Charlie Gibson is a pompous dweeb.

An interview with Bill O’Reilly, now THAT’S a series I’d like to see. =D

But this is a little over the top =)

It’s up on the top at Ace right now:

http://thebrewdogblog.com/2008/09/my-wife-has-a-girl-crush-on-sarah-palin/

Seriously, I didn’t hear her say anything about Russia that I haven’t read before, or thought myself.

From what I’ve seen of the reaction – and not having seen the interview myself – all that’s happened is the deeply-held opinions on both the left and the right have been confirmed.

This, in itself, is extremely interesting.

Gibson really is a pompous a**. His condesceding attitude was obvious. Oh, and I just can’t remember when Obama was asked if he really felt he was, “up to the job”.
But what couldn’t be taken out and left on the cutting room floor,(the editing really was terrible), was her genuine sincerity. It actually was accentuated by Gibson’s aloofness. I think that is what most neutral observers will remember.

and she looked absolutely fine, extremely solid as a matter of fact. But Gibson really looked like he was trying to teach the “nice lady” a thing or two about the “real world”. The low, soft tone of voice, the “come to Papa’ demeanor.

I don’t think she was familiar with the “Bush Doctrine”. That being said the question itself is loaded and unfair on its face. It should have been Do you agree with the concept of preemptive military strikes. In any event she eventually said yes.

From what I read (I didn’t see the interview) she was nervous and got tripped up with some of the questions.

Any thoughts from someone who saw it?

the interview and Palin is overall earnest. Her demeanor was really quite good. She did not hedge or stammer at all. For a first big interview, not too shabby.

Gibson seemed to be getting frustrated with Palin’s very solid answers. It was unmistakeable. He wanted a gotcha or several gotchas. He did not get any.

There are 2 teaser clips on abcnews.com where the camera angle is different and you can actually see Gibson getting sour expressions when Sarah gave a great answer. I did not see Gibson as attacking, but personally I thought he would have liked to see her melt down.

She came across very much like in her convention address, without the pizzazz. Very forceful and matter of fact.

I give her a B plus, because to get an A she will need to have done several more of these and developed her groove.

If she gets the knack of questioning the questioner, for example, she’ll have some new trophies for her office wall.

It is all about Sarah this election, and I see her leaving the world wanting more, while the obamania is wearing thin, very thin.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Condescending, pompous, is there a theme here with Left and it’s faithful sidekick, the media?

It seemed to me that he kept pushing questions till he got something he could work with. Or until the media could cut and paste a title to their liking.

All things considered, Gov. Palin handled herself well. She was, as already mentioned, genuinely sincere. She looked grandpa Charlie right in the eyes and leaned in with each answer to him. No Obama style um’s and uh’s. There were some answers that could have been more head on, but this was her first interview. I’m sure once she gets some more under her belt, she’ll get better and better.

There were some positives here. NOT backing down from the “God’s plan” issue, even putting Charlie in his place (if you really can put the media in their place). The whole question about how many foreign heads of state she has met with was handled well. People don’t seem to realize with this whole lack of foreign experience attacks, that once in office they would be well informed of what was going on. No matter what level of experience prior to being in office, you won’t really know what’s up until you are in the White House. That condescending question of how often she traveled outside the state was a favorite of mine.

It seems that Gibson was trying to play hard ball and trap Palin, and well failed. The whole Bush Doctrine thing was a nice try, but contrary to what the Left and media thinks, Palin is not dumb. She kept her composure and was genuine and didn’t seem to be reaching for her answers. It’ll only get better from here as she gains more confidence. And I agree Gibson was an ideal first person to start with.

She cam off very intelligent and calm. You know too that there must be nothing bad done in the interview or they would of led off with it tonight.

I’ve been following Bush for 8 years and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a Bush Doctrine.

I really cannot stand how high the bar has been set for Palin by the media/left. She has to be absolutely perfect or the left will crucify her and gnaw at every chink of the armor they can find. It sickens me.

