the media who adores Obama.

I don't really believe either to be best that we can get, which is my argument, but given that Palin had more real experience than Obama, I don't see how she could have been any worse, and likely would be better.

But keep the blinders on and irrationally keep plugging away at her and being silent on Obama's seeming lack of intelligence. People with brains see your laughter and know if you have an ounce of sense that the laughter is likely just your own insecurity showing through.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In interviews like that, I don't believe there is such a thing. If they can pre-screen questions, and she didn't like that one, then they wouldn't have asked that either.

I dunno. Could be that the screeners thought "which magazines do you read?" was fairly safe. But, Palin has a history of only agreeing to answer pre-screened questions, so it wouldn't be a stretch.

[SpaceMonkey]

And stupendousman uses his favorite tactic and brings us back full circle again. Pro tip: regurgitating the same argument that was addressed and debunked previously does not win you debating points.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And stupendousman uses his favorite tactic and brings us back full circle again. Pro tip: regurgitating the same argument that was addressed and debunked previously does not win you debating points.

No one ever "addressed and debunked" the fact that history experts have claimed that Palin got her facts pretty much right. One is quoted right in the story I linked to.

We will ALWAYS come full circle when people make claims that have already been proven false or at best are debateable. This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[andi*pandi]

I've just tried to write something truthful that sounds as nonsensical as Palin's Revere quote, turns out word salad is hard to prepare properly!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one ever "addressed and debunked" the fact that history experts have claimed that Palin got her facts pretty much right. One is quoted right in the story I linked to.

We will ALWAYS come full circle when people make claims that have already been proven false or at best are debateable. This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Well then here is my response, again:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...4/#post4087934

To which you responded that it's "semantics." So which is it? Are you now trying to claim, again, that Palin was factually correct? Or are you ceding, again, that she was factually incorrect but it's just "semantics"? Make up your mind.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They just don't get that much airplay to the people who aren't "committed" and as such are not part of the mainstream's script, so they are not focused on.

They get airplay because Palin, Bachmann, etc play right into that script by doubling-down on their ridiculousness, and the media anticipates that. I'm sure if the media had followed up with Obama about the 57 states "gaffe" he would have laughed it off as a gaffe, and not spun some BS story about how there really are, in some hypothetical way, 57 states because that's how founding fathers like John Quincy Adams would have wanted it.

This relates to your SNL issue too. You seem to have the impression that comedians' first goal is to land a political hit. No, their first goal is to be funny. It's hard to turn a throw-away verbal slip into a funny sketch (really, take up Wiskedjak's offer to try it). Simply having a sketch where Obama says there are 57 states would not be funny. It's easier to turn a character into a funny sketch, which is why Obama sketches often revolve around his aloofness. Palin and Bachmann feed the dominant media narrative, and they feed that character.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well then here is my response, again:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...4/#post4087934

To which you responded that it's "semantics." So which is it? Are you now trying to claim, again, that Palin was factually correct? Or are you ceding, again, that she was factually incorrect but it's just "semantics"? Make up your mind.

SHE was factually correct. Your argument why even though she was factually correct, her explanation was not right based on trying to mince up her words, was an example of a semantic argument. The best Palin could be accused of was spinning the facts to make a First Amendment argument.

Either the history expert was right, or you are. I'll bet on the history expert.

[ironknee]

so why did palin's fans try to rewrite wikipedia?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

They get airplay because Palin, Bachmann, etc play right into that script by doubling-down on their ridiculousness, and the media anticipates that.

Sounds like BS to me. The mainstream media never has waited for evidence of a pattern in which to "anticipate" this sort of stuff. That's a pretty lame excuse that could only be potentially used to make excuses for recent "gotchas", not all the ones that started from the get go.

Sorry, but when you anticipate someone will do something, or be some way and act upon it without evidence that they actually have done it, this is known as "prejudice." THAT is why things that would have been snoozers had a left-leaning politician said them, becomes important fodder for discussion. Bias and prejudice. This ain't rocket science. You seem intent on doubling down on the ridiculousness of trying to excuse this as anything other than political bias.

I'm sure if the media had followed up with Obama about the 57 states "gaffe" he would have laughed it off as a gaffe, and not spun some BS story about how there really are, in some hypothetical way, 57 states because that's how founding fathers like John Quincy Adams would have wanted it.

How would we ever know for sure?

Oh yeah...Obama doesn't have to worry about it. They don't play "gotcha" with him and he doesn't have to act.

This relates to your SNL issue too. You seem to have the impression that comedians' first goal is to land a political hit. No, their first goal is to be funny.

When they don't see their chosen leader's lack of intelligence as funny, they aren't going to "go there." When they rarely do, you get their cronies in the news media to do "Fact Checks" to make sure no one is confused that it's parody and has any basis in truth.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The best Palin could be accused of was spinning the facts to make a First Amendment argument.

