Charlie Crushes Sarah
I’m thinking that “Hockey Mom” isn’t going to play out that well on the world stage.
Governor Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson of ABC News sat down together yesterday for her first interview. The Bush Doctrine? Blank stare. The Iraq War is part of God’s plan? Um, well, isn’t that what Abraham Lincoln said, too?
I wasn’t impressed by Governor Palin’s command of the issues, or her “What’s goin’ on there in Pakistan right now” folksy way of talking about serious issues. In fact, frankly, I’m nervous. Palin came across last night as an idealogue with a very limited view of the world and America’s role in it.
I’m sure Ms. Palin is an engaging dinner guest, but she bombed her first interview. Big time.
Does her poor performance in her first interview reveal anything about her qualifications and intelligence? Is Governor Sarah Palin the Stepford Wife of the Republican Party? Or is the media biased against her? Charlie Gibson asked tough questions last night, but these are the same questions every political candidate gets asked during interviews.
Will the real Sarah Palin please stand up, because I’m starting to worry about what’s hiding under that lipstick.
The Stepford Wife of the Republican Party? That’s a bit harsh. I wasn’t too impressed with her interview, but that’s not all America sees (good or bad, it’s true.) For instance, Obama’s lipstick on a pig comment (though taken out of context) is going to be something that more people hear and take offense to.
Comment by Jill — September 12, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Jill - harsh, but what if it’s true? Seriously. Palin was plucked out of Alaska and thrust in front of us as the Messiah to resurrect John McCain’s presidential bid. Initially, I had a favorable impression of her, even though I disagreed with her politics. But after watching the interviews, I feel pretty strongly that she’s not ready to lead our country.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 7:55 am
it was more than taken out of context. it was a blantant lie. if anyone doesn’t believe me…go ahead and prove it.
ECS, thanks so much for this. I watched that interview and was so glad Mr. Gibson asked the questions he did. It was quite entertaining actually.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 7:59 am
ECS - she doesn’t have to lead the country - she’s the VP.
We’re fortunate in that we’re afforded the right to our individual opinion… I don’t agree with your assessment nor characterization of her responses in the interview. that’s my opinion.
i think she brings a fresh perspective to the broken system and so what if she isn’t as polished as you’d like her to be?
of course the liberal media despises her - they can’t poke fun at Obama no matter how he makes an arse outta himself. Those “reporters” will spin anything in the direction of their choice. Think about it - they’re on the campaign trail gettin drunk, gettin’ up on the hang - reaching for a RedBull and a cold slice. And THEN have to manufacture a story. (whoops - I might have made an overarching generalized statement there while presenting it as fact)
anyway - i need a fresh diet coke.
tgif sisters and brothers!
btw - anyone headed to TOFW in St. Louis this weekend?
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Yeah, ECS, that interview was scary. Way scary.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 12, 2008 @ 8:09 am
Talk about taking things out of context - she never said that the Iraq war is God’s will - she was PRAYING that what our troop would be doing God’s will. And yes, the liberal media is biased against her. It seems that many so-called “feminists” are too.
And as far as the “lipstick” fiasco. I agree that Obama wasn’t referring to Palin. However, his audience obviously whooped and hollared in a way that suggests they perceived a connection. The first thing I thought when I heard the clip was, “ouch!” Let us not forget the broader context - it wasn’t a wise choice of words given Palin’s own lipstick remark a week earlier.
Having said that, I strongly disapprove of McCain’s responding “lipstick slur” ad. I wish Obama would have apologized for any perceived insult and that McCain would have just dropped it.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:09 am
MM, it may be true that she will not have to lead the country, but she may very well be expected to give advice on policy issues (!) Not knowing what the Bush doctrine is suggests that she hasn’t been paying terribly close attention to national politics for a while. That’s disturbing for *anyone* involved in policy-making at any level.
Comment by Kristine — September 12, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Honestly, I don’t know what to make of either her or Obama. On one hand, I do like the idea of change and fresh faces and new ideals for our country, but on the other hand, how will that all play out in office, I’m not too sure. I didn’t see the interview, but I do think a VP should be very in the know about foreign issues, which it sounds like she wasn’t. I’ll have to look for it online. I know I haven’t been impressed with McCain..so I’m up in the air ladies about this one. I really feel like Palin was a little risky political move. Rachel
Comment by Rachel Leavitt — September 12, 2008 @ 8:13 am
can we stop with teh term “liberal media” it’s not true. it doesn’t exist.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:18 am
MM, the VP has three jobs: ceremonially preside in the senate, break tie votes in the senate, and assume the presidency if a vacancy occurs. She’d better be prepared to lead the country.
I generally agree that she’s not prepared for the job, but I’m not really inclined to jump on her for not being familiar with the jargon, not having been familiar with the term Bush Doctrine myself. I’m much more concerned about what she has to say about the subject than whether she knows what to call it.
Comment by Left Field — September 12, 2008 @ 8:18 am
#4 Said, “i think she brings a fresh perspective to the broken system and so what if she isn’t as polished as you’d like her to be?”
How is not understanding the Bush doctrine a fresh perspective or unpolished? It’s just uninformed, which is not an adjective I would like to use to describe our heads of state. I don’t like Dick Cheney much, but he certainly knows what’s going on.
If Palin at least had the courage to represent herself as someone without much experience or understanding, then I could support the idea of her being a fresh face. But she’s trying to have it both ways: playing at being an innocent “unsullied by Washington politics” but also someone with “executive and foreign policy experience.” You honestly don’t find that troubling? That’s not the media saying anything–just Palin’s words and interview responses.
Comment by Bro. Jones — September 12, 2008 @ 8:20 am
#10 I don’t judge you for not knowing what the Bush doctrine is, because you’re not trying to become the second-in-command of our nation. The man or woman who IS trying to become VP had better be a whole lot smarter than you or me about things like foreign policy.
Frankly, I don’t care if either of us know what Bush doctrine is–but the VP better know.
Comment by Bro. Jones — September 12, 2008 @ 8:22 am
this was a highlight for me:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
******
and I saw Canada from a mountain peak in Glacier National Park. I feel special.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:29 am
I think at the heart of my discomfort with Sarah Palin is that she is so adamant that her beliefs and mindset are the right beliefs. She herself admitted that she never “blinked” when John McCain asked her to join his presidential ticket and that she is absolutely ready to take over for him and lead our country should the need arise.
I would have hoped she would have been less dogmatic and a bit more humble in her responses last night. We’ve already had eight years with a president who thinks he is generally infallible and refuses to admit mistakes. Please let us not go down that road again.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 8:30 am
mfranti - Olbermann’s “coverage” of the political conventions (not as an opinon show, but as regular reporting) was certainly biased. The fact that he was pulled from that duty is a pretty clear admittance from MSNBC that there was a problem.
The fact is, many see the media as having an intense liberal bias and outright rooting for Obama. I see things differently from you and will use the term “liberal media” if I wish.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:30 am
because the media, fox new and the like, tell you that the “media is liberal”. I can’t remember the actual term but they (those damned talking “pundits”) use them to get the message out.
where do you get your information? where do you sit and watch /read what’s going on in the elections?
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:32 am
And god bless Olberaman for calling BS during those conventions. It’s about time someone in the press called it what it is…a steaming pile of dukey.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Bro Jones - wouldn’t it be a better more appropriate if Palin was well versed in the McCain doctrine?
mfranti - how can you say there is no liberal media? shoot, the media has a healthy dose of liberal bias comin’ outta their wahzoos. take for instance… and i already acknowledge fmh is not ‘the media’ - but the title for this thread is nothing but bias.
now - let me go put my Palin bumpersticker on my ‘green’ vespa.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 8:35 am
i think it’s important to be aware of the bias in all the sources of information. No source is entirely objective. That said, I’m not interested in comments about whether a particular media outlet is liberal or conservative (which means stop commenting about it).
I am interested, however, in how you view Sarah Palin after the interview last night.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 8:42 am
mfranti - I was simply responding to your declaration that the “liberal media” doesn’t exist. My point is, many, myself included, see things differently.
I don’t appreciate the tone of your last comment.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:43 am
My “your last comment” I mean the one in which you questioned where I get my information.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:44 am
Any chance we can get a McCain supporter to provide their summary of the interview, as a counterpoint?
Comment by queuno — September 12, 2008 @ 8:45 am
I follow current events quite closely, and I’m not sure I could tell you what the Bush doctrine is. (in fact, some quick research indicates that there’s no one, clear, coherent, universally accepted definition to be found.) And Gibson was terribly incorrect when he paraphrased what Sarah Pain had said earlier about Iraq and God.
To be blunt about it, Gibson did a lousy job asking questions. And I say that as someone who would write someone else’s name in if Palin were the only candidate on the ballot.
Comment by Eric — September 12, 2008 @ 8:46 am
I think at the heart of my discomfort with Sarah Palin is that she is so adamant that her beliefs and mindset are the right beliefs.
Isn’t every politician that way?
Well, I guess Obama isn’t, since he’s basically supported the surge once it looked like it was working…
Comment by queuno — September 12, 2008 @ 8:46 am
#18 Considering that whomever wins the Presidency and VP will inherit a nation and world that have functioned under Bush doctrine policies for 7+ years–no, my expectations of Palin (and Biden) to understand it are not any less even though they will be heading up new administrations.
What, you think the new VP will fly to Iraq/Afghanistan/N. Korea/Guam and just hold a press conference saying, “We’re now following the McCain/Obama doctrine, so you have to do what we say and forget the status quo and policies of almost a decade!”
