FLASH! Charlie Gibson Interviews Palin

Pocono Joe

clown bag wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with what he said there.

That's a pretty elitist comment in my opinion. I live in a small town in Pennsylvania, even smaller than Wasilla, Alaska. My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with jobs that may have disappeared from my state 25 years ago.

Or do you happen to know better than I do?

brianthebard

Your constitutional rights are what made you like guns and religion and hate immigrants? Wow. Seems to me that you would take any excuse to know Obama at this stage, and probably have a transcript of that speech he made to show to people when you go door to door in support of anti-Obama.

Dirk Gently

Pocono Joe wrote: »

That's a pretty elitist comment in my opinion. I live in a small town in Pennsylvania, even smaller than Wasilla, Alaska. My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights, and has absolutely nothing to do with jobs that may have disappeared from my state 25 years ago.

Or do you happen to know better than I do?

No I think it was a generalisation but it's a widely held generalisation. It's interesting that it came up and I think it adds an extra dimension to the campaign, as opposed to usual carefully choreographed and spun remarks that are designed to appeal to everyone.

Did he happen to expand on the comment? Did he offer any explanation as to why it is perceived that urban populations or highly industrialised areas are less likely to have the same degree of religious or conservative views? It's not an american phenomenon, the same is true most places, ireland included.

I just think it's an interesting point / gaff. Are city folk more open minded, are they more cultured, are they corrupted by commercialism or distracted by choice, have they lost sight or are they more progressive? It will be interesting to see if he expanded on his comment, if he thinks its a problem that needs solving or if he thinks its something both groups just need to accept and understand better rather than let it polarise them.

Maybe it was arrogance, maybe he was purposely starting a debate he intends to have. I've heard him say that democrats usually don't even try engage with small town folk because they assume they wont listen. Could he be forcing an engagement?

I'm really just speculating and don't offer any concrete analysis. I just think it's interesting in the context of a presidential race to make the comment and I think the obama machine is a bit to slick to let it slip out and not to be able to back it up at some point.

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

My religion, my guns, and my attitude towards illegal aliens is a consequence of my constitutional rights,

I have always thought there is a certain irony in the US Constitutions 2nd amendment right to bear arms you refer to. It was codified so the citizenry could protect themselves from a possible tyrannous federal government imposing force through disarming them with a standing army.

Of course, now a days anyone who would dare think of opposing the federal government with arms is a terrorist and thus the number one enemy.

To its staunchest defenders the right to bear arms now seems to mean little more than the right to go hunting or shoot burglars.

Sand

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.

It is probably what he genuinely believes [ hard to say, all political speeches are designed by committees afterall and Obama may simply not have found it objectionable], but it is was one of his few stumbles in a political race hes pretty much dominated in terms of presenting himself.

Regardless of what Obama really thinks about people who live outside a major urban area he should never, ever, ever call them bitter or demean them. As I mentioned before, Democrats are often stunned that George Bush won two elections on the trot, the second one by an even higher margin. They probably cant believe theres even a contest this year. Im not clear on why they believed they had a chance to be honest.

The weird thing is Democrat policies might actually mean a better standard of living for the vast majority of Americans [ like Obama said to O'Reilly, I think people earning more than 250K USD a year can afford to stump up a higher proportion of the tax bill than somebody whose struggling to make ends meet on an average salary - Obama could really have gone to town on O'Reilly, representitive of the Common Man there whilst earning hundreds of thousands if not millions and whining about earning slightly less after tax, but seemed to let off] but Democrats seem to be intent on patronising or looking down on the voters that are supporting Republicans. I mean, I remember last election the Guardian in the UK had people writing letters to Americans in the Republican heartlands, urging them to vote for Kerry. I imagine the Republican Party would have offered to pay the cost of postage given the natural reaction to such a patronising act would be to say "Go and **** yourself, Bush 2004 baby!" The crazy thing is, the Guardian thought this would be effective?

Its such a stupid thing for the Dems to do. They probably know its politically stupid, but they just cant help laughing at those hicks. The thing about the republican-democrat divide isnt based on states, but on urban-rural divides. "Blue" states tend to be the most heavily urbanised, "Red" states tend to be the least and the urban-rural divide has always been progressive, cosmopolitan vs knuckle dragging, simple minded hicks...at least in the mind of the urban dwellers anyhow.

Pocono Joe

Something tell me as a Professor of constitutional law...

