September 11, 2008

"I didn't hesitate, no," Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson.

"I answered him 'yes' because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate."

551 comments:

1 – 200 of 551   Newer›   Newest»
vbspurs said...

I can't wait. Give 'em hell, Sarah!

See you all for the Gibson interview. It's at 8 PM EST, yes?

P.S.: It seems "The Sarah" beehive is really catching on.

Cheers,
Victoria

chuck b. said...

Unequivocally, a better answer than the the recent statement by Joe Biden.

Doyle said...

Well if Sarah Palin says it, it must be true.

elliot said...

I watched the first couple clips from the interview, and I have to say, I don't think she comes across all that well (and I'm a fan).

Simon said...

"said the 44-year-old Palin, a governor who has been in office less than two years."

How much time has Obama spent in the office? He was elected four years ago, and started running for the Presidency about twenty minutes later. Even if you assume parity between Palin's gubernatorial duties and Obama's legislative duties (and there's no such parity for purposes of a Presidential election: hers are more relevant), I'd be willing to bet she's spent more time on the job in two years than he has in four.

vbspurs said...

I don't think she comes across all that well (and I'm a fan).

So far, so good, for me. Maybe you saw another clip, though.

And here is the schedule:

Thursday, Sept 11, 6:30 pm Eastern time - World News Tonight
Thursday, Sept 11, 11:30 pm Eastern time - Nightline
Friday, Sept 12, 7:00 am Eastern time - Good Morning America
Friday, Sept 12, 10:00 pm Eastern time - 20/20

rhhardin said...

Snap judgments : good idea or not?

o Good idea
o Bad idea

Roger J. said...

I for one cant wait until Sarah Palin and Joe Biden discuss energy policy. the hairless wonder is going to have his shorts handed to him.

And a total aside: Joe Biden, for all of his senatorial bullshit, has been blessed with a son who is serving his country. and that does speak well for Senator Biden as a father. I respect him for that. I wish both Beau Biden and Track Palin only the best in the service of their country. God bless them both.

Paddy O. said...

Thanks for that schedule, Victoria!

veni vidi vici said...

Look, ultimately she can hold her own against anyone, even Joe Biden, when it comes to attending the funerals of foreign leaders.

In other words, she's qualified to be vice-president of the USA.

Anything more that she (or Biden, or anyone) brings to the table is gravy. Let's not pretend otherwise, shall we?

veni vidi vici said...

Isn't it "Bo Biden"? Sort of like "Bo Bice" a few years ago?

"Stand up chuck!" LOL!

madawaskan said...

Elliott and Victoria-

Here is the link to the footage I saw-and-oooh boy-I am really hoping they decided to tease with the worst of it.

link

Is this the same footage that you guys are talking about?

UWS guy said...

I thought only Steven Colbert and Bush thought with their gut

How to access the Gut™

Some people have never listened to the agents of LIE and their connection to the Gut has never been stronger. However, some wayward souls reading this may be teetering on the brink of Fact and need to be brought BACK from the abyss of Godless Knowledge, which is closely associated with Books and Reading. In order to save you a few steps need to be taken. First, it goes without saying but it can never be said enough, Duty to God and George Bush must come first! Second, CLEAR YOUR HEAD! The head is an ungutty organ and will only lead you astray. One of the ways to clear your head is to clean - therefore, keep your house in a constant state of disarray; this will enlighten you.

vbspurs said...

Madawaskan, the video I linked to is the one I saw.

I am watching Charlie Gibson right now.

vbspurs said...

Gibson is being tough with her. These are not softballs here.

Sy said...

elliot,

Somehow, I don't believe that you were a fan of Palin. But I guess a guy can be anything he wants on a post to push his agenda.

elliot said...

Yeah, Mad, that's what I saw.


And here's my initial reaction.

chickenlittle said...

rhhardin said: Snap judgments : good idea or not?

Bad

Josh Parshall already has the whole interview neatly tucked into his world view over at TP-Memo.

Michael_H said...

I do hope Charlie Gibson will be equally condescending when he interviews Joe Biden. He's really talking down to her, and sneering over his glasses.

Roger J. said...

Since I dont have a TV at home, and there is a waltzing session at the local church, I will busy until 9. I suspect that this thread will fill up. God I don't miss TV

elliot said...

No, Sy, HUGE fan. I swear.

vbspurs said...

"We are friends of Israel". Take that, anti-semitic smears.

madawaskan said...

Oops sorry Elliot-with one "t"

Anyways now I see the link that Victoria left and that footage is better than the clip I saw.

vbspurs said...

Yes, he's sneering. He's professorial.

OOH! "In what respect, Charlie?". A little glimmer of toughness.

HELL BENT!

vbspurs said...

Wow, this is really badly editted.

Stephen Snell said...

I only saw the "ready" question, and it's a question just as appropriate for Obama. People are likely to notice the double standard.

And as O'Reilly has shown with Hill and Obama, tough interviews generally favor the interviewee.

vbspurs said...

"Blizzard of words", oy vey.

PeteDrum said...

Charlie Gibson has a teleprompter, she doesn't! Crock!

vbspurs said...

Commercial break. First thought. She looks like a hot shot Honour Student being quizzed by a snarky prof.

I can relate. I think a lot of people are saying the same thing, at home.

Sy said...

What's up with the camera angle? Is ABC afraid of showing her full face?

vbspurs said...

People have mentioned that on other blogs too. It's an odd angle.

dsquid said...

She's obviously nervous and consequently has been a bit choppy with some of her answers. The editing hasn't helped. ABC is cutting the interview up so that the questions and answers come rapid fire.

She's also saying "Charlie" a bit much. But not bad overall. I expect if you liked her before, you'll still like her, and if you didn't, well you won't.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Well... you can't say he wasn't tough on her.

Did she come off well?

I'm not sure. Might be her accent. On the other hand, she avoided stumbling into the more obvious traps he set for her.

Michael_H said...

Gibson did everything short of beginning his questions with "Excuse me, Miss...". Time Russert, may God hold his soul safe, would have done a far better interview, and smiled in the process.

madawaskan said...

Elliot-

Yep-I tend to agree with your assessment.

The angle is weird-not really helpful at all.

chickenlittle said...

@whomever:

Thanks but no thanks for that Hugo Chavez (Citgo) sponsored message.

vbspurs said...

