I thought she did all right--a good, adequate performance, but no more. I doubt that it will have changed many minds. People inclined to like her saw nothing much to alarm them; people inclined to dislike her saw nothing that will have impressed. I think that many viewers, like me, will have regarded Gibson's tetchy, unfriendly, weary, inquisitorial demeanour--that constant frown, as if to say, "remind me why I am talking to YOU?"--as off-putting, and therefore helpful to the accused. She is under intense pressure, obviously. I think she deserves high marks for unflappability--and that, heaven knows, is a good thing in a vice president (or president).
I agree with Jim Fallows, though, that the combination of little knowledge, incuriosity, and an unduly decisive temperament is very dangerous. Bush underlines that danger, to be sure. What one wants is self-assurance that understands its limits, and some appreciation of the need to balance ends and means. I still don't know what to make of Palin in that regard. There are some worrying signs.
I don't go along with the view that her answers on the "Bush doctrine" were a serious misstep, however. True, she did not know what that term meant. The fact is, it means different things to different people. If Gibson had put that question to me, my answer would have been: "It depends what you mean by the Bush doctrine." In effect, that was what she said. And it deserves to be noted (as Jim points out, but with a kindly lack of emphasis, calling it a minor error) that Gibson himself apparently does not know what it means.
GIBSON [impatiently]: 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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree...?
No, Charles. That is not what the Bush doctrine means. The right of anticipatory self-defence is already enshrined in international law. Countries do not have to wait until they are attacked to legitimately defend themselves. The Bush doctrine advances the notion of preventive war: the right to attack not in order to defend yourself against an imminent assault, but to deal with less certain, more distant but still possibly mortal threats.
Whatever you think about the Bush doctrine, people who laugh at Palin for failing to know what it is really ought to make sure they understand it themselves.
Charlie Gibson is an wrinke-lipped dope. It's not officially called the "Bush Doctrine" so why should Palin be expected to recognize it? It's a national security document dealing with pre-emptive strikes. The question should have been, "What is your view of the Bush administration's position on pre-emptive strikes?" Clearly, the fault was that of the questioner and not the person being questioned.
Did you see the McCain interview on The View? With the exception of Joy, those women were snide and disrespectul. And W. Goldberg's questions bordered on being stupid.
I thought she did all right--a good, adequate performance, but no more.
Saying that her performance was "adequate" implies you didn't have very high expectations to begin with, or you think the performance was sufficient enough to avoid being poor or having to say it was poor.
In any case, "adequate" is hardly adequate, is it?
"...the combination of little knowledge, incuriosity, and an unduly decisive temperament is very dangerous."
That is well put. I've known people who are empty-headed but opinionated or decisive. They need to remain actors or chefs or handymen or clerks - but they make scary leaders.
Whatever you think about the Bush doctrine, people who laugh at Palin for failing to know what it is really ought to make sure they understand it themselves.
Especially if you are nominated for Vice President of the United States -- this is what separates my lack of knowledge from hers. I think this is a significant point of contention.
I think that this analysis is a good example of the fundamental attribution error. It's a big mistake to ascribe someone's errors to their character traits, as demonstrated by the fact that people with totally different characters make the same errors. Crook says that Bush is uninformed, incurious and decisive, but surely one wouldn't describe, say, Bernard Lewis or Fouad Ajami as uninformed or incurious, yet they supported the invasion of Iraq.
Palin is the perfect match for McCain. He's an empty suit and she's an empty skirt.
The country deserves better than two clueless morons like McCain and Palin. They are Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.
Apparently you read Fallows's piece but didn't understand it. Your objection, "The fact is, it means different things to different people," does not make her response in any way competent. As he explained, at great length.
It's time to stop making excuses for her just because she's in your ideological ballpark and smiles brightly. Somewhere down the line, she might be ready to take on this responsibility. Right now, it's a farce.
I'm not sure that anyone knows what the Bush doctrine is:
1. Preemptive war with countries that have WMD;
2. Preemptive war with countries that aren't liberal democracies;
3. Preemptive war to establish democracy in a region with very little; or
4. Preemptive war to establish a foreign fighting zone for our war with Al Qaeda.
Which is it? I think her response was fair when she said, what do you mean? Its funny how not understanding what the hell Bush is doing is now a demerit.
