It's scary, the idea that Mc/P could win. I wonder what would have happened if McCain had picked a smart woman who wasn't attractive - sadly, not nearly as much attention. I don't understand how she appeals to women - not any women and moms I know.
Watching her last night - wow. Other people have said it, but I agree. Deer in the headlights. Dumb as a box of rocks.
Thing is, I don't know if these criticisms would resonate with everyone watching. Her answers were obviously and ridiculously rehearsed, to the point where she sounded like a talking-head pundit as opposed to a candidate. But besides that moment with the Bush Doctrine, she didn't screw up badly. She just refused to answer questions by reciting what she had been coached on. And while I wish people would be critical of that, I doubt they're going to in any significant manner.
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.
I agree with your assessment that beauty -- or ugliness -- of the interview was in the eye of the beholder. I thought she did fine.
I give her a pass on the Bush doctrine stuff, because the Bush Doctrine has morphed and transformed and branched off into several different corollaries since it was first introduced. Nobody really knows what the fuck it means anymore.
When it was first introduced it meant this: "We will treat nations that harbor terrorists as if they are terrorists themselves." That's it. The Bush Doctrine was the justification for attacking the Taliban.
But, as time passed, it came to include all sorts of things -- pre-emptive strikes, and nation-building and whatever the hell Charlie Gibson took it to mean. I could see why Palin would need the clarification, because the term "Bush Doctrine" means different things to different people.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I agree with your assessment that beauty -- or ugliness -- of the interview was in the eye of the beholder. I thought she did fine.
I give her a pass on the Bush doctrine stuff, because the Bush Doctrine has morphed and transformed and branched off into several different corollaries since it was first introduced. Nobody really knows what the fuck it means anymore.
When it was first introduced it meant this: "We will treat nations that harbor terrorists as if they are terrorists themselves." That's it. The Bush Doctrine was the justification for attacking the Taliban.
But, as time passed, it came to include all sorts of things -- pre-emptive strikes, and nation-building and whatever the hell Charlie Gibson took it to mean. I could see why Palin would need the clarification, because the term "Bush Doctrine" means different things to different people.
But she clearly either disagreed with or didn't understand McCain's position on preemptive strikes. (Hint: it's not that you need an imminent threat).
By the way, international principles are clear, and Palin seems to agree with them -- imminent threat. But that's probably just because she was not briefed properly on McCain's views, which are of course counter to international law. I agree with her if that's what she truly believes. I predict though that she will "clarify" her stance and go with McCain and Bush.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
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.
I don't think this is a big problem at all for her. Whereas I do think she was definitely caught off-guard with this and she should've know what it was, it's not going to cost her any of the support she's already gained. Also, there are plenty of people out there who have no idea about the "Bush Doctrine". On MSNBC this morning, one democratic stratigist said how he polled some media reporter, pundits, etc. and more than half of them didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. And it was obvious that she was coached for this interview, but that is common practice for candidates when they are campaigning. I'm sure Obama was heavily coached for his "O'Reilly Factor" interview, just as McCain was probably coached for his interview on "The View".
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
I don't think this is a big problem at all for her. Whereas I do think she was definitely caught off-guard with this and she should've know what it was, it's not going to cost her any of the support she's already gained. Also, there are plenty of people out there who have no idea about the "Bush Doctrine". On MSNBC this morning, one democratic stratigist said how he polled some media reporter, pundits, etc. and more than half of them didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. And it was obvious that she was coached for this interview, but that is common practice for candidates what they are campaigning. I'm sure Obama was heavily coached for his "O'Reilly Factor" interview, just as McCain was probably coached for his interview on "The View".
The bigger issue is not whether she was able to identify what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It's the fact that she either did not understand her party's positon or, alternatively, is at odds with McCain, who does not believe an imminent threat is necessary to launch a pre-emptive strike. This is the subtle point that will be glossed over by the Palin base. Most of them have no idea what we are even talking about. In fairness, most Americans have no idea what this issue is about, left or right.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
But she clearly either disagreed with or didn't understand McCain's position on preemptive strikes. (Hint: it's not that you need an imminent threat).