I expect if you liked her before, you'll still like her, and if you didn't, well you won't.

I think that's about right. She didn't say anything glaringly awkward. She's never met any foreign leaders, is about the only one which might discomfit people.

And she's a lot more nervous than I had hoped she'd be. She also looks frumpier.

However, this makes her look a lot less cocky than on last Wednesday. If she had been winging it, and cocky, bad.

Matt said...

Would this be the softball interview we all expect?
BTW who cares about experience? We live in the age of American Idol. No substance, no real issues. Just next door neighbor hockey mom and guy who you want to drink beer with. That's America to the Right wing.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Well, that's about all you can ask for -- survival. Excel at a future one, survive this one.

Robin said...

I have to say my first reaction is---what the hell? Did Obama ever get interviewed like this? Charlie's not seeking to understand Sarah Palin's world view and learn about her perceptions of her strengths and weaknesses but rather, he's trying to trip her up with tricky questions. "Bush Doctrine?" WTF, I'm a internet/news junkie and I'm not sure what that is--is it what Charlie thinks it is or what Bush thinks it is? I close as I began---when has OBAMA--you the Dems presidential candidate ever been treated to an interview like this?

Ben (The Tiger) said...

(Was responding to Victoria, not Matt.)

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Robin --

Just as long as she gets through it without a gaffe, it makes her stronger.

It looks like she got through tonight's excerpt well enough.

Michael_H said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

We're at cross-purposes, Matt.

You see a Senator who is charismatic and well-spoken, and whose support comes from being a minority to a lot of minorities, and I see an empty suit who can't speak without stuttering, and who has a paper thin resume.

I don't think we are going to change our opinions any time soon.

Revenant said...

I do hope Charlie Gibson will be equally condescending when he interviews Joe Biden. He's really talking down to her, and sneering over his glasses.

True, but that's something any Republican national contender needs to be able to deal with. It isn't fair, but that's life. I was a bit annoyed by Gibson's claim that he was exactly quoting Palin's words, though. Her statement was:

we need to pray that our leaders, that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God

Gibson quoted only the bolded portion; doing so changes the context of the remarks from a statement of hope to a statement of fact. It is possible that Gibson himself never heard the full sentence, though, so the misdirection might not have been deliberate.

Gibson seemed confused by the distinction between (a) thinking that God has a plan and praying that our mission in Iraq is furthering it and (b) thinking that we're fighting a holy war. I don't think that's a distinction most Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter) would find confusing. The belief that God has a plan for the world is hardly controversial, and I thought Palin clearly explained that that's what she was talking about. Mind you, I think that's a load of hooey, but then I'm an atheist. Most Americans actually do believe in that stuff.

As for Palin's performance, from the clips I've seen she starts out shaky but gets more confident as she goes along. Not as good as we hoped, but not a disaster from what I can tell. Hopefully I'll get a chance to watch the whole thing tonight.

LoafingOaf said...

She was asked about the Bush Doctrine and had no iddea what Charlie Gibson was talking about.

She was asked about Pakistan and had no idea what to say but a bunch of B.S.

Embarassing for all the folks who have built a cult around Saint Sarah because she didn't abort a Downs Syndrome baby, looks hot with a gun, and eats mooseburgers.

Let's see if Althouse thinks Palin's empty-headed and B.S. answers on Pakistan make her feel more comfortable in Palin's hands than Obama's.

Michael_H said...

Ah crap. I'm going to delete my previous (tongue in cheek) posting. I can't pretend to be someone I'm not.

vbspurs said...

I close as I began---when has OBAMA--you the Dems presidential candidate ever been treated to an interview like this?

By the MSM? Never. By Bill O'Reilly, once.

However, I want her to get tough interviews. That's not a bad thing. Charlie Gibson is not to be feared. Putin is.

Harwood said...

Charlie Gibson's smug condescension was more than I could take. He sounded like a father talking down to his teenage daughter. I shut it off.

I'll learn all I need to know about Sarah without the help of impostors like Charlie Gibson. Is he qualified to be a network news anchor? Not in my book.

Anthony said...

How'd she look on the "exact words" stuff that Ace is all worked up about?

1jpb said...

Am I misunderstanding her concern about Russia controlling the flow of Russian fossil fuels? Are we trying to control their resources? If we are, should we keep that on the DL? You know, like saying that Iraq wasn't at all about oil.

This was at the end of the long transcript I read elsewhere.

Matt said...

She should know the Bush Doctrine. It is what the GOP uses now to control the world out there.

garage mahal said...

Not as good as we hoped, but not a disaster from what I can tell.

Who's we?

LOL.

vbspurs said...

Ooh, nice, she's getting personal and heated.

Revenant said...

I close as I began---when has OBAMA--you the Dems presidential candidate ever been treated to an interview like this?

Well, in all honesty I doubt the O'Reilly interview was a friendly one. But I didn't watch it myself, because watching Bill O'Reilly makes my allergic reaction to raging assholes flare up.

LoafingOaf said...

Repeating that line "We can not second guess Israel" like a programmed robot sounded pretty dumb too.

YEs, that's all she was tonight. A programmed robot. It was as if it didn't matter what the exact question was. If she heard "ISrael," one piece of scripted B.S. popped out. If she heard the word "Russia" in a question, another piece of scripted B.S. popped out. If she heard "Pakistan," the same. And she made sure to have practiced saying the last names of various word leaders.

In short, she was just bluffing.

vbspurs said...

Note to Gibson: Stay away from the kids. It brings out the mama bear and makes her look good.

AllenS said...

Let's talk about experience. Experience is gained by experience, but that doesn't mean you can't learn on the job immediately when faced a serious situation. It's like killing your first man. You have no experience, but when you have to do it, you do it. Experience is in one's heart and gut. You either got it, or you don't.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

If she can't stand up to Charlie Gibson, she can't run the country.

So it's fine, and she looks like she's handling it well enough.

For a first time out, she isn't terrible.

Stephen Snell said...

Pinching Loaf,

Obama's 2nd answer to the Russia-Georgia thing was to go thru the UN Security Council--he obviously didn't know the Russians have a veto. His first answer was moral equivalence. His 3rd answer was McCain's answer.

I'd bet that on her worst day Palin would reach the McCain answer by her 2nd move, not her 3rd.

LoafingOaf said...