I agree with redneck hippie’s analysis. All she needs is B’s, but I’m hoping to observe an adaptive Sarah Barracuda in the subsequent interviews that shows an increased comfort level and and back-and-forth that disarms (or failing that, makes painfully obvious to all) Gibson’s somewhat inappropriately haughty examiner tone. Sarah was great I thought with Maria Bartiromo during her special report on energy, and that highly-watched Fox documentary last weekend was awesome.

From what I can tell, she did great considering she was up against someone who takes alot of pointers from Joe Goebbels with his zealous venom.

http://libertyandjustice.wordpress.com/

Hurricane Ike will make this interview almost unnoticed in the hours to come.

no one focused on the Bush doctrine- how many out of 300 million AMERICANS know the Bush doctrine or even care? I mean it could be pre-emptive war, or it could be using massive force to win a war, or it could be stopping rogue nations from acquiring WMD, or it could be changing the face of the Middle East away from totalitarianism towards freedom. The fact that it was not a massive gaffe means it was success.

Of course, compared to how the media highlights Obama’s “57 states”, “Nittally Lions”, “New Pennsylvania”, “surge did not work and I would not vote for it again” comments she is getting off lucky because we know how much critical coverage the media gave for that!!

[I haven't seen this anywhere on RS today yet]

IL Gov Rod Blagojevich says that Govs are better prepared to lead than Senators

That’s not going to help Obama at all if we can get this played up anywhere.

[I have to admit that I don't watch TV or listen to much radio anymore. Is this getting play?]

in reference to Palin’s interview:
“I have known gerbils that have had more examinations than Barack Obama.”

for Gov Palin, she did a good job, but it wasn’t a home run. Not bad considering that foreign policy is supposed to be her weakest area.

Gotta give it up to her for at least not saying that Romney should have been the Veep pick.

But flinches at the very possibility of someone else taking Obama’s comments out of context.

Lanny Davis: “Palin advocates war with Russia!”
Hannity: “Well what about these things Obama has actually said?”
Lanny Davis: “Well, I have to question whether those comments were taken out of context.”

And people actually believe that sort of crap…

What does it matter if she knows the Bush Doctrine or the Monroe Doctrine or the Shock Doctrine – what matters is what the McCain/Palin Doctrine will be.

regarding “The Bush Doctrine” I turned to my mom and said, “That’s such a broad a question.”

I was thrilled when Gov. Palin defiantly leaned back and said, “In what respect Charlie?”

We hooted up a storm in my living room. We all said, “Well done Governor.”

I thought this was a B+ performance. I was pulling for her and she didn’t disappoint.

I, too, believe she will only get better as the interviews progress.

the left. Apparently they think NATO is some kind of meals on Wheels peacekeeping operation, instead of the most successful mutual defense pact in modern history.

Her answer on that was perfect. As to the Bush Doctrine — she saw it as an attempt to link her to Bush in some kind of Bush-Palin connection. Making Gibson redefine it — brilliant.

If you posed that question, do you support preemptive military action in the case of a resonable threat assessment, in the context of the 9/11 attacks well the answer is obvious.

She will be fine.

I wasn’t even aware that the first segment would be tonight, so I missed it.

Gibson asked Gov. Palin:

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

Also:

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

Hey Charlie, are you aware that out of the 26 members of NATO, fully six (Luxembourg, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia) of them have smaller populations then Georgia and are worth diddly squat to our national security in comparison? Would it be worth it to go to war over them? But we would have to if we were to honor the NATO charter, which states:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

A ridiculous, ignorant question to which Gov. Palin gave a perfect answer.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Most countries in NATO are not worth starting World War Three over. The point of the alliance is to serve as a deterrent to aggression and prevent war. Had Georgia been a member of NATO, chances are that Russia would never have attacked.

The Interview is playing on Nightline right now. It doesn’t seem as choppy. She looks a lot better in this version.

