Palin punts in the interview with Charlie Gibson

[Rhythmdvl]

@magellan01

So, if someone is asked an ambiguous or overly broad question you don’t think the most sensible thing to do is to ask for clarification? You’ll have to explain that one to me.

Isn’t asking a politician in an interview and ambiguous and broad question a textbook softball? If she had any familiarity with it, any sense of its origin, evolution, or relation to one the defining conflict of the decade, wouldn’t she have pounced on the opportunity to shine? It’s patently absurd to suggest that she could have answered in several different ways, but wanted to be sure that she was responding to the exact nuance of the question.

Back up a step. Are you suggesting that had she sat down for this interview before she was nominated, before she went through the specific preparation — if Gibson got to thinking she might be a likely pick so he traveled up to Alaska on his own to put an interview in the can and scoop other journalists if she was selected — her answers, save some party-line nuance, would be the same?

Are you suggesting that before her selection, she had a long-standing broad awareness of national and international issues?

Or are you just saying that her preparation over the past week included the Bush Doctrine, but she just missed an easy question because it was poorly phrased?

[Quartz]

@Chefguy

Thank you for falling on your sword.

Bzzt! I have no sword on which to fall here - I have no vote, no say. I’m not exactly a disinterested observer - the election itself interests me - but nearly.

She comes across as ill-informed and unqualified, but worse, as insincere. I have no use for her at this point.

That is hardly surprising given that the complaint about malevolent editing appears to be true.

[Rhythmdvl]

Missed edit window:

Oh, aren’t I an idiot. I didn’t realize I was looking at the wrong page when I replied. I somehow took magellan01’s post as somewhat recent. Sorry for the confusion.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Quartz

That is hardly surprising given that the complaint about malevolent editing appears to be true.

Couple quick questions:
Would you happen to know where Mark Levin got the full transcript? Not that manipulating it isn’t easily checked so therefore unlikely, but I don’t know if you’ve ever heard him–he makes Limbaugh and Hannity sound like rigorous scholars. Something on his Web site doesn’t exactly suggest credibility.

Second, I took a look through it. I don’t think anyone has ever made the claim that the interview was not edited at all, so just that there are bits and pieces here and there that were cut doesn’t suggest “malevolent” editing – would you kindly point/quote sections where her words were given dramatically different meaning or other examples of “malevolence”?

[tomndebb]

@Quartz

That is hardly surprising given that the complaint about malevolent editing appears to be true.

There is nothing edited out of that text that changes any of her statements in any material way. Most of the deletions were places where she (or Gibson) simply reiterated the points they were making. None of them changed the meaning of any of the sound bites that made it into the popular press.
(In fact, I think the editing surrounding the Bush Doctrine comments actually help her by not revealing her failure to grasp the topic or to understand Gibson (or Bush).)

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Quartz

That is hardly surprising given that the complaint about malevolent editing appears to be true.

This is interesting. But I’ve just read the entire thing, and I have to echo Rhythmdvl’s sentiment; I didn’t notice any “malevolent” editing, nothing that changed (or detracted from) the substance of what was being said.

[Moriarty]

I just feel compelled to point out that, in this post (in another thread about what 3 things we want in a President), I made reference to the “Bush doctrine of foreign policy.”

I suppose this is apropos of nothing, but I’d just like to say that the concept of a “Bush Doctrine” isn’t really all that obscure (or, I’m just fucking brilliant).

[Quartz]

@Digital_Stimulus

This is interesting. But I’ve just read the entire thing, and I have to echo Rhythmdvl’s sentiment; I didn’t notice any “malevolent” editing, nothing that changed (or detracted from) the substance of what was being said.

How about excising this bit about Russia:

@Sarah Palin

I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

Or this:

@Sarah Palin

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

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.

Really, it casts her view of Russia in an entirely different light.

And this key clause about using diplomatic pressure on Iran:

@Sarah Palin

and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

but it was excised so it made her statement sound much more war-mongering.

And there’s more. I would hope that the editing was due to incompetence rather than malice, but as I’ve said, both sides have prior records here.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Atomicktom

I suppose this is apropos of nothing, but I’d just like to say that the concept of a “Bush Doctrine” isn’t really all that obscure (or, I’m just fucking brilliant).

