Here’s the NYT story on Palin tomorrow. She is ruthless and ambitious. She took the spot on the slate even though she knew she was unqualified. She ought to scare you.
Conservatives had a chance to do it that way. They failed – for the most part, they did not try.
Therefore, you have nobody to blame but them.
Try ginkgo biloba; it’s supposed to be good for the memory. I certainly remember Clinton being asked questions, including ones much tougher than being asked to describe the basics of current foreign policy, on foreign policy issues, and properly so.
You only have McCain to blame. He said he wanted a VP with national security and foreign policy experience because we’re living in such dangerous, serious times. He puts down Obama because he apparently lacks these credentials. Fair enough. So who does he pick to be his running mate? Someone who also lacks these credentials. But we’re told she’s quite impressive by the party leadership. It’s only fair that there would be extra scrutinization of this claim.
Also, let’s face it. McCain could very well croak while in office. I know the Republicans are in denial about this, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. Certainly you agree that we should be extra viligant about who is the second-in-command when we’re talking about electing a 72-year-old man who has a history of health problems.
I do think some of the focus has a sexist and ageist angle, but I don’t think the Republicans should feel especially victimized. Not when Obama’s spent all year dodging bullets and jumping over hurdles that McCain hasn’t.
More Palin news, but indirectly related to the interview (I guess).
Although the McCain campaign has asserted she’s been to Iraq, she actually never went there - just very close to there.
They also had previously stated that some of her international experience was a visit to Ireland, but as it turns out she never left the jet on the tarmac. It was strictly a refueling stop.
Also, “A Palin spokesperson also confirmed that the governor had visited Mexico on a personal vacation. She has also visited Canada.” Wow - I’ve been to Windsor myself, I now suddenly feel wiser for it.
The Gibson interview followed by McCain getting drilled on “The View” of all places; when will the real journalists start pressing for real answers?
Keep in mind that although the above is quoted from a media source, it is all attributed to the McCain campaign.
For the most part, conservatives resisted those changes, tooth and claw.
Not all Republicans did, mind you. But there aren’t very many Rockefeller Republicans these days, nor are there very many Wallace Democrats.
One can only assume that Starving Artist was tripping while U.S. history since WWII passed him by.
UPI wrote a story on the Gibson interview that echoes what I’ve said. I didn’t see the Stephanopoulos interview other than to hear about him correcting Obama. It does sound like a clear double standard of interview approach. Gibson clearly was out to embarrass Paulin when the exact opposite was true with Obama.
Given that Obama has no executive background at all and has spent most of his unfinished first term as Senator running for President it is a double standard to hold a Vice Presidential candidate to the fire while serving softball pitches to the opposing primary candidate. ABC has crossed the line of objective journalism.
How was Gibson out to embarrass Palin? Have any of you that are claiming this explained it yet?
This UPI story is an Op-Ed column. This has been pointed out in another thread, I believe.
By asking her questions and expecting her to know things.
Remember when Tim Russert hit Hillary with the question What do you know about Putin’s successor?
Hillary gave a long, informed answer that he was handpicked by Putin and would basically be his puppet, etc. Then Russert asked if she knew his name and she stumbled over the pronunciation of “Medvedev.” Even though there was some criticism of her at the time for botching the pronunciation, it was still a name that I don’t think many people would have been able to pull out of their asses at all, much less say anything substantive about it.
When it was Obama’s turn, he bluffed his way out of it by saying, “I think what Senator Clinton said was accurate,” and then quickly switching to bashing Bush for the “I looked into his eyes” remark.
If Palin were to be asked the exact same questions (“What do you know about Putin’s successor, and do you know his name?”) the asker would be accused of unmitigated bias, trying to sandbag her, practically trying to rape her. The contrast between Hillary handling this question from Russert and Palin going tharn over the Bush Doctrine question is stark and Biden has even better foreign policy chops than Hillary does. That debate should be a bloodbath.
Incidentally, Palin says “nuke-yu-lar.” I don’t think that’s been pointed out in this thread yet, but I think it’s pertinent.
Will the unedited transcript work for you guys?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
Also, as has been pointed out, I’m sure, Charles Krauthammer, the inventor of the phrase “Bush Doctrine” says Gibson got it wrong and wrote an entire column in the Washington Post explaining it…he was not defending Palin, mind you, just correcting Gibson’s use of it.
The dismissive nature of his questions, his facial expressions. He treated her poorly and I posted an article from API discussing it. It would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge this particularly in the face of Obama’s interview where he was corrected for an embarrassing mis-speak.
Yes. How could it be anything else? I gave an opinion about the interview, and backed it up with someone else’s opinion from a reputable news agency. What’s your point?
As pertinent as Obama referring to his Muslim faith? I’m gonna go with no so… what’s your point?
You guys are totally imagining things. He looked the same as he always looks and asked her nothing unfair.
Stephanopolis correcting Obama’s misstatement was not a correction of a factual mistake, and I gurantee Gibson or anyone else would have done the same thing for a similar obvious accident on Palin’s part.
It’s kind of morbidly fascinating to get a window into just what a distorted sense of reality you right wingers have, though.
Obama’s slip of the tongue is of no relevance at all. It’s an indicator of nothing. Palin’s inability to pronounce simple words betrays a limited intellect.
I’m curious about something. For everybody who’s so upset about George S. helping Obama with the “Muslim faith” remark, do you think he should have said nothing? Do you thinka journalist should NOT ask for clarification about something like that?
Do you think Bill O’Reilly wuldn’t have asked him about it?
Fess up, how many of you actually think it proved that Obama really is a secret Muslim?
My point was that the way your comment was phrased made the link look like a plain-old-regular news story. Most links to AP or UPI are just that. Just a clarification.
I’m from Dayton too; Howdy.