Exactly. She was playing fast and loose with the "facts" in order to promote a conservative narrative. Her "spin" as you put it gave the listeners the impression that Paul Revere was trying to make some Second Amendment stand with the British. When the "facts" indicate that that was not his intention. He was captured and he gave up info. The point here is NOT whether he said something to the British about the colonists being armed. As if the British didn't know that already? The point is that Sarah Palin was incorrect about the INTENT behind what he said ... because she was too busy trying to "spin" the facts to fit her conservative, Second Amendment fixated world view. Just like Michelle Bachmann does with her "The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery" BS. Conveniently overlooking the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners themselves.

OAW

[screener]

Right wingers continually say people should take personal responsibility.
Palin plays the gotcha card continually, not my fault, they tricked me, hilarious.

Keep it coming stu...., highly entertaining.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

SHE was factually correct. Your argument why even though she was factually correct, her explanation was not right based on trying to mince up her words, was an example of a semantic argument. The best Palin could be accused of was spinning the facts to make a First Amendment argument.

Either the history expert was right, or you are. I'll bet on the history expert.

And I linked to another history expert who says you are wrong. Look, the entire topic is a semantic argument, semantics being "the study of meaning....the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata." Palin's statement was worded in a way such that it appeared she was providing incorrect information. She did not correct herself, despite being given ample opportunity. Those are the facts. You continue to try to cover both sides by claiming she was "factually correct" (not strictly true, as Revere was not riding with the intent of warning the British forces) but, if not that, then she was at least in some way "true" (in the Colbert "truthiness" sense of the word) in that her larger point was accurate (Revere was riding to essentially defend the townsfolks' munitions from being seized). That latter side is fine, but you can't keep going back and pretending that the first side is true just so you can continue the debate ad nauseam. Give it a rest. That's all I'll continue to say on this subject.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sounds like BS to me. The mainstream media never has waited for evidence of a pattern in which to "anticipate" this sort of stuff. That's a pretty lame excuse that could only be potentially used to make excuses for recent "gotchas", not all the ones that started from the get go.

Sorry, but when you anticipate someone will do something, or be some way and act upon it without evidence that they actually have done it, this is known as "prejudice." THAT is why things that would have been snoozers had a left-leaning politician said them, becomes important fodder for discussion. Bias and prejudice. This ain't rocket science. You seem intent on doubling down on the ridiculousness of trying to excuse this as anything other than political bias.

Of course the media is "prejudiced." It's prejudiced for conflict and a good story. Obama mentioning, once, that he'd been to "57 states" is not as good of a story as Palin mentioning, repeatedly, incorrect or at least questionable facts and then essentially daring the media to take her on rather than trotting out the standard "I misspoke." It ain't rocket science. Palin is more interesting as a character than Obama. The evidence is in her past pattern of behavior when confronted by some media controversy: she doubles down and tries to make the story about the "lamestream media." The media counts on that. Another pro tip: insulting the media is generally a poor way to encourage positive media coverage.

When they don't see their chosen leader's lack of intelligence as funny, they aren't going to "go there." When they rarely do, you get their cronies in the news media to do "Fact Checks" to make sure no one is confused that it's parody and has any basis in truth.

Seriously. Try it. Write a 3-5 minute sketch where the central joke is that Obama once said there are 57 states. Report back with the script.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. She was playing fast and loose with the "facts" in order to promote a conservative narrative. Her "spin" as you put it gave the listeners the impression that Paul Revere was trying to make some Second Amendment stand with the British.

Not necessary a "second amendment stand" (and I mistakenly above wrote "first"), but rather a "we are armed and as such will defeat you" stand, which he did.

When the "facts" indicate that that was not his intention.

At some point, it was his intention, as that is what he did. As I showed, even a history expert agrees that Palin got all the basic facts right, and that maybe she just phrased it all to give added emphasis to the who weapons angle because that's an issue she has clear interest in.

You guys really are trying too hard. That says more about you than it does Palin.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Right wingers continually say people should take personal responsibility.

Palin takes responsibility for getting it right. She can't however take responsibility for her critics who embarrass themselves trying so hard to find fault with her, because they hate her. You can't act so transparently biased and ignorant and not end up hurting your own credibility in the process.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And I linked to another history expert who says you are wrong.

Actually, I believe he claimed it didn't matter, because he was looking at it in a more partisan angle, and not whether the basic facts where right or wrong.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course the media is "prejudiced." It's prejudiced for conflict and a good story. Obama mentioning, once, that he'd been to "57 states" is not as good of a story as Palin mentioning, repeatedly, incorrect or at least questionable facts and then essentially daring the media to take her on rather than trotting out the standard "I misspoke."

The media are the ones that made it an issue in the first place. They are the ones that started the "story" to which Palin had to react, and they are the ones who found NO story in a major factual error that is not in debate. You are engaging in a really odd "chicken/egg" type logical fallacy that's makes little sense. She has no reason to state she "misspoke" when it's just a case of the left not liking what she choose to emphasize about the course of events in question, when they didn't even probably know the whole story to begin with as it's clear Palin did (whether she tried to spin it or not).

