Why can't this stupid woman say "nuclear?" What is so hard about that? Couldn't her handlers have just drilled her and drilled her so we wouldn't have to shudder every time she says "nuke you ler"? After 8 long painful years of a president who can't get this right?
I just analyzed the tape meticulously. 5 "nukulers" in a 40-second span.
This was the one comment she made that I found embarrassing to watch - this was supposed to be a debate between reasonably equal candidates, both certified adults. This comment was what I would expect to hear if I asked my 12 year old grand daughter the same question.
This Nukular thing has to be intentional, because its very easy to fix. Just have the person think and say New Clear, new clear, new clear new clear and pretty soon they are pronouncing it correctly.
I recall reading, back when she was first introduced to the public, that the campaign was very pleased that she mispronounced "Iraq" and "Iran" ("Eye-rack", and "Eye-ran"). It was felt to be a plus, since she talked like an "ordinary person." My guess is they aren't interested in correcting "nuclear" for the same reasons: like Bush, she makes stupid people feel comfortable. Her job, after all, was to secure the Republican base. Who knew she'd still be working on it 5 weeks later?
I didn't understand a word she said, WTF?
Wow! She looked really uncomfortable repeating those words. It looked as if she had worked really hard trying to get it right like she practiced all week and "Oh!Oh! Can I say something about Afghanistan!" She wanted to go on about this while refusing to answer questions the way the moderator or those nasty "elites" want. I can't believe people want to be talked down to,but then we had 8yrs of "...this suckers going down...!"Please say it ain't so!?
REALLY??
We should keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Kim Jong-Il?
We should put the government back on the side of the people?
We should end corruption in Washington?
We should "embrace a culture of life" in America?
These are the arguments that Sarah Palin brings to the table. These are not debateable positions. What reasonable person does not want these things. Yet she seems, when she makes one of these FANTASTIC statements, to be so proud of herself for making it without falling off the stage or drooling all over herself. She just kept stating all of these general "policy goals" while having ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY to speak with intelligence as to how to achieve them. Why in a "debate" would someone (opponent/moderator) not question her as to the steps that her ticket would take to achieve these goals. Isn't that what a "debate" is about? Most of us generally strive for the same things. Our differences "rear their head"(as Palin apparently likes to say) in what we believe are the prudent steps that we should take to achieve those goals. A little off point but...
Throw in a "like such as" or two, and Governor Palin could easily serve as an acceptable stand-in for Caitlin Upton.
Of course we're all extremely happy to learn that there's a "safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry".
Comments (10)
Why can't this stupid woman say "nuclear?" What is so hard about that? Couldn't her handlers have just drilled her and drilled her so we wouldn't have to shudder every time she says "nuke you ler"? After 8 long painful years of a president who can't get this right?
October 2, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just analyzed the tape meticulously. 5 "nukulers" in a 40-second span.
October 3, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was the one comment she made that I found embarrassing to watch - this was supposed to be a debate between reasonably equal candidates, both certified adults. This comment was what I would expect to hear if I asked my 12 year old grand daughter the same question.
October 3, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This Nukular thing has to be intentional, because its very easy to fix. Just have the person think and say New Clear, new clear, new clear new clear and pretty soon they are pronouncing it correctly.
October 3, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recall reading, back when she was first introduced to the public, that the campaign was very pleased that she mispronounced "Iraq" and "Iran" ("Eye-rack", and "Eye-ran"). It was felt to be a plus, since she talked like an "ordinary person." My guess is they aren't interested in correcting "nuclear" for the same reasons: like Bush, she makes stupid people feel comfortable. Her job, after all, was to secure the Republican base. Who knew she'd still be working on it 5 weeks later?
October 3, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't understand a word she said, WTF?
October 3, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! She looked really uncomfortable repeating those words. It looked as if she had worked really hard trying to get it right like she practiced all week and "Oh!Oh! Can I say something about Afghanistan!" She wanted to go on about this while refusing to answer questions the way the moderator or those nasty "elites" want. I can't believe people want to be talked down to,but then we had 8yrs of "...this suckers going down...!"Please say it ain't so!?
October 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we know she's as qualified as the current President is.
October 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
REALLY??
We should keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Kim Jong-Il?
We should put the government back on the side of the people?
We should end corruption in Washington?
We should "embrace a culture of life" in America?
These are the arguments that Sarah Palin brings to the table. These are not debateable positions. What reasonable person does not want these things. Yet she seems, when she makes one of these FANTASTIC statements, to be so proud of herself for making it without falling off the stage or drooling all over herself. She just kept stating all of these general "policy goals" while having ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY to speak with intelligence as to how to achieve them. Why in a "debate" would someone (opponent/moderator) not question her as to the steps that her ticket would take to achieve these goals. Isn't that what a "debate" is about? Most of us generally strive for the same things. Our differences "rear their head"(as Palin apparently likes to say) in what we believe are the prudent steps that we should take to achieve those goals. A little off point but...
October 3, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Throw in a "like such as" or two, and Governor Palin could easily serve as an acceptable stand-in for Caitlin Upton.
Of course we're all extremely happy to learn that there's a "safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry".
October 4, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink