Palin Derangement Syndrome

Now even the normally level headed Greg Sargent has it:

Forget war with Russia. The real news from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin is this stretch, where she is clearly clueless about what the Bush Doctrine is...

"In what respect, Charlie?"

This performance is the kind of thing that could have a serious impact on the race, unless everyone politely agrees to ignore it.

This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain's actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson's question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way. The video is on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< WI's Republican AG Files Voter Suppression Suit | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wait.... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    Obama had said we can go into Pakistan without permission.   Am I a wrong?

    You are correct (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    Palin ducked the question, which is what Joe Biden said Obama should have done.

    Gibson uses same ploy (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:21:22 PM EST
    twice to entrap.  Media hacks.

    Missing link (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    Nice memory Stellaa (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    I strongly defended Obama's answer to the same question at the time (and still do) - both on political and policy grounds.

    But that is not the Bush Doctrine either (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    When Obama talks about attacking inside Pakistan he is refering explicitly to high value targets of Al Qaeda.

    The Bush Doctrine states that the US has a right to preventive war aginst another country even if the threat is not imminent (at least Palin included the imminent part).  John McCain subscribes to the Bush Doctrine.

    It is the Bush Doctrine that allowed us to attack Iraq.  If we went out today and bombed the Iranian nuclear installations it would be claimed we were acting under the Bush Doctrine.


    Tell that to Charlies Gibson (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    see the Media Matters link I provide. OR is it ok if it is done to Palin but not ok when it is done to Obama?

    More and more, Democrats are acting like Republicans on these things.


    So, Charlie Gibson has no idea about what he is (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    even asking about.  Why does this not surprise me.

    Which is why interviews like this are generaly useless.


    My point EXACTLY (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    But Sargent does not agree with us, except when Gibson does this crap to Obama.

    When you sacrifice your credibility in this way, you become a useless Media critic. And pretty useless generally.


    But what about the... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM EST
    "His world view" statement.  Clarification as to Gibson's notion about the Bush doctrine would have reflected more familiarity with the area of governance.  She didn't seem to know that Gibson was referring to pre-emptive strikes until he said that specifically.

    If it has just been the "With regard to what" question, I would be with you.  But she seemed blind sided to me when she made two "please clarify" kinds of statements.


    What about it? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    Is it not Bush's world view? If not, why not?

    Its part of that world view... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    but world view includes religious, moral, and ethical dimensions.  The "Bush Doctrine" refers to national defense.  I couldn't have spelled out what it was precisely - "With regard to what" was a great question.  But even I know its specifically about national defense and foreign policy.  It seems that the "World view" statement was just too broad to reflect a real familiarity.

    I don't totally disagree with you, but I heard it the way TPM did and I kind of resent the idea that that makes me delusional or something.


    The bush doctrine was a document: (none / 0) (#183)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:47:07 PM EST
    I agree, but he's not as bad as some! (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:59:16 PM EST
    That's because, somewhere around (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    the time Obama went to Europe, Democrats lost the upper hand and are now operating from fear.

    The media created the phrase (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ding7777 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    Bush Doctrine and it supposedly has four pillars of Bush's policy:

    1. unilateralism
    2. no safe havens
    3. preventive war
    4. democracy expansion

    Gibson only got 2 0f 4 when he rephrased the question

    GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

    There has been a lot of evolution on this... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    ...and if I recall correctly the Bush doctrine was originally just that states that harbored terrorists would be treated as terrorist states themselves and would be subject to retributive attacks. These attacks would also be pre-emptive. It was formulated as a response to the perceived failure of deterrence. It was originally coalesced (again, as I recall) here:

    West Point Speech


    Does Charlie Gibson know that? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    See above... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    ...I've twice answered that question above.


    He is mistaken about what the Bush doctrine is, he thinks it applies to situations it doesn't apply to.

    However, in the interview I think it's clear that Palin showed her ignorance of it before Gibson got a chance to.


    This is the bush doctrine (none / 0) (#201)
    by DanR3 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    Send it to Charlie Gibson (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    How about also sending it to Palin (1.00 / 2) (#215)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:07:43 PM EST
    since she needed him to define it for her.

    Gibson, Pakistan and Bush Doctrine (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    Sen. Barack Obama's assertion that, as president, he would "press them [the Pakistani government] to do more to take on Al Qaeda in their territory," and that "if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike," is "essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis." But by asserting that Obama's policy on Pakistan is "essentially the Bush doctrine," Gibson was claiming that there is in fact a clear Bush doctrine on the question of whether the U.S. would strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan regardless of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Bush and administration officials have in fact made inconsistent statements on this issue.

    PDS allright. (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by 0 politico on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:21:11 PM EST
    The argument should have been whether we should continue to follow the GWB Doctrine.  Palin's request for clarification was appropriate.  Any pol that answers such a question without knowing what context to frame the answer in is asking for a boatload of trouble.

    Again, focus on the issues, not on character asassination.  You look bad otherwise.

    In this case (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by DanR3 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM EST
    This was her first opportunity to show she has a grasp of foreign policy, not whether she can BS her way through a job interview.



    It isn't BS. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:26:39 PM EST
    The Netroots (who are not helping) are salivating over the opportunity to make Palin into Bush.

    Palin is not Bush, and -- in my opinion -- that comparison does not make for a good slogan.  She doesn't look like Bush, sound like Bush, or have a personal story like Bush.  And while this might be dismissed as "fluff" and "ignoring the issues" -- those "issues" do not matter to a majority of the electorate.

    They see that Palin is not George Bush.  You have to indicate that her domestic policies are WRONG and that Republicans are WRONG on these issues, even if they are wrapped in McCain-Palin "reform."  It's a reform America cannot afford.

    Saying "Palin is Bush!" or "Palin is Cheney!" only appeals to the Obama crowd that are already in the tank for Obama.  It doesn't expand the Democratic message to the electorate.

    Foreign Policy, IMO, might get a pile of sawdust from the left, but it will be blown away.  Palin was not selected on foreign policy, and it opens up a hole Republicans can drive a truck through re: Obama and his foreign policy.

    Obama had an opportunity in national office to discuss FP.
    He was in committees where he could hold hearings regarding FP.

    Sarah Palin was not.  This is "red meat" for Obama supporters, but it will not expand to the electorate.

    You need to attack Palin in her electoral strengths: "energy," and "reform" of both the economy and of bureaucracy.  

    More appropriately (or rather, disappointingly) Americans will not look to Palin for FP.  If they did, the polls would not swing Palin.  Women are viewed as "soft" on FP.  Palin's strength is in domestic energy production, "tax breaks," and bureaucratic reform.

    This snippet might give the news cycle a day or so to rejoice in more PDS.  "The Woman can't talk WAR!"  But she's not here to talk war and foreign policy.  Once she is back on her key strengths as a VP, she'll sail on through.  Sarah Palin is "America's EveryMom" and not "America's War Hero."

    FP and Palin is a trap.  It won't work.  She parrotted the party line, refused to be traped by the nebulous "Bush Doctrine," and naturally stumbled.  She is not a FP-wonk.  She isn't, and the electorate will not expect it of her.  She basically did what she had to do.

    The Republicans will parrot that she is not running for the Presidency.  Just watch.


    I think that the interactions between.... (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    ...Palin and Gibson in that clip are a little odd, but I don't think that she showed ignorance in that exchange as much as she demonstrated mastery of the the ubiquitous political tactic of not giving a direct answer.

    I disagree in this case... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    ...Palin's response was clearly a delaying tactic, trying to look for a foothold on which to base her answer. Her follow-up answer, "it's his worldview" confirms that. I think anyone who's ever been in school and had to fumble through a question from a teacher knows what was going on there.

    Her answer was boilerplate stuff about not blinking and always defending America. It was the SAME response she gave to the "did you hesitate when asked to be VP" question:

    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.

    In full context the Russia answer is nothing new, of course, merely talking about how Georgia and Ukraine should be in NATO and THEN we would have to respond.

    Well, she did not fall (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    for the trap like Obama did.  

    I Agree... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.  The push back was a delaying tactic.

    I also agree with BTD, she gave a decent answer once the term was defined for her.  Give her a "C" on that one.  Passing, but not great.


    i dont know what (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Little Fish on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    Exactly the Bush Doctrine is either. And if I were her I'd sure as heck ask for clarification over anything that had the word Bush in it.

