FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Black Swan

The first media interviews in the two weeks since Palin was declared McCain's running mate were held Thursday 11 September 2008 by ABC's news anchor Charlie Gibson. One of three taped interviews was aired Thursday on Nightline. Without having the precise wording before me, I will attempt paraphrase a few of the questions and answers that pertained to her foreign relations experience:

• Gibson asked Palin how many countries she has visited in the world? Palin answered with only three (3): Canada, Mexico, and recently Iraq.
  
• Gibson asked Palin how many heads of state she had met? Palin answered that she had met with delegations from several countries as governor of Alaska (but no heads of state).
  
• Gibson asked Palin what she thought of the "Bush Doctrine?" Palin attempted to answer Gibson's question, but when it became obvious that Palin didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was (issued in 2002), Gibson explained it to her. Yikes! It's the major rationalisation given by George W. Bush before the US Congress to justify a preemptive strike when invading Iraq (and deposing Saddam Hussein), or invading any nation preemptively that threatens the US.
  
• Gibson asked Palin if the US should pursue terrorists across the boarder into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission? Palin did not give a specific answer to Gibson's specific question, which he repeated several times in an attempt to get an answer, finally asking her "yes" or "no" to crossing the boarder without permission of Pakistan, and she continued to skirt about the issue and did not answer "yes" or "no." People watching the vid (or reading the transcript) for the first Gibson-Palin interview on national security should pay attention to this, because it says a lot about Palin as a politician.

Mick Shrimpton

Christ, another idiot Republican who can't pronounce "NUCLEAR"...

Soldie

Some of the interview can be seen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7611748.stm

Rather embarrassing to say the least.

Edit: On a lighter note, it reminded me of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

The reason should be obvious.

is_that_so

It was alright and what you would expect. Didn't make a complete fool of herself. Very nervous and repeating a well-drilled script. Needs lots and lots of practice. Didn't threaten to go to war with Russia, as claimed elsewhere, nor support Israel to attack Iran. Even the US incursion into Pakistan was couched in that "do what we need to do" political speak.

If she does no worse than that she won't be the huge liability some see her as. But considering the gaffe count in both the primaries and the election campaign to date she'll probably trip up somewhere along the way.

EDIT: Some quotes from the BBC website, including a really helpful one for the Obama campaign from the Dem Governor of Illinois.

bobbyjoe

Is McCain taking the p1ss???? What the hell is he thinking picking her.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA

Transcript
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002948979


GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple weeks does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

irish_bob

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

The Mad Hatter

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

Because there's no chance McCain will die and Palin take over the top position by default?

oscarBravo

irish_bob wrote: »

...the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit...

...unless the president dies in office.

alastair

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

Dick Cheney might have re-jigged the VP role a bit. And she's one dead president away from a serious role regardless - that makes it a bit relevent, wouldn't you say?

I reckon Obama will shave it. Palin is quite likely to be Dan Quayle in lipstick, and seven weeks should make that evident.

Benedict XVI

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

I totally agree

Dirk Gently

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Is McCain taking the p1ss???? What the hell is he thinking picking her.....

She's young (compared to him), she's a woman (potentially appealing to a percentage of people who want to put a woman in the whitehouse purely because she is a woman) , she appeals to the nutty right / religious right. Like it or not she is there to ease the fears of the more right wing republican support who will be needed to come out and vote. I think mc cain needs to manage her exposure very carefully though. He can't afford to let the race become about her. If he can wheel her out to motivate the die hard right but shield her from too much general exposure she could mobilise enough of the right wing vote to make the differance. If she gets too much exposure and it becomes the Palin show then she will alienate the majority of sane thinking people and Obama will walk in.

It all depends on how well she's managed in the campaign. expose her to the right, keep her as a dirty little secret in the mainstream. very difficult piece of marketing to pull off but they need to do it if they want to compete with the obama machine.

bobbyjoe

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

Cheney has increased to importance of the VP position and considering MCCains health Palin will be even more important. I would have bet on McCain a week ago but I forsee a few weeks of Palin gaffs ahead which will ruin his chances.

