Clueless Sarah Palin: ABC Interview

Sarah Palin shows her inexperience on foreign policy issues. She's quite defensive as well.

Transcript here.[ More...]

When asked about national security, she changes to topic to energy independence.
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.

Has she ever met a head of foreign state?:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right. GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

Did you know you can actually see Russia from Alaska?

I have listened to the replay of the interview on 3 networks. Her voice sounds shaky to me, like she's nervous. Don't believe me? Try listening without looking at the tv so you just get the sound.

When in doubt, she retreats to the proud mother of son going to Iraq position. As if that makes one qualified to be Vice President.

< McCain v. Palin On Preemptive War | Obama on SNL >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is the thread (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    for folks who disagree with me.

    Obviously, I posted on this tape previously but it is only fair that those who hold with Jeralyn's view of Palinpalooza be given their chance to respond in the usual fashion.

    Query though (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:33:00 PM EST
    Who disagrees with this?

    [I]f there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

    That wasn't the question (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34:54 PM EST
    the question was whether we should conduct preemptive strikes. First time she evaded, he made it more specific to Pakistan. She still didn't answer and he asked a third time. She finally remembered the safe answer.

    Obama said we should conduct preemptive (4.00 / 3) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    strikes in Pakistan.

    Was he wrong?


    No he did not (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:40:10 PM EST
    He said he would attack Al Qaida in Pakistan.

    That is not preemptive.


    It's seen as pre-emptive (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:53:05 PM EST
    Obama said he'd do something if they were there and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to do something abou it.

      Here's the full story at ABC News site.


    it's preemptive to me (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:24:25 AM EST
    If he goes into Pakistan to get revenge on what happened in 2001 -- or to prevent another attack based on his admittedly faulty intelligence system. Just yesterday he said the intell system in Afghanistan hadn't worked and he'd be using drones from now on. or something like that.

    I oppose more troops in Afghanistan. I say bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Just moving them from one country to another keeps us in perpetual war, and it's a war the military can't win.


    Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    And McCain called him naive.

    If that is true (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
    and I don't know if it is because I did not hear about McCain calling Obama naive about the Pakistan issue, someone ought to call him out considering that he supports Bush's solutions to the hilt. We just went into Pakistan uninvited and hit a Taliban/Al Qaida camp in an extremely deadly without permission fashion.

    Naive (none / 0) (#36)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    It is a bit different though than I thought (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    it would be, McCain said that the best thing to do would be to not broadcast what you were going to do before doing it if you were going to hit our terrorists enemies.  Unfortunately his running mate Palin did not let Al Qaida know they would be coming for them without any other higher authority than her own either and that was supposedly the naive part of what Obama said.  I think the cat is out of the bag though already that America will attack Al Qaida in Pakistan without any other permission other than our own.

    Naive (none / 0) (#74)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:28:17 PM EST
    If you go down further you'll see he didn't just criticize him for broadcasting what we would do (sidetrack-I wonder what I will go to the gates of hell to get osama bin laden means if it doesn't mean you would bomb no matter where he is- anybody else remember McCain singing about bombing Iran- apparently its ok to sing about your intentions of bombing)- but also directly criticized him for saying he would bomb an ally- Pakistan if they did not give permission.  
    I don't see any problem with either her statement or Obama's.  My only problem with hers is there is a difference between direct and narrow strikes (like Obama was referencing) and the question she was being asked about a preemptive war- which Iraq was- we didn't go in and take out remote targets, we tried to take out a whole government.

    heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM EST
    And yet Bush himself just did it.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM EST
    But then again, no one has answered my question, who disagrees with that statement?

    Targeted Strikes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    I don't think there is disagreement about that statement with respect to Iran, and frankly there wasn't with Iraq either.  The difference is targeted strikes to take out wmd development and an invasion to overturn the government.  Clinton enforced the embargo and had targeted bombing in Iraq when they did not comply with UN sanctions. Clinton ensured Iraq did not have wmd's without a full out war.
    My fear is McCain has shown complete and utter lack of judgment on these issues.  He was one of the first after 9/11 to say Iraq was involved and we should attack.  He went on the media circuit claiming Iraq was involved in the anthrax scare.  Is that really someone who can be trusted to way intelligence and not make snap decisions taking us to war.
    Palin came across as someone who has not thought about these issues before and was just reciting memorized answers.  That is somewhat terrifying.  One thing this administration has proved is that judgment in the white house and intelligence is incredibly important.  She just did not demonstrate that she was processing complex issues.
    I think Palin is likable and does come off as an average person, but that is why Bush got elected and I am hoping the last eight years has taught us that one thing we don't want in the white house is someone who is average and likeable.

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:09:14 PM EST
    I agree.  That McCain could handle things, I dont doubt. I wouldnt like it but I'd sleep at night. If he had Ridge or Lieberman, ok, I sleep.

    Palin frankly scares me. She really does. It's not partisan rancor. She scares me.  Hillary would eat Putin, this woman I dont know about.

    The other 3 candidates have been prepping for years to handle this stuff and Palin is on week 2.


    McCain is (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:47:44 PM EST
    "We are all Georgians"

     Like H___ we are.

     Her answers had to be 'on message' though since she's
    running as VP to McCain.   She's a bit more cautious than he is actually, in her statements here.   Also, a sr.staffer for McCain is a lobbyist for Georgia.  

     I agree his judgment on all this is bad.  


    obama has been prepping for years? (4.50 / 6) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM EST
    Surely you jest!  Why do you think he had to pick biden for his VP...he has NO foreign policy experience and he is running for prez not VP.

    no (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:29:05 PM EST
    No, actually I don't jest.

    My point was that all three of these men have been prepping for some time to run a national campaign where FP is a big issue.  Sarah Palin was not and has little awareness of these issues.  She's a surprise pick even to herself.

    So she lacks even the rudimentary campaign prep that goes on beforehand.  She is literally playing two week catch-up to move from state figure to national figure.


    Nothing on Foreign Policy (2.00 / 0) (#144)
    by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:39 AM EST
    So I guess McCain should stop saying Obama voted against the surge- since he apparently never had to address foreign policy issues,  never voted on troop funding, never had any hearing with General Petreaus, never had to deal with any issues on Iran (like a resolution perhaps)

    Nobody disagrees with that statement (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:07:27 PM EST
    But so what?  The question is, who is doing the deciding as to the conditions she describes.
    It is the trust level of the people positioning themselves to make that call, that is causing disagreement here.  

    She demonstrated absolutely no unique knowledge of foreign affairs.  She offered no insight.  None.  Nothing she said was anything other than

    A)Obvious (I believe it is the job of the President to protect Americans) ;

    or B)just something that just an average GOP operative might have said;

    Under the ersatz "sexism watch" schtick, you keep spinning her as though she were credible as a Presidential possibility.  It's just so sad.
    But she's a Right Wing hack, an embarassment.  But then, so is McCain.  They fit each other just fine.


    Who disagrees, indeed? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:54:38 PM EST
    It's not really a point that people would disagree with, but no one has answered this question because it's not an especially relevant question. She spouted a non-responsive talking point that is basically saying something that virtually no one would disagree with on either side. She's imposing conditions that are highly unlikely to exist ("legitimate and enough intelligence") and reaching a very obvious conclusion. It's basically saying "Americans should not die if we can prevent it." Bold. Daring. And you want to give her big props for it. I don't understand. The relevant issues are deciding what is legitimate and enough, not talking tough.

    How does her use of talking points speak to her qualification to be VP? Or P? What does it tell us about her understanding of complicated choices pertaining to foreign policy and national security.

    You seem determined to find a pony in there somewhere, and it's kind of weird. Hers was a non-responsive, uninformed response. YMMV of course.


    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by 1jpb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    I object to those words coming from Palin, because I don't know what they mean to her.  I don't know how literally she would live by that mantra as CIC.  Those words may be reasonable in theory, as an argument.  But, they are unacceptable as a means for judging Palin's fitness for the CIC position.

    In the real world a CIC won't have the black or white choice Palin described in this statement.  Anybody could be CIC if it was that easy.  This is why it's important to know how she would deal with gray.  I don't know how she has wrestled with foriegn policy issues in the past.

    When folks spend decades thinking about world affairs they end up experiencing situations that both confirm and discredit different aspects of their beliefs.  Over time, if they're smart, they will adjust and fill out their beliefs.  IMO, this long process of seeing one's theories tested is important for a CIC because the position comes with tough decisions and no net.  The P or VP is a position for folks who already have a developed and tested world view.  This is especially true in a time of war.

    Bottom line: I disagree with Palin's statement because I don't know what her statement means in practice.  Taken literally, she would only use force if intelligence certainty (oxymoron) was achieved.  So, taken literally, we are to believe that she would never make a tough call to protect us.  Anything short of a literal interpretation requires me to asses her world view.  Her world view is the resource that would fill in the gaps of her statement and direct her if she confronted a more realistic "gray" situation.  Without evidence that she has a developed and tested world view I disagree with the literal meaning of her statement.


