« I Approve This Message | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Palin - Gibson Interview

Adam posted part of this earlier today in the forum, it was a short clip but in only a couple of minutes Sarah's nutiness showed through. This clip confirms the obvious, that a woman named Sarah shouldn't be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

James Fallows on the Palin Interview

It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.
(tip to Matthew)

Quicktime Video 14.9 MB | Duration: 10'31
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.



Scary stuff. No way is this woman qualified. She sounds no more knowledgeable than any joe sixpack right wing nut you might find on the street. That is bad news.

Also, did you notice just how angry she was getting? At just being asked questions? How about some calm, measured, thoughtful responses?

Yay, let's let Israel do whatever the fck they want (like bombing the sht out of Lebanon) without questioning them...

No wonder the repubs wanted to keep her away from the media.

Not sure what you mean about Repubs wanting to keep her away. She's doing great! Parroting Repub talking points works like magic and she's doing it really really well. Her pitbull approach to Gibson resonated perfectly with the "fighters" in her party.

The concerns about Obama's inexperience had resonated with me. BUT in contrast, Palin is a complete neophyte. As Norm pointed out the repetition of talking points is so obvious. I thought Sullivan was over the top in his criticism about Palin. But this interview clearly illustrates she has applied no significant thought to major issues. And McCain isn't even a competent tutor. He clearly doesn't know the nuances of foreign policy; he doesn't even know the differences between sunni and shiite muslims. 12 years of incompetence may be more than the country could suffer. If for nothing else fear for the future should drive people to get Obama elected.

Weeeell, I commend her for memorising most of the repubs' rote answers to standard questions. But when she gets an unexpected question or is asked for HER opinion, she either tries to bluff her way through, repeats herself or goes off on a tangent. I think the expression is "weighed and found wanting".

Oh, and FFS, it nyoo-clee-ar!!! She even gets it wrong after the interviewer shows her how to pronounce it! Makes you wonder if in the repubs' talking point memos (which she obviously memorised) it's actually spelled nucular.

I like this interviewer, I haven't seen him before. Closest thing to a real journalist I've seen from US news clips in a looooong time.

“you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska” Well, shit, I can see a hospital from my apartment window. Does that mean I’m qualified to be the head surgeon?

She also says in this interview (on Iraq) “our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from god”.

This would be funny if it wasn’t so immensely and potentially catastrophically fucked up!

The Palin pick has certainly energized the evangelical nut-job base of the GOP. Hopefully it has also served as a wake up call and will help to mobilize those of us on the left who were bickering that Obama had strayed too far to the center on a couple issues.

I'm surprised you forgot that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Kids are taught that in highschool. She's giving 6th grade answers to basic questions. If I were Gibson I would have gone nuts.

"we have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction are not given to Ahmadinijad" . . Has she even looked at the cover of a newspaper in the last 5 years?! Iran MAKES their own nuclear weapons.

My favorite comment of the day after seeing this: "Did anyone flash back to Ms. South Carolina at Miss Teen USA 2007 while watching this?"

She's an unbearable airhead who has no clue of what she is talking about, and makes it up as she goes along. Too bad the talking points didn't work that the McCain aides quized her on a week before the interview.

“you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska” Well, shit, I can see a hospital from my apartment window. Does that mean I’m qualified to be the head surgeon?

That's a GREAT line and Biden should use it in the VP debate.

The whole interview should have consisted of Gibson asking exam caliber questions. Hell, he should have just given her a little piece of paper with a pop quiz on it:

  1. Define "Bush Doctrine"
  2. How old is the planet earth?
  3. Is the Iraq war really "God's plan"? Explain.
  4. Where did you attend university?


This needs to end.

Well - Charles Lemos and those former Hillary voters at No Quarter are ready to sign her up. She just needs to learn a little bit more about foreign policy with Charles offering to help teach her... I'm not sure if it's her journalism degree from University of Idaho, her ability to actually SEE Russia from where she is, the fact that she is in the state where a lot of our oil comes from and she thinks energy is vital to our security (A+ for that from Charles because no yahoo on the street would be able to tell you that), or her ability not to blink when she forgot to cram the answer to the question (what is the Bush Doctrine - she only got a C for that - actually - kind of an easy grader since it was obvious she didn't know whattheh@ll it was but just took a general stab at what Bush was up to).

