I don’t think that’s what she’s saying, although it is admittedly her comeback to Thune’s point about the base’s enthusiasm. What she means, I take it, is that it’s hard for voters to absorb so many revelations about an unknown candidate all at once, especially in an age of 24-hour cable news where they just keep coming. The effect is cacophonous, to the point where some people might simply throw up their hands, decide it’s not worth trying to parse what’s true, what’s false, and what’s important, and conclude that she’s dubious because, well, the media certainly seems to think she is and they’re a reliable enough proxy. That is to say, this may be a test of whether a wild-card VP selection is feasible in the modern media age. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe you need someone like Biden or Romney, whose weak points have already been vetted and incorporated into their “price” on the political stock market, in order not to be thrown hopelessly off-message and put perpetually on the defensive. Exit question: Would Pawlenty’s “stock” have shown less volatility? Better exit question: Does that matter if his price was lower? Click the image to watch.
Andrea Mitchell: Is Palin just too darned popular?
Advertisement
Join the conversation as a VIP Member