Did anyone see this? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/oct/19/usa-uselections2008)

How could they let her go on a satirical sketch show? Is this going to make her MORE popular with Americans? Has vacuous celebrity become political acumen? Is black white? I thought the Americans invented public relations, what kind of perception-management is this?

And David Cameron is on Comment is Free! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/19/conservatives-camero...)

(Don't get me started with the rhetorical questions on that one... )

Comments

Hah, have no idea how I missed that.

Absolutely brilliant: if things do go wrong, this will be a video to remember! Some critics are already blaring inexperience and lack of judgement again, but I say, it takes one similiar to W to actually manage to do such a 'genius' thing.

She has now gone from the right-wing, gunloving, moosehunting nationalist-extremeist to an international laughing-stock. However, it is great politicians are starting to accept and laugh at jokes thrown at them (the other question is, however, if Palin even realised they were making fun of her?).

Senator Palin's appearance was an act of desperation by a campaign in freefall. That much is plain. But I never cease to marvel at American democracy. In this country contenders for the job of Prime Minister refuse even to contemplate debating with each other on live television. In America presidential candidates do so three times in the course of a campaign, and so do their vice-presidential nominees. Granted, sometimes their commitment to public scrutiny plumbs absurd depths - and few campaigns have approached the risible banality achieved by Senator Palin - but I would not hesitate to exchange our rigidly controlled, minutely regulated, approach to campaign broadcasts for the American version. These voters get to see their candidates in the raw. If only we had the same opportunity.   

In a sense, Tim, I completely agree. Transparency above all else. But things like SNL are not meant for campaign-advertising. To be able to perform such excessively degrading things (considering the etiquette the politicians seem to have nowadays) on TV and it to be considered 'a desperate but necessary act' and other painful critique, yet kinda be praised.

What is completely repulsive, is that such things are happening, yet when politicians are connected to dumb things like minor criminal acts (stole a pack of cigarettes; used prostitution in a country where its legal; some family drama; etc), one should not even be let close to politics. To accept transparency, we also need to accept that politicians are humans and therefore grade them by actions, not words or history.

Both of the extremes are things to be debated about, both are on the extremes. Complete transparency, full family history, all records etc public VS certain things public, certain policies (at best), no personal history public. The best option is a mix between those things. I favor personal privacy to some extent (family diseases, drama, etc vs criminal records etc public), also the same for policies etc.

Furthermore, the full transparency has made the US elections, every quarter-yearly, a complete TV freakshow. It is not about politics anymore, it's more about your fanbase. Nothing can ever really be changed like that. Completely transparent politics and campaigning is not about doing good, being in politics for a good cause - it's acting a superstar and doing/being popular.

One thing I forgot to mention:

I think one of the biggest things to show the candidates 'in the raw' are the debates. Definitely a thing I'd like to see more in EU politics in general. However, you mention that, yet just a week ago (or so), there was an article of accusations, that debates are agreed upon beforehand. The questions, the answers, the journalists chosen and both candidates camps have deals made.

Palin on Saturday Night Live