Palin to give two day interview to ABC, nothing off limits

[Real]

McCain plans new Palin rollout
By: Mike Allen
September 8, 2008 07:56 PM EST

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will speak at her son’s Army deployment ceremony on 9/11 and spend two days with ABC News crews later this week as part of a McCain campaign plan to increase Americans’ comfort with her as a leader.

Campaign and network officials had said on Sunday that her first television interview would be a sit-down with Charles Gibson of ABC’s “World News.”

But it turns out that she is spending much of Thursday and Friday with Gibson — at the ceremony in Fairbanks, Alaska, and at her home in Wasilla, Alaska.

Campaign aides said the anchorman will get extensive, repeated access to Palin throughout her first trip home since becoming the nominee.

“ABC News will have plenty of time to question her and examine her and spend time with her,” a campaign official said. “They’ll do multiple interviews over two days. No topics are off-limits – there are no ground rules. There’s tons of time to talk to her about every topic.”

The remarkable rollout reflects new confidence in Palin by her handlers, who initially had suggested it would be a while before she did interviews. Now, there will be several.

Until now, Palin has been "sequestered," as Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.), her Democratic counterpart, put it on NBC's "Meet the Press" — delivering rousing speeches, but not giving interviews or holding news conferences or answering questions on the fly. She was the only one of the four national candidates not to appear on a Sunday show this weekend.

“Once you start, you don’t stop,” a Republican official said with a chuckle. “That doesn’t mean you run the faucet on high. But once you turn it on, you don’t really ever turn it off.”
See Also

* 7 things to watch as the fall race kicks off
* Obama revives anti-Kerry line
* Obama: Palin 'can't just reinvent' self
* McCain surges off convention bounce

The strategy carries risk. ABC is war-gaming tough questions – not gotchas, but some requiring policy knowledge — with the thoroughness that a network prepares for a debate.

The remarkable offer to ABC, made last Friday, is part of an ambitious project to sell Palin well beyond the right — to a broad swath of women and independent voters, including former supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

“I see women right at the forefront of that, but not exclusively,” a campaign adviser said.

The official said Gibson will have the chance to “speak to her on 9/11 about her ideas for keeping America safe in the future; to speak to her as she goes back to Wasilla, where she grew up, about her life and her views and her vision for the country.”

Two interviews with Gibson are planned for Thursday, including a conversation about her support for a natural-gas pipeline – a key applause line in her convention speech. Then on Friday, Palin will spend “as much time as both parties need” in Wasilla and Anchorage, the official said. She will fly into Anchorage and then drive to Wasilla.

Palin riveted last week’s Republican National Convention with a witty, rousing speech, and has injected huge excitement into the party’s ticket in the 10 days since Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) named her as his surprise pick for running mate.

“People don’t understand how to cover women politicians in a way that is completely fair and enlightened yet,” the official said. “And somehow, she has managed to transcend that.”

Christian conservatives were immediately thrilled by McCain’s choice, and his events took on new electricity.

Asked to describe her appeal, one official said: “I think she is accessible. I think she is honest. I think she is real, and I think she is fearless. In Alaska, she has been such a target because she has always fought for the interests of her constituents, because they’re her neighbors.”

The campaign adviser said: “She’s just this real, identifiable, approachable, funny, smart woman.”

Officials wouldn’t say how the ABC anchor was chosen. “There were lots of tremendous and credible and fair journalists to choose from,” an aide said. “Somebody had to go first.”

Link

Many on the left were "worried" about the media not having access to Palin, because they thought that they wouldn't be able to hear what she had to say about the issues (or attack her on what she says).

They can stop worrying now.

 

[44Thrilla]

About time.

 

[soul driver]

I like how the son "voulentarily" joined the army after given a choice of facing a jail sentence or joining the army.

"Four teenagers arrested in Mat-Su bus vandalism

"Alaska State Troopers on Monday arrested four young men suspected of vandalizing buses in the Mat-Su School District last week.

"Three of the four suspects are charged as juveniles. A 16-year-old and two 17-year-olds were arrested at their homes and taken to the Mat-Su Youth Facility.