Yep, Hillary. Kind of takes the satisfaction out of the fact these people wanted to vote for you ---- or Sarah Palin. Remember the Seinfeld episode where the guy said Elaine was breathtaking and then says the same thing about an ugly baby...

Oh my gosh... I am almost left speechless... Not just by this interview, but the way the 2008 presidential campaign has been run for the past few months...

I come from a country in which most Americans (mistakenly) brand as 'undemocratic' and 'under a dictatorship'. Admittedly, in my country, it is not as easy to get into politics as USA, as there are a lot of criteria that one must adhere to before running for a seat in the parliament (e.g., no criminal records)... However, I am almost sure that I have never ever seen a politician in my country who is in office that speaks like this...

Wow, if this is what 'democracy' is, then thank you very much, I think I'll prefer my 'totalitarian government'...

Thats the wrong lesson to take away. No one ever said democracy was easy. Like everything else in life you have to continuously work at it. By the way there have been numerous ridiculous statements made by politicians in Singapore. My favorite is the PM's statement on having to spend time fixing the opposition. And the criteria allowing one to run for the Presidency in Singapore means that approximately 200 to 300 people meet the criteria. Obama if Singaporean would not even meet the minimum criteria.

I forgot to add Palin would meet those 'stringent' requirements.

(1) Actually, I think you are wrong. Obama will meet the criteria, whereas it is possibly Palin and Mccain who will not meet the criteria due to their issues with ethical violations.

(2) No, I do not claim that the politicians in Singapore do not make ridiculous statement. And I agree with you, that is a ridiculous statement made by the PM as well. However, at least I do not think there has ever been an election in Singapore in which politicians have to come out and affirm their religious views (i.e., bible thumbing I think you call it?). In fact, being a secular country, politicians wearing their religion on their sleeves is a big taboo here.

(3) Again maybe it is my fault for not stating my point correctly. I am not against democracy. In fact, I think it is one of the best political inventions of the human society. However, democracy is not just something you plant on the ground and it 'magically springs up' (to quote Jon Stewart, I think)... My point is that the implementation of 'democracy' on the ground requires more nuance planning and different countries with different geo-political and social backgrounds probably require different different sets of rules on the ground in order for democracy to work. And I do think that Singapore is a democratic country as well, it is just that the rules on the ground differs greatly from USA. Maybe a bit of context. Having been in USA for a few years, when I tell people I am from Singapore, most of them claim that I live in a democratic backwaters country (i.e., totalitarian country), unlike USA, which is a democratic country. However, after seeing the elections in 2006 and 2008, I find myself kind of hoping and wishing that my country will never adopt the 'democratic ways' of USA, because I am worried that within 1 election cycle, this style of democracy will be very detrimental to my country.

(4) Anyway, as a non-US citizen, I still hope that Obama wins the election. Given my criticism of the election cycles in USA, I must say that I am quite impressed by the way Obama carries himself compared to McCain and Bush (well, but then again, any other leader will look favorable compared to Bush). In fact, a lot of my friends (also non-US citizens) are kind of rooting for Obama, mainly because we really cannot stand the bullshit that comes out from the Bush administration for the past few years...

(5) Sorry for the long and slightly off-topic post... Cheers!

Long post appreciated.

Not all democracies operate this way. The citizens of this one happen to be coddled, entertained, propaganda-fed, and not frequently medicated, fat, and lazy.

When life is too easy, stupid becomes the norm. meant, of course, "not infrequently"

oh my god. she's another moron who says "nucular" instead of "nuclear".

i love how her response to "does being next to russia really mean you have insight into russia?": we can see them!


Thanks for posting all of this Norm: it's even scarier in the full version!