BTW, for anyone who doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is, look it up on Wikipedia. It’s essentially the justification for the War on Terror and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not going to argue over the validity of the doctrine here, but I maintain that any potential leader had better darn well know America’s foreign policy from the past 8 years before I’ll trust them. They don’t need to be able to write a book about it, but they shouldn’t sound like they have no idea what’s going on.
Comment by Bro. Jones — September 12, 2008 @ 8:46 am
#12: I agree that not knowing the jargon of foreign policy is not a good sign for someone wanting to be VP. Now it may be that Palin and I are the only ones on the planet who were not familiar with the expression, but I don’t know that it’s enough of a household term to justify the implication that some (not necessarily here) have expressed that everyone knows the term except her.
Comment by Left Field — September 12, 2008 @ 8:48 am
“…..an idealogue with a very limited view of the world and America’s role in it.” Is this thread about Sarah Palin or President Bush??
Comment by MikeInWeHo — September 12, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Eric and others questioning Palin’s invocation of God to justify the Iraq War, see below:
Notice that Palin backpedals towards the end of this exchange, but Gibson repeated her words verbatim: “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 8:51 am
queuno #24 - No. Not all politicians invoke God to justify their political positions and then keep sticking to their positions long after it’s reasonable to do so. I worry that Governor Palin may do just that.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 8:54 am
ECS - Gibson wasn’t repeating the full context of those words (it was only the last part of the sentence.)
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:54 am
honestly, I would rather have an inexperienced VP then an inexperienced President.
Comment by Chrissy — September 12, 2008 @ 8:56 am
didn’t he show a video clip of her actually making the statement?
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:56 am
#31 I agree, but when the front-runner on the ticket with the inexperienced running mate is 72 and a cancer survivor, we have to weigh the inexperience on both sides. And I’ll take inexperienced but aware/informed over inexperienced and clueless.
Comment by Bro. Jones — September 12, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Haven’t we already discussed adnauseam the entire experienced/not experienced issue?
Palin has experience.
btw - Biden is 66 - at what age are the candidates on death’s door?
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Patti - please verify your comment. I copied the transcript from the ABC website, and I’m certain that if that sentence were incorrect about God supporting the Iraq War, we would have heard about it by now.
For those of you who’d like some positive spin on Gov. Palin’s interview, check this out. I’d love to hear more positive comments, too.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Let me refer you to the LA Time’s coverage of the interview, where Mr. Gibson get some well-deserved criticism:
Comment by Peter LLC — September 12, 2008 @ 9:08 am
ECS-
Patti is right. Look at the full context of the quote:
Again, she’s ont saying the Iraq war
the task of God. She’s only asking that we pray that our leaders are doing the will of God.
I don’t see what is so wrong about this statement.
re: the interview
I don’t have a problem with the substance of any of Palin’s answers, though there were certainly moments of discomfort and many of her answers were coached/scripted as predicted they would be.
Many pundits aren’t finding too much wrong with the responses either.
And can we please stop assuming the imminent death of John McCain? The chance of him dying before his first term is finished is only about 15%.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Tim and Peter - Fair enough. It’s clear from the interview, however, that Gov. Palin supports the Iraq War. Perhaps she believes the Iraq War is not a part of God’s plan or that the Iraq War might not be a part of God’s plan, but I find that unlikely given her unwavering support for it. Don’t you?
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 9:13 am
I agree that Palin supports the Iraq war, as do many conservatives.
I think she hopes it’s God’s plan.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:15 am
I think at the heart of my discomfort with Sarah Palin is that she is so adamant that her beliefs and mindset are the right beliefs.
Does anyone here not think that there own beliefs are the right beliefs? If I suspected that my beliefs were wrong, I think I’d drop them.
So, queno’s discomfort stems from Sarah Palin not thinking that she is wrong. I’d hope any leader would not think they are wrong. If Obama wins, do you think he’ll be acting from a supposition that all he believes is wrong? Or that all that he believes is up in the air in terms of right and wrong? That is not a leader, that is called a modern-day liberal.
My goodness, how far we’ve come.
Comment by sam — September 12, 2008 @ 9:17 am
#33,
Yes, McCain is relatively old. Fair enough. But can we please get past using his cancer against him? The point is that he is a survivor, not currently in treatment. Cancer survivors come in all ages–including those of us who are still too young to run for president! It doesn’t seem fair to disqualify a candidate (and indeed, millions of Americans), based a disease he or she had in the past.
Comment by Melanie2 — September 12, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Palin was a brilliant choice by McCain. No one knows her and so the media went crazy focusing time and attention on learning about her. Out drops Obama from much coverage. With our media addicted citizenry, up goes Palin (McCain) in the polls.
If we–each one us, conservatives especially–are taking the time to research, read, listen and learn about her poliics, policies and actions, we should be very troubled about a VP that could in very real terms become our next President.
If she’s just like you and me, I ask you do you want to be in charge of the safety and security of United States of America during these troubled times?
Comment by Athena II — September 12, 2008 @ 9:33 am
sam - you’re misinterpreting me, although I can understand why. Of course politicians - or anyone - should operate from the assumption that their decisions are the correct decisions. What concerns me, however, is that Governor Palin doesn’t seem to have done the background work necessary for her to hold so adamantly to her beliefs about foreign policy and the role of America in world affairs (including the Iraq War).
All I have heard from her is that she hopes (thanks, Tim and Peter) that the Iraq War is part of God’s Plan. Okay. So? Her inability to convincingly answer basic questions about these issues leaves me with an unreassuring sense that she’s substituting dogma and ideology for her own judgment and experience. Hence my concern about Stepford wifery.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Really guys, really? A few weeks ago there was a big fuss on FOX news when Obama said that even in hindsight he didn’t support the troop surge. Everyone got all pissed and called him unpatriotic etc. and now you’ve decided that he does support the troop surge because he said it ‘worked better than [he] thought it would’ (which is an obvious statement of support and couldn’t possible mean what he says, that is did work better than he thought it would, but still isn’t the best solution, right?), what the hell ya’ll?
Comment by Grrrr. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Hear, hear ECS. It would seem that Matt Damon’s ‘Disney Movie’ remark was somewhat prescient. Can you imagine this person facing down Vladimir Putin? I, too, would want to know more of who she is and what she knows before we hand her the nuclear codes.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 9:41 am
re 40. Does anyone here not think that there own beliefs are the right beliefs? If I suspected that my beliefs were wrong, I think I’d drop them.
Damn straight. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been forced (albiet on occassion kicking and screaming) - by reality, new information, changing conditions, more persuasive arguement, assessment of probably outcomes of behavior based on previous beliefs, discovery or invention of better alternatives to CHANGE MY MIND.
When did it start being considered wimpy to THINK?
When I suspect that my beliefs may be wrong, I consider changing them. I like to call it wisdom and judgement.
Liberalism is recognition that we view our reality from different perspectives, based upon different life experience, education, intelligence, history. Most all Religions recognize, with one word or another, the notion of hubris. Have you never made a mistake? Must be comforting to be born knowing everything.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 12, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Here’s the deal. For better or worse, she is the Governor of Alaska. For the time she was governor, I’m pretty sure the Iraq war was pretty low on her list of priorities and rightfully so. VP’s (save for Cheney) don’t really shape foreign policy. There are two cabinet positions that have much more responsibility than a VP would–Secretary of State and Sec. of Defense. Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal, Crist etc. didn’t have much foreign policy experience either.
I’m willing to cut her some slack on foreign policy as I don’t think it’s much of a factor for a VP. Her domestic issues, energy, etc. is where her strengths lie and I think right now, more americans are worried about those issues more than Iraq.
And don’t give me the “God forbid, if McCain dies she’s the leader of the free world…” line.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Three points only:
1) I watched some of the commentary following the interview, and I forget who it was, but one of the easily recognizable, Democratic commentators was asked about the “Bush Doctrine” question. His response was enlightening. He said, in essence, “Honestly, I am inclined to be very charitable on that one. I cover politics full-time, and my special focus is foreign affairs, but even I don’t use the term ‘the Bush Doctrine’ regularly - and I probably haven’t heard it used in conversation for a few years.” When you get past the question phrased that way and look at her answer to the follow-up explanation Mr. Gibson provided, I didn’t have much problem with that answer.
2) I like Charlie Gibson, but he obviously played fast and loose with some of his questions. That already has been addressed in other comments, so I won’t comment further in this one - other than to say that first impressions are funny animals, since they often aren’t changed by getting the facts later. Journalists know this, and I have a fundamental problem with those who twist words to blindside people, knowing the effect will be a negative first impression. I hate it when conservatives do it to liberals, when liberals do it to conservatives, when moderates do it to either conservatives or liberals, etc. Given that most of the issues that are being brought up with regard to Palin’s answers to Gibson’s tweaked questions, I think she did well rather than badly overall - disregarding the actual content of her answers and focusing solely on how she handled the interview itself.
3) In interviews like these, people on both sides are going to see whatever they expect to see - meaning the interview probably convinced just about everyone that their perception prior to the interview was validated by the interview. Personally, I thought she did a very good job with some answers, a pretty bad job on one or two, and was adequate with most - exactly how I’ve felt after watching almost every interview with almost every politician over the last 30 years or so. That probably proves my point, since that’s basically what I expected.
I didn’t see her come out of it with a crushing victory, but I also didn’t see a crushing defeat. I think the title of this post also tends to prove my last point about expectations.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 9:43 am
No, but I can imagine McCain doing it.
I don’t think many people thought President Clinton from hick Arkansas could do it.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Isn’t it amazing at how willing we all are to cross party lines in our analysis of how well Palin did? Thanks Mary Magdalene, Tim et al for the GOP, as well as the well-established FMH dems.