What, the two are mutually exclusive?
Much like the closed McCain can’t use a computer~McCain doesn’t want to use a computer~a POTUS does/n’t need to know how to use a computer~etc. thread, there is a bit of confusion that could use some clearing up, at least so people are communicating on the same page. I’d like to try and isolate a few things:

1) Before her VP selection, what was Sarah Palin’s familiarity with national and domestic (continental US) issues?
a) She was very familiar with them, and could have discussed most any article in The Economist[sup]*[/sup] with a fair degree of specificity. Her preparation for the Gibson interview was largely constrained to aligning talking points and nuance to McCain’s particular agenda. The reaction to the Bush Doctrine question is out of proportion, because she knew about it but at best spoke awkwardly.

b) She was passingly familiar with them, and could have discussed most major articles in The Economist. Her interview prep was to get her ready for Gotcha Ya moments and hone her awareness of a broader range of issues than she had followed. She may have been unaware of the particular name used to refer to the Doctrine, or since it had been so long since it was put into practice she forgot it’s particular reference. However, she had before her VP selection a good working knowledge of the issues, and focusing on one overlooked or misremembered issue unfairly detracts from her general knowledge.

c) She was vaguely aware of them, but unless the issue or subject directly affected Alaska or her personal beliefs (e.g., abortion), it was not something she was interested in pursuing.

2) How important is familiarity and pre-selection contemplation of national and domestic issues?
a) Relatively unimportant. Her general beliefs are in accordance with the Republican platform, which makes her a safe choice for the ticket in the first place. Her intellect and accomplishments demonstrate that she is capable of implementing the Republican agenda as necessary, and of absorbing and analyzing complex issues sufficiently enough to act on them appropriately. Prior knowledge or long-standing contemplation offers little or no advantage to the position, as long as the person comes from a Capra-esque starting point.

b) Somewhat important, but not nearly as relevant as the left is making it seem. As governor, she had to maintain some awareness of national issues, and has demonstrated a facility to adapt to new situations as they come up. Coming from outside the Beltway is a good thing, but because of it she can’t be expected to know every single issue forwards and backwards to the same degree as long-term insiders.

c) Extremely important. Her naiveté and willful ignorance of political issues outside her relatively small world is dangerous irrespective of party affiliation. It makes her a potential pawn for advisors and handlers, whose agenda is not subject to the electoral process. It makes her decisions dangerously superficial and based on the streamlined, spun analysis presented to her as preparation. This is similar to why almost every liberal arts college has some version of a core curriculum; because contemplation and fluency in a range of issues promotes critical thinking and more in-depth judgment.

There are other questions that are sidetracking things. How important is knowing about the Bush Doctrine? One poster has claimed it’s tantamount to a trivia question. Others assert that to be ignorant of something so basic is an automatic fail. There is dickering about how well she answered questions. For example, Quartz says that it was the editing was “malevolent” because it didn’t show one of her answers as being as well thought out as it was presented. But truly understanding these and knowing how to respond surely depends on how the initial two questions are answered. Was Quartz starting with the notion that she had a solid Russian-based outlook before her selection? and so on. On the other hand, if one firmy believes that prior to her selection she would have had very little to say about the issues, that she wouldn’t have voluntarily engaged in a conversation about it, then whatever answers she had, in-depth or edited out, are meaningless regurgitations. Hence my above direct questions.

[sup]*Feel free to substitute the periodical of your choice, but please suggest why it would be a more appropriate selection.[/sup]

[Digital_Stimulus]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, but…better late than never. Right?

@Quartz

Really, it casts her view of Russia in an entirely different light.

While I agree it softens her expressed stance somewhat, I don’t think they really change the substance, nor do I see the edits as “malevolent”. But I also note that it’s difficult for me, at this point, to compare my reactions with/sans editing. So I have to admit that it may just be me.

And this key clause about using diplomatic pressure on Iran:

This, I’ll agree with you on. Editing that 1/2 a sentence out really does cut something for little apparent benefit.

For the most part, though, it still seems to me that the editing wasn’t bad, much less “malevolent”.

[Voyager]

@Rhythmdvl

There are other questions that are sidetracking things. How important is knowing about the Bush Doctrine? One poster has claimed it’s tantamount to a trivia question. Others assert that to be ignorant of something so basic is an automatic fail.

It is not important of itself, but only as an indicator of her general knowledge. The problem is to figure out what she knew from before and what she learned from her prepping by the McCain campaign. All candidates get prepped, of course, but a knowledgeable one will be able to handle a question well that wasn’t prepped for. (And knowing lots of stuff makes prepping easier.) The Bush Doctrine is very important, as it represents a change in when we intervene. I’m sure if she answered showing she knew any of its permutations there would be no controversy now, but it seems like she never even heard of it. That’s something worth knowing.

My take on Gibson from hearing that part is that he just assumed that she knew about the Bush doctrine. I would. He gave her a chance to remember it. When it was clear she had no clue (worldview indeed!) he explained it in that exasperated tone some teachers use to tell students stuff they should have read in their homework assignment.