ABC Palin Interview Part II

I'm watching the end of part 2 of the Charlie Gibson - ABC interview of Gov Sarah Palin.

Excerpts here.

What did you think? Did she put any of your fears to rest?

< McCain on Palin (and Other Issues) | Broadcasters in Saudia Arabia Warned of Death Penalty For Showing Soap Operas >


Did Sarah Palin's Interview Convince You
Yes, I'll never vote for her 20%
Yes, I'm more determined than ever to vote for her 16%
No, She was too prepped 1%
No, We didn't learn anything new 6%
No, I need to know more 2%
No, She's irrelevant, I'm voting against McCain 35%
Other 16%

Votes: 153
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    being interviewed is not (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    going to be her job as vp. or biden's either, thank god, though he probably thinks that it should  be. the idea that a tv interview determines a person's fitness for office is


    irregular grammar is also not a dealbreaker.

    she'll have a press secretary.

    the more attention she gets, the more likely mccain wins.

    b/c she's a natural.

    I realize it is not a deal breaker (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by bjorn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    for a lot of people or Bush would not be President.  I guess it is not the deal breaker for me either, her positions are...

    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by cib on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    When people choose Presidents based on how they "look" to the Rest of the World, or because they have a "D" or "R" in front of their name, or because they havent' spent the requisite twenty years selling their souls in our corrupt political establishment, the Republic dies a slow death. Our President should be the one that will do the most good for the American people as a whole, not "your" people or "my" people but everyone. Not all of our greatest Presidents have impressed foreigners as being "cultured": the better ones have treated the foreign countries with respect and went on with their jobs regardless of their background.

    To hear your complaint, Abraham Lincoln was a light-weight: he just was polished enough for you.


    hey thanin (2.00 / 0) (#50)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:15:16 PM EST
    what did you disagree with? i'd rather you used your words than your number indicator. reasoned disagreement is more civil than troll rating. the frank exchange of views makes for a good democracy and all that.

    thanin (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:20:49 PM EST
    constantly gives me 1's and 2's.  Probably a paid blogger for Senator Obama who's been assigned for the re-programming for Talk Left.

    They pay for that? (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Thanin on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:43:10 AM EST
    Sign me up.  

    By the way, if it bothers you that much just hide all the ratings.


    A natural waht? (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:23:20 PM EST
    liar?  Idealogue?  Because that's what I see.  "She's tough" the talking heads say.  So what Bush.  We're talking about running the country!  She clearly is not up to the task.

    look. i dont like the idea of her being (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41:41 PM EST
    elected. and ronald reagan depressed the he** out of me. but the camera loves her and she can deliver a line. she also convery a kind of grittiness. having those attributes, and a bunch of folks backing you up before during and after your performances, gets you a long way toward being elected in these united states.

    as btd says, dems need to quit obsessing on her but it may be too late now. she's the underdog! she and mcain are now the plucky american-westerner types battling the eggheads and the media.  palin is perfect for that role.


    But speeches are? (none / 0) (#8)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    Public speaking, be it on a stump, a live address to the networks, or an interview with a journalist are all "public" appearances, and all are meant to provide voters with a look at the candidate.

    I'd say on a scale of 1 - 10, she did around a 5.

    She's not going to lose any of her base, that's for sure.


    She is evasive, tentative (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    When asked a direct question, e.g., Didn't you support the bridge to nowhere before you opposed it, she never actually admitted it. For someone whose MO is that she is direct and honest, I felt that came off quite badly.  There is nothing wrong with saying, "yes, I did and then came to my senses."  On abortion and guns, she was in her realm so that she had authenticity and I believed what she said.

    Gibson did a good job.  The more evasive she got, the more persistent he was.  

    Overall, I give her a B-.  No great blunders, but far from the Sarah who captivated the audience at the convention.  Policy and specific answers are a lot harder to deliver than a bon mot.      

    That's probably because (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    Her answers couldn't be scripted for her on a teleprompter?

    She didn't say anything was above (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    her pay grade, and I appreciated that.  She was more forthright than many politicians who turn themselves into pretzels.  She owned her stands on a lot of issues.  I don't agree with most of those stands, but that's to be expected.  At least she minimized the "god stuff," compared to some.

    On some issues, she's not ready on day one, decidedly.  But then, what needs to be asked is whether McCain will involve his VP fully or treat her like FDR treated Truman -- who had to head to Potsdam and deal with Stalin and decide on the A-Bomb and much more with last-minute briefings that left out a lot, at the cost of many lives.

    For that matter, I want to know how involved Biden would be under Obama.  These are the questions of the presidential nominees that are not being asked with all this kerfuffle over a VP nominee.  Maybe we're so accustomed to strong VPs, under Bush and under Bill Clinton, that we forget that in most of our history, even the wisest and most experienced VPs have been left out of the loop, and sadly so.  

    No matter which one ends up president, this is no time for either nominee, for different reasons, to   exercise hubris in the White House as did FDR -- bless him for so much else, but not for that.


    Cream City, you show surprising depth! (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    At least, you express ideas here that I'm not 180 degrees opposed to.

    I hereby take back some of the things I've thought about you.


    Given McCain's age and medical history (none / 0) (#101)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    we can't assume that there will not be consequences from having a national policy novice in the White House.  The fact that we got relatively lucky with FDR's pick of Harry Truman doesn't give me comfort on that score.

    Biden isn't getting this kind of scrutiny because he's been a national figure for more than 20 years and he's been speaking about both domestic and foreign policy matters all that time. You can agree or disagree with him, but there's no question that he's knowledgeable.

    I couldn't bring myself to watch the interviews when they were aired earlier this evening. Yesterday was more than I could bear. After watching the snippets available online, it appears it would have been more enjoyable to the Weather Channel. Happily, I did neither.


    Uh, love Harry S, but he did not do well (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:19:33 AM EST
    in foreign policy.  Do you understand the mess that the Potsdam treaty left?  Why there was a Berlin crisis, a Berlin Wall, etc., just for starters?  And there is not time enough tonight to get into what the Brits did -- and did not do -- in the MIdeast.

    And look into the reasoning by Truman re the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and what Stalin did agree at Potsdam to do. . . .

    And you are not addressing my main point as to what level of involvement either VP nominee would have in the White House, as we have not heard that from either Prez nominee.  The VP can have less info than Biden gets now in Congress.  And there are many issues other than foreign policy, for which we would want him to be ready on his day one, if it would come.  

    When I hired someone for management, I wanted to know their management style along these lines.  I still do not even have that info for this hire.


    Your last sentence (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:43:42 AM EST
    sums it up so well.  I may quote you, Drewski. :-)

    When John Edwards was named as (5.00 / 17) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    Kerry's VP, he could do a great interview, but he'd been speaking to juries for years, so that was no big surprise.

    He had little experience on the world stage - never held public office before he went to the Senate, and yet I do not recall the mass hysteria that he wasn't deserving of being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    Obama, when he first started his run for the presidency, did not exactly knock people out with his grasp of a number of issues; campaigning has honed his skills - that and having Hillary in the race to force him to be better.

    So, when I hear people just trashing Palin for not being on the same level with Obama, or for not being as smooth as the others, I wonder why the standard for her is different than it has been for past VP nominees, or for nominees for president, for that matter.

    I know that when I listen to Obama in these kinds of interviews, I get so annoyed and distracted by all of the ums and ers and us and ahs that I lose track of what it is he's saying.  Does that mean he can't be president because he has trouble speaking extemporaneously?

    While I don't agree with her positions, what I'd like to see is the entire interview, unedited.  The media isn't in the business of being fair, so an unedited version might level that playing field a tad - seems like the least - and I do mean the least - they could do, since they've done an execrable job up to this point.

    To your point about the editing (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    I'll add this one about Gibson's deliberate (or just stupid) misquoting of Palin.  Somerby at DailyHowler pointed it out today.  Since from the editing we can't tell the chronological order of the questions, it is very possible that the 'Bush Doctrine' question came after she already knew he had misquoted her and was trying to trip her up.  

    We are not going to get better politicians of either party until we get a better press corps, of that I am convinced. The current crop is overpaid and lazy, and as Jon Stewart famously said, they are hurting America.