I'm curious. As a Professor of constitutional law, since the role of the United States Supreme Count is to hear cases relevant to important questions about the Constitution or federal law, how can we have so many 5-4 rulings? Isn't this proof that the United States is an extremely polarized nation, allowing politics to leech into our most supposedly impartial form of government, the judicial branch?

Obama might just know what the Bush doctrine is.

I couldn't answer that. Was Obama ever asked that in an interview where he was not provided the questions ahead of time? And Bush isn't running this time around.

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.

That's a matter of opinion, and maybe a touch elitist in my opinion.

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.

I wouldn't say that. I defer to Winston Churchill (and let him take all the flack)... "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

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.

And the liberal tendency is exempt from this, have you seen MSNBC recently?

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.

On that one I can't completely disagree with you. One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen was "God, please save me from your followers!"

In short it does not serve the interests of the right to value true education or free thinking.

Most of my like-mind aquaintances would rather Americans be more educated and free thinkers... not koolaid drinkers! Does that mean I can't be conservative, right, or intellegent?

And as for the matter of intelegence being one if not the primary factors to obtaining the highest levels of public office, I think history dictates the greatest leaders of all time were not necessarily the smartest, just the brightest (and I'm not speaking about intelegence in this case). if it were, shouldn't Stephen Hawking be Prime Minster of Great Britian right now?

Dirk Gently

It is probably what he genuinely believes [ hard to say, all political speeches are designed by committees afterall and Obama may simply not have found it objectionable], but it is was on his few stumbles in a political race hes pretty much dominated in terms of presenting himself.

Do you reckon they're just taking the approach that they wont get their vote anyway so why bother being diplomatic about what they think of them? A very polarising approach if so, a bit like bush's with us or against us view which he used effectively to whip up nationalism and discredit descenting views of his policies in the years after 9-11. It worked for Bush but it's easier to whip up nationalism than isolate small town mind sets. I think obama is a slick performer so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll make some kind of attempt at engagement rather than polarisation. He seems too pre-programmed and deliberate to let something slip out that he doesn't intend to address.

Pocono Joe

BenjAii wrote: »

I have always thought there is a certain irony in the US Constitutions 2nd amendment right to bear arms you refer to. It was codified so the citizenry could protect themselves from a possible tyrannous federal government imposing force through disarming them with a standing army.

Of course, now a days anyone who would dare think of opposing the federal government with arms is a terrorist and thus the number one enemy.

To its staunchest defenders the right to bear arms now seems to mean little more than the right to go hunting or shoot burglars.

Not just a tyrannous federal government, but more importantly any threat to the security of a free State. Although I can't argue that some do see it as little more than the "right to go hunting or shoot burglars."

There are those that interpret our Constitution and Amendments for what they say, and those who interpret them for what they could say. The second amendment is truly one of these instances. When it comes to the second amendment, I think people should read the Founding Fathers (the men who created the documents that guaranteed freedom for all of us) thoughts on the Second Amendment before they start interpreting it.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_ff.htm

Sand

Do you reckon they're just taking the approach that they wont get their vote anyway so why bother being diplomatic about what they think of them? A very polarising approach if so, a bit like bush's with us or against us view which he used effectively to whip up nationalism and discredit descenting views of his policies in the years after 9-11. It worked for Bush but it's easier to whip up nationalism than isolate small town mind sets. I think obama is a slick performer so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll make some kind of attempt at engagement rather than polarisation. He seems too pre-programmed and deliberate to let something slip out that he doesn't intend to address.

Hes human though. Lets remember hes a brand, a product - his image and presentation to the market is an industry in and of itself. No one is politician perfect, all the time. They all like to present themselves as family men when they might be arguing bitterly with their wives or even having affairs after all.

And even if his speech is written for him, he delivers it extremely well, and it is possible he perhaps he wandered from the strictly described points [ theres a youtube video of him screwing up in a speech, talking about giving children breathalysers, correcting himself " inhalers, not breathalysers!" and getting a laugh from the audience by admitting hes not had much sleep over the past 48 hours] and maybe screwed up by saying what he was thinking, as opposed to what he wanted to portray.

I would say I believe the Democrats do *want* to get vote from rural areas. Obamas funding for religious groups, his attempts to establish his gun loving credentials etc etc point to that. But its probably fake. Obama a representitive of Chicago - his enounters with guns there are more likely crime and violence related as opposed to hunting and as an article of faith. You mightnt blame him for having a negative image of gun ownership given that. You might try to open dialogue, or engagement but its a reality that rural areas have a different set of priorities to urban areas, a different set of experiences as well. Very difficult to keep everyone on the wagon. FF and FG have only managed it by being "clubs" as opposed to political parties.