    'pre-emptive' mean it hasn't happened yet (none / 0) (#102)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:44:38 PM EST
    and 'imminent' means it hasn't happened yet.

    One step from Jack Bauer and 24's (3.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:50:33 PM EST
    ticking time bomb theory. If we thought a suspected terrorist had knowledge of an imminet plan to attack the U.S, should we torture him to get the info?

    Jack Bauer: Yes.

    John MCain in an interview with Marie Claire Magazine this month: The person he identifies with the most is Jack Bauer.


    No, it's not (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    Going after Al Queda in Pakistan is totally different from a contrived hypothetical to justify torture.

    just one toke over the line (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    love that song! (none / 0) (#129)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:01:16 AM EST

    IRAQ had WMDs... (2.00 / 0) (#14)
    by EddieInCA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    ... that they were going to give to Terrorists.

    Or not.

    What exactly is "legitimate and ENOUGH intelligence that tells us a strike is imminent against American people,"?


    Don't go there (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nell on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM EST
    I remember Obama saying the same thing numerous times, and I remember most clearly when he said that he would invade Pakistan alone if we had appropriate intelligence...

    What else could she say? Even if I had the intelligence I would not protect the USA because we screwed up our intelligence on Iraq?

    She would be laughed off the stage.


    Why not? (none / 0) (#25)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    Why wouldn't we ask Obama?  He's wanting to run my country, someone better ask him that and a whole lot more.

    I do think you're incorrect in what he said though.  He said he would strike, not invade.  Same difference as between GHW Bush and our current Bush.


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:10 PM EST
    Exactly, strike and invade are quite different.  We've been striking people for decades on flimsy intelligence.

    But invasion has higher standards.  Or it used to.


    Fool us once ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:54:18 PM EST
    I do... (none / 0) (#165)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:27:28 AM EST

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:37:41 PM EST
    Don't you think this election and everyone involved in it are important enough to try and discuss without everyone drawing sides?

    I saw a woman obviously out of her field.  That doesn't in and of itself make her a bad choice.

    This is one interview.  She didn't come across very versed or confident.  Every single other person involved in this race have had the same sort of interview at one time or another.

    We're never going to come together as a nation if we keep infighting are we?  How do we get to a place where we can disagree without being disagreeable?


    I was talking about taking sides between (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    BTD's position and mine. People are free to comment on either thread regardless of position.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:10:09 PM EST
    I must have screwed up as I was responding to BTD as well.  Sorry.

    Wha? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:39:37 PM EST
    Um, I am leaving this thread.



    sigh (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by boredmpa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:45:20 PM EST
    but you're the stand in (not to lessen your importance) for all of us that are just too sick and tired to comment on these issues.

    there's nothing surprising about her interview. to be honest, i would expect almost the same answers from obama.


    double sigh (none / 0) (#24)
    by boredmpa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    on the 'gotcha' bush doctrine/defense question

    assuming for a second you are right about (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53:38 PM EST
    the "gotcha" element- I am still at lost to understand an argument based on a VP taking office not knowing what the main doctrine of her party's foreign policy justification for Iraq is. Let's assuming Gibson is a complete dick. How does that explain her approach? Do you see Clinton falling for this?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:07:02 PM EST
    I think she understands Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.  I think what she doesn't understand is the label attached to those reasons, but I'm not sure it's relevant.

    I have a hard time imagining (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:18:59 PM EST
    a VP , again for her own party, not knowing this.

    She's not applying for a job at the local grocery store, and they are her asking her this.  As much as I am concerned that she didn't know this- I m even mor concerned that we don't expect her as the VP to know this.


    Shrug (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24:30 PM EST
    It's a purely academic question.

    If I thought someone had the right judgment on foreign policy, I wouldn't particularly care if they knew the arbitrary labels that people stick on things.  Maybe if Bush Doctrine were some kind of everyday term, but it's not.


    am I allowed to respond to you (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:40:39 PM EST
    I am told I am over my limit? just in case this won't get deleted- I will merely repeat the point and make it a little clear- her lack of knowledge of the basic doctrines of her party is a sign of a lack of judgement of both her part and that of her running mate. we differ. that's fine. but i still hve a major problem with the dumbing down of the process for whom we select for major office. your shrug to me is a sign of that dumbing down. she wasn't asked to name the capital of thailand. she was asked about the main doctrine that has defined foreign policy for the last 6 years. i dont know how your shrug gets around that without it dumbing down the american political process. i know- i know. that 's our country anyway. but still, quite sad that this is where we are as a country.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:47:29 PM EST
    I could equally well question your judgment, when you claim that the Bush Doctrine is the main doctrine that has defined foreign policy for the last 6 years.

    From where I sit, it was an ad hoc term which was loosely connected with the justifications for Afghanistan and Iraq, and it really hasn't seen much use since then.  Maybe you walk in circles where people talk about the "Bush Doctrine" every day.  I have no idea where those circles might be.

    I find it very easy to conceive of a person who could do a great job leading the country without having any knowledge of the "Bush Doctrine" label, although I don't think Sarah Palin is that person.  I'm not clear on whether you're confusing the label with the concepts behind it, which are indeed important to understand, or if you truly think the label is that critical.

    Do you believe when the Joint Chiefs, or the Cabinet or whoever sit around talking foreign policy, that they routinely say, "Well, the Bush Doctrine would suggest we do such and such"?  I sure don't.


    Do I get to respond to this? (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:09:03 AM EST
    Well, you seem like many here to want to attack your fellows rather than respond to what's being said. Seriously, if you are going to take the approach of trying to call me elite because I happen to know the doctrine that got us  into the war and is still fundamentally a part of GOP foreign policy even as they attempt to tweak it, then sure- I am an elite. But then I expected by VP to be as well if that's our definition of rarified company these days.

    Since you made a testable claim that the Bush doctrine no longer matters since we got into the war in Iraq- let's test that. and then I will hope for at least that you will back down from your certainty, a certaiy which reminds me all too much of 2000 where the voters were certain what they were geting with Bush- remember compassionate conseravative?

     The question as they say is unsettled, but you apparently seem as was BTD certain of your position. Me, I m certain that it's been a major part of our foreign policy, and McCain hasn't made it clear whether he rejects it or not. These conversations on this site tend to happen in a policy and fact vacuum. Let's add the rest of the world, at least the policy world, to this:



    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17983&prog=zgp&proj=z usr

    The last article is especially relevant as to the open ended question which you seem so certain you know the answer to. It's funny that others dont, but you do.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM EST
    If it is still "the main doctrine that has defined foreign policy for the last 6 years," then why haven't we invaded Iran yet?

    I'm not calling you "elite."  I know what the Bush Doctrine is too.  I just think that not everyone places as much importance on knowing labels as you do.


    which reasons are those? (none / 0) (#123)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:56:59 PM EST
    or is THAT why she was talking about energy independence?

    When I read your post it was only about (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:32:24 PM EST
    McCain and the Bush Doctrine. I didn't see the Palin video. Did you add that later?

    This is a thread for those who want to comment on Palin and the ABC interview -- regardless of position. Readers don't have to choose sides.

    I think they have to choose sides (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34:56 PM EST
    And I truly DO welcome this thread.

    I think folks need a place to post where they feel some kinship to the post.

    It is clear that you and I have diametrically opposed views on Palinpalooza and I think folks should have a chance to feel comfortable posting in a thread.

    I think there is a great deal of discomfort from different posters posting in each other's threads on Palin.

    I think this is a great way to do it.


    Huh? So disagreement along your thread (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    isn't allowed so. Like I said along your thread you narrowly define the debate, call anyone who disagrees deranged (as per your title) and never really explain how you ae certain of your position.

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    Those threads are a little too Redstate in tone and substance for my taste.  Threats, bans, insults...

    Palin (none / 0) (#20)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    Diametrically opposed on Palin or creating echo chambers.

    I for one am genuinely trying to keep my eyes wide open and judge on merit.  I look for opposing opinion so I can bounce it into my own perceptions.

    Isolating in echo chambers is what got this country where it is.  I would hope we can all start thinking and working together to fix the mess we are.

    That would include going over the first interview with a national unknown who was picked, not elected, to help run our country.  I want as much and as varied as possible opinion on that.


    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nell on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:41:07 PM EST
    I was not impressed, but I also did not think she came across as totally clueless. I was also glad to hear the clarification of her god comments and I was disappointed to see that Rose and the AP had left out the first part of her quote, which really does change the context. I don't believe in God, but I think this understanding of praying that our actions are on god's side is very common in Christianity.

    I guess, hanging out with the ivy league crowd, I have gotten used to hearing very nuanced positions and I enjoy hearing people really make an effort to show that they understand the root, depth, and breadth of a question. However, given the election of GWB, not once but twice, I would say that is not what the American people, on average, need in their President.