    Gibson: do you agree with George Bush on pre-emptive war?

    Me: George Bush? Which George Bush? Could you clarify exactly what you mean by "agree with"? And what kind of war? With who?    


    LMAO! n/t (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    Hmmm (4.81 / 11) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    Your comment makes no sense to me. She asked Gibson to define what he meant.

    See the reaction to Gibson's game playing when it was done to Obama in the Media Matters link I provide, via Stellaa.

    Seems to me you are suffering from PDS too frankly.


    How did she disagree.... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    ...with either Gibson's definition or the Bush doctrine (which is really too simple a concept to require much elaboration, I think) in general?

    Her answer was a bunch of talking points about not blinking and defending America. I don't know what of substance there was in her response that could be gathered together into a disagreement with anything.


    She did not accept the premise of the question (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:40:41 PM EST
    Which is what smart politicans do.

    For eff;s sake, are you all pretending you have never seen a politician ignore the question asked and then give the answer they want to give?

    Are all of you really this unhinged now?

    Incredible. You guys are killing Obama with this craziness.


    Whatever... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    ...perhaps that's what she's doing. Maybe she's ignoring the question. But to me the first two answers, "in what respect, Charlie" and "his worldview?" don't indicate that she knew what the Bush doctrine was.

    Further, if she just wanted to answer the question her own way and DID know what the Bush doctrine was, why on earth give the first two answers? Why? I, and obviously this is just my opinion, think she took "Bush doctrine" to mean the entirety of Bush's policies (as one would guess if one just heard "X doctrine"). That explains why she sought to narrow down that entirety by asking, "in what respect, Charlie?" and then later tried to make sure the entirety was being asked about by asking/stating, "his worldview?"

    If you know that the Bush doctrine is a single policy in a single arena I don't see why you ask those first two questions.  

    As far as that exchange being linked with the Pakistan answer there is a huge, noticeable jump cut between the two (around 1:10 on the TPM video). I think it's questionable whether the two were temporally as connected as edited to appear.


    The obvious question (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    do you think Gibson knows what the Bush Doctrine is?

    And if you do, then what do you make of the fact that Gibson said Obama adhered to the Bush Doctrine?


    Gibson defined it... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:04:02 PM EST
    ...but I think it's pretty obvious that an airstrike on Pakistan because of terrorists along the border regions would not be a representation of the Bush Doctrine, insofar as Pakistan itself is judged not to be supporting or harboring terrorists.

    I still don't see why Palin asked those two questions -- especially the one that sought to make the question broader and therefore trickier (his worldview?) -- if she knew the answer. If someone asked me what the Powell doctrine is I would not ask, "in what respect" and especially not, "his worldview?"

    Gibson apparently overextends the Bush doctrine into meaning every strike on a sovereign nation in defense of the USA, but Palin's questionable responses come before he defines his version.


    He defined it (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    INCORRECTLY, after Palin asked hm to do it.

    Here is the REAL question, does Charlie Gibson know what the Bush Doctrine is?

    In January, the Left blogs were positive Gibson did not know. Why? Because he said Obama adhered to it.

    Look, you want to be a Left Wing Hugh Hewitt, be my guest. I will not go that route myself.


    Didn't I just say that Gibson didn't know? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    He overextended the meaning into a place it wasn't meant to go (airstrikes on the territory of a putative -- though uncooperative in the particular instance --  ally to kill terrorists).

    We're not disagreeing on that.


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Emma on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:24 PM EST
    know what the Bush Doctrine is.  I didn't know the guy had a doctrine.  Any answer she gave, before it was defined, would have just left me out in the cold.  And I would've figured that Charlie Gibson didn't know how to ask a question that anybody with a normal level of paying attention to politics as interested in hearing the answer to.

    Given that I didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, it looked like gotcha politics to me:  less interested in eliciting useful answers and more interested in a verbal sparring match to see if he could come out on top.  "Lookit me!  I'm smarter than the VP candidate!"

    Just ask the damn question:  do you think we have a right to make pre-emptive strikes?

    And what does it matter, anyway?  EVERYBODY's answer is yes.  Nobody, except maybe Gravel, is gonna answer that any different:  if a, b, and c = yes.  And the a, b, and c aren't any different.


    good grief, what happened to 'nuance' (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:16 PM EST
    Why is Obama celebrated for his 'nuance'?  Tweety gets leg tingles over how Obama can't be backed in to a corner and how Presidential it is to be 'nuanced' and the Dems have been celebrating Obama's 'cerebral' nature...  So, in a Dem it's a good thing, in a Repub it's a bad thing.. ok.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    It's easier to attack your opponent if they speak only in binary.

    Gibson kept trying to catch Palin in "yes/no" bifurcation.  

    For me, asking about Georgia-as-NATO-member hypotheticals was ridiculous, much less asking for a "yes/no" response.

    I hate to defend Palin so much, but I mean honestly.  This shouting that "A politician gives non answers!  BURN IT!" mentality from so many is, quite frankly, a self-blinding stance.

    We are talking politicians, after all.


    Thank you, BTD, for your clarity (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by rennies on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    on this point. And for reminding us that Obama also supported the Bush Doctrine in the earlier interview. From the context of that interview, I don't think that Obama knew specifically waht the3 Bush Doctrine entails.

    I deeply appreciate your ability to sort the wheat from the chaff in this extraordinary election.


    I Saw A Different Interview (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    In the Sarah Palin interview I saw, she asked Gibson to clarify because she didn't know what he meant. Gibson had the air of a 9th grade teacher who was trying to explain the basics.

    Palin didn't say that Bush had made blunders. She merely said that blunders had been made.

    Generic, boilerplate, prepped answers.

    Not ready for prime time, not ready to meet the press, not ready to be VP.

    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    Then perhaps you and Media Matters and everyone owes Charlie Gibson an apology for beating him up for ding the dame thing to Obama.

    Except, you don't. Gibson is pretty full of sh*t in my opinion.


    No, I think she asked him to clarify, so (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    she could gauge the shape and depth of the trap he was clearly setting for her.  The ability to not be so convinced of your own superiority that you think you can't be tricked is not something you can prep someone for, and she handled Gibson very shrewdly.

    Palin's deft handling of Gibson's condescension had the effect of making him look bad - not her.  He looked like every other talking head who thinks he's going to be the one to deliver the death blow to someone's career.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Emma on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    He looked like every other talking head who thinks he's going to be the one to deliver the death blow to someone's career.

    Yes, I think that's right.  Very succinct.


    Agree absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by prittfumes on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:32:00 PM EST
    I thought Palin's handling of Gibson's sneak attack was superb. Gibson's condescension made him look rather foolish and Palin was well aware of same imo.

    I think Gibson did a terrible job (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by bjorn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    or maybe he just did what journalists do, i.e. try to trip up politicians....having said that, for some reason, not sure why yet, Palin did not inspire confidence through her answers.  I was disappointed.  I wanted her to be good.  I do not want her to be VP, but I wanted her to be good in this interview.  I think she came across as having no gravitas whatsoever.

    That is a reasonable assessment (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    It is subjective of course but not what TPM wrote.

    I wish people could stick to the topic of the post.


    This exchange concerned me and I'm Jewish! (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:48:42 PM EST
    and a strong supporter of Israel.

    GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

    PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

    GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

    PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

    GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

    PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

    This is just too much of a blank check to be given out in public like that.  A little circumspection is called for, like "but we would hope they would think about the results of an attack" or something like that.

    When we publicly tell Israel and her enemies that we are A-Ok with whatever she decides to do, THAT can only lead to big trouble.

    Agreed (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    Sort of like saying that Israel gets to hold Jerusalem all by itself.

    Oh wait . . .


    this comparison is helpful (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by bjorn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    I am still trying to nail down why Palin did not inspire confidence, imo...and Obama has given some terrible answers to reporters questions in the past, so why do I still see him as having some gravitas?  I think he comes across as someone who has studied the issues but still says stupid things sometimes.  Palin came across as someone who has not been a student of the issues.  Maybe she was over prepared by McCain camp and was too scripted...I still don't know why I thought the interview was disturbing at some level.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    she looked nerbous and, as Willie Brown said, not natural, Felt a little programmed.

