Back to the cocoon
Last night’s interview with Charlie Gibson has clearly sown ever more doubts about Governor Palin’s readiness to be Vice President. Her impolitic response on Russia, complete avoidance of the Pakistan question, and ignorance over the Bush Doctrine has not sat well with the American people today. The McCain campaign clearly knows it, because now Sarah Palin will be holding her first cable TV interview with…Sean Hannity.
Apparently Charlie Gibson was not “deferential” enough for Sarah Palin. As NPR reported this morning, the portion on the Bush Doctrine was “squirm inducing.” I literally felt embarrassed for her. As we’ve already hashed out here at TMV there are many components of the Bush Doctrine. She didn’t offer any of them, however. And even when told that the Bush Doctrine meant preventive war, she thought she agreed…until she talked up the traditional pre-Bush Doctrine “imminent threat” doctrine. She was completely over her head and, like students of mine who BS about work they failed to do, gave away through her body language that she was lost.
So Sarah Palin will go back to the cocoon. She faces Sean Hannity next, who does not count as a serious journalist. Even for Fox News, Hannity is the biggest clown.
When will Sarah Palin appear for another real interview outside the far right cocoon?
42 Responses to “Back to the cocoon”
Saw this one coming from a mile away…
From The NY Times:
Sean Hannity, the conservative commentator, will interview Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin next week, the Fox News Channel announced Friday.
First question: "Governor Palin, how do you cope with the enormous burden of being the smar…
Admittedly, have not seen the whole interview. In what clips I have seen (C4 News, UK), she came across as a consummate politician, ignorant about some issues and elide over others. Her comment, that you can “see Russia from Alaska” was hilarious, Putin must have been laughing his socks off, as his TU-160 strategic bombers headed for Venezuela. Why didn't the Republicans bring her to the fore before, the world needs such-Palin comedy in these dire economic times filled with terrorism woes.
Boy this will certainly rest all doubt of objective journalism won't it? I'm reminded of that SNL skit where one of the actors kept asking “Obama” if he was comfortable. Seriously, Hannity?
Why don't they all cross over? Obama went on O'Reilly and McCain went on the View. Perhaps Biden could go on Savage and Palin can go on Olbermann. I bet we'd get some substance then.
For a lot of people, the mere act of asking Palin hard questions is proof of their lack of respect for her–and by extension, their lack of respect for those who identify with Palin.
The bubble is fully enclosed, completely airtight.
As politics, it's really kind of awesome.
But I, personally, look at Palin trying to bluff her way through her own prior lack of interest in these important issues because she wants to seem decisive, and it makes me think there is only one difference between Palin and George W. Bush.
Lipstick.
Almost as funny as Palin's attempt to show she's world-leader quality, is this comment by a poster, 'bcmigal' elsewhere on the net:
“Yikes. This morning a commentator said that at least Palin knew who Putin was as though that is a good thing. So she'll get a pass on the interview. Maybe we can beat off the Russians with a hockey stick.”
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/o…
Actually, it's not bloomin funny.
Palin's first interview with ABC is evidence of why we need to get her in front of serious journalists now… there's not a lot of time left!
When is she going to hold a press conference?
Think the American people deserve to know more about Palin's experience and positions on the issues that matter in this election? Sigh the petition: http://www.interviewsarahpalinnow.com/
I'd l ove to see the editing that Fox will do with that interview. If it were broadcast live I'd love to watch it!
The astonishing thing is that Charlie Gibson actually committed an act of serious journalism.
Check out what the ladies on The View did to John McCain today. They must be sexists.
Elrod, since you are a self-declared expert on the Bush Doctrine, then why did you conveniently forget this defintion………
Senator Barack Obama described the “Bush Doctrine” as, as reported by ABC News, “only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.”
I'm just terrified that McCain/Palin will likely win and start another war against a large oil producing country; namely Iran. It's so ridiculous to think that we Americans are told to fear a country where more than half the population doesn't own a car.
Looks like, as a bonus, McCain/Palin wants to restart the Cold War. I guess nobody told them we had won in the late 80s…
Calling Sean Hannity a Clown besmirches Clowns everywhere.
GS : “For a lot of people, the mere act of asking Palin hard questions is proof of their lack of respect for her–and by extension, their lack of respect for those who identify with Palin.”
Yowza! It is SO unfair and baised to attack her with the same questions we would expect any other Veep candidates to know the answers to. I guess this must mean Charlie Gibson hates America.
This is too Priceless!
McCain: Mayors & Governors Do Not Have National Security Experience! Then why did he give us Sarah Paliin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhFDQIgGSg
McCain has a duty to let the Media ask her questions so the public can make an informed decesion on this ticket, since he has chosen her to be his V.P. nominee.
