Palin's interviews thread.

[AZhitman]

I was just going to ask this...

When will BO be "grilled" on tough topics? When does he quit getting "softball" questions?

Hell, *I* could make him lose his temper and start crying if I interviewed him.

Take the ONE candidate in the whole race with executive experience, and deliberately try to make them look bad?

I don't feel any less confident about her abilities after watching the first interview session...

I *DO* love seeing the hypocrisy of the left when BO pulls a 180 ("..it's great that he's flexible..." "it's wonderful that he can reasses his position when new information is made available...")



Blah, blah blah.

The end result is, she's the VP nominee, has more experience managing and governing than the presidential nominee (on both sides), and Gibson comes off as a pompous a$$.

Keep in mind, he's a journalist - HE doesn't know half the stuff he's asking, or HE'D be running for office.

[96Qowner]

Grrrr. Couldn't get huffingtonpost to work for me. Here's a direct link to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA

Thx "old man"...56 now? or am I off

Still a spring chicken at 55 for another week.

[AZhitman]

Side note: On the global warming question, I wish she'd have just said:

"Charlie, you incontinent mouthbreather, there are FAR smarter people than you and I who don't agree on global warming. To sit here and debate it in the limited time we have serves no useful purpose.

We intend to address our pollution and energy dependence issues first and foremost, and adjust our stand on MMGW as more scientific research dictates.

We are off to a good start, but there is much more to be done, and we are dedicated to ensuring any long-term human impact on our environment is minimized or eliminated.

Boom. Next question, Grumpy-butt."

[HashiriyaS14]

Side note: On the global warming question, I wish she'd have just said:

"Charlie, you incontinent mouthbreather, there are FAR smarter people than you and I who don't agree on global warming. To sit here and debate it in the limited time we have serves no useful purpose.

We intend to address our pollution and energy dependence issues first and foremost, and adjust our stand on MMGW as more scientific research dictates.

We are off to a good start, but there is much more to be done, and we are dedicated to ensuring any long-term human impact on our environment is minimized or eliminated.

Boom. Next question, Grumpy-butt."

That wasn't the point. He didn't care about whether or not she could competently address the global warming issue.

He was looking to see if she would break with McCain's position, it was a matter of politics, not policy.

McCain's stance on global warming could've been that it was caused by Kangaroo farts, it didn't matter. It was just a test to see if she could defend the schism between their viewpoints on camera or not. She failed the test and just capitulated to McCain's position, a position that she has never been evidenced to support before that interview.

She did great on the ANWR question, probably because she'd just learned her lesson.

Gibson was just trying to illustrate the issues on which the two disagree. If he'd really had cajones, he'd have brought up her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, a stance that McCain obviously doesn't hold as it would be mainstream political suicide. I want to see someone hit THAT point.

[96Qowner]

If he'd really had cajones, he'd have brought up her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, a stance that McCain obviously doesn't hold as it would be mainstream political suicide. I want to see someone hit THAT point.

Why?

With all the minutia that the sleezy leftist attack dog sites have found, has there even been a single instance where she suggested that her personal religious creed should be brought into government?

Isn't she allowed to have her own religious creed? She's made her Faith quite clear. Must Biden support Obama's Black Liberation Theology creed? Does he? Should some reporter with cajones ask him? Does Obama want to bring Black Liberation Theology into government?

[wingFeather]

When will BO be "grilled" on tough topics?

Never. His animatronics would overload & cause a fuse to blow

[audtatious]

Gibson was just trying to illustrate the issues on which the two disagree. If he'd really had cajones, he'd have brought up her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, a stance that McCain obviously doesn't hold as it would be mainstream political suicide. I want to see someone hit THAT point.

That issue was covered via the McCains on The View today in which he did state that both he and Cindy had different views on the subject than Palin did. He followed it up with a great statement about having people with all viewpoints involved in his Administration.