    Read Somerby's whole post, but here is the gist of it:

    GIBSON (9/11/08): You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

    PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

    GIBSON: Exact words.

    Good God. That's astoundingly bad.

    Yes, Virginia-those really are Palin's "exact words," taken from a longer statement at her former church. But as many schoolboys could tell you, you can badly misrepresent someone's statement depending on which "exact words" you select. And that's what Gibson did in this instance. Here's the longer statement by Palin from which those "exact words" were cadged:

    PALIN: Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right-also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers.

    As you can see, those "exact words" were part of that longer statement. But it's plain from Palin's longer statement that she was not asserting that our soldiers have been sent to Iraq "on a task that is from God;" in reality, she was plainly urging her audience to pray that this was the case. ("That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for.") Gibson's presentation was baldly misleading-an astounding, inexcusable bungle. Palin was right when she suggested that she'd somehow been quoted wrong.

    Palin's intent was clear (3.50 / 4) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    She believes that the soldiers are doing God's work....

    She is a Pentecostal and very, very socially conservative.....Bascially like George Bush in her confidence in the face of ignorance...

    But people come up with the darndest rationalizations why a liberal Democrat can vote for her and McCain....


    I am extremely disappointed (5.00 / 18) (#128)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:08:12 AM EST
    in all the liberals who have no problem with this blatant misquotation - a smear, really, that has been going around for a week now - because they claim to "know" that she "really meant" the misquoted version anyway.

    This election has been very depressing in terms of realizing that the vast mass of progressives care no more about being "reality-based" than the other side does.


    It takes two sides (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EST
    And the conservatives, especially the religious conservatives, have no inclination to be conciliatory--they can't be, for they are doing God's work and to compromise is to disobey and disappoint God.

    Sure, be polite, but recognize the forces unleashed by the Palin pick are strong and will not be deterred by entreaties to just get along...


    You know (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:37:42 AM EST
    not to reopen stuff, but that was exactly the reason I didn't support the candidate who kept saying he wanted to bring the two sides together.

    I had hoped Obama was right (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:01:36 AM EST
    I like Evangelicals....I think that by and large they are lovely people.  I think their religion is a lovely religion, if and this a big if, they leave off the Book of Revelations, which for crying out loud was talking about contemporary Caesar and not the head of the U.N.

    I like Rick Warren.  I have family members who know him very well....But Warren needs to get OUT OF POLITICS....as do the conservative evangelicals--who need to actually read the Bible, which so few of them do, and remember to stay out of Caesar's business, that Jesus's Kingdom was not of this world, and that Jesus refused to be a military or political leader.  Basic stuff that they just ignore....

    Until the Saddleback debate, I had thought that the evangelical movement had been straying away from Dobson's hard line.....No, they had just gone dormant because they felt defeated....Palin has revived them.

    So, Obama has misjudged the evangelicals, and I agree that Hillary has a better approach (stay secular.)  Defeat them and they will get out of politics....We were one step away from that goal until the Palin pick.

    I know BTD's theory on this, and I wish we could just ignore Palin....but this is now a religious war, and it is hard to ignore.....But perhaps it will abate next week somewhat...    


    Well, the phrasing is quite (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    clear to me.....It is a familiar way for Evangelicals to say God is on their side....Of course God answered her prayers and sent the soldiers on a divine mission in combat....

    I have spent a considerable amount of time defending Evangelicals on this site....Sure, there is some ambiguity (for non-evangelicals)that can be read in to what she said....But praying for the troops to be on a mission from God....that tells me all I need to know....

    The context doesn't help and just reaffirms the intent....


    I am really bothered (5.00 / 11) (#138)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:23:29 AM EST
    by people who have no problem with a blatant misquote.

    I mean, Gibson sat there and flat-out said "it's an exact quote" when it wasn't!  How does that not bother people?

    You certainly wouldn't have the same standard if someone claimed that Obama uttered a certain quote and then said well okay, maybe he didn't say that, but I'm convinced that's what he meant so I'm going to keep on claiming it's a quote.


    It might be because... (2.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Thanin on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:38:43 AM EST
    some Dems are tired of losing?  

    I mean sure, it would be nice to live in a wonderland where everyone plays by the rules and those best capable of governing always win elections, but the "reality" is that that doesnt happen.  So yes, Id rather have the luxury of caring about a misquote and stirring outrage over it, regardless of which side suffered from it, but, understanding the reality of politics, I cant.  So while there are those here who might appreciate your high minded ideals, Im sure the 100,000+ dead Iraqis wouldnt.


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:43:12 AM EST
    Here's the thing, when you tell lies that are easily exposed, then you end up looking like a liar really fast.

    Besides, for the most part, where you see these lies most often is on liberal blogs, where liberals tell them to other liberals.  Whatever political tactics people feel they have to use are one thing, but at least amongst ourselves we should be able to tell the truth.

    So yeah, it's great that you feel you're lying in order to save the world, but in my book that's just a lazy excuse.  


    Steve's right! (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:05:35 AM EST
    And we all know if the shoe was on the other foot people would be outraged.

    When did I say I was lying? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Thanin on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:44:56 AM EST
    Im not Charlie Gibson.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:50:19 AM EST
    Here's the thing, when ONE tells lies that are easily exposed, then ONE ends up looking like a liar really fast.

    Here's the other thing, when ONE gets pedantic on the Internet, then ONE ends up annoying people.


    republicans lie all the time... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:22:56 AM EST
    and win presidential elections.  In fact, they do it so much now that everyone just expects it from them, yet they still vote for them.  In the meantime, the debt sky rockets, American soldiers die, Iraqis die, etc.

    So sorry but I'll take a hit on integrity if it means republican policies die.

    Also, the whole pedantic line was pretty weak.


    I think you're the one being inflammatory (none / 0) (#218)
    by ChrisO on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    I'm not saying I "know" what was in Palin's mind. What I "know" is what she said, and the longer quote does little to change the meaning. Saying "we're on a mission from God" or "I pray we're on a mission from God" doesn't change the fact that she talks about the war in terms of being a "mission from God." No one is making that part up.

    If you interporet it differently, fine. But all of this talk about "lies" is silly. The segment Gibson used is hardly dramatically different from the longer clip. Are you really more comforted by a leader who says "I hope we're on a mission from God" instead of "we're on a mission from God"?


    There is "spin" and there is falsehood. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Southsider on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:40:08 AM EST
    This one is, I agree with you, clearly a falsehood.  Palin was egregiously misquoted by Gibson, and her words were ripped violently from their original context -- by editing out the key predicate clause at the front -- such that Gibson accused her of saying the exact opposite of what she actually said.

    All honest people must acknowledge this.  However, I won't lie...I'm not staying up at night crying tiny sick tears of rage about it.  It was unfair, it has been corrected by Palin's partisans, and that's that.  I suppose I should be agog at the willingness of some people (cough*Sullivan*cough) to pretend that she was really making some sort of arrogant millenialist statement of god-botherin' fundamentalism, but hey...I'm a cynic.


    Make no mistake (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:46:51 AM EST
    Palin is an "arrogant millenialist"....Set aside the troops quote, there is plenty of other evidence....  

    No it's not clear at all. (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM EST
    You can infer what you like from those words. But it is quite unclear gramatically. Personally based on the broder context of that church and some other things that she has said I believe that she believes that it is indeed God's plan. But absolutely nothing definitive can be infered from the words of that paragraph alone. In fact by itself I would argue that the prayer is that the plan aligns with God's will not that the plan is the will of God.

    I don't like having to defend Palin but the interpretation of this particular passage is embarassing.


    There is no doubt that (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:01:58 AM EST
    Palin's believes her prayers were answered and the soldiers are on mission from God.  Palin lives in a world of preternatural certainty.

