Palin's interviews thread.

[rn79870]

Palin appeared on ABC news this evening and was interviewed by Charile Gibson. Although it hasn't aired here on the West Coast, I've received transcripts (possibly partial, I haven't seen the interview yet) of the interview. Judge for yourself how well she did. Especially on the following questions.

Let's look at three questions and responses (from the interview)The first question we'll look at.

Quote »GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself. [/quote]I hope she learns to answer a question by the debates. The world will see her lack of confidence if she doesn't.

The second question we'll look at.Quote »

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table. The third questionwe'll look at. [/quote]...we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point...

Oh my. I do hope she learns to speak clearly by the debate.

My favorite... the Bush doctrine....Quote »GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

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. [/quote]My favorite Palinism...Quote »And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor. [/quote]We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia.

I'd like someone to draw that on a map for me. Narrow border between the United States and the 49th. state....Geographically challenged maybe.Whoops, I see where she got it from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA

Quote »GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.[/quote]

Jihad anyone.

This one is all over the internet. This is the one that may seal the Republicans fate.

Quote »GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. [/quote]That's war with Russia she is casually talking about there. That is not smart at all.

This is over half her interview. Here on Nico. Tomorrow let's see if the polls react.

[AZhitman]

I already listened to it... Didn't hear the ones you listed, but 3 other questions... Probably the lead-in ones.

Even the local libby talk show host was pretty impressed, calling one of her answers "a home run"...

He critiqued her for "sounding a little too political" in one of her answers.

I felt she did a pretty nice job fielding some rather sensitive questions.

[rn79870]

Sounds like you missed much of the interview.

[AZhitman]

I hope she learns to answer a question by the debates. The world will see her lack of confidence if she doesn't.

The left wants us to let other countries handle their own affairs, but here's criticicism for taking the EXACT SAME tack I believe you espoused earlier in the campaign.

[AZhitman]

I'd like someone to draw that on a map for me. Narrow border between the United States and the 49th. state....Geographically challenged maybe.

Petty and nitpicky.

Kinda like "57 states", or "Stand up, Chuck!"

Keep 'em comin', Southpaw... I can hit line drives all day long.

[wingFeather]

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

[rn79870]

Your answer assures me I'm right. Thanks.

[AZhitman]

Sounds like you missed much of the interview.

Actually, by the time I posted that, I had heard Gibson's questions and her responses on being asked by McCain to be the VP candidate, questions and answers about her faith and the war, question and answer about her son heading off to Iraq, and her stance on Russia.

So, perhaps you missed much of the interview as well.

[rn79870]

I've got the entire intervied in text format. I've read it twice and some parts many more times. Now I'll be able to watch the interview and look for subtle body language issues.

[ishkabibble]

Darn. I missed it because I got delayed while working on the car.

[wingFeather]

look for subtle body language issues.

IMHO, I trust Palin's body language more than Obama's. He is too fake, like a motivational speaker. Every movement is calculated. I bet he could kill someone & still pass a lie detector test easy.

[AZhitman]

I've got the entire intervied in text format. I've read it twice and some parts many more times. Now I'll be able to watch the interview and look for subtle body language issues.

Have fun with that.

I don't need to rely on subjective interpretations of non-verbal cues to know that she's kicking some lefty a$$.

Although I *DO* like the idea of watching her, I find her quite visually appealing.

[AZhitman]

BTW, Gibson comes off as a crusading a$$.

His body language comes off as "superior", almost disgusted, almost like a boss asking a secretary why she lifted $5 out of the water fund.

Ugh. Sarah, love ya, but let's pronounce "nuclear" properly.

I think she handled herself well... a little nervous at time, even a bit flustered... I think Gibson would make anyone intimidated. But the way she instantly regains her focus is impressive to me... She's certainly not the gifted speaker that Obama is, but I think that may actually work in her favor.

[HashiriyaS14]

I actually thought she was going to do better than she did. I sort of expected her to surprise me, but she didn't really.

A.) She had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is. This isn't the end of the world, but then she tried to make some shxt up and Gibson called her on it. This was by far the biggest gaffe of the interview. Her initial response of "in what respect, Charlie?" came off as sounding impatient, irritated, and riled. Not good. It would have been better to admit she didn't know.

B.) She asserted that she DOES support the Bush doctrine (anticipatory invasion), and then mentioned that she's 100% for military intervention in the interest of NATO allies. This, conceivably, means that she'd support fighting a hot war with Russia over Georgia *right now*. She probably doesn't really support this, but she left a hole open in her logic that would allow viewers to draw this conclusion.