    But these are subjective judgments.

    The Sargent post is simply ridiculous imo.


    You said it perfectly (none / 0) (#122)
    by bluegal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:19:22 PM EST
    Comfort. She cannot come off looking uncomfortable and programmed. Her answers were very programmed and the public can see through that.

    Not good at all.


    Not sort of like that at all (none / 0) (#78)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    Staing that Jerusalem should be undivided rather than subject to a final status agreement may have been unwise and temporarily pissed off the Palestinians, but he quickly backtracked and no harm was done.

    This kind of military blank check can't be taken back the day after an attack with an "oops, shouldn't have said that."


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    it was much worse in reality.

    Jerusalem is the most difficult issue of all on Israel/Palestine.


    Jerusalem is the biggest issue, but that Obama (none / 0) (#117)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    statement is no big deal.

    Even after Obama said that, no one in Israel thought that would be the final status, and no Arab did either.  The Arab leaders blustered a little bit, and a day later the whole thing disappeared.

    Whether the Palestinians and the Israelis ever negotiate a final agreement, that Obama statement won't matter one bit.

    A military blank check has much broader implications.


    Wait up (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    Obama's statement on Jerusalem, the most explosive issue, is no big deal, but Palin's statement is?

    For crissakes, this is a textbook example of PDS.


    One consistent answer (none / 0) (#195)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    beats a straddle any day.

    Whether it is the right answer is another question.


    These are trivial issues. It's clear now that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by WillBFair on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:48:55 PM EST
    we're doomed. I saw 6 months before the 2000 election that the media would install Bush. Now it's finally obvious that they'll give it to McCain. They didn't want to rip into Obama too soon after kissing his a--. People might have gotten suspicious. But it was obvious that love affair was strategic in order to get rid of the Clintons.
    McCain and Palin are gettin ALL the coverage. And today, CNN asked him what he would have done if he'd been in charge of the war. Talk about lobbing cream puffs. They didn't ask why he supports all the disastrous Bush policies.
    We've reached a new low. The American people are now stupid enough to vote for the person whose face is on TV most.

    I think Gibson really likes her (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    and as such he was pretty kind to her. He had a script of hard questions, but he put stuff in such a folksy, "we're just talking here" way that it was almost impossible Palin would make a major, shocking gaffe.

    That may be her strength, she is very likable and warm and I think she charmed Gibson, besides which he has scored a major coup with this interview and of course he's grateful, plus they have 2 more nights to go. He may cut loose and let her have it on the last night! :D


    whoa, props where it's due (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    Applause and kisses for the very fair post. See, I think strident and unfair attacks only stir up the faithful and don't change anyone's mind, they don't persuade. Well thought out and well reasoned arguments do. The unfair and hysterical attacks on Palin only make it IMPOSSIBLE to make valid attacks, because it's lost in all the noise.

    Very much kudos and props for your fair assessment. I thought she stammered a bit here and there but I was rooting for her and I don't think she made any gaffes. She's under tremendous pressure, but I agree that if you are going to be president, you need to show you can handle a TV interview, if you can't, how can you handle Putin. On that score, I think she's coming along.

    Frankly, I don't see Obama as any more prepared, he's just a lot better at giving interviews. I really like her honesty and her REALNESS. I just feel I can trust her and believe in her, even if I don't agree with everything she says.

    I'm very interested to see if she agrees with McCain on immigrant amnesty. I'm HUGE On amnesty because I have relatives who it directly affects. I'm for fairness in immigration policy. I basically believe EVERY SINGLE PERSON who wants to be an American (except criminals and potential terrorists) should have a PATH to being one, in a fair, timely fashion and at a nominal, low cost.

    I'm at odds with a lot of my friends on this.

    You should have an immigration thread, there hasn't been much talk about it in the campaign so far.

    If TPM had written a post (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    saying she seemed nervous, programmed and unsure of herself, I would have had no complaint.

    that is not the post they wrote.


    Yeah, some of her answers were obviously scripted (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    And she would repeat herself, like that is the answer I'm supposed to give and I'm going no further, like the Israel answer, and that bothered me.

    But she is probably under orders what to answer and she doesn't want to blow it. After she finds her legs and the pressure is off I think she'll loosen up and we'll get to hear HER answers instead of the ones she's been drilled with flashcards on.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#112)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    Or maybe that's something team McCain doesn't want one iota of. To riff off something BTD shrewdly noted earlier in the comments, what happens if/when the GOP's new rock star has different views than McCain?

    I'm with you on immigration (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    I have no idea what her views are. Since McCain himself has flip-flopped on this issue, however, I'm not sure she knows yet how to express herself on this issue.  If she's got views that aren't in sync with McCain's (whatever they are), she'll have to be "educated" some more.

    But do you really see her as warm and real? I'm willing to believe that she is in her personal life, that she's a loving mom and wife, but that's not what I am seeing in her public appearances. I am seeing someone who hews tightly to a script full of buzzwords and one liners, someone who evades questions and responding to investigations, someone who claims executive privilege on communications she's shown to her husband and possibly other private citizens, someone who claims to be against earmarks but actively sought them, someone who has lied about her record on the Bridge to Nowhere and repeated that lie even after the press has (miraculously) exposed it.

    In any event, I really don't care if she's warm, just like I didn't care if Al Gore was someone I wanted to have a beer with. I respect the fact that she's juggling a demanding job with family, that she accepted and loves her infant despite the problems that will face her family, and that she appears to be supportive of her daughter. But I don't agree with her policies concerning education, sex education or reproductive freedom.  That matters to me much more than whether she is a good mom to her own children.


    Palinology (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by pyrrho on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:54:39 PM EST
    I've not been blogging, or paying that much attention to the blogging world, but after the conventions have been watching... much has not changed.

    It is shocking how poorly places like DK treated the Palin nomination, how clumsy their attack and poor their assumptions were, and with the press following the tone if not all the details of every rumor that was thrown out there, the result was a much lowered expectation of Palin, and a huge audience for her.  

    Obama's responses seem smarter than the press and infinitely smarter than the blogs in general, but he has not wrested control of the message back, and looks like he might not really see the new dynamics of the election.

    I hope he knows that to engage directly with Palin makes him look as though he's not fit to engage with McCain directly... I think he knows that, but the press can still portray it as Obama vs. Palin.

    If McCain were still getting press, he'd be screwing up, if, and I don't think he can but, if the focus is on Palin from now on, McCain will win.

    To think, the Palin pick ended cold turkey a prime example of McCains ability to turns single gaffes into series of gaffes as he refuses to face reality (the 7 houses, 5 million dollar set of blunders)... cold turkey, no more said.

    But the left bloggers, as a trend, not every individual, OF COURSE, are really addicted to being right and that means sticking to their first knee-jerk underestimation of Palin and her role in the McCain ticket.  They are wed to the notion that she sinks McCain, and if he rises, well, he must really be sinking, what you see is an illusion!

    There are easy solutions, but many democrats, one the hunt for Victory, don't know the prey they are tracking is Failure.

    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:59:42 PM EST
    Now I am nervous. pyrrho agreeing with me. When does that ever happen?

    I've given you time... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by pyrrho on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:08:06 PM EST
    ... to finally come around to reality.

    I would say (4.50 / 2) (#109)
    by chrisvee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:15:47 PM EST
    when pigs fly but I'm observing a ban on pig-related speech right now. ;-)

    Pig related speech (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:22:16 PM EST
    no longer kosher?

    Do we have to start using (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by badguppy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    "Palin Derangement Syndrome" here too? I've seen it on right-wing blogs like Michelle Malkin. They want to peremptorily pathologize criticism of Palin. Cut off debate right from the start. I'm uncomfortable with liberals using right-wing memes. It's a little too much Stockholm Syndrome.

    I am uncomfortable (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    with Democrats being afraid to tell the truth.

    When someone is unhinged, they are unhinged.

    Calling it a "Right Wing meme" is the kind of BS Republicans pull. I detest it when Dems do it. Please do not do it here.

    Or not in my threads at least.

    I will speak the truth as I see it and not worry about your sensibilities.

    But you will follow the rules I establish in my threads.