    Most Christians would pray that the soldiers be safe.  Praying for the soldiers to be "on a task from God" is right out of the conservative evangelical playbook....See General Boykin who said in uniform that our God is stronger than the Muslim god and thus we win.....


    its not a playbook (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by sancho on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:16:27 AM EST
    and its not even a prayerbook. its what she and other evangelical christians BELIEVE. she's speaking from the heart and there are millions of americans like her. and they vote. and that is their right as americans. the remarkable thing about her, as far as i can tell, is that unlike both  bushes, reagan, and mccain, and more like bill clinton, she clearly believes in a christian god and "his" power to intervene in her life. that's why so many americans are inpsired by her and will defend her passionately.

    as for me, i dont want to rile those folks up.


    I have posted comments (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:30:14 AM EST
    on this site saying very similar things....My road to Damascus experience was the Saddleback debate....

    Evangelicals need to be defeated at the ballot box, not cajoled.  Of course, they really believe all that dangerous nonsense about the End Times and being God's soldiers against the Antichrist that will one day run the U.N.  Their sincerity makes them all that more dangerous...

    I have been a student of Christain religions and fundamentalist Christians for quite some time....I know the mindset very well.  The conservative fundamentalist is an authoritarian looking for validation from the heirarchy.....When he or she does not get it, they internalize the defeat....for they must be in sync with the powers that be.....Beat them, and they will abandon politics....Reasoning with them is futile....

    The Da Vinci Code has done more to take the wind out of conservative evangelical sails than any reasoned argument.....as told to me by a conservative pastor tied into the Republican machine....


    i think we can agree (none / 0) (#184)
    by sancho on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:14:38 AM EST
    that there is a disinction between the true believers and those who would manipulate the true believers. palin may be both--or not. i'm pretty sure she is a true believer, though, and that bush is a manipulator playing their authoritarian fantasies to his advantage.

    i've been an unwilling student of fundamentalists my whole life. i appreciate your response.  


    ha (none / 0) (#175)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:04:43 AM EST
    Yeah, and those people would be republicans playing possum on lefty websites. lol.

    The context doesn't change (2.00 / 1) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:58 PM EST
    the meaning of the quote. I've read it before, seen the clip before, and I still think she was saying that Iraq was a task given to us by God -- "a task from God" -- and that whatever war plan we follow has to be God's plan.

    I don't think that God choose a military or strategic plan for us that we can follow, confident that we are fighting the way the Lord wants us to.  


    You make an excellent point (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    I noticed all the interviews were clipped.  You could actually see the traansition at certain points.  I do wonder what we missed.

    Palin is not at the level of Obama.  She is not at the level of Edwards or Biden.  She is at the level of GW. That is what scares me. The folksy, down home twang that fools people into thinking they are being honest and forthright, because they speak in a simple, uncomplicated manner.  She has had years of public speaking experience as city councilor, mayor, and then governor.  

    Hint: our world is very complex; it is not black and white; the problems we face are loaded with intricacies.


    They make their case in a way (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:22:02 PM EST
    that is understandable to people.  Too many Dems make their case at their own level, and then blame the people for not being smart enough to see what is in their own best interest. It takes a lot of talent to explain things in away that neither talks down to people nor is snobbish.

    I think it's ageism! (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:17:44 PM EST
    In all honesty, the idea of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency is really based on the fact that McCain is 72.

    Their own campaign has said "most doctors" believe he'll make it 4 years. Not exactly an endorsement.

    That basically puts her into a 1 in 6 chance that she WILL be the POTUS.

    Your point is very valid, but I really think it's because people are worried McCain might not make it. He hasn't released his full medical records, and there is legitimate concern that he'd make it all the way through.

    If he didn't, then yes, I'm worried about her capability of being in charge of the most powerful military in the world.


    if Tina Turner were running (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM EST
    age wouldn't be an issue and she just turned 70. Did you see her this week on tv as she gets ready for her new tour? It's not ageism, it's that McCain looks and appears to be an unhealthy 72. You look at him and wonder what if? I never think that looking at Tina Turner. (And no, i'm not suggesting Tina T. run for pres.)

    McCain is no Tina Turner (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    LOL.  He has had at least three instances of skin cancer that I know of.  Note, his father died at age 70 and his grandfather died at age 61.  You cannot ignore that. Yes, I realize his mother is doing great.    

    Also, I have discussed this issue with seniors.  What they are worried about is not that he will die, but rather will he have the stamina and attentiveness for the presidency for 4 years.


    Ok phew (1.00 / 4) (#82)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:32:12 PM EST
    Especially with Ike about to hit....

    Sorry, couldn't resist.


    well (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:58:21 AM EST
    Half his face is immobile and he's had some public appearances where he didnt appear to be with it.   Check out his NH victory speech.  Even the GOP pundits were chuckling over it.

    Jeez, I would never vote for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by ap in avl on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:03:51 AM EST
    but your comments on him are disgusting.

    I'm a bleeding heart Dem and would never say such things about anyone.  One thing that I've always believed about us is that we have a deeper sense of compassion for humanity.

    You're not reflecting that value, imho......


    well (none / 0) (#180)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:09:52 AM EST
    I find your comments disgusting.

    That McCain bears the scars of ill-health on his face are my point. Unless you think your indignation changes reality, which you may in fact believe.

    And he did appear off in NH and I wasnt the only one to notice.  


    Find me disgusting if you will (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by ap in avl on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:16:55 AM EST
    I'm not the one delighting in the perceived medical problems of a 72 year old American citizen.  Nor am I the one laughing along with GOP pundits.

    I hope to be 72 years old one of these days.  I'll always be a Democrat.  And I will never support the policies of a McCain/Palin ticket.

    But I also hope I will never make fun of another human being for sport or political points.

    If you find that disgusting it's not my problem.


    no (none / 0) (#195)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:27:04 AM EST
    I wasnt chuckling, I was concerned there was something wrong with him.  But every channel I surfed had pundits scratching their heads wondering what that was about and some were chuckling that it was an odd sort of victory speech.

    Duh (4.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Nevart on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:08:13 AM EST
    If average life expectancy is 13 years at 72, then half live longer, half shorter.  So, 50% of men will live at least 13 years more; but a quarter will live only 6 1/2 years; and 12.5% LESS THAN 3 1/4 years.  So, 16% for 4 years sounds about right.  It ain't rocket science.  That's also where they get the statistic that McCain has a 1/3 chance of dying in office if he's in eight years.

    However, it ought to be noted, that people who've had melanomas are going to live even less, on average.  People who have had THREE melanomas, like McCain, are in even more danger.

    There's your President Palin scenario.


    I work in physician business (none / 0) (#109)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51:58 PM EST
    And that seems to be the running stat thrown around by them.

    If they are wrong, I'm happy to change that.


    Those numbers (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:14:24 AM EST
    sound perfectly consistent to me.

    with one another (none / 0) (#148)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM EST
    eh (none / 0) (#165)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:56:02 AM EST
    Im sure there are actuary tables to measure this but you have factor in his multiple bouts of cancer, other health issues, etc.  And then its still statistics.

    But either way,  I dont like her views or her limited understanding of science so I wouldnt want to take the risk.


    well (none / 0) (#159)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:48:13 AM EST
    Personally I wouldnt vote for someone who refuses to answer questions about their stance on evolution and has called for teaching creation alongside evolution.  She later backed off but can just as easily back in again.

    I don't vote for ignorant people. Man or Woman.  I'd no more vote for her than Rick Santorum or James Imhofe.


    This interview was pointless (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Mitch Guthman on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    I thought she did pretty well considering her background.  She isn't nearly as smooth as Obama but then we haven't seen Obama really challenged like that in an interview.  

    Apart from the fact that I disagree with just about all of her policy stances, I think what bothered me the most about the interview was that Gibson wasn't trying to engage her in a way that would test the depth of her knowledge and whether she had ever really given foreign policy issues serious thought or had merely digested some briefing papers prepared by the McCain campaign.  Almost every time he pressed her with a follow-up it was on some "gotcha" line of questioning designed to see whether he could get her to take a position at odds with Bush or McCain.  He never pressed her to expand on her reasoning and never engaged her in a way that would have forced her to go beyond talking points.  All that he really cared about was whether or not he could get her to either admit that she didn't know something or force her to contradict McCain or Bush.

