FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Black Swan

The first media interviews in the two weeks since Palin was declared McCain's running mate were held Thursday 11 September 2008 by ABC's news anchor Charlie Gibson. One of three taped interviews was aired Thursday on Nightline. Without having the precise wording before me, I will attempt paraphrase a few of the questions and answers that pertained to her foreign relations experience:

• Gibson asked Palin how many countries she has visited in the world? Palin answered with only three (3): Canada, Mexico, and recently Iraq.
  
• Gibson asked Palin how many heads of state she had met? Palin answered that she had met with delegations from several countries as governor of Alaska (but no heads of state).
  
• Gibson asked Palin what she thought of the "Bush Doctrine?" Palin attempted to answer Gibson's question, but when it became obvious that Palin didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was (issued in 2002), Gibson explained it to her. Yikes! It's the major rationalisation given by George W. Bush before the US Congress to justify a preemptive strike when invading Iraq (and deposing Saddam Hussein), or invading any nation preemptively that threatens the US.
  
• Gibson asked Palin if the US should pursue terrorists across the boarder into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission? Palin did not give a specific answer to Gibson's specific question, which he repeated several times in an attempt to get an answer, finally asking her "yes" or "no" to crossing the boarder without permission of Pakistan, and she continued to skirt about the issue and did not answer "yes" or "no." People watching the vid (or reading the transcript) for the first Gibson-Palin interview on national security should pay attention to this, because it says a lot about Palin as a politician.

Mick Shrimpton

Christ, another idiot Republican who can't pronounce "NUCLEAR"...

Soldie

Some of the interview can be seen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7611748.stm

Rather embarrassing to say the least.

Edit: On a lighter note, it reminded me of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

The reason should be obvious.

is_that_so

It was alright and what you would expect. Didn't make a complete fool of herself. Very nervous and repeating a well-drilled script. Needs lots and lots of practice. Didn't threaten to go to war with Russia, as claimed elsewhere, nor support Israel to attack Iran. Even the US incursion into Pakistan was couched in that "do what we need to do" political speak.

If she does no worse than that she won't be the huge liability some see her as. But considering the gaffe count in both the primaries and the election campaign to date she'll probably trip up somewhere along the way.

EDIT: Some quotes from the BBC website, including a really helpful one for the Obama campaign from the Dem Governor of Illinois.

bobbyjoe

Is McCain taking the p1ss???? What the hell is he thinking picking her.....

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

Transcript
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002948979


GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple weeks does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

irish_bob

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

The Mad Hatter

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

Because there's no chance McCain will die and Palin take over the top position by default?

oscarBravo

irish_bob wrote: »

...the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit...

...unless the president dies in office.

alastair

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

Dick Cheney might have re-jigged the VP role a bit. And she's one dead president away from a serious role regardless - that makes it a bit relevent, wouldn't you say?

I reckon Obama will shave it. Palin is quite likely to be Dan Quayle in lipstick, and seven weeks should make that evident.

Benedict XVI

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

I totally agree

Dirk Gently

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Is McCain taking the p1ss???? What the hell is he thinking picking her.....

She's young (compared to him), she's a woman (potentially appealing to a percentage of people who want to put a woman in the whitehouse purely because she is a woman) , she appeals to the nutty right / religious right. Like it or not she is there to ease the fears of the more right wing republican support who will be needed to come out and vote. I think mc cain needs to manage her exposure very carefully though. He can't afford to let the race become about her. If he can wheel her out to motivate the die hard right but shield her from too much general exposure she could mobilise enough of the right wing vote to make the differance. If she gets too much exposure and it becomes the Palin show then she will alienate the majority of sane thinking people and Obama will walk in.

It all depends on how well she's managed in the campaign. expose her to the right, keep her as a dirty little secret in the mainstream. very difficult piece of marketing to pull off but they need to do it if they want to compete with the obama machine.

bobbyjoe

irish_bob wrote: »

its pretty irelevant if sarah palin hasnt met any world leaders or that she has little amount of domestic experience , cant remember who said it but the role of vice president isnt worth a bucket of spit or words to that effect

mc cains choice of palin has prooven to be a masterstroke so far , i always thought mc cain would win , im pretty certain he will now

Cheney has increased to importance of the VP position and considering MCCains health Palin will be even more important. I would have bet on McCain a week ago but I forsee a few weeks of Palin gaffs ahead which will ruin his chances.

