The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Sarah Palin

Palin Endorses Idea McCain Called "Naive"

By Glenn Kessler
GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin tonight appeared to back Barack Obama's assertion that the United States could attack targets in Pakistan without the country's permission -- a position that her running mate Sen. John McCain has called "naïve."

Pressed three times by Charles Gibson of ABC News on whether the United States had the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan, "with or without the approval of the Pakistani government," Palin twice avoided the question before answering: "I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table."

In August 2007, the now-Democratic nominee stirred controversy when he said that if he were elected president, he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Obama was referring to long-time U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf, who recently resigned.

The New York Times in Thursday's editions reported that President Bush secretly approved orders in July that would for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government. The newspaper said the classified order was directed against al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

But McCain, on several occasions, has attacked that idea as wrong-headed, most recently on July 28 on CNN's "Larry King Live."

King asked: "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?"

McCain replied: "Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself."

Posted at 10:11 PM ET on Sep 11, 2008  | Category:  Sarah Palin
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Northern Virginia Voter's Voices | Next: Campaign Cease-Fire at an End


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



It is turning ou that as the press checks out this McCain -Palin ticket, they are finding more and more lies.They lied about a bridge to nowhere, they lied about the crowd size. They claimed the Secret Service estimated the crowd size at 23,000 and then when the Secret Service said they never do or release estimates of crowd size, the McCain camp claimed the fire marshall estimated it at that . He said he doesn't do estimates of crowd size. They lied that Palin had visited Iraq, then it came out that it was a stopover at a Kuwaiti crossing of less than an hour and she never even stepped foot on Iraqi soil. She claims to have experience with dealing with foreign nations because if you go to one of the Alaskan islands , you can see Russia from there. I can see my neighbors' house from here, but it doesn't make me an expert on what goes on there. He lies about Obama is going to take people's guns away as does the anti-union NRA, he lies that Obama is going to raise taxes on people under $250,000 . He omits a lot and he lies a lot. The guy is dishonest to the core , as is Palin with all her fish stories about these pregnancies and her church. I never thought the Republicans could come up with somebody more stupid and dishonest than Bush, and they came up with two.

Posted by: THIS JUST IN | September 13, 2008 8:38 PM

I agree with Sarah Palin's support of Barack Obama's position of going after terrorists in Pakistan if they will not.

Now if she could just talk some sense in to Grandpa Simpson that ticket may be able to save itself.

Posted by: Patrick | September 13, 2008 5:24 PM

having read through much of the discussion, i have 2 things to say: 1. JOE ! DALE ! "the" is spelled " T H E " not "T E H ". please, PLEASE, correct your typing. thank you. 2.re. vice president facing indictment: does "SPIRO AGNEW" ring any bells ?

Posted by: dorie | September 13, 2008 11:34 AM

aLASKANS THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN WE ARE ==THE LOWER 48. THEY WILL BACK ANYONE FROM THEIR STATE BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM ALASKA.
I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I HAVE FAMILY THERE AND THAT IS HOW IT IS.
RealClearPolitics Poll Averages
General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 09/05 - 09/11 -- 47.5 45.0 McCain +2.5
Gallup Tracking 09/09 - 09/11 2726 RV 48 45 McCain +3
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/09 - 09/11 913 RV 44 45 Obama +1
Rasmussen Tracking 09/09 - 09/11 3000 LV 48 45 McCain +3
Associated Press/GfK 09/05 - 09/10 812 LV 48 44 McCain +4
FOX News 09/08 - 09/09 900 RV 45 42 McCain +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 09/06 - 09/08 860 RV 45 46 Obama +1
ABC News/Wash Post 09/05 - 09/07 LV 49 47 McCain +2
USA Today/Gallup 09/05 - 09/07 823 LV 54 44 McCain +10
CBS News 09/05 - 09/07 655 RV 46 44 McCain +2
CNN/OpinionResearch 09/05 - 09/07 942 RV 48 48 Tie

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM

Is Sarah Palin the first VP candidate to possibly be indicted? I honestly cannot think of another candidate this has happened to.

History being made.

Posted by: whynot | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM

Sarah Palin is being portrayed as a victim by the neocons in an attempt to deceive the public about her lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign and domestic policy. Claiming she is being ganged-up-on and tricked is a tactic to make people feel sorry for her in an attempt to win votes. how deserate!

Posted by: Mark | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM

Good Grief. McCain and Palin = Dumb and Dumber. I guess the same can be said of the uneducated voter population who think these two puppets are the answer to America's problems.

Posted by: Vampirella | September 12, 2008 3:46 PM

It is so degrading that Palin is the best we could come up with for a VP for this nobble country. It feels like slap in the face. This country did not come to these days with sex appealing people in the white house. As a McCain admirer I feel let down. This is not a beauty contest. In his craving for the presidency McCain left everything he stands for behind. Palin was forced upon him and he did nothing. American people deserved better. Palin as VP is a joke on our intelligence as people. We as a nation are much smarter and intelligent people than Palin and we deserved much better international representation. Sad day for us Americans.

Posted by: Dave Stewart | September 12, 2008 3:14 PM

After bombing the interview with stock cookie cutter answers to Gibson's questions there still remains these policy positions:

Gov. Palin:
Raised taxes as the Gov. of Alaska

Misled America about the Bridge to Nowhere, in her first national speech (She fully supported it and only denounced it after the funding was cut anyhow) and continues to do so as many as four times a day on the campaign stump. She never returned the funds for the Bridge to Nowhere.

A 2006 question to Governor Palin …”Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”
Answer: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

Wants to teach creationism in Science Class, subverting the US Constitution

Tried to get books banned at the local library

Fired her entire staff 10 days into term as mayor, for lack of loyalty

Used every available lever to get an enemy fired from his job, and is still lying about it

Put a gag order on her administration as mayor of a town of 6500

Milked the Federal Government for huge series of earmarks, by using Jack Abramoff lobbyists. The highest per capita earmarker in the nation: Palin (27 Million for a town of 6500)

Charged 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in her first year as Alaska Governor and 31 earmarks valued at $197 million this year. Considerably HIGHER than Barrack Obama’s Earmark list he released in March of 2008 in the spirit of transparency.

Billed taxpayers in Alaska $43,490 for staying in her own home.

Touts the need to address special needs children but only did so by stepping in at the last minute to support a bill that she was chided for NOT supporting previously despite her sister having a child with autism.

Doesn’t believe in Global Warming

Used Alaska First as her campaign slogan, which is the same one as her husband’s old party, the AIP, a secessionist organization she recorded a supportive piece for this year! She was also the keynote speaker for AIP on several occasions and her husband was an ardent supporter and member of AIP.

The AIP founder Joe Voglar once stated, “I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." and "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Wants to ban stem cell research

Is on the record stating the Iraq war ”Is a task from God.”

In July when interviewed about the possibility of being the VP she stated that she did not know what the VP did.
Subsequently has been sequestered and hidden from the media until an appropriate time in which she has been provided with the answers to any potential questions the press may have with under two months left in till the election. Why not let her speak RIGHT NOW? Perhaps because she doesn’t know what to say or worse still she does know what to say and we will not like it.

Left her town Mayoralty with a huge debt, having outspent all around in her (21 MILION in debt)

And, perhaps worst of all, Palin would insist that my 14 daughter carry and birth a rapist’s child (No exception for terminations of pregnancy even to save the life of a mother)

THESE are the troubling ideals that in 50 something days may become a reality.
MORE wacky ideology
MORE of the same BUSH doctrine (Even if Sarah doesnt know what that means)

Posted by: feastorafamine | September 12, 2008 2:44 PM

rofl, whoopie goldberg just lost obama the election.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:57 PM

no chris,

there are plenty of articles critical of charles gibson for his audacious attitude and difference in styles from obama to palin.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM

After that whole interview, this is the only critical article! What a free pass? Sarah Palin knows nothing on foreign policy. Even worse, her lack of knowledge doesn't cause her "to blink"

I have so many problems with this VP candidate. I am so disappointed in McCain, and now the WashingtonPost for sitting by silently.

Posted by: Chris Stewart | September 12, 2008 12:54 PM

you're not arguing the Russia-will-invade-and-conquer-Europe thing anymore?
-----joe

i was arguing that, and i have to suggest that old adage, which is similar to what palin suggested to her church and was misinterpreted; hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

the logical chance of the worst happening is not high, but none the less still valid.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 12:49 PM

fake JakeD last night at 11:12 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 12:45 PM

"We aren't dealing with a well-oiled war machine, here, we're dealing with a starving animal equipped with nuclear weapons" -Joe

-------

Scott,

So is that a no, you're not arguing the Russia-will-invade-and-conquer-Europe thing anymore?

If you're just taking offense to the term starving animal, call Russia whatever you'd like. They are by any measure a shadow of what they were 20 years ago, and today they are struggling just to keep NATO off of their doormat.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 12:43 PM

kd oklahoma,

you need to face diplomatic reality, as soon as we say that war is off the table, russia puts war on the table and we have to fold our hand EVERY TIME.

on EVERY ISSUE. from invading Georgia, to invading nearby countries to expand oil reserves, to another world war 2 expansion like Germany.

no i am not stupid enough to think that this is likely in the near future. but the fact that we would allow it to be a possibility, reaching a position wherein Russia goes after our thinly spread troops and then attacks the heart of the usa while we are weak, is exactly the kind of possibility that being a world leader is supposed to prevent.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 12:41 PM

War with Russia would be nothing short of suicide. We are already in two wars, and if we could pull our troops out of both of them, we would not have enough troops to fight Russia! Our troops are exhausted, military equipment is wore out, and our country is financial in deep trouble.

For Palin to talk like war with Russia is a possibility, is incredibly naive and irresponsible. How would McCain/Palin fight Russia...with a Nuke? What part of the USA do we wish to loose, when Russia nukes us? War should be the last resort, not one of the first!

Yesterday, Russia put fighter planes into Venezuela, and Chuvez told our ambassador that he had 72 hours to get out of Venezuela. Venezuela also called their ambassador home. As you can probably see, diplomacy is needed immediately, not some irresponsible, inexperienced, naive woman, talking the possibility of war. This could escalate the situation.

Before voting McCain/Palin into office, you might want to watch the following youtube. It has video of McCain recently talking at a rally, where he is talking that there will be more wars (implying while he is in office). I also have heard McCain explaining to a group of people that we are in the beginnings of WW3. Watch the video, and ask yourselves do you want McCain or Palin to have access to the red button? To those of you who will say that Palin will not have access, that she is only running for VP, yes, she could have access, if McCain dies in office, or if he becomes unfit for duty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w&eurl=

Posted by: kd Oklahoma | September 12, 2008 12:30 PM

joe,

the bully is always "managing the situation correctly" when theres no one to question their actions, yet minutes after we support them we find that no they are not obeying the cease fire treaty.

NO ONE and i repeat NO ONE is CRAZY about a war with Russia. BUT UNTIL WE HAVE COMPLETE AND TOTAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION even the tiniest of countries has nuclear war on the diplomatic table.

joe is 100% when it comes to nations that are as he calls it "starving animals" such as north korea iran pakistan etc.

but russia as scott so eloquently pointed out, is as close to a superpower as anything else in the "compared to america" superpower world we live in.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 12:25 PM

Russia
Economy - overview:
Russia ended 2007 with its ninth straight year of growth, averaging 7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998.
Oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from $12 billion in 1999 to some $470 billion at yearend 2007, the third largest reserves in the world.

"We aren't dealing with a well-oiled war machine, here, we're dealing with a starving animal equipped with nuclear weapons" -Joe

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 12:23 PM

Sarah Palin's voice/accent is getting annoying/grating very quickly:

http://megasizzle.com/annoying/sarah-palins-voice-is-becoming-really-annoying/

with weird pic of her

Posted by: Slappy Whyte | September 12, 2008 12:20 PM

Joe- I don't know why I waste the megabytes, but NO JOE - YOU compared Russia to a starving animal an I showed all of us that their GDP is the size of France's- a middle of the road Group of 8 power- in other words- a force to be reckoned with....

---------

Scott,

I'm not sure I even understand what point you're trying to make anymore. You are asserting that Russia is like Germany, and that unless we aggressively expand (leading us to war), then Russia will invade and conquer Europe with their France-like strength?

Instead of that, how about we treat everybody's national security concerns seriously and try not to step so eagerly to the brink of war? You act as if the world threw Georgia to Russia as appeasement, when in reality, it managed the situation correctly and without escalating to war.

Incidentally, if you're tired of wasting the bandwidth, feel free to let it go here. I don't think either of us are going to convince each other of anything.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 12:10 PM

I agree with sending special forces into Pakistan to take out targets (Obama's idea by the way) but I'm not so crazy about the idea of forcing a confrontation with Russia.

If that were to happen I believe the United States would have to reluctantly back down otherwise it would mean a nuclear war.

Russia is not an Irag or even an Iran. And even though Russia is no longer what she used to be she still has enough firepower to hurt the U.S.

Posted by: jcapan | September 12, 2008 12:09 PM

Joe- I don't know why I waste the megabytes, but NO JOE - YOU compared Russia to a starving animal an I showed all of us that their GDP is the size of France's- a middle of the road Group of 8 power- in other words- a force to be reckoned with....not yet back to superpower strength, but in this day and age what does that mean anyway- even "TINY" countries like Iran and North Korea can do damage! The point you've missed is that diplomacy isn't enough. Dale mistook Poland and the Sudetenland but he got the bigstick carrying part dead on.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM

dee,

do you know how to read?

gpbrown,

question) what policy questions?

he asked 3 questions that referred even remotely to a type of policy, all 3 of which were specifically undefinable in the current political climate without A) risking lives B) risking war C)being mislead by a direct lie defining a policy that was not so defined.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 12:02 PM

France-
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.047 trillion (2007 est.)

I don't want to go to war with Russia or France Joe...and I wouldn't call either a "STARVING ANIMAL"

---------

Scott,

Yes, Russia has an economy the size of France. Come on, man. What kind of case are you trying to make here? They were a superpower 20 years ago.

If it was France that was isolated and against the rest of Europe, France *would* be the starving animal. You're trying to draw a comparison here that ultimately ends with France invading Europe and somehow winning.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 11:56 AM

Hello? Did you see how that ABC reporter pestered Sarah Palin with all those, like, annoying policy questions? I mean, did anyone say that the Bush doctrine from 2002 was going to be on the test? That is, like, so unfair! Duh!