    More specifically, I notice that the left-blogs are going crazy with "she wants to attack Russia" and how she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was.  Clearly, if anybody thought she was going to use the term "preventative war" they were crazy which is why I pretty much dismiss this as a "gotcha".  Substantively, her answer was a more or less neo-con tinged view of generally accepted principles of international law regarding preemptive action.  Essentially she was saying something fairly close to what Obama and especially Biden have said.

    The question of our policy towards Russian perfectly illustrates my criticism of Gibson:  He just wanted to see if she'd say the words  "war with Russia" but he never tried to draw her out on the wisdom of NATO expansion, what does she think is Putin's ultimate goal----is he trying to rebuild the USSR?  Is he doing basically what we've always claimed the right to do under the Monroe Doctrine?   If so, how can you reconcile these things? You know, he could have asked her questions about policy and then allowed her to give policy related answers which might allow her to show that she has thought about these issues and has formed some opinions (both definite and tentative) and is able to work with some basic concepts to lay out some possibilities.  Or it might show that she's never heard of any of these people, places or problems until about two weeks ago.  

    I think better a better interviewer would have drawn her out much more and even given her room to acknowledge ambiguity on some questions and point to issues where she was interested in gathering more information.    In other words, she would have put my mind at rest about her capabilities in foreign policy if she'd been able to thoughtfully discuss these issues in some depth and with an eye towards formulating a coherent, cohesive response to Russia.   Obviously, I'm not likely to agree with much of her foreign policy proposals, but if the issue is competency that's how its demonstrated.  And that how Gibson should have explored it.

    But, in the end, we got the same depressingly shallow debate/interview "Tim Russert Kabuki" (followed by the equally Kabuki-like hysteria and silliness from most of the left blogs).    Where is David Frost when we so desperately need him!

    Obama on O'Reilly (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:20:29 PM EST
    Go watch it.

    He got grilled really hard from a total right-wing perspective. Was asked very direct questions that left NO room for pontificating or relying on "change" and "hope".


    Obama did himself good on O'Reilly (none / 0) (#215)
    by supertroopers on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    I bet he's back up within a week in national polls for that appearance.

    Did you not see... (4.00 / 3) (#51)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:17:20 PM EST
    Obama get badgered by O'reilly or the ABC debate in the primary.  I have NO tolerance for this "Obama hasn't gotten this treatment" line of argument.  That is simply not true.

    The interview (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    was a puff-piece to have the lefties shut up about her inaccessability with respect to the press.

    Now, satisfied?  She comes out smelling like a rose and now making that much MORE of a hurdle for Dems.

    Keep pushing her front and center, and that is just MORE time for the Dems to not be able to address the issues, where, Dems would clean up.

    What.. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    did ABC do wrong?  Not do what the McCain campaign wanted them to?  Please.  This is a campaign for the leader (and vice-leader) of the free world.  If Charlie Gibson is too "tough" or "unfair" for Palin, than she isn't ready to lead this country.

    Nope, wrong (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    This piece was a fair and accurate account of her political career, and good solid questions about things that are important to voters.

    You do realize that everybody is seeing right through you?


    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:40:15 PM EST
    Were you at some point designated as the definitive assessor of Palin's interviews, and now are entitled to declare the opinions of others as "wrong," as you issue high-handed decrees of what constitutes "fair and accurate?"

    You do realize that you have your own transparency, through which we have no trouble seeing that you like to bully and intimidate, don't you?

    Not exactly the hallmark of an open mind or one that is at all interested in discussion.


    Anne , my comment (none / 0) (#97)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:43:35 PM EST
    was directed at one of the Republican trolls who was banned, and subsequently my post ended up under the OP.

    It was meant as a total disregard of all the right-winged talking points he was posting.

    If you see my original assessment post above, I thought she did pretty well, with some general stumbles on specifics.


    This was in response to gogoman (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    Who I guess has been deleted for abuse.

    by you referring to ABC (none / 0) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:25:46 PM EST
    as amateurish solidifies my perspective that it was indeed a puff piece.

    Earmarks? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:12:33 PM EST
    Earmarks?  Did anyone notice her response to that question?  She tried to justify both her decision to seek huge sums of earmarks while governor, yet she is currently opposed to earmarks.

    She said she wasn't for earmarks before she was against them -- she's both for and against them!

    And she continues to lie through her teeth about other things too -- her telling "the Congress thanks but no thanks" for that lovely bridge.  

    Sure Charles Gibson was a bit of a jerk, but she came across as extremely awkward to me.  She was trying to talk like a politician, but it was so out of her league.  Stating your position without cornering yourself is a part of being a successful politician and statesman.  She failed miserably at both.  All IMO, of course.

    Yes, that was really telling (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:27:36 PM EST
    She did not do well there at all.  

    She does not have a very good poker face - most politicians have mastered the frozen faced half smile while they listen to the question that skewers them.

    It is interesting to see a politician on the national stage before they have learned all the tricks.


    It is amazing how easily she lies (none / 0) (#137)
    by bridget on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:22:24 AM EST
    and she gets away with it, too. So far. Gibson tried to get to the truth but she talked circles around him. That will impress her fans and supporters. Once voters usually made up their minds that they like the candidate they tend to find excuses for everything. But most of the time they just don't know the facts.

    When Palin gave her convention speech I didn't know the truth re bridge, earmarks, etc. until I checked with Somerby next who had done some real fact checking. Thanks goodness for the DailyHowler.

    However, when she proudly mentioned in her convention speech that she got rid of her cook I had to laugh about that one. No way, Jose. Her audience may have enjoyed it along with the rest of her folksy ways but That was just too much of "pioneer woman" talk for me. Turns out she lied about that one, too. Of course.

    I can think of a few power pols who will watch her spin her yarn in admiration.

    Ms Palin. Thanks but no thanks.


    ya (none / 0) (#182)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    SHe is a skilled liar but they gave her a stump speech and she has to read it.  

    Even the WSJ called her on it.


    Earmarks (none / 0) (#170)
    by 60615 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:01:09 AM EST
    I don't hold it against her that she sought earmarks for her constituents.  That's the way the game, as set up by Congress, is played these days.  No individual state or municpality can reasonably be expected to renounce seeking them when everyone else is still gobbling as much as they can from the federal trough.

    Nor do I see any inconsistency between her pursuit of earmarks as a mayor or governor and her current opposition to them as a candidate for national office.  She and McCain are saying that ALL earmarks should be stopped.


    I am confused as to why my posts were (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by gogoman2 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    deleted and I have been banned?  

    I wrote a post on this thread stating that I thought the interview was fair and that while I did not agree with her positions on abortion and guns, they sounded sincere.  And that I credit her for  sticking to those positions in the interview, given the political risk.  It was rated 5 by three other readers here.  Yet my post has been deleted and I've been banned.

    because you are a chatterer and (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:38:53 PM EST
    were banned the other day as Jonathan 3 for violating comment rules. I'm deleting this account too. You obviously won't read the rules and intend to keep violating them and I'm not going to spend time moderating you.

    Palin gave a boring, vague interview. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    So what's new?  They all do. She gives a good speech.  Doesn't do questions.  Same as Obama.  McCain gives a boring speech and shines on questions.  Does this reveal intelligence, lack of, personal flaws, readiness, lack of?  Of course not.  And, yes, the most scripted speeches of all are Obama's!  And, his most memorable aren't even from his own speechwriters but borrowed from other people's campaigns if they can find a fit.  Does that make him dishonest or resourceful or both?

    If I listened to most democrats and most republicans I'd think each and every candidate that is currently running is possessed by a minor daemon from the underworld and will bring a deluge of frogs falling from the darkened skies above us.  This hyperbole is drowning good reasoning in a cesspool.

    Sarah Palin is scary for liberals only because there are a lot of Americans that believe as she does, but with less circumspection.  Those people see Obama supporters as misguided, selfish, and reckless.  