Camille Paglia can keep reeling and getting wet over her. Just keep her out of the White House, thanks.

vbspurs said...

Are Pat Sajack and Vanna White interviewing her now?

"Everybody smile, it's just a game"

jdeeripper said...

Gibson seems contemptuous and like the typical journalist trying to prove to his media buddies that he's not going to let the mere politician put anything over on him.

The camera angle is a joke. It looks like something set up by high school kids for broadcast on public access TV at 6am on Sunday.

I think she needs to stand up more for McCain on the health issue. Show him some respect. He's a tough little bugger like his 96 year old mom.

The Dems act like he's gonna drop dead of skin cancer any minute.

Meanwhile Biden had the whole top of his head taken off and his brain operated on a few years back.

Revenant said...

"Not as good as we hoped, but not a disaster from what I can tell."

Who's we?

Myself and people whose opinions matter to me.

Not you, obviously.

vbspurs said...

Meanwhile Biden had the whole top of his head taken off and his brain operated on a few years back.

Yes, but the guy who is leading the ticket is a life-long smoker, and has neither parent living (one due to cancer, the other to being a drunkard who wrapped his car around a pole). None of this is as important as being 47 years-old.

AlphaLiberal said...

Sarah Palin urges to ger her war on with Russia. What a nut.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

Matt said...

AllenS said...
Let's talk about experience.

You're either joking or if not then making a good argument for both Obama and Palin. Which is it?

vbspurs said...

I'll be back for the Nightline interview at 11 PM. Whew, I feel a lot less nervous now.

Cheers,
Victoria

LoafingOaf said...

Congraulations to the Republican Christianist base. You have made this election such a joke it is feeling like a complete waste of my time to pay attention to the campaign. Fake outrage over lipstick on a pig? What a pathetic joke this all is. I'm tuning out the rest of the campaign except for the debates (to see more Palin bluffing and B.S.) and election day (when I'll vote for Obama). Have fun with the rest, y'all!

vbspurs said...

/11:30 EST!

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Sarah Palin said:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I can see how she could claim that to be a repeat of Lincoln's quote:

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

I highly doubt she was thinking of Lincoln when she said it in the church, but the statements are congruent.

Of course, someone who prays for their God to take a side in a war is a whole other issue for me.

UWS guy said...

ZPS: if you can't have your god rooting for you in a fight you should find a new god!

Stephen Snell said...

AL,

Do you know what a defense treaty is?

If a NATO member is attacked, and we don't do anything, then NATO is dead. It is a reasonable answer to say that we might need to go to war if by the terms of a treaty to which we are a signatory mandates us to render defense.

If you want us to bail on NATO, fine, but be more direct on that point. If you oppose UKR and Georgia joining NATO, that's also fine, but her answer was appropriate given the hypothetical.

At least she doesn't think the UN Security Council will can take action against Russia (don't cite Korea, Stalin chose to have the Soviets sit that one out--Putin (the real Dick Cheney*)could do the same, but it would be his choice).

*Putin is a real puppetmaster, not an imagined one.

LoafingOaf said...

Oh, and just as charlie Gibson began to examine her foreign policy expertise (and exposed her as having none) you could see her left eye twitch, revealing she was nervous inside. She was bracing herself, praying she could fake her way through it.

EDH said...

Palin should have said "experience" measured by length of service is meaningless compared to judgment when you look back at Biden's key foreign policy votes in the Senate.

Stephen Snell said...

Pinching Loaf's retirement from the comments was certainly brief.

But we should all be grateful for his amateur projection / mindreading.

avwh said...

Hey, LO -
does this mean the debates are over already?

Stephen Snell said...

It seems that one must parse or interpret to find screwups--no Eagleton or Gerry Ford blunders. So it's not a net negative for her, which, considering the pressure and tough / condescending questions, isn't bad.

I know a lot of Peace Corps vets who are idiots despite years overseas.

marvin said...

"Sarah Palin urges to ger her war on with Russia. What a nut."

Not really, her position was sanctions and other soft means if possible.

If you're referring to Article 5 of The North Atlantic Treaty, Obama took the same position vis-à-vis Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080303-obama_statement_128/

f said...

Wow, I've lost all respect for Charles Gibson. He is a smug fuck. "The Bush Doctrine?" From what I can tell, this was an umbrella term created by the NYT and other media outlets to describe Bush policies. And it seems like he got his definition from Wikipedia. Just come out and say, "Do you support Bush's policy of preemptive action?" This isn't AP History, you asshole.

Bldy said...

She didn't actually say that sentence about Isreal over and over. If you watched closely you could see her answers were more extensive but they edited it terribly.

Are they going to show this unedited on 20/20 Friday?

UWS guy said...

Sanctions on Russia, lol.

you and what army?

can we talk about how Rick Warren is now Sara Palin's personal spiritual adviser?

John Stodder said...

Sarah Palin urges to ger her war on with Russia. What a nut.

I'm just curious, Alpha Liberal, how you would like your candidate to answer a question about whether the NATO treaty is valid and something the US should be expected to honor?

Should she have said "No?" If so, explain why that would be a better answer.

And don't be disingenuous. You know damn well if she'd said "No," there would have been a general pouncing about her ignorance of the NATO treaty.

Revenant said...

Sarah Palin urges to ger her war on with Russia. What a nut.

Um, Alpha... if Russia invades a NATO member, yes we do need to fight them. That's the treaty. That why the treaty *exists*.

Sure, I don't happen to agree with the long-standing bipartisan consensus that bringing former Soviet bloc countries into NATO is a good idea. But if you think it is "nutty", both parties are chock full o' nuts.

Sy said...

There are no glaring gaffes and the liberals are running scared. ROFL. Of course war is absolute option if a country attacks a NATO country. Only a neophyte would not understand that.

chickenlittle said...

Come on AlphaLibeler, where's that confounded bridge meme you were trying to build to nowhere all day yesterday?

Come on trot it out!

Trot Trot!

Stephen Snell said...

N-A-T-O is a heavenly treaty,
Better treaties a nation's,
Senate couldn't ratify.

Revenant said...

Sanctions on Russia, lol. you and what army?

You don't need an army to impose sanctions. You might be thinking of a blockade.

LoafingOaf said...

Typical. The Althouse commenters are attacking Charlie Gibson because Saint Sarah didn't turn out to be so great after all. His questions were not just fair, they were for the most part very predictable. And that was the best she could do.

