What do you think about the parts of Palin's interview showed last night?

[cuca_]

I am surprised to find that there is not a post about this today. I rarely post in political threads, but have been following all of them with interest. I have to disclose that I am a democrat, but I find these elections fascinating and have been following both sides (watched both conventions, etc...)

Honestly, what I saw last night worries me. I think she might be a great asset to the party, a go-getter, she might have been a great mayor and might be a fantastic governor, but her performance last night leads me to believe that she is not prepared to be the VP, and much less President.

I think that she has been unfairly criticized for accepting the nomination while raising 5 kids. That is a decision only she can make. I also think the speculation about Bristol being Trig's mom was cruel. However, I do think is fair to expect a candidate to have more knowledge about foreign policy than she apparently does. Citing Alaska's proximity to Russia as a qualification to deal with the current situation is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

I also think she should have been briefed as to what Bush's doctrine is. How could she not be familiar with the principles and doctrines espoused by the current republican administration?!

I could go on and on, but it's sufficient to say that it is incredible that she was not better prepared. Where are her advisors? The questions asked should not have come as a surprise.

I would love to hear what everybody else thinks (both those planning to vote for and against her). I really want to understand what people find appealing about her (as a candidate, not as a person). Are republicans just supporting her because she is the candidate that McCain picked or do they think she is a great candidate in her own right.

I just want to place a disclaimer that I am not looking to flame or offend anyone. I am truly interested in reading everyones perspective.

TIA

[KBecks]

I haven't seen it yet, saw a few text excerpts but I want to see the whole thing tonight.

[Sillygirl]

I plan to watch it tonight, but honestly, short of completely reversing her stance on just about anything, nothing she can say will change my vote a bit. I may donate more money to Obama if she comes off as likeable.

[Rainbows&Roses]

I don't fault her for her rather poor performance. She had a lot to learn in a short amount of time. I saw more of the interview on nightline and they did her a few favors with some of the edits on the national news segment. Answering the Israel question with the same sentence three times in a row was a little odd.

I was glad to see that she obviously had not been given the questions beforehand. And I think she will do better in the rest of the interview as these were the tough questions. However, I do not find her tone/manner/choice of words to be "vice presidential" at all.

On another note, right now, John McCain is getting ripped on The View about her. And in response to Elisabeth's question about whether he was interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, he just said "Roe V. Wade was a bad decision by the Supreme Court.". At least the Obama campaign now has that sound byte on tape since there was some doubt about his position.

[Robyn0204]

Charlie Gibson was a player in the typical liberal media tonight. Interviewers are not typically as rude and angry as he was to her. He should have been more interested in what her answers were as opposed to trying to get a sound byte to use against her later. He is clearly an Obama supporter. I am all for learning more about her and her views on a variety of topics. I think that is a natural part of our election process. However, Charlie Gibson was outright hostile. Very unnecessary and unprofessional in my opinion. Plus, I do believe we ALL need to stop making this about Obama v. Palin. She was chosen as the VICE presidential candidate. I realise that many people would like us to believe that McCain has one foot in the grave but it is just not true.

You asked and this is my opinion. Take what you want from it.

[crayonblue]

"On another note, right now, John McCain is getting ripped on The View about her. And in response to Elisabeth's question about whether he was interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, he just said "Roe V. Wade was a bad decision by the Supreme Court.". At least the Obama campaign now has that sound byte on tape since there was some doubt about his position."

I just watched this. Agree with him or not, Whoopie could have rolled her eyes a few less times. I did not think that her disgusted look was particularly attractive.

[srhs]

I only saw a couple of clips on late cable news, but interestingly the commentators agreed that the "Bush Doctrine" answer would be used as a soundbite against her when in reality it was the correct thing to pause and ask the interviewer exactly what *he* meant by that phrase.