I hope so anyway this one seems dangerously incompetent and a complete nut.

RonMexico

This is worth a look at for a laugh

A Heartbeat Away from CIF


Seriously though this is embarrassing as hell for the McCain camp. She is totally clueless. Give her a tiara and send her home.

is_that_so

clown bag wrote: »

She's young (compared to him), she's a woman (potentially appealing to a percentage of people who want to put a woman in the whitehouse purely because she is a woman) , she appeals to the nutty right / religious right. Like it or not she is there to ease the fears of the more right wing republican support who will be needed to come out and vote. I think mc cain needs to manage her exposure very carefully though. He can't afford to let the race become about her. If he can wheel her out to motivate the die hard right but shield her from too much general exposure she could mobilise enough of the right wing vote to make the differance. If she gets too much exposure and it becomes the Palin show then she will alienate the majority of sane thinking people and Obama will walk in.

It all depends on how well she's managed in the campaign. expose her to the right, keep her as a dirty little secret in the mainstream. very difficult piece of marketing to pull off but they need to do it if they want to compete with the obama machine.

There'll no walking in unless there is some absolutely disastrous revelation.
Bob Woodward interviewed during the week and said he wouldn't put 50c on the result. Obama also has a lot of "Nots", some good some bad and some like not too popular with blue collar workers and some women, he needs to address.

Pocono Joe

I laugh every time I read these type of things that the majority are posting here. Secretly, I hope the Obama campaign, the liberal 527's, and the Obamedia keep the attacks up against Palin. They essentially have made her bullet proof... What idiots! I mean look at some of the questions and how they spin her answers. Many of the questions, especially regarding experience, have never been asked in the same tough manner by a major media reporter of Obama in the 18 months he has been running for President... and people know that! And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media, who obviously wants Obama to win. Keep the attacks up... pleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz! My worse fear is if the Democrats and media decide to ignore her, and McCain does what campaign's normally do with the VP pick which is send them to small towns. McCain needs to keep her by his side as much as he can in his electioneering.

alastair

Yeah - how dare a complete unknown who appears at the 11th hour have to be answerable to anyone!

Obama has been criticised for his lack of experience for over a year now - everyone is aware of his strenghts and weaknesses in that regard. Now it's time for Ms Quayle to lay out her merits and weaknesses.

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media, who obviously wants Obama to win. .

Can you give real examples please? Also what elements of the media want the dems to win, is it fox? Other conservative media companies?

Otacon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And some of her answers (which they are spinning into outer space) are the same answers Obama and Biden have given in the past, or would give, if they were ever presented by the media.

You know how Obama and Biden have answered a question they were not asked?

If these are questions that should have been asked, why hasn't the non-Obamedia section of the media (FOX, Bill O'Reilly) asked these questions when they got asked?

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Many of the questions, especially regarding experience, have never been asked in the same tough manner by a major media reporter of Obama in the 18 months he has been running for President... and people know that!

Something tell me as a Professor of constitutional law, Obama might just know what the Bush doctrine is. Palin wasn't asked any tough questions. Just middle of the road ones on everyday political views which she doesn't have the knowledge or education to deal with.

I agree with you that constantly attacking her for this is only going to play into McCains hands, as it will alienate so many people, who will percieve it as elitist.

It's a very curious paradox that America that likes to think of its self as the "go-getting, make yourself successful country" is so anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful (i.e Obama).

The Right seem to have a real fear of those with educational & intellectual acomplishment and seem to constantly denigrate it. Thus anyone who poins out the obviious about Palin; that until recently she has had no curiosity about the world outside US and little knowledge to understand it, are branded as "elitist".

Sad to have intelligence and education, make you "the elite". Most other Western countries aspire to democratise as much as possible these acomplishments amongst the citizenry.

It seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid. Perhaps thats because its the only way people are going to believe what they have to say.

zod

apparently Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in America, according to John McCain anyhow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uo6DGpVdOw

Pocono Joe

Benjaii... Your post was most intriguing, and deserves a more coherent response than a few talking points or jabs on my part. When I have some extra time I will enjoy posting more on the subjects you mentioned. But suffice it to say that you, in my opinion, are so off the mark with your comment regarding Americans... in that we are "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful" and "it seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid." The average American, and lets face it, half of America (or anywhere else for that sake) is below an "average"... isn't that the definition of "average," does not want to be considered dumb or stupid (nobody does)... which is unfortunately what is being taught and implied (with glee) in our colleges and universities. But each and every one of us wants better for our children, and that usually means higher education.

To start off read this (I recently read a great piece that really expresses the average American view of the "politics" that are being shoved down the throats of students in our higher education, but I can't find it off hand).
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/february_2002_2.html

And please take time to look over this site... it's pretty evened out between both political sides, to see the real flavor of American politics and attitudes. And I would say it is a good representation on the heartbeat of America. It often comments on the politics of our higher education system.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

FatherTed

TBH she is worse than I thought. She sounded like when a kid is asked a question in school by the teacher and having not a clue what the answer is.

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.

Dirk Gently

is_that_so wrote: »

There'll no walking in unless there is some absolutely disastrous revelation.

I agree it's impossible to tell which way it will go between mc cain and obama but I was just noting that over exposure of Palin could be the disaster for mc cain that swings the middle ground undecided towards obama in large numbers. Palin needs to be managed properly. Her job is to appease the far right. Mc cain needs to take the lead in the race against obama. he can't afford to let Palin steal his spotlight, except to give the far right an impression that someone in the white house will be on their side.

It's a difficult marketing strategy. If Mc cain can take the lead role and appear as a moderate conservative, and successfully project a different image to that of the bush years then it will go right down to the wire. Palins subtle mobilisation of the right to come out and vote could even swing it for him. I'm pretty sure that if Mc cain gets in that Palin will be pretty irrelevant as she's just on the ticket to mobilise the right. It is still dangerous though when you think of mc cains age and that she could actually become president at some point during his reign. A lot of people will have that on their mind when voting. mc cain or obama is a tough question for americans, possiblity of palin being president or obama is a no brainer though.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

But suffice it to say that you, in my opinion, are so off the mark with your comment regarding Americans... in that we are "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful" and "it seems to serve the interests to the US Right-wing to keep people stupid."

To start off read this (I recently read a great piece that really expresses the average American view of the "politics" that are being shoved down the throats of students in our higher education, but I can't find it off hand).
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/february_2002_2.html

And please take time to look over this site... it's pretty evened out between both political sides, to see the real flavor of American politics and attitudes. And I would say it is a good representation on the heartbeat of America. It often comments on the politics of our higher education system.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

I retract what I said with regard to all Americans, that was a generalization and untrue. What I was getting at and still stand-by is that the right wing is "anti anyone intellectually & educationally successful".

There are several strands to this. One is the Republicans evangelical Christian base. By its very nature it is anti-intellectual. In that it places belief above reason or facts. Its political opinions are based on its belief that the world was created a few thousand years ago by a divine being who has left us laws we must obey that are in a book.

Whilst in free societies people should be free to believe what ever they damn well want and I would defend that, their position is inherently irrational. Their primary motivation in political decision making is driven by what this divine being has "told" them. No further intellectual inquiry is needed for them, nor do they entertain it.

The second strand is a repeated tendency to the use of distortion and misinformation by media outlets that are pushing the right-wing view point.
There is another thread on this board (FUN from FOX News) discussing this. Suffice to say, smart or educated (that can mean self-educated and doesn't imply elitism) people who are versed in critical thinking skills, will not be manipulated. By definition this information is being used by the clever and devious (its media originators are certainly smart enough to know what they are doing) to fool the the less smart and educated.

In short it does not serve the interests of the right to value true education or free thinking. Although everyone of course values education insofar as its a passport to better jobs and a better life for their offspring.

