Sarah's ABC interview

[mardi gras skin]

Smoot - I am a obama supporter. So this is biased. But reading this, I figured she just paused. But watch it.

There is no doubt she didn't know what he was talking about

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

That is not obvious from the interview. You can't know if she didn't know about the Bush doctrine or if she has to avoid talking about it.

I think she's in a catch 22 whenever Bush is brought up. She can't criticize Bush too much because she holds down and shores up that end of the tent. But she can't agree with him too much either because she can't paint McCain as Bush's third term. Any time she gets asked about Bush doctrine, or any other Bush policy, she's going to have to ask for nuance. And she's going to try to squirm out of it because she doesn't have much room to operate there. They're going to have to figure out a way to deal with that.

Also, she's going to have to learn to lighten up. The same energy and power that works for her speeches come across too aggressive in a cozy littler interview.

[Burgold]

Most of my attention got caught up in how the piece was produced. There were so many technical boo boos. I am almost certain that the producers were protecting someone... either Charlie or Palin. On a pure interview level, Palin kind of sounded like a politician, but she certainly didn't sound knowledgeable. I am almost positive that the first question... about readiness to be VP and p was not Charlie's first question. That was moved up from the middle or end. And though, probably both sides would deny it, this wasn't an interview it was a boxing match and that's weird b/c I've never thought of Charlie as a tough nosed hard interviewer. So, there was either a bias or several things going on during the interview that rankled him and to my ear, Palin's "Charlie" sounded condescending a few times.

I think Palin did well enough not to lose ground. I don't think she did well enough to calm anyone who has doubts about her though.

[Capt Rich Fla]

She's HOT and hot's enough!

[MEANDWARF]

Well, you can see why Mccain was delaying Sarah for interviews. She was mediocre in the portion of the interview they broadcast today. Actually, I am being generous.

Biden will destroy her in the debates.

I saw portions of the interview and she held her own.IMO.
I would not underestimate her against Biden. After all Biden doesn't think he should be VP.

[Yusuf06]

Watching the unedited version she did quite well. Then watching on Fox the heavily edited youtube video then what she actually said that wasn't included I see how a lot of people can be fooled until the facts come out but unfortunately those with a life usually fall for the first thing they hear or see which if liberals have their way is usually half truths if not a complete fabrication.

There were several instances where there were obvious edits and I wondered at the time what the unedited version looked like because the edits could have either helped or hurt her. Where did you find the unedited version ND?

[PeterMP]

That is not obvious from the interview. You can't know if she didn't know about the Bush doctrine or if she has to avoid talking about it.

He asked her interpertation of it. She didn't really have an answer. Certainly, she could have stated her interpertation w/o criticizing Bush. From there presumably, he would have asked if she agreed to it. Then if she did a dance to avoid the question, your comment would actually make sense.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? (a reasonable response)
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? (good question- essentially, you tell me)
PALIN: His world view. (A bad response in that she couldn't give an answer to the question. In fact, under your idea this would have been a good place for HER to define it in a manner that would have allowed her to be complementary to Bush, but certainly she could have given a response that would have shown she understood what he was talking about and was knowledgable about it that wouldn't have been critical of Bush).

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. (Okay, now here I can understand if she has to start to dance if they don't want to come out in support of the Bush doctrine, but don't want upset people by bashing Bush.)

[stevenaa]

Jeez, she didn't even know what the Bush doctrine was? After all the talk about preemptory war in the last 5 years? Everyone on this MESSAGE BOARD knows what the Bush doctrine is.

That is truly sad.

Uh, no. I'm well aware of Bush's talk about preemptory war. I did not know it was called Bush's Doctrine. She cleary new his stance and she stated her belief on the subject. Let's not get carried away in our disdain.

[Redskins Diehard]

I always thought the Bush Doctrine was to pad the pockets of big oil and the wealthy by denying poor, single mother, cancer victims health care. Isn't that the Bush doctrine?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I always thought the Bush Doctrine was to pad the pockets of big oil and the wealthy by denying poor, single mother, cancer victims health care. Isn't that the Bush doctrine?

The Bush Doctrine is the idea that you can say anything you want, and by saying it, it becomes true.

[Burgold]

I always thought the Bush Doctrine was to pad the pockets of big oil and the wealthy by denying poor, single mother, cancer victims health care. Isn't that the Bush doctrine?

No, that's the Bush Mandate

It was co-authored by Abrahmoff and Rove.

[Henry]

PALIN: His world view. (A bad response in that she couldn't give an answer to the question. In fact, under your idea this would have been a good place for HER to define it in a manner that would have allowed her to be complementary to Bush, but certainly she could have given a response that would have shown she understood what he was talking about and was knowledgable about it that wouldn't have been critical of Bush).

This is it right here. That was a really bad attempt to dodge or stall.

If your algebra teacher asks you 'what is X?' and you say 'a letter in the alphabet' ... that's the kind of answer she gave.

[Smoot Point Really]

Smoot - I am a obama supporter. So this is biased. But reading this, I figured she just paused. But watch it.

There is no doubt she didn't know what he was talking about

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

TMK, thanks for posting this... I had problems watching it on my IPhone last night, but got through it this morning. It didn't sound that bad to me, but I'm biased as well.

The part about "Bush Doctrine" was argued earlier... IMO, Gibson's question was poorly delivered. If you ask the Whitehouse (you can also google and restrict your results to the whitehouse.gov site), the definition is "The Bush doctrine makes clear that states supporting terrorists or providing sanctuary for terrorists will be deemed just as guilty as the terrorists". Charlie Gibson's view is that it has to do with "pre-emptive" strikes... Others talk about a policy of "going it alone" or "unilateralism". And others think it has to do with "Blood for Oil". A generalized question like Gibson asked was worthy of a generalized answer like Palin gave: "His World View". She would've been better to ignore his generalization and give her own view... IMO, he was trying to invoke the name of "Bush" more than he was trying to learn about Palin. There are a lot of other ways he could've phrased the question, and he had a heck of a lot more time to debate the phrasing of his question than she had to come up with an answer. Overall, she did well here...

[PeterMP]

A generalized question like Gibson asked was worthy of a generalized answer like Palin gave: "His World View". She would've been better to ignore his generalization and give her own view

I think he gave her the oppurtunity to do just that:

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

Her answer to that was 'his world view.'

[Smoot Point Really]

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? (a reasonable response)
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? (good question- essentially, you tell me)
PALIN: His world view. (A bad response in that she couldn't give an answer to the question. In fact, under your idea this would have been a good place for HER to define it in a manner that would have allowed her to be complementary to Bush, but certainly she could have given a response that would have shown she understood what he was talking about and was knowledgable about it that wouldn't have been critical of Bush).

IMO, she gave a generalized answer to a generalized question. The original question was horrible and really just there to invoke the name of Bush in the discussion. BTW, the pause between "His world view" and Gibson's follow-up was less than a second. Reading a transcript doesn't portray how the exchange between them really went down.

[PeterMP]

This is it right here. That was a really bad attempt to dodge or stall.

If your algebra teacher asks you 'what is X?' and you say 'a letter in the alphabet' ... that's the kind of answer she gave.

On this question, I actually think you are being generous. That's actually a correct answer that avoids the question. Her answer was more analogous to answering the teacher with 'something'.