Posted by: gpbrown | September 12, 2008 11:56 AM


Russia
Economy - overview:
Russia ended 2007 with its ninth straight year of growth, averaging 7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. Over the last six years, fixed capital investments have averaged real gains greater than 10% per year and personal incomes have achieved real gains more than 12% per year. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis. The federal budget has run surpluses since 2001 and ended 2007 with a surplus of about 3% of GDP. Over the past several years, Russia has used its stabilization fund based on oil taxes to prepay all Soviet-era sovereign debt to Paris Club creditors and the IMF. Foreign debt is approximately one-third of GDP. The state component of foreign debt has declined, but commercial debt to foreigners has risen strongly. Oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from $12 billion in 1999 to some $470 billion at yearend 2007, the third largest reserves in the world. During President PUTIN's first administration, a number of important reforms were implemented in the areas of tax, banking, labor, and land codes. These achievements have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects, with foreign direct investment rising from $14.6 billion in 2005 to approximately $45 billion in 2007.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.088 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
$1.286 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
8.1% (2007 est.)

France-
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$2.047 trillion (2007 est.)

I don't want to go to war with Russia or France Joe...and I wouldn't call either a "STARVING ANIMAL"

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:48 AM

Palin thinks she is ready? Her dangerous hubris was matched only by her profound ignorance.

Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Gibson, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

She seriously believes that squinting into the horizon at the soil of Russia has prepared her for the complex issues on our country's international agenda? She is not even prepared to take a mid-term exam in a community college course on U.S. foreign policy.

Her mixing up of Iraq with the perpetrators of 9/11 indicates that she is either mentally incompetant or pushing the lies that formed the backbone of the Bush administration's unethical and dangerous approach to governance.

Stupid or lying, I don't know which is worse, but I am deeply afraid for our nation.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: dee | September 12, 2008 11:45 AM

lol, dude, the bush administration is getting ready to leave, if it currys favor and lasts out the next few months thats what will be done.

i think you mistake policy changes with inaction.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 11:39 AM

Joe- excuse me- I visited Russia this summer- Russia is overflowing with Petrodollars (and anxious to posess the pipeline that runs through Georgia)- far from a "starving animal" the renovation of Moscow is amazing...I can only imagine how much they're spending on their military

---------

Scott,

Wow, that's amazing, man. But compared to the US and the rest of Europe, their GDP is a pittance. You realize we're not talking about Honduras here, right? They used to be the other global superpower. I'm glad Moscow looks pretty, and sure, it's not like they're crawling through the dregs of the cellar like they were in the early part of the decade, and I will admit that their economy is going through some very good growth right now, but it is still poorly ranked, and it doesn't change the fact that militarily, this situation is not even remotely comparable to the balance of power in 1939.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 11:36 AM

The Bush Administration has been quietly ( because the MSM won't report it) adopting Obama's ideas on conducting the war in Afghanistan. Ideas that McCain/Bush attacked when Obama expressed them in the first place.

Posted by: James Bowen | September 12, 2008 11:36 AM

Joyce- Here's some evidence of how McCain's choice of Palin is, as you say "screwing up"-

From Today's Real Clear Politics-

Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39
National Gallup Tracking McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
National Hotline/FD Tracking McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
National Democracy Corps (D) McCain 48, Obama 46, Nader 2, Barr 1 McCain +2
North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:29 AM

i must say, im quite happily amused at all the people simply bashing palin, outwardly stating that they did not do any research beyond watching the hacked interview in question :D.

im happy to have an informed opinion, and i take a bit of pride in that.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 11:25 AM

tho i dont give russia as much credit as scott our resident diplomat. i do think its foolish of you to compare them with a third world country. they still hold some of the mentality of being a superpower, and may very well be in a position to meet or at least bluff that hand. i think its stretching overmuch to assume they would do something as desperate as you suggest. besides, power aside, at one point they were on par with America, and you can never underestimate that kind of pride. i would think that alone would keep them from such a move.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 11:24 AM

JOYCE- YOU SCREWED UP YOUR POST- it's Captain Palminter! (not "Capt Palmer)...

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:18 AM

We aren't dealing with a well-oiled war machine, here, we're dealing with a starving animal equipped with nuclear weapons.
-Joe
************
Joe- excuse me- I visited Russia this summer- Russia is overflowing with Petrodollars (and anxious to posess the pipeline that runs through Georgia)- far from a "starving animal" the renovation of Moscow is amazing...I can only imagine how much they're spending on their military...You insult my foreign policy experience and then show us all how little thought you put into these posts.
Joe, do YOU see the Emperor's new clothes?
????????????????????

"One thing I'll say for Palin -- her foreign policy savvy clearly outstrips yours."
-Joe

JOE- Were you looking in the mirror as you typed this?

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:16 AM

...and maybe I should add again that I don't think either administration would take us into war with Russia. It's not as though I think a vote for McCain is a vote for nuclear armageddon. I just think the hawkish front is reminiscent of Bush. I think it's designed more for American consumption than to influence Putin's thinking.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 11:14 AM

Wow! I seen Palin last night and she proves
one thing and that is Mccain,is one fellow
who screws up everything he touch's,
Palin reminds me of Capt.Palmer on F-troop
just a disaster! the Titianic as just hit
an iceberg,and is sinking on it's starboard
side! Obama must be the luckiest politician
that have it this country in A 100 yrs.

Go Obama!

Posted by: Joyce | September 12, 2008 11:12 AM

keep in mind joe that during the cold war we werent exactly dealing with a well oiled machine either...

---------

Sure, I agree with you there. The cold war was actually an ideal scenario for two large world powers. We were pretty much equally matched due to our massive nuclear arsenals, and we both thought we were going to win, which kept either of us from doing anything stupid. When the USSR finally lost, it was because they defeated themselves economically, not because of war.

The tables are tipped here. Keep in mind, we are not fighting Russia for our survival at all. We aren't peers in terms of military strength or global influence. We've won, and we're dominating handily.

The situation now is that if we marginalize Russia too much, we risk goading them into a war of desperation. Good diplomacy is about keeping everybody at the table thinking that they have something to gain by moving forward. Whenever anybody feels like they've lost everything, that's when you can no longer rely on them to act in their own best interests.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 11:10 AM

This is more distortion by the media. Read the transcript. She never advocated going into Pakistan, like Obama.

Posted by: Kate | September 12, 2008 11:10 AM

keep in mind joe that during the cold war we werent exactly dealing with a well oiled machine either...but u play the best hand in hold em, not the hand you have.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:59 AM

Munich Agreement (Here you go Joe- sound like anyone you know?)

---------

Scott,

You're presuming Russia is in any capable condition to actually invade the rest of the continent. We aren't dealing with a well-oiled war machine, here, we're dealing with a starving animal equipped with nuclear weapons. If we started a war with Russia, how do you honestly think it will end? They can't fight us (not to mention all of NATO) conventionally.

Germany was a war machine, and Chamberlain foolishly threw them a giant piece of meat in the hope that they'd just take it and go away, but the reality in Europe in 1939 was that war was already inevitable. Would you say that war with Russia is inevitable today?

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 10:49 AM

also, forgive me if my history of ww2 is a bit rusty, but wasnt germanys expanse into the rest of europe started with a minor incursion into poland that was "provoked".

--------

I don't think this situation compares well to Germany in WWII. First, Poland didn't actually provoke Germany militarily. Second, Germany was in a far more powerful position in Europe than Russia is today.

In reality, Russia is on defense here. They are being backed into a corner, which is a dangerous thing to do to a nuclear-armed nation. This is not the ambitious Germany of 1939 with plans to take over the entire continent. This is Russia trying not to be swallowed up whole by the West. Compare the US and Europe to Russia in both military power and economy, and this is not even close to a balanced match.

And it's not as though I feel sorry for them at all -- I don't. We fought the cold war and won, so naturally to the victor goes the spoils. But there is still a lot of danger to us in pushing them to a point where they feel like they're fighting for their survival.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 10:41 AM

keep in mind that palins answers could have lead to the loss of american lives. (bad bad gibson -throws sticks-) and her answers did little else but support the current state of things.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Munich Agreement (Here you go Joe- sound like anyone you know?)

"In September 1938, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, met Adolf Hitler at his home in Berchtesgaden. Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia unless Britain supported Germany's plans to takeover the Sudetenland. After discussing the issue with the Edouard Daladier (France) and Eduard Benes (Czechoslovakia), Chamberlain informed Hitler that his proposals were unacceptable.

Adolf Hitler was in a difficult situation but he also knew that Britain and France were unwilling to go to war. He also thought it unlikely that these two countries would be keen to join up with the Soviet Union, whose totalitarian system the western democracies hated more that Hitler's fascist dictatorship.

Benito Mussolini suggested to Hitler that one way of solving this issue was to hold a four-power conference of Germany, Britain, France and Italy. This would exclude both Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and therefore increasing the possibility of reaching an agreement and undermine the solidarity that was developing against Germany.

The meeting took place in Munich on 29th September, 1938. Desperate to avoid war, and anxious to avoid an alliance with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier agreed that Germany could have the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler promised not to make any further territorial demands in Europe."
(4) Statement issued by Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler after the signing of the Munich Agreement (30th September)


"We, the German Führer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as Symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries. "

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Dale, Joe, the fact that three such renowned forien policy experts as ourselves are arguing these points with no obvious victor only goes to Prove that Palin did well enough to avoid the kind of gaffes Biden provides daily....

----------

Scott,

Sure, but give her time.

And you make a good point about our renowned foreign policy skills. The truth is, everything we're discussing has already been discussed by many foreign policy experts, and the conclusion has been that we are not willing to bring Georgia into NATO. In all honest, despite what Palin and McCain say, I don't believe they will bring them into NATO, at least not in the political climate that exists today. They know (and Putin knows) that the US is not in a good position economically or militarily to fight this battle right now.

They still talk hawkishly about it though, and that is what bothers me. The tone they're taking is not an effective one considering what needs to happen next with regard to Russia.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 10:24 AM

also, forgive me if my history of ww2 is a bit rusty, but wasnt germanys expanse into the rest of europe started with a minor incursion into poland that was "provoked".

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:20 AM

lol who cares about biden, he just proves obamas playing the same old game.

as for bringing georgia into the un, it only reinforces the club, if russia stopped action immediately, or even within a time frame im sure it would be considered ex-post facto, even tho thats not a nato terminology, its not a stretch to beleive it could be used in extreme circumstances.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:19 AM

I don't think Palin is dumb. I think she is a total beginner however. With Palin we would really be in trouble if she had to take over. She has been in her own little world of Alaska, which she knows well. She has not taken any time to think about the world beyond that. She is very much outside her comfort zone and didn't blink when doing that... meaning she takes unconsidered leaps out of ignorance or over-confidence. We just don't need another Bush... she is very much like him. Look where Bush lead us... over the Iraq cliff. Palin has shown that she would think from the gut very much like he does. And she even has her own firing scandal... she seems to fire those who she believes won't agree with her. So much for considering other viewpoints. Yes, she is McCain's soulmate too. He is reckless as well. McCain, Palin, Bush. They are quite the trio.

Posted by: goldie | September 12, 2008 10:16 AM

you are getting so caught up over the idea of using the club, that you forget that the club is there only as a last resort and you freak because of it.

---------

dale,

I'm only focused on using the club because *bringing Georgia into NATO is using the club*. You will incite a war. Russia is in a position with very little to lose if they become surrounded by NATO. It would cost them all of their military clout. They would rather fight now about it than later, when they will be in a much less advantageous position.

Again, consider China setting up shop in Mexico. The US would not negotiate over this. It does not matter what size stick China brings to the table. It would result in war, and the very act of China doing so would be the declaration of that war.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 10:15 AM

Dale, Joe, the fact that three such renowned forien policy experts as ourselves are arguing these points with no obvious victor only goes to Prove that Palin did well enough to avoid the kind of gaffes Biden provides daily....


Hanging On to Biden’s Every Word

By JOHN M. BRODER NY Times
Published: September 11, 2008
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, is an experienced, serious and smart man. But, boy, does he say some curious things. A day on the campaign trail without a cringe-inducing gaffe is a rare blessing. He has not been too blessed lately.
Dan Gill/Associated Press
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday in Missouri with State Senator Chuck Graham, the subject of a gaffe by Mr. Biden.

Just this week, Mr. Biden mused that the Democrats’ nominee for president, Senator Barack Obama, might have been better off with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Mr. Biden said Wednesday in Nashua, N.H. “Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”

In Columbia, Mo., this week, Mr. Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized. “Chuck, stand up, let the people see you,” Mr. Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Mr. Graham uses a wheelchair.

“Oh, God love ya,” Mr. Biden said. “What am I talking about?”

But it was the remarks about Mrs. Clinton that touched a potentially sensitive spot for the Obama-Biden campaign. With Gov. Sarah Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket potentially energizing some female voters, Mr. Biden’s remarks raised anew a question: Would Mr. Obama have been better off picking Mrs. Clinton as his running mate?

One could imagine the campaign of Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, even using Mr. Biden’s remarks in its own advertisements to exploit misgivings among women about the Democratic ticket.

Shortly after Mr. Biden was named as Mr. Obama’s running mate, the Republican National Committee started a “Biden gaffe clock” to keep track of his slips.

Mr. Obama knew what he was getting when he picked Mr. Biden: A veteran of six terms in the Senate, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, an Irish Catholic with working-class roots, a guy who had twice been tested in the arena of presidential politics.

And a human verbal wrecking crew.

This is the fellow who nearly derailed his nascent presidential campaign last year by calling Mr. Obama “articulate and bright and clean,” and who noted that a person needed a slight Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin’ Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware, his home state.

The man who, reading his vice-presidential acceptance speech from a teleprompter, bungled Mr. McCain’s name and called him “George.” (“Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip,” he explained.)

The man who, on the day Mr. Obama announced him as his running mate, referred to his party’s presidential nominee as “Barack America” and noted that his wife, Jill Biden, a college professor, was “drop-dead gorgeous” but, problematically, possessed a doctorate.

The man who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused Army brigades with battalions. Who referred to Ms. Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska.

Aides to Mr. Obama said that Mr. Biden’s propensity to misspeak could pose problems, particularly in the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2. They are watching his performance but have not tried to rein him in. They have assigned two veteran minders to travel with him — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry.

Mr. Wade said that Mr. Biden’s stumbles proved to voters that he was human and that they helped them relate to the candidate.