By the way, international principles are clear, and Palin seems to agree with them -- imminent threat. But that's probably just because she was not briefed properly on McCain's views, which are of course counter to international law. I agree with her if that's what she truly believes. I predict though that she will "clarify" her stance and go with McCain and Bush.
Not to get all Clinton-esque on you, but I suppose it depends on what the definition of "imminent" is ... Does it mean another nation has planes in the air, minutes away from dropping a bomb on your homeland? Or does it mean (hypothetically) that another nation has obtained WMD, with clear plans to slip them to a rogue terrorist organization to do their dirty work for them?
I would consider the second scenario to be an "imminent threat" as well.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Not to get all Clinton-esque on you, but I suppose it depends on what the definition of "imminent" is ... Does it mean another nation has planes in the air, minutes away from dropping a bomb on your homeland? Or does it mean (hypothetically) that another nation has obtained WMD, with clear plans to slip them to a rogue terrorist organization to do their dirty work for them?
I would consider the second scenario to be an "imminent threat" as well.
The definition of imminent is one thing, and it has to be determined on a fact by fact basis. It's another thing entirely to say that you don't need an imminent threat to launch an attack. If that's your policy, you don't even have to make the determination. It changes everything. That's why the Bush doctrine was such a detour, and that's why it is so unpopular. It's also illegal. It's a violation of the UN Charter and a host of treaties. You can't do it. But that's international law, and the current administration laughs off international law.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I give her a pass on the Bush doctrine stuff, because the Bush Doctrine has morphed and transformed and branched off into several different corollaries since it was first introduced. Nobody really knows what the fuck it means anymore.
When it was first introduced it meant this: "We will treat nations that harbor terrorists as if they are terrorists themselves." That's it. The Bush Doctrine was the justification for attacking the Taliban.
Wow, I disagree heartily with that statement. The "Bush Doctrine" has always been, since 9/11 onwards, a proactive and pre-emptive stance towards matters of terrorism and foreign policy. Now, I agree with you that the Bush Doctrine has been the 'justification' for a wide range of diverse foreign policy undertakings by Bush (most notably Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think it's always been pretty clear what the Bush Doctrine was, and I think Gibson described it pretty accurately. I mean, that question was the only time in the interview where she breaks "character" so to speak, and it's crystal clear that she got put back on her toes and had no idea what she was talking about. And any screwups that she makes like this allows an 'objective' media to critique her, which means Obama and co. can move onto the bigger fish.
88keys, I agree entirely with you on the subject that candidates are constantly and consistently coached. However, there is a difference when you see McCain, Obama, and Biden on these shows. When Obama was on O'Reilly for example, he had topics that he wanted to cover and messages that he wanted to get out, but he engages him in conversation, doesn't stick to talking points, makes his message clear. McCain is similar; he is entirely natural and seems to speak from the heart when engaging in interviews. Likewise, he has points he wants to hit in these interviews but he acts as an engaging, thoughtful person who considers his answers.
There was nothing like that in Palin's interview last night; it was clear she had her stock answers and was sticking to those no matter what. Note the time when Gibson asked her about military incursions into Pakistan, and whether she would be willing to do so with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. He asked her, she gave a stock, avoiding the question answer. Gibson took the Tim Russert approach where he asked her a few more times in different ways, trying to get her to drop the scripted lines. She didn't; she had been given that answer, and that's all she was going to say. She didn't portray to me that she had any deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding about the foreign policy issues at hand (although in regards to Pakistan, she was probably told not to answer with a "yes" because McCain has been banging Obama on saying he'd be willing to send military ops force into Pakistan based on intelligence regarding Al Qaeda). It's OK and expected that talking head pundits and campaign surrogates are going to avoid answers, refuse to commit, and not saying anything for fear that they might disrupt the message. But when a nominee, whether for Prez for VP, does it and does it so blatantly, it looks more and more like a purely political pick.
But as I said before, besides the Bush doctrine thing she didn't really fall flat on her face much. So I think she'll be criticized, but it's not a game-ending disaster for her.