She'd better study harder before the debates!

Tonight she was like the student in one of Althouse's classes who gets called on and turns out to have only skimmed the commercial casenotes 15 minutes before class.

but, yeah, like I said. The lipstick on a pig nonsense showed me there's no use in paying attention to the daily goings-on in this presidential race. But you all seem to dig it, so enjoy!

Stephen Snell said...

AL,

Have you seen the bridge? Yes, the confounded one.

The Crunge. Lord have mercy.

Sy said...

Loafingoaf,

I think you are especially bitter tonight because Sarah Palin did not make any glaring gaffes you hoped she would make. ROFL.

Stephen Snell said...

Checking the Pinching Loaf Retirement Announcement Meter:

DING!

That's 2 in less than an hour.

D said...

My wife and I watched it. Sarah did not come across at her best, but she definitely did not make a major mistake and held her own. Charlie, however, came across as a pompous ass.

Yeah, yeah, I know he was just being objective (cough, cough, bullshit), but my wife, a 20 year fan of his from GMA, was very disappointed in how he handled the interview. She was under the impression that he was a nice guy because he was nice to all the people he interviewed. Until Sarah that is and it showed. It was an eye-opener for her and, I think, a lot of other women fans of GMA and Charlie.

End result: Sarah did okay and will only get better. Charlie sucked and damaged his image more than Sarah's.

And she did NOT say war was absolutely necessary if a NATO member was attacked. Only that the charter calls for all members to defend each other. It's a true, honest answer.

But then again, Dems don't know what true, honest is, do they?

Matt said...

This is the kind of interview where nothing changes. The Red states just get more red and the Blue states just get more blue. Frankly, she scares me.

And a note to 'f'; No, this is not AP history. It is about getting to know and question someone who may attain the the highest level attainable for a public official on this planet. So, yeah, I want tough questions and I want to know her view of the Bush doctrine. If she doesn't know that term she hasn't been paying attention.

Michael_H said...

LoafingOaf - Still threatened by women, aren't you.

f said...

Nope, not attacking Charlie Gibson because of his questions - rather his phrasing. The interview basically turned into a pop quiz of media tropes and misquoted accusations - "holy war?" Gibson DID NOT Quote her accurately. She did "Pray" (request, ask, hope, look it up) that God was on our side, she did not "State" that God is on our side.

UWS guy said...

Um...isn't praying that god is on our side still the exact opposite of Lincoln's quote?

f said...

Matt, the Bush Doctrine includes basically ALL of Bush's foreign policies. Look it up. So her answer was right on target for a question that was deliberately vague. I had no problem at all with her answer, I had a problem with the question.

LoafingOaf said...

Are you guys gonna call for a boycott of Charlie Gibson and ABC now? Media bias, I tell ya! He dared to ask her basic, predictable questions about Pakistan, Iran, Israel, and Russia. If he hadn't been so BIASED and had been a FAIR journalist he'd have asked her to trot out the Downs Syndrome baby and her recipe for mooseburgers. Then they'd have put on their parkas and gone shooting together. Instead he asked her about the Bush Doctine! Come on, Charlie, Saint Sarah hasn't gotten that far in her cramming yet!

I hope Michelle Malkin tells us how Charlie Gibson is secretly pro-terrorist and pro-Satan and must be forced off the air.

Stephen Snell said...

Matt,

Did you want tough questions for the 143 day Senator who didn't know Russia has a UN Security Council veto? Until O'Reilly, he went, what, 19 months without a tough interview?

Perhaps a competent executive, i.e. leader, in the VP chair who can apply her talents to a new position is better for foreign affairs than a clueless non-executive in the P chair?

John Stodder said...

Evidently, there is a consensus among many Obama supporters that any treaty which might require us to bring our military to bear in defense of an ally is "just words."

You're a "nut" or a "cocky whacko" if you actually take a military treaty on its face as a promise to do, um, military things.

I think this whole thing is yet another rake in the yard for Obama and the media to step on. Go ahead, characterize her answer as 'out of the mainstream.' Works great, until one of your guys has to answer the same question. Which will probably be during the debates.

Brent said...

Haven't seen any of it yet, but the still "sky-high", overly emotional derision coming at Sarah over this interview from the left / Democrat commenters here - loafingoaf is obviously still scared out of his gourd - and other sites make me feel that it is going to continue to work out great for McCain /Palin.

If she did so bad, then why is the left / Democrats still so worked up?

D said...

loafingoaf or whatever you are called:

It wasn't the questions, it was his demeanor. He came across as an unfriendly ass.

But, hey, if he thinks that wins him viewers more power to him.

f said...

UWS guy - yes, you're right. Sorry. Here's her statement: "Pray that our national leaders are sending our troops on a task that is from God."

Alex said...

Matt, the problem with asking "do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" is that it doesn't have a well-established meaning. Could you define the Bush Doctrine in a way that it makes sense to discuss your views on it in a 1 minute answer?

Stephen Snell said...

PinchingLoaf retirement meter remains at:

2
3 post-retirement posts in 1 hour.

Not even O'Reilly impugned (implicitly) OB's suitability for POTUS the way CG did to SP for VP. WTF.

Lt. Houk out.

chickenlittle said...

d: said End result: Sarah did okay and will only get better. Charlie sucked and damaged his image more than Sarah's.

For now, we are blessed that the BDS-impaired MSM are falling over each other to "out suck" each other at this game. For them it's not about Palin at all, it's about preening and survival of the fittest. The MSM is under existential threat.

LoafingOaf said...

LoafingOaf - Still threatened by women, aren't you.

And now the right-wingers turn out to be just like the Clintionoids of the 1990s. Dislike Hillary Clinton? You're afraid of a strong woman!

The right-wingers are also now hurling - in left-wing fashion - every ist and every ism at anyone who attacks McCain-Palin. You're ageist, sexist, blah blah blah.

No, Governor Palin has just not earned enough respect on foreign affairs to be someone we should be asked to take a risk on as Commander in Chief.

Sy said...

Um...isn't praying that god is on our side still the exact opposite of Lincoln's quote?

uws guy,

The problem was Gibson took the quote out of context. HE DIDN'T EVEN QUOTE THE WHOLE SENTENCE.

we need to pray that our leaders, that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God

UWS guy said...