I hope so anyway this one seems dangerously incompetent and a complete nut.

RonMexico

This is worth a look at for a laugh

A Heartbeat Away from CIF


Seriously though this is embarrassing as hell for the McCain camp. She is totally clueless. Give her a tiara and send her home.

is_that_so

clown bag wrote: »

She's young (compared to him), she's a woman (potentially appealing to a percentage of people who want to put a woman in the whitehouse purely because she is a woman) , she appeals to the nutty right / religious right. Like it or not she is there to ease the fears of the more right wing republican support who will be needed to come out and vote. I think mc cain needs to manage her exposure very carefully though. He can't afford to let the race become about her. If he can wheel her out to motivate the die hard right but shield her from too much general exposure she could mobilise enough of the right wing vote to make the differance. If she gets too much exposure and it becomes the Palin show then she will alienate the majority of sane thinking people and Obama will walk in.

It all depends on how well she's managed in the campaign. expose her to the right, keep her as a dirty little secret in the mainstream. very difficult piece of marketing to pull off but they need to do it if they want to compete with the obama machine.

There'll no walking in unless there is some absolutely disastrous revelation.
Bob Woodward interviewed during the week and said he wouldn't put 50c on the result. Obama also has a lot of "Nots", some good some bad and some like not too popular with blue collar workers and some women, he needs to address.

Pocono Joe

I laugh every time I read these type of things that the majority are posting here. Secretly, I hope the Obama campaign, the liberal 527's, and the Obamedia keep the attacks up against Palin. They essentially have made her bullet proof... What idiots! I mean look at some of the questions and how they spin her answers. Many of the questions, especially regarding experience, have never been asked in the same tough manner by a major media reporter of Obama in the 18 months he has been running for President... and people know that! And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media, who obviously wants Obama to win. Keep the attacks up... pleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz! My worse fear is if the Democrats and media decide to ignore her, and McCain does what campaign's normally do with the VP pick which is send them to small towns. McCain needs to keep her by his side as much as he can in his electioneering.

alastair

Yeah - how dare a complete unknown who appears at the 11th hour have to be answerable to anyone!

Obama has been criticised for his lack of experience for over a year now - everyone is aware of his strenghts and weaknesses in that regard. Now it's time for Ms Quayle to lay out her merits and weaknesses.

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media, who obviously wants Obama to win. .

Can you give real examples please? Also what elements of the media want the dems to win, is it fox? Other conservative media companies?

Otacon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media.

You know how Obama and Biden have answered a question they were not asked?

If these are questions that should have been asked, why hasn't the non-Obamedia section of the media (FOX, Bill O'Reilly) asked these questions when they got asked?

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Many of the questions, especially regarding experience, have never been asked in the same tough manner by a major media reporter of Obama in the 18 months he has been running for President... and people know that!

Something tell me as a Professor of constitutional law, Obama might just know what the Bush doctrine is. Palin wasn't asked any tough questions. Just middle of the road ones on everyday political views which she doesn't have the knowledge or education to deal with.

I agree with you that constantly attacking her for this is only going to play into McCains hands, as it will alienate so many people, who will percieve it as elitist.

It's a very curious paradox that America that likes to think of its self as the "go-getting, make yourself successful country" is so anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful (i.e Obama).

The Right seem to have a real fear of those with educational & intellectual acomplishment and seem to constantly denigrate it. Thus anyone who poins out the obviious about Palin; that until recently she has had no curiosity about the world outside US and little knowledge to understand it, are branded as "elitist".

Sad to have intelligence and education, make you "the elite". Most other Western countries aspire to democratise as much as possible these acomplishments amongst the citizenry.

It seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid. Perhaps thats because its the only way people are going to believe what they have to say.

zod

apparently Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in America, according to John McCain anyhow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uo6DGpVdOw

Pocono Joe

Benjaii... Your post was most intriguing, and deserves a more coherent response than a few talking points or jabs on my part. When I have some extra time I will enjoy posting more on the subjects you mentioned. But suffice it to say that you, in my opinion, are so off the mark with your comment regarding Americans... in that we are "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful" and "it seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid." The average American, and lets face it, half of America (or anywhere else for that sake) is below an "average"... isn't that the definition of "average," does not want to be considered dumb or stupid (nobody does)... which is unfortunately what is being taught and implied (with glee) in our colleges and universities. But each and every one of us wants better for our children, and that usually means higher education.

To start off read this (I recently read a great piece that really expresses the average American view of the "politics" that are being shoved down the throats of students in our higher education, but I can't find it off hand).
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/february_2002_2.html

And please take time to look over this site... it's pretty evened out between both political sides, to see the real flavor of American politics and attitudes. And I would say it is a good representation on the heartbeat of America. It often comments on the politics of our higher education system.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

FatherTed

TBH she is worse than I thought. She sounded like when a kid is asked a question in school by the teacher and having not a clue what the answer is.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Dirk Gently

is_that_so wrote: »

There'll no walking in unless there is some absolutely disastrous revelation.

I agree it's impossible to tell which way it will go between mc cain and obama but I was just noting that over exposure of Palin could be the disaster for mc cain that swings the middle ground undecided towards obama in large numbers. Palin needs to be managed properly. Her job is to appease the far right. Mc cain needs to take the lead in the race against obama. he can't afford to let Palin steal his spotlight, except to give the far right an impression that someone in the white house will be on their side.

It's a difficult marketing strategy. If Mc cain can take the lead role and appear as a moderate conservative, and successfully project a different image to that of the bush years then it will go right down to the wire. Palins subtle mobilisation of the right to come out and vote could even swing it for him. I'm pretty sure that if Mc cain gets in that Palin will be pretty irrelevant as she's just on the ticket to mobilise the right. It is still dangerous though when you think of mc cains age and that she could actually become president at some point during his reign. A lot of people will have that on their mind when voting. mc cain or obama is a tough question for americans, possiblity of palin being president or obama is a no brainer though.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

But suffice it to say that you, in my opinion, are so off the mark with your comment regarding Americans... in that we are "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful" and "it seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid."

To start off read this (I recently read a great piece that really expresses the average American view of the "politics" that are being shoved down the throats of students in our higher education, but I can't find it off hand).
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/february_2002_2.html

And please take time to look over this site... it's pretty evened out between both political sides, to see the real flavor of American politics and attitudes. And I would say it is a good representation on the heartbeat of America. It often comments on the politics of our higher education system.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

I retract what I said with regard to all Americans, that was a generalization and untrue. What I was getting at and still stand-by is that the right wing is "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful".

There are several strands to this. One is the Republicans evangelical Christian base. By its very nature it is anti-intellectual. In that it places belief above reason or facts. Its political opinions are based on its belief that the world was created a few thousand years ago by a divine being who has left us laws we must obey that are in a book.

Whilst in free societies people should be free to believe what ever they damn well want and I would defend that, their position is inherently irrational. Their primary motivation in political decision making is driven by what this divine being has "told" them. No further intellectual inquiry is needed for them, nor do they entertain it.

The second strand is a repeated tendency to the use of distortion and misinformation by media outlets that are pushing the right-wing view point.
There is another thread on this board (FUN from FOX News) discussing this. Suffice to say, smart or educated (that can mean self-educated and doesn't imply elitism) people who are versed in critical thinking skills, will not be manipulated. By definition this information is being used by the clever and devious (its media originators are certainly smart enough to know what they are doing) to fool the the less smart and educated.

In short it does not serve the interests of the right to value true education or free thinking. Although everyone of course values education insofar as its a passport to better jobs and a better life for their offspring.

