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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I am worried about the Palin pick as well, just the lack of experience, and I just don`t know if she can gather a country`s support behind her.

and while I`m worried about Barrack`s experience in the same way, I really feel he has the charisma to draw people behind his cause, which I do think is important.

and I know this election isn`t Barrack vs. Palin, it`s just the parallel of lack of inexperience is brought up a lot.
 
This article does a good job of summarizing my feelings about the two political parties these days. The media as well.

http://www.upi.com/news/issueofthed..._hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/

ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire


By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.

Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.

Palin's assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.

Gibson's aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The focus on Palin's faith and family, as well as the controversy over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment in Virginia earlier this week, confirmed the swift demise of civility in the 2008 presidential campaign. This is especially ironic, as both Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, owed their victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary race and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the GOP one to their perceived inclusive tolerance, uplift and vision compared with their main opponents.

In the long sweep of U.S. political history, the worst dirt that has been thrown at either of the presidential candidates pales compared with the claims that Thomas Jefferson had fathered a child by a black slave in the 1800 campaign -- the newspaper editor who published the accusations eventually was found dead floating in a canal -- or the false claims by Republicans in the 1944 campaign that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was senile. FDR by that point was indeed a dying man, though he did not know it, but he was mentally as sharp as ever.

The context of the increasingly desperate -- and ugly -- attacks on Palin and her alleged lack of experience is that the Obama bandwagon, which swept all before it from the Iowa caucuses through the end of June, is now stalling badly and, even more worrying for the Democrats, the malaise may be spreading to the congressional races.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has the Democrats only 3 points up on the Republicans on the question of which party people would vote for today in their congressional district.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?

Whatever her inexperience and other shortcomings, Palin did not fall into that trap in her ABC interview. At no point did she appear fearful or threatening. Gibson's aggressive questioning on her religion and her son's coming military service in Iraq, by contrast, runs the risks for the Democrats of strengthening support for Palin among working-class, married women, especially those with husbands or sons serving in the military.

The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.

Liberal Democrats predictably will cite the interview as evidence that Palin is not prepared for the vice presidency. Republicans will equally predictably cite it as evidence that she is. How centrist voters will react to it remains to be seen. One thing is clear: This isn't a transformational election on either side. Whoever wins, the ugly old cultural and political divisions in America remain -- and they are deeper than ever.
 
And this one is spin, but it's good spin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

[SIZE=+2]Charlie Gibson's Gaffe[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17
[/SIZE]
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com
 
And oddly, I google for "Bush Doctrine" and I'm not finding a whole lot about pre-emptive war, but rather they talk about the spread of democracy.

This one from Feb 2003, a month before Iraq:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

The Bush Doctrine continues a tradition that can be traced to the Monroe and Truman doctrines. It is an attempt, in a new century and under new strategic circumstances, to "foster a world environment where the American system can survive and flourish," as Paul Nitze put it in 1950, in the famous "NSC 68" memorandum.

Blessed now with a global balance heavily weighted in favor of the United States, the Bush administration has declared itself ready to remove the rogue regimes and terrorists it regards as uniquely dangerous. For Americans, normal power calculations of "threats" and "opportunities" have been colored by an abiding faith in a set of political principles believed to have universal application. Americans have come to regard the exercise of their power as not simply a force for national greatness but for human liberty.<o></o>
 
I don't care if he wants to ask her tough questions, but it's not exactly even handed that they don't ask Obama the same questions, or McCain or Biden.

In retrospect, she aced the first interview with Gibson, even the so-called "deer in the headlight moment."
 
Every day she refused to speak with media, she made her first interview tougher and tougher. She gave the impression that there was something to hide, so Gibson tried to go through as many subjects as possible. If she was open with/comfortable with the media from day one, like Obama, McCain and Biden, then she would have got softballs, too.

She did do okay, but probably because she's been coached by McCain aides since the day she was picked. Had she been interviewed before the convention, it would have a totally different story.
 