I see caribou poop in Charles Gibson future. I hope the good people of Alaska server you up a big plate because after your interview you must be down by to quarts! I think you better watch where you step when you get up to Alaska
The things that caught me the most about the entire interview was the plain and simple fact that, Ms.Palin flat-out said that what the doctrine and Mr. Bush had done where flawed and that with a New Administration brings change, change that the Country needs. I for one would like to see an interveiw that is just plain and simmpley asking her her strait out views.
Are you serious? You really did not see anything wrong with her performance?????
Was anyone actually paying attention to what Palin was displaying or talking about? Was anyone actually listening? Why are we talking about issues that are not important like gibson\'s demeanor...some may claim that she did not have enought time to prepare? She said she was ready, so why isn\'t she able to answer questions directly and knowledgeably? Gibson is a reporter...his job is to ask hard questions to inform us, to expose phonyness in ANY candidate\'s message...and as our potential president, it is Palin\'s job to answer knowledgeably, and at least have some grasp of global issues. Her display last night was one of utter ignorance..... Why are we instead giving her a break? oh she has only prepared for two weeks, she couldnt have been ready to answer these questions... for pete\'s sake..these are simple and direct questions on issues any politician with aspirations for the highest posts in this country should be able to have a clear perspective on... oh some may argue that he was not as hard on Obama....maybe it LOOKED like he was not as hard on Obama because obama was actually offering very intelligent, well considered answers.. This interview scares me. The fact that this extreme, radical, who does not even have the faintest idea what Bush\'s doctrine is, and who thinks that just by being neighbors with Russia gives her sufficient policy insights to the Georgian crisis, who thinks that our wars are God\'s will, is absolutely scary.... Ignorance plus power = a very familiar situation There she was talking about change...you don\'t even know Bush\'s doctrine...so what ARE you trying to change in washington? You speak of diplomacy, and yet you talk of attacking... your responses were so scripted, and irrelevant it\'s disgusting....too bad most people who are just as ignorant as you are would probably think you did well...and instead of analyzing the substance of your interview, they are going to evaluate your style...paint Gibson as condescending....too bad this much needed equality that our women are fighting for does not apply to Palin...apparently we EXPECT gibson to be soft....what a mess we are in... I feel sorry for Sarah Palin, she was never ready for this. The McCain campaign bought her on for shock value to diffuse attention from the DNC. Now there is a chance that if he does not survive his first term, she might become president. THAT, my friends, would be a game changer for the world...a devastating one.
Clive,
You think she did 'all right?'
fuck off
stupid cunty hack
Clive,
is it true you have three testicles?
Clive,
Is it true you once deepthroated a gorilla?
She did AWFUL! She has no experience and this interview highlighted just how incompetent she is.
I think her response was fair when she said, what do you mean? Its funny how not understanding what the hell Bush is doing is now a demerit.
You're reaching.
frankly, the fact that sarah Palin had no clue as to what the bush doctrine is really not that surprising to me, yet I agree that it is absolutely frightening that she may end up falling into the position of vice-president! I credit Gibson for what he did, but I do feel that he should have made the clear distinction between a "preemptive strike" and a PREVENTIVE strike, which is what the Bush Doctrine really defends.
C'mon Mr. Crook, it's not that the Bush Doctrine is ill-defined, it's that Governor Palin CLEARLY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE TERM. And instead of either candidly admitting it (er, what they used to call "plan talk") or giving a reasonably competent world-class-politician-type evasive answered, tried to bluff her way through with as much credibility as an undergraduate student trying to BS her way through an exam question. Even at the end she talked about approving preemptive attacks if there was an "imminent" threat, which is, as has been noted, specifically NOT what the Bush Doctrine holds.
Was she intending to signal that her ticket is now repudiating the Bush Doctrine in favor of a more traditional doctrines of preemptive military action? Was she simply confused? It's this kind of mixed-message sending that leads foreign leaders like Saakashvili to misinterpret our position and intentions, with disastrous results. The end product of the culture of mediocrity that has taken over what was formerly a serious party that believed in competence and achievement over identity politics.