Although the right counter-claim that this equally happens all the time with a liberal biased media, when asked for concrete evidence, they can never seem to produce it. At best producing instances out of context where liberal views are presented, and therefore by extension equating that with 100% bias - another distortion and fallacy that can only fool the uneducated.

I'm not sure how important the point in your link that 80% of Ivy league faculty are Democrat is. I can think of lots of sociological reasons it would be so.

But does it matter ? No, because if you have an Ivy League education you are equipped to think for yourself and be smart enough to see bias and misinformation in the world and make your own mind up about it. Something your article constantly seems to insinuate student won't be able to do and that they somehow need to be "protected" from the liberal-bias of their teachers.

Sand

I dont think the elitist issue with Obamas educational credentials vs Palins educational credentials isnt a matter of anti-intellectualism. Obama has clearly the better educational credentials, and should be congratulated on that fact.

Its that people tend to respect modesty rather demeaning others. Especially when you consider most people will have received less academic qualifications than Obama, so when youre sneering at Palin youre sneering at all of them too.

And they have votes. Its not smart for a political figure to belittle at his voters. They tend to dislike it.

No, because if you have an Ivy League education you are equipped to think for yourself and be smart enough to see bias and misinformation in the world and make your own mind up about it.

There are a much smaller number of free thinkers than those who claim to be able to think for themselves. And its not something that can be taught. Intellectuals can be just as gullible and foolish as the poor manipulated illeducated masses - see my sig for how the intellectuals Orwell encountered during the Nazi era were as willing to set aside their own liberal educations to worship at the throne of the great leaders and tyranny. Orwell had more faith in the poor, dumb, witless cattle of the jingoistic, ill-educated and poor English lower classes as a bulwark against facism....and he was right.

Pocono Joe

I know... an old joke. But something a lot of Americans feel hits straight to the core, and fits into our discussion:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

BenjAii

Sand wrote: »

And they have votes. Its not smart for a political figure to belittle at his voters. They tend to dislike it.

You are right, sneering at Palins educational accomplishments is totally counter-productive.

What is valid is to question her lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity and the severe short-coming that places on her ability to function successfully in the office she aspires for. Especially as the question of McCains age, means it is very pertinent that it must be considered she might by default be President.

If I was going for a job interview where job performance was critically important, say as a surgeon, everybody would expect it reasonable for me to be qualified by suitable knowledge. It would not be acceptable for me to simply coast in, saying i'm ready regardless of what I know.

You are also right that an education does not automatically lead to bias free thinking. But these skills can be taught it & and you are supposed to be able to apply those skills, thats what third level education is all about.

Of course people can come out plenty able to think selectively biased at the end when they want.

bobbyjoe

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I know... an old joke. But something a lot of Americans feel hits straight to the core, and fits into our discussion:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

I've heard that "joke" before. Funny thing about it is that the Republicans have been in power for the last eight years and have they gotten rid of welfare? No. Haven't heard McCain or Palin say anything about it either. They love to express this idea of self sufficiency but the last gov has been the biggest spending ever, corporate welfare is at an all time high and gov intrusion into the peoples lives is also at an all time high.

alastair

I'd be inclined to ignore the anti-intellectual argument if it wasn't for the constant accusations of elitist/sophisticate/arrogance directed against Obama (and Hillary, Kerry and Gore beforehand). Elitism is a code, and nothing more, for those who refuse to play the good-ol-boy pretense.

There seems to be an unspoken rule with American politics, and the Republican machine in particular, that, unless they come from the military, the ideal candidate is best kept down on the farm, even if only in fantasyland. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, but cultivated the Boy from Hope as his USP, GW Bush was an Ivy League brat, but played the Texan woodsman game to great effect. Even Al Gore played the farm boy schitck more than his Havard background.