Jill: I agree, but I must say I'm a little shocked re: No Quarter. I found most absurd this assertion:

Her best moment, in my view, came in framing energy security as a national security issue.

No, that was her obviously evading an issue she knew nothing about. One can only imagine the inanity of her response, if Gibson had been a good journalist, and pushed her by asking: Can you explain in specific terms why energy is important to national security? I mean, yes, foreign oil, but how will that help us in Iraq? Or Afganhistan? Or Pakistan? Or prevent another terrorist attack?

I believe she probably left this interview still not knowing what on earth the "Bush Doctrine" is, she just picked up on the word 'Iraq' in Gibson's response and started talking about "terrorist extremists who want to do us ill". (Prior to our invasion: what had Iraq to do with those people? Answer: They hated each other).

Krugman has some appropriately sobering remarks in his column today, which echoed in my mind as I watched this interview:

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class [in terms of it's dishonesty and smear]. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Maybe I misheard. But did she say "nuculear" or "nukilear"?

That rings a bell...

I now understand just how much i don't understand America.

I am trying to decide what is worse. Palin being a heartbeat away from being the most powerful executive in the world or the Daily Show not having four years of good material from her.

As jon stewart said in a Larry King interview, (paraphrasing) are you serious? You think i'd rather put the future of america and my children at risk to make some funny jokes on television?

Watch the Democratic/Republican convention daily shows. The contrast is funny.

Democratic: they run around acting like fools and being "the show". They have to be the comedy to the democrats 'straight man'.

Republican: They give the republicans just enough rope to hang themselves, and act the 'straight man', while the republicans provide the comedy.

Not much talk about the economy, and that's on Gibson, who is as ignorant of the realities and the intellectual challenges poised by current events as are nearly all his colleagues in the MSM. More on that in Pork Softly and Carry a Lipstick.

The really scary part is that this is not the full interview.

It's painful to watch this interview. Every response is some form of stump speech. It's as if McCain has been tutoring her in the exact stances he takes and Obama takes. However Palin can't remember who's is who.

This woman is not qualified to be the VP.

She is a scary hybrid of George Bush and Dan Quayle ... please make the pain go away.

Best comment for me:

In the ABC interview, Palin said she believes that "man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. ... Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it."

So... What if it IS the cyclical nature - not arguing that point, we all know it's not - but IF it were... She's saying that the McCain/Palin ticket is the one that will fight Mother Nature and stop the earth's warming/cooling cycles? What a dope. What does it say that this prole energizes the Repub base?

And let's be perfectly clear here:

Charles Gibson is a poor excuse of a journalist and is basically tickling her with a feather duster here, not hitting her hard with real queestions.


Hitting her any harder with an incisive question would have left her down for the count and unable to stumble through any more. Charles Gibson did his job fine in this interview.

One of my first thoughts was, as tbogg also observed, that miss South Carolina was the veep candidate.

But in actual hands of someone who vice-presidential candidates, Dan Quayle was just as dumb and just as delusional as Palin. The important difference is that Quayle was an insurace policy against GHW Bush being impeached over his role in Iran-Contra: Quayle wasn't meant to become president, he was just there for the wingnut base, and if poppa Bush was chased out of office, it would leave the fate of civilization in thecouldn't spell potato. Palin, on the other hand, could be in a position to become president if the cranky old guy with a history of cancer dies in the next four years.

Anwaya - Thank you so much for the link to tbogg. I laughed so hard at the post and the comments. That was a pleasurable comedy break.

What I find remarkable is the comments on energy (I listened to this last night so sorry If I misquote) but doesn't she say that 82% of america's energy comes from Alaska?

That can't be true. First of all coal nuclear, natural gas and wind and solar come from all over the unites states. And we import the majority of our oil.

She means that 82% of our domenstic oil production is in Alaska, but that is hardly foreign policy experience if she can't even say it right. This isn't about experience its about brains.

I am frightened for my country.

I remember her saying 20 but I can't watch it again so no promises.

Yup - she did say 20%. Piss poor interview though.