As usual I am the steady Pole Star of objectivity, and I say she looked like an idiot at times, Christian nutbar at others, and polished politician at others.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 9:47 am
I think Charlie Gibson was the one in the no-win situation.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:48 am
I don’t want to derail the thread but i told ecs that if a incorrect statement appears about he candidates, i will correct it.
Queno. please check your statements.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Ray, fair point about the title. I do agree that Charlie Gibson could have been a titch more friendly towards Gov. Palin during the interview. He looked annoyed and pissed off through most of their conversation.
I don’t, however, believe the substance of her answers was any more impressive than the way she presented herself during the interview.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Anyone who thinks Battlestar Gallactica is the greatest show ever is not objective.
And I agree with your overall analysis though she looked more uninformed than an idiot.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:52 am
The Iraq War is part of God’s plan?
Absolutely true, provided you spell God with a B-U-S-H.
Comment by Mark N. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:52 am
#50 - everyone is welcome to pontificate here under the illusion of objectivity. Sinners, all.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Word up No. 55.
Tim, BSG is not the greatest show ever, your typos notwithstanding. That would be The Wire.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 9:54 am
#42 - Athena, your last question is the main reason lots of people are concerned about voting for Obama. They don’t have any confidence in how he would react as Commander-in-Chief if, for example, Russia got ultra-aggressive again in Georgia and our NATO promises came into play. Each concern about Palin’s lack of experience fits Obama perfectly. That’s why I keep saying this election needs to be about the issues without regard to experience for the Democrats to speak from a position of strength. They look like hypocrites arguing that experience is important for a VP when their Pres. candidate effectively has none that is any better than hers.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 9:56 am
my name is mfranti and i approve this message.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I hate to say it, but I may be developing a man-crush… for Ray. He consistently is a voice of reason on these blogs.
I wasn’t overwhelmed by what I saw of Palin, but she did fine. While all the other candidates have had a year to refine their answers, she’s had a couple of weeks. It wasn’t great, and it wasn’t terrible (contrary to the liberal and conservative hyperventilating on the net and news).
I like her personality a lot, but she could definitely develop some solid policy positions. Her strengths right now are values and domestic issues, such as drilling for oil and gas. I actually don’t care if she has foreign policy experience yet, as long as she shows she can grasp the issues quickly as the campaign continues.
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 9:58 am
“I hate to say it, but I may be developing a man-crush… for Ray. ”
How is that a “man-crush”?
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 9:59 am
I think it might be more fair to judge her after today’s interview which will focus on these issues.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 10:00 am
The Bush doctrine, in case you missed the last 8 years, is that you get to attack a country because you think it is beginning to look threatening. It’s official name is “Preemptive war,” and was first used prior 9/11 in justifying the missle defense shield. This was also the justification for attacking Iraq. We now know completely phony, drummed up by some alcoholic taxi driver named “curveball” and Ahmed Chalabi, for those of you not paying attention (I’m looking at you, liberal media) and resulted in us invading oops! how embarrassing! the wrong country, after 9/11. It is especially super duper important right now, because of the tensions between Russia and Georgia, the breakaway republic of South Ossetia that never wanted to be a part of Georgia, the Oil pipeline (got that, OIL PIPELINE?????) that runs through South Ossetia, Georgia’s application for NATO membership (this is itself deeply problematic for reasons that Biden could go on for weeks about), and the Missle defense shield we just installed in Poland, infuriating Putin, a leader who, deep sigh, is not an incompetent nitwit. Now I know all that pretty much off the top of my head. Yay me. I’m no one in particular. Is it too much to ask the person who is second in line FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE FRIGGIN U S OF A to have some clue as to the make up of the world other than that she can see Russia from her state? Apparently by your standards, no. I fear for my country.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 10:00 am
#60 - Ouch. I’ll be going to the hospital later today to have them reattached.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Good point. I’m going to go out on limb here and admit my bias. I’m more impressed with someone like Barack Obama who has been educated by the best schools in the world, and who can speak articulately and intelligently about policy issues. Although he may not have “experience”, Obama walks the walk and talks the talk. Governor Palin, on the other hand, isn’t as well educated as Obama, and she talks like the YW leader I had growing up.
Maybe at the end of the day, Gov. Palin is just as “qualified” as Sen. Obama, but I find Sen. Obama’s experience and gravitas more compelling than Gov. Palin’s, and, more importantly, I think Sen. Obama commands the political capital necessary to push his agenda forward.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 10:04 am
ECS, that type of statement means much more than the blanket condemnation of her experience. It would be nice to hear that more often.
Otoh
that comparison needs to be made between Obama and McCain, not Obama and Palin. I think it can be made (and made well), but, again, pitting Obama against Palin only highlights that you’re comparing a Pres. candidate to a VP cnadidate.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 10:17 am
I’m firmly in the Matt Damon camp now. I’m terrified after that interview. We might as well make my mom VP. At least she knows what the Bush doctrine is. McCain is 72 and has had cancer four times. His running-mate needs to be prepared to step into the role of President at any moment. I think the pick was brilliant politically but at the same makes me worried about McCain judgment.
Finally, she “didn’t blink” when asked to be VP? I’m not sure what all her talk of blinking was supposed to mean, but I’d respect her more if she did blink, and more still if she took 30 minutes to consider the offer and discuss it with her family. I would certainly hope that she’d be more inclined to blinking as VP and show some thoughtfulness. It is rare that a VP or Pres needs to make snap judgments. This isn’t football or hockey we’re talking about here.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Ray,
The whole point of the Palin pick was to invite comparisons between Palin and Obama, in order to use attacks (or imaginary attacks) on Palin as an excuse to turn those attacks on Obama. Given that fact comparisons between them are both appropriate and inevitable.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Ray - everyone seems to have forgotten about McCain, no? LOL. I was making the comparison between Palin and Obama on the issue of experience and hypocrisy.
aRJ - wouldn’t it blow your mind if your mom actually could do a better job than some Ivy-League educated, slick talkin’ politician? This is the question I ask myself when I listen to Gov. Palin.
My mom doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, either.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 10:19 am
You forgot to say “God forbid…”
I agree this was the point, or one of them. But don’t you think Obama should avoid those comparison’s?
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 10:22 am
#67 - I agree that McCain intended that comparison to be made. what I’m saying is that Democrats are falling into his plan when they do so. Every time they attack Palin on experience, the Republicans can “turn those attacks on Obama” - as you said.
Why should Democrats do that? Why should they accept McCain’s bait and bite so hard?
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Not to mention Biden.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 10:23 am
What makes you think John McCain could face down Vladimir Putin? McCain was the coddled son of an Admiral. He was a party boy in the airforce that wrecked three planes (and was in two tragic crashes that were not his fault), came home a war hero, resumed being a party boy, ditched his first wife after she was disfigured in an auto accident, and after carrying on with an heiress during the previous marriage for (well, times vary, but the general consensus is a year) then married into SERIOUS money. Like one hundred millon dollars worth. He’’s led a very coddled existence.
Also mysterious footage of a very fit McCain has materialized in Sweden just after he was released by his Viet Cong captors. Make of it what you will.
Obama was the son of a poor single mother who ended up the president of harvard law review. He doesn’t seem to have made a misstep in his life. He chose Joe Biden for his actual foreign policy experience. McCain chose Palin for her, uh, flash value? Compare and contrast.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 10:27 am
“He’’s led a very coddled existence.”
Except for that tiger cage part. But these are quibbles. EXCEPT for the years of agonizing imprisonment in Asian jungles, he has led a very coddled life.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 10:33 am
He was a party boy in the airforce that wrecked three planes (and was in two tragic crashes that were not his fault), came home a war hero, resumed being a party boy, ditched his first wife after she was disfigured in an auto accident, and after carrying on with an heiress during the previous marriage for (well, times vary, but the general consensus is a year) then married into SERIOUS money.
But, other than that, I’m sure he’s a swell guy that we’d all like to have a beer with. If we drank beer.
Comment by Mark N. — September 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
ECS,
I’m happy to admit that I’m an elitist, if by elitist one means thinking an Ivy League education is a good thing. I suppose that having $100 million and who knows how many houses is another type of elitist, and that isn’t the type that I am.
I find it odd that nobody complained about Mitt Romney going to Stanford (though he ended up at the Y) and Harvard and doing well there when he was running. Heaven forbid that we be governed by the elites! Heaven knows that the Texas yokels we’ve had for most of the past 8 years have done a bang-up job on every front.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Yes, McCain started right up where he left off. It doesn’t seem to have taught him anything. He was a POW. He was a hero. That doesn’t make him qualified to be anything but a POW and a hero. SInce then, and before then, he’s led a ridiculously coddled existence.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 10:44 am
Btw, is this now 1000+ comments about Palin on FMH?
Meanwhile, Obama is standing on the sidelines, waving his arms frantically and screaming, “I gave a great speech at MY convention! See me? I’m over here! Please talk to me, not just about me. Pretty please.”
Just saying.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 10:44 am
You mean the Texas yokel whose grandfather was a Senator, whose father was President and who graduated from Yale and Harvard? That guy?
What, exactly, is missing from the life of George W. Bush that you consider necessary to be one of the elite?
Comment by Katie P. — September 12, 2008 @ 10:46 am
“What, exactly, is missing from the life of George W. Bush that you consider necessary to be one of the elite?”
Intelligence.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 12, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Ray (70),
They’re doing it because they think that there are good odds of McCain passing in office and they are scared to death of Palin as President. They simply can’t comprehend how people could be so excited about someone they know so little about.