    I see your point (none / 0) (#190)
    by badguppy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    that calling it right wing is a form of cutting off debate in a liberal blog.
    I am trying to stay calm about this election... I swear BTD, you have some real sang froid.

    Heh. (5.00 / 8) (#186)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    I started using PDS before Michelle Malkin did.  And I'm a Democrat and was a Hillary voter.  

    The shoe fits, it fits.  It is Palin Derangement Syndrome.

    The fact we're still comparing our top of the ticket to the bottom of the Republican one, I think, gives credence to "Palin Derangement Syndrome."


    Gibson has a way (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:09:02 PM EST
    of asking questions with incorrect premises, which forces you to either waste your time trying to correct his premise, or else do the savvy thing and just answer a question of your own.

    This question, which misstates the Bush Doctrine.

    Several of the questions at the Democratic debate, which were ridiculous.

    His question to Gov. Palin about the "Iraq is a task from God" line, which he dishonestly truncated (as most people have been doing on the blogs), and then, when she said "I don't think I said that," he insisted was an exact quote.

    This is his style.  It's awful.  I refuse to play gotcha with someone over their answer to a question that had an incorrect premise.

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    That is what the Media Matters link was about.

    It seems that now some on the Left are willing to embrace Gibson when he does it to a Republican.

    This is how the Left blogs have tossed their credibilty to the wind.


    People on blogs are willing to embrace (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by tigercourse on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:19:19 PM EST
    absolutely anyone when they think if furthers a goal that they have. Witness the ridiculous love for Hagel not too long ago. Andrew Sullivan and even Chris Matthews become popular at the drop of a hat. I'm sure I've done the same thing.

    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:24:42 PM EST
    The media matters criticism was that Gibson was falsely labeling Obama's stance as the Bush Doctrine. The accusation there is word twisting or false interpretation.

    Sargent's charge is that Palin was unaware or unable to accurately define the Bush Doctrine but Gibson was more that willing to let her off the hook.

    So one complaint involves attacking a Democrat and the other and going soft on a Republican, not sure I'm seeing how these two are at odds with each other.


    correction (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    I was blurring Marshall and Sargent. On the main page Marshall goes after Gibson for letting her off the hook.

    Bottom line is I still think that they're 2 different charges. Media Matters saying Gibson twisted Obama's words, and TPM saying Palin was in over her head and Gibson let her slide. One involves misrepresenting facts and the other is being a willing accomplice.


    No it does not (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    Media Matters says Gibson twists the Bush Doctrine.

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    the twisting by Gibson was of the BUSH DOCTRINE!! The question is does Charlie Gibson know what the Bush Doctrine is?

    Your comment reinforces my point.


    See your point, but (none / 0) (#200)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    I still think that the arguments are different. Media Matters is pretty clear on the "Bush doctrine" here and here.

    Media Matters said Gibson was wrong in how he defined the Bush doctrine.

    Talking Points Memo is saying when Gibson asked her about the Bush doctrine was she didn't seem to know the term or concept at all.


    I just watched the video (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    and it is very, very clear to me that she had no idea that the Bush Doctrine is a defined term.

    That doesn't mean there was anything wrong with her answer, but I thought that much was quite clear.


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    it seemed to me like she just wanted to avoid a yes or no answer to Gibson's question.  But again, with all the cuts, who can tell?

    The question about the Bush doctrine... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:17:37 PM EST
    ...and the question about Pakistan were presented separately in the Palin interview but presented together in the Obama question.

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:35:40 PM EST
    Absolutely not true.

    They were presented as a continuum.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    The Pakistan part of the question came after the Bush doctrine question. It was not part of the Bush doctrine question. Whatever came after the bit where Palin was confused has only to do with Gibson's ignorance, not Palin's.

    It came as part of the Bush Doctrine question (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:49:26 PM EST
    And a mere review of Gibson's performance with Obama proves you wrong. Gibson believes the Pakistan question is a Bush Doctrine question.

    Ok, this is my last comment on this... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:53 PM EST
    ...what Gibson believes or is wrong about is separable from what Palin believes or is wrong about. Both interviewer and interviewee can have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:55:26 PM EST
    We were discussing whether GIBSON's question about Pakistan related to GIBSON's question about the Bush Doctrine.

    The question was clearly a continuation of the Bush Doctrine issue.


    re: Steve M OMG I hate 'agenda" questions (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    The job of the interviewer should be to help us understand the positions, policies and stands on the issues of the candidates. So many of Gibson's, and many interviewers these days, questions are the "when did you stop beating your wife" type, or like he is just spouting off his opinion instead of really asking a question. It's so annoying. I also hate the fluff questions. Just get on with the policy questions Charlie, ok?

    The quote (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by chrisvee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    truncation really bothered me. So dishonest and frankly, not necessary. The things she has actually said are bad enough. There's no need to embellish them and then give her room to cry 'biased liberal media!' or whatever.

    Thank you for upholding the values of ... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by mogal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST

    the democratic party I once knew.

    Calling it a "Right Wing meme" is the kind of BS Republicans pull. I detest it when Dems do it. Please do not do it here.

    I respectfully disagree with this post (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:19:07 PM EST
    As I watched the interview, my impression was that she had never heard of the Bush doctrine.  

    She responded with, "I believe what Bush had attempted to do is rid of the world of islamic extremists.  Terrorists who are hell bent on..." etc. -- this is a really vague answer which isn't a response to the doctrine question.

    To be fair, it was the election of 2004 where doctrine's were hot button issues.  Powell doctrine, one-percent doctrine, etc.  They haven't come up much this cycle.

    I repsecfully diagree with your comment (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:27:40 PM EST
    but let's take this a step further, does it matter?



    Well, it concerns me because she could be presiden (none / 0) (#209)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    And it shows she may not have been very interested in foreign policy or global issues for very long.  I have many fond memories debating Kerry vs Bush and the Powell Doctrine vs Bush Doctrine came up quite frequently.  And don't get me started on the one-percent doctrine.  OMG, just typing it gets me all riled up.  

    So I worry about it because I think McCain is more likely to win the election than Obama. And whether I vote for her or not, we're all better off if she's been thinking about these issues for a long time.

    I do agree that Gibson was an ass, and doesn't have nearly the grasp of policy he thinks he does.


    It seems odd to me,,, (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    ... that she didn't seem to know that there's a specific thing called the Bush Doctrine. But I also think that in winging it and trying to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of Bush's entire foreign policy, she came off pretty competently and reasonably.

    It's possible (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by chrisvee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    that she was trying to avoid sound bites that quote her defining the Bush Doctrine. Or sounds bites that quote her praising or bashing Bush on this particular subject.

    I think her demeanor might have more to do with caution and trying to avoid a bit mistake than winging it.


    Reject your premise (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    She asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it.

    I guess it depends on whether you think... (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM EST
    ... there actually is a clearly defined Bush Doctrine, which I suppose is debatable. To me, it's the idea that the United States reserves the right to wage pre-emptive war on countries that threaten to attack us with WMDs. I gather it means other things to other people, though, so I'm not going to find major fault with Palin's answer.

    Finally... (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    A diagnosis.

    Is there a cure, doctor?

    BTD, it's PDS but ... (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    it's also this desire of some on the left to label every Republican as dumb.

    It never works.

    And now we're going hear for the next week how Palin doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is.

    Meanwhile, McCain lumbers along taking no hits, as he steps closer and closer to the White House.

    Odd segment (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    I can't tell if she couldn't follow him or not.  There are far too many cuts in that video to be sure that we aren't missing some big pieces of the puzzle - in at least a couple of cases it seems to come into her answers part way through.


    the Left Blogs are Killing themselves (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by S on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    BTD says:

    She did not accept the premise of Gibson's question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way.

    Thank You, BTD...thank you for recognizing that the left...is going over the cliff these days...granted, some of them were far gone during the primaries when it came to Hillary...but now...it is going beyond the pale...

    for smart people to be making and encouraging so many foolish and immature comments on a daily basis, not to mention spreading lies and ridiculous distortions is really going to backfire on democrats and their credibility...people are not that stupid and the mental manipulation is insulting...I have always expected better from Democrats...what is happening to our integrity?

    Minor copy edit (none / 0) (#187)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    I think we mean "left" blogs -- with irony quotes.