[AZhitman]

Why should the POTUS and Veep agree on everything?

Hell, I guarantee you Biden lies in bed at night thinking, "That dumb S.O.B. thinks he knows it all."

The bottom line is, if this was about BO / JB, the offset in positions would be "refreshing" or "challenging".

Here, it's regarded as a weakness, and I can't figure that out.

[AZhitman]

I do know this, and I think Gibson was hammering away at it...

The whole "small town girl" perception has him assuming there's some level of ignorance of anythnig outside of the kitchen... I think he's even (as an interviewer) a little aggressive in his attempts to box her in and therefore "confirm" to himself (and us) that his perception is correct.

Bottom line? NONE of the other candidates has been grilled like she has.

Questions, yes. Interviews, yes. But not the type of confrontational interrogation that Gibson's hammering away at.

The left is upset because Palin represents an icon that THEY wanted to claim for themselves.

They wanted to have the first minority and the first woman in the White House, and right now, AT BEST they can only achieve 25% of that.

[ishkabibble]

When will BO be "grilled" on tough topics? When does he quit getting "softball" questions?

This is one of the issues here, not the fact that Palin was asked some tough questions. The other issue is the parties setting up "ground rules" for interviews or else they lose access to the candidate. The right is especially guilty of this.

So Palin was "grilled". Wah. BFD. I hope all candidates are "grilled"; it's the press' job, and the candidates better be able to stand up to a little grilling - they will encounter things far tougher than that when they get into the WH.

[audtatious]

Unless they have Biden step down for Hillary, which will be a mistake at this point. If Obama had selected Hillary, assuming she would have taken the nomination which is 50-50 in my book, then this would not be an issue and the Republican party would be in a whole different fight with Obama still showing double-digit leads in places where he is now only a couple points ahead or now behind.

[AZhitman]

This is one of the issues here, not the fact that Palin was asked some tough questions.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm fine with her taking some grilling.

What I'm NOT fine with is the VP candidate for one side getting grilled when none of the other candidates have.

If Charlie had interrupted / rolled his eyes / discredited McCain like that (or even Biden), he might have gotten told to shove his microphone up his a$$.

[ishkabibble]

That would make for an interesting interview. The "barracuda" should have done that.

[szh]

That would make for an interesting interview. The "barracuda" should have done that.

Z

[96Qowner]

Realclearpolitics has all three parts of Gisbon's interview with Sarah:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....html

Also the The McCains on "The View":

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....html

And here's Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", explaining what it is to good ol' Charlie-the-disapproving-boss:

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....html

I can't wait to see Charlie look down his nose at Biden when he does the "tough" interview with him. Wait .... Joe ... who?

[srellim234]

I just saw her next interview is going to be with Hannity. I can hear his hard-hitting and insightful tough questioning now:

Hannity: You put salt on your mooseburgers? Wouldn't lemon pepper be better?

Palin: Sean, did you know I stopped the Bridge to Nowhere, Sean?

Hannity: Why did Barak Obama call you a pig?

Palin: Well, Sean, I don't think that's precisely......

Hannity: We'll cut to a commercial break.

During the commercial break, Hannity: Sarah, You don't have to say anything. I'll rant and rave, throw a whole bunch of BS and lies out there and not even give you a chance to refute or agree with anything. That way you're off the hook and I get to feed my ego some more. Besides, nobody is allowed to talk on my show but me.

Back on the air:

Hanniity: Carries on with every falsehood and half-truth he can come up with about the Democrats, not allowing Palin to say much of anything. Wraps it up with reminding us all that John McCain was a POW. Thanks Governor Palin for her presence and service to our country and for the mooseburger recipe.

[96Qowner]

Maybe it'll be questions like these:

1. Governor, I'm curious about your feelings last week. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?

2. When everybody clears out, the staff is gone, you're in your hotel room at night and you're alone -- do you say to yourself: "Son of a gun, I've done this?