Honestly I think that the political success of the pick has Democrats frightened, frustrated (how could the voters be soooo stupid?) and lashing out in anger. Which is probably the wrong thing to do at this point.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 10:49 am
The dirty little secret about McCain is that he has a fierce temper. He loses his cool like. that. He’s the last person, other than Palin, you’d want facing down Putin.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Katie P.,
GWB got into those institutions as a legacy and honestly isn’t smart enough to have done so on his own merits. While there he got horrible grades. So yes, I consider him privileged in roughly the same way McCain is. Though McCain might have done even worse at a less rigorous academic institution finishing near the bottom of his class. So again it depends on your definition of elite.
At least Mitt Romney is both privileged and elite. Too bad he didn’t run as a competent moderate rather than as an ideologue.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 10:57 am
#80 - Agreed.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 11:00 am
I’d just like to second a random John’s comment. Romney did make one big misstep. And it fooled no one.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Ok, ECS. I went and watched the interview on youtube. Here are my thoughts:
Yes, her interview did reveal her lack of qualification to become the vice president; she was painfully uninformed and tried to mask it with her folksy, jingoistic patter as well as by pronouncing a few foreign heads of state’s names. That one honestly takes the cake for accomplishments you ought not to look so smug about. My 15 year old can remember and pronounce Russian and Iranian names, just because our President can’t doesn’t mean we should set the bar so low.
HOWEVER, I take serious exception with Gibson’s tone. I hear you asking, is [ARGH- BABY PULLED PLANT OFF SHELF-TBC]
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 12, 2008 @ 11:14 am
And that, dear readers is why the Democrats continue to lose elections. They discount “flyover America,” those Texas yokels, and small-town Americans who bitterly “cling to guns and religion.”
If you want my vote, earn it! Convince me you are right without making assumptions about my intelligence just because I’m from a small town and denigrating my values and beliefs in the process.
The Democrats got it right when they nominated “Bubba” in 1992. He played the part and some Americans bought it (certainly not a majority of Americans as evidenced by the votes cast for Perot and Bush). Why is it so hard for you to hide your disdain for small town Americans now?
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Why is it so hard for you to hide your disdain for small town Americans now?
Because these people are energized by Palin, who they know almost nothing about. Though they probably know more about her now that McCain did when he picked her…
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Well, I’m not voting for Palin for President. I’m holding my nose and voting for McCain. From a conservative standpoint, Palin just makes up for some of his weaknesses and makes him more palatable (which is exactly why he chose her). I am not particularly concerned that she is weak in foreign policy. As someone pointed out, that’s not necessarily her “job” as VP.
The risk of McCain dying and Palin becoming President is very small, but still I would rather that risk than the risk of Obama becoming President, appointing two liberal Supreme Court Justices to replace the two who are waiting for a Democrat in office so they can retire, and all THREE branches of government being controlled by liberal Democrats. No thanks. I’ll take my chances on Palin.
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 11:28 am
I think I actually know more about Palin than about Obama at this point.
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Hey, mfranti, when Gov. Palin said, “I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries,” I would think you Obama supporters would be cheering the fact that she is concerned about maintaining positive relations internationally given “how small our world is.”
Isn’t that what Obama preaches?
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 11:29 am
For those saying you know more about Gov. Palin than Sen. Obama - I take it you haven’t bothered to read Obama’s two books? Or watched any of the Democratic debates? You may know more about Gov. Palin than Sen. Obama, but that’s probably because you weren’t paying attention to the 2008 election before Palin came on the scene.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Stephanie: ditto!
As much “media vetting” as Palin has gotten in the last two weeks, arguably more than Obama has had over the last 19 months, “these people” are still energized about her, because she will be getting preparation for stepping into the role of President if that is necessary as she serves as VP.
Obama’s preparation, if elected, will be just under three months. That’s truly frightening and frustrating!
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Hey Bull Moose, “I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries,” is a completely context-free statement. It means nothing. It’s like saying “A stitch in time saves nine.” Huh? She’s trying to cover up the fact that she is clueless about the world (and apparently incurious, to be so clueless). Not good.
And Stephanie, the fact that you know more about Palin than Obama? Do some reading. You know, stuff on paper, or on the internet? Just sayin’
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 11:36 am
djinn, of course it’s context-free if you ignore the last two words of the sentence: “especially Russia”
How about the context of the next sentence: “We will not repeat a Cold War.”? Does that help you understand the meaning??
Would any answer she could give be good enough for you? Or are you asserting that liberals hold a monopoly on a desire to maintain good relations with former and potential future enemies?
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 11:46 am
The risk of McCain dying and Palin becoming President is very small,
For some definition of very small. Is over 30% “very small”? Of course that is for McCain specifically. Historically only 20% of VPs have had to assume the presidency. I assume you’re a gambler?
I think I actually know more about Palin than about Obama at this point.
Hard to know who to blame for this given that he’s written two books about himself, both widely read.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 11:47 am
#64 “I’m going to go out on limb here and admit my bias.”
Not much of a limb when the whole tree is left leaning. More like firmly attach oneself to the trunk.
Comment by Gilgamesh — September 12, 2008 @ 11:54 am
For those of you who care about such things, if Obama runs against Palin or if Obama spends all his time debating Palin or if the public spends all their time debating Palin, Obama will lose the election.
I’m just sayin.
Comment by John C. — September 12, 2008 @ 11:55 am
I am always curiouys about the visceral reactions people have toward politicians. Whether it’s Mcain, Bush, Clinton (Particularly Hillary) or Palin, I feel the intensity of hatred that is focussed towards relatively unknown personalities (filtered through media) says more about the hater than the hated.
Comment by Gilgamesh — September 12, 2008 @ 11:57 am
And I can’t spell.
Should be “curious” not “curiouys.”
Comment by Gilgamesh — September 12, 2008 @ 11:58 am
John C. - thanks for dropping by to share your pearls of wisdom. Those of us who do care will certainly take note of the sage advice you’ve so graciously bestowed upon us.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 11:59 am
arj and ECS, why is it that to know Obama, we should read his books, i.e. listen to what he tells us; to know Palin however, we have to listen to the 30 lawyers and investigators the DNC sent to Alaska to talk to her political opponents for dirt, but not listen to what she tells us? Doesn’t that strike you as a little hypocritical?
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
John C.,
That would be really cool if they had tag-team debates or something like that:
“Oh no Palin is looking weak against Biden! Her lack of experience is really showing!”
“But wait! McCain is reaching out, she sees his hand and stretches towards it. Yes! She managed to tag him!”
“McCain steps in and drops a ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ on Biden. Biden is clearly confused! Can he get out of this?”
Unfortunately for the American public Obama will debate McCain (repeatedly) and Biden will debate Palin.
Also unfortunate is the fact that Palin probably won’t do many (any?) more real interviews. Maybe Larry King can toss her some softballs. Too bad Russert isn’t around to grill her.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Bull Moose,
I’m sorry, has she written a book? What is she telling us? She’s been in a cocoon for the last two weeks. Now she does an interview and looks unimpressive. We’re listening. Personally I’d love it if there were more interviews so I could learn more.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Bull Moose, the reason the sentence is context free is in the, uh, context of the conversation in which it was elicited, as, I recall, (quickly looks up transcript) into how being able to see Russia from Alaska gave Palin insight into the brewing Russia Georgia problem. She punted. That is, she gave an answer that indicated no knowledge at all about the problem (small world–cliche, everything else in the sentence–cliche) except that, later down in the interview, after some pretty big hints from the interviewer that it might be a really good idea to attack Russia. Wow. Kooleo. Look. I’d love her to be something other than the cheerleader self serving idiot she appears. I love America. It is my country. She may be my Vice President. I feel entirely hopeless. Help. Help.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
The risk of McCain dying and Palin becoming President is very small
I heard somebody state that according to the actuarial tables, McCain has about a 1 in 3 chance of not lasting until a second term.
Pick 2 numbers from 1 to 6, and roll the dice.
Comment by Mark N. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
bullmoose… they did not go digging for dirt as you say.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Um, Stephanie? The Supreme Court is currently a very large majority (7-2) Republican appointees. That’s hardly a branch that’s “controlled by liberal Democrats.”
Even if Justices Stevens and Ginsburg retire (as is speculated they might) and are replaced by President Obama, that will only lessen the gap to 6-3 — that’s twice as many Republican appointees as Democrat appointees.
(See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf for bios of the justices.)
Comment by Kaimi — September 12, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
#60 - Ouch. I’ll be going to the hospital later today to have them reattached.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 10:02 am
My apologies, Ray. I’ve been reading much longer than participating, and in one of my early reads I think I mistook a male contributor for you, and I haven’t read gender-specific posts from you to lose the impression.
Now it’s just a crush.
“Because these people are energized by Palin, who they know almost nothing about.”
Well, we don’t know what she knows, and we don’t know all about her governing style. But we know her through shared experiences (regular family, PTA, special-needs child, smallish town, etc.) These experiences help us connect with her differently than with mere words and speeches. It’s not necessarily better than liking her because we like all her positions, but it’s not necessarily worse, either. It’s another level of connection.
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
her PTA experience is um…lacking.
let me find the source.
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Interesting info. (Biden Releases 10 Years of Personal Tax Info)
Joe and Jill Biden earned $319,853 in 2007. Joe Biden reported $161,708 in income from the U.S. Senate and another $71,000 in royalties for his book, “Promises to Keep.” Jill Biden earned $66,546 at her job at Delaware Technical and Community College, where she teaches English.
McCain’s tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007. According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. Her wealth is estimated by some at $100 million, based on her late father’s Arizona beer distributorship.
Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.”
Palin has not released her 2007 statement yet.
The Obamas’ job-related income was approximately $250K. The other $3.9 million came from royalties from his books.