Wow, I disagree heartily with that statement. The "Bush Doctrine" has always been, since 9/11 onwards, a proactive and pre-emptive stance towards matters of terrorism and foreign policy. Now, I agree with you that the Bush Doctrine has been the 'justification' for a wide range of diverse foreign policy undertakings by Bush (most notably Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think it's always been pretty clear what the Bush Doctrine was, and I think Gibson described it pretty accurately. I mean, that question was the only time in the interview where she breaks "character" so to speak, and it's crystal clear that she got put back on her toes and had no idea what she was talking about. And any screwups that she makes like this allows an 'objective' media to critique her, which means Obama and co. can move onto the bigger fish.
88keys, I agree entirely with you on the subject that candidates are constantly and consistently coached. However, there is a difference when you see McCain, Obama, and Biden on these shows. When Obama was on O'Reilly for example, he had topics that he wanted to cover and messages that he wanted to get out, but he engages him in conversation, doesn't stick to talking points, makes his message clear. McCain is similar; he is entirely natural and seems to speak from the heart when engaging in interviews. Likewise, he has points he wants to hit in these interviews but he acts as an engaging, thoughtful person who considers his answers.
There was nothing like that in Palin's interview last night; it was clear she had her stock answers and was sticking to those no matter what. Note the time when Gibson asked her about military incursions into Pakistan, and whether she would be willing to do so with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. He asked her, she gave a stock, avoiding the question answer. Gibson took the Tim Russert approach where he asked her a few more times in different ways, trying to get her to drop the scripted lines. She didn't; she had been given that answer, and that's all she was going to say. She didn't portray to me that she had any deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding about the foreign policy issues at hand (although in regards to Pakistan, she was probably told not to answer with a "yes" because McCain has been banging Obama on saying he'd be willing to send military ops force into Pakistan based on intelligence regarding Al Qaeda). It's OK and expected that talking head pundits and campaign surrogates are going to avoid answers, refuse to commit, and not saying anything for fear that they might disrupt the message. But when a nominee, whether for Prez for VP, does it and does it so blatantly, it looks more and more like a purely political pick.
But as I said before, besides the Bush doctrine thing she didn't really fall flat on her face much. So I think she'll be criticized, but it's not a game-ending disaster for her.
Well put
However...
The fact that she doesn't have deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding of Foriegn Policy is in itself a failure and a true sign that she has absolutley no business or qaulification for the job of Vice President.
The fact that she doesn't have deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding of Foriegn Policy is in itself a failure and a true sign that she has absolutley no business or qaulification for the job of Vice President.
I agree entirely with that logically, but you have to consider politics, which is and will forever be the complete antithesis of logic.
The fact that she doesn't have deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding of Foriegn Policy is in itself a failure and a true sign that she has absolutley no business or qaulification for the job of Vice President.
I don't know that it's a requirement of a vice president --or a president, for that matter -- to have a thorough grasp of every single issue. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. No man has a handle on every single thing.
Foreign policy is not her strength, and understandably so. That would be McCain's job in the administration.
EDIT: I would point out that the guy on top the Democratic ticket has made his own foreign policy gaffes ... beginning with his three-positions-in-three-days take on Russia-Georgia earlier this summer. So it's really hard to say she has no business being vice president on one hand, but that Obama has every business being president on the other.
I would prefer they both had more foreign policy experience, but as I mentioned, you can't have it all in one package.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I don't know that it's a requirement of a vice president --or a president, for that matter -- to have a thorough grasp of every single issue. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. No man has a handle on every single thing.
Foreign policy is not her strength, and understandably so. That would be McCain's job in the administration.
EDIT: I would point out that the guy on top the Democratic ticket has made his own foreign policy gaffes ... beginning with his three-positions-in-three-days take on Russia-Georgia earlier this summer. So it's really hard to say she has no business being vice president on one hand, but that Obama has every business being president on the other.
I would prefer they both had more foreign policy experience, but as I mentioned, you can't have it all in one package.
Granted. Obama has flip flopped on many of his prior statements. But how often do we all do that? No decisions are made on the spot. Minds change and so does policy. When I hear Obama, I hear a man that has thought these things out...and continues to think them out and look for other options. It shows that he's open to different ideas...and that he's still considering other options rather than sticking steadfast to policy like say....Bush or McCain.
Palin didn't even seem like she knew of this policy. She did not seem confident or even aware of these things. Not knowing is a pathetic excuse at that level. It's shows an utter lack of fundemental leadership and capability of such.