    She came across as decisive (and defensive, yes, but since most people think she is being attacked by the media, it doesn't matter), she did not make a major flub that will give her horrible media attention, so Palin gets a point.

    Also, just to remind people, Obama started his interviews in much this way. And while I understand that he has been on the campaign trail for months and does not now sound like this, he did when he started running, he was clueless about many issues (and it was his total lack of understanding about health care reform that led me to Hillary), but he learned...don't underestimate her, she could be great at this with a few interviews under her belt.

    And the underlying or matching philosophy (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    was expressed by Lincoln, yes.

    Normal stuff.  


    Re her answer on the Bush Doctrine (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST
    As I said on the other thread, if she'd known what "the Bush Doctrine" is she would have given an answer that asserted the point she wanted to make without having to probe for clues as to what it even was. She's perfectly capable of doing that in areas where she has some actual knowledge, i.e., Alaska.

    The point is not that Charlie Gibson tried for a gotcha moment in both cases, the point is that Sarah Palin wasn't familiar with something she should have known, something basic. If she had, she would have answered the way Obama did when Gibson tried to put words in his mouth about the same policy:

       During the debate, after Gibson asserted, "[W]hat you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine," Obama replied:

            OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.

            And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

    But you have to know the policies in detail to be able to make those sorts of differentiations. She couldn't do that. All she can do is present the themes she's being prepared on, thus far on a fairly broad level evidently.

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nell on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
    But as far as elections go, she did well enough to live another day. I haven't watched a ton of news, but basically what I got was that they were examining specific statements, but no one is running with the narrative that she bombed. IF they ran with that, they could sink her, but they aren't and won't because she didn't sink. She didn't soar, but she didn't sink.

    Once she had a clue (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58:47 PM EST
    what the doctrine referred to she could regurgitate her talking points just fine. I think she's smart and quite adept politically. But she's definitely not up to speed yet in what she needs to know re foreign policy. That was a question anyone who's been following FP at any depth the the past few years would have known, at least roughly, what the policy was referred to. She clearly did not. And that's bad. It's very basic. This is a person who's trying to prove that she's up to being president within a matter of months should things fall that way.

    Sure we can talk about wedge issues between her and McCain, and compare her answer to Obama's, but the bottom line is her body language said she was out of her depth. Way out.


    the converse point (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:02:12 AM EST
    is that it seems she can do no wrong with you. what about her answers seemed reasonable and credible to you? Did she evince any in depth understanding, or did she use a lot of buzz words like "islamic terrorists," etc.?

    Palin is a rorschach blot for anti-Obama lefties.


    I want someone (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:15:31 AM EST
    who has a chance of becoming the Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful military to have enough understanding of the nuances and implications of all aspects of foreign policy that she doesn't have to parrot stock phrases in response to questions - I want her to know the ins and outs of it cold. I want her to know enough so that if she ever has to assume the presidency she'll at least know what the right questions are to ask of her advisors and weigh their answers with knowledge and vision, not simply be a captive of whoever is advising her.

    I give her big points for having got far enough up to speed that she didn't make a fool of herself on national TV. I blame John McCain for choosing her, and her for accepting a role she clearly won't be ready to assume in a few short months, should it come to that.


    But HuffPo ran with HUGE BLACK LETTERS (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM EST

      (No content to match in what was written in the
       article though.)

    The bad headlines have been too typical of
    HuffPo since the primaries (especially when
    writing about anything/anyone they oppose)


    Why does Palin need to know (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ding7777 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    the media created characterization of Bush's policy known as the Bush Doctrine?

    Palin was right to make Gibson say exactly what Gibson thinks the Bush Doctrine is before answering his question (Gibson proved that he himself didn't know all the elements associated with the Bush Doctrine)

    And the question shouldn't be "Do you agree..." it should be "Will the McCain/Palin administration continue with..."


    Yes, and ummm BTD (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    just posted below the evidence that Charlie Gibson himself does not understand what the Bush Doctrine is....

    God help the lefty blogosphere because we aren't interested in helping ourselves!


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Bob K on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:29:18 PM EST
    I was wondering what Charlie's definition of the Bush doctrine was. I also would have had to get him to clarify before answering.

    I'm all for (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:56:19 PM EST
    defining your terms when talking about something. But that's not what her answer was doing.

    She obviously didn't recognize the term (250,000 hits on google, so not some obscure term) and was desperately looking for clues to what it referred to. Not exactly inspiring of confidence that she's well versed in these issues. Anyone who was would have known what it referred to - "anticipatory self-defense" as Gibson put it, not Bush's world view as she guessed.

    If she had known, she would have answered differently, for example the way Obama did, differentiating between a preemptive and a preventive strike.

    Even when she was told what it referred to all she could come up with was a platitude answer, though she did get it right on her second try.


    As a VP candidate, I really don't think (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by athyrio on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    the voters will demand as much knowledge from her initially, as they would from a presidential candidate, plus so many people are proud of her "everyday woman" appearance that they will give her the benefit of the doubt rather than find fault...I think she "held her own" in that interview with Gibson, and expectations from her weren't that high to begin with I suspect...IMO..

    Ordinarily (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:59:33 PM EST
    Ordinarily I would agree that people expect less from the VP candidate, but this time I think it's different.  Both the #1's are higher risk than usual, McCain is older with a health history and Obama is the first black man who will draw out every kook with a vengeance.

    I don't think this interview did anything other than cement the various views of Palin in place.  Those that like her will find this interview fine, those that don't will pick it apart.

    I, personally, thought she sounded way to rehearsed and trying to appear forceful which only accomplished her speaking inordinately louder than usual.  Maybe that's normal, we just don't know, but it would make sense that they would tell her to answer swiftly and in a strong way so as not to appear intimidated.  She just sounded loud to me.

    I do suspect she is a quick learn though as they apparently crammed an awful lot in in a very short period of time.


    Memorized (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:08:16 PM EST
    I thought she didn't sound like she was processing any information, just spewing memorized answers.  Believing in what your saying is terribly important in convincing us you can make tough decisions.
    I am just praying the last eight years has taught people that being likable and an "everyday" person are great qualities for a president.  Judgment and intelligence really ought to be valued at higher levels.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    I would largely agree with what you're saying and add that foreign policy right now is so complicated and nuanced I think you have to have a feel for it that can't be manufactured.  I didn't see anything tonight that tells me she has it.

    If she's clueless, it's because she's probably not curious enough to find out about it.  That's troubling in and of itself.

    She's not dumb though and I think she's probably a natural politician.  But so is Rick Santurum and I have no desire to have him lead our country.


    Jon Favreau (none / 0) (#222)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:59:17 AM EST
    defensive (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by DefenderOfPants on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:57:38 PM EST
    here's what i think happened:

    when Charles Gibson asked, Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", she thought Charles Gibson was mocking George Bush and his supporters. i honestly don't think she was familiar with the term "Bush Doctrine". so she probably heard it as, "Do you agree with the Gospel of Bush?", or something to that effect.

    that explains why she was so defensive and why she thought Charles Gibson was referring to George Bush's "worldview"  

    It sounds to me... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kredwyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    like she asked for what the interviewer's interpretation in order to better understand the potential landmines.

    Strategically, that makes sense.

    Gibson comes off as a badgering bully (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    His overbearing, patronizing, condescending and disrespectful demeanor is the lasting impression.  She did sound a little flustered by his bullying, but that's doesn't reflect poorly on her.  

    intriguing (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:06:31 AM EST
    We on the left complain about softball interviews all the time, but when Mr. Gibson demands answers to follow-up questions, which the liberal media critique has demanded for years, he is suddenly labeled a 'bully.' Had he been interviewing VP Cheney, would his behavior be interpreted as bullying?

    I don't think so.


    that's because the commenters here defending (3.28 / 7) (#178)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    palin and criticizing gibson aren't real democrats. Keep in mind, this site has commenters of all stripes -- and some posers as well. Sometimes I can tell who's who and other times not.

    Hmm... (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by marian evans on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:09:08 AM EST
    So, "real" democrats. what are the criteria?

    And Jeralyn, is that Democrats or democrats?

    The politics of the US seems so conservative to me...the 2 major parties would both be on the right end of politics in the countries I've lived in (except Italy...& that's a special case!).

    However, I've become a lot more tolerant in my old age. Politics, like life itself, is not a matter of "white hats and black hats", but about what Martin Luther King called the "content of character".

    Sometimes I've found "real democrats" inside seemingly conservative characters - and disturbingly, sometimes I've met deeply authoritarian individuals "disguised" as so-called progressives.

    It's a funny old world.