So, essentially, we have McCain (wealthy by affair and marriage and well off on his own, with an incredible pension), Palin (? - surely well off, but not anywhere near McCain territory), Obama (well off independent of royalties, definitely rich with them - and his wife’s $100K+ part-time job), and Biden (well off, with an incredible pension plan).
We have four people who, minus very early jobs and mother responsibilities, essentially are career politicians. Two of them have extensive national experience; one has very little; one has none. Three have no executive experience; one has local and state executive experience. All four are extremely self-confident and believe they know how to guide and “fix” the country - three of whom are running or have run for President of the US. (Palin is the exception, of course.)
I could go on, but my central point is that “the issues” are all that really separate them. The Democrats would do well, therefore, to run on the issues and the issues only, imo. Every other tack they take can be turned around and used to bite them in the butt.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
#108 “The Supreme Court is currently a very large majority (7-2) Republican appointees.”
Which is not the same as “justices with a conservative judicial philosophy,” which I think Stephanie was referring to.
The judicial philosphy breakdown is usually 4-4. Justice Kennedy is considered a moderate swing vote (confused judicial philosophy). He usually sides with the conservatives, but not always (e.g. abortion, death penalty, etc.)
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
#109 - Adam, now I really am laughing hysterically. I mistyped. I was referencing Steve’s #61 and typed your #60 instead. He cut them off, so I needed to have them reattached. Yeah, I’m male.
Sorry for the confusion, but thanks for the laugh. It was a good break.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Adam E. - Kennedy is firmly in the conservative majority when it comes to abortion. See Gonzales v. Carhart.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
#110 mfranti:
I may be able to save you the time:
I don’t cite the PTA experience to prove executive experience, rather shared experience. More parents can relate to someone who wanted to help their kids’ education by joining the PTA than by joining the state legislature.
The legislature provides good political experience (as does the PTA, I’m sure), but the PTA provides a connection for people to identify with Palen.
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
and i realize i let the plane crash numbers slip by.
to be fair to mr. mmcain…
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Thanks, m!
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Ray,
And one we really know very little about.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
#114
ECS, Gonzales dealt with “partial birth abortion,” where a fetus is partially born and then “terminated.” In other types of abortion, Kennedy has upheld abortion as a constitutional right. (Hence the “moderate” title)
See PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL.
505 U.S. 833(1992)
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
That’s correct.
However, Stephanie’s broader assertion — that an Obama victory would result in control of the judicial branch by liberal democrats — is still off base.
Both justices who are speculated to be retiring soon are from the liberal wing of the court. A President Obama would appoint two replacements for two retiring liberal justices, thus maintaining the status quo — a conservative-leaning, but mostly balanced, court.
On the other hand, a President McCain would strongly change the existing configuration. If he appoints conservative justices (as he’s said he will), the court will swing to 6 conservative justices, 2 liberals, and one conservative-leaning moderate.
This would likely result in big changes. The rolling back of Roe v. Wade, for one. And possibly the rolling back of Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene, and other decisions.
So yeah, on courts, a vote for Obama is a vote for maintaining the current, uneasy status quo. A vote for McCain is a vote for a substantial swing to the right.
Comment by Kaimi — September 12, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Adam, Kennedy’s recent court opinion in Carhart indicates his willingness to restrict abortion past the limits articulated in Casey and Stenberg (the 2000 partial birth abortion case). If you’d like to debate this point further, email me at fmhecs at gmail dot com.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
This conversation about judges may have been a bit of a thread-jack, but I do think it is very important this election. The House and Senate will likely be liberal, possibly filibuster-proof. If the president is liberal, the Supreme Court will soon be liberal, because the Senate wouldn’t let Obama appoint moderates.
Three liberal branches of government would definitely bring “change.” But it’s not change some of us hope for. I like Obama, but I want judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, so I can vote on controversial issues at a state level rather than having them decided by judges at a federal level. I don’t think Obama would/could give me that chance.
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
If the president is liberal, the Supreme Court will soon be liberal, because the Senate wouldn’t let Obama appoint moderates.
You’re kidding, right?
He’ll be able to appoint just about anyone he wants. Maybe not Robert Bork.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Palin is attacked by the left because she represents the left’s ideal woman, minus the political belief system. She has accomplished exactly what the left has said women can accomplish. They are just steaming inside that she isn’t one of them.
Comment by sam — September 12, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
@107: Somehow I fail to see the difference between digging for dirt and digging into her record and background.
By the way, when passions have cooled, someone really ought to do a post comparing the FMH reaction to Sarah Palin with the FMH reaction to Julie Beck.
Comment by JimD — September 12, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
#118 - I would say two we know very little about - from an objective, voting record standpoint and not just what they say they will do as President/VP. If you eliminate the hyperbole on both sides, I don’t think we really know all that much about Palin or Obama - and I don’t count his books, since there’s little real voting record to back up his claims. Being a good story-teller and orator is a great political plus, but I try to separate that from actual voting records - and those are about equal for these two.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
#78 Right on Ray! Where have the presidential candidates gone?
We are, all of us, so fascinated by the unknown, and beautifully coifed, Palin, we are wasting our 50+ remaining days in trying to figure her out rather than ask McCain and Obama to play hardball with the issues.
But like every new IT girl camera-darling, the media and the American public, (and the blogs ;-), will tire of her, but will it be in time to take a real close look at the presidential candidates?
And I agree with all the Putin comments. She thinks she can play with the boys, because she’s taken a turn with the good ole boys from Alaska?
She hasn’t even met the starting line-up!
Comment by Athena II — September 12, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
JimD,
Is that a reflection of what you think of her background?
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
allow me to react JimD - it will be an awesomely great day when sister beck is released…. I’m thinking of throwing a party and dancing around a small mountain of busted up irons.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Kaimi, you’re right. I overexaggerated there. I would prefer a strong conservative court (which to me really means a strict constitutionalist court) to the “current, uneasy status quo” - particularly if Democrats do have control of both legislative and executive branches of government.
I highly doubt Roe vs. Wade or Lawrence vs. Texas would ever be rolled back.
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
@120: Kaimi, surely you know that the dissenters to Boumediene were SCOTUS’ most conservative justices–Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas?
Comment by JimD — September 12, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
@128: No, ARJ; it’s a reflection on the personal and visceral–bordering on irrational, in some cases–dislike that many of the principals here have expressed for both individuals.
Comment by JimD — September 12, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
JimD,
Exactly. Those four are staying, and McCain has said that he would appoint more like Alito and Roberts.
So you subtract one or two from the majority opinion justices, keep all four dissenters — and next time the issue comes up, it’s 6-3 the other way.
Comment by Kaimi — September 12, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
@129: Q.E.D.
Comment by JimD — September 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
@133: D’oh!
Comment by JimD — September 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
134
yeah…. werd…..
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
This was actually a jab at the media - not a statement of my personal awareness. Personal attacks really aren’t necessary.
Okay, even if the risk of McCain dying is 50% (75%), I’ll still take my chances over Obama.
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
THe odds at McCain making it to his second term is 85%. Making it through a second term in 70%-ish.
I’d feel pretty comfortable that Palin would have enough experience after 4 years as VP.
Democrats are certainly having a hard time with Palin. It’s not what she know, not who she is. It’s what she represents. Obama/Biden criticized her speech for not mentioning “middle class”. What they don’t understand is that Palin is the middle class.
Palin’s salary as mayor was $64,000 (self-reduced from $68,000). Her salary as governor was/is around $82,000. Not sure what Mr. Palin’s salary is working in the oil fields.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
I thought Charlie Gibson did a nice job asking the right questions (no soft balls) but in a very restrained manner.
Palin, though, sounded very combative and defensive in her tone of delivery. She sounded like she felt she was under attack. That is unfortunate. I think it showed either discomfort or insecurity on her part. So I was not impressed.
Comment by ESO — September 12, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
I may be a bit naive, but I agree with Ray that, if Obama wants to win, he should ignore Palin. Maybe it is just me, but I want to vote for someone or something, rather than against someone or something.
Although there have been some very effective negative ads, the classic being LBJ’s “mushroom cloud” against Goldwater, the most effective campaigns are pro-candidate. When Obama’s sole focus was “Yes, we can” and “Change we can believe in,” people loved him. it seems like he’s changed his focus from “Vote for me, and all your dreams will come true” to “I’m not George W Bush.” The whole focus of Kerry’s campaign was “I’m not George W Bush,” and he lost a very winnable campaign.
Arguably, the most effective campaign in modern history was Reagan’s “Morning in America.” it didn’t have that much substance–no more than “Yes, we can”–but people ate it up and he won in a landslide. If Obama really wants my vote, give me a positive reason to do so, not the negative reason of “I’m not Bush.” One reason the Palin pick was so effective is that the Obama campaign, has turned from pro-Obama to anti-Palin.
Comment by CS Eric — September 12, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Obama should really take up McCain’s offer of a series of town hall debates. I’m not sure why he refused.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
I agree that Gibson seemed to have it out for her … but it still doesn’t excuse the fact that she is INEXPERIENCED in the realm of national and worldwide politics. How can she bring change to Washington when she doesn’t even know what the VP does? How can she bring change to Washington when she uses the SAME spin tactics all politicians use (on both sides) to get out of questionable comments they made in the past? She’s a spittin’ image of McCain if I ever saw one. She’s McCain with lipstick.
Comment by Matt — September 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
#109 - Adam, now I really am laughing hysterically. I mistyped. I was referencing Steve’s #61 and typed your #60 instead. He cut them off, so I needed to have them reattached. Yeah, I’m male.
Ray,
I’m glad everything is back where it should be. I was aghast when I thought I had your sex wrong.