I generally consider Gibson to be the fairest and least biased of the three network types, but I don’t think he was expecting Sarah Palin to handle herself so well.
The Bush Doctrine question was so loaded it wasn’t even funny. As soon as he said “Bush” there was a little bit of a pause and she asked to clarify the question. She then gave a pretty good answer.
I don’t know if Gibson was trying to help Obama link McCain/Palin to Bush, maybe it was an honest question, but Palin knew it was loaded. She’s smart enough to know they’re out to get her and she keeps proving them wrong all the time.
Expect more troopergate and bridge slime after this is all over. It will be the only thing they have left, considering she’ll knock Gibson’s socks off when it comes to domestic policy answers.

But the left is only going to give Gibson a C- or D because he and 20 staffers had 3 full days to come up with some gotcha questions, and they were not successful.

I pay attention to this stuff, and I have never once heard any reference to THE BUSH DOCTRINE. She handled it much better than I would have. Kudos to her!

I loved the way she stayed on message, reinforcing the agenda of the McCain/Palin administration in terms of reform. I too think she will get more comfortable with each outing.

You can say what you want about her, but she is very cool under pressure that would have most of us buckling at the knees!

Even assuming she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, I don’t think it hurts her. Politically it may even help, when your average, “ordinary” American sees the talking heads sputter with righteous indignation “Sarah Palin doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is” his/her first reaction will be “So what, neither do I”.

The punditocracy forgets that most Americans have never even heard of many things that for them are as familiar as their daily bread.

haven’t even read any of these comments yet and I am going to say this: I think they screwed her over earlier in the evening during World News when they did a hatchet job on the interview.

I’m sorry, but I was impressed – more impressed… thoroughly impressed- with her interview aired during NightLine. There was more there. They cut it up less. It was smoother. And she let him have it a time or two.

I knew too much was missing earlier when they showed their select clips. Now I know fully what effect it had, having now seen more of the footage.

And agree that Charles Gibson seemed pompous. But the question about the “Bush Doctrine” did not sell well.

It may be true, as someone above mentioned, that if you ask 100 people on the street what the “Bush Doctrine” is, probably only three could tell you. The problem is, 100 people on the street are not running for Vice President. It is expected by many that a candidate for Vice President (and, of course, President) would know something like that; even if they don’t know the answer themselves.

But again, all in all, I think Governor Palin did well and probably did not lose any votes.

nt

This interview is a HUGE win for McCain/Palin. What everyone (engaged conservatives) have to understand is that Palin is a game changer. She is waking up a sleeping electorate to the nasty game of politics and the hatred of the left. People who don’t normally pay attention are shocked at the attacks that we are so use to hearing . The comments of Matt Damon and Pam Anderson aren’t laughed off like they would be if it were direct at Bush or even McCain. Everyday Americans (those who don’t read political blogs) see Palin for what she is, a middle class mother of five who went from the PTA to mayor to governor. Why would anyone hate her for that?
Gibson doesn’t get it either. He acted like she didn’t even deserve to be interviewed. He treated her like she was Ann Coulter, but people don’t see her like that. This is not going to sit well with a lot of voters. The fact that they took her “God” quote out of context will dominate the new media tomorrow.
We are witnessing history.

I wish she would have answered the “Going into Pakistan to get the terrorists” question a little better. She should have said–Yes, I would be in favor of going into Pakistan and taking out terrorists if the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to do so and if we knew exactly where we were going and who we were taking out. That is the type of “straight talk” we need. Enough of this PC mumbo jumbo. Overall I think she did an adequate job in the interview, at least the amount I have seen so far.

it like this:

Charlie Gibson: How could you possibly think that you are qualified for this job?

Sarah Palin: Stuff it.

Charlie Gibson: Aren’t you an arrogant female canine for thinking that you are at all qualified?

Sarah Palin: Where’s my whip?

Charlie Gibson: Now now little missy, I didn’t really mean it. Please don’t hurt me!

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

She also proves that she is a Washington Outsider.

The most important thing is this: Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. She doesn’t have to do Obama’s “cut-and-paste” policy statements and press releases.

She’s authentically one of us.

Everything I needed to know about politics I learned on WKRP.