[mommy111]

I plan to watch it tonight, but honestly, short of completely reversing her stance on just about anything, nothing she can say will change my vote a bit. I may donate more money to Obama if she comes off as likeable.
ROTFLMAO
Judging by Fox News coverage (fair + balanced) the interview was a home run. Better keep that checkbook handy!

[Rainbows&Roses]

Charlie Gibson was a player in the typical liberal media tonight. Interviewers are not typically as rude and angry as he was to her. He should have been more interested in what her answers were as opposed to trying to get a sound byte to use against her later. He is clearly an Obama supporter. I am all for learning more about her and her views on a variety of topics. I think that is a natural part of our election process. However, Charlie Gibson was outright hostile. Very unnecessary and unprofessional in my opinion. Plus, I do believe we ALL need to stop making this about Obama v. Palin. She was chosen as the VICE presidential candidate. I realise that many people would like us to believe that McCain has one foot in the grave but it is just not true.

You asked and this is my opinion. Take what you want from it.

Charlie Gibson has done his own share of ripping into Obama (e.g. democratic debate.) The Republican spin that he was hostile, rude and angry is just that, spin. He asked foreign policy questions and wanted them answered. She was not answering them, so he kept asking (in most cases - he backed off a few times which was unfortunate.)

And this had nothing to do with Obama. This was all about Palin and whether she could lead the country if required to do so. Honestly, from what I saw last night, I would be embarrassed to have her meet with important people from other countries as our VP.

[LarsMal]

Charlie Gibson was a player in the typical liberal media tonight. Interviewers are not typically as rude and angry as he was to her. He should have been more interested in what her answers were as opposed to trying to get a sound byte to use against her later. He is clearly an Obama supporter. I am all for learning more about her and her views on a variety of topics. I think that is a natural part of our election process. However, Charlie Gibson was outright hostile. Very unnecessary and unprofessional in my opinion. Plus, I do believe we ALL need to stop making this about Obama v. Palin. She was chosen as the VICE presidential candidate. I realise that many people would like us to believe that McCain has one foot in the grave but it is just not true.

You asked and this is my opinion. Take what you want from it.

I believe Charles Gibson is known as a "friend of the GOP" which is most likely why he was chosen for the coveted interview. He was also granted the McCain interview after McCain backed out of his other network interview (after feeling put in the hot seat by Campbell Brown).

From the part I saw, I didn't think Gibson was hostile at all. I think he was truly flabbergasted (sp) that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. He stumbled over his words and sentences after she answered that question. I took it as him trying to tell her what it was without making her look like a total fool.

I also thought it was good that he called her out on her ideas about global warming (whether it is manmade or not- she is somewhat changing her position on that) and ANWR (which she and McCain disagree about).

I also thought it was interesting that her comments on Pakistan actually like up with Obama, and are against McCain's position.

She had some definite tag lines: What to say about Israel, and you could almost see her wheels turning, "What did I learn about that? What am I supposed to say to that?" I actually felt a little sorry for her, not because of Charles Gibson, but because she clearly was not prepared enough to pull it off without making it look so rehearsed. And going to war with Russia?! yikes!

I also had to laugh when Gibson asked her if she had been out of the country prior to her trip to Kuwait and Germany. "Canada and Mexico" was her response. Not sure that really counts when talking about foreign experience (nothing against the Canadians and Mexicans!!!)

Just more proof that she clearly isn't ready for VP or president. A cabinet position- sure- but not top dog!

**I do have to say, though, that I didn't think Gibson was the best interviewer. I thought he mumbled a lot and was hard to hear. I don't watch him that often, though, so maybe that's just his style.

[SnuggleBuggles]

I plan to watch it tonight, but honestly, short of completely reversing her stance on just about anything, nothing she can say will change my vote a bit. I may donate more money to Obama if she comes off as likeable.

:hysterical: Love it! I feel the same way. I missed it last night and tried to find t on ABC's site this morning with no luck. I'll watch tonight.