Original Post: “Or is the media biased against her?”
Most television and print news is biased against the views Palen holds. That bias seeps into nearly every news story and every news analysis, because deep down, liberals want liberals to succeed and they want to justify their own beliefs. Conversely, liberals want conservatives to… succeed less, and they want to show how conservative views are incorrect. In this, the media is no different than any person on this blog. We are quick to find the faults of our opponents and quick to forgive or overlook the faults of the guys we’re cheering for.
Gibson’s questions were not bad, though, and I didn’t detect any bias in the questions. She can’t complain that he didn’t give her opportunities to show her knowledge and positions.
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
A truly fascinating article on diplomacy.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Palin is set to appear on Hannity and Colmes next week.
Softballs expected.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_is_the_first_real_debate_between.html
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I like Palin. I like Sister Beck too. Just sayin.
Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
mfranti — girl, where is the love?
Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
8 presidents died in office. 4 were assassinated, 4 died of natural causes.
And I’m guessing you would have been fine reelecting FDR even with his health concerns which were far more serious than what McCain has faced.
Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
In other news, for the first time since it became McCain vs. Obama, Obama is behind. That’s all Palin. While I am uncertain whether it can or will last, (doubtful may be a better word, but I am trying to remain politically agnostic) I think from a feminist perspective, it is fairly exciting that even though Hillary lost, The Republican party has been absolutely energized in putting forward it’s lady contender. I know some have called this a cynical move, and I am not a good enough judge of character to make that call. I’d rather be charitable and say that while desperate, it was definitely bold and smart, because it sure has worked, if only for the short term.
Comment by Matt W. — September 12, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Amazing another 146 comments and no one sees that she has been set up. The right wing has been duped as well-again. IF he should be sworn in, dies in office, she may be sworn in but would almost immediately resign. She is not going to be allowed to excercise any kind of power no way no how no matter what. She’s a diversion at best. She’s being made a fool of and doesn’t know it.
Ironicaly if he had chosed a knowledable candidate this would be a difficult choice for a lot of women. Men will vote for McCain knowing that she is going to be dumped post haste. Will another female replace her? Hell no.
Comment by Ruby — September 12, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Wow Ruby, where do you get your info?
Are you in the Illuminatti?
Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
“From a conservative standpoint, Palin just makes up for some of his weaknesses and makes him more palatable (which is exactly why he chose her). I am not particularly concerned that she is weak in foreign policy. As someone pointed out, that’s not necessarily her “job” as VP.
The risk of McCain dying and Palin becoming President is very small, but still I would rather that risk than the risk of Obama becoming President, appointing two liberal Supreme Court Justices to replace the two who are waiting for a Democrat in office so they can retire, and all THREE branches of government being controlled by liberal Democrats. No thanks. I’ll take my chances on Palin.”
Stephanie - I agree with you totally!
Comment by jks — September 12, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Obama and Obama supporters need some change.
Some great advice
Palin did fairly well for a first big interview (check that, mfranti?). You’ll remember that Obama got on TV years ago commending the response to the 1993 WTC bombing by saying that it was good to see the perpetrators locked up in Guantanomo (sp?). In fact, only one was incarcerated, and not at that time- he was caught after 9/11. The others died free in other countries.
Maybe it would be more helpful if we made our biases plain- maybe entitle a post “A post to talk about Palin’s bad interview” and bash the Reps. Or “Liberal media=bad”.
Or entitle a comment “I have no facts to argue why such-and-such party is scum, but I have conviction!”
That way we can clear up who is authoritative or objective. And it would, of course, help to be honest.
BTW, latest gallup polls show congressional elections shifting Republican. If we’re going for “change”, that’s a good place to start, Republican or not.
Comment by Nasamomdele — September 12, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
# 151 Ruby,
Wasn’t that sequence of events in a movie?
Comment by Nasamomdele — September 12, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
# 147 Katreena said: I like Palin. I like Sister Beck too. Just sayin.
That’s cool. I can respect that.
Comment by Nasamomdele — September 12, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
The interview gave me that same feeling I used to get when watching the Miss America interview segment. You’d always have at least one girl who had absolutely no idea what was being asked. She did a very good job diverting the question to Charlie, but you can see the panic as the wheels are turning behind her eyes.
There’s no way she’s getting my vote, but I squirmed for her all the same. AWKWARD! It just reminded me of the movie “Miss Congeniality”. The interview went something like this…
“Describe your perfect date.”
“I have to say April 15th. Not too hot, not too cold. You can be comfortable in a light sweater!”
Comment by joyofsix — September 12, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
One of the problems I have with the discussions about Palin is how her sex is being used both for and against her (we should support her because she is a strong female/mother/etc; we shouldn’t support her because she is neglecting her special needs child, etc). It irritates me that the Republicans have chosen an underqualified and vastly inexperienced female rather than selecting one who is qualified or at least competent and ready for the job. I felt the same way with Harriet Meirs. She was set up to fail. She was in no way qualified to be a Supereme Court justice and Bush pulled her out when that was jumped on for her lack of experience and quickly named another white male, ignoring other qualified conservative females.
I feel Palin is being used. While I do not agree with her policies I am happy that there are conservative Republican women succeeding in politics. But her success as a mayor and governor of a (population-wise) small state does not mean she is ready to be Vice President. And nothing I have seen since I first heard her name has changed my initial perception. I watched her interview last night and I was completely unimpressed. I think she is in way over her head and appears to be uninformed about national issues (it doesn’t matter whether me or my mom knows what the Bush Doctrine is, but a Vice Presidential candidate should have some understanding of it). I was not a Hillary Clinton supporter in the primaries (although I did vote for her to be my senator) for a variety of reasons but at least she was qualified for the office for which she was running. I just can’t help but see the Palin nomination as a gimmick, which makes me feel sorry for her because even if she takes office I think she is being set up to fail. And I just don’t want the first woman VP to fail - whether she is a republican or democrat - because it only encourages those who want to push women behind the scenes to point to the failure as a reason not to promote more women.
Comment by soulfusion — September 12, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
#156 - thanks. It’s nice not getting the smackdown for once here.
Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
#158 I have a serious question about this “Bush doctrine” business. Everyone knows (or should know) that Bush has advocated preemptive military strikes against countries that his administration deems a serious threat to our country. But who calls this “the Bush Doctrine”? Maybe I don’t hang out enough on political blogs. Is it widely understood what the term “the Bush Doctrine” means? Is it used by news organizations? academics? Pundits?
If anyone can provide any references, I’d appreciate it. I’m interested where this term came from.
In any event, I’m much more concerned what Palin’s opinion is regarding preemptive military strikes than whether she knows that some people (now, of course, everyone knew it) call the policy of conducting the strikes “the Bush Doctrine.”
Comment by Adam E. — September 12, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Adam… plug those two words into Wiki. It comes right up.
Comment by Chad too — September 12, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Adam,
See here.
It did seem a little like a “Gotcha!” question. It’s been maybe years since I’ve heard that term used though I’m only a moderate observer of politics. Gibson could have easily asked what Palin thought of preemptive wars, etc.
But again, Gibson was in a no-win situation with this interview.
Comment by Tim J — September 12, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Chad too, and that’s what we want Governors of states to be doing, is browsing wikipedia for random political phrases?
No! That’s what people like me should be doing instead of work on Friday afternoo … ahem, nevermind.
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
how’s that? (honest question-no sarcasm at all)
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
WRT to the Bush Doctrine, Palin could have asked Gibson to clarify what he was asking her before she answered. She tried, but Gibson wasn’t helping her out none. What are you supposed to do when you don’t know the answer to the question? She did the best she could.
As an aside, I’m pleased that we’re 164 comments into this thread and the vitriol from both sides has been kept to a dull roar. Thanks!
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
If you like Palin, Gibson was too tough on her. He was too condescending and the “Bush Doctrine” question was a Gotcha! moment.
If you don’t like Palin, you might think he went easy on her or didn’t ask the right questions.
Remember, this was a major get for ABC, and other members of the media are probably quite jealous it went to Gibson.
I’m not saying there isn’t anybody that doesn’t think he was fair, but I wouldn’t envy his position.
Comment by Tim J — September 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Bull Moose, calm yourself. Adam asked a fair question about whether or not people really refer to this as the Bush doctrine and the fair answer is yes, in foreign policy circles it is called the Bush Doctrine and has been since the start.
It is hardly a random political phrase. My point is simply that it’s not an obscurity.
Comment by Chad too — September 12, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
If you look at the transcript the question about the “Bush Doctrine” wasn’t a “gotcha’ moment at all, as Gibson clarified what he meant a couple of question later, she still danced around the question.
Comment by djinn — September 12, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
The reason it could be perceived as a gotcha! question is that there wasn’t really any reason to phrase the question in that manner. It was simply put to prove or disprove how much Palin had been coached.
It was much like the question put to Bush in 2000 about naming the leaders of this country and that. The question itself was sort of meaningless, it was just a test of trivia so to speak.
I personally don’t believe it was a gotcha question, but I understand how some might think so.
Comment by Tim J — September 12, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Chad too, thanks. I’m breathing easier now (rolls eyes). It was a lighthearted response to your quip about wikipedia. Sorry. Next time I’ll set off the sarcasm alert before posting.
Comment by Bull Moose — September 12, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
This all shows how distractable the American public (yes, Ray, you are right - including us) are. Time to do what we can for Obama. Below are some slogans I came up with after leaving a friend who was sobbing, thinking about the complete loss of our country to people we don’t deserve.
Palin - if you think her ideas were bad yesterday, you should have heard them on Tuesday!