"Eighteen-year-old Deryck Harris was also arrested at his home and taken to Mat-Su pretrial, where he was charged as an adult.

"Troopers spokesman Greg Wilkinson says all four have been charged with criminal mischief, trespassing and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief.

"The 16-year-old suspect also is charged with theft and furnishing alcohol to a minor. Police allege he stole a bottle of vodka from a local liquor store the night of the vandalism and supplied it to the group.
---
"Vandals last Tuesday removed valve stems from the tires from nearly half the district's bus fleet.

"Troopers say 69 tires were deflated on more than 40 buses.

"Also, engine block heaters had been unplugged on 110 buses, preventing them from starting in the sub-zero temperatures.

"The damage forced school officials to close 31 of the district's 36 schools."

 

[Real]

I like how the son "voulentarily" joined the army after given a choice of facing a jail sentence or joining the army.

601-210 Army Regulations, paragraph 4-32

All offenses, regardless of their outcome or place of offense (includes crimes committed outside the United
States) will be listed on SF 86. A person arrested, cited, charged, or held for an offense or offenses and allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense will list the original charges and also the lesser offense to which a plea of guilty was entered. For example, a person arrested for grand larceny and 2 counts of criminal possession of stolen property pled guilty to 2 counts of criminal possession of stolen property, value of less than $500. In this example, the applicant requires a misdemeanor waiver. However, waiver is not needed if an arrest or questioning does not result in referral of charges, or if charges are dismissed without a conviction or other adverse disposition. Incident must be listed on SF 86. Waiver is not authorized if a criminal or juvenile court charge is pending or if such a charge was dismissed or dropped at any stage of the court proceedings on condition that the offender enlists in a military service.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r601_210.pdf

He wasn't given a choice of jail or the army.

 

[Master Shake]

Nothing off limits? Even her daughter? Oh wait...

 

[ToddMacCulloch11]

Nothing off limits? Even her daughter? Oh wait...

I'm sure it's nothing is off limits as long as it is on the list that was given to them with topics they can touch on.

 

[Master Shake]

I'm sure it's nothing is off limits as long as it is on the list that was given to them with topics they can touch on.

That wasn't the joke...

 

[44Thrilla]

Just watched the first segment. Gibson really confused her on his question about the Bush doctrine, it sounded like she didn't know what the hell he was talking about. She had the deer in the headlights look going on.

And when he asked whether or not she felt it was alright for the US to move into Pakistan without permission, she refused to give a yes or no answer.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just watched the first segment. Gibson really confused her on his question about the Bush doctrine, it sounded like she didn't know what the hell he was talking about. She had the deer in the headlights look going on.

And when he asked whether or not she felt it was alright for the US to move into Pakistan without permission, she refused to give a yes or no answer.

Do you think it is alright for the US to move into Pakistan without permission?

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

Link to the video?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm watching it for the first time. She's clearly not a foreign policy expert, but neither was Clinton. The editing job by ABC is botched pretty badly, it'd be nice to actually hear her answer the questions in her own words fully.

 

[44Thrilla]

The editing job by ABC is botched pretty badly, it'd be nice to actually hear her answer the questions in her own words fully.

I think it was less than an hour between the conclusion of the interview and time it began to air.

 

[Denny Crane]

Right. My idea of a quality interview is the interviewer asks a short question and lets the person being interviewed speak for 5 minutes.

From what I saw, she was asked dozens of questions, and maybe choked on the one about the Bush Doctrine. When explained to her, her answer was fine and consistent with her position on Israel.

 

[Dumpy]

Right. My idea of a quality interview is the interviewer asks a short question and lets the person being interviewed speak for 5 minutes.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, you would then agree that Bill O'Reilly is not a quality interviewer?

 

[Denny Crane]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, you would then agree that Bill O'Reilly is not a quality interviewer?

No, he's not. His ego is so large he thinks he's the story. I did see Obama on O'Reilly's show, and at least they didn't edit his responses to basically one sentence.

