Palin: pretty, charming, and 1/4" deep

[eves_adam]

It's pretty much a given that Palin is Mccain's gift to right wing extremists. The sad thing for Mccain is, Palin is going to get eaten alive on the national stage when she is "quizzed" further on politics outside of juneau, alaska.

Quite ironic that "Sarah" the "Barracuda" will be the one eaten alive. And it will be very pathetic indeed watching her resort to the "evil media" excuse as a cover for her own ignorance. Let the games begin indeed....

 

[MrJim]

It's pretty much a given that Palin is Mccain's gift to right wing extremists. The sad thing for Mccain is, Palin is going to get eaten alive on the national stage when she is "quizzed" further on politics outside of juneau, alaska.

Quite ironic that "Sarah" the "Barracuda" will be the one eaten alive. And it will be very pathetic indeed watching her resort to the "evil media" excuse as a cover for her own ignorance. Let the games begin indeed....

And Obama is the gift to you left wing extremists

I just finished the interview~she did very well. Again, someone produce the same withering interview with Obama by that condescending arrogant punk Gibson. DO IT

 

[Cabal]

Did Gibson work over Obama about his experience? He is being a media punk~please, someone produce these same "experience" questions with the same punk attitude to His Lorship Obama.

Well given that Obama's experience has allowed him to be able to vaguely answer a question, I think all they need to ask him now is "What is the Bush doctrine?"

I'm sure he knows the answer, too.

 

[MachZer0]

Well given that Obama's experience has allowed him to be able to vaguely answer a question, I think all they need to ask him now is "What is the Bush doctrine?"

I'm sure he knows the answer, too.

Well, he wasn't able to answer the question about when a child is entitled to human rights. He also wasn't able to answer the question about why his tax plan shouldn't be considered income redistribution. Just for starters

 

[MrJim]

Well, he wasn't able to answer the question about when a child is entitled to human rights. He also wasn't able to answer the question about why his tax plan shouldn't be considered income redistribution. Just for starters

...well he had to deal with that paygrade thing..

 

[Cabal]

Well, he wasn't able to answer the question about when a child is entitled to human rights. He also wasn't able to answer the question about why his tax plan shouldn't be considered income redistribution. Just for starters

Not familiar with the second one, but he clarified the first one recently. Either way, he's well ahead of Sarah Palin, who is flunking political interviewing and rhetoric 101....

 

[MachZer0]

Not familiar with the second one, but he clarified the first one recently.

I diodn't hear that. Did he get elevated a pay grade or something

Either way, he's well ahead of Sarah Palin, who is flunking political interviewing and rhetoric 101....

That's because she's giving straight answers

 

[Cabal]

I diodn't hear that. Did he get elevated a pay grade or something

No, he clarified his remarks. Of course, accepting explanations is usually beyond many people.

That's because she's giving straight answers

Is that what they call avoiding the topic and redefining all questions these days (and in one case, not having a notion what you're being asked)?

 

[christalee4]

What is scary about Palin is her intense cronyism and willingness to destroy all those who don't agree with her views. Her background is plagued with scandals and problems, and her political acumen in these intense times in international politics is highly questionable. Why and what on earth? Is McCain that desperate to be elected? Could he have not found a better woman to be his running mate, if indeed he was thinking about having a woman to run alongside him to siphon off Hillary Clinton supporters? It says a lot about McCain's judgement, which is not much to speak about.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm?csp=34

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-the-real-scandal-920803.html

 

[Grizzly]

Well, he wasn't able to answer the question about when a child is entitled to human rights. He also wasn't able to answer the question about why his tax plan shouldn't be considered income redistribution. Just for starters

But he at least understood the questions

 

[Vylo]

That's because she's giving straight answers

She was asked the same question several times, and still wouldn't answer it directly. That's not straight answers.

 

[MachZer0]

But he at least understood the questions

That's Swell. He understood the questions but didn't have the brain power to answer them. Maybe we can work that into a campaign slogan for him. Obama: He may not have answers, but he understands the questions

 

[MachZer0]

She was asked the same question several times, and still wouldn't answer it directly. That's not straight answers.

Which question was that?

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I don't think she's a bad person, but if I was making a short list of who was going to President, she would not be on it. If I had to choose between Palin or Gibson for the VP post, I would choose Charlie Gibson.

I feel like she's trying to sell me a used car with that robotic way of talking with structured hand gestures. When she gets into trouble, she had that annoying way of saying "Charlie" as if to appear personable. She's almost like a South Park character.

Her religious fundamentalism seems to be quite prevalent in her political policies, which I would expect from a fundamentalist, but the country is not a fundamentalist nation.

I'm really just glad I didn't have to hear that Todd Palin is a world class snowmobile champion again.

 

[oldbetang]

yea, Gibson's definition was hilariously like the wiki definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Bush Doctrine? Palin Got It, Gibson Didn't

"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 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.
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, he 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 titled, "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 Congress nine days later, 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 pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not.

MORE...
​

 

[Vylo]

Which question was that?

As best I can quote:

"Do we have the right to cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government."

She implies a "yes", but never comes out and says it. Would it have been so hard to simply say yes?

 

[MachZer0]

As best I can quote:

"Do we have the right to cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government."

She implies a "yes", but never comes out and says it. Would it have been so hard to simply say yes?

Interesting. Obama told O'Reilly it would be wrong for a candidate to tip his/her hand on what may be in the works militarily

 

[Rotator]

Way back on the first page I offered an opinion that she was less than impressive. That was based on a few short clips. Having watched the whole thing now, I think she proved herself superior to Mr. Gibson.

On the ABC News website alone, a plurality of viewers expressed that Charlie Gibson treated Sarah Gibson improperly -- in so many words. With adjectives like "condescending"and "sexist," many viewers back up their observations.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1030538/gibson_palin_interview_features_bush.html

Gibson was pathetic, and Biden should be worried.

 

[MachZer0]

As best I can quote:

"Do we have the right to cross over into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government."

She implies a "yes", but never comes out and says it. Would it have been so hard to simply say yes?

Gibson didn't like Palin's answer so he said

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

She responded

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

Now, apparently, Gibson doesn't know what "whatever it takes" means and he digs down into that condescending tone and says

I got lost in a blizzard of words there

I think that clarifies why people agree that he treated her improperly.

 

[Vylo]

Interesting. Obama told O'Reilly it would be wrong for a candidate to tip his/her hand on what may be in the works militarily

Then she could have just as easily said the same.