Precisely. This was not, as apologists using the “well, the phrase refers to an evolving bundle of concepts” excuse would have it, equivalent to:
Teacher: Explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Student: Special Relativity or General Relativity?
It was, in fact, equivalent to:
Teacher: Explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Student: Err… ahhh… ummmm… it was this thing Einstein thought up…
No, nor would a garage mechanic, an English Literature professor, a small business owner, a symphony conductor, a landscaper, a neurosurgeon or a host of other professions. But that’s a red herring—no one suggested her relatively narrow focus made her unqualified for governor.
In addition, no one has suggested that she possess “detailed foreign policy knowledge.” But (before this pick) I don’t think the notion that someone nominated for V/POTUS should have a strong familiarity with international issues and foreign policy is controversial. Before the interview there was the off the cuff quip about not knowing what the VPOTUS does and vague references to hearing about the surge in the newspaper. This was her chance to step up and demonstrate not intimate knowledge of foreign policy positions, but that she has more awareness than popular depiction of her has given her credit.
Yes, she may be bright, and may be able to digest a lot of information in a short time period, but that says nothing about her ability or capacity to analyze and form her own opinions. Not having even a passing familiarity with the Bush Doctrine suggests that she really had no position/awareness/consideration of most of the issues brought up in the interview prior to being given them by political marketers.
Aside from the absolutely ludicrous cat-calls and whines about bias, McCain et al put her in a glass bubble, protected from media exposure as much as possible – which is why such mistakes and voids speak in much louder tones than otherwise. Had she been out there in the press from day one and missed something here and there, that’s one thing, but this is strongly demonstrative of her unfamiliarity with things non-Alaskan (though not necessary for governing Alaska).
Again, I ask the conservatives out there why this isn’t driving you batshit insane.
If she had asked for clarification, I don’t think it would have been as bad. But she didn’t. She just floundered through until the guy who the Right (and only the Right) apparently thinks is the love child of Edward R. Murrow and a left-wing Joe McCarthy had to dive in and rescue her from her own lack of foreign policy knowledge.
Huh? She did ask for clarification. Just look at the OP. She responded, “In what respect?”
If you lack detailed knowledge, you can fall back on specialized advisers for that. If you lack basic familiarity, you have no way to make a rational decision when your advisers disagree on an issue or to tell when one of your advisers is just plain full of it.
The former is nonsense; basic understanding of American foreign policy is critical even to the attend-funerals-and-gladhand level of VP functioning. The latter is possibly true, and if so quite damning to conservatives.
Two points of rebuttal:
On the front page of http://www.charlierose.com/home is a link to show from October 2007 with Sarah Palin and Janet Napolitano. Palin gets top billing, and it’s her picture in the links. That may have been the first time she was given the opportunity of a national audience. There is no mention of any of the other 3 candidates.
Why is exposure good for Democrats and bad for Republicans? Begala and Alter on Charlie Rose is “a Democratic round table”, but Palin on Good Morning America and 20/20 (with audiences that probably dwarf Charlie Rose) is Gibson trying to play gotcha. Sarah Palin was given the chance to make her case for herself on national TV. You see this as liberal bias because you already believe there is liberal bias.
This is the transcript of the second Gibson interview. A lot of evasive waffling on the bridge to nowhere and earmarks. The part about economic policy at the end is terrible: just the most generic fluff without any specifics. She can’t even recite her talking points crisply.
However I was impressed with the detail and fluency of her answers about Troopergate. Palin doesn’t know much about foreign policy or domestic policy but she certainly knows her personal scandals inside out…
Channeling Chris Farley, maybe.
She does nothing but repeat, and it’s always something vague.
I take that back. She also contradicts what she just said in the very next breath.
There’s a claim of significant outright bias by ABC.
Of course there’s a claim. There would have been a claim. There will always be a claim. The Republicans and their supporters see nothing but unfairness no matter what the reality might be.
I predict that there will be a claim of unfairness after her next interview or press conference(??), and the one after that.
A Randite will lie for the Republicans on his blog? Alert the media!
So there’s no truth to it? Just because it comes from a biased source doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
No, but it certainly makes it suspect, given the history of the right and the liars that populate it.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
Palin made a major blunder about Alaska’s share of US domestic energy supply in her interview with Gibson ( I think the first one) claiming it was 20% when in fact it’s much lower. McCain made the same mistake earlier.
This is rather embarrassing for McCain since he’s trying to portray Palin as some kind of energy expert. He has even claimedshe "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”. Of all the absurdities and falsehoods coming from McCain this may be the most ridiculous. Palin isn’t even remotely close to being an energy expert; McCain apparently doesn’t even know what an energy expert is.
But Sam Stone has also asserted that she is an energy expert. Why would he do so were it not the truth?
You bring a link to some guy’s blog, present it in the passive voice, and then expect everyone here to: a) be surprised, and b) give it a moment’s consideration?
Claims about bias from the right? What do you expect from a pig but a grunt? Oooh, yikes, I called Sarah Palin a pig!!!
If you guys would kindly stop referring to her as a pig, I could stop thinking of pig-slop bikini-wrestling. HAWT!
Go, Sarah! Go, John!
No Jocelyn Elders, Janet Renos, Donna Sha-la-las, or Madeleine Albrights for this guy. No, siree!
And you guys wonder why I vote Republican!
Disclaimer: Parody only, not to be taken seriously.
Nope, I never wondered, I think I have a pretty good idea.