That truly unpleasant feeling is known as second hand embarrassment.
I can’t believe some of these responses. How embarrassingly bad Palin performed in this interview is absolutely a sign of her being a bit stupid. And by bit, I mean, “possibly a lot,” but the jury is still out on that one.
A reasonably intelligent person can process information clearly and quickly, and give a coherent response. That she can hardly understand the question, gives answers not even loosely related to the question, and seems unable to think on her feet, shows an absolute lack of intelligence on her part. I don’t expect a detailed analysis of the intricacies of the Bush doctrine, I don’t even really expect you to know what it is. I expect you to give an answer that sounds better than one given by an inebriated foreign-exchange student. I’d rather her be ignorant than unintelligent.
She’s a politician, and a potential diplomat. Words are her greatest weapon and she has shown a complete inability to wield them.
And to the OP: While Bush may have set the bar pretty low, I’d be hard pressed to find an example of a politician looking as bad as he did in as little an amount of time as when he was asked about tribal sovereignty (Here) In roughly 20 seconds, he removes all doubt that he simply cannot think clearly.
Biden gets a pass, from me at least, partly because I have seen him give many interviews where he new his stuff and was able to explain even fairly complex stuff in an affable way, sometimes with very little warning that there is going to be an interview.
Another thing is that even when making these “gaffes”, I can understand what he is trying to say. He doesn’t get lost in a sentence. Also, when asked about some of the things later, like the claim his grandfather was a coal miner being brought up on the Daily Show, he is able to explain what mistake he made and face the music without being hostile.
And I did cringe when I heard the Roosevelt quote, but mainly because I think that most people are aware there was no television in 1929. The president most associated in people’s minds with the Great Depression is Roosevelt.
And I used scare quotes around gaffe above because I don’t agree that all of those are gaffes. Most are, not all.
I think our problem here is defining “smart”, as i see it there are 2 types of “smart”.
-
“Street” Smart : people with this kind of smart are effective in getting what they want, when they want it, can manipulate people and situations easily.
-
“Book” Smart : people with this kind of smart are good at taking the long view, can think about complex issues and have the intellectual curiosity to inform themselves about the world outside their immediate circle.
Now, a statesman must have a good amount of both types to succeed.
If he has only “Street” he is very good at winning elections and getting things done, but the things he gets done are often disastrous. (see Bush - Rove, Palin)
If he has only “Book” he has a very good idea of what to do, but cant get it done (see Carter)
I think Obama has a really good mix of both types of “Smart” and that, more than his position on issues or past history are the reason why,if i was an U.S. citizen i would vote for him. As it is i am limited to envy (north) americans and wish Obama had been born in Tierra del Fuego. 
Isn’t “THERE in the state that I am the executive of.” a more reasonable interpretation?
We are not the only ones: Kathleen Parker: After Interviews, Palin Should Bow Out | HuffPost Latest News.
I believe Ricky Ricardo would interpret this as:
Alaska you got some 'splainen to do!
While I’m not about to venture a guess about her intelligence (need more data), you’re missing the hardest thing about her interview:
She’s not *allowed *to say what she thinks.
Imagine if I told you, very seriously, that you HAD to answer that cars are red. That’s it - whatever they ask you about cars, just keep saying cars are red. So you go on a show, and someone asks you about the color of your car, “Oh, it’s a red car. Cars are red!” you say, cheerfully and faithfully.
“What about my car? My car is blue. Do you think all cars are red?” the interviewer asks.
Now you’re stuck. You may know very well that cars come in many colors, and some are red and some are blue. But you’ve been told over and over and over again by some very impressive people that you have to “Stay on message” and that the message is cars are red. So what do you say? “Um…uh…cars are red…”
You *look *like an idiot, because you’re trying to figure out how to force the answer into the party line.
An experienced politician has learned how to give answers that don’t violate the [del]Prime Directive [/del] message, but also sound like answers to the question. "Many vehicles come in an array of colors, and the choices that we have today are just staggering, indeed. While it’s true that cars are red, SUVs, pickups and subcompacts might occasionally be blue. But to complicate things further, people have very different optic sensors, which can give the appearance of blue to a red dominant purple. "
It’s a total weasel answer, sure. It’s still denying that cars come in any other color than red (unless they’re “subcompacts,” not “cars”). It’s playing No True Scotsman with more words. But it’s what an experienced politician does and does well.