What is she there for? Did the Republican Party think they could just throw this backwoods soccer mom on tube and that Americans would be dumb enough to just sit back, eat it up without question?
Biden is a political wolf with lot's of experience; he'll eat her alive in a debate if she stumbles like she did during the Gibson interview.
Granted. Obama has flip flopped on many of his prior statements. But how often do we all do that? No decisions are made on the spot. Minds change and so does policy. When I hear Obama, I hear a man that has thought these things out...and continues to think them out and look for other options. It shows that he's open to different ideas...and that he's still considering other options rather than sticking steadfast to policy like say....Bush or McCain.
The Obama thing I mentioned isn't just a flip-flop. It was a complete -- if tacit -- admission that his knee jerk reaction on Russia-Georgia was wrong and that John McCain's was right.
Palin didn't even seem like she knew of this policy. She did not seem confident or even aware of these things. Not knowing is a pathetic excuse at that level. It's shows an utter lack of fundemental leadership and capability of such.
As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the "Bush Doctrine" has changed and expanded and morphed so much in seven years, nobody knows what it means anymore. I think it was a valid thing for Palin to ask for clarification.
What is she there for? Did the Republican Party think they could just throw this backwoods soccer mom on tube and that American's would be dumb enough to just eat it up and swallow the Bullshit without question?
Biden is a political wolf with lot's of experience; he'll eat her alive in a debate if she stumbles like she did during the Gibson interview.
Palin is good on energy (from a conservative POV, of course) and she's fiscally conservative. That's what she's there for. Not to devise foreign policy.
I get your point about Biden ... but, as I've said before, it's going to be a very, very tough debate for him, even if his material is better. The worst thing he can do is look like he's attacking or bullying Palin in any way, real or imagined. Just look how apeshit everyone got about the "lipstick on a pig" comment, which might not have even been directed at her.
These things have a way of being the most memorable things to come out of the debates, not the actual policy discussions.
What's the one thing most people still remember about the 2004 debates? John Kerry going out of his way to mention, over and over again, that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. That became the headline, and it didn't matter if Kerry actually won that debate.
Same in 2000, when Gore repeatedly sighed and rolled his eyes at Bush's answers. He lost style points for that too, to the point that people didn't realize he'd actually out-debated GWB.
The Biden-Palin debate has a chance to be that times 1000, in part because Biden has a cute little habit of saying whatever the hell pops into his head at any given moment, and Palin is the most popular woman in America right now, and her supporters are looking for reasons to be offended.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The Obama thing I mentioned isn't just a flip-flop. It was a complete -- if tacit -- admission that his knee jerk reaction on Russia-Georgia was wrong and that John McCain's was right.
As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the "Bush Doctrine" has changed and expanded and morphed so much in seven years, nobody knows what it means anymore. I think it was a valid thing for Palin to ask for clarification.
Palin is good on energy (from a conservative POV, of course) and she's fiscally conservative. That's what she's there for. Not to devise foreign policy.
I get your point about Biden ... but, as I've said before, it's going to be a very, very tough debate for him, even if his material is better. The worst thing he can do is look like he's attacking or bullying Palin in any way, real or imagined. Just look how apeshit everyone got about the "lipstick on a pig" comment, which might not have even been directed at her.
These things have a way of being the most memorable things to come out of the debates, not the actual policy discussions.
What's the one thing most people still remember about the 2004 debates? John Kerry going out of his way to mention, over and over again, that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. That became the headline, and it didn't matter if Kerry actually won that debate.
Same in 2000, when Gore repeatedly sighed and rolled his eyes at Bush's answers. He lost style points for that too, to the point that people didn't realize he'd actually out-debated GWB.
The Biden-Palin debate has a chance to be that times 1000, in part because Biden has a cute little habit of saying whatever the hell pops into his head at any given moment, and Palin is the most popular woman in America right now, and her supporters are looking for reasons to be offended.
She's a fiscal nightmare.
She ran a small Alaskan town into a multi-million dollar debt.
She's also an enviromental disaster waiting to happen...