    But as long as people keep "talking left" and keep discussing ideas, I'll keep listening, whether I agree with them or not.


    oh good (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:43:41 AM EST
    Can you delete this one below

    actually, (1.00 / 6) (#58)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:34 PM EST

    I don't know any democrats that would talk like that and I'm pretty sure there are lots of republicans trying to stir things up


    I think this will be ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM EST
    the primary story that comes out of this.  And not only among Palin supporters.

    Re: (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by skuld1 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:46:42 PM EST
    I was reluctant to comment on this because I wasn't sure if this is how he normally interviews people (I'm not really familiar with Gibson) but I was getting a negative 'vibe' from him.

    Yeah, I know that's totally unscientific but if others felt that way it may change the way they view that interview.


    Face the facts - She's tough. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    I had no idea of the term " the Bush doctrine" until tonight.

    They seemed to have loved her performance on the republican blogs.   So she didn't flop.

    She's a formidable opponent.  Maybe the answers were canned, but two weeks ago she was not even thinking about these issues.  She's a quick study.

    Quick studies usually get better given time.  I think she'll do well in future interviews and in the debate.   I think strategies based on her falling apart are wishful thinking.  It's not going to happen.

    If I was the Obama campaign, I'd be betting on a strong performance by Palin and devising my strategy appropriately.

    Right now it appears the obama campaign's (4.00 / 3) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32:38 PM EST
    strategery is "we just know she is bound to make a mistake"...which will not serve them well.

    She's been heavily coached (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Pol C on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:19:35 PM EST
    I went through the transcript, and there's all this repetitive phrasing of things relative to particular subjects, like nukes being in the hands of Ahmadinejad, or not having another Cold War.

    I don't think for a moment that Palin is dumb; if you watch that interview Maria Bartiromo conducted with her a few days prior to her VP selection, you'll see she's quite knowledgeable and relaxed when she talks about energy policy. She'd come across a lot better if Lieberman or whomever stopped this "Now repeat after me" approach to teaching her about this stuff that they're obviously using. It's always best to make a student find their own words for something; that way they make the ideas their own.

    I'm not that big on most of what she says, but the stuff about Iran & Israel and Russia & Georgia are common to all the candidates, so my not agreeing with it is beside the point.

    Of course she is (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:27:37 PM EST
    a very capable and intelligent woman.

    But I am a very capable and intelligent man.  Heck I know more about foreign policy, domestic policy, and politics than anyone I know even cursorily.  And yet I am wholly unqualified to be Vice President or President of the United States.  

    It's not my experiences that make me unqualified.  It is my complete lack of understanding about how to address national issues that makes me unqualified.

    Sarah Palin has been brought up from Single A ball to the big leagues in a week.  She may have the ability to play, someday, at this level but she simply has no chance to do it now.


    Do you feel (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:29:41 PM EST
    that any of her responses were authentic?

    Of course all national politicians are coached.  But they are coached in the sense of controlling their comments, not creating a narrative.


    Politicians are coached (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:37:53 PM EST
    You think Obama isn't coached?  Then you probably think he actually writes his own speeches.

    Of course, the media's OBSESSION with Palin's speechwriter doesn't extend to any other politician for some reason even though they all have speech writers.  I wonder why.


    It was an observation (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Pol C on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    I'm not attacking her. In fact, I'm far more in agreement with BTD's attitude towards her than Jerilyn's.

    clueless (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by DefenderOfPants on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    i think more shocking than her ignorance of the term "Bush Doctrine", was her claim that Russia attacked Georgia unprovoked.

    you'd think, being Russia's neighbor, she'd know better.

    Russia WAS unprovoked (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    Putin believes he was provoked, and so do you apparently.  Doesn't mean he was. Unless of course you consider Putin handing everybody in S. Ossetia Russian passports makes that region part of Russia.

    The fact is Putin has been engaged in a series of provocations against Georgia designed to elicit a Georgian response.  It was a TRAP that Sakkaasvili fell into.


    Saying that Russia was provoked (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    Is not the same as siding with Russia.  

    But it is certainly ignorant to speak of the issue as though it was very simple and a question of teritorial sovereignty only.  As though the violence, and by many accounts atrocities on the part of the Georgian government, was not taking place in those provinces.

    "We are all Georgians today" was a very fourth grade kind of line.  A world in black and white.  Palin fits right in.


    The two quotes are not the same at all (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:15:28 AM EST
    first of all.

    Second, your argument that it is justifying their belligerence by pretending that it just popped up from out of the blue, is actually closer to third grade talk.  The truth is that their invasion WAS IN FACT preceded by some heavy doings on the part of Georgia.  Closing your eyes and saying "na na na na na" doesn;t change this fact.  Saying "We're all Georgians" doesn't change it.  As another commenter said tonight, like hell we are.  

    And now Palin blustering away about going to war on Georgia's behalf.  The GOP as it is currently configured isn't morally fit to run a dog catching agency, let alone the US Government where lives worldwide hang on their stoopid decisions.

    Why hold so fiercely to simple narratives in a complex world?  What in heaven's name is wrong with condemning Russia for its overreach without making the inane allegiance of soul with a country--Georgia--that (whether you want to admit it or not) had just committed atrocities?

    Things are complicated and responsible engagement with foreign affairs is not always bluster and big sticks.  


    well (none / 0) (#142)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    Both sides were playing a game. It would be difficult to determine a first cause to the provocations.

    We did tell him not to provoke the Russians though. He fell into the trap.

    But it wouldnt surprise me if Palin knew very little about that war. Why would she?  It's another reason why I don't want her ticket to win but even her supporters can admit that she really wouldnt have any reason to know this stuff.


    but (none / 0) (#145)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    this was not your point a moment ago - your point was about how unprovoked Russia was. You are now moving the goal posts.

    The Russia-Georgia situation is complex and merits more than the simple "you're with us or against us" attitude you are putting forward.


    It was probably just a lie (none / 0) (#88)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    I'd be surprised if she actually didn't know Georgia fired the first shot.

    The first shot (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:48:56 PM EST
    Georgia DIDN'T fire the first shot.  If I'm not mistaken, S. Ossettian separatists has been shelling greater Georgia for weeks or longer, encouraged by Putin.  Georgia then responded and fell into Putin's trap.  Putin was the puppetmaster behind the whole thing, and it's sad how people will side with him just for political points.

    No, there isn't (none / 0) (#103)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    The Bush Doctrine is that we must attack nations that present no threat today if they might become a threat tomorrow.  Simple enough, and well known.

    Thanks for proving my point... (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51:51 PM EST
    ...that the term "Bush Doctrine" is a Lefty term of derision, used by the Left, and Palin had no reason to be up on it.  That's why she had Gibson tell her what HE thought it meant.  Now it's being spun against her that she didn't know a Lefty term.  Ridiculous.

    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by ChrisO on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:17:33 AM EST
    This is from a Bush press conference in June, 2002:
    "Q Under the Bush doctrine, any --

    THE PRESIDENT: Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince -- to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't."

    Somebody'd better tell Bush he's mouthing lefty talking points. And someone else should know what the hell they're talking about.


    She's a regular governor (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:28:28 PM EST
    Most presidents have been governors.  Do governors have national security experience?  Did Bill Clinton?  No.  That's why they hire advisors.  But Sarah Palin is being held to a higher standard apparently.  She's got as much experience as Obama does, and he wants the TOP job.

    utterly ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:13:52 AM EST
    Please, enough with the pro-Palin talking points. If you actually believe these things, you are woefully misinformed.

    Fixed It For You (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by The Gimp on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:18:54 AM EST
    Please, enough with the pro-Palin talking points. If you actually believe these things, you are willfully misinformed.

    Sorry, I'm just too fond of facts (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:33:57 PM EST
    and rationality and I'd rather win using those. I'm just not feeling like sinking to level of the Bush regime.  I know I'm stupid but I aspire to something finer.

    sordid and dangerous (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST
    worked well for Bush in 2000 and 2004.  And you want to espouse those views and tactics?  I guess if ur in the 3rd grade and want to be the class bully.

    those may have "won" the GWB the elections but we LOST a lot along the way.  If this is the tack you wish Obama to take, we are in very deep trouble.

    Palin will do the GOP's bidding, make no mistake.  But to admonish her to the heights that the lefty-blogosphere is doing just diminishes the real issues that Dems could win with in the election and adds to the distraction.

    A very good political friend of mine told me that "If the R's can find a way to keep her away from the press and keep her interesting, they might just pull it off in November!"

    And (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by The Gimp on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:49:36 AM EST
    Unlike Michelle Obama, she is running for office.

    Pimping McCain/Palin (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by The Gimp on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:51:13 AM EST
    Kind new here, but is there not a rule on outright, repeated pimping of McCain and his talking points?

    Pimping McCain/Palin (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by The Gimp on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:51:30 AM EST
    Kind new here, but is there not a rule on outright, repeated pimping of McCain and his talking points?

