I kind of disagree, to be honest. For one thing, it was a stupid question, if for no other reason than it assumed that the audience knew what he was talking about, even is she didn't. Gibson should just have asked, "Do you believe that the U.S. has the right to make unilateral preemptive attacks on another country?" But to answer your point, that's the sort of thing you pick up easily and quickly enough through daily briefings. There are plenty of presidents that knew nothing about foreign or economic policy when they were elected, and that didn't stop them from doing a good job. You just have to rely on experts to explain things to you. Of course, the people she'd be relying on are the neocons, who view her as a blank slate that they are now filling up, even as we speak.
I think they picked the toughest interviewer they could find, on a network that gets the most exposure. Judging from the far less edited version they ran overnight on ABC's World News Now, she did several hours of interviews with him in multiple sessions.
Where did I say that was all she'd be responsible for? Sure, those other issues are important. But the single issue she'd have most control over is foreign policy. That's hardly a controversial statement. It's not just about entertainment vs decision-making. This isn't binary. Knowledge is a big deal too. Knowledge of world events and in particular the last president's impact on them is a huge deal. Knowledge isn't everything. Nixon knew a lot of stuff too. But it's certainly an important factor. Testing a candidate's knowledge of major issues they will have control over seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do. I wouldn't hire an accountant who had little expertise in cost accounting, and I wouldn't hire a vice president who had little expertise in understanding world affairs.
If that's their reasoning, I think it was frankly dumb. That interview was a major deal, no matter where it took place. I would have watched it if it were on public access after the smelly-looking guy in the turban who tells you how to refinance your mortgage with Tarot cards. Sarah Pallin was THE interview everybody wanted. People impressed with superficial sound bites already have gristle to chew on. It's those of us interested in detail and complicated answers to complicated questions who were really looking forward to the interview.
When I wrote Executive Orders, that means his directives to agencies to act on their mandates. Aside from already stipulating this, those things you mention aren't going to affect anyone in a good way, if at all. Go for it. Isn't it silly, though, to spend an unprecedented amount of energy on this #2 on the ticket while giving the #1 on the other ticket a free pass? Seriously, which is more important to figure out: "did Palin fire some bureaucrat for some politically incorrect reason?" or "how fishy is the convicted felon and bigtime democratic party donor Tony Rezko's financial deals with Obama in Illinois that benefited Obama by $1M or more?" One is actually BIG news. Asked and answered. The truth, and objective reporting.
sorry--misunderstanding. I was responding to Denny's comment about the limited nature of what a president actually does. To a certain extent . . . for me personally, it is more important to understand the way that a leader goes about reaching decisions. One problem (to me), is that the populace seems to prefer politicians that are "resolute" and "determined" and have a position on everything, and refuse to change those viewpoints even if situations change or more information is known. I prefer those that are secure and candid enough to say, "you know, I don't know how I would address that problem. But it is important, and I'd put a lot of thought into developing a potential solution. Some of the factors I'd consired are a, b, and c. I'd hope to accomplish d, e, and f. How we can do that would require a lot of thought, and I'd be interested in forming a bipartisan committee to explore it." When I have an assignment to give someone at work, the people I prefer are those who will say, "I've never done that before, but I'll learn the right way to do it." The people I am terrified of are those that pretend that they know what they are doing, and will continue on their road to failure because they refuse to admit that they have no idea what they are doing, and are afraid to then ask for help. It's not so important to have answers, so long as there is a process in place to explore options. That's what I want out of a leader.
This is the kind of smoke screen I was talking about. What expertise does one gain by being governor of Arkansas? I happen to think Clinton turned out to be one of the better presidents in many respects, including foreign policy; he used military force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti (off the top of my head), negotiated nuclear reduction treaties, had one of the best foreign trade negotiating teams in my memory, etc.
that's why newly-elected presidents rely heavily on the staff and infrastructure of their party that is already in place, those with the experience in former administrations. It is disingenous for one party or the other to point to a candidate's advisors and point out that they held certain jobs or represented certain clients in the meantime. Those experts will be needed to guide a new president's first few years in office, and new blood can gradually be given positions of more and more responsibility. George Bush recycled many of his father's advisors, and really, who would fault him for that? But for the same reason, I think it is misleading for McCain to claim that he represents "change." It's an unfortunate state that there is such anger against Bush that McCain has no other choice.