I didn't have a problem with Palin not knowing the "Bush Doctrine". What I have a problem with is that instead of admitting she didn't know, she instead proceeded by blabbing about trying to pretend she knew what she was talking about. I'd prefer a leader that would say they don't know (or not sure), instead of someone that would pretend they know and try to fool everyone, and keep going with it (i.e. Bush/Cheney). I don't want another leader that will not stop to think first, before acting ... and that's the impression McCain and Palin are giving me.
Btw Clive--people may laugh at Palin for not knowing what the Bush doctrine is, while not knowing it themselves...but SHE is the one running for office!!!!!
You are either a dumb cunt Clive, or a mendacious cunt.
Which one, pray tell?
This was like a badly written multiple-choice question on a test, given by Professor Gibson. Palin asked for clarification. Gibson then knew he had a "gotcha moment," and proceeded to "teach her a lesson." Ironically, no one but Gibson really knew for sure what he meant, since there are at least 4 different versions of "The Bush Doctrine." Professor Gibson's "understanding" makes it at least five.
"unflappability" may be is a good trait. So is asking questions for clarification. "Gee Charlie, what do you mean by "Bush (d|D)octrine"?
Sometimes blinking lets your vision clear a bit to better see what's coming. It also gives one pause to think things through.
Well, look, Clive, the fact is that when Gibson asked her about the Bush doctrine she had no idea what he was talking about. It wasn't a case of her misstating or nuancing her answer -- she had no idea, none, nada.
I'm with Fallows: the BD was/is *extremely* controversial, and represents a 180 degree turn from 200 years of American policy. I can't believe there's any serious politician in this country who could be unfamiliar w/ the term and still be considered competent.
These comments need to be moderated, as it seems lots of Obama supports simply can't control their hatred. Get a grip, kids.
If by "explained" you mean "asserted." Fallows' point on this matter -- right or wrong -- amounted to little more than "it sure SOUNDED like she'd never heard of it." Subjective, much? I don't necessarily disagree, but let's not pretend there's a smoking fun here. We're trying to figure out what she knew based on, what, inflection?By the by, it is amusing to see people try to pretend McCain and Palin are Bush clones, and then turn around and rail on the latter for apparently not having heard of the doctrine allegedly named after him. High comedy.
Labels Labels Labels.
People, 90% of the people including politicians do not know 'Bush Doctrine' by its name-- but know of his theory and actions. She knew the latter, clearly.
And frankly, it's refreshing that someone forgets the Bush policy and starts fresh. Sometimes past knowledge is excess baggage.
***
Gibson, by the way, was in a catch-22. If he was nice-- he would lose. If he was tough- he would lose.
My idea: Have one interviwer (i.e Gibson) on a tele-prompter screen broadcast to all candidates in seperate rooms. The candidates do not see each other. They hear the same person-- and then give their answer simultaneously. Oh sure-- hard for the readers live. But later on, they see different reactions of each candidate of the same exact question, tone, setting. This is the ONLY way to play fair.
--> ABC, NBC, Fox, etc.-> learn fair.
Sarah Palin is being sold as someone who is a "real person," the kind of down-to-earth person to whom I supposedly can relate. Look, I can relate to my pharmacist, my barber, the airline ticket agent at the the airport, my neighbor the cop, and her brother the retired fireman. They're all "real people." But would I trust any of them to run my state or, God forbid, the country? No more than I trust Sarah Palin fill my prescriptions, book my flights, protect me from criminals or rescue my kids from a burning building. George W. Bush was sold as a guy you'd like to have beer with a barbecue and look where that got us.
Mr. Gibson was extremely unfair to Mrs. Palin when he asked if she believed in the Bush doctrine. The word doctrine was not in her vocabulary. Mr. Gibson should have used common language in the interview.
"No, Charles. That is not what the Bush doctrine means. The right of anticipatory self-defence is already enshrined in international law. Countries do not have to wait until they are attacked to legitimately defend themselves".
Thanks for that - an important clarification.