Thanks, I couldn't watch it again either. Every time she says "Charlie" I see myself dying in Iran after being drafted.

But non the less, crude Oil is not "energy".

One last clarification, She says "20% of the energy is provided by alaska". Wrong. if you include all energy generation in the U.S., Alaska Only supplies 3.5%. If you are talking about what percentage of "oil" they provide, it's still only somewhere around 16%, i think.

Oh my.

This is den of the Charles Lemos that Norm quoted over and over and over during the Democratic primaries in his assault on Obama?

This is where Norm finds insightful voices to share with us?

This Charles Lemos is ridiculous! How can someone support Hillary so voraciously and then switch over, with equal fervor, to Palin in the blink of an eye? They agree on essentially nothing politically, every argument he made regarding experience in Hillary's defense does not apply to Palin in the slightest. Whereas Hillary has a refined and educated world view, Palin thinks she knows more about energy, foreign policy, and national security than practically anyone because she lives in Alaska! Oh, and she thinks global warming is a crock and that dinosaurs were cavorting around with fig leaf wearing humans a few thousand years ago.

Sheesh. I really hope that Norm doesn't go posting any more editorials by this obviously delusional Lemos. I mean seriously, does he just want a woman in office no matter what?

Is the argument you're making that since he is wrong now, and he is, that it follows that he was wrong then? I'm sorry but it doesn't follow.

If that's the argument, then you're right, it doesn't follow.

But I do think it's worth considering the possibility (without necessarily concluding anything about it) that the host of people who rejected Lemos previously may have seen something in him back then that you did not. There may, indeed, be a connection between his wrongness now and what people were objecting to previously.

Sometimes we all goof, and let what we want to believe occlude our ability to see clearly. Perhaps this applies here?

Water under the bridge.

Hey Darius,

We have no need to re-fight those battles. The longer this election goes the more similar Obama and Clinton seem and the more pointless those fights now seem. Lemos' biggest failing seems to be that he is more insane then he ever even accused "obamabots" of being.

Even if norm does invite Charles back at some point after the election, I imagine he will be poorly received even on points that most of us might agree with him on.

It's good to see Palin coming down concretely on an issue-even if that issue happens to be anti-blinking.

I hope Obama starts ignoring the Palin hype, and justs starts attacking John McCain and his policies instead. In that respect I hate to say it, but I think Carl Rove was absolutely right!

Good ol' Dzwonka had the apposite descriptor: F u c k t a r d .

"When McCain asked you to take the No. 2 spot on the ticket, for a moment did you think "no"?"

"I did not, I thought "yes" right off the bat" "I want to do this with ya" "I didn't hesitate" "I answered yes because I have the confidence in that readiness" " you can't blink. I didn't blink then even"

Sarah Palin, you are no Dan Quayle!*

What a Pro! A Proteus (or is it Protea?). It's so (Idi(otic) Amen) Dada. Is she admiral Stockdale? Is she Harriet Myers? Is she condoleeza Rice under anaesthesia that hasn't worn off from getting her wisdom teeth, and most of her brain, extracted (Vale con Valium)? Is she a wind up toy with a pull string on the back?

Personally I am convinced she's ready for a cubist missal cry, sis:

Ite miss est (said McCain while masturbating over his vice-presidential pick)!

I want to do this with ya!


A hoot!

McCain's crap(s)hoot from the hip. What a preternaturally perpendicular prick!

What a shame, her flat face, high cheekbones, capacious mongloidian sinuses, an embarrassment to her race. Both sides of the mix.



*She is to Dan Quayle as Dan Quayle was supposed to be to the admittedly under-experienced and overly-catechismed Jack Kennedy, multiply times reiterated.

“you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska” Well, shit, I can see a hospital from my apartment window. Does that mean I’m qualified to be the head surgeon?

Absolutely the most embarrassing response in the interview! THIS is what gives her perspective to deal with Russia? She can see it? Hell, I do know my next door neighbors, but I have friends who couldn't even tell me their neighbors's names.

Then not knowing the Bush Doctrine - which is the Precautionary Principal run amok - damn, who prepped this woman??

