Several things bothered me about her interview. In her first media interview, she managed to make a case for two more wars. Also, she seemed a little uneducated on some issues that a vp nominee, especially this close to the election, should know (i.e. Bush doctrine). She also avoided answering questions and stuck to her talking points on several occasions (i.e. Israel), although I guess this is a pretty typical politician's strategy. Oh, and I was really annoyed that she pronounces nuclear the Bush way - nucUlar.
By the way, I'm on the West Coast, so I haven't seen the entire interview yet. I may have more to add tomorrow.
I have always voted Republican, but for obvious reasons, am no longer willing to trust Republicans. I like some things about McCain, but I'm not sold. There are a lot of things I don't like about Obama, but I like Biden, for the most part. When McCain chose Palin as a running mate, I thought he was crazy. But then I started to see that she is a very intelligent, experienced person. When I saw her interview the other night, it scared me to death. I could see us getting into war with Russia. She seems to be totally uninformed about several issues (and I also hate the way she pronounces nuclear). She seems to be ready to carry on just as George Bush has for the last eight years. :eek:
I am also disgusted by the number of Hillary fans who have, according to the polls, jumped on the Palin bandwagon. This makes it so obvious that many women are only looking to vote for a woman, regardless of what she believes in.
I've always believed that every person needs to vote if they want to have any say in the issues. But I have not seen anyone who deserves my vote. I feel like the voters should boycott the vote until we come up with decent candidates that can be trusted to get our country on the right track again.
Charles Krauthammer, who first coined the term, "Bush Doctrine" wrote an article in the Washington Post, taking Charlie Gibson to task for his question. Krauthammer says it was Gibson who got it wrong, not Palin.
I quote:
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. "
I found the interview very interesting. I personally like Sarah Palin and think that she is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stifling election. It really irritated me that Charlie Gibson asked her about how she could be a mother and the vice president (I'm not quite sure how he worded the question). He would never have asked a male candidate how they could be a father and vice president. The fact of the matter is that parents can be leaders. I wish the media would quit focusing on the fact that she's a mother and focus on her ability to be a leader.
As for her qualifications, yes, I think that she is inexperienced but I think that she is intelligent and driven. I have no doubt that she will be a good leader and not a status quo politician. And that is just what we need in Washington.
I don't think the Bush Doctrine question was a big deal... so Palin didn't get it... so what. It was everything else that she didn't get that I found upsetting.
I am also disgusted by the LIES that the McCain campaign is using in their ads. For example Ms. Reformer has requested $200 million dollars in earmarks for Alaska in this year alone. Alaska gets more money this way, per person than any other state. Yet they claim that she is above all this.
She's a soundbite not a serious candidate.
We got Bush because he seems like a guy that America would like to have a beer with... Palin seems to be a female version of that kind of person. Give me an "elitist" any day. I'll take a Harvard grad (who was not a legacy) and a VP with credentials. I would hope that the American dream has respect for education and experience and sees beyond soundbites.
I don't think any of the candidates have respect for the public school system. Obama wants to push merit pay for teachers and McCain wants to revamp NCLB. Neither plan is going to help with the problems we face in public education today.
There are countless stories of amazing people who do great things in this country with little experience. Sarah Palin is just as qualified as the other candidates, if not more. She has led a city and a state. Obama, McCain and Biden have been Washington insiders for a long time and all of them play the Washington game of politics, despite how they want to portray themselves in the media. A Harvard or Yale education does not guarantee that a person is going to be a good leader. Sarah Palin has made mistakes, but so have the other candidates. I think we have to look at her overall ability to make decisions and lead people.
I'm shocked and disappointed that anyone, especially an educator, would not have appreciation for the effort and ability needed to EARN a Harvard or Yale degree. OF COURSE, formal education isn't everything but as educators we, of all people, should see the value! It we don't that might be the reason that our schools are in trouble.
One of the most disgraceful things about our current president, to me, was his "Look at me... a C student" attitude... mocking and denigrating education.
I think McCain/Palin are more of the same. After 8 years of this bad joke, I'm ready for a REAL change.
I am amazed that an educated candidate is called an elitist.
SusaninNJ - I do value an education and hold Harvard and Yale graduates in the highest esteem. However, having a degree from a University does not automatically make you fit to lead anyone. I value a person's integrity, courage, and ability to use common sense to evaluate a situation and make the best possible decision for all involved.