In the interview last night Charlie Gibson had this exchange with Gov. Palin:
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: 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?
The following is what Charlie Gibson has said in the past what the Bush doctrine is ... It is the same as Gov. Palin answered last night!
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001 CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
Charlie Gibson tried to trap Gov. Palin with this interview question. As you can see from the qoutes above Gibson believes the Bush Doctrin is exactly the same as how Palin Answered!
Got you Gibson!
Very disappointing analysis, Clive. Even if I were supporting McCain and Palin, I would acknowledge that this was a terrible interview for Palin and that someone who is running for vice president of the United States, and running with a presidential candidate who is 72 years old and, thus, may realistically take the reigns of this country soon, should at least have heard the term "Bush Doctrine" at some point over the past six years. She was clueless. It was embarrassing.
I can no longer tolerate those who claim to have any expertise in these matters bending over backwards to defend Sarah Palin. Do you have any credibility? I greatly admire Obama, but if he had made such a reckless choice for VP, I would be the first to criticize him.
Pretty weak, Crook. Take the blinders off and try again.
"George W. Bush was sold as a guy you'd like to have beer with a barbecue and look where that got us."
Fundamental attribution error, again. Dick Cheney was sold as a guy with many, many years in government at all levels (Congressman, SecDef, etc.)--and most definitely NOT a guy you'd like to have a beer with--and look where that got us.
Explain what's wrong with the decision, not with the person who made it. In Palin's case, explain what's wrong with her ideas, not her character.
Her answer was emphatically not "it depends on what you mean by the Bush doctrine," the answer you say you would have given. In fact, when she said "in what respect, Charlie?" and he threw it back at her, and she asked, "his world view?" she revealed that she didn't know there was a Bush Doctrine, even one with many possibly interpretations. WHen CG tried to be more specific and said something like "as enunciated before the Iraq War in Fall 2002" she repeated some vague generalization that made sense as a way to talk about Fall 2002 only if you were a person who still believed in a link between 9/11 and the Iraq War. Watch it again and see. It is worse than you think.
Red Devil above leaves out that part of the interview, where CG specifically mentions the lead up to the IRaq War. He gave her that as context, she missed it and in the process revealed implicitly that she believes in the 9/11-Iraq link that got us into so much trouble in the first place.
It seemed clear to me that she had had no idea whatsoever of what the Bush Doctrine was. True, I only had an idea of what it meant, but then again, I'm not running for vice president during a time of war.
Are you people completely stupid or do you want to see something great in Sarah Palin so badly that you defend her stupidity, lack of knowledge, and quite evasive responses. She is a liar and not even a good one. Charles Gibson simply would not let her get away with not directly answering his questions. Yes, I wanted to see something good in her that would make me float my vote in that direction, but I am no fool. I would rather hear something from her that makes me confident in the job that she is to perform and be sure that she is ready. After seeing that interview I am greatly disappointed. I am more concerned with the welfare and fate of this country than finding any reason to give my vote to the wrong person just for the sake of having a republican in the White House.
Do not challenge an American Woman that can;
Get up early,
Kill a moose with a hi-power rifle,
Gut the moose,
Skin the moose,
& butcher the moose by dinner!
Plus, fish, raise a family & govern a State.
Please, feel sorry for Barry Obama.
He is an empty suit.
He is intellectually vacant.
With a bitter wife and hateful Hillary.
The Chicago Mafia & Chicago voter fraud machine, fund Barry Obama.
Tony
Charlie Gibson was in my opinion a respected journalist, key word here is was. How much did the Obama campaign pay him to do this interview? There was no fairness or impartiality in the questions or in their tone; the only thing what was missing from Mr. Gibson was a throne! He was acting like a pompas private school master integrating the girl from the ‘other side of the tracks’ on her application into the prestigious ‘inner circle’, and at the same time not taking the same attitude with the legacy member of the ‘old boy network (read here Joe Biden). Keep in mind Mr. Gibson; she has more experience then the number one candidate on the democratic ticket; please ask him the same questions with the same tone. OH wait he has interviewed Obama; watch this link and notice the difference in Lord Gibson’s attitude and demeanor. Absolutely disgusting!