“For anybody who’s gone to Joe Biden events and watched how voters connect with him,” Mr. Wade said, “there’s a pretty big gap between the expectations of the elite media who seem to crave scripted, blow-dried drones out of central casting instead of regular folks who want to see some honesty and candor. They appreciate it that he takes the voters seriously and doesn’t take himself too seriously.”

Mr. Wade added: “I’ve never heard a voter say they wanted someone who was more scripted, more slick and who talks to me in sound bites. If they wanted stuffed shirts, we’d be preparing for an October debate with Mitt Romney.”

Those who have known Mr. Biden for a long time say they see him as a man with an equally big heart and mouth.

“He has overwhelming support here; he’s well liked,” said James M. Baker, mayor of Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden’s home. “We forgive him every once in a while when he says something dumb — ‘Oh, that’s just Joe.’ ”

Mr. Biden recognizes that his tongue sometimes ventures far ahead of his brain and often catches himself with a smile.

In Fort Myers, Fla., last week, he referred to the “Biden administration,” before quickly correcting himself to say the “Obama-Biden administration.”

“Believe me, that wasn’t a Freudian slip,” he said, laughing and crossing himself. “Oh Lordy day, I tell ya.”


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 10:13 AM

joe,

whats military expansion to one person, is reclaiming sovereign land to another. ironically its the isreal issue all over again. but this is not the point. we have chosen a side in the georgian conflict. whether you deem that the loosing or the winnning side is irrelevant. to come to teh table saying "stop being a bully to georgia"

cus i said so aint gonna cut it. but "cus i said so and if you dont ......" does.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:13 AM

joe,

please get your mind off teh idea of beating the guy with the club.

we are facing issues like nuclear proliferation, issues that when diplomatically smeared become issues of intense national security and the deepest wars and tragedies (including pearl harbor like instances that seem to blind side us).

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT USING TEH CLUB im talking about bringing the club to the table.

it is teh most effective diplomatic tool you have, becase NO person comes to the diplomacy table EXCEPT to prevent war from happening.

you are getting so caught up over the idea of using the club, that you forget that the club is there only as a last resort and you freak because of it.

but look at the trial record in the usa almost all court cases are settled outside of court because SOMEONE bluffs with a larger threat.

this is the essence of what diplomacy is at its core. when it comes to matters of foreign diplomacy the prevention is war, because breaking a treaty, (essentially a foreign policy contract) war is practically inevitable under the wording, diplomacy is to prevent that from being necessary.

sure someone broke the contract, and war is the option under the clause of breaking the contract, however teh art of diplomacy is to prevent war for both sides. IT MUST be at the table OR NOTHING either side says is valid to the other.

if russia is willing to go to war to prevent certain sanctions etc, then we must be willing to push war at them, we cannot fold to thier bluffs, if we do they will strike us when we are most weak.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 10:08 AM

however, when you are the teacher, and someone is vying for power you are walking up without a teacher, you need a club. without the club, the bully has no reason to not set you in their sights as well.

----------

dale,

Sure, I understand you. But now assume you have a complex array of diplomatic channels with the 'bully'. Say you two are friends on a lot of other issues, and the two of you regularly team up to make sure other bullies don't beat the two of you up. You share your lunches, because his mom puts twinkies in his lunch box, which you love, and your mom puts hostess cupcakes in yours, which he loves.

Now, instead of beating that guy with a club, you have many more options. Also, if you are a really good diplomat, you might even be able to just talk him down without exerting any of those pressures at all.

All of that aside, your scenario is slightly flawed in the first place, because in a way, you are the bully in the first place. You are the one threatening his borders with military expansion (sorry, I couldn't think of a good way to work that into the playground analogy).

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 10:00 AM

joe,

actually its the first big stick, theres no reason to be diplomatic unless a situation might reach a climax of war.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:57 AM

Lest we forget, last night was only the FIRST part of the interview. They did not touch on domestic issues at all last night.

Note to Governor Yahoo - while you can see Russia from Alaska, 11 states (including Alaska) can see Canada from their state and another four can see Mexico from their state. So does this make any of those other 14 governors qualified to opine on foreign policy?

The next stretch you will hear from her is that because Alaska is in proximity to two other countries, she is able to opine about immigration. Because, you know, Charlie, there sure are a lot of Canadians sneaking into Alaska!

I went into the interview last night with an open mind. After 10 minutes of this train wreck, I began looking for a new country of residence just in case.

Shame on you Governor Yahoo!!

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Posted by: The Franchise | September 12, 2008 9:54 AM

McCain made a purely political pick in Palin - a wholly unqualified choice for whom the only criteria were 1) ovaries - check, and 2) sportscaster experience that taught her to read a teleprompter - check. And despite this cynical display, the media largely played along and treated Palin as a serious VP nominee. The fact is the Palin pick speaks VOLUMES about McCain's "judgment" - he has none. Emperor McCain is standing in front of America naked-as-a-jaybird. Its about time the media is responible enough to say, "its a little drafty in here - would you like something to put on?"

Posted by: Jackie | September 12, 2008 9:54 AM

"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies." Whether these terrorists are based in Russia or anywhere else in the world, evidently.

So these bad guys, whether they are atheists or radical extremists from across the ideological spectrum from Gov. Palin, are forewarned that they had better not attempt anything "unacceptable."

Posted by: 2mature2bHornswoggled | September 12, 2008 9:54 AM

joe ur still missing the point. diplomacy is 100% INEFFECTIVE UNLESS you have a big stick to carry. war is teh big stick, you dont want to have to use it, but it fuels reason for listening to the soft voice.

--------

dale,

That is a pretty one-dimensional view of foreign policy. War is the *last* big stick. It's the one you pick up when the situation is so dire, you are willing to spend trillions of dollars, lose thousands of lives, and in the case of Russia, risk the release of nuclear weapons.

If you want Georgia to be a democracy and a member of NATO, our foreign policy needs to be to reshape Russia through diplomacy (i.e. trade and economic pressure). Simply accepting Georgia into NATO will lead to a crater the size of Georgia right where Georgia used to be, and we will be left behind to buy and fight WWIII.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:53 AM

joe,

also, to make it as clear as i possibly can.

in your own words diplomacy is the art of preventing war (yes i paraphrased, sue me).

if you are trying to prevent war, then war must be an option, or else diplomacy is preventing nothing.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:51 AM

joe,

think of it like this, if you are on teh school playground and a bully starts beating up another student, and you walk up to him and ask for him to be nicer, he has no reason to listen, UNLESS you have some form of defense (like a teacher in this case).

however, when you are the teacher, and someone is vying for power you are walking up without a teacher, you need a club. without the club, the bully has no reason to not set you in their sights as well.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:49 AM

joe ur still missing the point. diplomacy is 100% INEFFECTIVE UNLESS you have a big stick to carry. war is teh big stick, you dont want to have to use it, but it fuels reason for listening to the soft voice.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:46 AM

and i stated that you reaching that conclusion from what he ssaid was foolish, then went on to state that diplomacy only works if you carry the aforementioned big stick, and this is were we are.

--------

dale,

In this case, your 'big stick' is an utterly unacceptable scenario for Russia. Just by picking it up, you have asked for war. They were trying very hard to tell you this with their invasion and occupation of Georgia. Bringing Georgia into NATO is not a negotiating tactic. It is simply throwing down the gauntlet and declaring our intention to fight.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:43 AM

joe, read back what you said to the guy before me about russia you told him that what he was saying was inferring that "diplomacy doesnt work" that is what i was refering to.

---------

dale,

Okay, I think I see the misunderstanding. My point there was that just because Chamberlain's diplomatic strategy failed in Germany, it does not mean diplomacy in general is ineffective. In the same way, just because we failed in Vietnam, it does not mean that war is ineffective. In either case, it depends entirely on how you execute.

I was responding to scott's attempt to link this situation to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. He seemed to be implying that since diplomacy did not work in Chamberlain's case, we should instead be hawkish on Russia.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:36 AM

Like I wrote hours ago,

"

Obama's comments about Pakistan were restrictive and required force if certain conditions weren't met. Palin's statements called for judgment of the situation and crisis. The author did not listen or read the transcript carefully enough.

As a person who studies diplomacy, at no point in Palin's answer did she say that she would be willing to attack in Pakistan. While "leaving all options on the table" does not exclude any action, including strikes in Pakistan, it does not demand or sanction ALL actions or the specific one that Gibson kept asking. She said three times that such a call would require a judgment based on the situation or crisis. Therefore, this article is fundamentally incorrect in its assertion that Palin said something that McCain rejected before. She neither said she would or wouldn't attack, but that she'd judge the situation. Therefore, she is not naive like Obama and the author's analogy is false.

McCain may be incorrect by claiming Obama was naive, but Obama set a strict standard by the U.S. military in his future presidency. If something didn't happen the way he wanted it to, an action not taken by our friend, we'd be "forced to act."

While that may appear decisive, it also telegraphs to groups like Al-Qaeda, what it will take for the U.S. to destabilize our nuclear neighbor and ally against bin Laden and his tribal allies.

It's like saying "you want more civil war and so you can recruit and fundraise. Attack heavily or plan terrorism from Pakistan, hide it well enough, and the Americans will invade and destabilize the criminal Pakistani regime so we can succeed."

Would the writer of this article prefer someone who has committed national prestige to invading Pakistan, if he or the media or pat of the government say Musharaf hasn't "stepped up?"

What if something terrible happens, and the new Pakistani president doesn't step up, and Obama decides not to invade?

Would he be proven to have been naive in his previous statement? Or would be be weak by not stepping up himself?

There has to be better articles out there!!"

There has to be a better argument out there about this article than "Obama/Biden 08!"

Posted by: bulkybob | September 12, 2008 9:36 AM

Perhaps, then, Chamberlain's strategy in Germany was "ineffective"? I think we can both agree to that.

Now, how is that in any way a condemnation of diplomacy over hawkish brinksmanship?
_______________

Chamberlain's strategy is Obama's Iran strategy- he underestimates the threat they pose and stated at first that he was willingto speak without condition...

Go back to the tape Joe, Palin said that if Georgia was in Nato that we would be obligated to "help"...That leaves her a lot of room to negotiate and is certainly neither turning our back as Russia tries to reestablish the NEWSSR out of democratic states nor "invading Russia" as many liberal bloggers (fresh off the 16yo Down syndrome deliver)have posted!

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 9:30 AM

and because i think you are confusing yourself joe, let me clarify.

he said something about chamberlane, you said something about how that must mean diplomacy never works huh? (sarcastically)

and i stated that you reaching that conclusion from what he ssaid was foolish, then went on to state that diplomacy only works if you carry the aforementioned big stick, and this is were we are.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:29 AM

just because mccain handpicked gibson does not mean it wasnt staged for her downfall, the most dullwitted of democrats can see even teh lighting was purposed for intimidation scenes reminiscent of mobster movies.

joe, read back what you said to the guy before me about russia you told him that what he was saying was inferring that "diplomacy doesnt work" that is what i was refering to.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:25 AM

Stefan Stackhouse,

There was no media "gotcha". The McCain campaign handpicked Charlie Gibson to do this interview. That's what's scary.

I don't think waiting for Palin to become nuanced is a good idea. The top one and two positions aren't internships, and McCain isn't getting any younger.

If Palin needs advisers to understand freshman-level political science, she can't lead this country.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:22 AM

please dont take this the wrong way, but to reach teh conclusion that "diplomacy doesnt work" from that, is foolhearty, and i expect more from you, you have been somewhat rational in the past ;). -nudge-

the point is that its necessary to keep outward war as a valid and viable option, or diplomacy has no backbone.

-------

dale,

I think I must've been misinterpreted. I think diplomacy *does* work, and it is vastly preferred over instigating wars for the sake of spreading democracy, which is precisely what we would be doing by bringing Georgia into NATO. Russia sees this as political and military expansion right to their border. It would be like China setting up a communist government in Mexico and forging a military alliance with them. The US would never stand for it, and we would almost certainly be willing to fight over it. We were willing to fight over it in Vietnam, for pete's sake, and that's on the other side of the globe.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:19 AM

More proof that Obama has been right on Afghanistan and Pakistan while McCain has been wrong. Thanks for 'fessing up, Gov. Palin!

Posted by: Gregory | September 12, 2008 9:18 AM

joe joe joe

please dont take this the wrong way, but to reach teh conclusion that "diplomacy doesnt work" from that, is foolhearty, and i expect more from you, you have been somewhat rational in the past ;). -nudge-

the point is that its necessary to keep outward war as a valid and viable option, or diplomacy has no backbone.

diplomacy was once defined as "speaking softly but carrying a big stick" the big stick is war and its an essential form of negotiation without which crumbles the whole point of speaking softly at all.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:13 AM

Come on, everyone! Be honest - this was a no win situation.

If she talked tough, she would be labeled a naive warmonger. If she didn't talk tough, she would be labeled a wimpy mouse.

This was the perfect media "gotcha" setup, pure and simple.

Sarah Palin decided to talk tough. Good for her. Should she ever find herself in the Oval Office, better that the Russians, Iranians, and other potential adversaries be afraid of her than to think she is a pushover.

Yes, she has some details yet to learn, and her articulation of foreign policy will undoubtedly become more nuanced and diplomatic over time. She'll be surrounded by good advisors to help her with all of that, so I'm not worried.

Some people are apparently worried by the tough talk. However, I would say to them: the real world can be dangerous, sometimes some very difficult decisions must be made, and while tough actions may not feel comfortable and may seem frightening, sometimes that is what must be done.

I will be looking forward to hearing Obama answer these same questions - it is about time that he did.

Posted by: Stefan Stackhouse | September 12, 2008 9:12 AM

Correct Joe - our strategy in Vietnam was "ineffective"- as was our strategy in Iraq before the surge...

-----------

Perhaps, then, Chamberlain's strategy in Germany was "ineffective"? I think we can both agree to that.

Now, how is that in any way a condemnation of diplomacy over hawkish brinksmanship?

