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

blackredyellow

So last night, I read the transcript online and saw clips on TV and didn't think it was that bad.

But just now, I watched the whole interview on youtube, and she really did look out of her league with not being able to answer direct questions, even when Gibson called her out on it.

saveuplife

QuestionAuthority wrote:

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.

Which is more of a "true glance into the mind of America":

156,000 people who posted in a poll that was contained in a link to aol.com's home page

or

about 20 people on a rock and roll band's message board?

QuestionAuthority

saveuplife wrote:

Which is more of a "true glance into the mind of America":

156,000 people who posted in a poll that was contained in a link to aol.com's home page

or

about 20 people on a rock and roll band's message board?

Did I once say this message board was a glance into the mind of America?

That is just absurd.

Brain of J.Lo

I know this interview won't sway some voters. Some people decided from the minute she was picked that she was awesome and exciting, and no amount of gaffes/inappropriate answers will change that.

I've been quietly participating (ok, sometimes provoking arguments...lol) on this board for conservative moms. They know very little about the actual policies of McCain or Obama, but can recite "facts" campaign ads and talking points fed to them by Fox News (who, in their opinion, is the only non-biased option for news...LOL). As soon as McCain picked Sarah Palin, the consensus was "This is so exciting, I have never heard of her before, but she is a woman who will take away the Hillary supporters!" As soon as the McCain campaign cried "sexism", so did they. And last night, they were all congratulating Palin for doing such an outstanding job in the interview, despite how sexist Charlie Gibson appeared to be as he was "quizzing" her, lol.

Short of feeding one of her own children to a moose, Sarah Palin will do no wrong in these women's eyes.

I just hope that voters will be willing to see through the outer shell and ask themselves if they are comfortable voting for her. I don't know if that will happen, because that takes effort on the part of the voter. (And intelligence...)

blackredyellow

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I know this interview won't sway some voters. Some people decided from the minute she was picked that she was awesome and exciting, and no amount of gaffes/inappropriate answers will change that.

I've been quietly participating (ok, sometimes provoking arguments...lol) on this board for conservative moms. They know very little about the actual policies of McCain or Obama, but can recite "facts" campaign ads and talking points fed to them by Fox News (who, in their opinion, is the only non-biased option for news...LOL). As soon as McCain picked Sarah Palin, the consensus was "This is so exciting, I have never heard of her before, but she is a woman who will take away the Hillary supporters!" As soon as the McCain campaign cried "sexism", so did they. And last night, they were all congratulating Palin for doing such an outstanding job in the interview, despite how sexist Charlie Gibson appeared to be as he was "quizzing" her, lol.

Short of feeding one of her own children to a moose, Sarah Palin will do no wrong in these women's eyes.

I just hope that voters will be willing to see through the outer shell and ask themselves if they are comfortable voting for her. I don't know if that will happen, because that takes effort on the part of the voter. (And intelligence...)

I don't get it either... One of the women that I work with, is the anti-republican demographic (mid 20's, arts background - Berklee educated, socially liberal, etc.). The monday after the Palin selection, she was in love with her and actually was filling out a voter registration form.

I asked her why she liked her so much if she agreed with her politically, and she couldn't really answer the question at all.

Gonzo1977

Personally I can't see how anyone could see this interview as anything but a complete and resounding failure for Sarah Palin and the Republican Party.

How could anyone after seeing this interview think that Palin proved that she has the experience needed to take office.

I'll obviously have to see the rest of the interview, but from my vantage point Palin looked completly lost, indecisive, and utterly overwellmed by Gibsons questions.

The fact that she couldn't even knock a a throw-away pitch by Gibson on the "Bush Doctorine" out of the park, was hilarious.

What a Joke.

Biden will no doubt destroy this hack in the Vice Presidential Debates.

Palin makes Dan Quale look like a genius.

QuestionAuthority

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I know this interview won't sway some voters. Some people decided from the minute she was picked that she was awesome and exciting, and no amount of gaffes/inappropriate answers will change that.