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5000184&page=1
Mr. Gibson is a liberal robot.
Gov. Sarah Palin, elevated Mr. Gibson by her presence.
Mr. Gibson is a legend only, in his own mind.
Tony
Crook's critique on Palin's interview performance leads me to the inevitable conclusion that he is almost entirely contemptuous of American politics and of the American political process. He apparently believes that anyone at all can be President or Vice President of the United States. If Sarah Palin's canned and weirdly inappropriate responses to Gibson's simple questions passes muster with Crook, then he clearly has no interest in either the questions, the answers, or the consequences electing Sarah Palin may have for the United States and the rest of the world. She could've said anything at all and Crook's response would've still been "I thought she did all right."
TO BAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE HER/ SHE WILL BE THE NEXT VP NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. IF YOU DONT BELIVE IT GO TO WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM.AMD READ ON. SORRY
DEMS YOU LOOSE AGAIN /SHOULD OF PICKED HILLERY
I thought Gibson did a fine job. I figured he would have wimped out because the republicans always seem to pay these guys off to make them look better then what they really are. But the stupidity or ignorance always shows up on these frauds. This female pit bull with lipstick, should just drop out now. It is all smoke screen, she doesn't have a clue! If these people are making excuses for her ignorance they are just as blind. From a model to PTA to City Council to mayor to Govenor. Something smells fishy and it's not the friggin' lipstick !
I saw highlights of the 'View',it looked pretty good. They had George McBush, I mean McCain stuttering, he didn't know which LIE to say first. Good job Woopi & Barbara! Mccain just keeps repeating Barack's ideas as if they his own. It was like he was campaigning for Obama. Repeating Obamas stratagy to get our country back to the Americans, instead of selling it off to big oil companys. Every should realize by now, our country is headed for the toliet with BUSH & McCain holdin' hands on the tank handle! Wake Up America ! Go & Vote for the Young, Intelligent, candidate for president ! (and not the female pit bull with the lipstick. OOPS, Somethin' Stinks ! It must be from Alaska !
Sarah Palin did a pathetic job on her interview with Charles Gibson. Her lack of prparation was obvious. Not only did she not know the answers to more than half the questions she was asked, she looked like she was about to piss on herself during the entire interview. She did not have a firm, confident posture when sitting in that chair. Her back and face kind of leaned in toward Gibson, like she was pleading for mercy and sympathy. Besides all of this, she is a liar and I cannot see how a "hockey mom" "PTA mom" and small town mayor of under ten thousand residents will possibly be our vp. The chance she will be our first female president is real but at what cost to our country will this happen? The US is in REAL and I mean REAL trouble if anything happens to McCain and she's left to take over.
Based on a skim of the comments so far, I doubt if you're still reading Mr. Crook. But if you are, I agree with your most important point completely--NO ONE really knows what "The Bush Doctrine" is, apparently including George Bush.
Pre-emptive war is not anyone's "Doctrine", but a part of the universal right of self defense.
Preventive war, defined by Bismarck as "suicide from fear of death", may be what Dubyah had in mind, but it hardly applies to Iraq where we had been more-or-less continuously engaged in an unresolved war since 1991.
International Law does not grant preemptive strike authority. That is in debate and has been in debate for some time. However, states do have the right to defend themselves. Before you put out horse manure you should do your research.
Gibson was condescending and rude. The inquisitors on 'The View' were no different to John McCain. The left and their media cohorts are bitter, intolerant and downright mean. America will not stand for this. I won't. I turned it off and decided I was voting for McCain/Palin
I am sending a message to the left...This is an election by and for American's not a war trial for foreign war criminals. Most Dems and their far left wackos are more concerned about treating Al- Qaeda better than one of your own soldiers or governors.
Palin was decent which is more than I can say for the embittered and snobby left.
I have lost faith in all major network news outlets. I'm done.
Gibson should be ashamed;his condescending and pugnacious attitude toward Gov Palin were offensive. But no surprise... since 92 percent of the media are card-carrying Democrats. Gibson's looking over his glasses down his nose at Gov Palin and launching new questions before she was done answering, was classic disrespect by chrinically left media bigs like Gibson.Shameful; clearly generating ratings not reporting news - was his intent.