I think the issue is that they are very much an urban based party, and they simply cant help themselves when it comes to their attitudes to rural areas. Its not a strictly US thing, go to any country and theres an urban/rural divide. It maybe seems stronger in the US due to the media saturation/cultural export there [ look at us, Irish people discussing the US elections...and more than likely mirrored by many people across the entire world...] but when you read some of the comments and blogs of both sides, its a fairly bitter divide at some points. The worrying thing for Obama is that he is a product of the more "fringe" elements of the Democrat party. Clinton was the annointed one, the establishments candidate. Its going to be tricky for Obama to leave the bitter polarisation of his original supporters behind him whilst he tries to persuade those his followers call hicks thats hes going to represent them and their interests which differ wildly from his original base. Whatever his own feelings, theres a deep seated bitterness there in his support base - revealed in some of the attacks on Palin - that actually sabotage his inclusive message.

axer

FatherTed wrote: »

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.

I had to laugh at that. You could see she hadn't a clue what he was on about. "In what respect Charlie" lol.

I hope there are more interviews in the next few weeks because she is going to make an a$$ of herself in front of the USA and I don't think she will have time to learn everything in the next 50 odd days to cover every question that will be thrown at her. Can they keep her away from the media until the election?

EDIT: I actually thought it was going to be an easy interview for her (since I didn't know "Charlie") than it was. The way he talks made more of a fool of her I thought in that he was so calm and low speaking as if they were just simple questions to ask. I also like that he followed up on some questions to get a definitive answer which she didn't have.

EDIT2:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer.

LIES LIES LIES. She could be the first VP of the USA to never have met a foreign head of state.

Black Swan

Have been watching ABC's commentaries on the Palin interviews with news anchor Charlie Gibson. Palin is what now 44 or 45 years old, and it was just revealed that until last year 2007, she never had a US passport. And before getting this US passport, the only countries she had ever visited in her life were Canada and Mexico, where a passport was not needed for a US citizen until very recently. Now she claims that she has foreign relations experience sufficient to occupy the second highest post in the USA, and is a heart beat away from the Presidency of the US? How can anyone not fall down laughing when she attempts to state that she is qualified to deal with the 200 nations of the world, much less the G-8, or the United Nations? This has to be the ULTIMATE CRAIC of the US presidential election! LOL! What a farce!

The Raven.

axer wrote: »

LIES LIES LIES...

While we are on the subject of ‘lies’, I’m afraid our holier-than-thou Messiah has been somewhat economical with the truth in an effort to project an image of academic excellence with ‘royal’ dynasty connections. What a shame! How foolish to lie, especially when there is no need.

In the University of Chicago he is listed as a ‘Senior Lecturer in Law’, not as a ‘Professor’. But of course the spin doctors will 'explain' it to us.

http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/law-fac.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

More lies:

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

And of course now we hear him backtrack on whether or not he heard Rev. Wright’s rabid ranting. What a shame! The great incarnation of hope and ‘change’ in American politics is not such a pure spirit after all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

2Scoops

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or, indeed, being a housewife up until a few short years ago. :pac:

Edit: Hillary I mean, not Palin, though she's as bad.

Overheal

A housewife that can field dress a moose than make a stew out of it.

Charlie Gibson tried to put words in her mouth, plain and simple.

Wether she and McCain make a better ticket than ObamaBidenMon (if youre a nerd youll get the reference) I'm open to suggestions. The Debates will be damned interesting.

The truth is I like them all, the only one I dont know anything about is Biden.

2Scoops

Overheal wrote: »

A housewife that can field dress a moose than make a stew out of it.

I meant Hillary, btw.

Hobbes

You know if this was the onion reporting this I wouldn't be so worried that was now.


Her whole part on Israel attacking Iran she wouldn't say if USA would commit to support them or not. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was and then having to have it explained to her.

Some really gem wtf moments though.

Gibson: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks does the proximity of the state give you?
Palin: They are our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

If she ever gets into VP, the USA is fuked and that is coming from someone who didn't think anyone could fuk up any worse then Bush.

axer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She has neither met with any foreign head of state nor has been to more than 3 other countries. She doesn't have a glimpse of foreign relations experience.

axer

The Raven. wrote: »

While we are on the subject of ‘lies’, I’m afraid our holier-than-thou Messiah has been somewhat economical with the truth in an effort to project an image of academic excellence with ‘royal’ dynasty connections. What a shame! How foolish to lie, especially when there is no need.