 

[Dumpy]

No, he's not. His ego is so large he thinks he's the story. I did see Obama on O'Reilly's show, and at least they didn't edit his responses to basically one sentence.

It is frustrating watching him. He asks some pointed questions, but he doesn't give his subject a chance to fully respond, and he cuts them off if he doesn't agree with the response. Sometimes I try to watch him, because I like to see what people of all political beliefs stand for, but I just end up angry. In many ways, his style immitates that on shows like "crossfire," but at least they couch themselves as a "debate" show, so maybe they deserve more leeway. The fact that O'Reilly uses every opportunity to hawk his book demonstrates that he is just about himself. I personally think that it is unethical for him to ask people to buy his book while he is working on the air and getting paid by FOX. He should be doing that on his own time.

 

[DennisRodman]

The only person that deserves Bill O'Reilly's time for an interview is himself. I mean anyone else, is a waste of time.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is frustrating watching him. He asks some pointed questions, but he doesn't give his subject a chance to fully respond, and he cuts them off if he doesn't agree with the response. Sometimes I try to watch him, because I like to see what people of all political beliefs stand for, but I just end up angry. In many ways, his style immitates that on shows like "crossfire," but at least they couch themselves as a "debate" show, so maybe they deserve more leeway. The fact that O'Reilly uses every opportunity to hawk his book demonstrates that he is just about himself. I personally think that it is unethical for him to ask people to buy his book while he is working on the air and getting paid by FOX. He should be doing that on his own time.

I don't disagree with much of this, except that whatever he's doing is making his ratings sky high. I don't think Fox wants to see him change anything he does.

 

[Denny Crane]

On ABC's overnight news, they showed a much less edited version of the interview, and she came off way better than in the hack edited version. Instead of the interview being 10 minutes of a 20 minute news program that also covered Ike, it was several segments separated by commercials. I wonder if people will get to see the better edited version; they'll have to show it at a time when people aren't mostly asleep...

 

[Dumpy]

I am very skeptical about Sarah Palin, and it has nothing to do with "experience." I think that the experience issue is a red herring. Really, who has expereince to be president except a former president? It is nearly impossible to get the requisite foreign policy knowledge and experience, and that shouldn't be a prerequisite be being president. You have aids and experts that brief and advise you, and in most situations you will use a career diplomat to handle complex and difficult negotiations. All I really care about (on that front) is that the candidate shows that he or she can make difficult desicions (as opposed to just weighing the various options indefinitely) and can serve as the executive administrator of a large organization. [however, it is also improtant to me that a candidate not be so resolute and determined that he or she prejudges an issue, and that's that] Obama has no more "relevant" experience than Palin does--and Obama has no less than Abraham Lincoln did. If you did a study comparing the consensus top and botton ten-15 presidents with their experience entering their term(s) in office, I suspect that you will find absolutely no correlation whatsoever between performance and experience.

So that's not why I'm skeptical of Sarah Palin. I'm skeptical because I see her as nothing more than a prop--just entertainment, really. I see her as misdirection from the issues in the way that a magician misdirects the audience when performing a trick. I see that her publicly stated positions on the issues is limited enough so that no one really knows how she stands on most of the issues. I see that she did not meet with the press until she had been thoroughly briefed on "her" positions. This is similar to the Republic strategy in nominating supreme court justices with limited judicial experience, so no one really knows how they may rule on hot-button issues.

Sarah Palin may turn out to be a strong politician. She may turn out to be the "future" of the Republican Party. Right now, though, I see her as the invention of a political machine who we know nothing about.

