Palin bombs interview

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm a Republican and I care. I think it is important to have a functional understanding of the core military and foreign policy doctrines we have employed in our relatively short history.

Our leaders should know what the Monroe Doctrine is, the Truman Doctrine, the Bush and Powell Doctrines and some of the other basics. Unless you know something about them you can't put what is in front of you into a larger context.

Now I don't think there is any doubt that McCain knows as much about these things as anyone. But Palin isn't ready to be President. It isn't even like Obama where you have this obviously large intellect that one imagines has absorbed these things quickly as a Senator. I am all done with dumb after GWB. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't pick up immediately that Gibson meant the military doctrine as opposed to his larger foreign policy, but that was very unimpressive. She wil need to redeem herself from that in my eyes.

Were you equally concerned about Bush? He was the most singularly unprepared PRESIDENTIAL candidate in history.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ok, I'm a sucker. I'll give a semi-serious analysis. My thoughts:

1. She seemed nervous to me. She said "Charlie" too often, and sounded a little defensive.

2. She sounded a little canned, like she was trying to make the prepared answers fit the questions.

3. Gibson seemed just a wee bit condescending, though generally fair ... I read one commentator say he seemed like an impatient college president, which seems about right.

4. With the exception of flubbing the Bush Doctrine question, there was nothing really wrong with any of her responses. They weren't stellar, but they weren't bad either, no matter what the opposition says. It was a fairly unremarkable interview actually, much like the latter half of Obama-O'Reilly interview.

5. People seem to continually forget that she's running for the #2 spot, not #1. This will play to McCain's advantage, if Obama and Co. continue to focus on the bottom of the ticket.

My Expectations:

1. This was national security/foreign policy stuff, which she is probably weakest on. As soon as questions move to more familiar territory, I expect her to perform better.

2. This is her first of likely many interviews. I expect she'll be a quick study, and the next will be better than the first. She needs the prep for the VP debate and can use all the exposure to hostile media she can get.

3. People who draw broad conclusions about her intelligence based on a 10-minute interview covering about 6 questions had their minds made up before they watched. They discredit themselves by opening their mouths.

Ohbama with a 'gotcha' agenda in mind? Has any one in the media challenged either Biden or Ohbama with a claim of a 'blizzard' of words........what's your answer?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Were you equally concerned about Bush? He was the most singularly unprepared PRESIDENTIAL candidate in history.

top 3 mistakes he made? How would you have done them differently AT the time. No monday morning quarterbacking please.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by exUte

Let them attack us and kill thousands, then retaliate. I get it.

Who is them, exUte?

Originally Posted by exUte

top 3 mistakes he made? How would you have done them differently AT the time. No monday morning quarterbacking please.

You know Seattle's a Republican, right? Or are you an equal opportunity heckler?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

like Joe Biden:

"But they have assigned a couple of veteran minders to travel with him - David Wilhelm, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, former spokesman for Senator John Kerry. Wade said that Biden's occasional stumbles prove to voters that he is human and that they help them relate to the candidate."

So it's actually a good thing that she stumbles every once in a while. right? And that the voters in general are bumbling idiots? LOL

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

She is certainly going to have to brush up on national security. She can't just run to energy on every single question.

I assume the economy is on tap for part 2 of the interview. That will also be interesting.

experience in foreign policy?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

She is certainly going to have to brush up on national security. She can't just run to energy on every single question.

I assume the economy is on tap for part 2 of the interview. That will also be interesting.

tell us how giving money to those who don't pay taxes will help the economy? Or that raising business taxes will help the economy?

[ERCougar]

Sorry, that's a ridiculous question. It's an obvious trap question and has nothing to do with her ability to be VP or President. She doesn't know what he has in mind when he refers to the "Bush Doctrine"? When I heard that, I thought "huh?". Even the analyst on CNN thought it seemed unfair, as no one has referred to it in those terms since we decided to invade Iraq, and it Bush's foreign policy has certainly evolved since that point. Why not ask the question as "What do you think of preemptive strikes?" Same number of words. Less trapping effect.

I like Matt Damon's commentary and I think we certainly need more info on Sarah Palin. I disagree with him in that I think two months of intensive scrutiny should be sufficient. But this is a silly question, and if this is your litmus test, then Tex is right--you'd already made up your mind. Fortunately, the rest of America is a little more rational and can suspend judgment.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Were you equally concerned about Bush? He was the most singularly unprepared PRESIDENTIAL candidate in history.

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sorry, that's a ridiculous question. It's an obvious trap question and has nothing to do with her ability to be VP or President. She doesn't know what he has in mind when he refers to the "Bush Doctrine"? When I heard that, I thought "huh?". Even the analyst on CNN thought it seemed unfair, as no one has referred to it in those terms since we decided to invade Iraq, and it Bush's foreign policy has certainly evolved since that point. Why not ask the question as "What do you think of preemptive strikes?" Same number of words. Less trapping effect.

I like Matt Damon's commentary and I think we certainly need more info on Sarah Palin. I disagree with him in that I think two months of intensive scrutiny should be sufficient. But this is a silly question, and if this is your litmus test, then Tex is right--you'd already made up your mind. Fortunately, the rest of America is a little more rational and can suspend judgment.

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?