Palin on ABC News
- Thread starter Nude_IHB
- Start date
green_cactus_IHB
New member
And this was a supposed to be a soft interview.
Trooper_IHB
New member
If anyone finds a link to this interview, could you post it please ? I missed it.
[quote author="Trooper" date=1221209139]If anyone finds a link to this interview, could you post it please ? I missed it.</blockquote>
Here you go:
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
Here you go:
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
Trooper_IHB
New member
Thank you WINEX....but the interview has been edited quite a bit. I'd prefer to see the ENTIRE interview, not just the part where she looks good.
[quote author="Trooper" date=1221218593]Thank you WINEX....but the interview has been edited quite a bit. I'd prefer to see the ENTIRE interview, not just the part where she looks good.</blockquote>
Sorry, but that's the best I was able to find on Youtube. Give it a little time and I am sure that more will turn up. I'd love to stay up for Nightline, but I have to get up at 4:00 am for work.
Sorry, but that's the best I was able to find on Youtube. Give it a little time and I am sure that more will turn up. I'd love to stay up for Nightline, but I have to get up at 4:00 am for work.
buster_IHB
New member
ok...i'm a democrat but a fairly objective one. Gibson set out a lot of traps for her and she did well. not great but decent for a first interview. bush doctrine? look it up. Preemtive Strike (self defense) is just one part of it. so both pailin and gibson were correct.
Nude_IHB
New member
[quote author="bugmenot" date=1221223520]ok...i'm a democrat but a fairly objective one. Gibson set out a lot of traps for her and she did well. not great but decent for a first interview. bush doctrine? look it up. Preemtive Strike (self defense) is just one part of it. so both pailin and gibson were correct.</blockquote>
That question was a "gotcha", but she clearly didn't even have a reference to it in her memory. Neither me or my wife could have answered that question, but we aren't running for VP either. Suprisingly, most of the hacks on CNN were willing to give her a pass on it because there is no "official" Bush Doctrine (except for Roland Martin, but he's an open Obama supporter and I doubt he could have answered the question before tonight) and Gibson knows this to be true. He could have just as easily asked her about "Gibson's Law" and she would have had as good a chance at answering it correctly.
That question was a "gotcha", but she clearly didn't even have a reference to it in her memory. Neither me or my wife could have answered that question, but we aren't running for VP either. Suprisingly, most of the hacks on CNN were willing to give her a pass on it because there is no "official" Bush Doctrine (except for Roland Martin, but he's an open Obama supporter and I doubt he could have answered the question before tonight) and Gibson knows this to be true. He could have just as easily asked her about "Gibson's Law" and she would have had as good a chance at answering it correctly.
Nude_IHB
New member
I'm now watching the Nightline replay, which includes portions that were cut from the ABC News broadcast. One thing is clear so far... Gibson never intended this to be a softball interview, but he doesn't waste time beating a dead horse either. My problem is that listening to her talk about world politics reminds me of my Mom talking about world politics. That may play in the heartland, but I've been rolling my eyes at every over-simplified answer to complex policy questions. She's not making major mistakes, but it's obvious she has little more than a rudimentary understanding of international issues.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5783816
Not being ready for this interview bodes darkly about being ready to lead the whole country. I've seen people twenty years her junior who could discuss international issues much better than she can. She's a snide gimmick set out to give McCain a fresh face. It's just not working for anyone with critical thinking skills.
There is a second part, after a brief commercial. Don't miss it b/c she comments on her "holy war" statements.
Not being ready for this interview bodes darkly about being ready to lead the whole country. I've seen people twenty years her junior who could discuss international issues much better than she can. She's a snide gimmick set out to give McCain a fresh face. It's just not working for anyone with critical thinking skills.
There is a second part, after a brief commercial. Don't miss it b/c she comments on her "holy war" statements.
buster_IHB
New member
i'm voting for obama (sigh). but i'd take palin in a heartbeat over biden. that guy is a joke and i don't care how may heads of state he has met.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
We need smart spokes people for our country. We need leaders who understand history and national security and a host of other issues necessary for running this country.
We need to quit voting against OUR best interests just because we hear that it is more honorable to pull oneself up from one's bootstraps etc.... We've been sold a bill of goods. If your life has been more prosperous these last 8 years, then you clearly have to vote for mccain b/c he has voted those policies and decisions and he will continue on that path.
Through a mentoring program I heard a young hispanic girl say that her parents are voting for McCain. They are sweet, but simple and ignorant people who are not comfortable speaking English and who somehow find McCain superior over the contrast in policies that Obama clearly speaks about.
Clearly they've been sold a bill of goods and they are buying it. My question to others who are capable of holding jobs that require a command of English, can think critically and have at least high school education in government - why would you expect McCain to do anything but what he's been doing for the last 8 years? The GOP serves very few. Most likely they have not had YOUR interests in mind when the decisions were being made. Wake up folks.
We need to quit voting against OUR best interests just because we hear that it is more honorable to pull oneself up from one's bootstraps etc.... We've been sold a bill of goods. If your life has been more prosperous these last 8 years, then you clearly have to vote for mccain b/c he has voted those policies and decisions and he will continue on that path.
Through a mentoring program I heard a young hispanic girl say that her parents are voting for McCain. They are sweet, but simple and ignorant people who are not comfortable speaking English and who somehow find McCain superior over the contrast in policies that Obama clearly speaks about.