"Drill Drill Drill" "Let's pray to the Lord God for oil"
ohh yeah....and don't get me started on the famous
Iraq War is "God's Task" business.
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. If Palin pulls the Bible Babble during the debates...She'll get eaten alive.
Palin is good on energy (from a conservative POV, of course) and she's fiscally conservative. That's what she's there for. Not to devise foreign policy.
I don't really understand how she is so great for energy. True she was governor of Alaska which produces the 2nd largest amount of energy for our country. Do you know who happened to be governor of the #1 producing state? Hint: His first name is George.
She is vastly overrating her experience with energy. The oil pipeline she is touting as such a great accomplishment hasn't even begun to be assembled, and there is still a chance it won't be. Also, even the best estimates say it won't be done until 10 years from now.
I disagree that you can pick a VP candidate who is only good at one particular area. She could be the President! She needs to have a handle on how the world works. It is unacceptable to be less than on top of things when you could be the leader of the free world at some point in the next four years. You could just feel that during that interview, she was answering the questions almost like she was taking a test. They were very plastic, obviously rehearsed answers that didn't necesarilly address the question asked.
She ran a small Alaskan town into a multi-million dollar debt.
She's also an enviromental disaster waiting to happen...
"Drill Drill Drill" "Let's pray to the Lord God for oil"
ohh yeah....and don't get me started on the famous
Iraq War is "God's Task" business.
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. If Palin pulls the Bible Babble during the debates...She'll get eaten alive.
I mean, it depends on what you believe. The people of Alaska seem to believe she's a fiscal saint, and I suppose they would know.
"Drill baby drill" happens to be supported by nearly 70 percent of the American people, "environmental nightmare" be damned.
She never said the Iraq War was "a task from God" ... you and Charlie Gibson need to look at her entire quote verbatim.
Look, I understand you don't get her. She's not your target audience. If McCain put someone you got on the ticket, this election would already be over.
As for "Bible babble" during the debates ... I hope she does, and I hope Biden makes fun of her for it ... the majority of this nation is still Christian. It would be game, set, match if it looks like he's making fun of her faith.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I disagree that you can pick a VP candidate who is only good at one particular area. She could be the President! She needs to have a handle on how the world works. It is unacceptable to be less than on top of things when you could be the leader of the free world at some point in the next four years. You could just feel that during that interview, she was answering the questions almost like she was taking a test. They were very plastic, obviously rehearsed answers that didn't necesarilly address the question asked.
I don't thinl the President needs to have a handle on every particular area, either, and I don't think there has been a president in our country's history who has.
I don't think such a man (or woman) exists.
As for this experience stuff ... it isn't a debate the Democrats can win. They'd be wiser to leave it alone. Obama can't go around saying, "McCain's vice president is almost as inexperienced as me" and expect to win votes.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I don't thinl the President needs to have a handle on every particular area, either, and I don't think there has been a president in our country's history who has.
I don't think such a man (or woman) exists.
As for this experience stuff ... it isn't a debate the Democrats can win. They'd be wiser to leave it alone. Obama can't go around saying, "McCain's vice president is almost as inexperienced as me" and expect to win votes.
I didn't say anything about her not having enough experience. That is a different argument altogether. My point is that she doesn't have the necessary grasp on foreign relations to be in such a powerful position.
I do disagree that the Republicans somehow have a much more experienced ticket though. It certainly isn't the wash that you and McCain would like to have everyone think.
Maybe she and Putin waved at eachother accross the Bering Strait or something, you never know since she is so close and all.
my dad was good friends with McCain when he was in the Navy. He's been talking about that crazy old bastard running for president for the past 25 years. I ordered him a "Dad for McCain" shirt, and when I go home in a few weeks I'm going to wear my "Obama '08" shirt, that'll be a fucking great picture. If I was 18, I would totally vote for McCain based on the fact that he and my dad used to get drunk and go looking for tail together. Now that I'm 32 I'm a bit more socially conscious.
If I was 18, I would totally vote for McCain based on the fact that he and my dad used to get drunk and go looking for tail together.
If McCain wants to get a better handle on the 18-25 demographic , he should get your dad on the campaign trail and do a college tour and talk about getting drunk and laid in foreign ports of call... LOL!