Pocono Joe

If you didn't like my joke, how about this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/huge_backlash_against_obama_el.html

Dirk Gently

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If you didn't like my joke, how about this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/huge_backlash_against_obama_el.html

I don't really have a problem with what he said there. He did expose himself to negative interpretations though. Whether he thought he'd honestly portray his feelings despite knowing it would be used against him or whether it was simply a lack of judgement and he didn't realise people would jump on it I don't know.

Pocono Joe

clown bag wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with what he said there.

That's a pretty elitist comment in my opinion. I live in a small town in Pennsylvania, even smaller than Wasilla, Alaska. My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with jobs that may have disappeared from my state 25 years ago.

Or do you happen to know better than I do?

brianthebard

Your constitutional rights are what made you like guns and religion and hate immigrants? Wow. Seems to me that you would take any excuse to know Obama at this stage, and probably have a transcript of that speech he made to show to people when you go door to door in support of anti-Obama.

Dirk Gently

Pocono Joe wrote: »

That's a pretty elitist comment in my opinion. I live in a small town in Pennsylvania, even smaller than Wasilla, Alaska. My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with jobs that may have disappeared from my state 25 years ago.

Or do you happen to know better than I do?

No I think it was a generalisation but it's a widely held generalisation. It's interesting that it came up and I think it adds an extra dimension to the campaign, as opposed to usual carefully choreographed and spun remarks that are designed to appeal to everyone.

Did he happen to expand on the comment? Did he offer any explanation as to why it is perceived that urban populations or highly industrialised areas are less likely to have the same degree of religious or conservative views? It's not an american phenomenon, the same is true most places, ireland included.

I just think it's an interesting point / gaff. Are city folk more open minded, are they more cultured, are they corrupted by commercialism or distracted by choice, have they lost sight or are they more progressive? It will be interesting to see if he expanded on his comment, if he thinks its a problem that needs solving or if he thinks its something both groups just need to accept and understand better rather than let it polarise them.

Maybe it was arrogance, maybe he was purposely starting a debate he intends to have. I've heard him say that democrats usually don't even try engage with small town folk because they assume they wont listen. Could he be forcing an engagement?

I'm really just speculating and don't offer any concrete analysis. I just think it's interesting in the context of a presidential race to make the comment and I think the obama machine is a bit to slick to let it slip out and not to be able to back it up at some point.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights,

I have always thought there is a certain irony in the US Constitutions 2nd amendment right to bear arms you refer to. It was codified so the citizenry could protect themselves from a possible tyrannous federal government imposing force through disarming them with a standing army.

Of course, now a days anyone who would dare think of opposing the federal government with arms is a terrorist and thus the number one enemy.

To its staunchest defenders the right to bear arms now seems to mean little more than the right to go hunting or shoot burglars.

Sand

I don't really have a problem with what he said there. He did expose himself to negative interpretations though. Whether he thought he'd honestly portray his feelings despite knowing it would be used against him or whether it was simply a lack of judgement and he didn't realise people would jump on it I don't know.

It is probably what he genuinely believes [ hard to say, all political speeches are designed by committees afterall and Obama may simply not have found it objectionable], but it is was one of his few stumbles in a political race hes pretty much dominated in terms of presenting himself.

Regardless of what Obama really thinks about people who live outside a major urban area he should never, ever, ever call them bitter or demean them. As I mentioned before, Democrats are often stunned that George Bush won two elections on the trot, the second one by an even higher margin. They probably cant believe theres even a contest this year. Im not clear on why they believed they had a chance to be honest.

The weird thing is Democrat policies might actually mean a better standard of living for the vast majority of Americans [ like Obama said to O'Reilly, I think people earning more than 250K USD a year can afford to stump up a higher proportion of the tax bill than somebody whose struggling to make ends meet on an average salary - Obama could really have gone to town on O'Reilly, representitive of the Common Man there whilst earning hundreds of thousands if not millions and whining about earning slightly less after tax, but seemed to let off] but Democrats seem to be intent on patronising or looking down on the voters that are supporting Republicans. I mean, I remember last election the Guardian in the UK had people writing letters to Americans in the Republican heartlands, urging them to vote for Kerry. I imagine the Republican Party would have offered to pay the cost of postage given the natural reaction to such a patronising act would be to say "Go and **** yourself, Bush 2004 baby!" The crazy thing is, the Guardian thought this would be effective?