I find myself wanting yell "The empress has no clothing!!!" I resist, though, because that seems to be just what everyone wants.

Did she say, she spoke with Saakashvili and ensured her support and committment. What is she? The VP already? Can she even do that? Talk with the head of a country at war and make a committment when she is not even in the government?

I just saw the whole thing. This is sooo painful to watch. If she does become VP I am going to leave this country and go settle somewhere else. Go to war with Russia??? Is she crazy? She is ignorant, arrogant and tremendously stupid. And why do these guys (Bush and now Palin) say 'nucular' instead of 'Nuclear'. Is it some sort of religious thing? On the whole a scary interview. If the majority of American people are going to vote for her, I cannot imagine how stupid this country is and how the fate of the world rests in the hands of such stupid people. I became an American citizen a long while back, but the way this country is going, the disrespect we show the poor, the middle class and the volunteers leads me to believe this country has lost it's sense of right and wrong. I hope someday, someone, with the power to actually change things in this country, wakes up and says enough is enought...lets have more parties, more choices...lets allow Nader to Debate...Let's be truly secular and STOP TALKING ABOUT GOD in politics and economics and war. And Otherwise we are on our way to a nuclear war. (If we are not already). That's the end of my rant!

Gibson wasn't very sharp either. He seemed to equate the Bush Doctrine with the standard, long-standing doctrine of pre-emption. Then Palin jumped on that and agreed. In fact the Bush Doctrine asserts that we have the right to attack other countries even when there is no imminent threat, simply to preserve our own military supremacy. Of course most people running for president or VP would know that better than Charlie Gibson. No such luck in this case.

The Lemos commentary is kind of weird, even for a non-fan like me. Offering to coach Sarah Palin on foreign policy. Strange, though I'd love to see Lemos-coached Palin in a debate with Joe Biden. They could put that on pay-per-view.

let's play name that fallacy: "that a woman named Sarah shouldn't be a heartbeat away from the presidency."


Not just Obama, but all Democrats are losing ground.

If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives

Party unity my ass?

With the Charles Lemos-No Quarter-PUMA people hating Obama so much that they are willing to support Sarah Palin, they not only hurt Obama, they hurt the entire Democratic party. I had a breaf feeling of opitimism after McCain chose Palin, but it now seems that the McCain/Palin ticket is on its way to victory.


I disagree. I was worried a few days ago, but Obama has done the right things.

Watch the polls over the next couple weeks. The tide will turn, I'm quite sure of it.

McCain is dead, he just doesn't know it yet.

I wish I could be as sure as you. I'm not sure of anything as concerns this election. I don't truly understand what motivates those voters whose minds aren't already made up.

I've been shocked at the change in the polls JoAnn, but I'm skeptical as to how long it will last. I really don't think people (other than Republicans) are that excited about Palin, but they are reacting to sheer nastiness of her attackers. If Obama can get his supporters to stop attacking her children, he just may pull this off, but with supporters like Adam and Jill, he's got a lot of work to do.


I think you are right. James Fallows is firm, fair, and dead-on. That is the kind of criticism of Palin that anyone who is at all rational has to take into account.

No matter what you think of the position in the political spectrum from which Palin launches her views, if you are rational you have to find Fallows's sports fan analogy to be apt. A person with even a modest interest in foreign policy can not fail to notice that Palin sounds like a college freshman who has been cramming for an oral exam. Even an average reader of MSM "news" magazines (U.S. News, Newsweek, Time) should have more knowledge than she does.

Syngas - Like what? Where have I gone over the line talking about Palin and her children? Just curious.

BTW - always happy to be grouped with Adam but I don't think that's fair to him. He is a very thoughtful, well-researched commenter that obviously responds with passion and a very non-cynical love of his country.

For the record - I believe JoAnn was referring to me saying you and Calligraph were the same person. I don't think anyone else has done that.

Many Democrats mocked Obama's celebrity status, while Republicans are just eating up the celebrity status that Sarah Palin now enjoys.

