McCain's camp has their work cut out for them..

QuestionAuthority

Just my opinion here.. but that interview tonight Palin did with Charlie Gibson proves how totally unqualified she is to be vice-president..

Apparently they have not been able to do "Government for Dummies" courses with her from all those campaigns he has to have her attend with him to get an audience full of Wal-Mart moms that can "relate to her so much".

Also, very glad that Charlie Gibson did not go soft on the questions to her.

Can't wait for part 2!

digster

I think people for the most part people are going to read into it what they want to see. For conservatives, she didn't screw up, she mostly stayed on message, no horrific moments (besides one, which I'll get to), and she was personable. Liberals will probably see a VP nominee giving talking head answers; her responses to each of Charlie Gibson's questions sounded rehearsed. I thought Gibson did well; all of his questions were undeniably fair, but he was tough, and he didn't dwell on some of the unfair personal attacks lobbed at her lately. I wonder, though, if McCain's camp harping on the "big, bad liberal media" so much will mean that any criticism, warranted or unwarranted will be viewed as an unfair attack on Palin. I look forward to the rest tomorrow.

That being said, the "Bush Doctrine" thing was a big problem for her. You could see on Charlie Gibson's face that he expected to be moving straight on to the next question. I was watching it with my dad, a staunch conservative, and his first thought was that she had absolutely no idea what the Bush Doctrine did, and she was not able to cover it up well.

nfanel

digster wrote:

That being said, the "Bush Doctrine" thing was a big problem for her. You could see on Charlie Gibson's face that he expected to be moving straight on to the next question. I was watching it with my dad, a staunch conservative, and his first thought was that she had absolutely no idea what the Bush Doctrine did, and she was not able to cover it up well.

she didn't have any idea what it was. i forget who used the term "deer in headlights" but that was pretty accurate. huge difference from when your words are written for you. scary, scary, scary.

YieldInHiding

QuestionAuthority wrote:

Just my opinion here.. but that interview tonight Palin did with Charlie Gibson proves how totally unqualified she is to be vice-president..

Apparently they have not been able to do "Government for Dummies" courses with her from all those campaigns he has to have her attend with him to get an audience full of Wal-Mart moms that can "relate to her so much".

Also, very glad that Charlie Gibson did not go soft on the questions to her.

Can't wait for part 2!

Wait, what do you mean? I thought the liberals were running around like chickens with their heads cut off because they are so scared of her? LOL What a joke she is. I'm sure Putin would sh*t himself laughing if she showed up to a negotiation.

JSBE

i cannot wait for the whole interview tonight on 20/20. i too was also surprised, just from the little 'sneak peak' they showed on the nighly news at the questions gibson was asking.

my favorite part of the excepts (other than the deer in the headlights look she gave about the bush doctrine) was at the end when they were talking about invading pakistan and she completely sidestepped his question TWICE and then gibson said something to the effect of "hold on, all i'm hearing is a blizzard of words, if that a yes...?" and then she went on to say essentially the same non-answer she had alread said two times.

Brain of J.Lo

JSBE wrote:

i cannot wait for the whole interview tonight on 20/20. i too was also surprised, just from the little 'sneak peak' they showed on the nighly news at the questions gibson was asking.

my favorite part of the excepts (other than the deer in the headlights look she gave about the bush doctrine) was at the end when they were talking about invading pakistan and she completely sidestepped his question TWICE and then gibson said something to the effect of "hold on, all i'm hearing is a blizzard of words, if that a yes...?" and then she went on to say essentially the same non-answer she had alread said two times.

I know. It was so obvious that she didn't want to say the wrong thing, so she was just reciting the canned answer she had practiced, even though it didn't fit the question.

My favorite part that aired last night, though, was when he was pressing her about foreign policy experience and she mentioned that you can actually see parts of Russia from Alaska. That was delicious.

YieldInHiding

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I know. It was so obvious that she didn't want to say the wrong thing, so she was just reciting the canned answer she had practiced, even though it didn't fit the question.

My favorite part that aired last night, though, was when he was pressing her about foreign policy experience and she mentioned that you can actually see parts of Russia from Alaska. That was delicious.

Maybe if he asked her about space exploration she'd mention that parts of outer space are visible from Alaska as well.