Instead of a task from god, how about a task in our nations interest?

why should the father of three who's in the national guard be sent to foreign wars that god may or may not think is a good idea?

If you want to defend the Ukraine, do what George Orwell and Hemmingway did in Spain, go join THEIR fucking military.

Why would a libertarian support her?

Stephen Snell said...

PinchingLoaf is up to 4 post-retirement posts.

What has Obama done to be qualified to be CinC? Given a speech in Berlin in which he slagged Powell and Rice? Earned the support of foreigners--including those of enemy states? Shown his ignorance of the UN Security Council?

f said...

Stephen Snell - yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Really, what else is there? It's an incredibly scary thought.

UWS guy said...

It's a horrible use of Lincoln's quote. Lincoln's point was an anti-war one.

God does not send people on tasks to war.

LoafingOaf said...

Stephen, just finishing up in the thread. Have fun with the daily B.S. of this retarded presidential campaign. I'll check back after the first debate.

Sorry Saint Sarah didn't look very competent tonight. But I trust all the Saint Sarah worshippers will spend the rest of the week spinning it otherwise, becauise you're very invested in this little cult of personality you've been sucked into.

Fen said...

Hysterical. The Lefties that clamour for soft euro-diplomacy and "restoring" relations with the world don't even understand what NATO is.

Like when a Mondy Morning Quarterback gets foggy over the terms "post route" and "flats".

Alex said...

With Russia threatening to invade to re institute the Warsaw Pact again, WW III is a possibility. Whoever thought that the Cold War would resume? Reagan failed. The Soviet Bear is alive and kicking.

Sy said...

loafingoaf,

And I suppose Obama has enough foreign affair experience? At least Palin is not stupid enough to suggest to PASS a UN resolution, given that Russia has a veto vote.

UWS guy said...

Obama is possibly qualified to be CiC because he's recieved over 18 million votes by americans who like the idea.

So far Sara Palin has 1 vote.

Brent said...

Just saw the excerpts -

She did fine, even very good.

No worries!

Prediction: She'll be great on meet the Press.


Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not one left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

f said...

Another thing - that was the worst edited interview I have ever seen. They must have STILL BEEN EDITING midway through the broadcast, which is why they bumped the other piece to the end. As someone else said - ABC, wait a day and do it right. Otherwise you look foolish.

vbspurs said...

Why does Chris Matthews have to be such an asshole?

He, and his two guests had a decent run-down of the Palin/Gibson interview. Each brought out his point well, including Matthews.

But then at the end, he couldn't contain himself, and mentioned something about sending the Alaskan National Guard to attack Russia. "Hey boys, guess what is going to happen now" (words along those lines).

And then, AND THEN, he comes out with:

"More later on Sarah's Appalling...Sarah Palin's words".

Watch it. Watch his pause, and cynical little smile, similar to when he pointedly paused after Hillary and "count-ry" that time.

As a reporter, okay. But what a joke of a man he is.

Stephen Snell said...

Loaf,

Fair enough.

But seriously, I think the word retarded could verge into pigstick territory, so let's avoid it like a deadly disease.

chickenlittle said...

UWS guy said: Obama is possibly qualified to be CiC because he's recieved over 18 million votes by americans who like the idea.

What's with the qualifier "possibly"?

Alex said...

Well if you listen to loafingoaf and uws, Palin was an absolute disaster in this interview.

UWS guy said...

I say "possibly" because it will be determined on Nov. 4th...

Brent said...

Just saw the excerpts -

She did fine, even very good.

No worries!

Prediction: She'll be great on meet the Press.


Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not one left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Stephen Snell
Did you want tough questions for the 143 day Senator
Yes, absolutely. Just so long as they aren't 'gotcha' questions. Remember it was ABC and Gibson who asked Obama gotcha questions for 40 minutes in one of the debates.

Alex
Bush Doctrine
The easy answer is to point out that it is not well a well known term and then make the interview clarify what he means. That said, I am not sure the Bush Doctrine is that vague.

Fen said...

Hmmm. The smear merchants that have been telling us lies about Palin don't think she did so good.

Fascinating.

D said...

God does not send people on tasks to war.

Did you ever READ the Bible?

John Stodder said...

I just looked at the clip on the Bush Doctrine, and here's what I think, based on some other comments she made concerning the war in Iraq.

It's not that she didn't know what it was. It's that she's not totally sold on it. She wanted to couch her disagreement carefully.

HuffPo, where I saw the clip (the story hasn't run here on the west coast) cuts her off in mid-answer, because they're focus is trying to prove that Palin is ignorant. So, of course, being the fair impartial people that they are, they edit her in such a way that artificially helps make their point.

But that aside, from what I did hear, I don't think Palin actually does believe in preemptive war in the way Bush articulated it. I don't think she would have invaded Iraq if confronted with the choice Bush was confronted with. Perhaps her role as a military Mom is a factor in her judgment on the issues of war and peace.

She does clearly suggest that the election of herself and McCain will bring a new team that will learn from Bush's mistakes. Did Gibson follow up on her "mistakes" comment?

Put this together with her fervent advocacy of using Alaska's energy resources for the good of the US, and I suspect you've got someone here who wants to drill instead of fight. No blood for oil -- when we've got plenty right here!

Can liberals handle someone who agrees with them on war, but refuses to go along with their illogical, inconsistent refusal to utilize our own resources?

jdeeripper said...

UWS guy said...can we talk about how Rick Warren is now Sara Palin's personal spiritual adviser?

Yes, please.

Let's give America a choice between Rick Warren and Barack Obama's 20 year spiritual adviser and father figure Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.

And let's also compare John McCain's foreign policy experience with that of the community organizer from Chicago.

Sounds good to me.

Anonymous Blogger said...

1. Her answers were nuts.

a. We don't second-guess Israel. Even if it nukes Iran. And she repeated second-guess so many times she obviously lacked any substantive understanding. She was just repeating catch-phrases she'd been told to utter.

b. We invade Pakistan, whenever we feel like it.

c. Nuclear war with Russia is okay if they pull another Georgia.

d. She didn't second-guess her own inexperience when McCain asked her to run.

2. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. How could you not know what the Bush Doctrine is? You're a Republican running for Vice President! Nuts!

vbspurs said...

Not one left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

Yeah, I saw that the Kooks weren't happy they couldn't nail her.