3. In your gut, did you think that a woman could win the nomination of a major party to be vice president of the United States?

4. On what three issues will this campaign turn to you?

5. Is the hardest part of all this behind you or ahead of you?

6. I watched closely your countenance last week, your mien, as you stood in that hall. Has the joyfulness of this hit home yet? Do you take joy from it? How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184

[WDRacing]

I just saw her next interview is going to be with Hannity. I can hear his hard-hitting and insightful tough questioning now:

Hannity: You put salt on your mooseburgers? Wouldn't lemon pepper be better?

Palin: Sean, did you know I stopped the Bridge to Nowhere, Sean?

Hannity: Why did Barak Obama call you a pig?

Palin: Well, Sean, I don't think that's precisely......

Hannity: We'll cut to a commercial break.

During the commercial break, Hannity: Sarah, You don't have to say anything. I'll rant and rave, throw a whole bunch of BS and lies out there and not even give you a chance to refute or agree with anything. That way you're off the hook and I get to feed my ego some more. Besides, nobody is allowed to talk on my show but me.

Back on the air:

Hanniity: Carries on with every falsehood and half-truth he can come up with about the Democrats, not allowing Palin to say much of anything. Wraps it up with reminding us all that John McCain was a POW. Thanks Governor Palin for her presence and service to our country and for the mooseburger recipe.

Comedy of the day...

Well played sir

God + Guns + America = Cuda FTW

[AZhitman]

And here's Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", explaining what it is to good ol' Charlie-the-disapproving-boss:

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....html

OUCH.

[HashiriyaS14]

No, Palin DID pretend to know.

She blatantly made stuff up for 10-15 seconds. The fact that she didn't know wasn't the issue, it was the fact that her first inclination was to make stuff up.

I'll be the first to admit that it was a somewhat obscure question (although not, IMO, for a VP), but the only REAL problem is that she rambled on and thought she was going to get away with making shxt up.

Furthermore, anyone familiar with the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine should know that "his world view" is not an acceptable response. Even if you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is specifically, anyone and everyone shoul know that it is a framework that governs our foreign policy. I could've answered that question better as a 9th grader.

She fell flat on her face with that one.

There's a reason many of our Presidents have been Ivy-educated, because you LEARN SHXT in good schools. Even if she doesn't have hands-on foreign policy experience, NO ONE should run for national public office without a thoroughly *commanding* grasp of US history. I don't want leadership "I can relate to", I want leadership who is intelligent, competent, and intellectually curious.

[96Qowner]

There is no THE Bush Doctrine.

Bush has never called anything THE Bush Doctrine. Various journalists have called various Bush policies THE Bush Doctrine over the past 7 years. I have read four distinctly different THE Bush Doctrines. Sarah's answer was to one of those variations, ie, taking the battle to our enemies before they actually attack us, and treating countries that openly harbor terrorists as hostile governments.

What was more glaring is the professional journalist who, instead of clarifying his question, gazed down over his half-glasses and asked her what she though HE meant by Bush Doctrine. Sarah should have made him clarify instead of launching into an answer.

Just another cheap gotcha shot. Has ANYONE noticed that Gibson asked entirely different questions of Obama in an entirely different manner and tone? But yes, Sarah has to be held to a much higher standard, since she was only a Governor and not a political organizer like Obama. *rolleyes*

[HashiriyaS14]

The argument that the Bush Doctrine is some sort of nebulous non-existent idea are in erratum, I might add.

Gibson asked both McCain AND Obama about it during the NH Primary and neither one had to struggle for a definition:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g....html

Talk about crappy briefing for Palin. The SAME GUY had asked a similar question to her boss awhile back and they obviously didn't prepare her for it. EDIT: Not to mention she didn't seem to know what Fannie and Freddie do, which is inexcusable for anyone who owns a home, let alone someone who will be working in an administration that will supervise the running of those two companies. Ugh.

[AZhitman]

Here's the deal:

Had he not been such a jackass about it, he would have asked:

"Do you believe we have the responsibility or the authority to issue a pre-emptive strike against those who, by virtue of reliable intel, plan emminent harm to the US?"

But no. Charlie Gibson has to make a name for himself by showing his disdain for this "woman". How dare she not kiss his ring.

Where have all the GREAT journalists gone?

[96Qowner]

So, just to get things straight ... you're disturbed by which part of her answer? This is the exchange, where Charlie got his question answered, after explaining what he meant by "Bush Doctrine":

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: 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: Charlie, 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.

?????

To quote from Charles Krauthammer again:

A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....html

And that's the question Sarah answered after Mr Exaulted Journalist Gibson finally explained what he was asking. Of course, he could have just done so when Sarah first asked him to, but he would have sacrificed the gotcha moment.

[AZhitman]

...and the "gotcha" was all he was looking for.

Nicely done, Charlie.

$20 says his wife makes him sleep on the couch after that display of pompous a$$.

[Encryptshun]

$20 says his wife makes him sleep on the couch after that display of pompous a$$.

Sorry, man. I think you are 100% wrong with that one.

She makes him sleep on the couch ALL the time.

[AZhitman]

[AZhitman]

BTW, aside from the general opinion that ol' Charlie is a blowhard pompous douche who got used as a pawn by his "handlers", there's some new hubbub about the interviews...

Seems ABC edited out several segments of the interview in which Palin was really holding her own and laying out her position.

Most notable edit? Right before she speaks about the possibility of military engagement with Russia, she spoke at length on diplomacy and how to best engae the former Soviet Republic to the best interests of BOTH countries.

So, ABC... What say you? Creative editing, or just standard ops?

Read up on it - You decide.

[S13_love]

IMHO she did a better job than Obama, in respects to giving solid answers.

if you truly thought those were solid answers...then you my friend....nevermind you're too easy.

Well tonight there was an interview on Fox News (It was on something on Hannitys America or whatever) with Palin and i watched only about 5 or min of it before i had to change it.

The part i saw, they were talking about the war on terror and so on, some things kinda stood out to me.

1) She agreed that Iraq was the center for the global war on terror (thats what Bush chose it to be, IMO it should have been Afghanistan but thats just my opinion)

2) We need to keep on eye on N. Korea (here we go again)

3) We need to keep an eye on Russia and prevent another cold war from ever happening (huh?....wait, did i miss something)

4) We need to keep an eye on Iran (are the republicans trying to provoke a war with Iran?)

After that i changed it, I am curious to see a transcript of the interview later on though. Did anyone else watch it?

[Jesda]

if you truly thought those were solid answers...then you my friend....nevermind you're too easy.

Well tonight there was an interview on Fox News (It was on something on Hannitys America or whatever) with Palin and i watched only about 5 or min of it before i had to change it.

The part i saw, they were talking about the war on terror and so on, some things kinda stood out to me.

1) She agreed that Iraq was the center for the global war on terror (thats what Bush chose it to be, IMO it should have been Afghanistan but thats just my opinion)

2) We need to keep on eye on N. Korea (here we go again)

3) We need to keep an eye on Russia and prevent another cold war from ever happening (huh?....wait, did i miss something)

4) We need to keep an eye on Iran (are the republicans trying to provoke a war with Iran?)

After that i changed it, I am curious to see a transcript of the interview later on though. Did anyone else watch it?

President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.Senator Clinton supported the war in Iraq.Senator Kerry said Iraq was "a threat, a serious threat." Senator Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq. He however is in favor of using force in Iran if they are believed to be building WMDs, which means going to war and having an Iraq II, which then contradicts his original position on Iraq.

The war is a mess, but I find it odd that so many Democrats are trying to wipe their hands clean when many favored it, especially back when 75% of the population supported the removal of Saddam Hussein.

All are guilty as charged.