EGADS!!! A politician who tried to spin a story. MAJOR NEWS!!! ::

Seriously. Try it. Write a 3-5 minute sketch where the central joke is that Obama once said there are 57 states. Report back with the script.

You mean like the type of sketch they might do if they tried to build an entire comedy routine around someone saying they can see Russia from their house? Is that REALLLY the strongest argument you've got? Again, it's not my job to present professional comedy on public airwaves to all Americans. Tripling down at this point?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At some point, it was his intention, as that is what he did. As I showed, even a history expert agrees that Palin got all the basic facts right, and that maybe she just phrased it all to give added emphasis to the who weapons angle because that's an issue she has clear interest in.

You guys really are trying too hard. That says more about you than it does Palin.

Not only that, but she also has a valid birth certificate!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sure you can. I"m a semi-anonymous guy not running for office, who you aren't going to be able to try to paint as a non-intellectual to the general public for not subscribing and reading the politically correct and approved periodicals du jour. I have nothing to lose.

ok, so let's pretend that you are running for an office

does that means i can't ask you what magazines you read?

edit...btw what are the politically correct/incorrect magazines?

[Wiskedjak]

I never realized that magazine preferences were so politically charged!

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Palin takes responsibility for getting it right. She can't however take responsibility for her critics who embarrass themselves trying so hard to find fault with her, because they hate her. You can't act so transparently biased and ignorant and not end up hurting your own credibility in the process.

Ignoring or missing the point entirely by not including the full quote.
You don't take responsibility by claiming a simple unbiased question is a gotcha.
C'mon, get real.

Critics don't have to try hard, she's a gift that keeps on giving.
That Thanksgiving turkey pardoning video was hilarious.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok, so let's pretend that you are running for an office

does that means i can't ask you what magazines you read?

It doesn't mean that at all.

Though..you'd think that if it was important to ask people like GWB and Palin what books or magazines they read, that it would be equally important to ask people like Obama the same question?

AGAIN, how did Obama answer this question?

An inability to answer THIS question is essentially a concession of my point.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

You don't take responsibility by claiming a simple unbiased question is a gotcha.

Again, not the question - but what was latter done to it.

Critics don't have to try hard, she's a gift that keeps on giving.

They are trying extra hard - to the point of making themselves look stupid.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, not the question - but what was latter done to it.

Really, pointing out the error or do you mean some of her supporters trying to change the Wikipedia site to reflect the error.
Tell me you'd be fine with her version if it was taught to your kids as the truth.
And yeah, she continued the ridiculousness by claiming the question was a gotcha on Fox news.
To me, that isn't taking responsibility, that's blaming someone else for your own screwup.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They are trying extra hard - to the point of making themselves look stupid.

Wow, what planet are you living on.
Yeah I know, the stupendous planet that revolves around a black hole where all common sense is sucked into it.

That Thanksgiving turkey pardoning video was hilarious.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Really, pointing out the error or do you mean some of her supporters trying to change the Wikipedia site to reflect the error.

Inventing an "error" where none really exists due to their picking apart every word she says looking for something, anything to criticize her for, while essentially ignoring all the ridiculous screw-ups Obama and Biden make.

Tell me you'd be fine with her version if it was taught to your kids as the truth.

I don't have a problem with the explanation of a historical event that even NPR's history expert says was correct. Especially when it seems clear that she knew more about the event than her critics did, and THAT is why they were quick to jump on her. And when exactly was she requesting to teach history anyways? Because if that is the standard we are using, Obama would fail in that area as well.

And yeah, she continued the ridiculousness by claiming the question was a gotcha on Fox news.

Again, not the question - but rather what the media decided to do with it.

[Wiskedjak]

Here's the take from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...-Is-that-wrong
She was always kind of right.
Look, from the point of view of strategic communications, Revere’s ride did indeed warn the British that fighting in the colonies was going to be tougher than they’d thought. That’s a sort of meta way of looking at it, we suppose, but that’s what they teach in the colleges these days. If we were her that’s the defense we’d use – it has the virtue of being both logical and vague enough to avoid further discussion.

She remains kind of wrong.
The historical record says nothing about Revere talking to the British about guns, specifically. So for Palin to say he said “you won’t be taking our arms” is technically non-factual. The Second Amendment was not yet in existence. Plus, Revere didn’t shoot anything from his horse. Church bells might have been ringing, though.

She can't win on this subject. Here’s something Palin’s advisers should tell her: “When you get into an argument about details with a media that buys its pixels by the barrelful, you’re always going to lose. And prolonging this discussion isn’t going to win you any votes if you run for president or viewers if you make another reality show. All it does is emphasize one of your negatives – many voters aren’t sure of your grasp of details. You need to change the subject.”

How should she handle more questions? Just say “Paul Revere’s ride was a wake-up call for the British. Now, I’d rather talk about our national debt than what a silversmith said two centuries ago to soldiers of a country that’s our closest ally today.”

That sounds pretty spot on. She was kinda right and kinda wrong.