I don't know how they could prepare her for hours of interviews on every subject Gibson might ask. That she knew the Bush Doctrine and Gibson with his "gotcha" question didn't know, says something (very much in her favor).
 
I got told by the Obama campaign today to vote absentee in Wisconsin instead of Missouri. That tells me that Wisconsin is tightening up (I think some polls have shown it at 3), and they are giving up on Missouri. Makes quite a bit of sense though, as if he loses Wisconsin, he probably loses the election, and Wisconsin has been decided by less than .4% the last 2 elections, and was the closest state last election.

I think Obama's plan is going to be Kerry States + Iowa + New Mexico is his base. That gives him 264 EV's. Plan 1 is probably Colorado. Plan 2 Virginia or Nevada. Plan 3, Florida or Ohio.

This is another reason why I think Hillary would have been a fantastic pick. When Obama made his pick, it seemed as if there were 264 EV's that were very likely going to go his way. He just needed 6 more. Arkansas is worth 6 EV's, and would have given him the win. I can't see a Clinton losing Arkansas, even as #2 on the ticket, unless McCain had put Huckabee on the ticket, which probably would have suicided his campaign in other important states.

Also, I'm getting tired of this half standard with Sarah Palin. She came off sounding like a buffoon in her ABC interview. She clearly has very little idea of what she is talking about, and just has her buzz words, which she goes into a canned response when she hears them. In addition, what she said about seeming to want to continue the Bush Doctrine, and possibly positioning the United States for a war with Russia was disgusting to me as well.

Wasn't this supposed to be a softball interview for her anyhow? What's she going to do when it is time to come on Meet the Press?
 
I got told by the Obama campaign today to vote absentee in Wisconsin instead of Missouri. That tells me that Wisconsin is tightening up (I think some polls have shown it at 3), and they are giving up on Missouri. Makes quite a bit of sense though, as if he loses Wisconsin, he probably loses the election, and Wisconsin has been decided by less than .4% the last 2 elections, and was the closest state last election.

I think Obama's plan is going to be Kerry States + Iowa + New Mexico is his base. That gives him 264 EV's. Plan 1 is probably Colorado. Plan 2 Virginia or Nevada. Plan 3, Florida or Ohio.

This is another reason why I think Hillary would have been a fantastic pick. When Obama made his pick, it seemed as if there were 264 EV's that were very likely going to go his way. He just needed 6 more. Arkansas is worth 6 EV's, and would have given him the win. I can't see a Clinton losing Arkansas, even as #2 on the ticket, unless McCain had put Huckabee on the ticket, which probably would have suicided his campaign in other important states.

Also, I'm getting tired of this half standard with Sarah Palin. She came off sounding like a buffoon in her ABC interview. She clearly has very little idea of what she is talking about, and just has her buzz words, which she goes into a canned response when she hears them. In addition, what she said about seeming to want to continue the Bush Doctrine, and possibly positioning the United States for a war with Russia was disgusting to me as well.

Wasn't this supposed to be a softball interview for her anyhow? What's she going to do when it is time to come on Meet the Press?

I thought she didn't know enough about foreign policy? Now she wants to start wars with Russia and continue the Bush doctrine?!

There's no better double standard in politics today than the Obama-Palin battle. Obama's surrogates go on MSNBC and the like and question her ability to assume the presidency if God forbid something happened to John McCain, because she's too inexperienced.

It's like these guys got hit in the head a few too many times. And to top it off, I love the answer they give regarding Obama's experience. "He's been tested and tried for the past 20 months." Are these people kidding?

But really, now that I think about it, I think it'd be great for the Obama campaign to talk about experience. I'd welcome that argument. If they go with that and assume a defensive position in this thing, they're going down.
 
Last edited:
No one except a former president really had the type of experience needed to be president.

Perhaps, instead of knocking experience, the Obama campaign should shift to her not having the competence to be president? I think that is probably closer to the truth than the experience argument, although a much harder one to pull off.

I think Obama is just treading water until the first debate, and then from there, his campaign will get their act together. That is when both Clinton's will start being on the campaign trail everyday. But his has campaign really has been piss poor as of late.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top