    Yes you are right (none / 0) (#213)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:07:13 AM EST
    And as soon as tonight's moderator sees that the illustrious Mr or Ms Cooper has overflowed the thread with McCain Pimping Points, I believe you will find them shutdown. A newbie isn't supposed to top 10 Pimping Points per day and the commnenter you call out has managed to achieve a near record 50 McCain/Palin Pimping Points in their first 24 hours.

    txpolitic67, it's irony... (none / 0) (#181)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:53 AM EST
    'retreats to' (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    I don't know.  Her son is going to Iraq.  I think you'd be having that on your mind too, especially when someone brings up Iraq and then leaves out the ENTIRE first part of your sentence about 'tasks' ("praying THAT") while implying you said something else.  Anderson Cooper did the same thing -- so much for honesty from media.

      I think she's clearly having lot of mixed feelings about Iraq and her son going there and puts the best face on it.

      As for her shaky voice, it's been that way "from day 1" --
    and on BTD's Palin announcement thread here on Aug. 29, I mentioned the stress, tension and edge I heard in it.

      I've come to like her though while being wary.  But then I'm wary of Obama and McCain also.

    Hmmm, as a soldier's spouse (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:03:25 AM EST
    who even had to do the 24 hr wait once to find out if the chaplan was coming to my house or not, she has no mixed feelings about the realities of war and service, and she is as solid as any of us get with our loved ones in the war zone.  I guess everyone is forgetting that Biden's son is headed to the war zone or in the war zone right now too.......can't remember which.  Biden has more experience though with the dangers that the troops face and has released much less info about his son's service.  A prospective VPs son is a yummy terrorist target if you can get one.

    Biden's son (none / 0) (#153)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM EST
    is going, yes, but will be there as legal counsel.  I believe her son is going to the front lines of combat.

    Kinduva big difference to me.  But that was a decision he made, so that's on him.  Eyes wide open and all that jazz.  Good for both of them.


    Palin's son isn't going to the front lines (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    There aren't any "front lines" in Iraq first of all.  He is going to be guarding his brigade commanders and he is an infantry soldier but it doesn't sound like they are going to allow him to be too far from the brigade commanders and don't worry, those guys usually stay fairly safe because losing your brigade commanders can lead to major chaos in a war zone.  JAG soldiers travel in between the different camps to provide service to soldiers all over the country.  Being with JAG is no guarantee of any sort of safety or security and you are still a soldier first, not "legal counsel".  You aren't running around in a suit packing a briefcase to your office, you are in uniform in a humvee armed making your way to other soldiers in need of a lawyer in a war zone.

    You obviously know very little (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:03:33 AM EST
    about serving in the Iraq War zone or what being a JAG soldier entails.  You think Biden's son is going to get an office in a nice air conditioned highrise?  You think he won't be in uniform?  You think he won't be armed and need to be armed?  You think he won't take any fire while he's there?

    He'll be part of security for the troops (none / 0) (#188)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:45:22 AM EST
    Of course she will have mixed feelings, as a human, whether she denies them or not.  As these things go, she might never see her son again, where he's going.  When she told the young people that "I'll miss you" that was someone speaking for any parent having to see a son or daughter off to that wretched place, no matter how much one might justify the war in order not to pull them out and send them to another country.

    You are not a democrat (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by rachelann on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:54:23 PM EST
    Don't kid yourself, if you are voting for McCain Palin - you need to reconsider whether you are a democrat.
    -McCain was against giving woman the availability to sue for inequitable pay
    -wants to overturn roe v. wade
    -wants supreme court appointees who are only extreme conservatives- that will not just affect abortion, but also affirmative action, laws like the domestic violence act, gun restrictions (the court is one vote away from being the most conservative ever)
    -McCain wants to lower taxes for only the richest segment of society, not just keep the bush tax cuts he once called immoral, but increase them
    -Give oil huge tax breaks
    • privatize social security
    • is against universal healthcare, in fact he wants to make easier for insurers to deny coverage.
    • thinks people who are being forclosed on were just stupid for buying something they cant afford
    -doesn't care that companies are shipping jobs overseas and receiving huge tax breaks
    - is in favor of nuclear development- even if not proven safe- and ok with disposal at Yucca mountain so long as the waste doesn't have to go through his home state first.
    If you think you are a democrat I want to know why- what issues make you a democrat- and how do you think McCain Palin will forward those issues!
    Democrats aren't one issue voters, and McCain/Palin don't agree on any of them.
    Palin seems like a very nice person, and no dumby, that doesn't mean she would make a good VP.  My definition of what would make a good VP though is decided on the issues- Not her gender!

    O/T (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:31 AM EST
    but I will answer you:

    Democrats believe, or did, in equality and counting every vote.  THAT did not happen in our primary.  So you stick your version of democrat and I will stick to MY version of Democratic.

    Counting ALL votes, not diminishing ANYONE and starting from a point of equity.

    Get back with me when Dean, Pelosi and the rest of the gang get the memo, sweetie.


    Why pretend? (3.66 / 3) (#161)
    by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:24:08 AM EST
    Perhaps you should should speak with Hillary and her folks as well.  Maybe you forgot that she and her handlers supported discounting votes before they were cast, and that she specifically agreed they would not count.  Ickes was one of the strongest supporters of denying all votes to states that broke the rules.  

    You by the way might have to find a new ticket then, as the Republicans did not count all the votes in states that moved the primaries either.

    You might also want to look for a ticket that doesn't practice voter suppression around the country.

    If your voting for McCain Palin out of spite as opposed to the issues why pretend?


    thank you (none / 0) (#166)
    by boredmpa on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:28:31 AM EST

    part of me wishes i wasnt so busy with work so i could advocate for fixing our failed democrat party. :/

    but it's not worth it here; they're just going to troll and troll and troll.  clearly it's not going to happen with the group that's posting...they're attempting to berate folks into forgetting the tenets of democracy.



    not to perpetuate the O/T subthread (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:35:04 AM EST
    but if counting every vote is your core value, the GOP is truly the party for you! /snark

    Notwithstanding the Flood (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:56:13 PM EST
    Of McCain and Pakin defenders once again making its presence felt on Talk Left.

    For the rest.  Think Obama's feeling a little pressure right about now, after watching that interview? He knows he is all that is standing between that mentality--that Worldview, as it were--and the White House.

    And maybe the voters.  Maybe in the end we will stand in McCain's way, ourselves.  But geez.  You look at what is going on with this GOP ticket and you realize something really, really bad is coming down the pike if they manage to slide into office.

    ya (3.66 / 3) (#149)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:14:43 AM EST
    Palin defenders? Don't be sexist! Defending Palin would imply she is weak! She's not weak...

    blah blah blah blah

    I'm with ya.


    "Sarah Palin Naked" (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:08:59 AM EST
    HuffPo is doing all it can to alienate women:

    Here's Michael Seitzman's response to the Palin/Gibson interview:

    I realized three things tonight. For one, if you are a McCain/Palin/Bush voter, you and I do not have a difference of opinion. We have a difference in brain power. Two, she really is as ignorant as I feared. And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)

    Enough is Enough!

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM EST
    Yeah, John McCain calling Chelsea ugly, questioning Janet Reno's gender, cracking a joke about women enjoying rape and verbally abusing his own wife in front of a reporter...

    I think it's clear where McCain stands on sexism.


    Respect (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:26:40 AM EST
    Please don't forget when in a town hall, someone called Hillary a B---h and McCain simply laughed.  Laughter apparently is total respect for woman and outrage at all sexism in some universe.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:56 AM EST
    The Chelsea joke was told at a Republican fundraiser.  Several major newspapers reported it.  McCain apologized to President Clinton for it.  Your fact-free posts are getting tiresome.

    I just thought that we were better than them. . . (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:31:43 AM EST
    Just because the McCain made sexist remarks, does this now make it right for the left to go all out now with sexist attacks on Palin?

    Conversely (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58:53 AM EST
    For years we have begged for tv interviewers to ask follow up questions and to be persistent until the questions were answered. Now, when Gibson does that, he's a big ole bully.

    That said - sexism is ugly and wrong, no matter who is engaging in it. The left blogs should be condemned for some of their behavior thus far.


    Devon (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:44:20 AM EST
    You need to review the Jeralyn's rules on new posters, especially those pertaining to supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. New members (less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day. And everyone is limited to 4 comments per day supporting the opposition candidates. You are definitely over both limits. If you want to keep your priveleges here you should say "Good Night".

    convenient ignorance (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:55:46 AM EST
    The joke about Reno and Chelsea is on record, and McCain (half-heartedly) apologized for it.

    You have absolutely no credibility left, and the final part of your post here makes your motivations abundantly clear.

    I am a big Hillary supporter and am backing Obama while holding my nose, but your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that facts that undercut your statements is very revealing.