It might seem like a shitty skill to cultivate, but who do you want at the table when discussing ceasefires and peace plans? The person who can bullshit a trigger happy dictator into believing what he wants to believe long enough to get his palace away from him, or the stammering puppet who stays on message even when that pisses people off?
Palin’s AG is suing to block the Alaska legislature’s “Troopergate” subpoenas.
Maybe she’s more qualified than we give her credit for . . . At any rate, she appears ready to step in on a moment’s notice and start defying Congressional investigations just like W does.
Good post WhyNot. Important point well illustrated.
All VP candidates, to some degree, are being handled. They have to follow the narrative of the ticket, rather than express themselves candidly. But Palin is being handled to a frightening degree.
One of the things that makes it frightening is that McCain is apparently being handled too. (Unless one believes that the smears coming from the campaign are reflections of his true soul.) Occasionally, it seems, he’ll assert himself with some bizarre gamble.
Well, I’m sure that if they’re elected they’ll revert to being independent mavericky types.
Sampiro- you’ve inspired me. I wasn’t going to say this till Election Night so as not to give “aid and comfort to the enemy”. 
I defended Sarah during the SDMB pile-on, especially when it got to be picking on damn trivial stuff (OMG!1! H3R CHuRCH H0$T3D JOOZ4JAIZUS!!! ANT1-S3MITE!!!)
I liked her for much the same reasons the liberal Dopers hated her.
But yeah, she’s in over her head. More of us on the Right are realizing this.
But having her step out wouldn’t help.
Here’s what she should do- pledge that if elected, she’ll do this-
the one Constitutional job description for the VP.
I wasn’t aware that Couric had moved to CNN, but I thought she did a good job. As she is known for a “cuddly” sort of persona, I imagine that weaker interview subjects go in thinking they can go through it and come out unscathed. But Katie was like a stuffed panda bear with a concealed stiletto… 
Huh?! From the OP: “So here’s the debate: has any politician ever looked worse in a shorter amount of time than Palin does here?”. Are you suggesting that because I inadvertantly typed “anyone” instead of “politician” that that somehow changes anything? Because if not, I am confused as to what you are getting at.
And just what is my POV? I defy you to find any POV in my post other than Euphonius Polemic’s understanding of tu quoque was incorrect. It appears that you have rashly assumed that I must support McCain/Palin. In fact, I do not. You might try reading a little more closely in the future. BTW, your suggestion that I was being disingenouse is insulting, and I would like an apology.
I think you are the first person I’ve seen on this board who admitted to changing their mind about Palin. Congratulations!
Now he knows what he musts do.
You’ll find the monk’s robe on the bureau. The blessed dagger is inside the pocket. I’d suggest wearing green socks- it’ll bring out a hint of color.
So, when Couric asked if we’re headed to another Great Depression, “Yes” was the party line?
That’s only HALF of the Constitutional job description of the VP. It’s the other half that scares the pants off me. And it should scare the pants off you too.
I never ruled out that she’s an idiot.
Georgia!..* Tirebiter*! She’s not insane!
This assumes you subscribe to insanity string theory, which I don’t necessarily. I mean, come on; *Batshit Physics *is like the *Popular Mechanics *of the study of lunacy, with all their wild theories and hallucinations-of-flying-car stories.
Much more reliable is Crazy-Ass Abstract. In the October issue, Dr. James K. Parmathan of the Stanford Institute for Studying People Who Are Absolutely Fucked In The Head states that previous scales for determining batshittitude (such as that used by elucidator) were likely low, due to misapprehension about the actual potential scale of batshittitude, and limitations in the technology of batshitometry. Using new measuring methods, Dr. Parmathan has recalibrated the entire scale of insanity measurement, allowing for measurements of nuttiness to be made almost down to the quantum level.
It’s a very exciting time for the study of crazy.