Its such a stupid thing for the Dems to do. They probably know its politically stupid, but they just cant help laughing at those hicks. The thing about the republican-democrat divide isnt based on states, but on urban-rural divides. "Blue" states tend to be the most heavily urbanised, "Red" states tend to be the least and the urban-rural divide has always been progressive, cosmopolitan vs knuckle dragging, simple minded hicks...at least in the mind of the urban dwellers anyhow.

Pocono Joe

Something tell me as a Professor of constitutional law...

I'm curious. As a Professor of constitutional law, since the role of the United States Supreme Count is to hear cases relevant to important questions about the Constitution or federal law, how can we have so many 5-4 rulings? Isn't this proof that the United States is an extremely polarized nation, allowing politics to leech into our most supposedly impartial form of government, the judicial branch?

Obama might just know what the Bush doctrine is.

I couldn't answer that. Was Obama ever asked that in an interview where he was not provided the questions ahead of time? And Bush isn't running this time around.

Palin wasn't asked any tough questions. Just middle of the road ones on everyday political views which she doesn't have the knowledge or education to deal with.

That's a matter of opinion, and maybe a touch elitist in my opinion.

It seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid. Perhaps thats because its the only way people are going to believe what they have to say.

I wouldn't say that. I defer to Winston Churchill (and let him take all the flack)... "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

The second strand is a repeated tendency to the use of distortion and misinformation by media outlets that are pushing the right-wing view point.

And the liberal tendency is exempt from this, have you seen MSNBC recently?

One is the Republicans evangelical Christian base. By its very nature it is anti-intellectual. In that it places belief above reason or facts. Its political opinions are based on its belief that the world was created a few thousand years ago by a divine being who has left us laws we must obey that are in a book.

On that one I can't completely disagree with you. One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen was "God, please save me from your followers!"

In short it does not serve the interests of the right to value true education or free thinking.

Most of my like-mind aquaintances would rather Americans be more educated and free thinkers... not koolaid drinkers! Does that mean I can't be conservative, right, or intellegent?

And as for the matter of intelegence being one if not the primary factors to obtaining the highest levels of public office, I think history dictates the greatest leaders of all time were not necessarily the smartest, just the brightest (and I'm not speaking about intelegence in this case). if it were, shouldn't Stephen Hawking be Prime Minster of Great Britian right now?

Dirk Gently

It is probably what he genuinely believes [ hard to say, all political speeches are designed by committees afterall and Obama may simply not have found it objectionable], but it is was on his few stumbles in a political race hes pretty much dominated in terms of presenting himself.

Do you reckon they're just taking the approach that they wont get their vote anyway so why bother being diplomatic about what they think of them? A very polarising approach if so, a bit like bush's with us or against us view which he used effectively to whip up nationalism and discredit descenting views of his policies in the years after 9-11. It worked for Bush but it's easier to whip up nationalism than isolate small town mind sets. I think obama is a slick performer so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll make some kind of attempt at engagement rather than polarisation. He seems too pre-programmed and deliberate to let something slip out that he doesn't intend to address.

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I have always thought there is a certain irony in the US Constitutions 2nd amendment right to bear arms you refer to. It was codified so the citizenry could protect themselves from a possible tyrannous federal government imposing force through disarming them with a standing army.

Of course, now a days anyone who would dare think of opposing the federal government with arms is a terrorist and thus the number one enemy.

To its staunchest defenders the right to bear arms now seems to mean little more than the right to go hunting or shoot burglars.

Not just a tyrannous federal government, but more importantly any threat to the security of a free State. Although I can't argue that some do see it as little more than the "right to go hunting or shoot burglars."