I think that the Democrats are spending too much time worried about her, to be honest. I think the Democrats win on the issues, and the Republicans will try to make this election about anything but the issues. Critiquing Palin just takes the Democrats off their message. In my view, they have to just say, look, Sarah Palin would probably be a capable V.P., even though we don't know much about her. That said, this is why you should vote for us. You should vote for us because the economy sucks; government agencies have been gutted and their decision making process has not been transparent. You should vote for us because our foreign policy decisions have been horrible, and the rest of the world hates us, which has made it difficult to create an alliance even when dealing with issues like Iraq and Iran. You should vote for us because John McCain is no longer the "maverick" he was five or ten years ago, but is now surrounded by handlers that are either career lobbyists or were high ranking officials in Bush's administration--and that, therefore, his administration is likely to be a continuation of the Bush administration. You should vote for us because the Bush administration has attempted to hide their decision-making process--possibly violating laws in the process--and that the government belongs to the people and should be open. You should vote for us because the Department of Homeland Security (created by President Bush) is a disaster, and the DOJ (and possibly other government departments and agencies) has vetted job applicants for career positions on the basis of their political affiliation. etc., etc., etc. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work. But Sarah Palin should be marginalized, and the only way to do that is to effectively ignore her.

 

[Denny Crane]

Dumpy, you're right and you're wrong.

Everything you wrote is probably right, I don't find fault with a thing.

What's wrong about it is it is the kind of strategic thinking that's lost Democrats their presidential elections all along.

The appeals are to the base, and probably only to the hard core base at that. In fact, it is the kinds of things Obama's been saying as his ratings in the polls have declined. GW Bush isn't running for a 3rd term!

What he probably needs to do is take up McCain on all those debates so people can see the two side by side. He needs to focus on 3 to 5 ideas and promote those so we're not inundated with a bunch of policy wonk speak. Any more than that, and people can't get their head around it all. He might have to introduce additional people as those who'd fill some of his cabinet spots, so people would feel comfortable with what his administration would look like. And perhaps most importantly, he's got to change the perception that he's elite and destined to be president and the next Kennedy - few of us resemble the Kennedys when we pay our bills. The inevitable thing didn't work for Hillary.

It might not hurt if Biden came up with a sudden illness and had to withdraw so he could conveniently get Hillary on the ticket.

 

[Dumpy]

Dumpy, you're right and you're wrong.

Everything you wrote is probably right, I don't find fault with a thing.

What's wrong about it is it is the kind of strategic thinking that's lost Democrats their presidential elections all along.

The appeals are to the base, and probably only to the hard core base at that. In fact, it is the kinds of things Obama's been saying as his ratings in the polls have declined. GW Bush isn't running for a 3rd term!

What he probably needs to do is take up McCain on all those debates so people can see the two side by side. He needs to focus on 3 to 5 ideas and promote those so we're not inundated with a bunch of policy wonk speak. Any more than that, and people can't get their head around it all. He might have to introduce additional people as those who'd fill some of his cabinet spots, so people would feel comfortable with what his administration would look like. And perhaps most importantly, he's got to change the perception that he's elite and destined to be president and the next Kennedy - few of us resemble the Kennedys when we pay our bills. The inevitable thing didn't work for Hillary.

It might not hurt if Biden came up with a sudden illness and had to withdraw so he could conveniently get Hillary on the ticket.

You're probably right on the three-to-five idea thing. The debates will be interesting, especially to see how McCain describes his policies and couches them in a way that is different from President Bush. Jon Stewart ran this great little clip after McCain's acceptance speech, where he juxtaposed McCain's calls for change against what George W. said in HIS acceptance speech eight years ago. They were nearly identical.

BTW, the thought of Hillary on the ticket disgusts me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama needs to figure out what to do, and fast. There's not that much time left. His campaign right now is in free fall mode and is on the verge of imploding and taking out the Democrats down the ticket with him. No one poll means that much, but a steady drip drip drip of bad poll news does affect the brand in the minds of the voters. There's no immediate turnaround kind of thing that can be done, it's likely to take a week or even two to get traction.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

McCain now attracts 48% of the vote while Obama earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 49%, Obama 46%. Yesterday, the candidates were tied (see recent daily results). Tracking Poll results are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day and a FREE daily e-mail updateis available.



It is unusual to find a three-point jump in one day on the tracking poll. Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Today’s gain for McCain comes partly from a good night of polling last night and partly from the fact that a good night for Obama on Monday is no longer part of the sample.
McCain leads by fourteen points among men while Obama holds an eight point advantage among women. Obama has the edge among voters under 40 while McCain leads among older voters. Premium Members can see tracking results first and review demographic crosstabs. Learn More.