"People inclined to like her saw nothing much to alarm them; people inclined to dislike her saw nothing that will have impressed"
This interview achieved nothing. I'm sure republicans thought she did an excellent job and democrats thought she did a horrible job.
I don't think Charlie Gibson was over the top or disrespectful, but he missed some good opportunities to draw Sarah Palin out by trying for a technical pin of her on hot button issues.
There was a line in Russia House that went "I don't like lists, they tell too much about the people that made them".
Charlie defined the media herd itself more by some of his lines of questioning that he defined Sarah Palin. Pity.
Oops, this site is touchy about refresh. Sorry for the double post.
Wow - I'm so glad we have Charlie - oh, I guess he uses "Charles" now - to ask the tough questions in a confrontational manner. I can't wait for him to interview Obama and ask him why he hasn't produced the documents to prove he is Constitutionally entitled to run for President - his birth certificate and any documentation that would show he is not a citizen of Indoensia and/or Kenya. And maybe ask him about his associations with that terrorist friend, Bill Ayres, and his mentor, the Communist Alinsky. That will be a great one. Anyone know the date?
In this interview, Sarah Palin is reading off of a prompter and the chairs are no longer positioned directly in front of each other. Noticed the positions of the legs and feet.
If you pause the video and slowly scrub across with your mouse frame by frame, you can see that Sarah Palin is looking past Charlie Gibson and sometimes strains to read something, a cue card or a teleprompter. Very interesting.
In this interview, Sarah Palin is reading off of a prompter and the chairs are no longer positioned directly in front of each other. Noticed the positions of the legs and feet.
If you pause the video and slowly scrub across with your mouse frame by frame, you can see that Sarah Palin is looking past Charlie Gibson and sometimes strains to read something, a cue card or a teleprompter. Very interesting.
In the first two interviews they are directly in front of each other, but in the 3rd interview they are not and she is reading past Charlie.
Dear iSpec,
" The left and their media cohorts are bitter, intolerant and downright mean. America will not stand for this. I won't. I turned it off and decided I was voting for McCain/Palin."
Please reconsider your decision and think about what is best for the country. Certainly, Obama and Biden did not put Mr. Gibson up to this. The choice of interview style was Mr. Gibson's alone.
It is interesting that both parties/sides think the media in the US does a poor job. Is that a reason to vote for an unqualified, unprepared veep? I think not. Instead, turn, as so many of us do, to the internet and vote with your dollars (and your remote) by refusing to watch the nightly news again.
Again, think about what is best for our poor, beleageured country: 4 more years of the same (or worse)- the continuation of the Iraq War, an attack on Iran (see Atlantic article), more forclosures, bank failures (WAMU), more bailouts (Bear Sterns, Fannie Mai, Freddie Mac) and more recession or a candidate who is respected internationally, wants America to work together, will end the Iraq War, work out something on Health Care, sees green/alt. energy as the future, thinks we've got to stop global warming, thinks diplomacy is a good idea - and much, much more.
Instead of partisan, nasty attacks which you can "cure" with your remote, how about we work together, for once?
Pat
The point that I have noticed that so many of you have missed is that Sarah Palin should actually know that she is not ready for the office of VP under a man whose chances of finishing a single term don't seem to be better than 50/50. If she had as much sense as she apparently has ego, she would know that. That was George Bush's problem. He was unable to sense that he was totally over his head in the presidency. We have seen the fruits of that myopia.
With as little background in governance at the national level as this lady has, this is not the spot for on-the-job training....not with serious troubles in the Middle East, a questionable economy, at best and incredible national debt to make serious decisions about.
This election should be about more than your team winning and the other team losing. It's about the need to get this country moving in a better direction. This lady showed me nothing that would indicate that she has the understanding to do that.
