Palin bombs interview

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

There will be accusations of bias all day today - that he wouldn't have set anyone else up like this. It reminds me of what the moderators did to Hillary in one of the last ABC debates.

Do you think that if, say, Utah Governor Huntsman had been tapped as VP, that the questioning would have gone this way:

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we'll be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- 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.

What is this? Would a man of similar, or even lesser experience (say, Obama) get the same dismissive follow up?

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You've heard the original comment she made, right? They didn't really change the meaning. Or were you referring to the loaded question about a holy war?.

Here is what Charlie asked:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

That does change the original meaning. In that now infamous speech, which Charlie's crew cut up (which coincidentally, many left bloggers are doing as well), Palin asked that the students pray "that our national leaders are sending them (the U.S. military) out on a task from God . . . that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

BatGirl, clearly Charlie is quoting out of context and changing the meaning of what she said. As Palin pointed out, it is not far off from what Lincoln said:

"Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices—saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side."

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This is what's hard to know. For one thing, voters don't watch stuff like this. But polls indicate that a supermajority of Americans already think she's unqualified to serve, so she can't afford this kind of publicity. One interview alone won't change many minds, but the questions are not going to get any easier. She'll have to keep studying to make it through the debates.

My view: she didn't knock it out of the park, but she didn't hurt her image or McCains in the eyes of the voters they are seeking as well. Looked like she has been briefed up. She repeated McCain's views, which was priority one. She has a certain earnestness that the target audience loves.

Edit: Oh, and everyone is still talking about her today, even after the presidential forum last night. Mission accomplished for the McCain camp.

[BYU71]

Charlie's intent was to please his media cronies. To help America get a good look at Sarah Palin was not his intent.

He was looking for gotcha's.

What do you think of the Bush doctrine. That was clearly a gotcha. He didn't want to know her feeling on it, he wanted to catch her with some obscure press terminology.

If this God thing and the Bush doctrine is all they are coming up with after the interview, she must have done very well.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by exUte

Clinton won with 43% of the vote. That means 57% didn't vote for him. More voted against, instead of for him! That is irrelevant?

I will admit, those 8 years may have been more boring without him. But I have NO doubt, that Osama would still be walking the earth with either Bush or Dole at the helm. For that you can thank Clinton.

Bush only got 37% of the vote. If it's a two man race, to get to 50%, Bush would have needed 68% of the 20 million Perot voters to vote for him. How many of those 20 million would have just stayed home? Probably a lot. The more who wouldn't have voted means an even higher percentage of them would have had to vote for Bush for him to win. He lost because he lost those voters long before they even got to the voting booth. They voted for Perot because they didn't want to vote for Clinton either. What makes you think they would have voted for Bush? You really have nothing to back up that claim.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Charlie's intent was to please his media cronies. To help America get a good look at Sarah Palin was not his intent.

He was looking for gotcha's.

What do you think of the Bush doctrine. That was clearly a gotcha. He didn't want to know her feeling on it, he wanted to catch her with some obscure press terminology.

If this God thing and the Bush doctrine is all they are coming up with after the interview, she must have done very well.

no. 1 reason not to do any more interviews because the media cuts up the clips as they deem necessary. Instead, go give the stump speeches and then wait for the debates where people will hear everything, not just snipets.

Charlie didn't do anyone any favors.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Do you think that if, say, Utah Governor Huntsman had been tapped as VP, that the questioning would have gone this way:

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we'll be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- 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.

What is this? Would a man of similar, or even lesser experience (say, Obama) get the same dismissive follow up?

MBNoah, I was agreeing with you. This was as obvious as the setup in the ABC Hillary vs. Obama debate.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Bush only got 37% of the vote. If it's a two man race, to get to 50%, Bush would have needed 68% of the 20 million Perot voters to vote for him. How many of those 20 million would have just stayed home? Probably a lot. The more who wouldn't have voted means an even higher percentage of them would have had to vote for Bush for him to win. He lost because he lost those voters long before they even got to the voting booth. They voted for Perot because they didn't want to vote for Clinton either. What makes you think they would have voted for Bush? You really have nothing to back up that claim.

cost Bush the election.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I believe that was Seattle, whose ferver for Palin makes Obama fans seem reserved by comparison.

UtahDan quesionted her IQ based on the interveiw. All I said was what Tex said, a little differently.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by exUte

cost Bush the election.

I'm still waiting for an intelligent explanation as to why. But coming up with such a thing might cause your brain to explode, so maybe you should just keep repeating the same mantra.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Did you miss the part about where it was codified into an NSC document? Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of that. This is what our government does when it sets out its policies. Often they are not made public for many many years and they never apply their own gloss. Truman didn't come up with "Truman Doctrine."

If you didn't ever take a US foreign policy class in college I can understand not knowing all this. But for people setting policy this is elementary stuff. I would suggest this book (you can skim it) to get the broad strokes of our doctrines over time:

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Globalism.../dp/0140268316

You may just be toying with me here. Otherwise you are being Waters-esc in over confidently wading into a subject you obviously know very little about. There must be someone else in the room with poli-sci degree who will come to my aid here. This is basic stuff.

My point is that "Bush Doctrine" is a term that was always arcane, more pejorative than objectively descriptive, and hasn't been used much for years. Today no one would credit Bush with something coherent as the term doctrine implies.

If Gibson had been interviewing any other candidate he would have added a clause to his question explaining what the Bush Doctrine is (it's not rocket science), for the viewers, most of whom probably don't know what it is. But he was in a mode of wanting to embarrass her for whatever reason, like Noah and Barbara have noted.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

MBNoah, I was agreeing with you. This was as obvious as the setup in the ABC Hillary vs. Obama debate.

So, given your indignation as a woman, can I count on you as a $1,000 or $2,000 donor to the McCain-PALIN campaign?

Sadly for you and yours, this will probably become the talk of the day and few will hear or even care about the Bush Doctrine, let alone Obama's views on national service.