    I don't consider... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    ...what passes for the left in the US to be intellectually serious. The critters running around today are shadows of giants like Bevan, Ickes, Truman, Attlee or LBJ.

    Palin Derangement Syndrome (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    The fear that the leftie blogs have that McCain has chosen a VP that might change the game plan for the campaign. Any candidate who would have perpetuated the "two old white men" theme for the Republicans would have been met with approval. Other symptoms of PDS include "Any woman but this one". This symptom shows itself in comments such as "Why didn't he chose Olympia Snowe or Kay Hutchinson? Either one of them would have been a better choice". Of course, we already know that "Any woman but this one" is a chronic complaint that cannot be treated until every woman on the planet comes up for nomination. The last woman standing might have a chance. The cure for PDS is to get off your duff and run against her without sinking so low that you lose every female vote there is. It can be done, but time's being wasted.

    There's already a PDS logo. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by 1jpb on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:43:50 PM EST
    Perhaps this logo can be borrowed for talkleft, if PDS is found to be a reoccurring problem, as has been the situation for MM.

    I don't (4.85 / 7) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM EST
    know what people are so upset about. The fact that she didn't come out and endorse the Bush doctrine? I can imagine the hysteria simply comes from the fact that she did well. Frankly someone who says "war should be the last option" comes off as pretty appealing to me. I guess it's because it jives with my beliefs.

    Bush said war was his last option too... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Addison on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    ...but he didn't mean it.

    No one says that war isn't their last option.

    I'm not sure what people are talking about when they say Palin was against the Bush doctrine.


    I do not understand your comment (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    The point is not what Palin said. It is how Gibson defined the Bush Doctrine.

    Palin clearly disagreed with it.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    that's the way it came off. She even admitted that Bush had made blunders. Most neocons don't even admit the blunders. They are all about how Bush will be lionized for his brilliance in the years to come.

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:33:07 PM EST
    Palin gave a shrewd answer. It is, however, at odds with McCain.

    That is a promising angle. After I watch the whole thing tonight, I will probably do a McCain v. Palin write up.


    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    it will be interesting to see what you have to say on that. It's not the only issue they are not on the same page about. Of course, the same could be said for Obama and Biden.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:01 PM EST
    In a way, that helps Obama. But it will be interesting IF Dem surrogates can learn how to put pressure on McCain by pressing him on his disagreements with Palin.

    Haven't (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    you gotten the memo from the Dems that McCain is no longer relevant in this election? LOL!

    Perhaps next angle (none / 0) (#66)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:58:01 PM EST
    That would be an interesting move. Clearly McCain has energized the right with Palin. But is it possible her zeitgeist could possibly overshadow him? McCain and co. are bending over backwards to talk up how qualified, ready, savvy, etc. she is. So what happens if she has views like this, or more, that differ from McCain? Clearly they can't say anything that would diminish her credentials, but would seem any type of "well we all know who's in charge" would be problematic.

    Not sure if we're on the same page BTD, but I think this could be a very interesting, and very successful way to go after this ticket.


    BTD thanks (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:08:25 PM EST

    thanks or some sanity in this analysis.

    Sullivan is unreadable. Kos has been for a while. Salon is having a contest for who can be the most dehumanizing and debasing. Its nice that there is an island of sanity.

    Does anyone know if Palin has even met Bush yet? It sounds like she only meet McCain twice, so I am wondering if he has even had a face to face with Bush about his foreign policy goals and tactics.


    We all just have a different (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    definition of what options are than he does I guess and what constitutes an option.  George W Bush said everything a compassionate conservative would have said and everyone believed him.

    You really are unhinged (4.66 / 6) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    She knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.

    The insanity is complete from some of you.

    BTD...watch again... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:41 PM EST
    She clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. She replied that it was Bush's world view, if she wanted some specifics she could have simply said do you mean the idea of preemptive war or the spreading of Democracy? If she knew she would have acted insulted and asked him to specify. Instead she simply stated "In what respect?" She definetly had a deer in the headlights look.

    Is it not Bush's world view? (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    If not, why not?

    Umm that's a pretty broad term (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by borisbor on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:01:43 PM EST
    That's such a bulls*it answer.. its the kind of thing you write on a test if that you were cramming for and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

    "world view"? that could cover anything Bush thinks.  

    The bush doctrine is a pretty specific thing.

    Anyone watching that interview would know she doesn't know what it is.

    Even when Charlie gives her the opportunity to define it, she goes off into a vague statement about  eliminating islamic extremism.


    Ahhh (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:25 PM EST
    Pols giving a bullsh*t answer. That's never happened before.

    Again.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    If she knew why wouldn't she say in what respect, are you talking about preemptive war or his policy of spreading democracy? In what respect is so broad and generic, just like most of her answers. When asked about her foreign policy experience she  claimed it was based on her knowledge of energy. When asked about her relations with foreign countries she states that she can see Russia from Alaska. She did not seem to have a firm grasp on the issues. Obama may have stumbled on some issues, but at least he understood the issues.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST

    At this point, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe.

    Now, I will brook no What Obama Meant from you after tonight.


    Also, (none / 0) (#104)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    He did state the Bush doctrine as stated in 2002 right before the Iraq war in follow up. If she was knowledgeable and comfortable on the subject she would have corrected him.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:55:55 PM EST
    She pulled the answer out of her butt.

    I was not so impressed with Palin (4.50 / 4) (#35)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    She several times had a deer in the headlights look on her face, and then started talking in an attempt to get it off her face (which she managed -- when she starts talking she looks more confident, even if she's saying anything substantive).

    But I'm surprised she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, and after Gibson didn't give her a clarification she answered the question as if the question was about world view.  And she sounded silly, IMO.

    I never saw Gibson's questioning of Obama, so I don't have an opinion as to whether he was playing gotcha with Obama. But given the legitimate questions about Palin's readiness, I'm not terribly distressed by Gibson's trying to see how much she knows without getting a prompt for the release of talking points.  

    She did qualify her answer by saying that she thought preventative war was appropriate only if attack was "imminent."  Technically, that's a different formulation than Bush, because Bush  assiduously avoided defining the level of risk that would warrant a preventative war. He just talked about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, creating the misleading impression that an attack from Iraq WAS imminent without explicitly saying so.  And we know now that he would not have considered himself bound by the word "imminent" in any case.

    I'm not sure I really understand her answer about Georgia.  And that troubles me. It sounded like she was leaving open the possibility of military intervention in Georgia, and other former Soviet republics. The conditions under which she would consider doing that were unclear to me, though.

    If I understand you correctly (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    you are positing that Palin was capable of giving a cogent and CORRECT answer on when it is appropriate to use military force but was unaware of the Bush Doctrine.

    And you believe your position is a reasonable one.

    Well, you go with that if you want. But going to Charlie Gibson on what constitutes the Bush Doctrine requires you to then accept that Obama believes in the Bush Doctrine too.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    I think she articulated the right words without really understanding what she meant by them. She was rambling. She didn't understand or acknowledge, when she said that "mistakes were made" (by whom?) that the "mistakes" were not minor, or tactical -- they were fundamental to the whole issue of whether we should have gone to war in the first place. She didn't acknowledge that what Bush has said about it are at variance with the way he has invoked it.  Bush pretends that the doctrine is triggered by an "imminent threat of attack," and that's what he tried to pretend in 2002-03, but in fact the Bush doctrine was invoked based on a speculative threat based on false information. Gibson should have pressed her about that.

    She was just stringing words together in a way that allowed her to keep rambling and point her finger until she hit on something that sounded vaguely reasonble.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:01:06 PM EST
    Mindreading now.

    I am no fan of this type of analysis.

    The words are what they are.

    You want to make a comment on her demeanor, that seems fair to me.

    But mindreading? No, I object.


    Why do we study demeanor? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    Because we think it will tell us something about what is going on inside someone's head.

    Am I a mindreader? No. I could be totally wrong. I'm just stating my impressions of her actual knowledge level based on her language, her body language, her cadence, her facial expressions.



    Demeanor (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    is certainly different than stating, as you do, that Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

    It's what I think (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    based on the evidence. You have another view.

    We'll never know for sure unless she someday admits that she didn't know what the heck Gibson was talking about, or boasts of having successfully manipulated him!