C.) Her answer to the Pakistan question wasn't good. She directly disagreed with John McCain, who does NOT support incursion over Pakistani borders. It sounded like she was just trying to err on the side of the toughest, most hard-line answer possible with each question.

D.) She looked a little flustered on camera, more so than I thought she would be. I expected some gaps in logic because you can't become a foreign policy expert in 10 days, but I never thought I'd see her get frustrated, and we sort of did.

We'll see how the rest of the interview goes.

[audtatious]

I think she did fine. Sure, she stumbled a tad but that is to be expected when she is coming up to par on some of the national issues instead of those within a state Gov.

I think she answered the NATO question appropriately as we are expected to come to the aid of NATO countries being attacked, regardless of who the aggressor is. I also felt that the reporter was trying to paint her in a corner to make a statement that she would support border incursions regardless of Pakistan's position. I would agree that "border be damned" if you are chasing insurgents who go into Pakistan to hide that the border should not stop us as long as we GTFO immediately afterward, altho I would not agree that we should simply cross the boarder to do a clean-sweep operation. If Pakistan is really wanting to help get rid of the fanatics (which they say they do) and they have no control over that region (which they say they don't) then they should not have big issues with it and I would hope they would embrace the help to clean up their own country. Only time will tell how the new leaders will react.

[96Qowner]

I have to admit that I was disappointed. Sure, she did "fine", but I wanted to see more of that bright-eyed confidence and teasing demeanor. I saw a flash of it when she asked what Charlie meant by Bush Doctrine, but she immediately retreated to her rehearsed replies. I didn't find any mistakes, but the campaign advisors had clearly convinced her that she needed to stick with the talking points. If I had been advising her, I would have done the same. There was just too much riding on the interview - bad time to commit a gaffe.

I was disappointed in Charlie, too. I don't believe for one minute that it was intentional, but his body language was threatening, and his demeanor was indeed like a boss grilling his secretary. I'll allow for the difficult dynamics that present themselves when going toe-to-toe with a woman. It'll be interesting to see if women had the same impression.

So, yeah, Sarah did "fine". I just miss the woman I saw at the convention. I DID see that she was more herself as they walked along the pipeline and chatted - she was far more at ease - some of that lovely twinkle in her eye had returned.

[HashiriyaS14]

I saw a flash of it when she asked what Charlie meant by Bush Doctrine, but she immediately retreated to her rehearsed replies.

That wasn't "bright-eyed confidence", that was clearly exasperation at knowing she was being asked a question specifically to exploit a gap in her knowledge.

What in the hell does a "twinkle in her eye" have to do with anything, anyway? No amount of "pluck" makes someone suited to high public office. Confidence during an interview or in front of a microphone has zero impact on one's ability to run a nation.

Does how she comes across on camera seriously impact your willingness to support her? If so, color me seriously disturbed by it.

She also ended up having to change her views on man's impact on global warming ON CAMERA. I thought that making her compare her views to those of McCain was the smartest question of the interview.

She ended up reversing an issue on camera and then also blatantly made stuff up in response to the "Bush Doctrine" question.

[96Qowner]

Hash, we've discussed this recently.

I am under NO illusions that you find appearance or demeanor or personality of any importance in voting for a candidate. I don't care either. I liked Phil Gramm for President in 1996! Then I was startled to hear that he was ugly and boring, therefore he wouldn't be able to compete in the primary, and sure enough, no one wanted him. They decided Dole would be better. Remember one of the reasons Dole lost? Uh huh, because he was boring. Do you recall any jokes about Gore with the stiff wooden demeanor?

I have wanted McCain to be President since 2000. I don't care that he's old, unlike the vibrant, erect Barack Obama. I don't care that he's boring when he reads off a teleprompter, unlike the Most Excellent orator Barack Obama. I care about the kind of man McCain is. I care about his proven character. I care about his deep knowledge of the US Senate and every powerful player in the government. I like the way he doesn't pander to the religious right in the Republican Party. I like his historical habit of forging alliances with powerful Democrats to get important legislation passed.

My understanding is that Obama won the primary because he's a great orator, because he's biracial, and because he "inspires" young people with his youthful appearance.

So, even though you and I don't care about twinkle and demeanor doesn't mean that a large part of the electorate doesn't. Sarah "inspires" people with her demeanor, her normality, and her personality. I thought it was veiled in the sit-down interview with Charlie. The reason people like Sarah Palin is NOT because she's careful and scripted. Why do YOU think Sarah Palin immediately caused 10% of all White women to change their minds and support Mccain?

[HashiriyaS14]

Oh, I'm not arguing that all this perceived "character" stuff matters, I'm just remarking because it continues to irritate me.