Clearly they've been sold a bill of goods and they are buying it. My question to others who are capable of holding jobs that require a command of English, can think critically and have at least high school education in government - why would you expect McCain to do anything but what he's been doing for the last 8 years? The GOP serves very few. Most likely they have not had YOUR interests in mind when the decisions were being made. Wake up folks.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
Nude,
You don't vote for your self-interests? Well, then that is exactly why we have leaders who vote for their interests over those whom they represent.
Hope you've enjoyed the scraps you've been tossed. John McCain thinks so little of you and your ability to make demands on leadership, that he's farmed up a complete unknown and has expected you to just accept her. It looks like its working.
You don't vote for your self-interests? Well, then that is exactly why we have leaders who vote for their interests over those whom they represent.
Hope you've enjoyed the scraps you've been tossed. John McCain thinks so little of you and your ability to make demands on leadership, that he's farmed up a complete unknown and has expected you to just accept her. It looks like its working.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/09/sarah-palins-sp.html
The whole article is short and worth a read, imo. here is a snip from the end:
<em>Still, the inevitable parsing and analysis of Palin?s answers and performance in this interview, however tempting, is almost beside the point. In this case, her actions, or non-actions, have spoken much louder than any words. She didn?t blink, she told Gibson, when McCain asked her to join his ticket. But she certainly blinked after. What sort of reform-minded politician waits two weeks before giving an interview?
Since when it is OK that the American people have to wait in breathless anticipation for its nominated candidates to speak to them en masse? Since when do we have to rely on a single interview, from a single source, to introduce us to a woman who claims she would be privileged to lead us?
In a world that is measured by milliseconds, a broken-up hour is too short to offer, a week is simply too long to wait. Such manipulation of a public moment is simple exploitation. If Palin was trying to prove that she?s just a sense-talkin? hockey mom from Alaska, she couldn?t have gone about it in a more wrong-headed way.
- Mary McNamara </em>
The whole article is short and worth a read, imo. here is a snip from the end:
<em>Still, the inevitable parsing and analysis of Palin?s answers and performance in this interview, however tempting, is almost beside the point. In this case, her actions, or non-actions, have spoken much louder than any words. She didn?t blink, she told Gibson, when McCain asked her to join his ticket. But she certainly blinked after. What sort of reform-minded politician waits two weeks before giving an interview?
Since when it is OK that the American people have to wait in breathless anticipation for its nominated candidates to speak to them en masse? Since when do we have to rely on a single interview, from a single source, to introduce us to a woman who claims she would be privileged to lead us?
In a world that is measured by milliseconds, a broken-up hour is too short to offer, a week is simply too long to wait. Such manipulation of a public moment is simple exploitation. If Palin was trying to prove that she?s just a sense-talkin? hockey mom from Alaska, she couldn?t have gone about it in a more wrong-headed way.
- Mary McNamara </em>
Perhaps Sarah Palin was a little unsure of what Charlie Gibson was asking about because there is no formal "Bush Doctrine". "Bush Doctrine" is a phrased tossed about by the news media with no exact meaning. You can see in the interview that after Palin asked for clarification on the question, Gibson started to answer, then stopped himself.
When you look at the news media definitions, it's not surprising that the question wasn't clear without additional detail. Here are a few of the definitions the media has come up with:
September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.
March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
When you look at the news media definitions, it's not surprising that the question wasn't clear without additional detail. Here are a few of the definitions the media has come up with:
September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.
March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
Anonymous_IHB
New member
From the You Tube clips in this thread, seemed like good answers. It's not her place to decide foreign policy (that's McCain's or Obama's or Bush's job), so she didn't she just stated her philosophical prinicples around the issues. And those prinicples seem sound - she has some kind of framework for making her decisions which is great to see - if somehow she was prez, it wouldn't be poll the advisors in the room and go with popular opinion, she'd actually have some kind of framework and priorities and a general philosophy to apply. Seems a lot better than the Obama poll his advisors and parrot what they say and change stories and positions over 3 days about Georgia with no particular framework applied - the last thing the US needs is a prez who is easily manipulated into making policy decisions X, Y and Z given the power of lobbying in Washington...
buster_IHB
New member
What Is the Bush Doctrine, Anyway?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 12, 2008; 11:32 AM
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interview yesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy.
But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment.
When Palin asked ABC anchor Charlie Gibson what he meant by the Bush Doctrine, Gibson clarifed: "The Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war." That should have helped. After it was obvious Palin still didn't know what he was talking about, Gibson ventured further: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Palin's reply: "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
But Gibson was making a common error, and what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy. Preemption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages -- and other countries' as well. The twist Bush put on it was embracing "preventive" war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening.
And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 12, 2008; 11:32 AM
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interview yesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy.
But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment.
When Palin asked ABC anchor Charlie Gibson what he meant by the Bush Doctrine, Gibson clarifed: "The Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war." That should have helped. After it was obvious Palin still didn't know what he was talking about, Gibson ventured further: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"
Palin's reply: "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."
But Gibson was making a common error, and what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy. Preemption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages -- and other countries' as well. The twist Bush put on it was embracing "preventive" war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening.
And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."
CapitalismWorks_IHB
New member
[quote author="Nude" date=1221205672]In a word... fumbling.
If she does this badly versus Biden, it's game over for the GOP.</blockquote>
I don't think fumbling against Biden is that big of deal. Perhaps Biden can further his point that Hillary would make a better VP than himself...
If she does this badly versus Biden, it's game over for the GOP.</blockquote>
I don't think fumbling against Biden is that big of deal. Perhaps Biden can further his point that Hillary would make a better VP than himself...