    Again confused (none / 0) (#89)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    Below you say there are things such her answer to Russia that are off topic of this discusision. Here you say demeanor, but not figuring out what demeanor means is also not a good idea. How then are we to contextualize the words that you want us to rely on?

    Your comment has confused me (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:11:09 PM EST
    I do not understand it.

    shorter: how do you look her peformance (none / 0) (#147)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM EST
    by parsing it rather than the entire performance.

    I need to break it: (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is not a Democrat.

    She admitted mistakes were made.
    She is not going to take on her own Party while she is on the trail.  She is at the bottom of McCain's ticket, and won't jeapordize him by saying "Bush was full of s**t!"

    This is how politics works.  You still work within your party structure to secure electoral support.  It's how it goes.

    To expect Sarah Palin to come out saying "BUSH IS WRONG.  THE WAR IS WRONG!" is projection.  Sarah Palin is a Republican, and by some metric must say the war is right, and what we are doing is "securing America."

    It's rhetoric.  Just as "end the war!" was Democratic rhetoric in '04, '06, and now.  And the war is still going on, mind.  Even with the "power of the purse" in our hands.

    I agree: Palin was not as strong on this as she could have been.  But I also said upthread: Palin was not selected on foreign policy.  McCain was.  "CiC threshold" and all that.  Palin is focused on domestic issues, which is why she tried to get back on energy, but Gibson refused to allow it.

    If you want Sarah Palin to sound like a Democrat, you're wrong.  For me, this is a gender-trap.  "She's a woman, ergo, she should be liberal.  She's saying all the wrong things about the Republicans!"  

    This cognative dissonance will cost us dearly.  She is a Republican woman.  Democrats do not own women, nor are they the only party to have women elected to office.

    It's projection.


    I was disturbingly impressed with her (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:17 PM EST
    ability to not be stupidly ensnared while contantly placing the safety and welfare of the country first and foremost in an often dangerous world.  She is polishing very well and very quickly and as someone praying for the Democrats to get it together and surrounded by people every single day who must deal with the question about when and where we use force, I am not a happy little camper tonight.  I found her very appropriately responsive to almost all of the questions and worse yet a savvy politian that a lot of people can easily vote for in the general election.  If this thread is any indication of how the blogs will tackle Palin on issues there's no point in blogging anymore.

    Left Blogs? (3.50 / 2) (#105)
    by bluegal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:13:49 PM EST
    What is this bashing of the left blogs? Isn't this a left blog?

    Greg makes a good point imo. Sarah Palin was awful tonight. I could only imagine Hillary doing the interview and being smooth because she actually understands foreign policy not what the neocons have whispered in her ear. It's as if this woman was given a set of talking points and key words she was supposed to blurt out.

    Greg is right to call her out because after all John McCain's age is an issue and she could very well be President.

    If this had been Obama, it would have ended his campaign.

    Greg is right.

    I know you know (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:32:15 PM EST
    I bash the Left blogs all the time.

    Are you really unaware of it?

    I have to question your qualification as an intelligent commenter.

    Or is the alternative more likely, you wanted to slam me in a sly way and are pretending not to know that I slam the Left blogs all the time? Sort of like Sarah Palin did to Gibson.


    I can't ask a question? (none / 0) (#189)
    by bluegal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:50:34 PM EST
    I thought Greg made a very valid point about Sarah. I respectfully disagree with you on this so-called PDS thing.

    The woman scares me to death. I am glad that people are discussing her and asking questions. John McCain is 72 years old and has had health issues, the "lefts" focus on her to me is appropriate so long as it is not personal.

    I do not agree with talking about Palin's family but Greg and many on the "left" since apparently that is not what this site is, bring up some valid points about Sarah that need to be addressed. If this had been Obama giving this kind of interview less than two months before the election, his campaign would have been over and rightfully so.


    I can't answer your comment? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    Well it's her first real big interview (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    Come on now. Being able to ace interviews isn't necessarily proof you can govern. Sports figures give great interviews. Bubbleheaded movie stars give great interviews. Giving a great interview just means you are at ease giving interviews. You think some of our great leaders in the past would be comfortable and glib in interviews? I don't think it proves jack.

    What I do think is relevant is how she performs under pressure. The campaign is the only real test we have of how they might perform in a crisis. You must admit, Obama has had his share of gaffes and in some of the debates he's been a bit flustered. He's been at this for 19 months, she's been at it for 2 weeks. Before this, she was actually doing her job (I'd have to say, if I were an Illini resident I'd be a little miffed one of our Senators had been MIA for half the time he's been in there).

    I think she did fine, and she'll get better. I think she was a bit scripted and McCain's people need to let her off the leash a bit, she'll do better when she can answer honestly. I've seen interviews with her on vid before she was picked, and she has a great command of the issues, she's confident and exudes control and leadership. She is a very astute mind on the issue of energy. IMHO if they are elected, McCain should put her in charge of energy policy and developing alternatives while at the same time using more of the USA's resources that are currently forbidden. She gave a really fantastic interview about this, I could probably find it on YouTube, very intelligent and with great command of the material.

    I think her main problem tonight was trying to follow a pre-arranged script the McCain handlers forced on her. She needs to get off that.


    Interesting that you imagine Hillary giving it. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:26:12 PM EST
    You didn't consider Obama?

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by bluegal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    I have heard numerous people say that she's just like Hillary! To which I want to pull my hair out and roll my eyes. The press gave Hillary hell and this woman is getting off easy and she is clueless and not even competent.

    I was comparing her based on the comments I have heard from people who try to equate her with Hillary.  

    I think both Hillary and Barack would have been fine in this setting. Sarah flopped and badly. She is not fit to be VP especially with John McCain's age.


    I was just kidding with you. I see no similarity (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Teresa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    with Hillary either. (Except for the obvious one.)

    I do have to wonder, though, if Tim Kaine had been picked, would he be subjected to a Foreign Policy Test on national TV? I've never seen such outrage over a governor before. Strange since that's usually who is on the top of the ticket.


    Projection. (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by lansing quaker on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    I have not seen one person anywhere -- even on hardcore PUMA sites -- compare Palin to Hillary.

    Not one.

    They have compared the sexism from the Obama-Left.  To wit: someone like John Aravosis posting about Hillary:

    "Is Laura Bush qualified to be President?"

    and then

    "Is my mom qualified to be Vice President?"

    But no comparison on tone or ideology.  I have yet to hear one person say they are alike, from either left or right.

    Projection.  Most people are comparing the gender-smear jobs between the two, and how a lot of the Netroots lost credibility in attacking Palin with "blue dog" Dems because they attacked Hillary and her supporters in similar ways.

    But never the two women themselves.


    Hillary is the smoothest interviewee ever (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:30:43 PM EST
    She'd have aced it. She has all the issues mastered, she knows it chapter and verse. She doesn't hesitate and she never gaffes as far as policy questions go. She comes across as a bit pedantic at times, but so does Bill, they talk down sometimes.

    But jeez she's been giving big interviews for 20 years. You can't read too much into giving a great interview. Paul Newman gives a fantastic interview, but that doesn't mean he should be president. I'd wager harry Truman would have given a terrible interview, but eh was a great president.

    I think we're microanalyzing all this because we are looking for clues about her since we don't know her. You have to watch out for trying to glean too much information out of too little data. We need 20 interviews to start getting a picture of this lady.


    Thre's not enough time for 20 interviews by Nov 4 (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST

    That's the problem.


    Sure there time for 20 interviews (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    And we'll get them. And we'll get her on Meet the Press and 60 Mins and print interviews and televised speeches and the debates. I have no problem with that. I think she's capable and find the people questioning her qualifications or fitness for office silly. Really, when you get down to it, she's more qualified than Hillary or Obama. It's a fact. She got elected to both mayor and Governor on her own hook, with no husband politician and no "mentor" or Chicago political machine shepherding her through uncontested elections, she had no money behind her like Pelosi and no famous daddy politician.

    So she's plenty capable, and I happen to think she'll be our first woman president, I just feel it.

    I'm so excited by all this hoopla I'm just giddy! Of course I wish she were a moderate Democrat instead of a Republican, but I just can't seem to care, I'm just so stoked that a woman is in there playing the game. I can't help but wish her well and root for her with all my heart. Tonight I was watching with bated breath at every answer and just praying and urging her to do well with my mind. There's so much riding on it. I feel like if she fails, people will say "see, women can't measure up, she failed just like Hillary failed when crunch time came" and I so don't want her to fail.