For those of you who thought Palin did a good job on her interview with Charles Gibson you might want to take off your blinders. Half of her answers were just down right BS, because she had no idea what the heck she was talking about. She tried to flash her eyes and give BS answers to BS her way thru it. Face it folks she either didn't have a clue to the answers or she just lied 1/2 way thru the interview. I for one would not associate myself with pathitical people who lie alot. Gov. Palin do the republican ticket a favor, both you and Sen. McCain withdrawl your names from the ticket so perhaps we can get some other folks that are not a lying and mudslinging pair such as you two appear.
"The left and their media cohorts are bitter, intolerant and downright mean. America will not stand for this. I won't. I turned it off and decided I was voting for McCain/Palin."
I agree Gibson was a bit rough. But Palin is going to have to face much, much tougher. Obama has.
Did anyone else notice the clever video editing on Charles Gibsons interview?
Taking the answer that we must be friends with Russia and turning it into a warmonger statement is libelous, using creative editing to defame Governor Palin and deceive their viewer. There have been laws against such for hundreds of years; Thomas Paine would have considered this beneath contempt.
Relations with Russia are far too important to have corporate hedgehogs getting between us and our elected officials, altering their stated positions and defaming them. It's not like they're discussing Paris Hilton's new shoes, but the life or death issue of relations with the country with the biggest nuke arsenal, after us, in the world.
Thanks to "Jerry" for filling us in on what "International Law" allows.
I guess that's why there are no examples of pre-emptive strikes in history. Oh, wait...
"International Law" is a work in progress to the extent that it's not a complete myth. So far it hasn't done much to protect anyone, from Ethopia and China in the Thirties, through Georgia.
Just as soon as Barry Obama releases all his and Michelle's public records since birth, how can anyone trust a US Senator that only knows how to "debate & deliberate" with no administrative or executive, accountability?
Governor Sarah Palin has the verifiable trust of voters to do the "right thing" and "fight" for everyday Americans, by popular & democratic election.
Barry Obama is an empty suit and is intellectualy vacant. He has a bitter wife (per her thesis in college) and a hateful Hillary to support him.
It is time to feel sorry for Barry!
Barry Obama's blossom has no petals to feed upon.
people are voting for McCain becaus they think that a blacki man has no busiines running for president its obvious that any one or disguied as a real opponent woud sway their vote away from Obama, these people weren't going to vote for him anyway, but to argue that Palin is somehow thier saviour is cheap and disengeious
her lies won't help her ignorance won't help
the fact that she is a woman won't help.
I feel sorry for her when the dust settles she will be standing alone in alaska and will lose her relection bid for governor she will unravel fast and people will come up with other stupid reason not to vote for Obama and try to hide the fact that they are racist not american.
The answer to a many of our problems might be in a black children who are being raised in this country who are smart intelligent and patriotic , but won't be given the chance to cure diseases, reform social issues, to invent new ideas, to conquer poverty and crime and the social ills of the modern society simply because of the color of thier skin, to ignore a segment of our population becuase of racism shoots ourselves in the foot, we need everyones ideas and input, genius transcends all racial barriers
they are gifts to the entire world, give them a chace to make this world better despite of thier color, Vote Obama
Clive,
There is nothing wrong with the term "anticipatory self-defense." It's good enough for the Pentagon, so it should be good enough for you.
As a questioner, he limited his description to "anticipatory self-defense" in order not to make the distinction between anticipatory based on solid evidence and anticipatory based on a gut feeling, as we have found to be the case most recently.
Besides, Gibson isn't in the hot seat. Even if he completely dorked up the question, it's Palin's job to figure out what he meant and show that she has some knowledge or at least familiarity with the matter at hand.
Gibson did not give the same kind of interview to Obama or Edwards.
Plainly said, Democrats get a free ride with the media which is doing everything except delivering trustworthy news.
Dear Atlantic,
I was very much enjoying reading Clive Crook's opinion of the Gibson/Palin interview and the comments that followed until I scrolled down to the three posted by Clive Cock and Mike McNulty and chose to read no further.
Not only were they insulting to the writer but obscene as well, an affront to the good readers of this blog.
I'm puzzled and distressed that objectionable comments like these were actually printed here. Especially considering the venerable history of your publication, what a shame this kind of vile writing didn't get censored out.
I trust your oversight will decide to delete this offensive material.