    Failing to address the issue that there are rational differences in worldviews is shortsighted.  Take abortion for example. While many here would support the right of a woman to have an abortion, they do so because they are comfortable believing they know when and where life begins.  Yet, nearly every woman I know who has ever had an abortion is privately certain she just terminated a life. I think abortion does terminate a life and I STILL believe a woman has a right to do it.  So much so that I have gone with many women who needed a hand to hold out in the waiting room. Why?  Because it is a lesser evil in my opinion. It is possibly less traumatic to the spirit to be cut short in this manifestation than to live unwanted and possibly neglected or abused or parented by somone who is not ready or able to provide what is necessary beyond and merely with love. And, because my mother stood in the kitchen with blood gushing down her legs after her fourth home abortion with a glass french catether because my father or her lovers refused to use a rubber. Obama isn't sure where life begins.  Where it begins is where he draws the line.  Palin believes the line is at conception. But we all agree that it would be wrong to terminate the life of a child that is outside the womb.  No conflict there.  We'd all be on the same page.  The reality is that we don't know for sure when life begins anymore than what happens, if anything, after we die.  It is a guess, a moral choice rather than a factual choice. But, all moral choices are guesses in the end.

    Please consider that the Sarah Palin's of the world see those supporting abortion rights as either monsters or horribly self-deluded beings, yet she addresses the abortion issue respectfully in public.  She perceives such people are literally willing to murder for the sake of convenience or to undue a mistake or lack of judgement or self restraint.  Yet, she supports a woman's right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest.  Even her line gets fuzzy if the circumstances are compelling enough ones she understands or relates to.

    None of the candiates are entirely ready.  None are entirely stupid.  None are completely honest.  None are all the things we are attributing to them - good or bad. And, denigrating the worldview of our opponents does not weaken their arguments or make it untrue.  It just shows our smallness of heart and thinking.

    The people on this site are clearly verbally gifted enough to do better.  Our raising the level of debate will go a long way toward helping others see the real issues in the clearest and best light.  So, while this election is touted as the most important and critical in a very long time, and it might be, then how we frame the issues and the candidates is equally important and critical because it is only through a thoughtful portrayal of both that we can really gain insight.

    Correction (none / 0) (#193)
    by thinkingfella on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:25:22 AM EST
    She does NOT support abortion in cases of rape or incest. The ONLY time she supports abortion is if the mother's life is in danger.

    Palin reminds me of Sen Kornblucher (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:21 PM EST
    Very charming, likeable, down-to-Earth.  I don't agree with her on the issues, so I would never vote for her, but the visceral Palin hate that people are spewing is pretty baseless.

    "Did she put any of your fears to rest?" (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:07:46 AM EST
    Is that a leading question, or is that a leading question?

    Sustained! (none / 0) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:57:09 AM EST

    She didn't faceplant, which disappoints me. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Southsider on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM EST
    She weaseled around the Bridge to Nowhere/earmarks question -- but came up with a slippery enough answer -- which was the toughest question of the night.  Her response on the abortion question was...well, actually I thought it was genuinely well-handled, a pretty smart way to acknowledge her personal extremism (how could she deny it without causing a massive feeding frenzy?) whilst arguing that she would govern as a constitutionalist.  I suppose her record in AK lines up with this, but then again she's only been there for <2 years.  No idea how moderates will react; will they be horrified by her "no exceptions for rape and incest" belief, or mollified by her federalist pieties?

    I won't lie, I liked her gun answers, and I think they're guaranteed to play just fine in America -- hell, I wish she'd actually attacked Gibson on the farcical nature of the "semi-automatic assault weapons" ban (given that such a category is nonsensical).  But then again I suspect that I'm much farther to the right of many here on TL when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.  

    Overall, she Rohrshached it tonight: she remains an inkblot onto which people will project their predispositions...if you hate her, you'll still hate her, etc. etc.  I don't hate her, I just don't think she's qualified for the job (practically, not politically), and I don't support McCain in any event.  But I guess I can say that I don't hate her yet.  Maybe that's something, I dunno.  Won't move my dial either way.

    Remember, as constitutionalists they would (none / 0) (#202)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:16:48 AM EST
    try to overturn Roe v. Wade because they believe the SCOTUS overstepped its constitutional role in making that decision.

    I posted deeper in this thread but (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by ap in avl on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:57:39 AM EST
    just to make sure my meaning is not misconstrued:

    Your behavior is really, really annoying.
    You're giving me flashbacks to my 5th grade hall monitor.

    There is a healthy debate here at this blog.  It is head and shoulders above the echo chamber of other left-wing sites.

    Your attempt to moderate the discussion is childish.  

    Just my opinion.
    But I defer to Jeralyn......

    She did a good job (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by oldpro on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:05:12 AM EST
    for her team.

    It is a mistake to underestimate women...Democrat OR Republican.

    She did far better than I would have guessed and if she were my candidate I would not be displeased.

    I doubt that 95% of the people in this country could have done as well under the circumstances.  Pretty impressive performance, I'd say.

    Everybody's looking for a hero (2.00 / 4) (#181)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:10:34 AM EST
    People need someone to look up to. I would like to say I hope she doesn't disappoint you, but I know she will.

    When she does, I wonder if you'll remember what you wrote here.

    It's not about performance. Actions speak louder than words, but I suppose this concept is over your head.


    Yes. Action do speak louder. (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:43:54 AM EST
    She signed same-sex partnership beneits for State employees into law.

    She vetoed legislation from the State GA to overturn them.  Sure, she cited that it was because of the Supreme Court (Alaskan) but she still showed respect for the divisions of government.

    And, in this interview, she did not say that being gay was a "choice."

    Those are actions that speak louder than any words.


    The infamous (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Roschelle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:11:11 AM EST
    Now that SARAH PALIN and the world has been educated - will the infamous Bush Doctrine cause more U.S. casualties?

    Yes and No (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    I thought she came across as being a human - and one who was at least not bent on evil.

    Gibson, on the other hand, made me cringe He buys completely into all the talking points of the Bush years. He is as arrogant and smug as it is possible to be.
    I think it is pretty easy to not want the McCain ticket to win. Given.

    But what is the point of stuff like this: (from today's Times).

    "The questions some respondents took issue with included Mr. Gibson's reference to a recent church speech, in which he quoted Ms. Palin as saying, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." In an excerpt of the speech on YouTube -- which ABC spliced into the interview when it was shown -- Ms. Palin had prefaced that comment by appearing to say she was praying that America's mission in Iraq represented God's will."

    There is a difference. The newsmedia are contempuous of Palin. Democrats see this as a means to destroy McCain. We can sit by and cheer. After all, our guy benefits.

    But what about when we see this the other way 'round? We saw it with the destruction of the Clinton campaign.

    I saw it on CNN's Larry King show recently. They had Bill Maher on. He was talking about Palin. As he was talking about what he said was her opposition to abortion even in the cases of rape or incest, his face was reduced to the size of a postage stamp. The rest of the screen was featuring a video of Palin at the convention picking up and hugging her little baby.

    The media don't even know how to report an event anymore without spinning it in one direction or other.
    CNN is giving us a story on one side of the screen, presenting an opposite side that is 4 times as big on the other side, and having a crawl underneath about a totally unrelated story.

    The only way we can figure out what is actually going on is to use our own instincts and subjectivity and, with the help of a site such as this one, compare our reactions with others.

    well (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    A good tack for Obama would be to ditch Biden (who cant get media to cover him) and bring in Hillary.

    He can say, "I'm not a stay the course kind of guy, I dont mind adjusting the strategy".  A free dig on Bush.

    THen Clinton gets up and says, "Senator McCain, you are a disgrace on women's issues and I still remember you calling my daughter ugly!  I forgave but I didnt forget the kind of man you are.  If you want to talk women's issues, lets do it."

    I just ran across (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by frenly on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    an unedited transcript of the interview here: http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

    It's pretty interesting and it makes sense of why the televised version seemed so choppy and disconnected.

    Definately not a good candidate for VP (4.85 / 7) (#7)
    by Saul on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:25:37 PM EST
    Trouble is it doesn't matter.  The majority of people vote on personality not issues. It should be issues but they are swayed more easily by the personality of the candidates.   We here are political junkies. We know the issues We see more deeply than the average Joe. McCain knows that.  All he wants to do is keep the race close and unless Obama comes up with a magic strategy from here until Oct I feel McCain accomplished his goal.  The race should have been a run away for Dem this year but Obama decided differently with his choice of VP.  A gamble Obama made and I for one will never forgive him for it.  