    I know identity politics sucks, but I'm completely immersed in this. I want the woman in the race to do well and give as good as she gets. I'm crazy angry when I read unfair attacks and I'm giddy happy when she does well. I'm just so invested in this. Yes, it's because she's a woman, I admit it. I can't help it. I want US to do well, and I don't care how many lectures I get about abortion rights and all the rest.


    Debates v interviews (none / 0) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    How much time did Obama (or any of the others) get in the multidude of first debates?  If people demand she gets the time and attention Obama has received, they need to be ready to accept she may get the media adoration Obama gets and that they don't get to determine the content of that time.  She may do fine.

    BTW, 10 comments...you are at 11.


    It is a more sensible idea, but McCain actually (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    supports the Bush Doctrine of pre-emtive action.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    If TPM had written a post to that effect, I would be applauding it.

    They did not.


    Really? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    Surely they couldn't do something that made sense now? /snark

    When you are unhinged (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    rationality is out the window.

    I couldn't agree with you more vigorously (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST
    without hurting myself or something in my surroundings. What she said about the option of going to war with Russia today, I thought to myself see...just let Governor Palin speak and when we discover her policies it will be obvious who America needs to vote for, BUT NOPE, HOW COULD ANYTHING BE THAT SIMPLE?  Ronald Reagan didn't even say such ridiculous and dangerous things about going to war and Russia, alas somehow Palin's insanity was lost though and got caught up in and covered up in somebody else's other sort of insanity.  Yup, there's no need to fear......Wonderblog is here

    Palin syndrome (none / 0) (#39)
    by Oceandweller on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST
    One item is that she thinks seriously without qualms or afterthoughts she is fit for the job. Anyone who says without concern that he/shhe is fit is loco.
    Simple, being without humility is a litmus test.
    Gpv Palin; thinks seeing acountry miles away gives her insight about the Russian-americal foreign policies.
    She is ready to go to war with Russia over well- between you and me bits of territories which have been russian before Stalin was born; so which have been russian before Alaska became american make me  a lot uneasy. Tkaes 2 to tango.
    EU OKed Kosovo; Putin asks for same tretament for Ossetia. We say ukraine can belong to NATO why Putin could not take a very dim view to see a former territoty since how many centuries grow apart. Lets imagine the Navajos claiming their land and wishing recognition from the international community...
    Wel yes; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Sarah Palin is unfit because not only she is vain regarding the position, not only because she is ignorant- she can lear- but because despite being a governor, she has not have found time to learn for so many years a bit more about her western neighbour.

    So is Obama and Biden (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    or do you not understand what being a member of NATO means?

    Did I miss something? (none / 0) (#40)
    by 1jpb on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:47:25 PM EST
    Being on the W coast, I've only read a transcript.

    But, at one point she indicated that we need to prevent Russia from controlling fossil fuel movement in an out of Russia.

    1. Are we trying to exert control over Russia's fossil fuels?

    2. If we are; do we want to openly acknowledge that we are working to exert control over Russia's fossil fuels?  It seems like we would want to deny this, even if it's true--just like saying the Iraq war had nothing at all to do with Saddam's potential influence on oil in the Middle East.

    Maybe I misinterpreted Palin's comments from the transcript.  Maybe this is the behind the scenes talk of the McCain camp.  Maybe she accidentally conflated our justified interest in Russia's oil trade with our justified interest in keeping Russia from attacking neighbors--in other words, she got her newly learned talking points mixed up.

    Comment is off topic (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    Please stick to the topic of this post.

    well (none / 0) (#43)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    I know full well she didnt know what the Bush Doctrine was. Her answer is perfectly clear in that regard.

    The question is, why should she?  She's already said in 2006 she wasnt following the situation in Iraq.  She's the governor of a very low-population, rural state.  Why would she follow it closely?  Many people might not know exactly what it means.

    She has little foreign policy awareness and there is only so much they can teach in two weeks.   I dont think its a surprise that she is rough around the edges.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    since YOU know it, here's my question, do you think Obama knew it and do you agree with Charlie Gibson that Obama adheres to the Bush Doctrine?

    Has Obama has heard of the Bush doctrine? (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    Are you wondering whether Obama has heard of the Bush doctrine?

    He's brought it up in a few speeches and interviews.  I just did a quick search:

    Q: How will future historians describe your foreign policy doctrine?

    A: The Obama Doctrine is not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. Bush's ideology has overridden facts and reality. That means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.

    2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate

    In the 2004 election, doctrines were hot stuff.  Powell Doctrine vs Bush Doctrine, Cheney's "One-Percent" Doctrine.  Etc.  They've hardly been discussed at all in this election however.


    well (none / 0) (#84)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    Yeah, I think Obama knows the Bush doctrine as well as any of us.  

    I share Obama's views on going into Pakistan if we need to and I don't support the Bush doctrine.  It's too broad and seems aimed at theoretical threats where Al Qaeda is in no way theoretical.  

    I think Palin didnt know but I don't see how that is shocking.  They didnt put her on the ticket for national security gravitas.


    You ignored my question (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:09:42 PM EST
    on Charlie Gibson. Do you not know who Charlie Gibson is?

    Her son was deployed to Iraq today, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by honora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:03:27 PM EST
    I think that she has been following the news.  Like so many of the criticisms of Gov. Palin, my xx chromosomes are moved to support her despite the fact that she and I disagree on many issues.  

    You know, that's just the way I feel! (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Jellabean on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    I know she is the antithesis of many many issues that are supposed to be the "woman's side" and feminists like Steinem and the NOW girls hate her guts, but I just feel so excited seeing a woman giving these interviews and how juiced everyone is about her and her triumphant rallies. I'm sorry but I'm just thrilled to death and rooting for her wtih all my heart. I'd definitely go to see her and if I had a daughter I'd bring her and show her what women can rise to.

    I just don't have it in me to wish this woman ill or root against her. I'm caught up in it, maybe because I'm so disillusioned and sad about Hillary not making it, I'm just so upbeat and happy for the first time since Super Tuesday I think, I'm really having fun and interested in the news and kind of passionate about someone again. I could give 2 flips about McCain, but I like Palin so much it's kind of turned me off on Obama because I can't stand to see anyone unfairly (by my lights, anyway) criticize her, it's like they are attacking all women to me!

    I know you'll say I have reverse PDS, but it's how I feel. I'm just so happy she's in there fighting, it's really something instead of 4 stupid MEN like always. I'm too young for Ferrarro so this is my first experience with a woman rising so high and she might actually be our first PRESIDENT. I'm just thrilled beyond words. I don't even care for party. Like honora says, my XX has taken over.


    well (none / 0) (#93)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:08:48 PM EST
    If you interviewed the parents of every soldier in Iraq, they would be able to tell you what the Bush doctrine is?

    It has nothing to do with man or woman. I can easily imagine men who wouldnt know either.  If you could take a random sampling of governors I think you would get some wrong answers.  


    I am confused (none / 0) (#77)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    Are you saying that Palin shouldn't have already known what the Bush Doctrine is? That Palin gets to say what questions she can and can not answer because it would have been politically smart. My question then becomes are you talking substance or form? Why is that derangment sydrome if someone disagrees with you?

    I am saying (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:07:03 PM EST
    what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine was and is an open question and it was shrewd of her to make him define what HE meant by it and then give the answer she wanted.

    I think the premise of your comment is absurd - she indeed did know what the "Bush Doctrine" meant and decided to ignore the question and give the answer she wanted to.


    I think she only got flustered because it (none / 0) (#101)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    was the first time in 2 weeks she had heard the word "Bush".

    I think that if someone were to contextualize (none / 0) (#110)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    her interview with the various pieces you are actively excluding as not valid concerns along the thread- one could wonder whether she understood the question. However least you try to exclude my point here, let me tell you the bigger problem with what you are writing.

    I think any VP needing to have the Bush Doctrine defined is either not knowledgeabloe of the subject matter or acting in a form over substance manner that allows her to later parse or as you say change the subject. Either way- that's not a good thing.