McCalin - the American Idol team - not right enough for America
If you think seeing Russia from an island in Alaska constitutes foreign policy experience, then I have a Bridge to Nowhere for you!
Comment by Carolyn — September 12, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
I couldn’t watch much of the interview because my cringing was giving me a headache. I’d say that she did her job well–she talked the talk that makes hard-core Republican hawks happy. She was way too dogmatic for my taste. The thing that I couldn’t stand was her use of Gibson’s name like a curse–she seemed almost sarcastic when she said “In what respect, Charlie?”, or at the least impatient with him. Using someone’s name like that, while I’m sure meant to imply a certain kind of friendliness just jars me. Like everytime McCain says “my friends” in that schmarmy way.
Comment by m — September 12, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
This thread depresses me at least as much as the conversations about Romney on non-LDS political blogs depressed me. No one’s allowed to be just “not as appealing to me as the guy I like” — they have to be dead wrong on everything, the worst thing to happen to this country since the last guy I disagree with got elected, a threat to all that is good and holy about America, and a symbol of why half the population is too stupid to be allowed to live.
What the heck is wrong with all of us?
Comment by Sarah — September 12, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Note also the overwhelming sentiment of “I can’t stand the people running against my guy, so much so that I am physically uncomfortable listening to them talk.” This is not rational discourse, and it’s no basis upon which to decide who ought to be in charge of our country.
Comment by Sarah — September 12, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
As someone who as lived in the Beltway, it’s expected that anyone involved in politics would know what the Bush Doctrine is…kinda like she should know McCarthyism, Reagonomics, Wilsonian foreign policy, or the Bradley effect. If you choose to make politics your career, you should know the jargon for the field you’re in. That didn’t have to be a “gotcha” question if she knew the answer…. Please, please America, don’t put Miss American in the White House. Shame on you McCain for ruining voters chance to have two good tickets.
I want a woman in the white house, but the right woman. Palin will just make it hard on those of us who share her gender.
Comment by Briget — September 12, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Yeah, Sarah, but 300+ comment posts are good for people who own Orville Redenbacher stock.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Ray,
fMh is just mindless entertainment for you. on par with reality t.v., eh?
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
The “Bush Doctrine” questin was clearly a “gotcha” one. After all, which so-called “Bush Doctrine” was Charlie referring to? There are many different ideas that have been called “Bush Doctrine” by the press - the policy of pursuing terrorist nations or nations that harbor terrorists, the policy of pre-emptive strike to prevent terrorism, the promotion of democracy in the middle east as a way to combat terrorism etc..
Even the hailed wikipedia states that:
The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
How was she to know which of the “various principles” Charlie Gibson was referring to in that question.
His condescending tone and irritating way in which he looked down his nose at Gov. Palin really ticked me off.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
#177 - Not at all, mfranti. There are some really profound discussions here. The popcorn is reserved for really long political threads - here and elsewhere. Really, after the first 100 comments, how much new information is discussed on most threads? If you follow and read all #176 comments (and try to remember the gist of what they say), a little popcorn comes in handy.
Reality TV is boring - not at all like this.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Patti,
Like Palin, you seem to get your education from wikipedia. If political science/politics is your career, you know exactly what the “Bush Doctrine” is and you’ve read one of the dozens of books written on it. It’s like asking someone who want to be the head of the American Association of Psychologists what Freud’s Oedipus Complex is and them not knowing exactly to what you’re referring. If you truly know the field in which you work, you have to understand the termonology and policy.
Uneducated people think those who aren’t much smarter are brilliant, those of use who are either/and are well-educated, well-read, or experienced in politics are NOT fooled by Palin.
Comment by Briget — September 12, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
It’s not helpful to characterize Palin supporters as unintelligent, uneducated dupes. I don’t understand why someone could support her as a serious candidate, but I respect others who thoughtfully conclude otherwise.
Comment by ECS — September 12, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
A bit of poking around on the internet (and reading the comments here) confirms that there are a fair number of reasonably informed people out there who were not previously familiar with the term “Bush Doctrine.” That being the case, it would probably behoove Palin critics and Obama supporters (of whom I am one) not to overplay the idea that the term is well-known to everyone except an uninformed rube. This is particularly so if we also imply that unfamiliarity with the term also indicates that a person is unfamiliar with Bush’s policies and does not have an informed opinion on the subject. In the process of criticizing Palin’s qualifications, we could well end up insulting and alienating a good portion of the voting public. That would not be a good campaign strategy to say the least.
The term may well be familiar to those in “foreign policy circles” (#167) and Beltway insiders (#175), and it probably is fair to expect a vice-presidential candidate to be better able than the rest of us to talk the talk. But overplaying Palin’s gaffe (if gaffe it was) has a significant potential to backfire.
Comment by Left Field — September 12, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Hmmm, so it is only the uneduated, unread and inexperienced who will vote for Palin? Briget, hon, this kind of elitist attitude is exactly why people are flocking to Palin. You may be smarter than everyone else, but everyone else doesn’t really want to hear it.
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Thanks Stephanie. Elitists like Briget are not only showing their true colors - they are doing it unashamedly.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Briget, so tell me how wrong Wikipedia is when the man credited with coining the phrase “Bush doctrine” wrote an article about how Charlie Gibson was wrong in his interview? Hmmm…..Those Washinton Post op/ed writers…so uneducated…..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Comment by Amanda — September 12, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Alright - I probably jumped the gun on declaring Briget an elitist, for which I apologize. However, Briget, your comments certainly come across as arrogant and your assumption that anyone who supports Palin is uneducated is hurtful.
Comment by Patti — September 12, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Throughout the interview, I honestly felt bad for her. I think she was doing a good job in Alaska- let’s be honest, culturally and geographically it may as well be a different country, and I mean that in no derogatory terms- where she had her finger on the pulse of what Alaskans wanted. She had an astronomical approval rating. It didn’t matter if she didn’t know about foreign policy, or have opinions on the Iraq war- Alaska was her little country, she was their queen. And she was doing a great job- troopergate and all the scandals aside, I stand by that.
But I just got the feeling that she shouldn’t be in that chair. She shouldn’t have been chosen. I felt that it was unfair to her. I think her career in politics was on a completely different, yet still upward trajectory. I believe her when she says she wants to serve her country, and I believe her when she says she didn’t blink when asked.
I just don’t think she should have been asked, and I hate the feeling that McCain and all his camp are just using her. Do you see his body language when he talks about her experience? You can find clip after clip of them all just floundering, making that quote about being close to Russia, or how her executive experience (which they laughed at in Mitt Romney and others) qualifies her. I hate how it reduces her very real accomplishments in such a very large landscape. I hate how it, I’m sorry, very much makes her look unintelligent and unqualified, and I don’t think she is an unintelligent women.
It seemed like taking a capable, effective, engaging, well liked high school civics teacher, plopping him down at Harvard law, asking him to teach a lecture, and then sitting back and smirking when he flubbed it up. This is just my opinion, but I do feel like that’s the tone, and I do feel like they’re just using her, and I think it’s a shame.
Comment by sophia*rising — September 12, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
sophia, best description yet!
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
thanks mfranti - if the “certain death” storm washes me out here in Texas you guys can have that to remember me by
Comment by sophia*rising — September 12, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
are you people watching the second installment?
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
#80 Who said the elite had to be intelligent?
Is the media biased against Palin? I don’t think the media knows quite what to make of her, just as the majority of Americans don’t.
Frankly, I wish there were more time to mull things over. I feel like the election is just going to sneak up on me and I’ll be sitting here still trying to sift through all the disinformation.Asking her to join his ticket was a brilliant political move but it doesn’t make her the right candidate.
Comment by Lupita — September 12, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Of course those who merely mouth talking points miss the fact that McCain was never in the Air Force — he was in the Navy.
The Air Force is not responsible for what Naval Aviators do.
I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 12, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
sophia, I’ve been thinking many of the same thoughts. The more she talks, the more we’re going to realize she’s not ready for this. Biden is going to dismantle her.
Comment by cj douglass — September 12, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Stephen,
clever boy….
Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Okay, what will it take to ruin America’s crush on Palin and get them to see her for who she is- nice person, but not enough experience for VP. Chalie’s “crushing her” doesn’t seem to be what will wake people up. How about the Enquirer story (if proven true by mainstream media) about her affair or son Track’s drug use? They had some pretty good quotes from the article on gawker.com and while I’m skeptical on the affair, the druge use sure had a lot of people eager to talk.
Comment by Mommybee — September 12, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
I just saw this on the AP which clearly shows McCain and Palin are lair and are so bold as to think Americans will believe them—many members of the church are proof they will!
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers’ pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone’s taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.
Comment by Mommybee — September 12, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
#194, if Obama has admitted to drug use himself in high school, why would it affect Palin for her son to have used drugs? And why would the Enquirer be a reliable source of information?
Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
This could apply to any of the candidates. Are you saying that Obama or Biden do not think their beliefs and mindsets are the “right” beliefs? Of course they do! Otherwise, why would you fight for them? I’m always amazed when those on the left consider one of the worst things is for a politician to have set beliefs when all politicians have set beliefs. I know just as many stubborn people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Comment by Joanna — September 12, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
#195 - Mommybee, I hate to tell you this, but that’s old news. She worded everything very carefully, but she didn’t lie about it. It wasn’t “full disclosure”, but it wasn’t a lie. She took the money when it was her job to take it and kept the money when it became obvious it wasn’t politically smart to build the bridge or return the money. Any good politician would have done exactly the same thing.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that really is old news and not a smoking gun.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Yep Sarah was not exactly on point and Barrack is quite smooth. Am I thrilled about either one of them? Come on a guy with 148 days of experience in the Senate who has written no legislation and rarely takes a yes or no stance on either issue. If we were stockholders in a large corporation and we were looking for someone to take charge none of us would say hey what about the person with 3 and a half months of experience. He wrote a couple of good books.