I've been quietly participating (ok, sometimes provoking arguments...lol) on this board for conservative moms. They know very little about the actual policies of McCain or Obama, but can recite "facts" campaign ads and talking points fed to them by Fox News (who, in their opinion, is the only non-biased option for news...LOL). As soon as McCain picked Sarah Palin, the consensus was "This is so exciting, I have never heard of her before, but she is a woman who will take away the Hillary supporters!" As soon as the McCain campaign cried "sexism", so did they. And last night, they were all congratulating Palin for doing such an outstanding job in the interview, despite how sexist Charlie Gibson appeared to be as he was "quizzing" her, lol.

Short of feeding one of her own children to a moose, Sarah Palin will do no wrong in these women's eyes.

I just hope that voters will be willing to see through the outer shell and ask themselves if they are comfortable voting for her. I don't know if that will happen, because that takes effort on the part of the voter. (And intelligence...)

Great post and I totally agree.. I too have spoken to women just like who you speak of and they are sold ~ hook, line and sinker on her. They feel they can "relate" to her so much, but ask what she stands for and could not give you one example, other than her relatability and how of her accomplishments as a woman. There is not one thing that will change their mind, even if she comes across looking like an idiot who in no way shape or form is ready to be commander-in-chief. These votes are lost.. I get that and know that ~ thankfully ~ these women do not represent the entire country.

Brain of J.Lo

blackredyellow wrote:

I don't get it either... One of the women that I work with, is the anti-republican demographic (mid 20's, arts background - Berklee educated, socially liberal, etc.). The monday after the Palin selection, she was in love with her and actually was filling out a voter registration form.

I asked her why she liked her so much if she agreed with her politically, and she couldn't really answer the question at all.

If it's going to come down to people voting for who they want to be BFF's with, then *they* deserve what they get.

But I feel like we deserve better. My kid deserves better than that.

meistereder

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I know this interview won't sway some voters. Some people decided from the minute she was picked that she was awesome and exciting, and no amount of gaffes/inappropriate answers will change that.

I've been quietly participating (ok, sometimes provoking arguments...lol) on this board for conservative moms. They know very little about the actual policies of McCain or Obama, but can recite "facts" campaign ads and talking points fed to them by Fox News (who, in their opinion, is the only non-biased option for news...LOL). As soon as McCain picked Sarah Palin, the consensus was "This is so exciting, I have never heard of her before, but she is a woman who will take away the Hillary supporters!" As soon as the McCain campaign cried "sexism", so did they. And last night, they were all congratulating Palin for doing such an outstanding job in the interview, despite how sexist Charlie Gibson appeared to be as he was "quizzing" her, lol.

Short of feeding one of her own children to a moose, Sarah Palin will do no wrong in these women's eyes.

I just hope that voters will be willing to see through the outer shell and ask themselves if they are comfortable voting for her. I don't know if that will happen, because that takes effort on the part of the voter. (And intelligence...)

I think we all know some of these people. And I think this is an accurate description of what is going on. I know a woman in Ohio (a key battleground state) who goes to all the rallies with her two kids. She is in the latest Time photo shaking Palin's hand with tears in her eyes. The kids make signs for Palin, and they're all very excited. These people will not watch an interview like the one yesterday and see anything negative.

I believe McCain - Palin will probably win, and at the same time, that amazes me. And if it happens, I think we'll see lots more of these underqualified American Idol type VP selections in elections to come.

blackredyellow

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

If it's going to come down to people voting for who they want to be BFF's with, then *they* deserve what they get.

But I feel like we deserve better. My kid deserves better than that.

In fairness, a lot of criticism from the right is the same about the people who were smitten by Obama.

digster

meistereder wrote:

These people will not watch an interview like the one yesterday and see anything negative.

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

QuestionAuthority

digster wrote:

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!

krzzzymary

Im scared!


You know ... they deserve her if she wins.

I can't believe this is even happening.

Enkidu

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.

digster

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.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

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.

meistereder

slightofjeff wrote:

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.

88keys

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.

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".

meistereder

88keys wrote:

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.

slightofjeff

meistereder wrote:

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.