But there are THREE more excerpts to come.

Here's the Presidential Forum. I wonder what Obama and McCain will have to say, but still appear decorous.

UWS guy said...

Let me change that then. The god the founding father's referenced and whom Lincoln invoked is not the god of the old testament.

He is the god of the enlightenment. Prometheus is the titan Jefferson, Washington, and others said their prayers to.

Brent said...

Just saw the excerpts -

She did fine, even very good.

No worries!

Prediction: She'll be great on Meet the Press.


Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not one left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

John Stodder said...

Remember it was ABC and Gibson who asked Obama gotcha questions for 40 minutes in one of the debates.

Whoah. That's ridiculous.

You're talking about the debate where he said he would raise cap gains taxes even if they resulted in less revenue?

I don't think that was a gotcha question. I think Obama gotcha'd himself.

vbspurs said...

. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

No, Gibson was trying to connote her with Bush in the minds of viewers.

She dodged it expertly, by asking Gibson to refine the question.

erniecu73 said...

I didn't watch the entire thing, but I think she did pretty well. The left hasn't pounced on the Pakistan response as I thought. Then again, their Messiah was advocating bombing Pakistan not too long ago.

Alex said...

Victoria - do you have a transcript of the interview?

AlphaLiberal said...

Don't miss Sean Hannity acting like a complete, arrogant jerk. You thought he was bad before? Man, this guy makes school yard bullies look like high-mined intellectuals.

As far as Palin, she's belligerent and dangerous. I apologize for saying McCain-Palin are the same as Bush-Chjeney. They're worse!

Revenant said...

I want to know her view of the Bush doctrine.

The problem there is that nobody, Bush included, follows "the Bush doctrine". It is a nebulous term, which is why serious policy discussions don't usually involve it. :)

Anonymous Blogger said...

No, Gibson was trying to connote her with Bush in the minds of viewers.

She dodged it expertly, by asking Gibson to refine the question.


No. She did not. She did not know what it was. She just repeated her phrases about Islamic terrorists and hellbent on destruction of America and claimed that was her understanding of Bush's policy. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. He had to tell her what it was.

AlphaLiberal said...

"Then again, their Messiah was advocating bombing Pakistan not too long ago."

Really? Do back that up. Let's see where he advocates bombing Pakistan.

Another right wing liar.

Brent said...

But there are THREE more excerpts to come.

Don't worry - if ABC had something they truly believed was damaging to Palin, do you think they would embargo that to a Friday night?

Again, relax:



Just saw the excerpts -

She did fine, even very good.

No worries!

Prediction: She'll be great on Meet the Press.


Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not one left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

vbspurs said...

The forum will be like the Saddleback one?

30 minutes, this time, with each. Brit Hume to host it.

I'm off to get some coffee and leave it recording.

Cheers,
Victoria

Anonymous Blogger said...

The problem there is that nobody, Bush included, follows "the Bush doctrine". It is a nebulous term, which is why serious policy discussions don't usually involve it.

No. As Gibson noted, there was a policy statement put out that was on the White House website detailing the Bush Doctrine of preemption. Everyone and their mother knows that the Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of preemptive strike. It was discussed thoroughly in the run-up to the Iraq War. Palin simply didn't know what it was.

AlphaLiberal said...

It's hilarious that Republicans try to tell us she's ready to be President, to have her finger on the button.

But she's not ready for an interview unless it's one of the most Republican-friendly interviewers outside of Fox News.

Sarah Palin is belligerent, dogmatic and dangerous.

mcg said...

Go read this article on factcheck.org; specifically, "Obama's Historical Revision."

Opening line: "Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda."

And his key quote: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

f said...

Anonymous Blogger -

a) No, we do not second guess israel. Even Obama agrees with that.

b) that is NOT what she said. Stop lying. Gibson wanted her to say that. But absolutely, if tribal areas are harboring taliban who are threatening areas in afganistan, then YES, we bomb.

c)Again, Stop lying. She said war with Russia is a possibility IF Georgia were a member of NATO, which it's not. That war would likely be conventional, because even Putin doesn't want his country incinerated. She did not advocate nuclear war.

d) Of course she didn't. Her experience, equal to that of Teddy Roosevelt at his start on the national stage, is adequate.

Brent said...

Everyone and their mother knows that the Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of preemptive strike.

I didn't know.

And golly, I've got 2 Masters Degrees.

And I support W.

Wow!

vbspurs said...

He had to tell her what it was.

You either do not know what a debate gotcha question is, or you want to believe she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

The fact that he had to condenscendingly repeat it was promulgated in 2002, as if a professor to a student, showed precisely his attitude towards his interviewee.

She was having none of it.

But by all means, set the bar lower. She'll knock Biden on his ass with such low expectations.

Revenant said...

The god the founding father's referenced and whom Lincoln invoked is not the god of the old testament.

That's obviously incorrect. The Deistic god favored by many of the founders did not concern himself with human morality or judge human behavior; the god Lincoln invoked did. The God Lincoln mentioned was the Christian God -- as would be expected, since Lincoln was speaking to Christians.

Alex said...

It seems she did decently. She'll only get better at this. Besides it also has to be noted that Charlie Gibson is a flaming left-winger who doesn't believe in asking fair questions. He had an agenda.

Matt said...

John Stodder
The 21st Democratic debate in April on ABC was most definitely the gotcha debate. By that I mean they spent 40 minutes asking questions ripped from National Enquire headlines. They didn't get to the substanative stuff that affect you and m until the end. Then, yes, the captial gains question was fair game - although it doesn't affect me. You maybe? I'm all for tough questions. I hate the personal stuff that avoids the issues.

vbspurs said...

Judy Woodruff to host, not Brit. I'm guessing McCain won it first. Well I'll stay for the moment.

Alex said...

AlphaLiberal - why is O-Drama qualified to have his hand on the proverbial nuclear button?

Mortimer Brezny said...

The Bush Doctrine has its own wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Simon said...

Revenant brings up an important point that deserves scrutiny - Gibson dowdified the quote he threw at Palin!

erniecu73 said...

AL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

Brent said...

Just saw the excerpts -

She did fine, even very good.

No worries!

Prediction: She'll be great on Meet the Press.


Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not ONE left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.

Mortimer Brezny said...