Beth

[icunurse]

Charlie Gibson was a player in the typical liberal media tonight. Interviewers are not typically as rude and angry as he was to her. He should have been more interested in what her answers were as opposed to trying to get a sound byte to use against her later. He is clearly an Obama supporter. I am all for learning more about her and her views on a variety of topics. I think that is a natural part of our election process. However, Charlie Gibson was outright hostile. Very unnecessary and unprofessional in my opinion. Plus, I do believe we ALL need to stop making this about Obama v. Palin. She was chosen as the VICE presidential candidate. I realise that many people would like us to believe that McCain has one foot in the grave but it is just not true.

You asked and this is my opinion. Take what you want from it.

Actually, before the interview, many liberal outlets were questioning Gibson's favortism of the GOP. Additionally, McCain/Palin could have basically picked ANY interviewer that they wanted. They chose Charlie Gibson, so I have to believe that they were aware of his questioning skills before agreeing to do the interview.

Finally, I think everyone needs to stop saying that people are being overly hard on her. As long as the questions are fair to be asked to ANY candidate, they are open game. And if Charlie Gibson, who is pretty darn laid back compared to other Rep and Dem leaning media (think in-your-face like O'Reilly), is considered too hard on her, it seems as though the "play nice, she's a girl" mentality that we, as women, are fighting against is coming right into play. That could come back to bite her if it is played out too much. And I have a feeling that Putin doesn't always play nice :)

[cuca_]

I agree. Nothing will change my vote either, but I am trying to understand what her appeal is.

[maestramommy]

Didn't get to watch the interview, but when I turned on the radio there was an NPR show discussing it. One of the pundits(?) said the conservatives felt Gibson was hostile and too hard on her, the liberals felt he was too easy on her, and this was a sign of the political divide in our country. But as a conservative he felt like Gibson was prosecutorial in the interview, which he should have been, because these are questions that must be asked and answered. But he was still respectful, so in his opinion Gibson sorta walked the middle line on this one. My personal feeling was that this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios, so I don't really envy him getting first crack at her.

[cuca_]

Robyn,

I know she is running for VP and not President, but the fact remains that if elected she will, at one point or another, have to act as President (and I am not talking b/c McCain will die, just in times that he is unavailable), or at the very least represent the President. She is running to be the second in command, and that is a pretty big job.

I truly don't think people are looking at it as Obama v. Palin, I they are talking more about her because she just came into the race, and very little is known about her. Whether you are a democrat or republican, the fact remains that there is a possibility that she may become VP and frankly, I am a bit scared by what I've seen so far. It does not seem to me like she is at all prepared for the job (and it goes beyond experience).

Also, I found it interesting that in her interview (when asked about meeting foreign leaders) she basically criticized the old Washington, DC establishment, when McCain is very much part of it.

JMHO.

[LarsMal]

My personal feeling was that this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios, so I don't really envy him getting first crack at her.

I agree.

I'm sure a lot of thought and strategy went into picking Gibson for the first interview. I'm not claiming to know what the campaign was thinking or saying, but to me it seems like it came down to choosing someone who was more conservative, along their party lines, so maybe she'd catch a break, but still a man- so if he gave her a hard time they could pull the sexist/hostile card. All part of the political game!

I really wish they had chosen a woman for the first interview. I guess they could still say a woman was "hostile", though, and therefore a Palin-hater/Obama-supporter. So, yeah, "damned if you do, damned if you don't"!

They should've given the first interview to Steven Colbert! Completely fair and balanced! ;)
JMO!

[Bens Momma]

I watched the ABC news and the Nightline interview segments. Tried to go into it with an open mind as I'm trying to understand her appeal as well, Carmen. From what I'd heard and read about her prior to the interview I had my suspicions that she was not well qualified for the VP job. To me this interview proved my suspicions. Most candidates are weak in one area or another, but they make up for it with experience/knowledge in another (ie better with domestic issues than foreign affairs.) She came across weak in many areas, rehearsed on some answers, and hesitant on others. A few times (think the question about Pakistan) it was almost as if she was hesitant and thinking "sh*t, what did they say I was suppost to answer about that?" There were many answers where she talked a lot, but never gave a concise answer to the question. Gibson would then try to focus the answer and say "so does that mean yes or no?" or try to get a real answer to the question. I don't think we can afford the learning curve that she would need as VP. She spoke well and seemed calm, but I need a little more than that from someone who could be the second in command for our country.