    Saul: If we here were all so brilliant (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by cib on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    Surely our brilliance would have made a difference, and we wouldn't be having this joke of an election between two liars and two corrupt major parties.

    I don't think it's very wise to pat yourself on the back for accomplishments one can't show.


    ya (none / 0) (#190)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:22:48 AM EST
    As the McCain camp said, "this election isnt about issues".

    My 2 cents (4.80 / 5) (#1)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:52:08 PM EST
    She has a hard time answering questions with anything concrete.

    I think Gibson grilled her pretty well, and overall she did a good job. But those looking for specifics will probably be disappointed.

    Basically, if you hate her, you will continue to hate her. If you love her, you will think she sounded great.

    I agree with this assessment (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by bjorn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM EST
    I would add that she answered the abortion and gun questions very honestly, and I thought successfully explained the difference between her personal opinion and policy.  Obviously, I don't agree with her but I respected her no nonsense answers. I also thought her answer on Clinton was sincere.  However, the more I hear her speak on her own, the more I think she is grammatically-challenged.  This makes her appear, let's just say, less smart than the other three people in this race.  I still don't think she has the smarts or the chops to be VP.

    Dan Quayle (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:16:17 PM EST
    didn't have smarts either and he didn't hurt the ticket. I do think she has the political chops though. She's doing what she needs to be doing as far as the presidential race goes.

    How do you conclude (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:21:05 PM EST
    that Dan Quayle didn't hurt the ticket?

    um (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:41:15 PM EST
    That's logical, I guess.  So winners make no bad decisions.

    they won (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM EST
    but yes you're right. just because they won doesn't make them great.

    but they WON!  what does it say about US as supposedly the smarter set,  when the likes of Quayle, Bush and now Palin meets electability standards in the US...and WIN!?


    Isn't that basically the American argument in (none / 0) (#104)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:50:25 PM EST
    general? Just observation about how our country tends to view politics. Every 4 years for a decade one side barely wins, and yet its winner take all.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Southsider on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:19:30 AM EST
    Quayle was a disaster of a VP candidate, a clusterf**k any which way you slice it.  The fact that Bush won going away has everything to do with Dukakis' singular ineptitude as a candidate and Reagan's continuing popularity, and nothing to do with Quayle's effect on the ticket.  In fact, if anything he helped drag them down later on in 1992.

    I see (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:18:24 PM EST
    Lots of logic-challenged folks tonight.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    She is quite articulate, and obviously she can be quite effective wielding a sharp pre-written attack line. Biden would do well not to underestimate her.

    What bothers me about her is her belief that God is on her side in all things -- that, for instance, God favors her preferred route for a new natural gas pipeline.

    The McCain campaign is demanding (and getting) a preposterous degree of protection of Palin -- protection from the press -- while they drill her and vet her after the fact. Imagine if Obama had tapped Sebelius -- would the press have agreed to a similar quarantine? I could almost feel sorry for Palin -- the candidate in the bubble.

    No, not really. It's hard for me to muster real sympathy for a bully. Her pattern has been, at each step up her unprecedentedly steep career ladder, she has sought to direct the power of her office against her enemies. This is the profile of a Nixon, without Nixon's wide knowledge. She frankly scares me.


    most americans want to believe (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:59:22 PM EST
    that god exists and that "he" is on their side. i'm sure obama does. saying (or praying) in one's church that god is on one's side is a pretty normal event in america.

    and i speak as a homechurcher.


    I agree with that (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    But there is to be somewhat of a separation between church and state.

    I think having a stance on abortion that is based on her faith, while I disagree, is absolutely in her right to say and pursue politically (overturning Roe vs Wade).

    However, having your people pray to God for the approval of a natural gas pipeline is stepping over the line.


    i agree and wish that obama (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM EST
    could express more forcefully that he believes in this division. instead he blurs the line and does not come across as well on the subject, imo,as palin (with whom i also disagree) does.

    Yes, I know what her stand is (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:26:34 PM EST
    and I don't agree with it -- but Obama has given me good cause to wonder exactly what his stand is on the separation of church and state, on abortion, on reproductive rights, etc.  So I have an answer I don't like from her and answers I can't trust from him.  So I hope he owns his issues in the debates and does not keep me guessing, if he wants my vote.

    When you make it up (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:26:55 PM EST
    as you go along, blurring the lines is necessary and clarity is to be avoided.

    Iraq yes praying that it is God's will. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    However, regarding the pipeline she pretty much says it's God's will to get the pipeline built.

    I'll say it again (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    Go watch Obama on O'Reilly if you want specifics.

    Go to his Web site if you want specifics.

    It's all there, but most Republicans like to pretend like it's not.

    Which of course begs the question...


    You really like to throw around the R word (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:51:35 PM EST
    so in your world, you're either for Obama or a Republican?

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#31)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM EST
    I think the choice this election is Obama or a Republican.  One of them will win the Presidency.  You don't have to be for Obama, but you can be for the Democrat.  We can have Hillary later on in 2016 if Obama wins.      

    With 50+ days left (2.00 / 6) (#30)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:56:29 PM EST
    On a left-supporting board, when people come in here talking spitting out Republican talking points that have been dismissed months ago, and rating Obama-hate posts with 5's and negative Palin ads with 1's, and posting how amazing Palin is as a woman and how she must love Hillary -



    People aren't spitting out republican (5.00 / 9) (#113)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:45 PM EST
    talking points. Obama hate posts are not posted here and if they are, they are deleted.

    I don't think anyone here thinks Palin loves Hillary, perhaps she respects Hillary. Nothing wrong with respecting people, even if you have differing views. . . .


    He can - are you reading? (1.33 / 3) (#24)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    reading what? his white papers (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:06:21 PM EST
    on his website?

    nice way to get to all those working class voters who don't have the time you or I have to be online.



    The same working class voters (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    Who vote based on the "who I want to have a beer with" mantra?

    The information is available for those who want to find it. He repeats it in interviews when he is asked the question.


    u really want to compare (4.20 / 5) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:19:13 PM EST
    a guy drinking a beer as opposed to getting online?

    You really don't know about politics do you?

    Obama's surrogates would do well to get offline every now and then and meet the every day Joe.


    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:27:09 PM EST
    But since we are online, and the point was directed at you - the point still remains.

    i would actually (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    be the target demo for Obama:

    Educated, upper middle class, bilingual,  Hispanic, gay, proficient with computers.

    But I'm not the one he needs to target.  Those working class guys need to know who he is and what he's about SANS "go to my website..." line.


    well (none / 0) (#173)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:03:19 AM EST
    Dont working class people watch OReilly?  They sure arent reading newspapers now.   If all they do is listen to talk radio, Obama didnt have a chance with them anyway.

    He does.... (1.00 / 7) (#59)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:20:36 PM EST
    you just don't give a damn.  You and the rest like you on this site with whine, and whine and whine.  

    WHINING? We have the right (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
    to expect Obama to not say one thing on his website to which we are constantly pointed and then say another thing or yet another thing in other venues.

    He wants my vote, he can take a stand and stick with it.  As a voter, I consider that expectation not above my pay grade -- because my vote is priceless.


    hey cream (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:32:57 PM EST
    miss you TONS...and Palomino.

    Hope ur well!


    Your vote isn't to be earned. (1.00 / 8) (#92)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    Obama presents himself in the way he sees as best and you choose.  So what is it cream, 4 more years of Bush style policies and shanigans or Obama?  Clinton isn't an option, so which do you choose?  If neither is your choice, than I hope people shout you out of threads 2 years into a McCain administration that we here will most certainly despise.

    shouting huh? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:56:18 PM EST
    typical Republican tactic...yelling down their opposition.

    So you admit... (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by prose on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:51:53 AM EST
    that you are in opposition to the Democrats?  

    Sounds to me like (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:35:53 AM EST
    like he just called YOU a Republican.

    "I hope people shout (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    you out of threads . . ."

    isn't that a tad playgroundish? Seriously.


    No prob. I'm heading over (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:07:23 AM EST
    to the site of former TLers, the ones who knew how to have a reasonable discussion.  No hope for that here anymore, it seems -- with too few folks left here like you, nycstray.

    Where are ya headed? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:21:55 AM EST
    I'm back to the kitchen and my peaches, but I'd like to be able to find you in the upcoming days  :)

    My vote d*mn well is to be earned (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:05:21 AM EST
    with straight answers.  You want to vote straight D and end up with another DNC pick like Casey, you go right ahead.  You don't have to watch the debates or do any thinking at all -- just like the idiots who voted for Bush because they wanted to hoist a beer with him.

    I prefer to be a high-information voter.  I also prefer to discuss this with high-information voters.  So you are dismissed.  The bars are still open.


    You didn't address what I said. (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by prose on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:49:36 AM EST
    Your vote isn't earned.  You have to make a choice.  So make it and quit acting like anyone owes you anything.  They don't.

    Good lord, no wonder the country (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:27:50 AM EST
    is in such a mess with such idiocies.  You bet I'm owed by anyone I pay, for starters -- and again, my vote is priceless, so there is no limit on what they owe for that.

    You also are not correct that I have to make a choice.  What I have to make is a decision from many choices.  More than two.

    But you are correct that neither nominee has earned my vote.  And your nominee never will earn it, if I am to judge him by the company he keeps -- supporters like you with such a 'tude about the basics of democracy.  You're losing votes with every comment you make.


    You miss the point. (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:39:26 AM EST
    A vote is something that is earned by a candidate. No one is required to give a vote to a candidate that hasn't earned it. This is a democracy, not the comintern.

    That isn't what I said. (none / 0) (#158)
    by prose on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:47:47 AM EST
    I agree about his campaign this week (none / 0) (#49)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:13:35 PM EST
    But that wasn't what your statement was.

    You said "hope and change things", mocking his message, implying that they were empty statements with nothing to back up HOW he would change things in Washington.

    To which, of course, there are many available resources to find out his specifics.

    One I like the most, although it isn't his, is this site: www.obamataxcuts.com

    Tells you whether or not you'd benefit from his tax plan.


    It is woefully naive for Obama or his most (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:03:07 AM EST
    ardent supporters to presume that if 'average people' want to learn about a candidate, that they'll think to themselves..."I wish I knew more about that guy Obama and what he stands for. Oh, I should just go online and read his website."

    Those of us who visit TalkLeft are not your typical voters. As much as I wish that the electorate was more informed, I know that's not how it is in the USA. Some people probably still think that Saddam was the master planner of the 9/11 attacks.

    I do not make any of the above points to be sarcastic or denigrating. But, I do question how rational people can think that votes don't need to be won. Obama and McCain are the ones seeking something--the highest political office in this country. So, yes, they do need to make the case for themselves, and the people of this country need to hear their plans by listening to the voices of the two candidates themselves--not by logging onto a website. And, if either one of them thinks that's a winning strategy, they are destined to lose.

    I'm a Democrat now, and have been one since I cast my first vote in 1972. I've never voted for any Republican and don't plan to vote for one in the next election. That does mean, however, that I expect to know exactly where the Democratic nominee stands on the issues and how that person will govern. So, when I and several others express our dissatisfaction with the nominee over valid issues or desire more concrete and specific details over his positions, that doesn't mean we hate him or are necessarily going to vote for McCain.

    And if Obama, or any other candidate, thinks that s/he is  entitled to my vote without providing me with adequate information, they are not politically astute. It is our right as American voters to have sufficient and accurate information about the candidates before casting our ballot. To do otherwise, would be unpatriotic.


    Sarah got it absolutely right regarding Hillary (4.55 / 9) (#23)
    by S on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST
    Sarah basically just said what many other pundits, democrats, republicans and even Joe Biden are saying...that Hillary was the best choice for VP...problem is that the only one that did not 'get it' was Obama...

    ...his first colossal blunder in judgement as the nominee...

    frankly, Sarah is not the bogeywoman the left is trying to create...funny they did that to Hillary too...

    That's a done deal though (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    And it is so done.  She says all the right things but why do I really care because don't they all say all the right things to get elected based on their internal polling?  I don't care what Palin has to say about it, I really don't.  I care what those in the Democratic party and those of the Democratic base have to say about it and feel about it and I care about getting on with healing the rifts so that maybe one day I can consider myself a Democrat again.  It isn't as if I'm ever going to want to consider myself a Republican in this lifetime.  As an independent voter though now she doesn't fool me about this issue.  Palin's opinion of it is a moot opinion and designed to snag those of us who are ticked off about what happened within the Democratic party during the primary.

    she said (none / 0) (#78)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    ridiculous things, not right things.  Contradictory things.  Earmarks?  Bridges?  Bragging rights?  

    Roe v Wade?

    Right things?  I disagree.

    It isn't about the Democratic party at this point, it's about US.


    Actually she didn't (2.33 / 3) (#29)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    She dismissed herself when she said "I bet he is regretting not picking her."

    She basically just admitted she was chosen only because she was a woman and Obama should've chosen Hillary only because she was a woman.

    Plus I don't believe one word of the Republican's support of Hillary. It's fake and gross.


    admitting she was chosen (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:00:17 PM EST
    just because she was a woman is a stretch.  

    republican support of Hillary (4.20 / 5) (#44)
    by S on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    you say the republican support for Hillary was fake and gross...based on what?

    do you know any republican women or men?  because I am a Dem but I personally know moderate republican men and women that were supporting Hillary and that actually like Bill Clinton and had good memories of his economy, etc...those votes do not transfer to Obama...

    ...and don't you contradict yourself since Obama has stated over and over again that he was receiving votes from Republicans...


    Clinton was the best Republican (none / 0) (#56)
    by denise k on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    president this country ever had.  It makes absolutely perfect sense that Republicans would like him and Hillary.  I say this with great respect to him and as a supporter of Hillary who was not quite as conservative a Bill.

    Bill the only two time Democratic President (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by S on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    well having said that Bill is the only Democrat to ACTUALLY be elected PRESIDENT twice in our lifetimes...does not bode well for the rest of the Democrats does it?

    ...and things do not seem to be going so well now...hence Mr. Obama to the master Bill Clinton yesterday...


    Actually (none / 0) (#91)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:40:45 PM EST
    Considering the Republican convention bump, the energizing of the base by Palin, and the disgusting attack ads by McCain campaign - he's doing pretty well.

    He's holding onto the Kerry states, and his voter registration is unparalleled. Whether they will show up is another question, but history has said that's like an 80% turnout.

    New voter registration never shows up in polls. If they do + African American votes + elusive youth vote = Obama wins.

    There is a reason why the Republicans are on full-on attack mode. They know Obama still has the upper hand when you dig down beyond the nationwide opinion polls.


    I meant (none / 0) (#94)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41:37 PM EST
    New voter registration usually shows up in polls.

    re: new voter registration (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by S on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    elonpb, I understand your point re: new voter registeration and we will all see soon enough how this turns out but please understand that the women the dems have always counted on, as they do with the AA as part of the base...the women that they assumed would be there because where could they go?

    ...well alot of them are gone...trust me...they are either staying home or going third party or now Palin Dems...of course, not all...but enough that a large chunk of the female base will not vote Dem top of the ticket this time around

    ...this is something that Dems have never had to deal with before and it is part of the mix this time around...

    ...don't flame at me...I am just the messenger and this is real...


    Yeah. The Republicans worked from Day one of (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by bridget on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    his presidency to impeach him ... they liked him, they really liked him.

    Clinton was the best "Republican" president? ... hmmm  ... where did I read this kind of nonsense  over and over again? HuffPost? dkos?

    Calgon ... take me away!


    but (none / 0) (#188)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:20:27 AM EST
    Bill Clinton has largely been an expletive for the GOP.  And what they said about Hillary, and the hate book industry it spawned, still disgusts me.

    That Palin was sneering at Hillary and her "percieved whine" seems like pretty standard republican distate for the Clintons.


    ya (none / 0) (#171)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:01:27 AM EST
    Considering the smears the GOP launched against Hillary for 20 years. Its hard to believe them now.