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:11 AM

i disagree joe, over the last few weeks the people ive talked to about palin have been focused less on her undefined qualities and more on the quite defined fact that they feel obama is less qualified and less personable (aka more elitist) than palin. they have been able to quote back to me any number of her stances on certain political issues. as such i truly feel that this was absolutely nothing but a desparate attempt by a desparate news organization to create more news.

if palin is looked upon as a potential downfall for another 5 days, thats 5 more days of stories.

when john mccain is single handedly taking alot of thier readers and subscribers away with his liberal media tactic (which whether you beleive it or not the mass majority (51% think its bias against palin opposed to less than 40% who think its unbiased or helpful to her) is causing canceled magazine subscriptions left and right (like US weekly which sent out a "palin scandals issue" with an article on michelle obamas fashion sense on page 3).

palin has been such a "hot news story" that people feel they know her already, and this interview paints the already dubbed "liberal media" and inadvertently obama as once again "smearing" her.

perhaps its not the TRUEST statement of fact, but its quite definitely the most likely the more i read and hear from peoples responses.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 9:09 AM

Correct Joe - our strategy in Vietnam was "ineffective"- as was our strategy in Iraq before the surge...BUT thanks to the wisdom of the American people, as evidenced by the groundswell of support for McCain/Palin, we'll have a President who knows something about effective strategy. Thanks also joe for endorsing Palin's foreign policy acumen.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 9:08 AM

You know what? Fox had poll showing that all across America, people, including more Democrats, believe McCain is more ready to be the next President than Obama.

sophie-

*****************
From Today's Real Clear Politics-
Hey, someone send Axelrod some more RED markers for his Map-

Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39
National Gallup Tracking McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
National Hotline/FD Tracking McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
National Democracy Corps (D) McCain 48, Obama 46, Nader 2, Barr 1 McCain +2
North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17

...still "clinging to guns and religion..."


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 9:03 AM

Neville Chamberlain CERTAINLY DIDN'T THREATEN HITLER...how'd that work out? Did it keep Great Britain out of war to sit down and negotiate with a madman?

---------

One thing I'll say for Palin -- her foreign policy savvy clearly outstrips yours. Are you seriously trying to advance the argument that because Neville Chamberlain appeased Germany, diplomacy doesn't work?

Okay here, let me try one. We failed in Vietnam, therefore war is ineffective. How's that?

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:02 AM

no she didnt really. i mean sure, that was a potential outcome. but in reality that was done during the RNC speech. watch as mccains hold stays on the poll lead and he takes over a state unexpectedly.

--------

I don't think even you believe this. For the last two weeks, Palin by definition has been undefined. Everybody wanted some kind of confirmation that she really was this superstar they've made her out to be. Instead, they got confirmation that she wasn't.

This is why she was hidden from the press. They wanted everybody's impression of Palin to remain as it was from the convention. If this interview had gone very well, they could have easily kept their momentum. Now, they are going to have to try to spin this disaster, and even though it'll probably play with the die-hard Palin fans (let's face it, anything would), it is just not going to fly with middle voters.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 9:00 AM

One of my criteria for the judgment I am looking for in a potential president is knowing better than to threaten Russia with war.
I know, it's a low bar, but there it is.

Anonymous
**************

Anonymous- Your side likes to compare Obama to JFK- You claim both only had legislative experience prior to running for President - You ALWAYS leave out his MILITARY experience, which seperates him from the naked Emperor- Did JFK ever threaten war with Russia, ANONYMOUS?
Neville Chamberlain CERTAINLY DIDN'T THREATEN HITLER...how'd that work out? Did it keep Great Britain out of war to sit down and negotiate with a madman? See any parallel anonymous???????????????

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 9:00 AM

It seems that everyone is focusing on the factual things that Palin said in the interview. is anyone analyzing her interview from the perspective of whether the way she said things were indicative of a knowledge of the power of words and whether a VP should or ever would say out loud that we perhaps should go to war with Russia. Any seasoned politico would know how to answer without answering that question. The same with the Israel question, where she just repeated her talking point and couldn't get out from under Gibson's actual question. There was no nuance at all. Isn't that what we should be focusing on. . .and not whether she memorized some facts?

Posted by: rbt | September 12, 2008 8:51 AM

btw, im not just blowing smoke, im basing it on poll results that have palin still outstripping obama and obama still falling noticable amounts.

as for the continued assault on her statement about russia, there was a time we wouldnt go into germany either because the risk, but when they had taken over half of europe, we figured they were already destroying what we had hoped to save by avoiding war with them.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:49 AM

no she didnt really. i mean sure, that was a potential outcome. but in reality that was done during the RNC speech. watch as mccains hold stays on the poll lead and he takes over a state unexpectedly.

fact is the only naysayers left are the democrats. and they arent focused on finding a reason to elect her. fact is everyone already decided through research that palin was thier pick or not.

this bias interview wont change many if any minds for one way or the other.

fact is there are enough facts out there and enough information for people to realize that palin was being setup for a fall and reacted to it as best she could in teh situation without endangering american lives.

those who arent interested in that information are already decidedly democratic.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:47 AM

One of my criteria for the judgment I am looking for in a potential president is knowing better than to threaten Russia with war.
I know, it's a low bar, but there it is.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:45 AM

in what way did she blow it joe?

she didnt step into any mines on the mine field. yes she wasnt going to pick a fight in her first interview with a guy who was quite obviously expecting her to react to intimidation tactics.

-----------

She blew it by being utterly unspectacular in every way. She demonstrated that she really *doesn't* know anything about foreign policy and that she doesn't have anything but canned answers from her prep sessions.

She needed to prove all of the naysayers wrong with that interview. The whole McCain camp plan was to let everybody's expectations be very low and then blow them away with a solid performance, just like they did with the convention speech. Instead, she simply met everybody's low expectations.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 8:36 AM

i shoot my mouth off because what palin said is 100% exactly right. you dont back down from the bully even when he packs a punch that could kill you.

-----------

Actually, what she said is that we should go find a bully and start teasing him about something that is almost sure to get us into a fight. That is what NATO expansion onto Russia's border amounts to. We're already pressing them pretty hard by installing a missile defense system in Poland. Try to think of it from Putin's side for half a second. He wants to stand up to a bully, too. Are we really ready to be calling out Russia for another fight right now?

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 8:23 AM

in what way did she blow it joe?

she didnt step into any mines on the mine field. yes she wasnt going to pick a fight in her first interview with a guy who was quite obviously expecting her to react to intimidation tactics.

to blow teh doors wide open on a doctrine that a sitting president of her party would only give the obama camp that ammo for the fodder cannon shot in her direction.

for the intimidation of teh questions, which was grossly negligent and unnecessary, she handled herself quite well. my point isnt that she gave all the cleverest answers, but simply that if obama had been over-intimidated in that severe of a manner, the republican camp would have had a field day over the 5 minute um uh speal he produced. palin proved something else that some candidates have never done. and thats silence, perhaps it comes off to teh viewers as a blank stare.

but trust me, when it comes to psychology, and making an effort to teach people and not say things they can use against you (especially with teenagers who pick up immensely well on such things) that is the look of a processing mind.

again, she did exceedingly well for the hostile situation. if thats any indication of how she will react to foreign dignitaries attempting to incite a reason for violence or indignation. she can fill those white house stilletos any day.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:15 AM

You know what? Fox had poll showing that all across America, people, including more Democrats, believe McCain is more ready to be the next President than Obama.

Anyway, when did Obama meet the foreign heads of state? Oh! this year, after Hillery dropped the campaign? Well, that's about a couple years after Obama started the campaign to run for the presidency.
No media made a big hoopla about Obamas' later introduction to the foreign heads of state

Sarah Palin has enough time to meet them eventually.

We know what it means when the word "pig" is used against us. And it's not a small offense.

Posted by: Sophie | September 12, 2008 8:11 AM

dale,

you shoot your mouth off BUT will you be the one to go off and fight Russia or if a russian soldier is on your doorstep what e, but sane.would will you do?

-------------------posted by kk------------

i shoot my mouth off because what palin said is 100% exactly right. you dont back down from the bully even when he packs a punch that could kill you. people seem to realize that in most of the defining unifying wars our nation has had to fight in (and yes i say had because the ones we were unified in we let get so out of hand that we had to fight in them) seemed to be loosing battles for a long time, revolutionary, civil, 1812, ww1, ww2 all had instances where we knew we were fighting a loosing battle against a stronger army.

dont get me wrong, not one person in thier right mind wants to go to war with russia. id venture to guess no one in thier right mind wants to go to war period. but let me ask you this.

when it comes down to wanting to go to war, versus wanting to see your neighbor get raped and thier possessions stolen because they are small and defenseless...the option to go to war becomes not only plausible but sane.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:07 AM

she was not stupid enough to jump on the question about bush's doctrine, because it is a very vague doctrine with little exact information

--------------

You're kidding, right? Because she could have turned that question into *the* highlight of the interview. She could have used it to 'knock one out of the park', as everybody liked to say after her convention speech. Had she known anything about the Bush Doctrine or had she been quick on her feet, she would have done just that. Surely you're not suggesting that she's just too clever for that and instead decided the correct thing to do was feign complete ignorance?

Sure, Gibson was testing her. It was a little blatant, but it was totally fair, because if it hadn't made her look like a complete amateur, it would have made her look like a superstar again. But she blew it instead.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 8:05 AM

dale

I just don't understand what you are saying. I watched Palin's interview and was MORTIFIED. I could have answered all of those questions with more detail than her. I'll be in law school next year and I just don't believe in McCain and I think I'm similar to alot of women in my position when I say I had respect for him until he picked her.

If I were her I would have a field day with the media. I would love to be in the position of answering tough questions on the ball, but she is doing so many women that have worked so hard a disservice. This is the first time she spoke with anyone and in my view she didn't do very well.

I'll admit I was really disappointed when Obama didn't pick Hillary, but I got over it. Palin doesn't stand for anything I believe in, well Obama is closer, but for me to get all issues I want I would have to run my own campaign. Goodnight and goodluck.
---posted by real women against palin-----

sorry i went to bed so i wasn't able to reply, its not whether you can answer with detail that matters when we are talking about political events ESPECIALLY foreign affairs that quite frankly a DETAILED answer can lead to a cost in lives not in finances.

any grade school kid can most likely recite their times tables faster than an adult, but an adult can hold a job and support a family. which is a more valid test of a persons abilities? i imagine you are one of the people "blindsided" by the palin pick.

well for your information, palin was polled on various right wing websites as well as across teh board as teh best choice for veep. in fact she was teh ONLY candidate that was considered to have benefits that outweighed her negatives. (which is substancial when considering such choices as huckabee and romney were up there, but of course as you may have seen in romneys speech at the RNC he has a tendency to get a bit jeremiah wright on us).

in an election year were people are being blinded into voting for an "black" candidate because it "feels good". McCain HAD to give an alternative that satisfied the minds of people. despite the punditry that she was to steal clinton voters, thats simple hogwash, mccains base is relatively the same as hillarys, people who tend to be older and less swayed by appearance and gimmicks (such as a woman/"black" candidate). and no there is nothing racist about facing the fact that certain people are indeed impulse voters.

its the same reason that xbox's fly off the shelf but sales of xbox games are few and far between (sides a few major titles). whilst traditional systems like the nintendo brand tends to sell consistantly and long term, along with game sales to match. a great deal of younger people (age 18-35) vote/buy/live/rack up debt on impulse.

this is something mccain had to counteract, because unfortunately, over half teh country is below 40, and whether they have a vote may have a certain level of influence on voters. this way, that playing feild is level, and with the pick of biden, obama also made an effort to lvl the playing field.

not only that but it gives a hope to people who wanted to see a real difference this year, those of us who follow campaigns know that eventually no matter the self righteous ideals campaigns degenerate into this, they always have, much further back than even Kennedy. but with the addition of palin to mccains ticket, both parties are about making some form of change, if not perhaps what people had in mind in the begining of obamessiah's reign.

basically, news does nothing to cover the truth of a campaign, if you are taking interviews at face value, when they have obviously been spliced sliced and diced beyond even human recognition. well to put it mildly anyone would be fearful, but when you sit down and examine what was carefully said in the context of very volatile climates. and you realize the implication of the words that would have been more clear but also more damaging to actual policies.

you face one inalienable fact. that Gibson was gunning for palin to mess up, flub, or otherwise disappoint. and she was on her guard not only to carefully expect it, but to know which questions would bring it up. she was not stupid enough to jump on the question about bush's doctrine, because it is a very vague doctrine with little exact information (which charlie butchered horribly in describing). and she knew that pakistan was a casualty involving topic.

frankly im surprised should you have taken the full time to investigate this entire interview, why you arent more ashamed that Charlie Gibson directly placed troop lives in the hands of someone he was expecting to flub.

or perhaps why in charlie's interview with barack obama, he never re-asked any question, even when obama tried ducking it. perhaps you might ask why mr. gibson was trying to steer the interview, instead of, as most people learn in first year journalism, that if you allow a person to follow thier own tangent they are more likely to give information openly and more likely to get comfortable and make a blatant mistake. perhaps one might ask why in hte interview with obama he was 3 times further away, and the camera panning (in the palin interview) was directly purposed for what are called "power shots" that make one person look to be smaller than another person (its often used in mob movies where the "boss" is intimidating an underling).

all in all you should be under the impression that this is teh worst we will see of palin, and if the worst is still focused driven and not tricked into endangering peoples lives...well thats what some might call presidential.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 7:45 AM

From Today's Real Clear Politics-
Hey, someone send Axelrod some more RED markers for his Map-

Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39
National Gallup Tracking McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
National Hotline/FD Tracking McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
National Democracy Corps (D) McCain 48, Obama 46, Nader 2, Barr 1 McCain +2
North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17

...still "clinging to guns and religion..."

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:43 AM

From Today's Real Clear Politics-
Hey, someone send Axelrod some more RED markers for his Map-

Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19

.....still clinging to "guns and religion"
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39
National Gallup Tracking McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
National Hotline/FD Tracking McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
National Democracy Corps (D) McCain 48, Obama 46, Nader 2, Barr 1 McCain +2
North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:41 AM

Barbara- we KNOW your emperor is Naked- he's ALWAYS been....you just can't see it...are you referring to the VICE empress?
At least our vice presidential candidate has actually done something your presidential candidate's an orator who has sponsored legislation but has never balanced a budget---

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:27 AM

Obama/Palin '08

Best two on foreign policy.

http://www.boppoll.com

Team Obama cannot seem to rally to push McCain's number over 600,000.

Posted by: Not impressed yet. | September 12, 2008 7:25 AM

dale,

you shoot your mouth off BUT will you be the one to go off and fight Russia or if a russian soldier is on your doorstep what would will you do?

Posted by: kk | September 12, 2008 7:25 AM

From Today's Real Clear Politics-

Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8


Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama
47 McCain +1

Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

....I guess the're just "clinging to their guns and religion"...


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:24 AM

The emperor - or should I say empress - ain't wearing no clothes, folks.
Who in the media will have the guts - and honesty - to say it?