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
I get your point about Biden ... but, as I've said before, it's going to be a very, very tough debate for him, even if his material is better. The worst thing he can do is look like he's attacking or bullying Palin in any way, real or imagined. Just look how apeshit everyone got about the "lipstick on a pig" comment, which might not have even been directed at her.
This is 100% true. If anyone here is from NY, they'll remember the 2000 senate race when Rick Lazio got eaten alive for being too tough on Hillary during the debates.
Camden 8/28/1998; Jones Beach 8/24/2000; Camden 9/1/2000; Camden 9/2/2000; Albany 4/29/2003; New York 7/8/2003; Vancouver 9/2/2005; Atlantic City 10/1/2005; Albany 5/12/2006; E. Rutherford 6/1/2006; E. Rutherford 6/3/2006; New York 6/24/2008; New York 6/25/2008; New York 5/20/2010
Comments
So she will not watch an interview of her favored candidate because she feels she might have to feel negative about her favored candidate.
We are going to lose this election. Again. Ugh
No.. she will watch it with rose colored glasses, that paint the world the prettiest shade!
Dont give up faith on this election!!! See the light!
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
You know ... they deserve her if she wins.
I can't believe this is even happening.
Michael Franti
Watching her last night - wow. Other people have said it, but I agree. Deer in the headlights. Dumb as a box of rocks.
I agree with your assessment that beauty -- or ugliness -- of the interview was in the eye of the beholder. I thought she did fine.
I give her a pass on the Bush doctrine stuff, because the Bush Doctrine has morphed and transformed and branched off into several different corollaries since it was first introduced. Nobody really knows what the fuck it means anymore.
When it was first introduced it meant this: "We will treat nations that harbor terrorists as if they are terrorists themselves." That's it. The Bush Doctrine was the justification for attacking the Taliban.
But, as time passed, it came to include all sorts of things -- pre-emptive strikes, and nation-building and whatever the hell Charlie Gibson took it to mean. I could see why Palin would need the clarification, because the term "Bush Doctrine" means different things to different people.
for the least they could possibly do
But she clearly either disagreed with or didn't understand McCain's position on preemptive strikes. (Hint: it's not that you need an imminent threat).
By the way, international principles are clear, and Palin seems to agree with them -- imminent threat. But that's probably just because she was not briefed properly on McCain's views, which are of course counter to international law. I agree with her if that's what she truly believes. I predict though that she will "clarify" her stance and go with McCain and Bush.
I don't think this is a big problem at all for her. Whereas I do think she was definitely caught off-guard with this and she should've know what it was, it's not going to cost her any of the support she's already gained. Also, there are plenty of people out there who have no idea about the "Bush Doctrine". On MSNBC this morning, one democratic stratigist said how he polled some media reporter, pundits, etc. and more than half of them didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. And it was obvious that she was coached for this interview, but that is common practice for candidates when they are campaigning. I'm sure Obama was heavily coached for his "O'Reilly Factor" interview, just as McCain was probably coached for his interview on "The View".
The bigger issue is not whether she was able to identify what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It's the fact that she either did not understand her party's positon or, alternatively, is at odds with McCain, who does not believe an imminent threat is necessary to launch a pre-emptive strike. This is the subtle point that will be glossed over by the Palin base. Most of them have no idea what we are even talking about. In fairness, most Americans have no idea what this issue is about, left or right.
Not to get all Clinton-esque on you, but I suppose it depends on what the definition of "imminent" is ... Does it mean another nation has planes in the air, minutes away from dropping a bomb on your homeland? Or does it mean (hypothetically) that another nation has obtained WMD, with clear plans to slip them to a rogue terrorist organization to do their dirty work for them?
I would consider the second scenario to be an "imminent threat" as well.
for the least they could possibly do
i didn't see the interview.....IS THIS TRUE?? did she say this in a joking way? tell me she was joking? :(
The definition of imminent is one thing, and it has to be determined on a fact by fact basis. It's another thing entirely to say that you don't need an imminent threat to launch an attack. If that's your policy, you don't even have to make the determination. It changes everything. That's why the Bush doctrine was such a detour, and that's why it is so unpopular. It's also illegal. It's a violation of the UN Charter and a host of treaties. You can't do it. But that's international law, and the current administration laughs off international law.