I personally think that Obama is the scariest candidate because he has groomed himself for this bid for the White House. When he was a member of the Illinois state senate he voted - "Present but not voting" more than any other member. He didn't wan to take a stand on issues that might give him an unfavorable voting record.
I prefer to vote for someone who has taken a stand and made a decision. For me, it's okay to admit you make a mistake and change your mind on an issue. But not voting should not be an option.
As you pointed out, our current president was only a C student, and he's still called a Yale and Harvard Graduate. Did his education help him to be a better leader? Having an education is important, but it does not guarantee that a person can make good decisions.
Only one candidate has shown enough faith in the public school system.
The vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket sends her children to public school and began her foray into politics as a member of the PTA.
Even some posters on this website would prefer a president who has graduated from elite private schools rather than a graduate from from a public school like the University of Idaho or the US Naval Academy.
Much as I respect students who can get into (or even afford) elite private schools in this country, I would hate to think that we would judge our political leaders based not on their acts, but by what private or public school they were able to get into at age 17 or 18.
P.S. John Kerry's 4 year average at Yale? 76 George Bush? 77
Question about how being so close to Russia has given insight into it's actions lately...she answered something about being able to see Russia from there...
We should not "second guess" Israel? Never?
"Don't blink" mentality...I'd hope for someone who would stop and think about many factors before acting on a decision.
I'm sure she's intelligent, but I'm also sure she's NOT ready for this job.
Apparently ABC news edited Sarah Palin's answers in such a way as to make her appear to be favorable to war. I really can't quote the whole thing, but I'll snip a short sample and leave the link, if you're interested.
Bolded parts were edited out of the original televised interview.
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Question about how being so close to Russia has given insight into it's actions lately...she answered something about being able to see Russia from there...
I love that! If I drive 10 minutes from my house, I can see Canada. Actually, at one time my grandparents owned a home where I could just look out the window and see Canada.
Guess I'd be pretty good at international relations tooLOL .
Thank you for the transcript. Sorry, but her answers are not intuitive and did not show any knowledge of a specific plan to help the situation. Perhaps her being unprepared is more the fault of the McCain staff. In any case, if you'd watch Obama's response to Bill O'Reilly's almost exact question, you'd see quite a difference in leadership capability and awareness of international relations. You can see the clip on O'Reilly's website.
Here is just a thought. Several are all about Palin because she is a " breath of fresh air". Mccain and she have already stated that they will stand firm on their beliefs and will veto any legislation that does not match with these beliefs. While I do respect that because too many today don't, it also concerns me as to what will actually get accomplished. That has been an issue with Bush. Often congress is blamed for not doing this or that, but I have learned through a friend who is very politcally savy that usually congress will not vote yes because this group or that have attached things in the small print. Both parties do it, and this often why legislation fails. Or congress works hard they hammer out issues but it isn't exactly what the president thinks and wishes, so the veto power is used. There has to be some compromise or little will get accomplished.
To me a true breath of fresh air would be a president who would simply let go of party ties and make decisions with their good common sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by her answers were not intuitive. But I do think that the leadership capability is in the eye of the beholder. And I do think that inferring that Palin would only appear to be competent with an adequate briefing from McCain isn't a very nice comment.
Also, an interview of this type is rarely a good place to get into specifics. They usually end up on the cutting room floor in favor of soundbites, even if the interviewer doesn't have an agenda. I'm not sure Obama was all that more specific than Palin, even so.
She says (looking at the whole interview) that we need to put pressure on Russia. Obama says we have to put pressure on Russia through its Moscow millionaires. Hardly more informative. Oh, and get our energy policy straight. (What would that involve? Who knows.)
OBAMA: Look, I mean, there are two things where we can have some leverage over Russia. No. 1 is that commercially, they are tied up with Europe, and they're increasingly integrated. Their stock market has taken a beating since they went into Georgia.
O'REILLY: Yes, but Putin does not care.
OBAMA: Well, Putin may not care, but there are a whole bunch of folks that…
O'REILLY: That do?
OBAMA: ...a whole bunch of billionaires in Moscow who do care, right. So that's a leverage point. And the Europeans can be helpful in applying that leverage point. That's point No. 1.
The second thing that we have to do is actually defensive. We've got to get our energy policies straight.
While I've posted replies to other peoples opinions, I haven't stated one of my own, although it's probably obvious. ;) So here it is.