There are those that interpret our Constitution and Amendments for what they say, and those who interpret them for what they could say. The second amendment is truly one of these instances. When it comes to the second amendment, I think people should read the Founding Fathers (the men who created the documents that guaranteed freedom for all of us) thoughts on the Second Amendment before they start interpreting it.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_ff.htm

Sand

Do you reckon they're just taking the approach that they wont get their vote anyway so why bother being diplomatic about what they think of them? A very polarising approach if so, a bit like bush's with us or against us view which he used effectively to whip up nationalism and discredit descenting views of his policies in the years after 9-11. It worked for Bush but it's easier to whip up nationalism than isolate small town mind sets. I think obama is a slick performer so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll make some kind of attempt at engagement rather than polarisation. He seems too pre-programmed and deliberate to let something slip out that he doesn't intend to address.

Hes human though. Lets remember hes a brand, a product - his image and presentation to the market is an industry in and of itself. No one is politician perfect, all the time. They all like to present themselves as family men when they might be arguing bitterly with their wives or even having affairs after all.

And even if his speech is written for him, he delivers it extremely well, and it is possible he perhaps he wandered from the strictly described points [ theres a youtube video of him screwing up in a speech, talking about giving children breathalysers, correcting himself " inhalers, not breathalysers!" and getting a laugh from the audience by admitting hes not had much sleep over the past 48 hours] and maybe screwed up by saying what he was thinking, as opposed to what he wanted to portray.

I would say I believe the Democrats do *want* to get vote from rural areas. Obamas funding for religious groups, his attempts to establish his gun loving credentials etc etc point to that. But its probably fake. Obama a representitive of Chicago - his enounters with guns there are more likely crime and violence related as opposed to hunting and as an article of faith. You mightnt blame him for having a negative image of gun ownership given that. You might try to open dialogue, or engagement but its a reality that rural areas have a different set of priorities to urban areas, a different set of experiences as well. Very difficult to keep everyone on the wagon. FF and FG have only managed it by being "clubs" as opposed to political parties.

I think the issue is that they are very much an urban based party, and they simply cant help themselves when it comes to their attitudes to rural areas. Its not a strictly US thing, go to any country and theres an urban/rural divide. It maybe seems stronger in the US due to the media saturation/cultural export there [ look at us, Irish people discussing the US elections...and more than likely mirrored by many people across the entire world...] but when you read some of the comments and blogs of both sides, its a fairly bitter divide at some points. The worrying thing for Obama is that he is a product of the more "fringe" elements of the Democrat party. Clinton was the annointed one, the establishments candidate. Its going to be tricky for Obama to leave the bitter polarisation of his original supporters behind him whilst he tries to persuade those his followers call hicks thats hes going to represent them and their interests which differ wildly from his original base. Whatever his own feelings, theres a deep seated bitterness there in his support base - revealed in some of the attacks on Palin - that actually sabotage his inclusive message.

axer

FatherTed wrote: »

TBH she is worse than I thought. She sounded like when a kid is asked a question in school by the teacher and having not a clue what the answer is.

I had to laugh at that. You could see she hadn't a clue what he was on about. "In what respect Charlie" lol.

I hope there are more interviews in the next few weeks because she is going to make an a$$ of herself in front of the USA and I don't think she will have time to learn everything in the next 50 odd days to cover every question that will be thrown at her. Can they keep her away from the media until the election?

EDIT: I actually thought it was going to be an easy interview for her (since I didn't know "Charlie") than it was. The way he talks made more of a fool of her I thought in that he was so calm and low speaking as if they were just simple questions to ask. I also like that he followed up on some questions to get a definitive answer which she didn't have.

EDIT2:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.

LIES LIES LIES. She could be the first VP of the USA to never have met a foreign head of state.