    Well, Bob Dylan once sang (3.20 / 5) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:45:23 AM EST
    Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. I posted it about Cheney. Is it not allowed against Palin just because she's a woman?  I find that patronizing. As if saying she gets greater protection because since she's a woman, she's weaker to begin with. She wants to play with the big boys not, she has to play by the same rules.

    last sentence (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    now not not

    (On a laptop again, can't see as well)


    Jeralyn, it's not so much the use of the word (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:51:01 AM EST
    "naked" as it could mean exposed without sexual connotation.  

    I am not sure of the specific post you refer to re. Cheney, but I suspect that you did not write about wanting to have sex with Cheney along the lines:

    Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup."

    Substitute Palin with Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:02:24 AM EST
    and see if you think that what is said is acceptable.  Just because Palin is a Republican does not make her fair game for all types of attacks, especially sexist attacks that played a part in ruining Hillary's nomination.

    The gleeful comments in the HuffPo article is just horrific.


    Dem operatives posing as journalists (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by David123456 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:12:50 AM EST
    GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

    The proper response to this was that Obama hadn't met any world leaders either until he went on his world tour.  And he's running for the TOP job.

    What a disingenous game of gotcha these Dem operatives posing as journalists like to play.

    you realize (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:14:59 AM EST
    that this isn't true, right?

    Barack as inexperienced as Palin (none / 0) (#167)
    by David123456 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:30:08 AM EST
    Do you agree with Barack Obama that running for president makes him qualified to be president?  

    Barack hadn't met any world leaders until he decided to run for president.

    Does that in itself disqualify him?  No.  He had to start somewhere.  And so does Sarah Palin.  People aren't buying that Palin (as VP) has to be MORE experienced than Obama (as top pick).


    Classic moving the bar (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:47:32 AM EST
    "until his world tour" now becomes "until he decided to run for president."


    I am not the one forcing the Obama-Palin comparison; you are. Here's tip - go read Obama's Foreign Affairs article.

    I'm sure there are plenty of things there you won't agree with -- I don't agree with all of it myself. However, get back to me when you think that Sarah Palin (or John McCain, for all his experience) could write a similarly informed, thoughtful, serious, and nuanced article on foreign policy.

    I'll take this over being a POW or using binoculars to sneak a peak at Russia any day.


    There is no double standard (none / 0) (#212)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:04:15 AM EST
    except in your own mind.

    Yes, I believe Obama wrote that article. Perhaps the last 8 years have made you despair that a President might actually be articulate and, you know, smart. Did his foreign policy advisors shape his thinking? Undoubtedly.

    You continue to simply ignore facts that are in evidence. The McCain campaign itself acknowledged that her speech was written before she was chosen. This is not some invention of the left, or anti-Palin bloggers. It's the McCain campaign.

    Your hatred of Obama is blinding you to what is right in front of your face.


    totally false (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM EST
    Totally off the mark (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by mabelle55 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:17:03 AM EST
    As long as the left generally jumps on every answer Sarah Palin gives, the big picture gets lost.

    First, the bar was set for her to MEET expectations of McCain's camp. That she did not hedge, was firm and assertive in her answers, that she held her own will be seen as meeting and EXCEEDING those expectations. She did no harm.

    Second, she's a conservative Republican who toes that line: war with Russia, although to her credit she didn't paint this as absolute.

    Third, in her answer about energy as a national security issue: Democrats, including Barack Obama, have said the same thing.

    Fourth, regarding the Bush Doctrine: I agree with David Gergen: most people do not use this acronym when talking about preemptive strikes on other countries. Even the media shies away from it, with good reason: the Bush Doctrine has also arguably expanded since 9/11 to include the treatment of terrorists,  Patriot Act provisions, homeland security, FISA, etc. Technically, Palin's reply to Gibson was smart and put him back on his heels, as well. Also, I agree with BTD: I'm not sure Gibson even understands the Bush Doctrine.

    Fifth, it is a minority of people (most of them online and blogging) who know and understand the microdetails of issues like Bush Doctrine, NATO alliances, terrorism in general and terrorism as it relates to the Iraq War.

    Finally, Democrats look and sound desperate with snarky blog posts about how Palin failed her first interview (in their estimation of da facts) and get mired in microdetails instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

    A special thanks to coolit (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    You got it. I think one side gets its minions to shout, throw things, and stick out our tongues...and, the other side does the same to us. This is about the only blog where there is some genuine give & take and discussion about tactics. The conformity shroud may be starting to show up here too. Then, what happens? Do we all salute three or four times a day. For me: The political-opponent-is-evil-&-scary schtick doesn't work anymore. Just because we don't agree with Republicans does not make Palin mad or clueless or anything other than a Republican.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by coolit on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
    I was starting to think that I was going insane.  My posts were getting more and more sardonic and unrealistic, but people were either agreeing with or battling them more and more.  WHAT!?!

    I hope that we have not gotten to the point in which we have to tear down and crucify all republican candidates in order to win.  It is unfortunate that because I say that, I am limited to 4 comments a day and am opposing our candidate.

    I love this blog.  I am not a new blogger here.  I have been here for almost a year. I pray that it doesn't turn into Americablog.

    If Jeralyn bans me, I want to say thank you so much to her, BTD, TChris, and all the bloggers with whom I've had a discourse with for this long political season.


    I'm not banning you (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:55:53 AM EST
    but I thought you were using sarcasm/satire and Military Tracy was trying to give you honest answers.

    Blogging doesn't have tone. It's words. If you mean snark or sarcasm , put a s before or after or let us know.

    It's unfair to readers who take the time to respond to you post when you didn't mean what your wrote.


    I understand (none / 0) (#210)
    by coolit on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:03:17 AM EST
    i usually try to stay away from sarcasm on email for that reason.

    thought it was obvious.

    have a good night J


    Charles Gibson is irrelevant to this discussion (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by jwh186 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:12:01 AM EST
    I think you are missing the point.  The Bush doctrine is a very narrow and specific historic tenet that unilaterally changed the universally accepted criteria needed to start a war, and the fundamental principles of this country.   Prior to the Bush doctrine demonstrable proof of an imminent attack, i.e., troop movement, war plans, etc. was required before a country could preemptively strike another country and start a war.  In other words, you had to have proof, albeit after the fact, that the attack was defensive, rather than offensive. And it had to be tangible, demonstrable proof.  The Bush doctrine declared that terrorism and WMD can often be hidden making it difficult or impossible to collect the demonstrable proof previously required before conducting a preemptive strike on another country.  Therefore, the Bush doctrine allows us to attack any country that we believe is going to harm us, before and/or without any proof of their intention to do so.  Bush's unilateral re-defining of the rules of war made our otherwise illegal attack on Iraq legal, at least in the eye's of the US. We had intelligence that Saddam had WMD that he was going to use on us and so we attacked.  For the most part the rest of the world does not agree with our new rules of engagement, and neither do many in this country.  The creation of the Bush doctrine was an historic event.  It continues to fuel the growing concerns that we are becoming, if not already are, an imperialist country, contributes to the escalating divisiveness in this country and will serve as the basis upon which Bush and others will be judged to be war criminals, in the world's eyes, if not courts.  

    It is irrelevant if Gibson knew what the Bush doctrine was, he will never be in a position to take us into war, he will never be held accountable for our past actions or need to defend our future actions, by anyone in this country or by any world leader with an army and nuclear missiles, as Sarah Palin may be, should she become VP or President of the US.  I have no idea if Obama or Biden knew what the Bush doctrine was when asked, I'm assuming they've been asked, but even that is irrelevant.  One candidate's ignorance of the substance and significance of this historic, unprecedented position is no excuse for another not knowing it.

    The following is some text excerpted from the Bush doctrine.  

    For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat--most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

    We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

    The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

    The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

    Sarah Parrot (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:58:45 AM EST
    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.

    Some thoughts after reading all the comments. (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    1. Thank you Jeralyn for posting the transcript so we could all read it if we chose.

    2. Palin as shown is not ready for prime time. Reading off the memorized cards, including the mistakes in fact in them, is not the same thing as preparation. And the last thing I want after eight years of it is another administration which is the subordinated servant of unelected advisors, because the electes don't know their ears from a hole in the ground.

    3. An Obama administration will be run by Obama, not by whatever posters the commenters here dislike. Their evidence that he is a sexist is lame, lame, lame, which is why they keep citing bloggers and internet sources. But of course, they do not cite the racist stuff against O. O's own presentations are essentially free of this abuse, but those who are bound to find sexism will find it using whatever they got, and use it to justify anything.

    4. The proper text for sexism or preparedness is to imagine, say, Jim Webb, sitting in that chair and giving those answers, and what you would think about that. If he gave those answers, I'd call him a blubbering idiot and none of you would object. If the point of equality is that men and women are to be judged and treated by one standard, not two, and to be treated equally, all this Palin-protection crap is as unequal as it gets. All of this don't beat up the woman stuff is nonsense. Automobiles and governmental problems don't care about your gender or your eagerness, and do care about fixing them correctly, preferably the first time. And do you really think Putin is going to be as touchy-feely or 'nice', or China, or Iran, or even Israel. And none of them will wait while she shuffles through her talking points cards to find something useful.  Ain't happening. We need the best American can produce, and neither McCain nor Palin is it, and there is better on the other side.