[o_mom]

They should've given the first interview to Steven Colbert! Completely fair and balanced! ;)
JMO!

For that I would have put the kids to bed early and made popcorn! :popc1:

[hellokitty]

Her interview, even before I heard it would not have swayed my vote. However, I was so annoyed by her. She has no CLUE what she was talking about!!!! I think that charles gibson was pretty patient with her to be quite honest, b/c it was like he was walking a 7 yr old through the interview. She was like blabber, blabber, blabber about something unrelated, and then never even answered his questions. You could tell that she memorized a few speeches that were fed to her and then when he asked a question, it was like a multiple choice question to her and she would just pull out whatever speech that she memorized to regurgitate that might best fit that question. :dizzy: In my book, she proved on her own during that interview that she is truly as inexperienced as everyone has been saying. I am wondering what the republicans are thinking about her interview. I would think that even republicans would be embarrassed to say, "Yeah, that was a good interview," b/c it was so obvious that she crashed and burned.

[Puddy73]

In my opinion, she didn't come across very well. The charisma that she has shown on the campaign trail was totally missing and she seemed a little lost and defensive. I was particularly surprised that she seemed unfamiliar with the term "Bush Doctrine." I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the interview tonight.

I don't think that Charlie Gibson was hostile, just a little scattered. (Oh how I wish Tim Russert was here for this!) Nevertheless, he was chosen by her campaign, so it seems a little silly to cry foul about his perceived liberal bias.

[jk3]

Palin is problematic at the very least, extremely dangerous at the worst. I think it's amazing that she claimed she has never met a head of state. I was never a fan but the more I get to know her, the more I dislike her and fear for the state of our country should McCain get elected.

I watched Obama last night and I think he handles himself with intelligence and grace which is refreshing on so many levels.

[Ceepa]

Palin sure gets people's blood pumping! :D I look forward to learning more about her tonight. I wasn't available to watch the one last night.

[psophia17]

I've not seen the whole thing yet, but I have read the transcripts, and I have to say, I'm patiently waiting for a commentary from someone who was impressed. You won't be getting one from me.

Also, I was expecting to hear from the BBB's more conservative members in this thread.

[mamicka]

I wasn't able to watch but I've read the transcript. I thought she did great. I liked all her answers. Not much more I can say.

[kijip]

She reversed herself on climate change being caused by humans in less than 6 weeks. I wonder why this does not earn her a flip flop moniker ala Kerry?

From reading the interview, I was underwhelmed by her grasp on international issues. I'd assume a governor would be better on domestic policies so am going to my mom's to watch the interviews on DVR.

As to why some conservative pundits are crying liberal media bias set-up foul, it's a card that works well for them. Why change it now? Does not matter WHO the interviewer is, if she/they picked him or not, if the same or harder questions would have been asked/have been asked of male candidates or who owns ABC, all that matters is the ability to sell the general public on the idea that the media is always biased against conservatives. It's a tired line, one that is largely untrue in the present day but no evidence to the contrary is going to change many people's minds about this. It serves conservative activists/pundits well to somehow simultaneously sell the inaccurate ideas they are somehow a permanent majority but also a constant underdog.

[Ceepa]

As to why some conservative pundits are crying liberal media bias set-up foul, it's a card that works well for them. .

From what I've heard today, the conservative argument is not that Gibson was too hard on Palin. In fact, she should face tough questions. The complaint was that Gibson was so soft with Obama by comparison.

[mamicka]

From what I've heard today, the conservative argument is not that Gibson was too hard on Palin. In fact, she should face tough questions. The complaint was that Gibson was so soft with Obama by comparison.