We should be ashamed that we get up in arms about these politicians, They are self serving individuals who care little about this country in my opinion.
Anyone who is in love with any of these candidates has been duped.
Comment by ThomasB — September 12, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
During this time of great excitement my mind is called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness. . . . I often say to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
But then I remember that it’s all a mute point, because I am currently a resident of Utah. Perhaps 2012 will present an answer.
♥
Comment by Blue — September 13, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Joanna - see comment #43.
Comment by ECS — September 13, 2008 @ 5:05 am
Interesting article about the Bush Doctrine from the one who coined the phrase.
Comment by Tim J — September 13, 2008 @ 7:19 am
I’M uneducated, and I support Obama!
Comment by Ann — September 13, 2008 @ 7:33 am
#202 . The NYT’s military correspondent agrees.
Of course I don’t expect for a moment the courtesy of facts, context, or nuance to be given to Ms. Palin by the Obamaphiles. I wouldn’t give it to him
Comment by Bill C. — September 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am
link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/analysis-palin-and-foreign-policy/
Comment by Bill C. — September 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am
I woke up thinking about all of this. Yesterday, I got my hair cut and i was worried about how it was going to look because my hairdresser was in tears at the thought of 4 more years of Repbulicans and not being able to restore the Justice Department, do something real about health care, and have a less elitist administration in DC. Then, I talked to a colleague - well-educated person from a ranching family who couldn’t remember Biden’s name and said he liked McCain/Palin because they were from the West and he just couldn’t ever vote for someone from the East. First time I thought of Chicago, Hawaii, and Kansas as East. Then I talked to a relative who has been a lifetime member of the NRA and is a strong Obama supporter. He said the hate-Obama literature coming out of the NRA was unbelievable. Then one of my students mentioned some terrible fear-mongering letter he’d gotten from the McCain campaign.
So, one of the problems here, I think, and why it is so hard to have a regular discussion, is the level of just plain hate speech that is being generated - really, mostly by people who support McCain or just really hate Democrats/Obama and that most Democrats don’t see or hear. I might be biased, but the level of anti-McCain and even Palin stuff I see is tame by comparison of what I have seen about Obama (and I am sure I haven’t seen the half of it). I know this is a different point than has been being made in this post, but I think it is a real underlying issue in this campaign - as it was in 2000 and 2004, especially.
If the other side thinks that you are cockroaches or worse, how can they seriously consider listening to what you have to say? How do you stop it? Of course, one can start with prayer - but there is a tendancy to want to fight back. I keep thinking about the Amish families whose children were shot and the way they dealt with that. I am sure you have other examples of this sort of thing. I think that is the way I would like to respond - but it takes such self discipline to respond to that with love. Any advice is appreciated.
Comment by Carolyn — September 13, 2008 @ 8:04 am
ThomasB (199), I think you haven’t looked into what you said. Obama worked with Lugar (Republican) to write new anti-proliferation legislation. Here is a list of the bills he developed (apparently 113 were introduced by Obama) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/172059/936. There were so many senators who supported him, I can only take that as an endorsement of the leadership he showed even with only 3 years in the Senate.
The right wingers are getting so many more lies this time - even the media has been talking about it. I know the entire anti-Obama thing is bigger than any of us - and is complexed with a lot of other hate speech, but it seems so difficult to address it because facts don’t seem to have any power against this barrage of lies. Do you just keep walking on the high road, hold your head high, and try to be truthful? I don’t think John McCain is a bad man - he has many good qualities - but his support is so clouded by this hate stuff. Hopefully, there are enough independents who can actually judge things based on facts to get Obama elected. Again, I get a lot of good advice and information from this blog, so I will be looking for ways to think about this.
Comment by Carolyn — September 13, 2008 @ 8:20 am
My Mom still intends to vote Obama/Palin. Myself, I’d kind of like to vote McCain/Biden.
Or Lieberman/Biden, actually.
It could have been worse. (I had someone ask me how, and, I confess, it takes a moment of reflection and research to come up with something worse, but it is possible).
But the real question is who, if any of the candidates can rise to the occasion.
Bottom lies (I meant to type “lines” but typoed and figure I will leave it):
Obama is the voice of Hope
He offers hope and a history of finding excellence from malaise in his own life.
McCain is the voice of Heroism
He offers a history of surviving and heroic endeavor.
Biden is the voice of Experience
He has a lot of experience and endurance.
Palin is the voice of Humanity
People miss that she resonates with a huge section of the population that wants a human candidate.
Weaknesses? Obama has been a typical Chicago politician. Nothing too bad, but nothing crystal clean either. Could he rise to the occasion? No more (or less) than JFK could have.
McCain, typical come home, trade up on his spouse, anger issues. Can he bring it home? No more than FDR could have.
Biden, good family values, got his kid a great job making millions each year as a lobbyist. Second hand graft is what we used to call it, completely legal. Normal political trends toward dishonesty and plagiarism. Could he do the job? No more than LBJ did.
Palin, she is blue collar at heart. Everything that disqualifies her really comes down to the fact that we don’t trust blue collar people to do a white collar job, or a housewife to do anything meaningful.
Can she do the job? That’s the question.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 13, 2008 @ 8:36 am
For some more discussion at Ozarque’s Live Journal:
click here
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 13, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Also:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html
Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 13, 2008 @ 8:44 am
#207. Carolyn,
Consider this– Obama has been running as a post-partisan politician. Obama has been preaching the gospel of unity, working together, and new politics. Now I don’t think anyone’s going to deny that Obama is a nice guy who has shown that he can be amiable enough with Republicans to put together a decent bill. Problem is, Obama has never worked with Republicans on any of the “tough” issues that divide this nation. And that’s the problem when you compare Obama’s rhetoric with his record. He has no history of unity or post-partisanship.
You cite the Lugar-Obama bill, but did you know it passed the Senate with unanimous support? It was so uncontroversial that no one cared to oppose it. You’ll find that all of Obama’s bills are similar in that regard. Nuclear weapons proliferation isn’t what divides this country. Federal databases that track federal spending don’t inspire rabid partisanship. I think we can all agree with Senator Obama that kid’s toys shouldn’t have lead in them.
But where’s the post-partisanship? Where has he taken a stand on a controversial and dividing issue and held true to it, even at the expense of his own party? Believe it or not, I don’t oppose Democrats just because it’s fun (although it is), but because I have real ideological differences with them. Obama hasn’t shown me that he will respect my views and seek a middle ground. Show me where he has compromised on the “wedge” issues of our day! Show me where he has been a leader and taken on a controversial topic that has required him to fight leaders in both parties to reach a solution. Show me where Obama has reached out to Republican colleagues to move a roadblocked piece of legislation forward. Why is the embodiment post-partisanship never a part of those “Gangs” of Senators? Consider that.
Comment by Bill C. — September 13, 2008 @ 8:52 am
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
Comment by Bill C. — September 13, 2008 @ 8:53 am
This was pretty much just an extension of a previous bill (Nunn-Lugar). It gave Obama an opportunity to attach his name to a bill that was going to pass, almost unanimously, without trouble. It was a safe bill for Obama to sponsor.
Obama has also voted with Democrats a startling 97%. That’s the greatest level of partisanship displayed by any senator on either side. So does he review bills or simply find out which way most Democrats are voting and simply agree with them?
Comment by Tim J — September 13, 2008 @ 9:25 am
I can’t get off the “Bush doctrine.” This is the defining doctrine of his career for those of us, like me that have really really been paying attention to the run-up to the Iraq war and to the missle shield defense that is currently going up in Poland — to the total annoyance of Putin.
It is, arguably, the most important legacy of his career.
It is, arguably the most important single fact one should know about McCain. McCain is even more a proponent, saying, in Jan. 6, 2008, no less, that he would have attacked Iraq even if he would have known there were no weapons of destruction. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_would_have_started_Iraq_0106.html.
So, should Palin, even after gentle prodding have known something about it? Should you all?
Comment by djinn — September 13, 2008 @ 9:26 am
I misspoke about Obama being the most partisan.
See here.
He’s pretty close.
Comment by Tim J — September 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Oh, and Stephanie, those “Constitutional Conservatives” on the Supreme Court” are anything but. Ask Kaimi.
Comment by djinn — September 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Sorry about the messed up comments, y’all, I blame myself.
Comment by djinn — September 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am
I can’t believe the level of childish behavior on this thread. #212 grow up, The same can be said of both parties. Why are a bunch of feminist, mormon, not all housewives, unable to have a civil discussion? Arguments can, and have been made, that both sides, can, and have been wrong. Until the entire country can grow up and debate like real adults than our country is indeed doomed. Quit getting your facts from wikipeadia. Even my kids school knows that it is not an accurate reporting agency. They are not allowed to cite it in reports. Vote YOUR conscience, BUT don’t beat ME over the head because I disagree. We all have our reasons for voting the way we do, we are not brainwashed, we are not uneducated, or stupid. WE ALL have to vote the way we feel is best. Name calling and infantile taunts will never change anyones mind. The one thing my dad taught me that is sacred is my ability to vote and the knowledge to research and cast my vote whether I think it counts or not. So lets show our respect for each other and debate the issues, not each others political mindsets and whether we are more righteous than the other.
Comment by pollyjk — September 13, 2008 @ 9:35 am
I guess I spoke too soon. I’m closing comments. Have a great day everyone, and don’t forget to pray for our brothers and sisters in harm’s way in Texas.
Comment by ECS — September 13, 2008 @ 9:53 am