Posted by: barbyrahmirfluor | September 12, 2008 7:22 AM

Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8
Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1
Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

....I guess the're just "clinging to their guns and religion"...

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:22 AM

what is a negative debunked truth?

that obama has connections with various people of ill-repute?

that he lives in the house of bill ayers the radical terrorist who claimed bombings in the 60s?

that he accepted campaign contributions from a man who is a known embezzler, then lied about it 4 times?

that obama has been declared a messiah by jihadists?

that obama is 43% arab and does not qualify under law to be considered african american (hes less than 1/8th).

THESE ARE FACTS if the media wants to cover them up it is the job of the american people to put them in the light.

no obama is not muslim, he went to a school for a short section of his life that suggests at an early age he had SOME but very LITTLE islamic roots.

however his Christian church which constantly provides in the church bulletin anti-white propaganda is just as extremist as jihadist teachings.

the point is, the only lies spread are by ignorant people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. you need to know the facts, and in every lie you hear there is fact.

obama has some shaky people very close to him that you should be worried about, its not presented in the news, and it is not a lie to say that he lives in the house once owned by ayers, and in fact did his senatorial campaign speech on the steps of this house owned by ayers.

i understand the news and the left wing wants to paint every statement as a smear, but it is not, they all have valid points behind them, if you would simply research.
-Dale

*******************

Dale, excellent post- I would add that Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire money launderer loaned Rezko the money to purchase the land adjacent to obama's house. allowing Obama to pay $300,000 under market price for his house. Once caught, Obama returned about half of Rezko's CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS- not personal funds....so , in effect Auchi, an Iraqi, gave Obama a $300,000 gift- does that buy anything?

The TimesFebruary 26, 2008

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."

Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times.


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:17 AM

what is a negative debunked truth?

that obama has connections with various people of ill-repute?

that he lives in the house of bill ayers the radical terrorist who claimed bombings in the 60s?

that he accepted campaign contributions from a man who is a known embezzler, then lied about it 4 times?

that obama has been declared a messiah by jihadists?

that obama is 43% arab and does not qualify under law to be considered african american (hes less than 1/8th).

THESE ARE FACTS if the media wants to cover them up it is the job of the american people to put them in the light.

no obama is not muslim, he went to a school for a short section of his life that suggests at an early age he had SOME but very LITTLE islamic roots.

however his Christian church which constantly provides in the church bulletin anti-white propaganda is just as extremist as jihadist teachings.

the point is, the only lies spread are by ignorant people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE. you need to know the facts, and in every lie you hear there is fact.

obama has some shaky people very close to him that you should be worried about, its not presented in the news, and it is not a lie to say that he lives in the house once owned by ayers, and in fact did his senatorial campaign speech on the steps of this house owned by ayers.

i understand the news and the left wing wants to paint every statement as a smear, but it is not, they all have valid points behind them, if you would simply research.
-Dale

*******************

Dale, excellent post- I would add that Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire money launderer laoned Rezko the money to purchase the land adjacent to obama's house. allowing Obama to pay $300,000 under market price for his house. Once caught, Obama returned about half of Rezko's CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS- not personal funds....so , in effect Auchi, an Iraqi, gave Obama a $300,000 gift- does that buy anything?

The TimesFebruary 26, 2008

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."

Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:15 AM

From Today's NY Times (That's the Paper Barack wraps his "smelly fish in")

Hanging On to Biden’s Every Word

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: September 11, 2008
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, is an experienced, serious and smart man. But, boy, does he say some curious things. A day on the campaign trail without a cringe-inducing gaffe is a rare blessing. He has not been too blessed lately.
Dan Gill/Associated Press
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Tuesday in Missouri with State Senator Chuck Graham, the subject of a gaffe by Mr. Biden.

Just this week, Mr. Biden mused that the Democrats’ nominee for president, Senator Barack Obama, might have been better off with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Mr. Biden said Wednesday in Nashua, N.H. “Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”

In Columbia, Mo., this week, Mr. Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized. “Chuck, stand up, let the people see you,” Mr. Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Mr. Graham uses a wheelchair.

“Oh, God love ya,” Mr. Biden said. “What am I talking about?”

But it was the remarks about Mrs. Clinton that touched a potentially sensitive spot for the Obama-Biden campaign. With Gov. Sarah Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket potentially energizing some female voters, Mr. Biden’s remarks raised anew a question: Would Mr. Obama have been better off picking Mrs. Clinton as his running mate?

One could imagine the campaign of Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, even using Mr. Biden’s remarks in its own advertisements to exploit misgivings among women about the Democratic ticket.

Shortly after Mr. Biden was named as Mr. Obama’s running mate, the Republican National Committee started a “Biden gaffe clock” to keep track of his slips.

Mr. Obama knew what he was getting when he picked Mr. Biden: A veteran of six terms in the Senate, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, an Irish Catholic with working-class roots, a guy who had twice been tested in the arena of presidential politics.

And a human verbal wrecking crew.

This is the fellow who nearly derailed his nascent presidential campaign last year by calling Mr. Obama “articulate and bright and clean,” and who noted that a person needed a slight Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin’ Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware, his home state.

The man who, reading his vice-presidential acceptance speech from a teleprompter, bungled Mr. McCain’s name and called him “George.” (“Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip,” he explained.)

The man who, on the day Mr. Obama announced him as his running mate, referred to his party’s presidential nominee as “Barack America” and noted that his wife, Jill Biden, a college professor, was “drop-dead gorgeous” but, problematically, possessed a doctorate.

The man who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused Army brigades with battalions. Who referred to Ms. Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska.

Aides to Mr. Obama said that Mr. Biden’s propensity to misspeak could pose problems, particularly in the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2. They are watching his performance but have not tried to rein him in. They have assigned two veteran minders to travel with him — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry.

Mr. Wade said that Mr. Biden’s stumbles proved to voters that he was human and that they helped them relate to the candidate.

“For anybody who’s gone to Joe Biden events and watched how voters connect with him,” Mr. Wade said, “there’s a pretty big gap between the expectations of the elite media who seem to crave scripted, blow-dried drones out of central casting instead of regular folks who want to see some honesty and candor. They appreciate it that he takes the voters seriously and doesn’t take himself too seriously.”

Mr. Wade added: “I’ve never heard a voter say they wanted someone who was more scripted, more slick and who talks to me in sound bites. If they wanted stuffed shirts, we’d be preparing for an October debate with Mitt Romney.”

Those who have known Mr. Biden for a long time say they see him as a man with an equally big heart and mouth.

“He has overwhelming support here; he’s well liked,” said James M. Baker, mayor of Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden’s home. “We forgive him every once in a while when he says something dumb — ‘Oh, that’s just Joe.’ ”

Mr. Biden recognizes that his tongue sometimes ventures far ahead of his brain and often catches himself with a smile.

In Fort Myers, Fla., last week, he referred to the “Biden administration,” before quickly correcting himself to say the “Obama-Biden administration.”

“Believe me, that wasn’t a Freudian slip,” he said, laughing and crossing himself. “Oh Lordy day, I tell ya.”
*************

THAT's impressive!

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 7:02 AM

Cassandra Washington,

nice one. you have just condemned thousands of people to death to get a woman into the white house.

People like you don't deserve the opportunity to vote. Leave it to us grown up's.

Posted by: voter | September 12, 2008 7:00 AM

After her interview with Gibson it's clear she in way over her head. She gave nothing but rehearsed answers to his questions with no depth. She was rattled and her face showed it. Republicans have shown with this choice for VP, they put COUNTRY SECOND over their political agenda. Some high school students could have answered his questions with more detail.

Please don't blame her lack of knowledge on the interviewer being sexist. She is running for VP and should not get special treatment because of her gender. Women should be insulted by that suggestion. If you care about the future of your kids, there is now way you McCain-Palin.

Posted by: ac | September 12, 2008 6:07 AM

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/second-time-as-farce-how-palin-is.html


Friday, September 12, 2008
Second Time As Farce: How Palin is Exactly Like Bush, Part 2

Palin: "Our national leaders are sending them on a task that is from God"

Gibson: Are we fighting a holy war?

Palin: (looking strained, desperate, trapped): The reference there is from Abraham Lincoln who said "Never presume to know God's will..."

Robert Zimmerman: She failed to describe how a McCain/Palin foreign policy would differ from a Bush foreign policy

Gibson: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

Palin: I have not, and I think that if you go back in history, and ask that question of many Vice Presidents they have the same answer that I just gave you

Anderson Cooper: Bay, ABC News just did a fact check. They looked back the last 30 years, all Vice Presidents have met a foreign leader. Does that matter?

Bay Buchanan: No, it doesn't at all. Her answer was excellent. It will make Americans feel that much closer to her. She's very real. Sure, she hasn't traveled overseas to meet these foreign leaders. But that's not what American's are looking for. She's absolutely correct. They want somebody that they can relate to. Who's hearing them. They're sick and tired of those people in Washington who may know lots of facts and figures and meet lots of people...

Zimmerman: It's always a danger when we have leaders who know facts and figures, Bay. That really does get in the way of setting up sound policies...My concern, Bay, is that when Sarah Palin says that she's not met foreign leaders like that's a good thing--We made that mistake eight years ago when George W. Bush was that likeable guy that you wanted to invite over for a barbeque.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/second-time-as-farce-how-palin-is.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:05 AM

Biden embraced idea -- GOING TO WAR -- that Obama said showed a lack of judgment. WHEN ARE YOU LIBERAL HACKS GOING TO WRITE THAT ARTICLE?

Posted by: ANGRY BLACK DEMOCRAT | September 12, 2008 5:30 AM

dale

I just don't understand what you are saying. I watched Palin's interview and was MORTIFIED. I could have answered all of those questions with more detail than her. I'll be in law school next year and I just don't believe in McCain and I think I'm similar to alot of women in my position when I say I had respect for him until he picked her.

If I were her I would have a field day with the media. I would love to be in the position of answering tough questions on the ball, but she is doing so many women that have worked so hard a disservice. This is the first time she spoke with anyone and in my view she didn't do very well.

I'll admit I was really disappointed when Obama didn't pick Hillary, but I got over it. Palin doesn't stand for anything I believe in, well Obama is closer, but for me to get all issues I want I would have to run my own campaign. Goodnight and goodluck.

Posted by: Real Women Against Palin | September 12, 2008 4:47 AM

what is the difference between Sarah Palin and Dana Perino?

Depends on whether you want to have a State Dinner in the White House or a steak dinner in a white igloo.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:42 AM

Maybe I missed something but where does this ding dong think she has "international experience"?

She admits to never meeting a foreign leader. Only been to Canada and Mexico (who hasn't?)and the one trip to visiting Alaska's fighting forces in Kuwait.

I think I am seeing a giant disconnect between what she has actually done and what she should have done in order to be the back up President.

Does this disturb anyone? And if you even think about saying she can learn it on the job or her handlers will tell her everything she needs to know then please take her back to Alaska and come back in 8 years.

How is it so many of you are willing to bet that somehow she can stumble though whatever it takes to be vice president and god forbid she is appointed President.

Where have we lost sight of reality that if you are a small town mayor and a governor of a rural state for 18 months you suddenly consider yourself presidential material?

I honestly don't doubt that she was a credible mayor and evidently did a good job as the governor.

But to elevate her limited experience to the quantum leap of being our next Vice
president is preposterous. How on earth can McCain use the slogan "America First" and so nonchalantly tell us Palin will do a fine job, trust me?

Mr. McCain, we don't trust you. Nor can we trust your judgement.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:29 AM

Your ethnic background does not mean anything. Stick to the issues. So if I am 50% German and 50%South African what does that make me? An apartheid supporter? I think not. I have to work in the morning so I don't have time to argue with you about ethnic background. This is obviously an election of race versus gender and everytime I read a racist post it will make this former independent want to campaign for Obama so much harder.

Stick to the issues people.

Posted by: Real Women Against Palin | September 12, 2008 4:26 AM

Can anyone tell me, what is the difference between Sarah Palin and Dana Perino(white house press sec.)?.The Mccain campaign makes no bones about the fact they need to get her up to speed on foreign affairs, is not this, which is done for the white house press sec. I expect more from a vice presidential candidate, like maybe a personal point of view (call me funny like that). I do not believe, it could be possible to conduct anything more than a press conference, should anyone be willing to sit down with her for any type of meaningful conversation.

Posted by: davidm2902 | September 12, 2008 4:21 AM

By the way I live in the Midwest. All republican, but you know what--I don't care. I am a formerly registered independent, but I want to be on the right side of history and that is about it.

Posted by: Real Women Against Palin | September 12, 2008 3:49 AM

then make an INFORMED opinion.

i did not vote for bush, any election, despite being a right wing nut job all the way.

this year i vote for McCain, the first republican candidate in a while. i say that because to me bush was a democrat, aside from certain key issues to some people such as abortion. his fiscal policies prove it.

so far, i don't beleive my presidential choice for any election has been the wrong one. having watched bush pull exactly what i expected of him, i stand proven right by his universal and bi-partisan hatred across the united states.

this year, again, i make an INFORMED opinion, based on ALL of the facts, from the reality of McCain's record in the senate (which he could not have voted with bush 95% of the time because bush had no vote.) to obama's ties and lies, to bidens slander of a good mans reputation, to sarah palin's supposed flubs in the Washington Post.

the candidate that will be proven by teh future of this nation, whether obama or McCain gets elected, will be McCain.

so go ahead, make another decision on impulse like the rest of those "independents" and refuse to stand up for values that you can be ridiculed for like obama.

ill be laughing my butt off when either candidate proves you wrong.

you vote for obama to set yourself on track because in the past you voted for bush and feel ashamed.

i compare that to one of my friends, who was low on gas, having forgotten to fill his car the previous night, and ran out on the way to work having to walk 2 miles to the nearest station and back, because he wouldn't take a different car.

don't compound your mistakes because you feel guilty. change your attitude, and the way you go about choosing a president, and make an INFORMED decision for our future.

McCain-Palin 08'

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:21 AM

Being visually impaired, it has just come to me, I know where I've heard this voice before, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't she once sing the national anthem at a San Diego padres baseball game some years ago.

Posted by: davidm2902 | September 12, 2008 4:10 AM

This was her first major interview with a very experienced interviewer ... she did a good job ... she will do better next time ... she has time to learn ... McCain is not in a coma yet.
Gibson was out to get her .. the liberals and the liberal Media are screaming for her blood ... and he tried to deliver it!
As much as I am opposed to some of what she stands for .. I will still take her over Obama!
McCain-Palin '08
Hillary 2012!