Yeah, I've not heard that, either. I listened to quite a bit (compared to usual) of talk radio today & didn't hear any complaints about Gibson being too hard on her. Not at all.

[alexsmommy]

(Oh how I wish Tim Russert was here for this!)

My thoughts exactly. Tim Russert was so well respected by both sides for being equally "hard" on everyone. I'm so sad he is not here to enjoy this amazing election AND to get down and dirty with all of the candidates. Honestly, he would have made mincemeat of her - she just doesn't have the experience/knowledge base I personally think the vp needs. For all the rally cries that Obama is not "experienced" enough, I do not think anyone has claimed he is not "educated" enough on the issues. You can't do a cliff notes prep of how to run this country and sound credible. I don't think Palin is not intelligent, just not knowlegable. She's not ready for the national stage and that is not an insult. I think she may be one day, but not in two months time. I don't expect anyone, no matter how long they've been in politics, to know everything. But major issues pertaining to one's own party. Um, yeah. I expect working knowledge and thoughtful answers. JMHO

[gatorsmom]

the idea that the media is always biased against conservatives. It's a tired line, one that is largely untrue in the present day but no evidence to the contrary is going to change many people's minds about this.

I disagree with this. I wouldn't consider myself siding with conservatives with the exception of a few topics. But I've noticed- even in our own local newspaper- of stories which were subtlely turned to sensationalize the story to benefit the reporting source. It is rarely complementary to the conservative side. I think, unless you lean in the conservative direction, you probably wouldn't notice it. But if you do have a more conservative-flavored opinion like I do on some topics, I find myself feeling ever so slighted by the media's take on things. My imagination? possibly. Or maybe, just maybe the media is a teensy bit liberal....

[Melbel]

In all honesty, how many of you knew/know what the Bush Doctrine is? It is curious to note that various sources in the media have disagreed as to its meaning. As for the liberal bias of the media, polling data consistently shows that the vast majority of viewers perceive a liberal bias.

[cuca_]

Ok, I'll admit it, I did not, but my DH knew right away and he's not running for office. Honestly, whether regular people know or not is not the issue. I don't think candidates should be cut any slack because of their gender, race or what regular citizens may know or not know.

See, as I said before, what I find frustrating, is that I have yet to hear anyone articulate why she is a good pick for VP candidate, and qualified to hold office. I keep hearing how wonderful she is, but not why she is that wonderful. And I want to know because there is a chance that Governor Palin may become VP.

[mamicka]

IMO, the Bush Doctrine isn't exactly something that's been officially defined as such. At least not that I'm aware of. I think it was a fair question to ask, what exactly he was referring to by the Bush Doctrine.

ETA: It seemed to me that he was the one who looked a bit silly. He asked her about the Bush Doctrine as if it were a concrete thing & yet he couldn't easily articulate it when asked for clarification.

[srhs]

I posted this opinion already, but yes, it was important for her to ask him what *he* meant by Bush Doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The above is an editorial, written by the guy who VERY FIRST used the term "Bush Doctrine." I think that makes it credible.
Gibson SAID he was referring to the '02 loosely held definition when the current common usage is the '05 Inauguration Speech reference. One includes preemption, and the other does not. The term is not defined like Monroe Doctrine, for example.

To the PP who said she'd really like to know what Palin supporters genuinely like about her, you may be incredibly genuine, but I doubt many BBB members will go there. In the seemingly-acceptable tone of this board, it doesn't seem like a conversation worth having.

IMO, that is.

~edited at Mod's request but quoted below so not much I can do~

[mamicka]

I posted this opinion already, but yes, it was important for her to ask him what *he* meant by Bush Doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The above is an editorial, written by the guy who VERY FIRST used the term "Bush Doctrine." I think that makes it credible.
Gibson SAID he was referring to the '02 loosely held definition when the current common usage is the '05 Inauguration Speech reference. One includes preemption, and the other does not. The term is not defined like Monroe Doctrine, for example.