Les: The secret is to appear to answer all the questions, when in truth it’s all mumbo-jumbo. Here, let me show you. Herb, ask me this question.

Herb: Surely. “Mr. Candidate, what is your energy program?”

Les: Right now, I’m devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem. And I intend to issue a position paper on that. A position that is at once simple, yet complex, flexible, and above all else, fair to every American.

Let’s try it…

Charlie: “Mr. Biden, what is your position on the Bush Doctrine?”

Biden: Right now, I’m devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem. And I intend to issue a position paper on that. A position that is at once simple, yet complex, flexible, and above all else, fair to every American.

They only thing lacking is a few off-color stereotypes.

Or does anyone else get the feeling that Gibson doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is? The right to preemptive strikes is nothing new.

This is not an attempt to get Palin “off the hook” regarding the Bush Doctrine. She missed an opportunity to educate us.

I am very excited about Sarah Palin, and has been watching all the news and blogs about her, although this is the first time I comment.

Although I think she did well in handling most questions, I think this particular one about “readiness” she could have done differently, and be a better answer.

I think she should acknoowledge the gravity of the office she is going to compaign for, possibly being the leader of this still great nation, and of the free world. About the opposition she is going to face for her reforms, and about the needs of the Alaskans who elected her, and last but not least, about the sacrifice her family will have to endure.

I am indignant of the left’s despicable lies in trying to portray her as a bad mother in running for office while having the special needs at home, she doesn’t need to deny the hardship it would place on the family, like the media scrutiny and mud-slings. However, in each generation, great men and women were called to serve a greater cause always had to sacrifice. At the end, that call prevails for her, although she will try all her best to provide for and protect her family.

I think that would come back to echo McCain’s theme. And I think the viewer would not see her as any less ready. I mean those undecided ones. She is not going to change those already has mind made up.

The real problem with the media in this election is only ‘poked the weakness and stir up for news value’.

I agree tough questions must be asked of a candidate. Tough as in issues but not because it is so vague or open-ended designed to trap like as in college.

I do not want to assume Charles is a liberal or not. I don’t care. But can’t the media not assume a stand. Just explore the views/answers that was given so that the candidate will gladly talk more. That way audience will learn more about why the candidate took such a stand. Look we need not agree with all the views but more importantly is the logic with whom this person process information and decisions.

This is so clearly lacking now in all the media. In fact this might be why America is now so divided. I mean 20 years ago, everyone still voice out freely but could agree to disagree and stay united. So the country might be divided not because of 2 different political parties but rather the media being arrogant.

This interview was pointless given Charles clearly started with a cold stance. I mean what is the point of asking someone to stare into the camera (pretending that it represents USA) to answer about her readiness. The correct thing to do will be explore real issues with the candidate and not pass judgements so that the interview will yield more information, principles, values from the candidate and then the public will decide whether he/she is ready. It is just equally absurd to ask Bill Gates in 1976 to stare at the camera whether he is ready to lead the world’s biggest software company.

Almost all the key subjects in his questions are either vague or too complex without contexts. Bush doctrine? Georgia? Number count the heads of states?

Now I am not asking anyone to pamper Palin here but in the end this kind of interview is a waste of time because it does not yield any new information about the candidate. Worst yet, it just left behind supporters from both camps to continue with pointless debates based on incomplete information.

In the end, both Charles and Palin did not shine due to a total lack of intellectual exchange like two clamped shells.

** one extra word for those who claim to be Foreign Affairs and National Security experts but exclude oil and gas is to really live in the old cold war era of defining security in terms of guns. The world is in a precarious position to be blackmailed by Oil nations because we have probably come to what we in the industry called the ‘peak oil’ point where no new oil fields have been discovered. This subject the oil market to wild inflation even with slight disruptions of supplies.

Sure not everyone will think Palin should be VP but if an interview allow us to hear more on her views why oil is now so key to national security will be thought provocating because no one can deny that she got to be the only politician who is most qualified to speak on this subject.

If the media really did their jobs, everyone will learn throught this election and not bickering over each other’s choice and campaign ads.