McCain in defence in 'The View' here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain…
Andrew Sullivan mentioned this conversation between David Frum and Kurt Anderson on his web site today which I found rather interesting. Frum, speaking of fellow Republicans, says, “They are so attracted by the symbolism of the selection that they show no concern — never mind for her executive competence — even for her views.”
It does make you wonder, doesn't it? Frum also points out, “On our side, though, conservatives have been in agreement for some time that competence would be a real and legitimate issue in 2008.” He's right, too — at least up until recently. Now competence doesn't seem important at all. I don't know how other people evaluate competence (for the job of president), but to me it's a combination of judgment, experience, knowledge, temperament, and ability to communicate. Obama, McCain, and Biden are strong in some of those areas, not so much in others. But Palin is almost a complete unknown. And for me anyway, what little is known is troublesome. Personal loyalty seems very important to her. I don't consider that a sign of good judgment. Her honesty is questionable. She's thin on experience (and yes I know, Obama is too). Her knowledge is suspect. Otherwise, why would they be hiding her? Her temperament, heaven knows. She does seem to be able to communicate well. So that's a plus.
Later on in the discussion Anderson opines that considering how tough things look like they're going to be in the next few years, “If I were a Republican, I think I might want Obama to win — or, anyhow, for McCain to lose … because four more years of a Republican White House (even if Palin doesn't become president) are likely to be long-term bad for the GOP.” That's an opinion I heard from a few of my conservative friends soon after McCain won the primary. They've since changed their minds. But Frum puts another spin on it — he's worried that McCain will reveal himself to be a latent libbie!
“because four more years of a Republican White House (even if Palin doesn't become president) are likely to be long-term bad for the GOP.”
Now that I'll agree with. No matter who's in office it's going to be rough for the next few years and I have no doubt that if Obama wins in November that the GOP will whine up a storm about how it was all his fault.
Why does she keep getting such good press?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2…
Not everywhere, jwest:
“Excuse the pun but Palin's impact on the 2008 election pales in comparison to the Democrats' demographic advantages. In the end all the Palin “boom” you hear today will be a whimper come Election Day.”
Written by
“Bob Beckel managed Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign. He is a senior political analyst for the Fox News Channel and a columnist for USA Today. Beckel is the co-author with Cal Thomas of the book “Common Ground.”
From: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/…
Don’t worry. Biden is making news too.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/america/…
Isn't Hannity that ass who constantly railroads over conversations and won't allow his guests to finish talking if he disagrees with them politically?
Maybe that's the other guy…I can't keep them straight.
P&D,
You get the prize for digging up the most obscure article from the most un-read person on the planet.
It looks like USA Today buried that story about Palin on the front page.
I wonder which one will have more impact on the voters.
Why is “Palin's not an expert on foreign policy, but she has lots of other qualifications that will benefit America, such as a willingness to cut spending, increased government transparency, consistent principles, etc. (or whatever you think her great qualities are)” not an acceptable answer? We don't have to spin and spin forever to pretend she's God's gift to the nation. Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses. Admit them and argue for the candidate you think is best. Pretending this was a stunningly great answer when it's clearly not doesn't help the case. It makes us stop listening to the spin-masters.
Amusingly, jwest, that exact article was discussed here on TMV yesterday.
Well, the story is 17 hours old, so evidently the publisher of USA Today decided that even though it’s old news to TMV readers, the rest of the country might enjoy looking at it in the newspaper.
Don’t worry though, only a few million people will see it.
Obama CORRECTLY described that. It has been a major element in the Bush Doctrine. Does this ring a bell for you?…
==========
BUSH – 5/22/2008
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.”
==========
And, News Flash, casualobserver– in July, Bush did “the mother of all policy flip-flops” on that.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/deta…
You have the most realistic assessment, pac, so good for you. If scoring wonk points decided Presidential elections, Al Gore would be now thinking how to spend his Presidential retirement allowance and not GWB.
If in a couple of days or so, if you can show me that this interview had any impact on the overall electorate's opinion of things, I will make a $500 donation to the ASPCA in honor of your avatar.
News Flash, merely, Bush isn't on the ballot.
News Flash, merely, the point is that despite Professor Elrod's insistence that Gibson's definition is what any “intelligent” person would answer, the fact is there has been an evolving definition of it ever since Krauthammer coined the term….and he said that again today.
Palin's response bears a striking similarity to that offered by Charles Gibson himself……….
“Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”
But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.
“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,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.
Gibson countered: “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.”