Once again, it is demonstrated that Republicans have been, and still are, unified. This is why they continue to win elections while Democrats continue to lose elections, even when the Democrats have a qualifed candidate. The reason that Bill Clinton did so well was that he managed to appeal to that small-town blue-collar U.S.A.! contingent and because in 1992 he had the benefit of Ross Perot. Bill Clinton had 43 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election. In 1996, he had 49.2 percent of the popular vote.

Hi Syngas,

I agree with you in one aspect. Obama's supporters hurt him because the comments of his supporters end up being confused with what he says. This happened when he ran against Hillary Clinton and it continues to be the case now.

I was appalled with the comments about Sarah Palin and her children/daughter, and I thought to myself that if the same crap had been flung at Hillary Clinton, those perpetuating this crap which was flung on Palin would have never put up with such tabloid dirt if flung at Hillary Clinton.

And for the record. Some people have attempted to care you, Syngas, to Calligraph. But I see a huge difference.

to care you

Oof... I'm typing too quickly.. that should have been "to compare you"..

Anyway, it would seem that we're all a bunch of shameless hypocrits at one time or another, myself included.

It's a difficult task sorting through our own and everyone else's hypocrisy.

And even though I would never vote for Sarah Palin and I'm horrified by her beliefs, I do feel that the questions posed to her should be posed to McCain, Obama, and Biden. But then the order in which the question is asked complicates this.

It's all so damned complicated, damn it.

And Syngas, it's not just Republicans who like Palin, it's also a fair number of disgruntled HIllary supporters who hate Obama. There are also a lot of voters who don't really keep up with politics and don't even really understand the difference between Democrats and Republics, and for those voters, who knows what will determine how they end up voting.

The swing voters are not policy wonks, political aficionados like those of us who post here, and so what will influence how they end up voting is anyone's guess.

On my own blog, I have had blogger friends post dubious links to any number of unfounded and outrageous scandals as pertains to Sarah Palin. I felt outraged and was disgusted when this was done to Obama by Charles Lemos, and likewise I hate it when it's done to Palin. It would seem that when someone wants to defeat a presidential ticket, they'll say just about anything.

Hopefully they will defeat themselves this time ;-)

The really frightening thing is that Palin's ignorance of international affairs mixed with her own huberous is an IDEAL mix that will allow others to be able to manipulate her like they have Bush. They (Cheney et al) will be pulling the strings and laughing behind the scenes as Palin spews forth their policies all the while being convinced of her own creativity in coming up with such intelligent ideas and decisions. As Maya Angelou once said "When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time." Palin is showin us exactly who she is and we better believe what we see.


isnt "we must not blink", the same as "we must not think"? how bout pondering a minute or two, maybe allow yourself a to moisturize your eyes a little while you're at it.

Oh yeah - that statement followed by "sorry, sorry - I don't think I was like this before spending eight years with Bushco" ----

Charles Gibson is a poor excuse of a journalist and is basically tickling her with a feather duster here, not hitting her hard with real queestions.

I don't agree. He had to walk a careful line. If he didn't do it right, he would have thrown a lot of weight behind the "Liberal media! Liberal media! Hateful! Loathsome! Tricksy! <<Gollum! Gollum!>>" meme. And how that issue plays out could spell the difference between winning and losing this election.

I think Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie did a pretty good job of avoiding that pitfall.

I disagree. The role of the media isn't to assuage the anger of conservative hicks concerning their feelings on "the liberal media;" their job is to get at the heart of the issue. The issue here is that Sarah Palin is a stupid twit who looked a high school kid who spent a weekend preparing for a debate, and not a smart kid going to a good private high school but an average student at a crappy Alaskan public school. Why do we even have to wait around until the Republican Party can find an interviewer like Gibson who is assured of only pitching softballs? Biden wouldn't have to wait around two weeks being “handled” before we can here him interviewed. Fallows nailed her dead on. He has been one of the few outstanding journalists out there. Unfortunately, he is mostly a print guy and retards don't read him. Gibson is as dumb as Palin.

