Palin bombs interview

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I was, but I underestimated how important it is. So no, not equally. I may vote for someone in spite of that issue, there may be good reasons on balance to do it. Particularly given the alternatives (Gore and Kerry never tempted me, not remotely). But my point is I have learned something and won't act like inexperience and low IQ is not as important as platform. I just don't any longer believe that.

She'd probably be pleased to compare IQ's with you. I doubt low IQ is a problem for her.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I doubt low IQ is a problem for her.

compared to what standard?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

compared to what standard?

eom

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

And yet, would you not agree that it is enough to cause us to pause from the collective orgasm we have been having as republicans over her and hope that she is better than she seemed on this occasion?

Pause? Yes. Concerned? Not really. I'm just waiting to find out more. I'm much more interested in her ability to gather information and synthesize it to make decisions, not her knowledge of obscure policy designations.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

She'd probably be pleased to compare IQ's with you. I doubt low IQ is a problem for her.

That may be so, but I can guarantee you that with zero preparation I could have given an infinitely more articulate and well reasoned answer to that question. Not a hint of a doubt about it. I'm not saying I think she is stupid, what I am saying that her poor answer here makes me wonder what else she doesn't know and in response to some of the other comments here that it doesn't really matter what she knows, I have said that the GWB experience has taught me otherwise.

I have been excited about her and as I say she get the benefit of the doubt from me. But to act astonished that any one who thought that was a lousy answer that cast her in a poor light already had their mind make up. Well that just isn't true. I'm not drawing broad conclusions yet. But this interview did give me some pause.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Pause? Yes. Concerned? Not really. I'm just waiting to find out more. I'm much more interested in her ability to gather information and synthesize it to make decisions, not her knowledge of obscure policy designations.

who thinks Hilary would have been a better pick for VP than himself.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Pause? Yes. Concerned? Not really. I'm just waiting to find out more. I'm much more interested in her ability to gather information and synthesize it to make decisions, not her knowledge of obscure policy designations.

I haven't heard or read about such a thing as the "Bush doctrine" for ages. I think it's a pejorative term they use in places like the New York Review of Books. Is there really any such thing? Maybe I'm as uninformed as Palin. Silly me.

I think when UtahDan waxes about "the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Bush doctrine," he's just being a wind bag. Like there's a "Bush Doctrine" in the same sense as the other two. It's nonsense, I venture (but I could be wrong). Somebody give me a link where the Bush administration talks about a "Bush doctrine."

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That may be so, but I can guarantee you that with zero preparation I could have given an infinitely more articulate and well reasoned answer to that question. Not a hint of a doubt about it. I'm not saying I think she is stupid, what I am saying that her poor answer here makes me wonder what else she doesn't know and in response to some of the other comments here that it doesn't really matter what she knows, I have said that the GWB experience has taught me otherwise.

I have been excited about her and as I say she get the benefit of the doubt from me. But to act astonished that any one who thought that was a lousy answer that cast her in a poor light already had their mind make up. Well that just isn't true. I'm not drawing broad conclusions yet. But this interview did give me some pause.

You probably could. Although I'm not sure. I can't imagine the exasperation/panic that must have immediately occurred when she was asked about something she was unfamiliar with on national TV. Brain tends to shut off in those types of situations. She'll probably get better at it.

Can we all just wait for some more substantive concerns?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Pause? Yes. Concerned? Not really. I'm just waiting to find out more. I'm much more interested in her ability to gather information and synthesize it to make decisions, not her knowledge of obscure policy designations.

I agree with the first part of what you said but this is not something obscure. This is the doctrine that governed our decision to invade and was the primary lesson that the Bush administration gleaned from 9/11. Not only is that not an unfair obscure question, it is a question that every candidate should have to answer. Did you take the same lessons from 9/11, if not how would you modify that doctrine. This is one of the key issues of our time. Again, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and I want to know more too, but I'm trying to resist what I perceive to be the reflex "eh no big deal" reaction of some.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

You probably could. Although I'm not sure. I can't imagine the exasperation/panic that must have immediately occurred when she was asked about something she was unfamiliar with on national TV. Brain tends to shut off in those types of situations. She'll probably get better at it.

Can we all just wait for some more substantive concerns?

How is foreign policy not substance? Did you listen to her answers? This video is the cheap soundbite but the entire dialogue was a failure, with some answers that truly should, as UD put it, bring pause to any honest, rational voter.

What is it you're wanting? What would it take to prove this woman unprepared? This interview makes me weep for Kay Bailey and Hillary. Seriously.