Although the right counter-claim that this equally happens all the time with a liberal biased media, when asked for concrete evidence, they can never seem to produce it. At best producing instances out of context where liberal views are presented, and therefore by extension equating that with 100% bias - another distortion and fallacy that can only fool the uneducated.

I'm not sure how important the point in your link that 80% of Ivy league faculty are Democrat is. I can think of lots of sociological reasons it would be so.

But does it matter ? No, because if you have an Ivy League education you are equipped to think for yourself and be smart enough to see bias and misinformation in the world and make your own mind up about it. Something your article constantly seems to insinuate student won't be able to do and that they somehow need to be "protected" from the liberal-bias of their teachers.

Sand

I dont think the elitist issue with Obamas educational credentials vs Palins educational credentials isnt a matter of anti-intellectualism. Obama has clearly the better educational credentials, and should be congratulated on that fact.

Its that people tend to respect modesty rather demeaning others. Especially when you consider most people will have received less academic qualifications than Obama, so when youre sneering at Palin youre sneering at all of them too.

And they have votes. Its not smart for a political figure to belittle at his voters. They tend to dislike it.

No, because if you have an Ivy League education you are equipped to think for yourself and be smart enough to see bias and misinformation in the world and make your own mind up about it.

There are a much smaller number of free thinkers than those who claim to be able to think for themselves. And its not something that can be taught. Intellectuals can be just as gullible and foolish as the poor manipulated illeducated masses - see my sig for how the intellectuals Orwell encountered during the Nazi era were as willing to set aside their own liberal educations to worship at the throne of the great leaders and tyranny. Orwell had more faith in the poor, dumb, witless cattle of the jingoistic, ill-educated and poor English lower classes as a bulwark against facism....and he was right.

Pocono Joe

I know... an old joke. But something a lot of Americans feel hits straight to the core, and fits into our discussion:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

BenjAii

Sand wrote: »

And they have votes. Its not smart for a political figure to belittle at his voters. They tend to dislike it.

You are right, sneering at Palins educational accomplishments is totally counter-productive.

What is valid is to question her lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity and the severe short-coming that places on her ability to function successfully in the office she aspires for. Especially as the question of McCains age, means it is very pertinent that it must be considered she might by default be President.

If I was going for a job interview where job performance was critically important, say as a surgeon, everybody would expect it reasonable for me to be qualified by suitable knowledge. It would not be acceptable for me to simply coast in, saying i'm ready regardless of what I know.

You are also right that an education does not automatically lead to bias free thinking. But these skills can be taught it & and you are supposed to be able to apply those skills, thats what third level education is all about.

Of course people can come out plenty able to think selectively biased at the end when they want.

bobbyjoe

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I know... an old joke. But something a lot of Americans feel hits straight to the core, and fits into our discussion:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."

I've heard that "joke" before. Funny thing about it is that the Republicans have been in power for the last eight years and have they gotten rid of welfare? No. Haven't heard McCain or Palin say anything about it either. They love to express this idea of self sufficiency but the last gov has been the biggest spending ever, corporate welfare is at an all time high and gov intrusion into the peoples lives is also at an all time high.

alastair

I'd be inclined to ignore the anti-intellectual argument if it wasn't for the constant accusations of elitist/sophisticate/arrogance directed against Obama (and Hillary, Kerry and Gore beforehand). Elitism is a code, and nothing more, for those who refuse to play the good-ol-boy pretense.

There seems to be an unspoken rule with American politics, and the Republican machine in particular, that, unless they come from the military, the ideal candidate is best kept down on the farm, even if only in fantasyland. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, but cultivated the Boy from Hope as his USP, GW Bush was an Ivy League brat, but played the Texan woodsman game to great effect. Even Al Gore played the farm boy schitck more than his Havard background.

Pocono Joe

If you didn't like my joke, how about this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/huge_backlash_against_obama_el.html

Dirk Gently

Pocono Joe wrote: »

If you didn't like my joke, how about this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/huge_backlash_against_obama_el.html

I don't really have a problem with what he said there. He did expose himself to negative interpretations though. Whether he thought he'd honestly portray his feelings despite knowing it would be used against him or whether it was simply a lack of judgement and he didn't realise people would jump on it I don't know.