To the PP who said she'd really like to know what Palin supporters genuinely like about her, you may be incredibly genuine, but I doubt many BBB members will go there. Since it's acceptable on this board to post an R rated video with cursing as "cute," it doesn't seem like a conversation worth having.

IMO, that is.

I was just coming back to link to that same article. You beat me to it. :)

Oh, & I agree with the rest of your post as well. :) I would do other smileys right now but I don't have them memorized, LOL!

[Melbel]

Ok, I'll admit it, I did not, but my DH knew right away and he's not running for office. Honestly, whether regular people know or not is not the issue. I don't think candidates should be cut any slack because of their gender, race or what regular citizens may know or not know.

I am curious. How dis your DH define the "Bush Doctrine"?

[Melbel]

I posted this opinion already, but yes, it was important for her to ask him what *he* meant by Bush Doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The above is an editorial, written by the guy who VERY FIRST used the term "Bush Doctrine." I think that makes it credible.
Gibson SAID he was referring to the '02 loosely held definition when the current common usage is the '05 Inauguration Speech reference. One includes preemption, and the other does not. The term is not defined like Monroe Doctrine, for example.

:yeahthat: Well stated.

[kijip]

I disagree with this. I wouldn't consider myself siding with conservatives with the exception of a few topics. But I've noticed- even in our own local newspaper- of stories which were subtlety turned to sensationalize the story to benefit the reporting source. It is rarely complementary to the conservative side. I think, unless you lean in the conservative direction, you probably wouldn't notice it. But if you do have a more conservative-flavored opinion like I do on some topics, I find myself feeling ever so slighted by the media's take on things. My imagination? possibly. Or maybe, just maybe the media is a teensy bit liberal....
With all due respect, we will have to agree to disagree. I have studied media a lot and tend to think that there is usually some sort of bent to particular media outlet but can't seem pin that down to only being a liberal bias. There are very conservative outlets as well. I have noted various stories that I felt were either balanced or biased in one direction or the other. Further, American journalism has an arguably unattainable standard for lack of bias. Lastly, the ownership of our media is becoming a smaller and smaller number of businesses and those businesses have far from a liberal bias by and large. Murdock anyone? Even my beloved WSJ, a conservative leaning editorial board if there ever was one, has come into new hands. I think it is telling that many conservatives point to noticeably, frankly admitted conservative sources as being less biased than more middle of the road sources. I have relatives that maintain the National Review is a balanced news source but that Newsweek is SUPER liberal. Same thing- Fox, a very conservative source is seen as fair but CNN and PBS are seen as super liberal. There is no darn Hannity liberal equivalent on PBS, sorry. I just am not seeing it, and believe me it is not for lack of trying to examine the whole picture here.

[cuca_]

I am curious. How dis your DH define the "Bush Doctrine"?

He is not here, so I can't get his exact definition, but basically the right to conduct pre-emptive attacks on countries/governments that represented a threat to our security. Anyway, I posted this in response to your earlier post asking in all honestly how many of us knew what the bush doctrine is, and admited that while my DH did, I did not.

And again, the fact that common citizens do not know what a doctrine stands for does not excuse her, which is what you seemed to be stating.

[Melbel]

He is not here, so I can't get his exact definition, but basically the right to conduct pre-emptive attacks on countries/governments that represented a threat to our security. Anyway, I posted this in response to your earlier post asking in all honestly how many of us knew what the bush doctrine is, and admited that while my DH did, I did not.

And again, the fact that common citizens do not know what a doctrine stands for does not excuse her, which is what you seemed to be stating.

My point was that there is no one definition (see link to Washington Post article by srhs) and that it is unfair to criticize Palin for asking for clarification to an ambiguous question. I was just curious as to which of the 4 your DH described. I am watching various media outlets and you hear a range of answers. Sorry! I did not mean to put you on the spot! ;)