    A lot of us... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Nevart on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:18:52 AM EST
    A lot of us 'don't get it' when it comes to such a great choice Hillary would have been.  I could enumerate the reasons, but what's the point?  Let's move on, already.

    she's worse than (none / 0) (#198)
    by onemanrules on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:39:29 AM EST
    the boogeywoman, she is real. The problem is that she isn't running for mother of the year, she is running for vp. Her only answers on national security are that - you can see Russia from here, and Energy (by the way she supported Obamas energy plan). I think it was very unfair of McCain to put her in this position. Anybody with an open mind can see that she isn't ready for this.

    Second day (3.42 / 7) (#11)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:36:36 PM EST
    Today was much better than yesterday, with it's focus on domestic and social issues rather than foreign policy, but that's certain to be expected.

    This woman is the real deal.  She has strong personal convictions yet draws a sharp line between her personal views and what should be public policy.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:03:23 PM EST
    I didn't think things would be that bad with Bush either, he came off the same way.  I didn't vote for him but I didn't freak either, at least not for awhile.  The freaking came later.  I still think we all need to be focusing on beating McCain.  I could care less about what rockstar Palin has to say in her first granted interview since becoming McCain's running mate.

    Except for the fact (2.00 / 0) (#18)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:45:05 PM EST
    That she couldn't answer any of the questions with concrete answers, and continued to lie until she was called on it by Gibson...

    Yeah... that's a real deal Washington politician alright.


    ya (2.00 / 4) (#183)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:12:19 AM EST
    The place is thick with republicans. They get themselves into trouble on a regular basis but come back again with different names.

    We're not doing a good enough job. (1.00 / 2) (#207)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:45:42 AM EST
    My theory is these Republicans are so against abortion and homosexuality they can't think straight. They feel repulsion when it comes to these issues. They're so committed to fighting for their cause, they're closed off from letting in the reality that hundreds and thousands of innocent people have lost their lives in Iraq. Bush has been in office almost 8 years and abortions are still legal, but they're still hoping. These Republican supporters believe, someday, they will change the world into a place where a woman who becomes pregnant at an inopportune time, by a man who is not there by her side, must give birth to and raise this child by herself, and pay the consequences for opening her legs without the benefit of marriage. In the meantime, have you noticed? Gays are getting legally married under Bush's leadership. Anything I say won't change these stubborn Republican supporters. They are going to vote Republican and do everything they can to sabotage our efforts to voice, as loud as we can, our offense to their closed minded interpretation of the Constitution.

    I can't change them. I've tried. Believe me, I've tried. Maybe, you can?


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Jane2009 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    you misinterpret a great deal of Republican interest at your peril, but I also think this simplifying demonization is a mistake.

    The first question of one of my friends, a staunch Republican, on learning that his wife's friends, a gay couple, were getting married in Mass, was, "Oh. Where are they registered?" He wanted to know what they should bring to the wedding.

    From my pov, the Republican ideology forwards American interests at the expense of all others, whereas the Democratic ideology takes other interests besides its own into account (a more critical position which I'm much more comfortable with) - well, I believe that's the Dem position historically; I seriously don't recognize the new breed of Dem/Obama supporters. But this is why Dems are perceived as being weak on foreign policy; on being less than patriotic, etc. And THAT'S why Republicans win. A lot of Democrats never saw Palin coming because they don't recognize Republicans as less than backward hicks who want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, and they really aren't.


    You are a Republican troll (1.28 / 7) (#64)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:22:13 PM EST
    and everyone is well aware of it.

    Go back to your own board.

    Well... (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by marian evans on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51:46 PM EST
    elonepb, if we are to suppose that the infamous trolls must pound away at the keyboard at a prodigious rate - then what is one to think of someone, such as yourself, who posts 45 comments in one day?

    Fascinated as I am by the US elections, there is no way I could muster the stamina to contribute at such Herculean levels!



    Sarah Palin's voice (1.28 / 7) (#185)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:22 AM EST
    sounds like a squawking parrot. It hurts my ears. I can't listen. I need frequent breaks. I can't do Sarah. I can't.

    Cheerleader for president! (1.42 / 7) (#187)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:18:36 AM EST
    Homecoming Queen for president! I can't do this. I can't.

    Are you drunk? (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:24:37 AM EST
    Am I drunk? (none / 0) (#196)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:29:20 AM EST
    No, just feeling helpless against the ruination of my country that I love.

    Wasserman speaks up on Palin comment re:HIllary (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:45:12 PM EST

    In response, the Obama campaign sent out a statement from former Clinton supporter Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who said, "Sarah Palin should spare us the phony sentiment and respect.  Governor Palin accused Senator Clinton of whining and John McCain laughed when a questioner referred to her by using a demeaning expletive. John McCain and Sarah Palin represent no meaningful change, just the same failed  policies and same divisive, demeaning politics that has devastated the middle class."

    Yeah!!!!!  I love this!!

    Since when did Hillary need someone (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM EST
    to speak for her?

    Hillary put out a very gracious statement about the Palin nomination. A far cry from this piece . . . I will say they have got them all programed over at the O camp.They are all delivering the same line we've been hearing for months. Where's the beef?! And really, who's being divisive here?, lol!~


    watch PBS (none / 0) (#13)
    by bjorn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    The interview is not compelling TV imo

    PBS (none / 0) (#16)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:42:36 PM EST

    Will do (none / 0) (#84)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:32:59 PM EST

    Bill Moyers was excellent tonight (none / 0) (#189)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:21:36 AM EST

    18 percent of those taking the poll (none / 0) (#209)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    here say they are voting for McCain/Palin ticket.  No wonder he's ahead in the other polls.  Frightening.

    Palin Part II (none / 0) (#213)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    1. Thank you for the transcript, Jeralyn. Pt. 2

    2. Again, Palin does not impress. Her bobbing and weaving on earmarks was embarrassing, that open and public demands for earmarks from the Dept. of Fisheries is OK, but those back channel ones, like the ones her hired lobbyist got, are the ones she is fighting. As if the issue were transparency and not pork. So earmarks are OK if you ask for them officially.  Just plain crazy. And her juggling to get herself on the right side of the issue was just awful, not competent for an argument and not competent for a politician.

    3. Her response on Troopergate was a nonstarter for me. Still another effort to switch the issue from abuse of gubernatorial power to personal issues with which she hoped listeners would have sympathy - it's OK to abuse power when you think your family has been threatened. Well, no, it isn't.

    4. She still seemed reading off cards, written by someone else. Such as her responses on taxes.

    5. She had no answers at all other than bland generalities for the three changes she could propose, even after Gibson gave her several tries to come up with some.

    Bottom line: Not ready for prime time in the WH either on foreign issues or domestic.

    Am I the only one who heard her say that she would support reforming social security and other "programs" to take advantage of "efficiencies"?

    Isn't SS still the third rail? Why aren't older voters panicking?

    I thought she did great and dems need to be (none / 0) (#217)
    by nycvoter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    careful.  Gibson was definately not on her side and she held up.  Plus she was able to quietly dispell some of the more extreme views that have been attributed to her over the last few weeks, like book burning.  While I disagree with her PERSONAL views on abortion and her desire to over turn Roe v Wade, she answered those questions showing a respect for other people's views, a understanding that her personal views would not necessarily be the administrations policy and not as if she was going on an ideolgical mission.

    The media, the leftist blogs and Democrats are trying to paint her as a loony extremist with no experience.  The more she continues to perform as she has the less credible anyone on Obama's side will seem and the more comfortable people will be voting for this ticket.  Each time critique doesn't seem to match what voters are seeing they will continue to tune in to Palin and be on her side.

    Hope I didn't post twice but had an issue.

    Sorry. Let me clarify on abortion stance. (none / 0) (#219)
    by VicfromOregon on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Palin's personal stance on abortion is to allow it if the mother's life is in danger.  But, she has publically stated she will support McCain's view while continuing to advocate for her view with him.  She also publically has sated more than once that she welcomes dialgoue with others who disagree and that she is able to see why others disagree.  That is a long way from a fanatic.