I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with her lack of honesty in explaining it (which undoubtedly is on the instruction on her handlers)
just to clarify, I would have preferred that she simply explain that as governor, she had a duty to fight for the interests of her constituents, but after hearing the arguments against building the bridge, she realised that there were cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing, or something along those lines. That would never happen, though.
Ironically, the Democrats had no such infrastructure in place for Clinton. His choices for experienced people in foreign policy were from the Carter administration (horrible failures at it) or the LBJ administration (geezers). Frankly, being governor of Arkansas affected the entire executive branch in the ways you'd expect for lack of experience. Numerous blunders violating ethics and the law, perhaps innocently. The #2 guy in the justice dept. (Web Hubbel) went to prison, and was clearly not qualified for his position by being Hillary's law partner at Rose Law Firm, etc. Reagan was at least in a powerful governor role of a state that would have been 6th largest country in the world, and even his cronies he brought with him from the executive branch there took a couple years to figure out their jobs. Exactly who is Obama going to appoint to what positions? Same questions for McCain. Not only would seeing their teams give us the actual information about what the regimes would be like, but you'd have a good idea of their real world decision making in how and who they choose.
I bet that if you asked Bill Clinton in 1991 what his opinions were about Somalia or Kosovo, he'd have been able to say something more substantial than Palin did about Iraq. The guy is freakin' smart, and was before he got in office. He might not have had real-world experience in dealing with Kosovo, but he's legendary for his penchant for reading about everything. That knowledge gave him a framework to evaluate the advice he was given by experts who knew much more than he did in these areas. Similarly, I would expect Palin to understand the basic rationale of our current foreign policy and its history. This isn't anything nearly as obscure as Kosovo in 1991. This is the whole reason we are where we are in the Middle East. That she might have to learn this "on the job" as veep speaks to her lack of curiosity of foreign affairs. I find that concerning. I'm not asking her to know the leader of Georgia personally. But I'd like to think she'd know that it was the Georgians who were the initial aggressor, just from reading CNN. She didn't seem to.
In the hacked up version of her response in the transcript I posted, she demonstrated an understanding of the basic rationale of our current foreign policy. What exactly are you looking for? I'm not voting for her or her ticket, so I'm not particularly biased for partisan reasons. What I see in her is a woman about Obama's age who's impressive in numerous ways once you get past thinking about how she was a beauty queen. I think we, in general, aren't used to seeing women in her position or ex-beauty queens that are smart enough to be effective governors of a state with a multiple $billion budget. I'm willing to listen to her with an open mind, and I'm trying to filter out all the politically motivated smears against her (as I do for Obama) to get at what's real.
As for Clinton and that good old book lernin', he had a really rough time of everything for the first two years. He botched health care, changed the mission in Somalia from feeding people to going after warlords at the expense of soldiers' lives, and people were so pissed off by his inability to govern well that they threw out Democrats in the House and Senate where they had control since the 1950s.
I don't think she is very smart, but then again, I don't think you need to be smart to be a governor, the way "smart" is typically though of. You need to be exceptionally good at other skills. Keep in mind that there are multiple types of intelligence. I wouldn't want Einstein or Newton or Darwin to be an administrator.
my wife is the smartest person I know--1580 on her SAT as a 12-year-old, perfect score on her LSAT, has a picture-perfect memory, etc.--but would make a terrible administrator. She doesn't have the right talents for tht type of work. Merely being smart--again, the way "smart" is typically defined--is not enough.
She's not Dan Quayle by a long shot. All this reminds me of one of the latest smoke screens. The McCain campaign was asked if Palin would be a good CEO and they said no. The media is playing it like it was some sort of huge gaffe (they said McCain would be a good CEO, either). Obama had a similar "gaffe" suggesting him running his campaign with its ~$.5B in donations is somehow a bigger job than running Alaska (where she managed a multi $billion budget). I think only Obama of the top 4 on the tickets would succeed as a CEO, simply because of his legal background.
yes, it is just stupid to harp on Carly's comment. Obama is very organized, and has the ability to compartmentalize different information and data, and call upon it when needed. That is important in running a large organization. It is also important to inspire those working underneath you, which requires that you not barracade yourself off from your employees. He is also a very strong xSTJ, which helps.
I like Charlie Gibson as a questioner. I thought he did a great job with George Stephanopolous in moderating the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary debate. In fact, he did such a good job that Obama cancelled all future debates with Sen. Clinton. I like people who rip both sides equally. Now that's fair.