Posted by: Cassandra Washington | September 12, 2008 12:27 AM

=========================================
"She will do better next time ... she has time to learn". Seriously?!

Wow, I didn't realize she was only being interviewed for the Management Trainee position at a drug store.

Posted by: Andrew | September 12, 2008 4:07 AM

what is a negative debunked truth?

that obama has connections with various people of ill-repute?

that he lives in the house of bill ayers the radical terrorist who claimed bombings in the 60s?

that he accepted campaign contributions from a man who is a known embezzler, then lied about it 4 times?

that obama has been declared a messiah by jihadists?

that obama is 43% arab and does not qualify under law to be considered african american (hes less than 1/8th).

THESE ARE FACTS if the media wants to cover them up it is the job of the american people to put them in the light.

no obama is not muslim, he went to a school for a short section of his life that suggests at an early age he had SOME but very LITTLE islamic roots.

however his Christian church which constantly provides in the church bulletin anti-white propaganda is just as extremist as jihadist teachings.

the point is, the only lies spread are by ignorant people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE. you need to know the facts, and in every lie you hear there is fact.

obama has some shaky people very close to him that you should be worried about, its not presented in the news, and it is not a lie to say that he lives in the house once owned by ayers, and in fact did his senatorial campaign speech on the steps of this house owned by ayers.

i understand the news and the left wing wants to paint every statement as a smear, but it is not, they all have valid points behind them, if you would simply research.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 4:07 AM

Can anyone tell me, what is the difference between Sarah Palin and Dana Perino(white house press sec.)?.The Mccain campaign makes no bones about the fact they need to get her up to speed on foreign affairs, is not this, which is done for the white house press sec. I expect more from a vice presidential candidate, like maybe a personal point of view (call me funny like that). I do not believe, it could be possible to conduct anything more than a press conference, should anyone be willing to sit down with her for any type of meaningful conversation.

Posted by: davidm2902 | September 12, 2008 3:52 AM

By the way I live in the Midwest. All republican, but you know what--I don't care. I am a formerly registered independent, but I want to be on the right side of history and that is about it.

Posted by: Real Women Against Palin | September 12, 2008 3:49 AM

The hell with knowing what the frak the Bush Doctrine is...I absolutely cannot believe that Palin so cavalierly talked about going to war against RUSSIA!! War with Russia IS NOT AN OPTION! EVER! EVER!This isn't a pep rally Palin. You aren't talking about playing basketball against a rival high school team! We are talking about nukes and the destruction of life as we know it! This isn't the time to talk butch. Don't you realize other countries are watching and taking notes on what to expect from a new administration?!? I'm sure the idea of this hockey mom/pitbull/pig with lipstick having her finger on the button is just as terrifying to them as it is to us. I repeat WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS NOT AN OPTION! It shouldn't even be DISCUSSED hypothetically.

This interview underlines the very real & dangerous reasons why we all have to forget party lines in this election. If you REALLY care about this country and want whats best for it, you CANNOT trust the judgement of this neophyte. And you absolutely CANNOT trust the judgement of John McCain for putting someone so obviously unprepared & unqualified on the ticket...Even if you like John McCain, you CANNOT vote for him now. I'm sorry but I care too much for my kids & country to even ENTERTAIN the thought of trying to play chicken with Russia. We're talking NUKES here people. This isn't invading Iraq or Afganistan. We're talking millions of people being incinerated and she says it with a gleam in her eye & a perky shake of her head. Even you die-hard Rightys can't be stupid enough to think there's a winner in a NUCLEAR WAR!!!!! Say what you want about Obama but he's NEVER even remotely suggested a war with Russia nor would he...PLEASE... PLEASE... stop this madness! I would like to live long enough to see MY grandchildren grow up ok?

Posted by: Kimberly | September 12, 2008 3:49 AM

American politics is a joke.

All you democrats out there keep the faith, organize, regroup, we came this far nominating an intelligent motivated individual to be president and damned if these somewhat skewed numbers on presidential polls will stop us from putting the right person into office. I know that I am personally going to make sure my little brother is registered and informed and I've already spoken with the local democratic office to see what I can do help and will try to do outreach for the group for at least 1-2 days out of this month.

If you look at electoral college votes there is still hope ALOT OF HOPE. This is why I truly like Obama he and his campaign have done grassroots efforts. Isn't organizing a motivating the people really what democracy is all about.

Lets put the republican candidates where they belong--on that bridge to nowhere. Hey Palin/McSame just want to tell you "Thanks but no thanks."

PS Screw all your negative ads and debunked truths. If I were Republican I'd be pissed that my candidate was lying to me day after day, but thankfully I am not. Although my family is a bunch of right-wingers. My mother said she'd still have to hold her nose to vote for McCain.

OBAMA/BIDEN 08

Posted by: Real Women Against Palin | September 12, 2008 3:21 AM

Here's a round-up of Charlie Gibson's lies from the interview:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/11/abc-news-blows-it/

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | September 12, 2008 3:16 AM

as for the undervalued roll of lobbyists in the governmental mechanized machine.

there are lobbyists who go without food, without homes, in order to petition the government to change their minds on issues that directly affect the land they have saved all of their life to afford and the local state governments chose to demolish it for the sake of a new highway.

there are lobbyists who would have no other means of speaking to political efforts aside from lobbying.

and obama wants to end that entirely. because corporations abuse it.

we need a president who has the judgment to decide on a dime when someone is a good investment and when someone is just pulling their pork.

obama wants to not have to make decisions on this matter, and countless others.

what do we really need for a future?

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 2:53 AM

you call someone "ingnorant" while claiming that republicans want war preferably all over the world....yay hypocrisies win.

look i wish i could be as civil and state the facts like bulkybob did, and man i respect him for that kind of clarity of mind. but seriously, stop reading post articles and taking them at face value, stop reading articles about interviews and situations and taking them at face value. the news has never been a direct conduit of fact, tho in the past it has done alot better job of sticking to truth.

media is a medium, and we speak through that medium. if you break up with a boyfriend/girlfriend via text message or a friend don't they feel as if its not personal enough? so why do you allow the media to tell us the story as if they were firsthand accounters of it?

go to the source find the video, interpret it apart from opinion and editorials, because no matter where you go there is bias. the washington post has a liberal bias, whilst fox is quite obviously a conservative bias.

the point? dont let others think for you, a degree in journalism or constitutional law does not mean that a person is correct. neither does a lifetime of raising a family or being a prisoner of war.

but that being said, SOMEONE IS RIGHT, and SOMEONE IS WRONG. because when history looks back they look at what a person did in a presidential span, not at their promises and speeches or their interviews.

unlike bulkybob i often come across as a jerk, but look, heres where i stand.

i can respect your opinion however much i disagree, if it has facts behind it. but to this smear campaign and this articles bias, what value are you showing as an american? what value as a democrat? because i am sorely disappointed in your party, you are supposed to be representing at least half of american ideals, and you are just throwing and spewing garbage, untrue garbage at that.

show some respect for yourselves, or else how can the rest of the world?

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 2:48 AM

OK...
first off, as Ron Paul has said, both candidates have some important questions to answer.
One question I have is..
Did McCain pick Palin in a desperate attempt to pick up the angry Hillary "supporters?"
Or was it because she was still fascinated with Oil Company gifts and government earmarks... Anyone like this will surely let America's citizens be taken advantage of... For the right price of course.

McCain, on the other hand is the type of moron to not only follow, but support Bush is his metaphorical "hurling America off the deep end"
He is the type of man who believes OIL, is the solution to all of our problems...
I urge you to find who will be getting the still RECORD BREAKING PROFITS, off of AMERICA's offshore oil... I also urge you to ponder: What will we make plastic out of in 2100? The air?
Because if McCain is president, thats where all of our oil will be...
Its time to think about the future... as a species, do we wish to prevail and endour, or do we wish to suffocate ourselves with greed and irresponsibility.
It is time to return the control of our democratic country to the PEOPLE, and take the power of OIL away from our government.

If we are not careful, America's power(money) will end up in the wrong hands (oil), and no longer will we be a free nation, but slaves to the dollar.

Mark my words, it is already happening, and much faster than most would believe.

We as American's can choose to stray from the path that Bush has sent us on, or continue to push down the path of "big business." Once they have stripped us of our money, we will be enslaved, as those with the money (big business) will have power over the American people and their grossly endebted government, and no longer will the human rights set forth in the constitution be experienced.

Obama is the only clear choice to steer us from this path.

We cannot, however, vote and consider it done. We as American citizens need to "ride our government's ass" and make damn sure that corporate lobbyists and congressional gifts and incentives no longer play a role in the proceeding of our government.

The choice is yours..

Fill the pocketbooks of the people, or fill the pocketbooks of the rich and powerful.

Obama '08

POWER TO THE PEOPLE


Posted by: CD | September 12, 2008 2:44 AM

Another war president coming up.
NATO does not want war with Russia, it is our backyard. Republicans want war, pref. allover the world.
Well, as part of her training she "inspected the troops" in Alaska and
having heard a part of her speech when she came home yesterday, we can be certain that Palin will invite Medvedev/Putin an Hu Jintao to Alaska to meet the fine warm people and her husband and family.
What an ingnorant lady. Do you republicans really believ all this that you can vote for her?

Posted by: aqua-vigilo | September 12, 2008 2:34 AM

Obama's comments about Pakistan were restrictive and required force if certain conditions weren't met. Palin's statements called for judgment of the situation and crisis. The author did not listen or read the transcript carefully enough.

As a person who studies diplomacy, at no point in Palin's answer did she say that she would be willing to attack in Pakistan. While "leaving all options on the table" does not exclude any action, including strikes in Pakistan, it does not demand or sanction ALL actions or the specific one that Gibson kept asking. She said three times that such a call would require a judgment based on the situation or crisis. Therefore, this article is fundamentally incorrect in its assertion that Palin said something that McCain rejected before. She neither said she would or wouldn't attack, but that she'd judge the situation. Therefore, she is not naive like Obama and the author's analogy is false.

McCain may be incorrect by claiming Obama was naive, but Obama set a strict standard by the U.S. military in his future presidency. If something didn't happen the way he wanted it to, an action not taken by our friend, we'd be "forced to act."

While that may appear decisive, it also telegraphs to groups like Al-Qaeda, what it will take for the U.S. to destabilize our nuclear neighbor and ally against bin Laden and his tribal allies.

It's like saying "you want more civil war and so you can recruit and fundraise. Attack heavily or plan terrorism from Pakistan, hide it well enough, and the Americans will invade and destabilize the criminal Pakistani regime so we can succeed."

Would the writer of this article prefer someone who has committed national prestige to invading Pakistan, if he or the media or pat of the government say Musharaf hasn't "stepped up?"

What if something terrible happens, and the new Pakistani president doesn't step up, and Obama decides not to invade?

Would he be proven to have been naive in his previous statement? Or would be be weak by not stepping up himself?

There has to be better articles out there!!

Posted by: bulkybob | September 12, 2008 2:22 AM

Thanks, Bob Elliott, for your posts. It shows that Obama is a far better man than I, being willing to state that race is not an issue. But you and me, Bob Elliott, we know better.

I remember not being able to swim in the local pool until the whites were done for the day. People like you probably miss the good ol' days, and I'm not bitter. I accept the times I came up in. My experiences are far different from my children's, and I show them no skepticism. They see things differently, and it's for the better.

I'm 52, and it wasn't until a few months ago that my father happened to share with me how worried he was when we were driving through Missouri in 1966 to get to his Navy shore duty installation. He was driving and couldn't see through the flurry of snow. He kept driving. Finally, he pulled into the lot of a motel, and we were so happy because we were finally going to stay in a motel instead of in our car for the night. Now, after all these years and we're talking about old times, he remembers how cold it was. He tells me we stayed at this motel because it was so cold that he had to stop even though the odds were against him getting a room; the motels didn't usually rent to negroes. The motel clerk, who was white, was sympathic and allowed him to get his family out of the cold for a night. I spent my youth zig-zagging across the country, sleeping in the back seat with my brother and sisters, not realizing the full extent of my father's responsibility to keep us safe. It now makes since to me why he wore his uniform on those trips. I didn't understand (then).

I appreciate your candor, Bob Elliott. I understand (now).

Posted by: Ossie | September 12, 2008 2:03 AM

H. Clinton to the Supreme Court! - That is an extraordinarily good idea.

Is Chief Justice possible? Any chance that Roberts will blow an aorta anytime soon?

Posted by: Republican VN Era Veteran | September 12, 2008 1:56 AM

again, you misinterpret more than my ex.

the statement was a reality that physical restraint must be on the table in all diplomatic situations. as soon as its off the table all diplomacy is gone.

understand that we have consistently been spread too thin for any forms of contact, but we still banded together in times of need in the event that countries (like germany) were not stopping because we asked politely.

russia needs to beleive we will attack if necessary, that does not mean we have to attack.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:56 AM

Dale, attacking the "rabid dog" is not "potentially" war with Russia. That *IS* war with Russia.

Exactly what troops are you going to use to invade the tiny republic of Russia? The overstretched troops in Iraq or the overstretched troops in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Dale the Diplomat | September 12, 2008 1:51 AM

You have to attack the dog to stop it? Please stop. I bet you never served.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:35 AM

seriously? you dont even have the audacity to post your name and your stating someone else is running scared?

i was born to a drug addicted mother who allowed her boyfriend to abuse me. she was a child of the motivational inducing concepts of the democratic party. that they can simply throw money food and medical aid to people on the street and they will learn to be productive.

i chose to pick myself off the street and stop accepting help from such organizations, learning at an early age that if i don't fight for what is right no one will fight for me.

no, i have never served in a unit, but i have spent my life fighting for what is right, not my own ignorant agenda. i could have fallen back given into government aid and allowed for my future to be driven by my income going to drugs, my food coming free from the government and my health (caused by drugs) being overseen by tax dollars. i could have accepted ideals like "pro-choice" which would have allowed me to engage in sex with no consequences.

sorry, id rather not waste your tax dollars, mock your intelligence, or take advantage of your self-righteous" give me credit kindness. i am a republican.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:50 AM

Brian you need to relax body

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:42 AM

Are you guys at all concerned about the "untruths" that the Republicans are dishing out? Or is it all part of the game?