1. Charlie Gibson ought to be ashamed of himself. His bias showed. If you compare the questions he asked Palin to the questions he asked Obama and the questions he asked Edwards just after his nomination, he set out to give Palin a beating.
2. Given the antagonism of the interviewer, I thought Palin showed poise and coolness under fire. I thought she answered the questions straight-forwardly and refused to be misquoted or taken off message.
3. And she did it all on the day she sent her son off to Iraq. Many folks on this website earlier this year discussed the tears and the trauma of sending their sons and daughters a few hundred miles off to college. How much more so does it grieve a mother's heart when her son ships off to war? Given her day, I thought she did well.
Obama said more than just put pressure on Moscow and its millioniars...he also talked about incorporating European countries who have much at stake too. Rebuilding that relationship with Europe will be a challenge after the Bush admin.
Palin talked about the American people not wanting leaders with big old fat resumes full of experience with heads of state.
She also said during her talk to the soldiers, including her son, being deployed to Iraq that they would be fighting the same terrorists that attacked the US...which is false.
My comment about Palin being coached by McCain's staff on policy was not meant to be mean...it's simply a fact.
Last edited by snapshot; 09-13-2008 at 04:59 PM..
Reason: typo
"I do think that inferring that Palin would only appear to be competent with an adequate briefing from McCain isn't a very nice comment."
I think it's obvious that Palin was coached by McCain's people yet didn't seen competent. What I find unethical are the false Republican ads... sex ed in Kindergarten, etc.
Thank you for posting that information for everyone. I knew that there were four Bush doctrines, but couldn't remember the reference. It used to be, the skill of a newsperson/and or interviewer was demonstrated by the fact that the viewer could not detect bias. That seems to be a thing of the past on CNN, MSNBC and other liberal stations. They are so obviously in Obama's pocket. I wasn't planning on voting for Hillary because of my traditional values, but it was obvious to me how the media treated her. It was total bias towards Obama. If the media had been fair, Hillary would be on the Democratic ticket.
There are still plenty of men (and women) who think women can't lead this country. I disagree.
No; she was telling the truth. Our soldiers in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda.
Obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.
She appeared a bit nervous at times, but with good cause. I've never seen Gibson so nasty. He seemed out to get her, out to trip her, and flat out, out to make her look bad. He told her at one point that what he attributed to her as one of her quotes was a verbatim quote. She questioned it. As it turns out, he had not lifted her quote verbatim. She stood firm, though.
I've never voted Republican in a POTUS race (either Democrat or Independent), but will this November.
Charles Krauthammer, who first coined the term, "Bush Doctrine" wrote an article in the Washington Post, taking Charlie Gibson to task for his question. Krauthammer says it was Gibson who got it wrong, not Palin.
Gibson was referring to what is the most widely accepted/known part of the Bush Doctrine. However, Palin didn't seem to be familiar with any elements of the doctrine. Her answer didn't address any part of it, and I think for a team who is now using "change" as part of their campaign, the vp nominee should know the policies of the current president that they will be changing.
After watching the interview on 20/20, I wasn't any more impressed with Palin, although the editing was much better! I really wish Gibson would have pushed the question about why the McCain campaign keeps lying about Obama's tax plan. She avoided answering that question all together and Gibson just moved on.
Also, I think it's Charlie Gibson's job to ask tough questions and to push for an answer. All the candidates have and should be put through interviews where they have to answer the tough questions. I don't think he was nasty, he was doing his job.
Honestly, I didn't watch but maybe 5 minutes of it. I could tell after that short amount of time that the network had edited to show what parts of her answers they wanted to show. I am so fed up of the media's bias (be it CNN or Fox News).
Boo Hoo. Charles Gibson was too tough on her. Cry me a river. Interviewers should be tough on the candidates. All candidates are/will be facing the same. Fox is just as tough on Democrats. You don't see Obama supporters crying foul about O'Reilly's interview. This is just the beginning. She needs to be prepared for the tough interview. I think the debates will tell. Besides, where is McCain in all this? It is as if she was the top of the ticket. HE is running for president, not her. At the end of the day, the race is between McCain and Obama, not Biden and Palin. I'm tired of this "heartbeat" away nonsense. It is as if people do not expect McCain to serve out the full term if elected. And if there is even a small question about his health, he should not be running for president.
09-12-2008, 07:14 PM
Simple View
