Yes, she clearly was dismissing the importance of the media. But I don’t think they will keep her from doing interviews. As others have said, that would be a stupid campaign policy. This woman was just trying to make a point about the media (and yes, she went too far), but it doesn’t seem to me she was announcing a campaign decision.

So I went looking for some first-hand evidence that this decision has been made by the campaign. The closest I can find is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1pK7Dda2kY

Although the guy does come across as combative, he never says (and repeats over and over that he is not saying) that Palin will not be interviewed. He appears to be just making the point that the media won’t tell them what to do. They will do what’s best for the campaign, in their opinion. Clearly, it’s best to have her do interviews (for the reasons Justin said), and I expect that’s what will happen. The guy seems to just want to make it clear who’s boss, for whatever reason.

(On the other hand, the guy makes the comparison to Biden not appearing on shows his first week either. However, clearly there is a difference, considering Biden is much more known, and regularly is interviewed by the national press. So that doesn’t really fly, but still, I don’t see any evidence that the campaign has made a decision not to allow Palin to be interviewed. I see evidence that the don’t like the press trying to tell them what they have to do.)

If anyone has any other direct evidence, please tell.

Dear Senator (Soon to Be President) McCain:

I waste an incredible amount of time on a liberal blog called Donklephant. I do this because I’m a sick, twisted individual that likes to make fun of the mentally handicapped.

Anyway, these people are going on and on and on and on about Sarah Palin and how she hasn’t yet granted an interview to some imbecilic, talking-head moron with the MSM. Will you please allow Mrs. Palin to be interviewed by Justin Gardner, the editor of Donklephant? Justin is quite industrious and a technically smart guy, but he has been permanantly damaged politically. I am certain that Mrs. Palin can hold her own in this interview.

I have already contributed to your campaign. I think this would be a very good way to “introduce” Mrs. Palin to a worthless demographic that will ultimately get too stoned on election day morning and forget to vote anyway.

Sincerely,

J. Harden

I did my best gerryf – if you want me to – I’ll send an e-mail, too.

Six minutes later

Okay, guess they already have. Throw her to the puppies – I’m sure Matt Lauer is going to eat her lunch.
–J Harden

I’m sorry, you said you would demand that McCain throw Palin to the wolves. That hardly reads like a demand.

The only thing that gives the Democrats leadeship of the Senate is the two ‘independents’ who caucus with them, and one of those guys spoke at the Republican convention! The notion the Dems controlled anything over the last two years is absolute foolishness. They got to sit in the big chairs, but everybody knows they didn’t have the votes to overcome any of the policy disasters that GWB inflicted on us. It a farce. Now the Repubs are screaming “change”. Yeah – they’re going to change what? The political culture that they themselves have dominated? Great idea. Like I said, I love McCain, but the reason people like me have lost respect for him, is that we had to watch him pander the right-wing nut jobs who got us into this mess. Bring back the Bull-Moose party, and I might vote for him.

She is on the wrong side of every issue that women hold important. She would ruin the one chance McCain has of peeling women away from Obama. As long as she doesn’t state those beliefs the misguided and gullible can ignore that she holds them.

They are trying to have their cake and pie. Get women, rally the conservative-base, and try to win. Double-edged sword, they want both groups and know if she opens her mouth they lose one.

And besides, talking about her lack of availability means that so many other issues get ignored. They win that one.

Taking a VP candidate and trying to hide her from the press, while delivering prepackaged speeches and sound bites to shape her public persona is the very definition of creating celebrity. Seriously, to you guys, one speech makes a future president, but only if she’s in your party. When the press stands in the way of her coronation, we get all this faux outrage about the liberal media. Conveniently forgetting that for the past 18 months we’ve had every Obama smear openly discussed on every major network and 24 hour news stations.

Republicans really have nothing to run on. I dare either one of you hacks to tell me what John McCain is going to do to help this country out of the mess Bush put us in. I mean, for crying out loud, your VP candidate, with no discernable experience and no policy-making credentials, after only 5 days, is the savior of your party, but McCain’s handlers are so scared of her that they have to lock her away for a week so she doesn’t say anything stupid.

She will have to account for earmark spending in Wasilla, but her answers can’t possibly be as craven as Obama’s answers on subjects like the surge in Iraq, abortion, capital gains taxes, or the Georgian war ect…

Point two: big if. What we’ve got is Time’s biased interpretation of Wallace’s words. I can’t see a modern campaign being so blatantly tone-deaf as this. And if Palin is actually the kind of person that her public persona projects, I can’t see her sitting in the background being “handled” for the next two months. If she does, the ticket is sunk.

Observation one: it’s interesting that the left is so fired up about the McCain-Palin ticket now. To paraphrase the bard, methinks the socialists doth protest too much. Even Stewart and Colbert dropped their usual humorous antics in favor of more direct, not-even-attempting-at-funny attacks on her especially. Totally their right, but it feels like the left is suddenly agitated about the race. Usually means good things for the Republicrats.

We could ask, given that Palin had no doubts about seeing her pregnancy through, why she bothered to take a genetic test. Why not, as you might expect a woman in her position and with her outspoken beliefs to do, decline any testing or counseling? Of course, it seems very reasonable to want to know about the health of your baby and to have time to prepare (emotionally and otherwise) for a baby that may have a genetic disorder. But that doesn’t negate the fact that by having a blood test, Palin was given a choice about what to do.

And what she has chosen to do is fantastic. The love that she and her family have for Trig was clear in her speech at the Republican National Convention. It was inspirational to see a mother in a position of political power stand up for a child with special needs. But Palin was given a choice whether to have that child, something, if she had her way as a lawmaker, she wouldn’t give others. According to legal experts, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, some states could outlaw abortion for Down syndrome or other birth defects, and women wouldn’t have Palin’s choice.