-odius

odius you also quoted factcheck.org, a site known, amongst other things for its intense liberal bias including such gems as

* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies

pushing through IS NOT teh same as authoring.

perhaps you should factcheck your factchecking sights.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:42 AM

You can't reason with neo con extremist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:41 AM

Mike savage

Rush limbaugh

Sean hannity

are just a few of the john wayne radio chicken hawks

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:37 AM

You have to attack the dog to stop it? Please stop. I bet you never served.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:35 AM

thats exactly my point, you have to attack the dog to stop it.

hence what palin said. duh?

sorry, i should have more patience with democrats, i know they have severe mental disabilities.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:31 AM

Anyone who thinks Gibson is a liberal should remember his moderation of the Democratic debate in New Hampshire.
It was an embarassment to his network.

Posted by: funguy | September 12, 2008 1:31 AM

Hey, Dale, small problem with your "rabid dog" analogy:

No matter what you tell it, THE RABID DOG WILL STILL BITE YOU.

duh?

Posted by: Rabid Dog with Lipstick | September 12, 2008 1:30 AM

She don't have a clue. Putin is very smart he had bush at hello. We don't need another dummy in the white house, and i'm talking about mccain. He showed poor judgement picking palin. Just think a 72 year old with a bad memory sucking up to the war merchants pretending to be think tanks. We depleted our military chasing ghost in iraq because of pnac. William kristal is still out there spreading lies on fox, nytimes, and to anyone that will give him the time of day

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:27 AM

"GOTCHA SARAH!!" -media 2008

Get over yourselves. Palin did fine. The media's obessesion with the fact that their little goofball community organizer race baiting social justice fool is no longer the new kid on the block makes them so angry. Screw the media, since when do they no more than ordinary Americans? If they hate Bush so much why didn't they do something about him 2000 and 2004.

Why don't we pull up some of Obama's interviews

ah, o, ah, a, o, o, a ...

Need I say more. The guy was a poverty pimp from Chicago for heavens sake. He's a clown, he's not intelligent.

The democrats only think your intelligent when you agree with them. So out of touch all I hear is " more abortions!, more gay marriage! more social justice!, more taxes!"

As I said after Hillary lost, MCCAIN '08.

Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 1:27 AM

please all of you lemmings stop reading the "facts" presented in the post.

charlie gibson should be fired for misrepresenting the bush doctrine, which is so incredibly vague that it allows for multiple loopholes.

i dare anyone to ask obama about the doctrine, he would have to show his true interpretive nutjob tendencies to even begin to discredit it.

PLEASE look at the words that the Washington post has to insert into this article to even make it possible to print and still follow journalistic truth standards.
----------------------------------------
GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin tonight APPEARED to back

face the reality that they DID NOT POST SARAH PALINS FIRST 2 ANSWERS BUT SHIRKED THEM OFF AS AVOIDING THE QUESTION (please read teh transcript as the interview was badly edited because of gibsons constant flubbing of specific quotes).

for those of you too ignorant to fact check, SARAH PALIN'S FIRST 2 ANSWERS ARE IDENTICLE TO MCCAIN'S.

stating that the issue is naive to beleive that we would have any reason to enter Pakistan, that they would not approve of.

you guys misinterpret more than my ex.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:26 AM

Gibson had to explain to Palin the Bush doctrine of preemptive military action. Apparently, President Bush (finally) and Governor Palin agree with Senator Obama that we should try to take out Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Senator McCain, who constantly proclaims he will "follow Osama Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell," won't follow him to a cave in Pakistan. Now, if we could only trick Osama into going to the "Gates of Hell" John McCain would be all over him.

Posted by: Chuck | September 12, 2008 1:15 AM

President Bush is currently attacking targets in Pakistan.

Looks like everyone except McCain has come around to the position Obama presented a year ago, except for McCain. He can't of course. It would require admitting he was wrong, which I think is forbidden by the Republican Party platform.

Posted by: drossless | September 12, 2008 1:15 AM

When will the palinopoly be over with the boot licking media hacks

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:14 AM

the question on pakistan was bullcrap.

we are already in pakistan, without thier permission, if she endorsed it KNOWING WE ARE ALREADY IN THERE she would be envoking war on the pakistani's.

and should she not endorse it, she would be DEMORALIZING the troops.

so she stated the ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER WITHOUT DESTROYING LIVES.

as she stated quite clearly, that aggressive negotiations (including invasion of a country and potentially war with russia) MUST be on the table.

YOU CANNOT TELL A RABID DOG "dont bite me, i wont hurt you but please dont bite me"

duh?

if this is teh worst of sarah palin you guys have, then she is still clearing the bar leaps and bounds better than obama.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 1:13 AM

Palin and Cheney, oops I mean Palin and Bush no McCain remind of the whole lemmings scenario.

Posted by: Dani | September 12, 2008 1:13 AM

Just watched Palin's speech on Youtube and I am speechless (and I am never speechless). John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is exemplary of the kind of choices he would make as president. Completely horrible ones. Plus, who names their kids Track & Trig. Is 'Bristol' really named after the Nascar track. (Guess 'Track' is too, for that matter.)

Too bad half the US population is so intimidated by Obama's intelligence that they will foolishly (FOOLISHLY) claim that this woman is worthy of their vote. What I would give to have Jon Stewart's job right about now!

I guess there are just so many Republican voters that possess so much stock in U.S. Gov't military suppliers and receive so much money in dividends from those stocks for war to be profitable to them that they just can't help but crave all the war and all the wasted billions it takes away from circulation in the American lower and middle class. And you wonder why Obama's preacher said that about America?

Republicans have made fools out of us for decades. When will THEIR destruction of America be put to a stop. "The Terrorists" you all so lavishly speak of consists of ANYONE who wishes for the destruction of the beautiful multi-ethnic, multi-cultural melting pot that American has always been. Who wishes for the destruction of that more than the average dumb mindless senseless bigoted hate-filled rich white Republican?

Posted by: J.O.B. | September 12, 2008 1:11 AM

McCain Get ready for a nose dive. This is just the beginning. The big crowds felt good right? Now you can stop hating on Obama

Posted by: circus monkey | September 12, 2008 1:11 AM

It's now painfully obvious why the mccain camp sequestered ms palin from the medias questions. I hope her "tutors" filled her in on exactly what the bush doctrine is - her response to the question is the textbook definition of "deer in the headlights". The shiny object isn't quite as shiny post-interview.

Posted by: Jilli | September 12, 2008 1:10 AM

GW in a dress. I think your slip is showing.

Posted by: Gwen | September 12, 2008 1:07 AM

Ok, there are a lot of goofy comments on here, but this one is the best!

"She said she'd be in favor of invading Russia."

Posted by: el_barto | September 11, 2008 11:56 PM

Um, no actually, she didn't. But congratulations!!! You win the award for most idiotic comment!

Posted by: jdaigle | September 12, 2008 1:06 AM

OBAMA CAMPAIGN READ THIS
All Hillary needs to do is subtly point out that she and Obama discussed the vp position and she declined it and decided that she would like a Cabinet or Supreme court position.

Hillary and Obama did in fact discuss the vp position they saw each other everyday and I read an article about it, unless its a fabrication and while he should have publicly vetted her for appearances it wasn't necessary. They can spin this rumor to the presidency if they want. McSame spins everything including lipstick.


Someone please make me the Democratic Strategist for the Obama campaign. Seriously if you want to win call me.

Posted by: Vote sane | September 12, 2008 1:03 AM

If she scares you, think what she is doing to the Russians. Reagan scared the hell out of them too and he broke their grip on these countries that yearned to be free, for God sakes don't let them think they can put them back under that yoke.

----------

danoh50,

Why is it America's job to finance the freedom of these nations by taking on the risk of nuclear world war? The Cold War demonstrated the correct way to take on a powerful enemy -- economy, culture, and negotiation. Iraq demonstrated the stupid way. Roll in with some tanks and bankrupt your nation over ideals you're never likely to achieve.

But it almost doesn't matter. In reality, it would take a record setting amount of ineptitude to draw the US into a war with Russia. I honestly don't think McCain would ever do it. Despite the rhetoric, he is not that dumb. We can't afford it, and we have way more to gain by being allies with Russia than enemies. You'd need a Bush-like fundamental idiocy at the helm to actually allow it to happen. Someone who was so wrapped up in misguided ideology that they would totally forget the interests of the nation.

There is a small chance that Palin might be able to pull it off.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 12:55 AM

Sarah in wonderland.

I wonder how my polar bear rug will look in the situation room?

I wonder how long I can get away with the same stump speech?

If we lose I wonder can I put this comp Jet on EBAY?


Posted by: brock101 | September 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Jesus was a Jew.

Have the Republicans all run in fear with their hands over their eyes now?

Posted by: Anon | September 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Someone needs to market this idea to confused Hillary voters.

PUT HILLARY IN THE SUPREME COURT VOTE OBAMA 2008.

Posted by: Vote sane | September 12, 2008 12:50 AM

RACISM TRANSCENDS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
In that regard, unless there are enough non-racists whites Obama may lose in November. But that really puts this country in the 1950's instead of 2008. I like to believe all those people are dead and gone. And if you're all wondering why there's so much excitement and energy around Gov. Palin, she represents a second chance for "Hillary" to beat Obama. Even though many conservatives may not have voted in the Primary, they most likely were rooting for her because of her race. But now all the "good white folk" get to show their solidarity once again in beating the black man. Stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: AB | September 12, 2008 12:49 AM

No wonder the world is laughing at us.

Go Obama we haven't come this far to give up on you yet. In fact many world leaders are still behind you.

I am independent who votes for candidates I know won't be elected in state and national elections because they represent issues important to me.

While I disagree with Obama on many points. McSame and Pa-lyin need to be stopped.

Independents United behind Obama to stop this trainwreck and WWIII.

Posted by: Vote sane | September 12, 2008 12:45 AM

I'm sure Palin had no idea of what she was saying politically when Gibson asked her that question. Palin's first two responses were politically, but her last response is what many Americans feel. How will the McCain campaign dismiss Palin's view that endorses Obama without offending women?

Palin's cockiness about being confident and saying she is ready to president and immediately said yes to be McCain's VP was showing. Palin could have been truthful about being apprehensive but she choose to try to show her "toughness" and "resolve" where none was needed.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 12:43 AM

If our country was so ignorant as to elect an imbecile like G.W.Bush TWICE, then there is no doubt in my mind that we are dumb enough to put in somebody like Palin. I'm sorry, but America's time on top is coming to an end thanks to imbecile politics and imbecile voters who support it.

Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 12:43 AM

Anyone who thought Sarah Palin did a good job should be placed on house arrest on the 4th of november.

Posted by: brock101 | September 12, 2008 12:41 AM

amazing

Posted by: boruch yona loriner | September 12, 2008 12:40 AM

Great let us tell Russia to take whatever they want. Who the hell do the people of Ukraine and Georgia think they are... wanting to be free. Don't they know that is the sovernign right of just the elite human sub-speices known as Obama supporters. Tell the Russians to take back all of their old states and while they are at it they can have France, Germany, Spain and England too. Fly the Russian flag over the graveyards of the US dead above Omaha Beach. Have no fear the occupants of Obamaland will have no interest in fulling any of this country's treaty obligations.

What foolishness. Obama has already shown how to make weak responses to Russian aggressions. That only encourages more such acts. If nothing else can be learned from the Kennedy administration, it should not be forgotten that weak reponses are what cause escalations to dangerous levels and strong responses surpress them. If she scares you, think what she is doing to the Russians. Reagan scared the hell out of them too and he broke their grip on these countries that yearned to be free, for God sakes don't let them think they can put them back under that yoke.

Posted by: danoh50 | September 12, 2008 12:39 AM

Cassandra...forgive me, but you're an idiot.

I can tell you now that if McCain and Palin were able to win the 2008 election. Hillary will not have a chance in 2012, especially if V.P. Palin (or heaven forbid President Palin) were to run against Hillary in 2012.

Hillary's best chance to go down in history is to help Obama win in 2008, and petition President Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 12:37 AM

John Davies wrote: "Sarah was asked "If you could do anything to make the world a better place, what would you do?" Sarah replied "Bomb the hell out of the middle east would be a good start", which put an end to her Miss Alaska dream."
.... John... did you have to ask someone to spell the big words in this for you?

Posted by: Cassandra Washington | September 12, 2008 12:37 AM

Sarah Palin is red meat for neo cons. They she a lot of bush in her. War merchants like Black water will make more money gain more influence, the supreme court will be more radical yeilding more power to the executive branch, and the middle class will cease to exist.

Posted by: brock101 | September 12, 2008 12:34 AM

Breaking CNN Headline:
Former GOP senator calls Palin a 'cocky wacko'

That's Sen. Lincoln Chafee if you are interested in reading up on it.

Posted by: Odius | September 12, 2008 12:34 AM

Palin was embarrasingly bad. She struggled to remember the notes written on her index cards. She was not authoritative, not knowledgeable, and appeaered like a deer in headlights. Compared to Obama, a thoughtful man who has discussed these issues for years and Biden, one of the foremost statesmen in this country, she came across as someone who is not ready for the job she seeks.

A McCain/Palin ticket combines his bad judgment with her absence of judgment (as she doesn't have enough information to make an informed decision). Anyone who votes for that ticket is an idiot.

Posted by: Khyber Jones | September 12, 2008 12:32 AM

This was her first major interview with a very experienced interviewer ... she did a good job ... she will do better next time ... she has time to learn ... McCain is not in a coma yet.
Gibson was out to get her .. the liberals and the liberal Media are screaming for her blood ... and he tried to deliver it!
As much as I am opposed to some of what she stands for .. I will still take her over Obama!
McCain-Palin '08
Hillary 2012!

Posted by: Cassandra Washington | September 12, 2008 12:27 AM

.

PA-VA:
"Although Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine was a "Gotcha" moment, Palin should have know the answer to the question."

Maybe so, but as implimented by Bush, the doctrine would have been best forgotten by even Bush himself.


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 12:27 AM

It was a perfect showing of why she is not capable, and McCain isnt ready for the job either.Otherwise, his VP, his second in line wouldnt be talking about policy issues that are not of her's to speak.Way over the top, and whats funny, im sure McCains team knew exactly what she was going to be asked, so this whole Q&A was a set up, right from the beginning.
As for her Children, which im not digging on, but did you ever wonder why the Imaginitive Names????
Bristol (home of a nice Race track often attened heavily by REDNECKS) Trig(musta been a Hunting accident)ya get my drift???

Posted by: mullett | September 12, 2008 12:25 AM

so let's recap:

Palin has rejected the maverick McCain and agreed with Bush and Obama about Pakistan.