Wow, I disagree heartily with that statement. The "Bush Doctrine" has always been, since 9/11 onwards, a proactive and pre-emptive stance towards matters of terrorism and foreign policy. Now, I agree with you that the Bush Doctrine has been the 'justification' for a wide range of diverse foreign policy undertakings by Bush (most notably Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think it's always been pretty clear what the Bush Doctrine was, and I think Gibson described it pretty accurately. I mean, that question was the only time in the interview where she breaks "character" so to speak, and it's crystal clear that she got put back on her toes and had no idea what she was talking about. And any screwups that she makes like this allows an 'objective' media to critique her, which means Obama and co. can move onto the bigger fish.
88keys, I agree entirely with you on the subject that candidates are constantly and consistently coached. However, there is a difference when you see McCain, Obama, and Biden on these shows. When Obama was on O'Reilly for example, he had topics that he wanted to cover and messages that he wanted to get out, but he engages him in conversation, doesn't stick to talking points, makes his message clear. McCain is similar; he is entirely natural and seems to speak from the heart when engaging in interviews. Likewise, he has points he wants to hit in these interviews but he acts as an engaging, thoughtful person who considers his answers.
There was nothing like that in Palin's interview last night; it was clear she had her stock answers and was sticking to those no matter what. Note the time when Gibson asked her about military incursions into Pakistan, and whether she would be willing to do so with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. He asked her, she gave a stock, avoiding the question answer. Gibson took the Tim Russert approach where he asked her a few more times in different ways, trying to get her to drop the scripted lines. She didn't; she had been given that answer, and that's all she was going to say. She didn't portray to me that she had any deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding about the foreign policy issues at hand (although in regards to Pakistan, she was probably told not to answer with a "yes" because McCain has been banging Obama on saying he'd be willing to send military ops force into Pakistan based on intelligence regarding Al Qaeda). It's OK and expected that talking head pundits and campaign surrogates are going to avoid answers, refuse to commit, and not saying anything for fear that they might disrupt the message. But when a nominee, whether for Prez for VP, does it and does it so blatantly, it looks more and more like a purely political pick.
But as I said before, besides the Bush doctrine thing she didn't really fall flat on her face much. So I think she'll be criticized, but it's not a game-ending disaster for her.
Well put
However...
The fact that she doesn't have deep or improvisational thoughtful understanding of Foriegn Policy is in itself a failure and a true sign that she has absolutley no business or qaulification for the job of Vice President.
I agree entirely with that logically, but you have to consider politics, which is and will forever be the complete antithesis of logic.
I don't know that it's a requirement of a vice president --or a president, for that matter -- to have a thorough grasp of every single issue. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. No man has a handle on every single thing.
Foreign policy is not her strength, and understandably so. That would be McCain's job in the administration.
EDIT: I would point out that the guy on top the Democratic ticket has made his own foreign policy gaffes ... beginning with his three-positions-in-three-days take on Russia-Georgia earlier this summer. So it's really hard to say she has no business being vice president on one hand, but that Obama has every business being president on the other.
I would prefer they both had more foreign policy experience, but as I mentioned, you can't have it all in one package.
for the least they could possibly do
It is true ~ maybe not worried EXACTLY that way, but she did say that and she was not joking.
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Granted. Obama has flip flopped on many of his prior statements. But how often do we all do that? No decisions are made on the spot. Minds change and so does policy. When I hear Obama, I hear a man that has thought these things out...and continues to think them out and look for other options. It shows that he's open to different ideas...and that he's still considering other options rather than sticking steadfast to policy like say....Bush or McCain.
Palin didn't even seem like she knew of this policy. She did not seem confident or even aware of these things. Not knowing is a pathetic excuse at that level. It's shows an utter lack of fundemental leadership and capability of such.
What is she there for? Did the Republican Party think they could just throw this backwoods soccer mom on tube and that Americans would be dumb enough to just sit back, eat it up without question?
Biden is a political wolf with lot's of experience; he'll eat her alive in a debate if she stumbles like she did during the Gibson interview.
The Obama thing I mentioned isn't just a flip-flop. It was a complete -- if tacit -- admission that his knee jerk reaction on Russia-Georgia was wrong and that John McCain's was right.