Here is the abcnews article/blog where Obama and “Bush doctrine” occur together that casualobserver is likely referring to. I got the link from RedState. Unfortunately, while ABC puts “Bush doctrine” in quotes, as if it is ummm a quote, they never give a sentence from Obama using it. Instead he refers to the Bush administration policy. So Obama may have defined the term “Bush doctrine” as not speaking with hostile leaders or he may not have. Remains unclear. If anyone has a better link, please provide it.
As for the general point, as I said above for Palin, all these quotes need to be taken in context. Palin's problem isn't exactly that she didn't know the term, but that her not knowing the term is about the only thing we know about her foreign policy knowledge right now, since she has no long record on these matters and is just now speaking to people about it.
Anyway, casualobserver, to your most recent comment, as much as I hate it, the impact of this is going to be one of perception and feel. Most Americans have no idea that the Bush Doctrine is anything in particular. If they see Palin's interview and get the impression that I just read on Red State, which is that she answered a difficult question about an obscure wonkish term confidently, then the issue vanishes by Sunday afternoon. If they look at the interview and see someone who looks uncomfortable and frustrated for not knowing something she should know, then it will have a minor impact.
jwest: You get the prize for digging up the most obscure article from the most un-read person on the planet.
You crack me up.
Apart from that something just occurred to me that's right up you're alley, jwest — any talk of cocoons is AGEIST! Sure, Elrod was talking about Palin's reluctance with getting interviewed and hardly mentioned McCain at all, but his real, though veiled, intent is clear — he was saying McCain was TOO OLD — presuming extraterrestrials intervene.
Clearly Elrod was trying to put lipstick on a moth (metaphorically speaking).
OK, thanks for referee'ing, pac.
Perhaps it may be time for everyone to re-read the National Security Strategy document in which the Bush Doctrine is codified. Some of it is not controversial at all. But some of it is. We're not talking preemptive strikes against imminent dangers here, we're talking preventive actions against anyone who we deem may develop into an imminent threat sometime in the future. That's what is different about the Bush Doctrine.
NSS document from the White House itself, rico?!
I'm not worthy; I'm not worthy.
She's actually more straightforward as Obama, who hems and haws and is clearly not a good interview…. I watched BHO on O'Reilly & Sarah on ABC & I'll give the nod to Sarah by a nose.
Elrod can be as dismissive and condescending as he likes….. The consensus out there even from the more rabid bomb-throwers in the MSM & blogosphere is that she did well for a first timer. Taylor Marsh even gave her a pass.
Elrod's delusional side is continuing to assert itself. If he is a “moderate,” Biden is a rock star! Better get Hillary onto the ticket, because Sarah isn't going to fade or implode. I think Obama himself has a better chance of choking big time than Sarah.
Even for Fox News, Hannity is the biggest clown.
This is actually deliriously delusional—-if Hannity is a “clown,” why does Obama keep referring to him. No one takes a clown seriously enough to refer to him. E.g., O'Reilly has never referred to Keith Olberboy, as KO is a clown—even if Elrod doesn't know it.
She's straightforward if you count answering in mindless talking points as being straightforward. Did you hear her response to the Pakistan question? She punted and talked about Afghanistan and how we should apply the lessons of Iraq.
That's not a coherent response, even if she manages not to stutter.
Sarah Palin has a degree in sports journalism, and was a sports anchor. She is prepared to read and perhaps memorize a quick script. Congrats.
She's over her head when it comes to giving actual answers.
daveinboca, Google “Bozo.” Lot of references, though he is (was) indeed, a clown.
daveinboca – Google “Bozo the Clown.” Lot of references! Though he was, certainly, an unserious clown.
Jeeze. Discus must be on the blink – been having issues with it tonight. Sorry for the double post!
daveinboca- who in your opinion is a moderate? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O' Reilly? Bob Novak??
Also, is anyone who disagrees with your pov delusional?
Elrod, the Washington Post (hardly a Sean Hannity conservative publication) came to Palin's defence:
read more here
As the Washington Post points out, there are many versions of the Bush Doctrine, and her request to Gibson to clarify was understandable. As I've said before, that part of the three-part interview was the weakest. The interview on-the-whole was stronger.
kritt
David Ignatius, David Brooks, a few others I could mention. None of the recent editorial writers on this site, which has obvious laryngitis—on the right. Bob Novak has been demonized, but is pretty balanced.
I agree with you on the first two. Novak has never been balanced— he is an ally of the GOP . After he wrote the column leaking Plame's identity he faxed a copy to Karl Rove in the WH. He has been critical of Bush on some issues, but was still a major media ally like Limbaugh and Hannity.