Brain of J.Lo

YieldInHiding wrote:

Maybe if he asked her about space exploration she'd mention that parts of outer space are visible from Alaska as well.

lol!!

ledvedderman

nfanel wrote:

i forget who used the term "deer in headlights" but that was pretty accurate.

Did you just call the VP nominee of the GOP a "deer". You sexist bastard. Stick to the issues.

harrymanback

YieldInHiding wrote:

Maybe if he asked her about space exploration she'd mention that parts of outer space are visible from Alaska as well.

I too did enjoy this exchange:

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?

for some reason, this russia thing make me think of this as a possible Palin response to Gibsons questions:
I run my unit how I run my unit. You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 "Russions" who are trained to kill me, so don't think for one second that you can come down here, flash a badge, and make me nervous.

saveuplife

I watched it. Here's my opinion....

She continues to come off as likeable, which is severely underrated by liberals.

She didn't seem to have straight shooting answers for a few of the questions, which is underrated by conservatives.

I think she'll come out of the interview with no change in her approval rating or popularity. She didn't hit it out of the park, but didn't strike out either. She has poise, but needs practice. If I were Biden, I would not be overly confident going into the debates at all. I really think she'll surprise people and probably win the VP debates, not because of her answers but because people trust her. It's the "Bush" factor, that's often discounted.

Here's the bottom line. Idiosynatic qualities of candidates are available very early on. People either like em or not. She seems real, which is why she's so popular. She's not a John Kerry/robot and I think people can see that. It's not always good to be too polished. That said, it's also not good to not know certain answers.

saveuplife

chiefojibwa wrote:

but does she know what the "bush factor" is?

Got to admit, that made me laugh.

saveuplife

chiefojibwa wrote:

but does she know what the "bush factor" is?

Actually, Bush probably doesn't know what the "bush factor" is?

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

I watched it. Here's my opinion....

She continues to come off as likeable, which is severely underrated by liberals.

She didn't seem to have straight shooting answers for a few of the questions, which is underrated by conservatives.

I think she'll come out of the interview with no change in her approval rating or popularity. She didn't hit it out of the park, but didn't strike out either. She has poise, but needs practice. If I were Biden, I would not be overly confident going into the debates at all. I really think she'll surprise people and probably win the VP debates, not because of her answers but because people trust her. It's the "Bush" factor, that's often discounted.

Here's the bottom line. Idiosynatic qualities of candidates are available very early on. People either like em or not. She seems real, which is why she's so popular. She's not a John Kerry/robot and I think people can see that. It's not always good to be too polished. That said, it's also not good to not know certain answers.

I agree with most of what you said. She didn't do anything to hurt herself, so that's gotta be a win for the McCain camp overall.

However, I do want to see her do some more interviews, and maybe even a press conference (not likely), and then the debate to see if she really can answer questions. She really stuck to the script & talking points, and at least to me did sort of come off as a robot. Not emotionless like Kerry, but full of "programmed" answers, even if they didn't apply to the question asked.

catch22

blackredyellow wrote:

I agree with most of what you said. She didn't do anything to hurt herself, so that's gotta be a win for the McCain camp overall.

However, I do want to see her do some more interviews, and maybe even a press conference (not likely), and then the debate to see if she really can answer questions. She really stuck to the script & talking points, and at least to me did sort of come off as a robot. Not emotionless like Kerry, but full of "programmed" answers, even if they didn't apply to the question asked.

she better be careful about that. look how it worked out for this girl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

sad thing is, i'm willing to bet that would help them out in the polls.

saveuplife

blackredyellow wrote:

I agree with most of what you said. She didn't do anything to hurt herself, so that's gotta be a win for the McCain camp overall.

However, I do want to see her do some more interviews, and maybe even a press conference (not likely), and then the debate to see if she really can answer questions. She really stuck to the script & talking points, and at least to me did sort of come off as a robot. Not emotionless like Kerry, but full of "programmed" answers, even if they didn't apply to the question asked.

I guess I understand where you are coming from.

It's interesting,... go to aol.com. They have a poll. Here it is...


How would you rate Sarah Palin's overall performance during the interview?
Excellent 40%
Poor 22%
Good 20%
Fair 18%

Total Votes: 156,071
Note on Poll Results


Scientific? No. But, interesting nonetheless. This is what I was talking about. 60% of those who watched (who use aol) thought she did an above average job. 18% thought ok. 22% thought poor. That's telling. According to this, she did very very well. Now are the people who answered this at a political forum like us? No. But, they still have a vote.

QuestionAuthority

saveuplife wrote:

I watched it. Here's my opinion....

She continues to come off as likeable, which is severely underrated by liberals.

She didn't seem to have straight shooting answers for a few of the questions, which is underrated by conservatives.

I think she'll come out of the interview with no change in her approval rating or popularity. She didn't hit it out of the park, but didn't strike out either. She has poise, but needs practice. If I were Biden, I would not be overly confident going into the debates at all. I really think she'll surprise people and probably win the VP debates, not because of her answers but because people trust her. It's the "Bush" factor, that's often discounted.

Here's the bottom line. Idiosynatic qualities of candidates are available very early on. People either like em or not. She seems real, which is why she's so popular. She's not a John Kerry/robot and I think people can see that. It's not always good to be too polished. That said, it's also not good to not know certain answers.

I totally disagree with you, but that is not suprising.. I think that yes, of course.. the "Wal-Mart" hockey/soccer moms are not going to care that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.. side note, my 20 yr old receptionist, who really does not follow politics ~ EVEN SHE knew what it was! It was obvious she had no idea what it was Charlie was asking.

I think to people who are "riding the fence" and are undecided are going to see that and be quite concerned. They are going to question her qualifications, especially considering this is the FIRST we have been allowed to hear her open her mouth for the last two weeks, without her having a telepromter or a detailed speech to read to the "followers".

If I were Joe Biden I would be feeling pretty confident that his knowledge and experience is truly going to make her look even more unqualified.

Plus, I do feel it says alot about a person who has less world travel than my 14 yr. old daughter. There is a HUGE world outside of America, Canada and Mexico. I dont feel this is a matter of money either.. if I, a single mom who makes an "average" salary can send my daughter, my son and I to places outside of America than I am sure she could as well. I think this also will be viewed as very ODD from people who are riding the fence..

saveuplife

QuestionAuthority wrote:

I totally disagree with you, but that is not suprising.. I think that yes, of course.. the "Wal-Mart" hockey/soccer moms are not going to care that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.. side note, my 20 yr old receptionist, who really does not follow politics ~ EVEN SHE knew what it was! It was obvious she had no idea what it was Charlie was asking.

I think to people who are "riding the fence" and are undecided are going to see that and be quite concerned. They are going to question her qualifications, especially considering this is the FIRST we have been allowed to hear her open her mouth for the last two weeks, without her having a telepromter or a detailed speech to read to the "followers".

If I were Joe Biden I would be feeling pretty confident that his knowledge and experience is truly going to make her look even more unqualified.

Plus, I do feel it says alot about a person who has less world travel than my 14 yr. old daughter. There is a HUGE world outside of America, Canada and Mexico. I dont feel this is a matter of money either.. if I, a single mom who makes an "average" salary can send my daughter, my son and I to places outside of America than I am sure she could as well. I think this also will be viewed as very ODD from people who are riding the fence..

Look at the poll above. I'd say the majority are explaining that your opinion on their assessment of Palin's performance is wrong.

QuestionAuthority

saveuplife wrote:

Look at the poll above. I'd say the majority are saying that your opinion on what they think is wrong.

I could go searching for polls all morning, but I am not.. if you want to consider 156,000 AOL polsters a true glance into the mind of America you keep on thinking that.

meistereder

saveuplife wrote:

I guess I understand where you are coming from.

It's interesting,... go to aol.com. They have a poll. Here it is...


How would you rate Sarah Palin's overall performance during the interview?
Excellent 40%
Poor 22%
Good 20%
Fair 18%

Total Votes: 156,071
Note on Poll Results


Scientific? No. But, interesting nonetheless. This is what I was talking about. 60% of those who watched (who use aol) thought she did an above average job. 18% thought ok. 22% thought poor. That's telling. According to this, she did very very well. Now are the people who answered this at a political forum like us? No. But, they still have a vote.

Tremendously unscientific poll. People who thought she did well are much more likely to go on an AOL poll about the interview. People who thought she did horrible were too busy laughing to do that.

QuestionAuthority

meistereder wrote:

Tremendously unscientific poll. People who thought she did well are much more likely to go on an AOL poll about the interview. People who thought she did horrible were too busy laughing to do that.

Could not agree more with you..