    You indeed now admit that your argument is mostly form over substance. You only disagree as to whether she knew what the Bush Doctrine was. What proof do you offer for this? How do you BTD know that she knew the definition?


    I do not know (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    I did not write a post stating as a fact she did not know so I need not defend it from that standpoint.

    The rest of your comment is undecipherable for me.


    you called others deranged (none / 0) (#206)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    for deciding that she did not know. what is the purpose of saying that if you don't know for a fact whether or not she knew what the doctrine is?

    uh yes (none / 0) (#113)
    by borisbor on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    shrewd, by looking like a deer in the headlight and had to have Charlie spell it out for her.

    The Bush Doctrine is not some vague concept (like "his world view"). it's a pretty specific concept; that's why they attribute it as the "BUSH" doctrine, as its something unique.  And as they were discussing foreign policy, you'd think she would pick up what he meant by it.

    There's no openness in the question. The Bush Doctrine is the act of preemptive war. Any other interpretation of her non-answer is Palin Sympathy Syndrome.


    How do you see... (none / 0) (#123)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:19:58 PM EST
    her "His world view" answer fitting in to that.  That was what threw me.  Do you think she was just giving non-answers until he clarified, and if so, why not just directly ask for clarification?  She could have blown the doors off by saying, "Do you define it this way?" or soemthing of that nature.  

    I wasn't trying to pick her apart and it struck me as being an instance where she was caught off-guard.  

    It seems to me that this is simply subjective.


    Because the Bush Doctrine (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:36:49 PM EST
    as we understand it is Bush's world view.

    It is an uniluminating statement but obviously true.


    At one point is was a document: (none / 0) (#185)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    I've done Foreign Policy... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    ...graduate seminars about Iraq and I can't recall that there was some sort of Bush Doctrine being actively discussed among academics like Lawrence Freedman or Hew Strachan.  Generally that sort of label is an attempt to insult Bush. Not that both of them had a good laugh at Bush's expense from time to time.

    yikes (none / 0) (#129)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    Well I have to say, I tried to watch it with an open mind about her performance, but she sounded lost and confused. Her answers ("the blizzard of words") entirely lacked substance, and her platitudes about responding to a direct attack on America are very obvious and do not qualify as a platform. There's no disagreement anywhere in the world that if one country directly attacks your country, your country has just cause to strike back. Other than that, she definitely had that deer in headlights look, and she sounded like she was fishing around in her head for something to say. She came off as having no command of the issue.

    Now getting to BTD's point (since I'm sure he'll disagree with me and tell me I'm part of the problem by typing out my honest, gut reaction to the video I just watched), does this mean her answer is sensible? The best thing she said was, war should be a last resort. But that opens her up to a very easy attack, when her and McCain's foreign policy shows otherwise.

    This is ultimately the problem with Palin. People like her personally, but the more she talks, the more inconsistencies and substance-less platitudes will come out of her mouth, leading to endless openings to go after. Does the Obama campaign have to specifically target Palin? Not necessarily. But when she talks, she's representing McCain, so if Obama should be able to pin the worst of what she says on him without much difficulty. (fwiw, I have no idea what the best strategy is, and I'm not going to pretend that anyone here does either.)

    And I disagree with BTD that Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on with her willingness to go to war with Russia. NATO isn't an automatic "let's launch the missles!" switch. Even if Georgia joined NATO and Russia invaded, there are plenty of options to fix the crisis without resorting to war with a nuclear armed state. I seriously doubt NATO would jump to war without considering them. Whether or not we have a president who values and understands those other options will make a significant difference to how NATO responds. So when Sarah Palin says "war is a last resort", what are the other resorts, and does she have the credibility and skills to wield them on the international stage? I think the answer is a clear "no" and this interview does not inspire any confidence. Anyone can say "war should be a last resort" but not many people can explain what the other options are, and what they would do if the situation came up.

    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    "the more __ talks, the more inconsistencies and substance-less platitudes will come out of _ mouth, leading to endless openings to go after."

    Amazing (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    [H]er platitudes about responding to a direct attack on America are very obvious and do not qualify as a platform. There's no disagreement anywhere in the world that if one country directly attacks your country, your country has just cause to strike back. Other than that, she definitely had that deer in headlights look, and she sounded like she was fishing around in her head for something to say. She came off as having no command of the issue.

    Amazing. Just amazing. Palin clearly rejects the Bush Doctrine and you call it "platitudes."



    I'm not convinced she rejected anything (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by s5 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    She sounded like she was stumbling for an answer, said something patriotic about "defending America", and that was that. If there was a rejection of the Bush Doctrine, I didn't hear it, or maybe it was garbled together with something else she said. Maybe you can paste the exact words from the transcript that you believe represents a clear rejection of the Bush Doctrine?

    Honestly, responding to a direct attack on your country is the most basic duty of any government. Saying you would do it should earn you no points with anyone. In my book, that makes it a platitude. That's what I'm referring to.


    What is the Bush Doctrine? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    Tent, as bad as Gibson is... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    ...she does NOT answer the question he poses about Pakistan (as pertainent a question as there is right now), the answer to which is clearly no, unless, of course, she's full of sh*t about doing things differently,, which I obviously think she is.  That she actually thinks any terrorist attack or group can "destroy" America means she is just as irrational as Bushco.  Her citing of the "24" scenario is equally dim-witted since we NEVER will have that kind of intelligence.  Sorry, while what she said maybe have been safe and politically risk averse, it is nonethless the same nonsense we've been engaged in for 8 year.  Does anyone really think hot-head McCain will be less belligerent than empty-head Bush?  Be serious.  

    Well the answer to me, and to Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:26:25 PM EST
    is clearly YES.

    Then he's wrong, too (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    It is insanity to go across that border and foment more hatred when we have NO reason to believe ANY intelligence produced will result in a "victory" that can overcome the regular truckload of innocent men, women and children we have this tendency to murder in the process.

    Let the Pakistanis deal with their own problems, just as we ought to let the Iraqis and the Afghans and anyone else we have it in our pea-brains to "help".  The entire area is post-colonial and should be allowed to stagger its way to a modern history just as we were allowed to.  

    Killing ten terrorists (and why would you believe anything your government tells you right now is accurate about who a terrorist is?) cannot make up for the thousand civilians we seem to kill in the process.  The ratio of inncoents to terrorists killed in this b.s. war on terror is, and you know it Tent, is immoral, wretched and something unforgivable.  We all just live in denial about it.  Very convenient, protected denial.  


    Sometimes... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:38:29 PM EST
    ... I think the answer is not to answer. With Pakistan, I believe it's best to keep open the option of operating within Pakistani borders, with or without their permission. But saying that will make the political situation in Pakistan worse. Obama's original comments on the subject were unnecessarily provacative for that reason, even if they weren't really wrong.

    Rumsfeld no bush (none / 0) (#227)
    by nlcatter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:50:36 AM EST
     Rumsfeld beat out the peaceniks and pushed to Bush to declare we would use force preemptive in direct and unilateral actions.

    Obama did not say that he would do that.

    and MM did NOT rip Gibson!

    that was cringe inducing (none / 0) (#228)
    by scourtney on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:22:14 AM EST
    my gut reaction was she didn't know what she was talking about.

    I'm not so interested in Gibson's angle... (none / 0) (#229)
    by DanAllNews on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:10:57 AM EST
    ...as in the candidates' responses. Obama explicitly rejects the argument that his position is equivalent to the so-called Bush doctrine, while Palin states her position, but dodges the question of whether it's equivalent to the Bush doctrine.

    ding the dame (none / 0) (#230)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:54:45 AM EST
    (I'm not sure how to post a reply to a particulra comment -- this is meant in reply to BTD at #30)

    everyone owes Charlie Gibson an apology for beating him up for ding the dame thing to Obama.

    Thanks for the "ding the dame" (doing the same) pun -- intentional or not, I think it's brilliant.

    Just coming out of lurkdom to say I really appreciate BTD being the lone voice of sanity among the pro-Obama bloggers. Thank you for that.

    Bush doctrine (none / 0) (#231)
    by nlcatter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    Bush doctrine is go it alone, (unilateral)
    without world support
    there was no Grand coalition,
    except mercenaries jsut like the Hessians,  
    (el salvador ring a bell?)
     and who is left in Iraq?

    and to attack countries  that have not attacked us (preemptive)