The fact that he had to condenscendingly repeat it was promulgated in 2002, as if a professor to a student, showed precisely his attitude towards his interviewee.

Uh, no. She simply wasn't prepped for the question, so she couldn't answer the question. She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, so he had to tell her so he could proceed to his next question.

George said...

What will this day be like, I wonder.
What will my future be, I wonder.
It could be so exciting
To be out in the world to be free!

I've always longed for adventure
To do the things I've never dared!

The courage to serve them with reliance
Show them I'm worthy
While I show them I'll show me!
Let them bring on all their problems

Somehow I will impress them!
I will be firm but kind!

I have confidence the world can all be me!

Revenant said...

Everyone and their mother knows that the Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of preemptive strike.

Except that it isn't.

The doctrine of preemptive strike is just one aspect of "the Bush doctrine". Another part (as noted in the linked article) was that Afghanistan's sheltering of terrorists gave us the right to invade them even though Afghanistan itself never committed an act of war against America. There's more and more beyond that.

Does Obama's support for the invasion of Afghanistan -- a country which neither threatened us nor committed an act of war against us -- mean that Obama supports the Bush doctrine? Thank about it.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I didn't know.

And golly, I've got 2 Masters Degrees.

And I support W.


Are you running for Vice President?

Synova said...

It's not as though the question was completely out of the blue.

In the Cspan (?) interviews she's asked about running for VP. She knew people were talking about her in that role. She answered without hesitation or equivocation that at some point she'd like to serve at a national level but didn't address the question of would she if McCain asked her. She just said that she couldn't imagine being asked, and laughed.

She may not have been expecting the question but she *had* thought about it before hand.

Mortimer Brezny said...

The doctrine of preemptive strike is just one aspect of "the Bush Doctrine". Another part (as noted in the linked article) was that Afghanistan's sheltering of terrorists gave us the right to invade them even though Afghanistan itself never committed an act of war against America. There's more and more beyond that.

Fair enough. But she didn't know any of that. Or say any of that. Because she didn't know what it was.

Mortimer Brezny said...

a. We don't second-guess Israel. Even if it nukes Iran. And she repeated second-guess so many times she obviously lacked any substantive understanding. She was just repeating catch-phrases she'd been told to utter.

Yes, I noted this, too. She just kept saying, "We don't second-guess Israel," as if she had no actual understanding of policy and was just robotically saying what she had been prepped to say.

Brent said...

'

Seems to me the Palinsanity that has struck our Democrat and left leaning friends is heading toward the incurable stage.

Seems that the anti-Palin commenters here are constantly being schooled by their betters. Rev just gave an illustration in countering the incomplete and disingenous left wing.


This is so delicious! Democrats are peeing on themselves all over America! LOL!

AlphaLiberal said...

This is stunning. Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, but she know she likes it. Can't say why. She looks frightened.

What a reckless, terrible, politically opportunistic choice for a VP candidate by John McCain.

Must get out the vote for Obama-Biden!

Gibson's stock does edge slightly higher.

D said...

Fair enough. But she didn't know any of that. Or say any of that. Because she didn't know what it was.

How do you KNOW she did not know any of that? She made Charlie be specific because if she answered a broad question with a specific answer he could do a gotcha moment. And don't think that was not what he had planned.

She made him get specific and then she answered.

She looked good - he did not.

John Stodder said...

Y'know, as much as both her fans and her enemies want this interview to be something it wasn't, the "get real" side of me says, I would have been shocked if her foreign policy answers were anything but tentative, and that shouldn't be a problem for anyone. In this kind of thing, modesty is called for.

If perchance she becomes president, she won't be in a vacuum seal like this interview was conducted. She'll be making decision based on the best advice this great country can provide her because, in such a circumstance, only the wingnuts would be rooting for her to fail in the way Gibson obviously was.

The key thing is to judge her instincts, which struck me as, if anything, more cautious and less militaristic than McCain's or Bush's.

Revenant said...

Fair enough. But she didn't know any of that. Or say any of that. Because she didn't know what it was.

Gibson didn't know what it was, either; he thought it was just the doctrine of preemptive strike. Others in this thread have made the same mistake. The reason they made that mistake is that different people use the term "Bush doctrine" to mean different things. That's why the question was a bad one.

The relevant point, obviously, is that Palin was able to discuss the actual foreign policy and military issues involved. :)

Mortimer Brezny said...

How do you KNOW she did not know any of that? She made Charlie be specific because if she answered a broad question with a specific answer he could do a gotcha moment. And don't think that was not what he had planned.

She made him get specific and then she answered.



No. She said something that made no sense, so he clarified what the Bush Doctrine was and moved on to his next question. He should have asked, "Do you know what the Bush Doctrine is?" But he probably didn't because if he had, McCain's camp would have pulled the second day of the interview. Didn't you notice all of the jump cuts? This interview was edited into coherence. I would love to see the unedited video. I bet she was blathering all over the place.

f said...

Alpha, you might as well have linked to the DNC website. The Huffington Post has no credibility.

Sy said...

The Obamabots are hysterical now. They had expected some major gaffes from Palin. Palin did not make any!

Mortimer Brezny said...

The relevant point, obviously, is that Palin was able to discuss the actual foreign policy and military issues involved.

Actually, no. What she said was a repetition of her rhetoric about hellbent this and that and Islamic jihadists attacking Americans. She didn't actually discuss any foreign policy and military issues in her answer. Her answer was non-responsive. I sincerely doubt that non-committed independents saw the interview the way you did. She gave some really bad answers, man.

Mortimer Brezny said...

The Obamabots are hysterical now. They had expected some major gaffes from Palin. Palin did not make any!

I think not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is qualifies as a major gaffe.

Revenant said...

She just kept saying, "We don't second-guess Israel,"

I look forward to Obama's statement that his administration will be imposing our solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict on the Israelis. That ought to play well with the Jewish vote.

erniecu73 said...

And, Mortimer, did you?

Most people ran to Wikipedia or Google as soon as the question was asked. Is Obama familiar with it? If so, why hasn't he mentioned it? And why would only people running for office be familiar with it? Why do we hold them to a higher standard than ourselves? Aren't we creating a professional political class this way? Doesn't that defeat one of the most important principles of democracy that anyone can be elected to public office, any public office? Aren't we detaching this political elite from the people and therefore nullifying the government from the people and by the people?

Alex said...