Polling released earlier today shows McCain gaining ground in the traditionally blue state of Washington. Obama’s lead is down to just two percentage points. Rasmussen Markets data now shows gave McCain to be a slight favorite for victory in November. These figures are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants and currently give McCain a 52.6 %<script type="text/javascript">contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68255;node_id = 9656 + "_" + 8075;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request();</script> chance of victory. Expectations for Obama are at 46.9<script type="text/javascript">contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68256;node_id = 9654 + "_" + 6903;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request();</script> %. Prior to this past week, expectations for a Democratic victory had generally been in the 60% range.

McCain being up in the market means people are selling Obama and have much lower expectations for him winning than they did a week or two ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

As for Hillary on the ticket, I have zero like for the woman, but....

Nixon held his nose and took LBJ on the ticket and eeked out a win in 1960. Reagan held his nose and took GHW Bush on the ticket and overcame a huge summertime lead in the polls to win in 1960. Clinton held his nose and took Al Bore on the ticket (Gore, you may remember, raised Whitewater and otherwise forced the Clinton team to get its Bimbo Patrol team put together).

 

[porky88]

Obama needs to figure out what to do, and fast. There's not that much time left. His campaign right now is in free fall mode and is on the verge of imploding and taking out the Democrats down the ticket with him. No one poll means that much, but a steady drip drip drip of bad poll news does affect the brand in the minds of the voters. There's no immediate turnaround kind of thing that can be done, it's likely to take a week or even two to get traction.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

McCain being up in the market means people are selling Obama and have much lower expectations for him winning than they did a week or two ago.

Obama should be down in the polls for the rest of the month and he will. Normally the convention that goes second usually holds onto the lead for the next month up until the debates. I think it's really premature to say Obama's campaign is on the verge of imploding when the debates haven't happen yet and that's usually the most important political event leading up to the election. If he's down in October then it's panic time for the democratic party.

I've been following state by state polling for the last month in a half. The map has always been in Obama's favor and it really still is even though McCain is starting to gain ground. The only thing his convention has done for the electoral college is take states like Georgia, North Carolina, Montana, and South Dakota and make them a strong republican states instead of just leaning republican. He's also gained a lot in the south where he was going to probably win know matter what. McCain has done a good job of bring home his base.

Obama hasn't done that yet in two key states, although Pennsylvania and Michigan are still leaning his way and he probably will win but he will have to spend money which he as a lot of and time which he probably would rather spend in a state like Ohio or Colorado.

Right now you have Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, and New Hampshire all toss ups. Although NM and NV are leaning one way. NM to Obama and NV to McCain but both are in the margin of error in most polling.

The more this map takes shape the more McCain's path is like Bush's in 2000 where as Obama has quite a few roads to victory. Win Ohio or Florida or Virginia and he probably wins. I think VA and FL are probably McCain's to lose though. Win Colorado and make it a tie or win Colorado and NH.

Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and even Virginia are so close that they'll go either way at this pint. I do kind of think Virginia will start to lean McCain as we get closer to the election though.

My point being from a electoral map perspective, this is as close as 2000.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sounds like "whoever wins 2 of 3 of PA, OH, and FL wins."

Where have we heard that before?

 

[soul driver]

that's all the politics are about, these days. the parties know which states they are going to win, which they are going to loose, and which they have to fight for. as long as they get their 51%, that's all they care about.

 

[Dumpy]

that's all the politics are about, these days. the parties know which states they are going to win, which they are going to loose, and which they have to fight for. as long as they get their 51%, that's all they care about.

It is partly because, more than ever, americans are choosing to live in the same areas with people who share their beliefs. Neighborhoods, cities, metro areas, and even in some instances entire states heavily lean one way or the other. Fifty years ago, all or mostly all states could be considered toss-ups, either because there were an equal number of democrats and republicans, or just because the independents and undecideds outweighed those taht had already made up their minds in advance. So, for instance, a republican spending money in Maryland or a democrat spending money in Idaho is just a waste of time now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Redistricting.