Obama probably did win the nomination due to perception and rhetoric, as his policies are scarcely different from Hillary's. I don't necessarily agree with that either. I still think he's the guy for the job, but I wish people would vote based on voting records and stances than on perceived character.

[mtcookson]

The Bush Doctrine... I've never even heard of that before and going by Barack's answer to a questions about his own doctrine, it seems as though he doesn't even know what it is either:

Quote »SIEGEL: Senator Obama, the short version of the Obama Doctrine.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think one of the things about the Obama Doctrine is it's not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated.

And I think part of the problem we've had is that ideology has overridden facts and reality.

But I think that the basic concept — and I've heard it from some of the other folks — is that, increasingly, we have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries.

And that means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores.

We have to work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.[/quote]From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...ted=7

What exactly does a "complicated world" and education have to do with anticipating attacks and preemptive strikes?

[srellim234]

I'm not particularly impressed with interviewer OR interviewee. I didn't expect to be. The campaign has her on a very short leash; the network has him on one, too. Too harsh and the McCain campaign will cut off access to all ABC reporters.

I'm not judging her on the interview until the series has run its course. They may be returning to some of these subjects before it's over.

[96Qowner]

And Sarah said that it was the duty of the CIC to commit direct military action against anyone who posed an Imminent Threat, which sounds very much like what Democratic candidates were saying all during their long debate season. "Imminent Threat" was the important line that was drawn. Bush advocated a much more aggressive doctrine.

Not sure what the complaint is?

As far as the criticism against her reply about Georgia and NATO. Um ... just as she said. That is the Obligation of NATO - to defend each other. If we choose not to defend a NATO member, then I guess we'll have to withdraw from NATO.

Again, not sure what the complaint is.

[WDRacing]

IS this interview floating around anywhere? I'd like to give it a viewing, see if I still don't like her.

[Encryptshun]

I heard highlights from the interview and I have to agree that Gibson was deliberately trying to find chinks in her armor and exploit them.

Well, while the necessity of having well-informed and well-positioned leaders is obvious, it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be an expert at EVERYTHING and to know, off-the-cuff exactly what multi-layered meaning there might be behind a question. I wouldn't expect Obama, Biden, or McCain to know EVERYTHING -- that's why they have expert advisors to help them fill in gaps. Just because my CEO runs Sara Lee, that doesn't mean she'd be able to rattle off the ingredients on a package of our hot dogs.

It is always much easier to tear something down than it is to build it.

[HashiriyaS14]

Well, while the necessity of having well-informed and well-positioned leaders is obvious, it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be an expert at EVERYTHING and to know, off-the-cuff exactly what multi-layered meaning there might be behind a question.

Yeah, but when she got confronted with something she didn't know, her first instinct was to try and make stuff up, which obviously backfired.

I'm not surprised she wasn't familiar with the Bush Doctrine, even though it's governed our foreign policy for 6 years, but it was even worse that she thought she could cover by blatantly making up nonsense.

Additionally, she let herself get cornered into reversing a long-held conviction DURING the interview. I'm amazed that the McCain camp hadn't given her a pre-canned response to that question.

[Encryptshun]

^ No argument here. I just think the whole thing was more to discredit her than it was to actually get her ideas and beliefs on record.

It's a scumbag tactic regardless of which "wing" it comes from. The kind of thing I expect from O'Reilly.

If we, the American people, really care to know the people we get to vote for come November, we should be (and I'm not joking here) have Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert do all the interviews and MC all the debates.

I know your first instinct is to laugh and mock me, but both those guys can interview better than ANY single "news" journalist on air.

[96Qowner]

IS this interview floating around anywhere? I'd like to give it a viewing, see if I still don't like her.

huffingtonpost.com has it, both video and transcript:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html

I don't think you're gonna like her any better after seeing it, but watch Charlie, too.

[WDRacing]

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

[mtcookson]

Not sure what the complaint is?

I'm basically being preemptive myself in that I've seen a lot of people elsewhere giving her hell for not knowing the Bush Doctrine when it appears Obama didn't even know it either. That is all.

[audtatious]

Something interesting.......The same reporter interviewed Obama right after his win over Clinton, let's see the difference between the Obama and Palin interviews:

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

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?How does it feel to "win"?How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?Who will be your VP?Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?Will you accept public finance?What issues is your campaign about?Will you visit Iraq?Will you debate McCain at a town hall?What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:http://elections.foxnews.com/2...-news/

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?Questions about foreign policy-territorial integrity of Georgia-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO-NATO treaty-Iranian nuclear threat-what to do if Israel attacks Iran-Al Qaeda motivations-the Bush Doctrine-attacking terrorists harbored by PakistanIs America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]