Black Swan

Have been watching ABC's commentaries on the Palin interviews with news anchor Charlie Gibson. Palin is what now 44 or 45 years old, and it was just revealed that until last year 2007, she never had a US passport. And before getting this US passport, the only countries she had ever visited in her life were Canada and Mexico, where a passport was not needed for a US citizen until very recently. Now she claims that she has foreign relations experience sufficient to occupy the second highest post in the USA, and is a heart beat away from the Presidency of the US? How can anyone not fall down laughing when she attempts to state that she is qualified to deal with the 200 nations of the world, much less the G-8, or the United Nations? This has to be the ULTIMATE CRAIC of the US presidential election! LOL! What a farce!

The Raven.

axer wrote: »

LIES LIES LIES...

While we are on the subject of ‘lies’, I’m afraid our holier-than-thou Messiah has been somewhat economical with the truth in an effort to project an image of academic excellence with ‘royal’ dynasty connections. What a shame! How foolish to lie, especially when there is no need.

In the University of Chicago he is listed as a ‘Senior Lecturer in Law’, not as a ‘Professor’. But of course the spin doctors will 'explain' it to us.

http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/law-fac.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

More lies:

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

And of course now we hear him backtrack on whether or not he heard Rev. Wright’s rabid ranting. What a shame! The great incarnation of hope and ‘change’ in American politics is not such a pure spirit after all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

2Scoops

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or, indeed, being a housewife up until a few short years ago. :pac:

Edit: Hillary I mean, not Palin, though she's as bad.

Overheal

A housewife that can field dress a moose than make a stew out of it.

Charlie Gibson tried to put words in her mouth, plain and simple.

Wether she and McCain make a better ticket than ObamaBidenMon (if youre a nerd youll get the reference) I'm open to suggestions. The Debates will be damned interesting.

The truth is I like them all, the only one I dont know anything about is Biden.

2Scoops

Overheal wrote: »

A housewife that can field dress a moose than make a stew out of it.

I meant Hillary, btw.

Hobbes

You know if this was the onion reporting this I wouldn't be so worried that was now.


Her whole part on Israel attacking Iran she wouldn't say if USA would commit to support them or not. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was and then having to have it explained to her.

Some really gem wtf moments though.

Gibson: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks does the proximity of the state give you?
Palin: They are our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

If she ever gets into VP, the USA is fuked and that is coming from someone who didn't think anyone could fuk up any worse then Bush.

axer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She has neither met with any foreign head of state nor has been to more than 3 other countries. She doesn't have a glimpse of foreign relations experience.

axer

The Raven. wrote: »

While we are on the subject of ‘lies’, I’m afraid our holier-than-thou Messiah has been somewhat economical with the truth in an effort to project an image of academic excellence with ‘royal’ dynasty connections. What a shame! How foolish to lie, especially when there is no need.

In the University of Chicago he is listed as a ‘Senior Lecturer in Law’, not as a ‘Professor’. But of course the spin doctors will 'explain' it to us.

http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/law-fac.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

More lies:

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

And of course now we hear him backtrack on whether or not he heard Rev. Wright’s rabid ranting. What a shame! The great incarnation of hope and ‘change’ in American politics is not such a pure spirit after all.

Huge difference between that and pretending it is ok for a VP to never have met a foreign head of state because other VPs hadn't - even though that is not true.

Sand

Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was and then having to have it explained to her.

Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".

There are apparently seven different Bush Doctrines floating around out there. Palin choosing to specify her own beliefs as opposed to answering yes or no to a vague query on her beliefs is actually a fairly safe option.

After all Gibson only asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine. She answers yes or no, and then Gibson picks which Bush Doctrine he was referring to and tries to put words in her mouth. Its then used as way to try paint McCain/Palin as Bush 2.0. Palin cant totally thrash the Bush without running the risk of alienating some republican voters, so she goes with the safe answer of generic support while noting mistakes made, will do better. Its an obvious ploy, and she sidestepped it.

Gibson was trying to trip her up pretty much the entire interview, right from the "Were you confident you could be the VP? You were, oh, so youre arrogant then" and so on.