    Clueless is right. (4.57 / 7) (#9)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    Charlie Gibson is clueless.

    Governor Palin, on the other hand, is pretty sharp.

    Gibson (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by indie in CA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32:40 PM EST
    Gibson acted as if he was grilling Palin on her thesis. His priggishness is revolting. Palin did pretty well and will continue to improve as she gets more experience with these types of interviews with old sourpuss blowhards.

    heh (4.66 / 3) (#89)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:39:45 PM EST
    Oh, the poor Salin Palin story again.  Is she a hapless victim or a VP candidate?  Stop insulting her by treating her like a child.

    Her foreign policy inexperience scares me.  How much homework can she do in two weeks while making campaign stops?  How much tutoring can she get before a hypothetical inauguration?

    She scares me.


    how's your reading comprehension? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by indie in CA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:07 PM EST
    I wrote that Gov. Palin did well. And that Gibson came off as priggish. No victims here. Quit insulting yourself and others by making bizarre comments based on hopium delusions and paranoia.

    sharp (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
    as a ballbearing.

    In no way is this a defense of Charlie Gibson, but I am amazed at the way some posters here twist themselves into knots to argue for Palin's FP cred. One wonders what she would have to do or say to lose the support of some of the anti-Obama types.


    Facts Mean Things (4.50 / 2) (#95)
    by The Gimp on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    Fact: Palin has NEVER commanded soldiers or given them orders.

    Fact: Illinois is near Canada. It has just as little relavence.

    Fact: Palin has asked for more earmarks in one year as Governor than Obama has in the last TWO years in the Senate. Who is Captain Earmark?

    Fact: He has voted more this year than McCain has.

    Be disgusted all you like. Just understand that you are factually wrong and are making a decision based on emotion, not FACTS.

    Wrong Again (4.50 / 2) (#137)
    by The Gimp on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:08:03 AM EST
    First, you are wrong, again. Governors REQUEST National Guard deployment. They do not ORDER it. Simple fact. They also have NO control over what the units do, how they do it, or why. You are using RNC talking points. Great Democrat.

    Second Palin has done NOTHING involving Russia. Ever. Her PROXIMITY to Russia is all she has. She has NEVER been involved in any way, shape or form with them.

    Third, Palin hired a lobbyist as MAYOR to get earmarks! Are you really trying to pretend she has never sought them, and cannot help it if money just falls into her lap? She ACTIVELY PUSHED for a lot of the earmarks Alaska has received - which is more, per capita, than any other state.

    Fourth, your RNC talking points are wrong yet again. Obama has authored TONS of legislation, both in the State Senate AND in the US Senate. Ethics reform, bi-partisan with Coburn, he has worked across the aisle with Lugar, Hagel, Coburn and others. McCain, only McCain-Feingold, recently. And Obama votes with his party most of the time because the GOP has been DEAD WRONG on almost EVERY piece of legislation it has put out over the lat eight years! As for present votes, you KNOW it is a procedural tactic, NOT some wishy-washy thing that you would like to make it out to be. LOTS of Senators vote present for LOTS of reasons. Another RNC talking point.

    So once again, you show your lack of knowledge and ignore facts when it is emotion driving you.

    You say you are a Democrat, but have no litmus test. A litmus test generally refers to one or two issues. Palin opposes EVERYTHING Democrats - like Hillary - stand for, not just one or two things. This is not a litmus test. She flunks EVERY test on Democratic issues.


    best word to describe her to date: clueless (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by thereyougo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    there is a treasure trove of scandal awaiting the light of day. Stay tuned.

    The National Enquirer, I presume (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:43:51 PM EST
    How desperate are we?

    "Bush Doctrine" a liberal term (3.50 / 2) (#33)
    by David123456 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    Her answer showed she was not familiar with the term, but she was obviously familiar with the doctrine.

    The term "Bush Doctrine" was created by the Left as a term of derision.  It's hardly used at all on the Right except to extent it's rubbed off because of the MSM.  

    Criticizing Sarah Palin for not being up on Lefty terms or talking points strikes me as a bit ignorant or disingenous.

    wow- amazing spin (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by dailygrind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:06:51 PM EST
    so is the Powell Doctrine, which I supported, a liberal term? What about the Wilson Doctrine or any other foreign policy doctrine so named after the person who inspired it?

    10 comments daily (none / 0) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    Reminder.. new commenters (less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day. You are at 13. Thanks.

    heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    Don't contradict him when he's quoting Rush Limbaugh. He loses points.

    You're mistaken about doctrines (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KVFinn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:09:25 PM EST
    Do you remember the Carter doctrine, or the Powell doctrine in the Clinton era?

    Average (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:22:36 PM EST
    Average Americans aren't asking to run the country.  A basic idea of historical context is relatively important in today's day and age.

    right but they know when someone (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:32:23 AM EST
    fails a test and tries to bluff their way through, and they don't want to go to bed at night with questions about whether the country is safe because of some neophyte in in the # 2 spot.

    ha (none / 0) (#107)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:47:01 PM EST
    The average american.

    What a standard.


    The average voter (none / 0) (#134)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:05:02 AM EST
    And that becomes important.  

    The Powell doctrine in the Clinton era (none / 0) (#140)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST
    Wasn't that basically "Don't undertake a military operation unless you have an exit strategy?" That idea was born out of our Vietnam experience, and whether it's the Powell doctrine or not, it's still a sound one.

    McCain's exit strategy for Iraq seems to be indefinite occupation. Or at least open-ended maintenance of a significant American 'peacekeeping' force on Iraqi soil. In other words, an 'exit strategy' without any real intention of ever actually exiting.


    for those of us with short attention spans, (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:34:25 AM EST
    and shorter patience, can you say in 1 sentence, 2 most. what is the Bush Doctrine?

    Any cluelessness will probably benefit her (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by vj on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    in this era.  After all, we elected Bush president.


    You may be onto something (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    Does it really matter if she is competent? What's more important to the majority of the population is would we like to knock back a beer over mooseburgers at the snowmobile races with her.

    Based on the last two presidential elections, I'd say the trend is looking good for a future Palin Presidency.


    Yes, so long as they don't prepare her too well (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by vj on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
    for the debates.  She needs at least one "Deer in the headlights" moment, so we can identify with her, and dislike Joe Biden for having extensive answers for so many questions.

    actually, (1.00 / 8) (#58)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:34 PM EST
    (and i know this is going to sound very, very harsh, but i'll run that risk), i think gov. palin is a walking, talking freak show. consider:

    she either doesn't know how babies are made, or just can't keep her legs closed, she keeps pumping them out, like clockwork.; she wouldn't authorize an abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, for her own daughter.; she thinks because alaska is across the bering sea from russia, she has foreign policy experience.; she thinks because she's the "commander" of the alaska national guard (total troop strength (on a good day) less than 5,000), she has military experience.; she has no clue what the term "conflict-of-interest" means.

    i could go on, but the pattern is self-evident.

    clueless you ask? well hell yes, of course she's clueless! don't use the term in public though, you'll be accused of being sexist. because, you know, you'd never say that about a man, like oh, i don't know, say, john mccain for example.

    ok, bad example, he's pretty clueless too.

    What the hell? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by skuld1 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26:49 PM EST
    "she either doesn't know how babies are made, or just can't keep her legs closed, she keeps pumping them out, like clockwork.;"

    Really, this is what we've come to?  We're going to attack her because she has a large family?  That somehow makes her a 'freak'?

    You disgust me.


    I second that! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:40:18 PM EST
    How many male Democrats holding office and highly thought of have as many children?  If Palin were a man nobody would say something like this........NOBODY!  Think about what you are saying people.  Why are people literally losing their minds and their decency and humanity here?

    sexist? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    naw, no one would think that you were sexist.
    calling her clueless doesn't mean you're sexist.

    THIS however:

    she either doesn't know how babies are made, or just can't keep her legs closed, she keeps pumping them out, like clockwork.;

    makes you sound like a misogynistic, envious, sexit pig jerk who probably can't or doesn't have a family of their own.

    Wow, a new high in low.


    I hereby sentence you (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    to watch the entire DVD set of Jon and Kate Plus 8.

    Now, go forth and slur no more.


    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    All those who believe we should have a more defensive foreign policy, raise their hands!

    This a free country (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    and I can just choose to be an honest pain in the ass and love or leave nothing.

    Mil. Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:20 AM EST
    he's playing games with you. He doesn't believe what he's writing. don't answer him. He's trying to mock those who think Obama should fight harder against McCain/Palin.

