Sarah Palin on the Oprah Winfrey Show
Posted Tuesday November 17, 2009 at 9:27am in Politics, Sarah Palin
As a man, it is hard to admit that I sat through an entire hour of Oprah’s television show. Worse yet, I had to DVR it! The sole reason for me to watch yesterday’s particular airing was because the former Governor of Alaska, and GOP running mate to John McCain was on. She was interviewed on everything from Katie Couric, to her family, and her time running as the vice president under the McCain ticket to the 2008 election. To say the least, the interview was intriguing.
For starters, Sarah Palin was her usual self. Palin was mainly on the defensive of every issue. Some of Oprah’s questions could have been more clearly answered too. The only section where I felt Palin did a great job on defending herself was in regards to the campaign, which she blamed mainly on the McCain staff and bias “fringe” media. I think she failed in her explanation of why she stepped down as Governor of Alaska, and why she could not answer simple questions which Couric posed to her. Palin was also quick to attack others, sometimes rightfully so. Overall, she seemed like her old self though, but to a different degree. She came off as enthusiastic, confusing, and long winded. One could easily forget the question which Oprah posed because of the way Palin answered some questions. For example, Oprah asked Palin about Couric’s questioning of the items that Palin reads, where Palin embarrassingly seemed to stumble for a proper explanation and never did say what newspapers or magazines she reads. I do not doubt her word that she probably does read a lot. Palin could have answered some of the questions better. That seems to always be her case with interviews. She did make it feel that she was speaking the truth in some regards, and although she was long winded, she did answer most of the questions. I will give her the doubt for Oprah’s questioning about the possible 2012 presidential campaign.
Oprah is not without due criticism either. Her body language gave away a lot during the hour long interview. She never seemed comfortable in the interview, until the end. She almost consistently had this odd look on her face, that was close to disgust. If Oprah did not want to do the interview, she should not have had Palin on her show. Oprah did ask good questions though, and she had to push the issue a couple times. I don’t know if Oprah did that out of spite, because Palin had mentioned that is what annoyed her about Couric’s line of questioning, or if Oprah really wanted the answer. I think both parties on the show could have done a better job. Simply, I was expecting more.
Sarah Palin, like many other political, historical, and modern figures are quite interesting characters. I truly believe that Sarah Palin loves the United States, cares about where the country is going, and she wants to be an active member in making it a better place. Her problem is that, despite her impressive and assertive persona, she can seem elusive. This leads many to feel like there is something missing to Palin’s answers, and that when she tries to answer a question it often sounds like she is trying to side step it to a degree. Although I was hoping for a heightened context from Palin, and Oprah, I will be getting more of Palin in the days to come, as Palin is releasing her book today Going Rogue: An American Life.
I will be getting Palin’s book, and I will read it. My semester ends in mid-December so I may not have time until then, but I will read and comment on this blog. At this current time for the GOP, it could be a influential book as members of the party try to compete for the leading role among the party; that mostly means there are a lot of bad contenders trying to become the face of the Republican Party but that is another post for another day.
Recently it was announced that the terrorists responsible for the horrific events of September 11, 2001 would be tried in a public court in New York. Many notable GOP members, and conservative bloggers have come to a point of outrage over Eric Holder’s decision. I admit I haven’t read too much into the situation. But why is everyone in such an uproar? Do the conservative elite, not think that the citizens of New York would convict the men responsible for the bloodshed that day? Holder even stated that he was going to pursue the 
I am not sure if you are following the story that has emerged today, November 5, 2009 out of Fort Hood, Texas. In case you don’t know, a 39 year old Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan. He is a man who is of Jordanian descent. The Major was a psychiatrist and broke down over the imminent deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, who today shot and wounded 31 soldiers and killed an additional 12. He was shot during the incident multiple times, and he somehow survived. This story has rattled me. It is bad enough that soldiers have to die overseas fighting militant Islam, much less having to face the horrors of being shot at home, on a base. I am no soldier, but I don’t understand how he was able to do this. He was on a base with a bunch of soldiers with guns. How was he able to accomplish his goal of targeting certain people and shooting them? Secondly, anyone who joins the military should know that they could be deployed. If you disagree with the miliatry then don’t join up. This man was a psychiatrist though, so he is a doctor. I would assume he would be helping the people over in Afghanistan, whether they would be soldiers or natives. This man is a traitor anyway you cut it. His punishment will be death, especially in war time. In case you want to read the entire story you can 
I despise social historians. They just don’t get it. They have their use, but when it comes to the items which define humanity they are clueless. As a minor historian I can not say that I identify with there ideology. In fact, I don’t really identify with any particular field in full, but I come close to the military historian ideology. The reason which I am writing this is primarily based off of a course which I am undertaking. Last night, November 2, 2009, I came to realize the severity in which their philosophies present. The class is an American history course which focuses on the time period of 1920 – 1960. Currently, we are focusing on the 1940s and more specifically World War II. This is one of my favorite periods of history, and I know quite a bit about it. I sometimes like to question my professors on topics which I have extensively researched before, to see what their knowledge on the issue is. Now to be fair, my professor is not a specialist in WWII but rather Jazz and social history around the 1920s. However I asked him about General Mark W. Clark and his haste to take Rome, this was a topic of a research paper that I wrote last semester. To be short, since my paper was a twenty page paper, Clark got a lot of Americans killed for a symbolic reason at best. Mr. Professor said that the symbolic reason was on par with taking of North Africa, and the fighting in the streets of Berlin by the Russians. I mean that has no basis, especially since by the time Clark and the American troops got to Rome, the Germans had already left. He was clearly wrong, but he is pretty full of himself. Later on, Mr. Professor even said that the dropping of the A-Bombs on Japan was wrong. Now that is debatable, but he said that the class wasn’t allowed to contest him, and he wouldn’t have any discussion. I thought social historians were supposed to be the most open minded? I fully understand scholastic law, where the student loses their rights to things like free-speech while on campus, but this is plainly wrong. Mr. Professor also stated that invading mainland Japan wouldn’t have cost even one single American life. I think most of the military would disagree with that, if they were still around to have their voice heard. Now this is just what the professor stated.