I noticed AlphaLiberal didn't answer my previous question about why Obama is qualified to have his finger on the nuke trigger?

olly oxen said...

She did fine - far better than I have ever seen Obama do - and she's not running for president!
And to all those who are blathering about the "Bush Doctrine" - no she didn't know what he was referring to. Neither did I. The Bush Doctrine includes all of Bush's foreign policies, starting with, but not close to being limited to, preemptive strike. So when she said "Bush's worldview?" She was correct. But Gibson wanted her to define it for him, like a petulant high school teacher.

Revenant said...

I think not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is qualifies as a major gaffe.

Yes, but you've had Obama's dick in your mouth for the last nine months. Obviously you think his opponents are horrible. You thought Hillary Clinton was overtly racist, too.

Mortimer Brezny said...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215981.php

Other people see it that way, too.

AlphaLiberal said...

Are you saying Huff Post made up that video? Really?

Here's John McCain partying down with international celebrities and an international con man, Raffaello Follieri, on his birthday. This was in Montenegro. (Not that John McCain is an elitist or dishonrable or anything).

Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.

Alex said...

erniecu73 said...

And, Mortimer, did you?

Most people ran to Wikipedia or Google as soon as the question was asked. Is Obama familiar with it? If so, why hasn't he mentioned it? And why would only people running for office be familiar with it? Why do we hold them to a higher standard than ourselves? Aren't we creating a professional political class this way? Doesn't that defeat one of the most important principles of democracy that anyone can be elected to public office, any public office? Aren't we detaching this political elite from the people and therefore nullifying the government from the people and by the people?

7:18 PM

He wants us to have a Brussels-style government. A super-elite governing us. The upside is they are all policy-wonks.

Alex said...

I noticed AlphaLiberal didn't answer my previous question about why Obama is qualified to have his finger on the nuke trigger?

chickenlittle said...

Alpha Libeler said: Must get out the vote for Obama-Biden!

In all seriousness, I must say I think you're secretly working for McCain, though you'd never admit it, though I think you know what I mean.

Your arguments shrivel and vanish under examination. Unless you start consuming some serious intellectual sustenance, you will, as my mother used to say, dry up and blow away.

Mortimer Brezny said...

You thought Hillary Clinton was overtly racist, too.

No, I didn't. All I did was defend the plasuibility of Ann's read of the 3 a.m. ad. I know what the Bush Doctrine is. And I voted for Bush because of it in 2004!

Alex said...

I noticed AlphaLiberal didn't answer my previous question about why Obama is qualified to have his finger on the nuke trigger?

garage mahal said...

The doctrine of preemptive strike is just one aspect of "the Bush Doctrine

This assumes there was something to "preempt". There wasn't. "Preemtive Strike" is a completely misleading way to describe invading Iraq. Just one of those little nagging things like confusing "lose" with "loose" I feel compelled to correct.

Stephen Snell said...

McCain shook hands with a con man. Obama worked closely with a terrorist. Another winning issue for the Dems.

The Bush Doctrine was a trap--had she jumped into an answer, CG would have chosen a different definition for his followup, and then asked whether someone who didn't know that could say she was qualified.

I think it was UWS (I might be way off on this) who implied that running for President made Obama more qualified than Palin. It's the only decent argument that suggests that the Dem POTUS candidate is better qualified than the GOP VP candidate.

That's pretty revealing.

Brent said...

I noticed AlphaLiberal didn't answer my previous question about why Obama is qualified to have his finger on the nuke trigger?

Easy answer:

He can't.

He just throws mud, and hopes something, anything sticks.

Michael Caine(Alfred the Butler) in Batman:

"And some men set fire to things just to watch them burn".

erniecu73 said...

Mortimer, never, in the history of this country (correct me if I am wrong) has a presidential doctrine been named while its promulgator was still in office. The Monroe Doctrine was not known as such until at least 1845, and that one was a much concise one.

Just because there is an article in Wikipedia under that name, or because it is mentioned among certain academic circles, it doesn't mean it is actually known as such by a large number of people. I think that clinging to this silly point to make Sarah Palin seem stupid is very weak, and more than anything, counterproductive.

I predict that many people will have the same answer "I didn't know either", and those poking the fun will appear as insufferable pompous twits.

John Stodder said...

I think not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is qualifies as a major gaffe.

Give us the quote where she says she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.

One basic requirement for a gaffe is, the candidate has to actually say the thing they're accused of saying.

Gibson: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

Gibson: "Um er, well, what do you interpret it to be?"

Palin: "His worldview?" (i.e. are you asking me what I think of Bush's worldview?)

Gibson: "No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."

Palin: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism."

How is that "not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is?" A more reasonable reading would be that she was trying to get Gibson to clarify what was a pretty lame question to begin with.

Mortimer Brezny said...

She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Alex said...

I still don't get it. Why is Obama running against Palin? Isn't he supposed to be running against the GOP Presidential candidate? What's his malfunction? Not very presidential if you ask me to not even know who you're running against.

*filed under "Why Obama Fails" #343

Terry said...

I didn't think Palin or Gibson were all that great, but neither were bad. The interview just wasn't much - and the editing and camera work were *awful*, and added to the awkwardness.

Palin was not comfortable, but answered well enough. She danced around invading Pakistan, as she should. This is actually diplomacy, which is preferred to running for POTUS by saying you'll invade an ally (no matter how dubious) outright (duh).

Gibson was a smug SOB. The peering over the glasses thing is really bad, but the tone went with it. He misquoted Palin and claimed it was "exact". He owes America and Palin a correction and apology for that.

For Palin's part, she answered how I wanted to hear - God does not drive her decision making, her faith simply drives her to pray that her decisions are right. Despite attempts to paint her as such (library lies, creationism lies, etc.), she does not seem to be in fundie territory.

She's going to have to get through many more interviews, so long as she can avoid major gaffes she'll only improve. It took Obama 19 months to have a tough interview (Fox), Palin had roughly two weeks. She did OK, but no home run tonight.

Brent said...

`

Again - the BEST way to know Palin did good in the interviews? :

Browsed some 2000 comments on the left wing blogs and ABC News open thread - Not ONE left leaner or Democrat is breathing a sigh of relief.




`

rhhardin said...

Obama says ``put lipstick on a pig'' is a common expression in Illinois.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 551   Newer› Newest»