    I'm sorry, (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by coolit on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:47:31 AM EST
    I'm not mocking people.  I'm mocking a system in which we have to tear down people who we don't agree with no matter what.  I have seen my entire family rage with red faces over Palin and call her the antichrist.

    Do you disagree with me in being upset about where we have gotten to?  I think we have gone to far.  Please don't misconstrue that.  It is unfair


    Palin interview was reasonably good. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:41:13 AM EST
    After seeing a few negative things in media reports and some posts on TL, I assumed Palin had looked bad or goofed up.

    After looking at the interview, I must say that I don't agree with the criticism.

    She handled the Bush Doctrine thing fine. She didn't fumble it.

    Her statements regarding Georgia and Russia were fine, and apparently the same as what McCain has been saying.

    She appeared to be a tough cookie and fairly smart, to me.

    If every voter in the country looked at this interview, I think it would help her--perhaps even significantly. Most voters don't care about things that some bloggers seem to want to focus on.

    Things she said were (none / 0) (#214)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:07:29 AM EST
    just on the side of dovish relative to what McCain thinks and of course she's been coached to be ON MESSAGE, but her wording was pretty careful.

      McCain's attitudes toward Georgia and his sr. guy being a lobbyist for George certainly don't sit well with me.  McCain thinks of these things in b&w.  "We are all Georgians" statement by him showed just how out of touch he can be.
    Think again !

      What Saakashvili did in terms of sheer destruction and scorn for human life in areas that dared to secede 16 years ago, and whose residents (too many now dead or across the border in Russia) were Russian citizens, is beyond the pale and it is the height of corruption for Bush/McCain to keep encouraging him in the cardboard version of 'democracy'...

      Seeing him 'in action' yelling over and over "Never Again!" while Rice tried to keep things in moderation was horrific and seemed to me out of a horror movie.  


    devon (none / 0) (#218)
    by dws3665 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    Here you go - proof of the quote and the apology.

    And of course you realize that the lipstick on a pig comment was not about Palin, or when McCain said it was he calling Hillary a pig, too?

    If you can't bring even a smidgen of intellectual honesty to your comments, you might want to make fewer of them.

    Palin interview (none / 0) (#219)
    by jtareb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:32:19 AM EST
    I though the interview was ok--not great by any means but not bad either.

    Her answers were of the stock variety but so were the questions.

    Going back to the original topic I doubt any Pres or vp candidate has had serious military experience since Eisenhower. I would expect the next Pres/vp to rely on the joint chiefs of staff of the military to provide sound military advice and dont expect any candidate of either party to be the next Clausewitz.

    As to her foreign policy experience it ranks up there with Senator Obama's. Thats not a dig a Obama either, just my reading of the facts.

    On the question of the Bush doctrine I'm somewhat perplexed as to why this is news. We have proactivly sought to defend this country for decades with our military and post 9/11 really is not any different than pre 9/11. Clinton used force quite often during his term, though not always effectively.

    Overall this interview was a non-event for me. It will not change any minds as to who to vote for. I personally am not thrilled at either parties candidates as my center/right/libertarian streak leaves me without a candidate.

    I'm a long time reader of this blog and really like it as its one of the few places where intelligent conversation exists as opposed to flame wars.

    devon is obviously (none / 0) (#220)
    by onemanrules on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:55:49 AM EST
    very closed minded, not that some on Obama's side are not. I'm sure Gov. Palin is very intelligent, however it was painfully obvious that she has no business at this time in her career to be running for vp. She was obviously nervous, flustered, and possibly even scared during the interview. I'll say one thing for her, it's not her fault. She just isn't ready right now. Her selection for the job was nothing more than pandering to women imo. As for the Bush doctrine, her not knowing what it is should be very troubling, normal people don't need to know what it is, but a potential vp should. You know there is an experience issue when all the McCain camp can say is that she lives close to Russia. Mt. McKinley is in Alaska, it's the highest point in North America, does that mean she has foreign policy experience with aliens since Mt. McKinley is closest to space? If god forbid McCain wins, I hope nothing happens to him health wise. If something would happen, we are in horrible trouble.

    No depth (none / 0) (#221)
    by lynnebrad on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:23:14 AM EST
    Any objective viewer would have come away with the conclusion that there was no depth, just a bunch of stock bromides.

    She had one "deer in the headlights" moment when asked about the Bush doctrine, which I would think any successor to Bush would be very familiar with (she did not have a clue).

    She avoided the national security question by jumping to energy.

    And her answers about foreign relations sounded like a Democrat - we will forge new relationships.

    No depth or substance. Nothing learned from her.

    Look up (none / 0) (#223)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:18:16 AM EST
    the wikipedia article on Bush Doctrine.  The 2002 NSS actually comprises eight parts.  Only one of those parts was the one we're all so angry about, the option of preemptive attack against a presumptive future attacker.

    Charlie Gibson may have imagined himself a David Susskind in this interview, but it was Palin's refusal to be cornered by Gibson's blundering attempts at cross questioning that proved her the better man in this exchange.  Gibson came across like a petulant Geraldo discovering that Al Capone's vault was filled with Mom and apple pie.

    Palin's answer was actually wrong (none / 0) (#224)
    by jwh186 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:22:12 AM EST
    I'm not sure how one can think Palin pulled off the Bush doctrine question.  Even if you believed it was okay for her to give stock answers, the one she gave was unequivocally wrong.

    Her response (emphasis added):

    Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the President has the obligation, the duty to defend."

    What is so historic and controversial about the Bush doctrine is that it was a departure from the very policy Palin stated.  It gave us the right to strike WITHOUT needing enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against the American people. It gives us the right to strike whenever and wherever we choose based solely on our belief that a country poses a threat to the US, including and perhaps especially even if the threat is not imminent, it can be a long term threat and we can still strike.  It declares our right to strike a country with, in our estimation, a "rouge regime" or terrorists, even if they aren't planning an attack.  The operative concept in the Bush doctrine is PREVENTATIVE, not preemptive or imminent.

    Given the Bush doctrine is the principle underpinning for the Iraq war and our entire current national security strategy I'm not sure how it is acceptable for someone claiming to be ready to be VP, and potentially President to not what it is.  Even if she didn't know it by name she certainly should understand the principles of our national security as defined by the current administration and her response demonstrated she doesn't.  There is no way to claim otherwise.  

    then you don't know your butt (none / 0) (#227)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    from a hole in the ground.

    oh good (none / 0) (#185)
    by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:43:41 AM EST

    Can you delete this one below
    actually, (1.00 / 6) (#58)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:34 PM EST

    I don't know any democrats that would talk like that and I'm pretty sure there are lots of republicans trying to stir things up

    perhaps that's the problem, not enough democrats are talking like that.

    i note you didn't deny the truth of any of my statements of fact, merely wished they'd go away. facts are annoying things, they don't go away, no matter how much you'd prefer to whitewash them.

    gov. palin is demonstrably not fit to be sitting one heartbeat from the oval office, i simply pointed out several factual reasons why.

    if you don't like it, tough cookies. argue the issues, not the style. this isn't a "beauty" contest, this is life or death.

    Charlie Gibson - moron (none / 0) (#228)
    by David123456 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:58:02 AM EST
    Let's ask Charlie Gibson what the Bush Doctrine is...

    Charlie Gibson, September 11, 2008: "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."

    Charlie Gibson, September 21, 2001: "The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated."

    But Palin is the dumb one.

    Got it.

    Palin on Russia and Georgia (none / 0) (#231)
    by 18anapple2 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    Its kind of ridiculous to expect Palin to say  that Russia was provoked..that would imply that Russia was  justified in sending troops into Georgia...which in turn would make any kind of international censure/sanctions impossible. It is the official position of the US government as also of France, UK, Germany etc.
    The truth of the matter is that America (left and Right) does not care about Georgia because it is a "small struggling democracy" but because it is a an important part of the wests drive to control Caspian oil (so also Afganistan.)  and of course contain Russian influence in the region.

    lipst(u)ck (none / 0) (#232)
    by 18anapple2 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Regds the pig on lipstick comment..the fact of the matter is that we could endlessly discuss if Obama did or did not mean to call Palin a pig. The audience that was there "in the moment" certainly thought so and Obama made no attempt to correct that impression...and so it goes ..one more WORM in an already overflowing can..what can I say not good.    

    It's McCain and the Republicans, (none / 0) (#234)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    just a reminder. Yes, Sarah Palin is a concern. But, any of the other Republican names bruited about for McCain's running mate would also have been dangerous, just like the Republican standard bearer is himself. Huckabee, Fred, Rudy, Mitt, Carly all would be scary, just in different ways. Ms. Palin's knowledge of national government issues does appear to be her weakness, but she seems to be hitting the books, and that is a good thing. Besides, less government is a Republican goal, so the learning curve need not be so steep. Yes, Governor Palin may have less experience than the runners-up in the veep sweepstakes, but my concern with her is not the experience level, per se, but the conclusions she elicits from the experience she does have.