“Putting government back on the side of the people.”

I wish the Republicans would stop fucking saying that. Why didn't Gibson call her on that? The Republicans have been in power, so if government isn't “on the side of the people” then it is their fault in the first place.

As far as the war on terrorism:

“There have been blunders along the way.”

Replace “there have been blunders” with “Bush has screwed up everything.”

The role of the media isn't to assuage the anger of conservative hicks concerning their feelings on "the liberal media;" their job is to get at the heart of the issue.

Exactly. The effectiveness of right-wing chanting "liberal media, liberal media" is well illustrated by the fact that even our normally perspicacious perspicio has (inadvertently perhaps) bought into the idea that mollifying right-wing critics is a valid journalistic critics.

...valid criterion for journalism.

bah - cut & paste errors!

yeah, I feel a little in the dark on the motivation issue as well. It seems obvious to me that Palin is a transparently ignorant fraud. Would someone with real credentials and knowledge need to argue that because AK is close to Russia, and she lived in AK, she therefore has foreign policy experience?

Andrew Sullivan, who has been tracking McCain and Pallin's lies meticulously and responsibly, nails it, I think:

While the media demands that Obama respond to things he never said and never meant, McCain is not even asked to retract a bald-faced, massive, obvious, refutable lie.

I went out with a European friend this evening, who just got back to the States. They are apparently just bewildered over there by us, especially following all the Palin stuff. Then he mentioned this practice they have in the Netherlands: politician's policy proposals on things like the economy of giving an independent vetting to assess their real cost. And if things don't add up, they'll actually get hurt come voting time. Perhaps he was exaggerating, but even as an exaggeration that is just utterly unimaginable to me in the U.S. No one seems to give a shit that the Tax Policy Center estimates 200-300 some billion (or more) being added to the deficit per year if McCain's economic policies are adopted.

Oh, and Joann, a confession (or concession): looking at the latest polls, I'm for the first time genuinely worried. Obama is only 3 points behind--but that means he's lost about 8 points against McCain over the past two weeks.

Reasons for worry: the Christianist base is now amped up and will turn out for Palin. And, also, the appalling success of the stupidity and outright lies of the McCain campaign is also deeply worrisome.

Reasons for hope: The end-times lunatics aside, for most people Palin is probably just the flavor of the week. And, Axelrod: remember those spreadsheets that got leaked early on in the primary? I often questioned the Obama campaign's judgment in the primaries, knowing just as they did that it would come down to the wire the way they were running things--but in the end, they were right. Obama doesn't need a blow out, he just needs to win--one point, 20 points, doesn't matter, he'll still be pres. And if there's anyone who knows how to close the deal, it's these guys.

Palin is just a time bomb for the (Republican franchise) McCampaign:

"for most people Palin is probably just the flavor of the week."


"looking at the latest polls, I'm for the first time genuinely worried."

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that it's possible that Obama could win really, well. more accurately, McCain will LOSE really big. He's running on a strategy of stunning the JoAnns of the world, and all out sprinting 'til/to the election. It's all a sham: way beyond weapons of mass distrust-cion, Bin Laden was sent by Saddam, ANYTHING Rove and Bush could have cooked up. McCain is shooting from the half-point line, three-quarters point line at the buzzer. But... when buzzes the buzzer? Analogically, what's the time map scale conversion ratio? Weeks = seconds?

No way!

I am frankly amazed that the onegood shakers and movers can't see what an obviously false front she is. She lives in a house of cards, waiting for the first 10 or 15 mile an hour breeze to blow her away.

McCain himself is what we in the trades call "a dull tool", "a throwaway". He's a good man, Charlie Brown, but he's seen better days. He's not a loose cannon, but he is a loser in my estimation. He is as rusty red as the Sedona rocks (actually, I am amazed to find, he lives in MY old stomping ground, Cornville, U.S.A. Moved in long after my time I guess, wow! It's really grown, but... google maps has it all fuzzed up around the McCain place, it seems, oh well, he could have lived in Bagdad!).


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives