Politico: She “held her own”
posted at 9:42 pm on September 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Okay, then. If this is the CW the media’s settled on, ain’t going to be me who objects. Whew!
Today was a pretty low-key day, politically, so neither candidate gained or lost too much ground. But Sarah Palin confronted a major obstacle in her interview with Charlie Gibson – her first one-on-one as a vice presidential candidate – and appears to have held her own. It remains to be seen whether her opponents will find useful fodder in this interview [Errrr. -- ed.], but at the very least she didn’t deviate from the campaign message. McCain also held a successful event this morning in Pennsylvania – in a largely non-political news cycle, he didn’t need to do much else.
Actually, the left thinks she did deviate from it, but if so, she only ended up in the same place as Bush and Obama. Whew again!
Maybe we should stop focusing on interviews with news anchors and start focusing on interviews with people who can swing votes. Exit question one: Could/should have McCain’s handlers prepared her better? The path to ruin runs through too much rote memorization, warns TNR. I wonder if Team Maverick neglected to brief her on the Bush Doctrine on the assumption that she surely must have picked it up sometime over the past six years and therefore could handle a question on that herself. Imagine their horror tonight in realizing they assumed wrong, and that there may be other basic knowledge gaps that need filling — fast. Exit question two: Having stumped the band with that one, will Gibson turn around tomorrow and go for the throat by quizzing her about other basic stuff? The risk is that his time is limited and if she’s prepared it’ll turn into a softball game. The reward is that if she isn’t prepared, look out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Too funny. Tom Shipley is criticizing Sarah Palin for asking for clarification, and then he does the same thing. He wants clarification for what part of the Bush Doctrine is meant, and then answers “not the preemptive part.”
These liberals are too much.
Gabe on September 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Now I know what Palin feels like, being misquoted by antagonists.
Charlie asked BO a couple of tough questions after he got months of softballs. Palin’s first interview was like a collegiate oral examination.
jgapinoy on September 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM
misquotedmisconstrued.jgapinoy on September 11, 2008 at 11:16 PM
jp/Andy McCarthy took the words right out of my mouth:
Another example is Israel in the 1967 war. Nasser had publicly committed to eliminating Israel and she was surrounded by armies preparing to do the job. She struck first and kicked their as$es. Was that wrong, Tom?
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Anyone have Wikipedia editing rights? As of now, some troll posted this on the Bush Doctrine page:
As of 10 September 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska had no idea that such a doctrine was ever articulated by the Bush Administration.
Only a troll could not only lie through their teeth (she didn’t say that), but manage to blow the date on 9/11!
pavruch on September 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Bush Sr. – Panama 1989
Reagan – Grenada 1983
Johnson – Dominican Republic 1965
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Yahoo’s top story now is “Palin on God and War”.
The byline is “Does she have the experience to be VP?”
Where is their story about BO’s alleged experience?
jgapinoy on September 11, 2008 at 11:19 PM
jgapinoy on September 11, 2008 at 11:19 PM
It only helps her.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I think Palin’s clarifying question was right on. Not to have asked it would have been a serious mistake. If she had simply said “yes, I support the Bush Doctrine,” the leftards would be arguing that she thinks the Bush Administration has made zero mistakes, that we should promptly invade every country that pisses us of in any way, shape or form, and that we should lie so people will die, while The One himself would simply argue that she had proven that McCain/Palin was a third term of the Bush Administration. And had she said “no, I oppose the Bush Doctrine,” all hell would have broken loose. But the clarifying question forced Gibson to narrow the scope of his own question so that she could then answer it directly without giving fodder to those champing at the bit to distort it.
Think of the Bridge of Death in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, where Sir Lancelot got three incredibly easy questions and made it across the bridge, Sir Robin got a difficult one and was cast into the gorge of eternal peril, Sir Galahad flubbed an incredibly easy one and ended up there also, but King Arthur answered the difficult question (”What…is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?”) with a clarifying question (”What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?”) and sent the troll into the gorge instead. Unlike Barack Well, I think if you’ve got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that’s a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush Obama on lipstick and pigs, I won’t leave you guessing as to who was King Arthur in this debate and who was the troll. They were Palin and Gibson, respectively. Fortunately or unfortunately, the troll isn’t running for office in this election cycle.
Xrlq on September 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM
And let’s not forget the left’s favorite president, FDR, going into Europe in the 40’s.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Tom, Tom…what makes you think she doesn’t know? Because she didn’t spout off some glib answer, knowing full well that was a gotcha quetion? The Bush Doctrine has more than one part and has been modified. She was smart to ask Charlie to clarify the question. See you assumed she was ignorant and I assumed she was being clever. And considering Charlie’s interpretation was pretty lame I don’t think she was unwise to wait.
Nice try though.
Deanna on September 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Just ask yourself (anyone in this forum): Do you support or believe in the Bush Doctrine?
Quick, what’s the answer?
The Bush Doctrine is fairly vague, never set down in a concrete set of principles and has evolved over time.
If I’m answering this question privately and truthfully I say I support some tenants (such as crossing a border on an extant chase of terrorists) and not so much on other parts (have to very careful with the term pre-emption).
However, if I’m doing a TV interview with Charles Gibson? I’m not going to answer without knowing what aspect of the doctrine he’s getting at. My basic answer, the only suitable one for TV journalism is: “In what aspect Charlie?”
If you view this interview as a debate, Palin clearly maneuvered around the obvious trap and beat Charlie at his game. As an exercise try to wend an argument around this trap without tying yourself to the Bush Administration or, conversely, looking soft on terrorists as does Obama/Biden.
JonPrichard on September 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Yes, I love how the line right under that on socialist Yahoo that states, “Palin tries to defend qualifications.”
Bias? What bias? Why don’t they say, “Palin defends qualifications” instead of “tries to defend qualifications?”
Hopefully, the boomerang effect is still in force. Have they ever asked Hussein Obama if he is qualified to be president?
Gabe on September 11, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:23 PM
preemptive war has played a part in US foreign policy decision making since the founding of the United States as it has for every other nation state.
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 11:25 PM
PS: i though Charles Gibson looked extremely uncomfortable during this interview.
JonPrichard on September 11, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Exactly right, Xrlq.
It also forced him to expose his ignorance about the subject he was questioning her on. He’s got the lefty line on it and apparently nothing else. Between that and the “exact quote” flub, he should be firing his research staff immediately.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:26 PM
NUH UH!!! It’s the BOOOOOSH DOCTRINE!!!!eleventy!!!
Heh.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:27 PM
LOL! exactly.
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 11:28 PM
I still think Palin handled the Bush Doctrine fairly well. Asking for clarification was not unprofessional.
I would not be surprised if McCain advised her to not get into any long drawn out defense of Bush policy. This is supposed to be about her and McCain after all.
And I do think it is possible to over prepare someone. Anyone who has taken a final knows that is true.
We also should not expect Sarah Palin to be perfect. I think some people are putting way too much on her.
Terrye on September 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Just ask yourself this? If you ask Dick Cheney and Barack Obama what the Bush Doctrine is..would you get the same answer?
I don’t think so.
Terrye on September 11, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Just ask yourself, will the average American view Gibson’s treatment of Palin as fair or unfair?
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM
where’s waldo is easier to find then BHO experiance on anything except running for office.
Mojack420 on September 11, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Charlene Gibson is still a condescending turd
bill30097 on September 11, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Look the left is grasping at anthing they can cling to because they are sinking in the polls
OMG PALIN DIDNT KNOW TEH BUSH DOCTRINE !
Doesnt change the fact that Obama and Curley Joe are still sinking in the polls.
William Amos on September 11, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I agree her response about the Bush doctrine didn’t look very good on video. However, I think her request for clarification was fine. Gibson was looking for a yes / no with Bush against Bush answer. If he had wanted a simple answer on preemption, then he should have asked what she thought about preemptive strikes.
A quick look at something as basic as Wikipedia defines the Bush doctrine to initially refer to
Only later has it encompassed preemption.
It’s certainly possible she didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was, I hope not. Is it possible she was trying to get around answering a yes / no about following President Bush and wanted Gibson to rephrase the question to be about specific views and not pro Bush / anti Bush?
JDScott on September 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM
3 polls oput tonight. Obama is LOSING michigan right now
Race Poll Results Spread
Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8
Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1
Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1
William Amos on September 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Wow, AP four Palin interview threads going at the same time. New Record, or just not enough space on one?
trailboss on September 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I just watched the first part of the interview again,and I still think she knew what he was talking about when he asked about the Bush Doctrine. I think she heard Bush and saw a trap.
I thought she did a pretty good job of dancing around Charlie. She is a politician alright.
Terrye on September 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I agree with the observation that Charlie Gibson looked uncomfortable. Maybe that’s why he seemed so condescending toward the Governor. I suspect that most viewers were not at all sure what was meant by “Bush Doctrine.” I liked Newt Gingrich’s take on the question on FNC tonight. I didn’t like Lanny Davis’ misrepresentation of the Governor’s response on Georgia and Russia but it was corrected by the hosts H&C during the interview.
I also agree that the questions seemed sort of foreign as compared to the interviews I’ve seen with Barack. I want to go back and compare a Charlie Gibson interview with Barack now that I’ve seen this rather contentious line of questioning.
SayWhat on September 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Bush Doctrine: formerly known as the “Common Sense Doctrine.” Thus being, when somebody grabs a bullet, loads a gun, points it at your head, and starts squeezing the trigger; you shoot him BEFORE he shoots you.
Mojave Mark on September 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I really see no evidence that she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was.
Maybe Charlie didn’t, but I see no evidence that she didn’t.
capitalist piglet on September 11, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Saywhat:
What did Newt say?
Terrye on September 11, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I just watched the second part of the interview tonight, the part about energy. Journalists are so unimaginative. His questions on global warming were stupid.
Terrye on September 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Hey, I saw the Nightline part of the interview. Boy, she really holds off Gibson as I watch the foreign policy part again. Very good, but of course she will get better.
It seems her answers on the global warming show she is trying to support McCain’s views. She is a good team player it appears. I suspect her real opinion is that the jury is still out on whether humans are the cause of most/all of the warming.
By the way, it appears that last winter was one of the coldest in the last 5-6 years. Huntsville, AL was very cold this last winter.
Sapwolf on September 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I wil make a prediction tonight. Baring some cosmic shift Obama will lose in November and lose his senate seat when he is up for re election.
The dems pushed him too far too fast and now the hype is fading. He broght nothing to the democratic ticket and his fast rise will bring about a faster fall.
William Amos on September 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM
William Amos on September 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM
from your lips to God’s ears brother.
elduende on September 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Link: New Polls 09.11.08: OH, FL, CO, MI, NV, PA, NC
Loxodonta on September 12, 2008 at 12:07 AM
SApwolf:
She did get kind of irritated with Charlie on the global warming issue. I think that Palin believes there is some natural cyclical warming going on and that she might even think that man has some marginal influence. However, I also think she believes that most of the global warming stuff is over hyped and hysterical. Charlie wanted her to either say it is all man-made or it does not exist.
Terrye on September 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Is there going to be an upcoming ABC program in which we can see all of this at one time, instead of bits ‘n pieces scattered across ABC news shows?
Maybe this one (from an ABC New page)?: Tune in Friday for more on “Good Morning America” at 7 a.m. ET. See more on “World News” and “20/20,” which will broadcast a one-hour special edition at 10 p.m. ET/9 p.m. CT.
electric-rascal on September 12, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I know of what I speak. lets look at two other anti war senators who ran for President
Eugene McCarthy ran in 1968. Within two years of losing the nomination he ended up leaving the senate.
George McGovern was able to win Re election in 1974 the same time Watergate was going full tilt. By 1980 he was thrown out of office.
The dems have a history of backing anti war candidate that go too far and fade soon after.
William Amos on September 12, 2008 at 12:14 AM
So far, the only cosmic shift in this election has been Palin and that’s why the feverish little minds of the Obamacells are so desperate to stop her by any means necessary.
Obama will never lose his seat unless he actually faces some opposition for the first time in his political career.
Loxodonta on September 12, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I think her answer on the Bush Doctrine was right on. The meaning of it has been twisted so many times you would get 100 different answers from a 100 different people. I never saw Charlie quiz Obama in this manner.
echosyst on September 12, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Charlie wanted to ask Sarah about the Ostend Manifesto, but even his superiors thought that was pushing it.
jaleach on September 12, 2008 at 12:24 AM
The leftists/media for a long time have been itching to go “all in” and convert the USofA to a full-blown Marxist/socialist country… they grew tired of the slowness of “creeping socialism” and figured they could get nearly everything at once with their man O’Bummer of Tard.
It was/is a gamble they figured would be worth taking… and I hope they lose BIG and for MANY years to come.
electric-rascal on September 12, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I’ve read rumors that McCain is very glad he picked Sarah, not just because it has totally rocked the election, but also because they mesh well as a team.
Anybody hear anything else out there about them hitting it off working together well?
Sapwolf on September 12, 2008 at 12:28 AM
No I thought he looked a bit constipated but as condescending as ever.
As for the silly foreign leader question, maybe she shoulda given a speech in Germany or gone a a national lampoon summer vacation tour like Obama
clnurnberg on September 12, 2008 at 12:30 AM
In my humble opinion, I think Sarah is prepared enough and can run circles around defeatists and whiny liberal idiots.
Go Sarah.
Travis1 on September 12, 2008 at 12:32 AM
From other Gibson-Palin thread:
Great minds think alike, eh?
smellthecoffee on September 12, 2008 at 12:33 AM
You know… this just plain sucks!!! More and more, libtard “news” shows, publications and editorials are coming out reporting on bits-n-pieces of the interview, completely misconstruing her words as they see fit, in whatever way works for them to make her look like an idiot!
WTF?! They are going to do this right up until election day. Completely destroy this fantastic woman for what….Obama bin Biden?
Libs just f@cking suck! They won’t stop until this country has been squandered down to a 3rd world nation. Can any of the libtards on this blog reply to my post and explain why this they think this is ethical? When they won’t give equal slant to Obambi?
ErinF on September 12, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Sapwolf on September 12, 2008 at 12:28 AM
They’ll mesh well. Look at where they come from and their past. Palin comes across so well and people relate to her because they intuitively recognize she has no pretensions political or personal.
McCain is Navy. He has been trained in leadership and has exhibited it since he was a teenager at the Academy. I am almost 100% sure McCain has no pretensions regarding his collaboration with someone he has chosen to serve with.
elduende on September 12, 2008 at 12:45 AM
I’m cross-posting this from the other thread, because I feel validated:
The single most important aspect of this interview is that Sarah did better than Charlie and the rest of the MSM expected. They don’t have a lot to work with honestly here. So, they will work with it dishonestly, and it will show, backfiring on them again.
Trailboss (and others): She did just fine on the Bush Doctrine question. She asked him to clarify, because it was necessary–most people get the original meaning wrong, as it has been used in so many ever-broadening contexts.
She held up, did just fine, will get even better–not better, notice–EVEN better.
Charlie was a snot. Hard questions are fair, but he got EVEN snottier as it went along, because she wasn’t falling into his traps.
Round One: Sarah, on points.
texette on September 12, 2008 at 12:47 AM
I am impressed that she was so rock solid in her answers.
She was clear in her ideas, and her words flowed naturally.
And she is just beginning. She is just like Ronald Reagan.
Every time she said her core beliefs the liberal press
just got angry and flustered. There was no fear in this
woman…she knew where she stands.
dec5 on September 12, 2008 at 1:29 AM
If you contrast her with Biden, she realizes every word she says is important. She’s not going to run off the mouth like Biden. Their debate should be interesting. Also, I didn’t think her comment that you can see Russia from an Alaskan island was stupid. Alaska’s job for decades was to keep watch to be sure the USSR wasn’t invading the US. It may sound silly but it’s true.
Paul-Cincy on September 12, 2008 at 1:36 AM
It takes one reading of the Bush Doctrine to understand it, any VP–even BIDEN! can learn it. Not knowing its details at this time is not a disaster.
And hell, Chuckie Gibson probably boned up on the doctrine before the interview because he KNEW he was asking about it.
You would assume that he would ask about HER views on foreign policy instead of playing the Bush-game again.
And Chuckie’s sneering, scoffing and looking-down-his-nose at Sarah Palin is NOT going to sit well with voters–especially women.
Hell, Barack Obama thinks he is going to be POTUS for, oh, ya know, 8 to 10 years. Yup, 8-10 years as POTUS of these here 57 states. Talk about a gaffe.
Montana on September 12, 2008 at 1:41 AM
I see others have pointed out the error of your statements. I’ll just add that I was paying attention the first time a new policy was described as the Bush Doctrine, and it had nothing to do with preemptive war. It was in a speech not long after 9/11. I believe it was the State of the Union address in 2002. At this point, Bush famously said that nations that harbor terrorists will be treated as guilty of terrorism, a position usually summarized as, “you’re either with us or against us.” This was described as the Bush Doctrine.
If preemptive war is also part of the Bush Doctrine, then it was added to the original Bush Doctrine. That gives the lie to the claim that it is the central part of the Bush Doctrine.
That Charlie Gibson said the Bush Doctrine only referred to preemptive war showed he didn’t understand it all. Never good to appear arrogant about your knowledge if your knowledge is lacking. Of course, liberals are notorious for being sure of things that happen not to be true…
Given that, why would anyone just say, “Yes” or “No” when asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine? Sure, if you agree with every part of it, you can say, “Yes,” and if you disagree with every part of it, you can say, “No.” But if you agree with some parts but not others, then you can’t just give a yes or no answer. In such a case, the only good answer is to request clarification before trying to answer the question.
theregoestheneighborhood on September 12, 2008 at 1:49 AM
The real answer to Charlie’s question on Bush Doctrine:
Sarah: Well we are not the Bush Administration so the Bush Doctrine is not really material to the McCain/Palin administration. When John McCain is sworn in as President of the U.S.A., we will be operating under the McCain Doctrine and it is this: (ie whatever McCain says it is)
Each administation sets its own doctrine/policy whether formally or informally.
HalSandro on September 12, 2008 at 2:04 AM
I guarantee you’ll never hear Governor Palin say anything that stupid. (Not to mention a host of other gaffes.)
It’s just a shame that it doesn’t matter.
capitalist piglet on September 12, 2008 at 2:19 AM
For those who believe she did well, here is a link to show it. For those who believe she did badly, here is a link to help make up for it. For those who just want to keep Hussein out of the White House, here is a link to help do it.
https://secure.donationreport.com/donation.html?key=NPM2A9KUXS0J
Tommygun on September 12, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Lets see now, Barry made a “choice” to run for president. He has been at this for how long?
Palin was “Picked” to run for VP. She has been at this for how long?
I wonder which one would be better prepared to give an answer on National Policies?
Guess all this is above my pay grade
N4646W on September 12, 2008 at 3:16 AM
I would have to say that after watching the two segments of
ABC’s coverage of the Sarah Palin’s interview with Mr. Gibson that she made a fool of him. ABC should have their broadcasting rights revoked. They are total idiot’s.
bucko36 on September 12, 2008 at 3:26 AM
I only have one comment to make on this particular subject. The “Bush Doctrine” should never have been so named – it should have been called the “Common Sense Doctrine”.
OldEnglish on September 12, 2008 at 3:47 AM
My God, if the DNC thinks that thier salvation is going to be a gaff by Palin over the next 60 days, then I would gladly offer my legal services to every single person who wanted to reclaim money donated to the DNC in the last 2 years.
The supreme irony is that the Media itself made Palin almost gaff-proof by body slamming her from the minute she was announced. They unleashed a deepseated anger among voters about how the media plays games for one candidate or another (”The American People Are Not Stuck On Stupid” – that quote should be carved into the Washington Monument!).
Even if she does make a gaff and the media/DNC make a huge deal out of it, the first reaction of the electorate will be to give her the benefit of the doubt.
John McCain, in coming back from nothing a year ago, made probably his best decision by far in nominating Palin…there are so many pros to count that the cons pale in comparison.
Barack Obama, as formidable and as able a politician as he is, made his worst decision by far in nominating Biden.
In decades to come, students in junior high school will be able to easily summarize the 2008 campaign as the result of the decision of each candidate for thier running mate.
Waterboy on September 12, 2008 at 4:25 AM
Look, folks, you’re only going to make yourselves look foolish by denying the obvious. I’m a Republican, I think Sarah Palin is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it was obvious on the face of it that she drew a blank when Gibson mentioned the Bush doctrine. Frankly, I’d have been happier with her answer if she’d said “Remind me what the Bush Doctrine is.”
The truth is, Palin is a pragmatic governor who, so far, has learned what she needed to know in order to do whatever she needed to do. So far as we can tell, she’s never done any job poorly in her entire life. That includes international relations, as it happens, because that $24 billion pipeline she negotiated for Alaska involved the Canadian government and Canadian businesses. So she’ll learn how to deal with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Azerbaijan just fine. But she’s never had to think about those things yet, so she doesn’t have ready answers for them yet.
She’s the right person to make Vice President. She’s not ready to be President, but so what? If she had to step in she’d make solid decisions with informational help from advisors until she got enough knowledge under her belt. That’s what new Presidents always do; her learning curve would be steeper, but that’s a temporary problem.
The more important question is, can the President make decisions at all? Obviously, Palin can, and good ones. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama. I can’t see any serious decision the man has EVER made, other than the one to run for President, which he apparently made sometime in the 1990s. He’s an academic, so he has nicely formed answers for academic questions. The answers cost him nothing; they’re like Monopoly money, or poker chips. None of his answers required him to pull any cash from his bank account. I have no reason to believe he’s even capable of making a hard choice — EVER. Palin has made such choices, and certainly can.
I’ll let some others of you figure out how to say that in a pithy sound bite. She’s more ready to be President than Obama; she’s a remarkably good choice for VICE President. But she had no idea what the “Bush Doctrine” was. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
philwynk on September 12, 2008 at 5:51 AM
Looks like the intrade market is thinking Palin did well. As of 0621 EST it has McCain at 52.9 and Obama at 45.2. That’s an almost-8 point lead for McCain. Quite a turnaround from when he was down by 20 two weeks ago.
Of course, these numbers change during the day, but people who are putting their money where their mouths are are betting McCain to win the Presidency.
nemecizer on September 12, 2008 at 6:21 AM
Drudge is reporting that McCain has offered Obama a cabinet position in a McCain Presidency :)
That oughta drive the Obamatons absolutely batshit bonkers.
nemecizer on September 12, 2008 at 6:24 AM
I think she did well on some questions and blew some others. About what I would expect for a first-term governor of a small (in population) state. Obama would probably have done a little better, having been in DC for a couple of years, but he never got tough questions until he went on O’Reilly.
I imagine the debates will go like this:
“Senator McCain, will you continue to send Americans to die in foreign wars for oil?”
“Senator Obama, do you love kittens?”
Kafir on September 12, 2008 at 6:58 AM
I love Sarah, own the doll (which i set up to fight the Hulk and Lara Croft in mock battles that end with a victory for the GOP and America) but she came across like a beauty contestant answering those stupid questions on how they would make the world a better place and end war and feed the children.
I don’t think she can survive many more interviews of this type. The MSM will smell blood in the water and abandon their nonsense, Snopes.com smears and begin focusing like a laser on wonk-specific questions.
coondawg on September 12, 2008 at 7:08 AM
To ask Palin on the Bush doctrine is like asking people about the failures of the Carter presidency: there are many parts to it. For the Carter failures, the interviewer may mean the 20% interesst rate, the long line-ups at gas stations, the Iran hostages, the failed helicopter rescue and on and on…. The interviewer just have to be more specific.
poxoma on September 12, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Amen, brother!
mwdiver on September 12, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Bottom Line folks…..if this country does not elect Palin and McCain because she fumbled on the “Bush Doctrine”, which 99.9999999999% of the Americans have no idea what it is either, and because of that stumble they elect and EMPTY suit like Obama and heal the wheelchair bound Biden, then this country deserves a second term of Jimmy Carter…..
SDarchitect on September 12, 2008 at 7:40 AM
After two years, Barry NOR Hillary ever asked these questions.
That’s all we need to know.
ex-Democrat on September 12, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Bingo. He climaxed prematurely.
As we know here at HA, Ferraro had it right. Barry was selected, not elected, by the democrats because he was black. The dems are so obsessed with race that they didn’t bother noticing that he’s a hopelessly flawed candidate that shouldn’t even be elected dog-catcher. The dems own racism is what did them in this time out.
Mojave Mark on September 12, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Excellent point.
Loxodonta on September 12, 2008 at 8:31 AM
That’s a low blow William. Curly Joe Derita wasn’t near as stupid as Biden. I’ll give you Besser, but not Curly Joe.
srhoades on September 12, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Given that ’sorry Charlie’ claimed to have ‘exact words’ of Gov Palin, that weren’t anywhere close to her ‘exact words’, Gov. Palin was quite smart to demand that Charlie clarify what he meant by the Bush Doctrine. Who would know what fevered thoughts were in his mind when he asked the question of Gov. Palin? This was a classic gotcha question but Gov Palin proved too nimble for Charlie.
eaglewingz08 on September 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The “Bush Doctrine” question was a typical gotcha. The Obama campaign has been labeling McCain as the third Bush term for months. If Palin had simply said “Yes”, she would have proved Obama’s point.
There is no official Bush Administration document entitled “The Bush Doctrine”. It is a collection of statements by President Bush that various media have cobbled together and called “The Bush Doctrine”, whose content varies depending on who defines it. So Palin’s answer was spot on: “In what respect?”, meaning “what specifically are you asking me about?”
McCain supports victory in Iraq, and victory in the War on Terror in general, so Palin, as his VP candidate, will support SOME aspects of the “Bush Doctrine”, but not others. Bush was in favor of “pre-emptive strikes” which were employed against Saddam’s Iraq, but Palin (and McCain) don’t want to be led into the trap of advocating generalized pre-emptive strikes, which would imply (in today’s climate) pre-emptive strikes against Iran, Pakistan, and/or Syria, which too many voters would perceive as war-mongering.
By asking for specifics on the Bush Doctrine, Palin was avoiding the trap of blanket agreement to an undefined premise, and also framing the debate into accepting PART of the Bush policy with which McCain/Palin agree, and differentiating themselves from other parts of the Bush record. After all, it was McCain’s DISAGREEMENT with Bush about Iraq strategy that led to the troop surge, which has proved successful, after the failure of the previous Bush strategy.
Steve Z on September 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Palin conveyed calm confidence.
Gibson expected to fluster.
Sorry Charlie.
Palin, meanwhile, could continue to tweak back at Obama’s insults by saying that his latest jibes sound second hand and maybe he needs to stop dining off tv tables and take-out and mingle more.
The wider he tries to explain himself, the emptier his suit appears.
profitsbeard on September 12, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3