She thinks the 9/11 folks are in Iraq (and for those who agree with her not even Cheney thinks Al Queda in Iraq is even remotely connected to bin Laden) (the briefing folks must have assumed she picked that up all by herself over the last 7 years and didn't think to remind her not to say that)

she says "perhaps we would" go to war with Russia to defend Georgia because that's what the NATO treaty requires. someone should ask her how the American people would feel about drafting nearly a million kids to take on the Russian army in their own back yard in a non-nuclear war.

and that's just in 24 hours.

Posted by: JoeT | September 12, 2008 12:25 AM

Wow, the lowest common denominator of our society is out on the blog tonight in force. . . GROW UP!! If your candidate can't answer the tough questions, she needs to stop running for V.P.

Posted by: ldsrapha | September 12, 2008 12:22 AM

Boy, she sounds like Bush. There are a million Republicans who can tell the difference between Al-Q and Iraq, can't you all nominate just one of them???

Crap, we can bomb the hell out of the enemy for all I care, can we just get someone who actually knows who it is? Please?

Posted by: sigh | September 12, 2008 12:19 AM

Although Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine was a "Gotcha" moment, Palin should have know the answer to the question. She is running for VP; she should be more knowledgeable than the average voter.

Posted by: PA-VA | September 12, 2008 12:19 AM

I have a honest to goodness question for the Republicans and Independents leaning towards McCain/Palin (and I hope for an honest answer).

Are you guys at all concerned about the "untruths" that the Republicans are dishing out? Or is it all part of the game?

I know both sides shade the truth but the Republicans are earning a Skybox in Hell for the lenghts that they are going.

Posted by: Odius | September 12, 2008 12:19 AM

When Sarah Palin was competing in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant, she was by far the fan favorite expected to win easily. Until the finals, where each of the trhee remaining beauty contestants were asked to answer a question. Sarah was asked "If you could do anything to make the world a better place, what would you do?" Sarah replied "Bomb the hell out of the middle east would be a good start", which put an end to her Miss Alaska dream.

Posted by: John Davies | September 12, 2008 12:18 AM

ummmmmmmmmm I must have missed something. It sounds like you were all in the room when palin and gibson were having their discussion. Must have been awfully crowded in there. But the pic that I saw only showed the 2 of them. also she endorsed nothing she gave the same old tired line that all politicians in power give. all options are on the table. it is the interpetation of the guy writing the article the she endorsed obamas plan. nice try.

Posted by: dittman | September 12, 2008 12:18 AM

And by Real Americans, I mean good, conservative, God-fearing white people who won't stand for an uppity darkie candidate with a messiah complex. Jesus Christ is the one true Messiah. We should make the heathen in Arab countries bow down and worship him.

Posted by: Bob Elliott | September 12, 2008 12:18 AM

"Even so, Palin handled this with aplomb. Honesty is a difficult thing to put down, and it's on her side. Too bad, Gibson"

bless her purty heart. I just hope she's stays honest whilst instigatin' the 'pocolypse when her finger's on the button.

Amen!

Posted by: el_barto | September 12, 2008 12:15 AM

From http://www.factcheck.org/

Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.

We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.

* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

Posted by: Odius | September 12, 2008 12:14 AM

America, identify one single significant policy issue different between McCain & Bush.


Just one.....

Okay. Bush didn't serve in combat, McCain was a POW. He understands what its like to be in Combat. Bush does not. Bush wants our troops to fight for Glory and Honor, McCain wants our troops to fight because, well, that's what troops do. And maybe one of them can be made a long term POW and thus eligible to run for President. After all, that's the most important criteria.

Posted by: One Issue | September 12, 2008 12:13 AM

Absolutely wild and outrageous distortion, Glenn Kessler!! "All options on the table" doesn't come close to being an endorsement of what Obama said. And that quote from McCain doesn't foreclose Palin's "all options on the table" stance. You are being absolutely shameless.

Posted by: Robert Paulson | September 12, 2008 12:12 AM


Posted by: the racist mccains | September 11, 2008 11:14 PM


Nice try "sex on skates" Levi, but shilling for Obama won't get you off the hook with Bristol!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:12 AM

If i have to pay for it myself, i will...you people need therapy. Not like the "you saw something tragic in your life" therapy, the kind of therapy that brings out the molestation by the angry clown you experienced!

Posted by: T | September 12, 2008 12:10 AM

Gibson tried to make a fool of Palin, and it backfired.

--------

Yeah, she beat him to it and did it twice as well as he ever could have.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 12:10 AM

.

trace1:
"Did anyone see Charlie Gibson's eyes rolling back in his head?"

They have plenty of room back in there....


.

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 12:09 AM

No, seriously...you people need therapy!

Posted by: T | September 12, 2008 12:08 AM

Did anyone see Charlie Gibson's eyes rolling back in his head?

Posted by: trace1 | September 12, 2008 12:07 AM

You people need therapy!

Posted by: T | September 12, 2008 12:06 AM


Gibson tried to make a fool of Palin, and it backfired. She stood her ground.

Palin's quote from the church was "and we have to keep praying that there is a plan, and it is God’s plan." Watch it on youtube. Gibson botched it (leaving out the prefatory "we have to keep praying that", implying her quote was that "there is a plan, and it is God's plan.

Even so, Palin handled this with aplomb. Honesty is a difficult thing to put down, and it's on her side. Too bad, Gibson

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 12:05 AM

Palin is a distraction.

She has been coached since the convention for the interview and not that well.

At the convention she read a speech that was written by W's speech writer after practicing all week for it... Hooray! She can read.

And she has been reading the same speech over and over to all the sheeple in the swing states that attend their rallies.

She can tell lies about herself and get away with it (not anymore mind you) because no one outside Alaska (way above Cananda ... next to Russia and Santa) knows who she is.

She could tell lies about the Democratic ticket because people (at the end of the day) want sensationalism. They know she was lying... they just want to see what the Democrats would do.


She is only a distraction plain and simple.

Focus on the issues.
Focus on the FACTS.

www.factcheck.org


Posted by: Odius | September 12, 2008 12:04 AM

That disgusting statement by joe, who is actually a republican, trolling for outrage, and attributing it to democrats, shows how cynical republicans are. Please remove such comments. Dirty politics seems all republicans can play, since they don't really have good policies.

Posted by: ksamuels | September 12, 2008 12:04 AM

.

Gibson tried to make a fool of Palin, and it backfired. She stood her ground.

Palin's quote from the church was "and we have to keep praying that there is a plan, and it is God’s plan." Watch it on youtube. Gibson botched it (leaving out the prefatory "we have to keep praying that", implying her quote was that "there is a plan, and it is God's plan.

Even so, Palin handled this with aplomb. Honesty is a difficult thing to put down, and it's on her side. Too bad, Gibson


.

Gibson found that honesty and substance is a difficult thing to put down. He took her church statement

Posted by: Billw | September 12, 2008 12:03 AM

In all seriousness, Palin was an epic fail during the interview, and I give a lot of credit to Gibson for not lobbing softballs at her, thereby causing the rightwing to no doubt label him as a sexist and a lib'ral.

Palin obviously did not understand what the Bush Doctrine is, nor did she understand she was contradicting McCain when she said that invading Pakistan was okay.

In another interview recently, when asked what Palin knew about national security, McCain tossed out a sweet non sequitur, claiming that Palin "probably knows more about energy than anyone else in the entire United States of America."

Rightwingers, I ask you: What the devil is it with your ticket? Are you trying to get us all killed by putting loons in charge of our nuclear arsenal? Are you all secret Russian agents?

Nod once for "da" and twice for "nyet."

Posted by: castanea | September 12, 2008 12:03 AM

Seriously, though, she couldn't even answer what the Bush Doctrine was.

Forget the fact that she's running for VP (but how can we) she is the Republican governor of a red state, and she doesn't know what comprised her party's president's major doctrine of the last 7 years.

THEY WROTE BOOKS ABOUT IT! And it was in the news, like, forever.

But she didn't know what it was! Ha, ha!

But I'm sure that the right-wingers are going to spin that by saying it just shows how independent minded she is and, whatever, Girl Power! She doesn't need to know what it is, whatever, I can do what I want, whatever, you don't know me, whatever!


.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 12, 2008 12:02 AM

Palin sounds very hawkish and didn't know the Bush doctrine. unlike other candidates who will try to avoid word of 'war" with another super-power, she wants to take this country to war. Palin is obviously inexperience to take charge if McCain die in office. she should stay in her current position.

Posted by: D.Johnson | September 12, 2008 12:01 AM

America, identify one single significant policy issue different between McCain & Bush.


Just one.....

[Cue Crickets]

How is that change?

Posted by: America Needs an intelligent President | September 12, 2008 12:01 AM

Please be aware that posting highly offensive comments allegedly from Obama supporters is one of the gutter strategies of the McCain campaign.

Posted by: barbara | September 12, 2008 12:01 AM

Nice try Joe, your posturing as a pretend Democrat is so transparent.

Your xenophobia is pure GOP hate.

Get a life.

Posted by: Joe is a Retard | September 11, 2008 11:59 PM

Actually, I don't think she even knew what she was answering. Remember, this exchange began with a question about the Bush Doctrine, which she flubbed. Then, when told that the Bush Doctrine advocated pre-emptive war, she defended wars against "imminent threats," which is actually traditional pre-Bush Doctrine policy.

On Pakistan, she started talking about "these countries" like some high school kid would. So when she finally said that all options are on the table, I didn't it interpret it to mean that she really supported an aggressive position in Pakistan. I interpreted it to be her giving a talking point answer to the wrong question.

She is out of her league.

Posted by: Elrod | September 11, 2008 11:59 PM

McSame will go to the gates of Hell for Osama bin Laden but will not go to his cave?

Gotta love the creationist Palin who thinks the dinosaurs were walking the earth 4,000 years ago.

Posted by: Sane American | September 11, 2008 11:57 PM

This woman is scary. Someone should have told Mrs Palin that while it sounds tuff, it is nonsense to think that this country can go out and fight every countries wars. If these two get in office the draft can not be far behind!

Posted by: Tee | September 11, 2008 11:57 PM


What's naive is Sarah Palin's ideas on foreign policy. She said she'd be in favor of invading Russia.

Sarah Palin is dangerously naive!

Posted by: el_barto | September 11, 2008 11:56 PM

Did I miss something? Obama will protect us from terrorist, even if it necessitates violating sovereign territory, in the interest of American safety.

McCain won't defend America. Or do what is necessary,

And Palin argees with Obama's terror policy?

Sounds like Palin accidently endorsed Obama.

Thanks

Posted by: ksamuels | September 11, 2008 11:56 PM

Ask her if we can kill our way to victory, with God at our back?

A heartbeat away...

Posted by: Upwards | September 11, 2008 11:54 PM

Sarah Palin seems to be the only candidate ready to be President. Some choices a president must face will be tough. We canno afford a President who refuses to fight under any circumstances. John McCain will be an excellent President and Sarah Palin an excellent Vice President. I look forward to voting for Sarah Palin as President in 2012 should John McCain elect to serve just 1 term in office.

The real quesiton is can we clear out the House and Senate and put some real Americans in office?

God Bless America, President George W. Bush and the US Marines

Posted by: Bob Elliott | September 11, 2008 11:49 PM

I credit McCain with paying closer attention to his tutors than Palin did -- but isn't this all a bit absurd in light of the disclosure that Bush has already authorized precisely such incursions into Pakistani territory?

It would be just a bit tempting to feel sorry for McCain, except of course he's just adopted Bush's foreign and military policy -- such as they are -- in his party platform. So I guess he approves of Bush's decision?

Posted by: Helen | September 11, 2008 11:49 PM

Washington Post, please get this comment off the boards. It's disgusting and offensive and I'm a Democrat.

Hey Sarah....why don't you bake cookies for your retard son Trig and b@stard grandson and leave the real world problems for real men.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

Posted by: Joe | September 11, 2008 11:49 PM

Starting a war with Russia would not be funny. They have as many thermonuclear warheads as we do (that's a treaty). 100,000,000
Americans could die in a couple hours and the insurance companies wouldn't pay a dime. Your insurance company would be vaporized like your bank and your house. It'd be nice if we had a government that could think about things, think clearly. Truth is, we aren't all Georgians here. Do you even know what language they speak in Georgia? Do you know what language they speak in Ossetia? Don't start a war when you don't know what you're doing!

Posted by: Richaado/California | September 11, 2008 11:49 PM

the worst part by far was her answer to the question of why terrorists attacked America. she said, "they do not believe in American ideals." if she is really that clueless then we are in big trouble if she is elected. the terrorists made it very clear in many statements before attacking that it was the U.S. military presence in holy Saudi Arabia that was the main motivation for the attacks. they listed other reasons as well, generally having to do with U.S. interference in the Arab and Islamic worlds. to think it was due to them not believing in American ideals is bizarre, naive, unbelievable and dangerous.

This was the scariest answer but it has yet to get much attention.

Posted by: scared in Oregon | September 11, 2008 11:48 PM

In her speech to her son's departing unit, she also like Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. What else is new? The woman is dumb as a box of hair.

----------

I wouldn't judge her too harshly on that. She said that they were going to fight the people who attacked us. You could argue pretty easily that they will indeed be fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. General Petraeus just recently argued that it is a stronghold of theirs.

Of course, it obviously wasn't back in 2003 when we first invaded. It is now, though.

Posted by: Joe | September 11, 2008 11:38 PM

Gov. Palin avoided answering the question on pursuing terrorists into Pakistan until Gibson asked her for the third time.

Gov. Palin's failure to launch just allowed bin Laden to escape yet again...Gov. Palin proves to be as effective, er, ineffective, as President Bush in her pursuit of the world's worst terrorist.

Strange how Gov. Palin is so willing to risk nuclear war with Russia just to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but she can't make up her mind as to whether or not to go after the world's worst terrorists in Pakistan.

Posted by: socalgal59 | September 11, 2008 11:27 PM

In her speech to her son's departing unit, she also like Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. What else is new? The woman is dumb as a box of hair.

Posted by: carolinagirl | September 11, 2008 11:23 PM

Hey Sarah....why don't you bake cookies for your retard son Trig and b@stard grandson and leave the real world problems for real men.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

Posted by: the racist mccains | September 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Sarah Palin the idiot messed up her softball interview with Charlie Gibson. Sarah wants to take us to war with Russia. God help us if this stupid hockey mom wins the election.

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 11:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company