In the University of Chicago he is listed as a ‘Senior Lecturer in Law’, not as a ‘Professor’. But of course the spin doctors will 'explain' it to us.

http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/law-fac.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

More lies:

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

And of course now we hear him backtrack on whether or not he heard Rev. Wright’s rabid ranting. What a shame! The great incarnation of hope and ‘change’ in American politics is not such a pure spirit after all.

Huge difference between that and pretending it is ok for a VP to never have met a foreign head of state because other VPs hadn't - even though that is not true.

Sand

Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was and then having to have it explained to her.

Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".

There are apparently seven different Bush Doctrines floating around out there. Palin choosing to specify her own beliefs as opposed to answering yes or no to a vague query on her beliefs is actually a fairly safe option.

After all Gibson only asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine. She answers yes or no, and then Gibson picks which Bush Doctrine he was referring to and tries to put words in her mouth. Its then used as way to try paint McCain/Palin as Bush 2.0. Palin cant totally thrash the Bush without running the risk of alienating some republican voters, so she goes with the safe answer of generic support while noting mistakes made, will do better. Its an obvious ploy, and she sidestepped it.

Gibson was trying to trip her up pretty much the entire interview, right from the "Were you confident you could be the VP? You were, oh, so youre arrogant then" and so on.

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

There are apparently seven different Bush Doctrines floating around out there.

It was clear from the interview she had no clue what he was talking about even when it was explained to her.

Gibson was trying to trip her up pretty much the entire interview

You mean by asking her questions? Yea I can see how that would trip her up.

Interesting how she now appeared not to have visited Ireland after all the McCain camp pimping that fact on Irish radio.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote: »

There are apparently seven different Bush Doctrines floating around out there. Palin choosing to specify her own beliefs as opposed to answering yes or no to a vague query on her beliefs is actually a fairly safe option.

After all Gibson only asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine. She answers yes or no, and then Gibson picks which Bush Doctrine he was referring to and tries to put words in her mouth. Its then used as way to try paint McCain/Palin as Bush 2.0. Palin cant totally thrash the Bush without running the risk of alienating some republican voters, so she goes with the safe answer of generic support while noting mistakes made, will do better. Its an obvious ploy, and she sidestepped it.

Gibson was trying to trip her up pretty much the entire interview, right from the "Were you confident you could be the VP? You were, oh, so youre arrogant then" and so on.

Look at her face she looked like she never heard the term in her life before.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

There are apparently seven different Bush Doctrines floating around out there. Palin choosing to specify her own beliefs as opposed to answering yes or no to a vague query on her beliefs is actually a fairly safe option.

After all Gibson only asked her if she supported the Bush Doctrine. She answers yes or no, and then Gibson picks which Bush Doctrine he was referring to and tries to put words in her mouth. Its then used as way to try paint McCain/Palin as Bush 2.0. Palin cant totally thrash the Bush without running the risk of alienating some republican voters, so she goes with the safe answer of generic support while noting mistakes made, will do better. Its an obvious ploy, and she sidestepped it.

Gibson was trying to trip her up pretty much the entire interview, right from the "Were you confident you could be the VP? You were, oh, so youre arrogant then" and so on.

If she was that smart then why didn't she ask which doctrine he was referring to, instead of giving him a blank look? Its hilarious that you actually think she put any sort of strategy into that piss weak attempt to avoid a question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

If she was smart she should have selected one of the doctrines that was amiable to her position and controlled the conversation to her benefit.

Hobbes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes he explained it to her clearly. As you pointed out she asked in what respect and he said the 2002 document, at which point she went off on a speel which had nothing to do with the document and had to be explained to her.

Can you please outline Barack Obama's foreign relations résumé? Can you explain what makes him eminently more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin to be vice-president?

Because a VP has the chance to be potentially the president, especially in McCains case.

However the way the Republican party goes on they are claiming she has more experience then Obama, which if you continue with that logical conclusion she has more experience then McCain. Which begs the question wtf is McCain running for?

Obama has lived abroad. Prehaps you missed the bit with the Germans waving American flags during his visit to Germany?

Palins experience? "You can see Russia from Alaska!" :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.