As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the "Bush Doctrine" has changed and expanded and morphed so much in seven years, nobody knows what it means anymore. I think it was a valid thing for Palin to ask for clarification.
Palin is good on energy (from a conservative POV, of course) and she's fiscally conservative. That's what she's there for. Not to devise foreign policy.
I get your point about Biden ... but, as I've said before, it's going to be a very, very tough debate for him, even if his material is better. The worst thing he can do is look like he's attacking or bullying Palin in any way, real or imagined. Just look how apeshit everyone got about the "lipstick on a pig" comment, which might not have even been directed at her.
These things have a way of being the most memorable things to come out of the debates, not the actual policy discussions.
What's the one thing most people still remember about the 2004 debates? John Kerry going out of his way to mention, over and over again, that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. That became the headline, and it didn't matter if Kerry actually won that debate.
Same in 2000, when Gore repeatedly sighed and rolled his eyes at Bush's answers. He lost style points for that too, to the point that people didn't realize he'd actually out-debated GWB.
The Biden-Palin debate has a chance to be that times 1000, in part because Biden has a cute little habit of saying whatever the hell pops into his head at any given moment, and Palin is the most popular woman in America right now, and her supporters are looking for reasons to be offended.
for the least they could possibly do
She's a fiscal nightmare.
She ran a small Alaskan town into a multi-million dollar debt.
She's also an enviromental disaster waiting to happen...
"Drill Drill Drill" "Let's pray to the Lord God for oil"
ohh yeah....and don't get me started on the famous
Iraq War is "God's Task" business.
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. If Palin pulls the Bible Babble during the debates...She'll get eaten alive.
I don't really understand how she is so great for energy. True she was governor of Alaska which produces the 2nd largest amount of energy for our country. Do you know who happened to be governor of the #1 producing state? Hint: His first name is George.
She is vastly overrating her experience with energy. The oil pipeline she is touting as such a great accomplishment hasn't even begun to be assembled, and there is still a chance it won't be. Also, even the best estimates say it won't be done until 10 years from now.
I disagree that you can pick a VP candidate who is only good at one particular area. She could be the President! She needs to have a handle on how the world works. It is unacceptable to be less than on top of things when you could be the leader of the free world at some point in the next four years. You could just feel that during that interview, she was answering the questions almost like she was taking a test. They were very plastic, obviously rehearsed answers that didn't necesarilly address the question asked.
I mean, it depends on what you believe. The people of Alaska seem to believe she's a fiscal saint, and I suppose they would know.
"Drill baby drill" happens to be supported by nearly 70 percent of the American people, "environmental nightmare" be damned.
She never said the Iraq War was "a task from God" ... you and Charlie Gibson need to look at her entire quote verbatim.
Look, I understand you don't get her. She's not your target audience. If McCain put someone you got on the ticket, this election would already be over.
As for "Bible babble" during the debates ... I hope she does, and I hope Biden makes fun of her for it ... the majority of this nation is still Christian. It would be game, set, match if it looks like he's making fun of her faith.
for the least they could possibly do
I don't thinl the President needs to have a handle on every particular area, either, and I don't think there has been a president in our country's history who has.
I don't think such a man (or woman) exists.
As for this experience stuff ... it isn't a debate the Democrats can win. They'd be wiser to leave it alone. Obama can't go around saying, "McCain's vice president is almost as inexperienced as me" and expect to win votes.
for the least they could possibly do
I didn't say anything about her not having enough experience. That is a different argument altogether. My point is that she doesn't have the necessary grasp on foreign relations to be in such a powerful position.
I do disagree that the Republicans somehow have a much more experienced ticket though. It certainly isn't the wash that you and McCain would like to have everyone think.
Maybe she and Putin waved at eachother accross the Bering Strait or something, you never know since she is so close and all.
If McCain wants to get a better handle on the 18-25 demographic , he should get your dad on the campaign trail and do a college tour and talk about getting drunk and laid in foreign ports of call... LOL!
This is 100% true. If anyone here is from NY, they'll remember the 2000 senate race when Rick Lazio got eaten alive for being too tough on Hillary during the debates.