I've watched part of the Sarah Palin interview, and I think it's very hard to argue that she isn't woefully unprepared; she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. She is, to be sure, very good at tap-dancing around questions she doesn't know the answer to. But either other people didn't pick this up, or InTrade investors don't care; McCain is
still marching steadily upward.
Oh, give me a break. So she flopped on "the Bush Doctrine" - that term means at least a dozen different things depending on who you are talking to. Cut her a little slack. The question was intended as a "gotcha" - if he'd just asked about preemption she would have clearly handled it better. I thought, for a two-year governor from Alaska, she did just fine. Foreign policy isn't her comfort zone yet, but she'll have time to learn as an understudy to McCain. The alternative is what? Obama's sink or swim on-the-job training?
Could somebody please tell me, in unequivocal terms, what the Bush Doctrine is?
I thought it was "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." But Gibson seemed to think it had something to do with preventative war. So I check Wikipedia (okay, it's not a perfect source, but still), and that says it's both, plus more besides.
What gives?
"A bird in the hand is worth two..." What? That's not it? Sorry, what was the question again?
I think it's pretty clear from her face that she did not remember ever having encountered the term. This is not a case of disagreeing over terminology. It's a case where she didn't know what he was talking about, and delivered a fairly competent BS answer.
The Bush Doctrine at least as it pertains to most foreign policy discussions is the concept of using preventive war (rather than preemptive war; that is war on an imminent threat) as a regular part of national security policy. It was IIRC articulated in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002, I'm not quite sure where the debate comes from. It's quite unequivocal that it means the doctrinal shift from preemptive war to preventive war (while using the former term to mean the latter term) which was articulated in NSS 2002.
Now, there's some muddle because people can confuse it with a bevy of other policy imperatives such as the "spread democracy" plank, but in general it's simply used to mean preventive war. Anyone with even a sophomore education international relations could tell you this much.
What's frightening is that someone who has the strong potential to be the President of the United States can't even articulate what the major shift to the National Security Strategy has been under the Bush Administration.
"very good at tap-dancing around questions she doesn't know the answer to"
You're kidding, right? Very good?
Comments like this flummox me, but I keep seeing them.
It's like, no one is ready to say she is completely dreadful - when she's criticized, there's always one little qualifying statement like this one.
That's just weird. Her tap dancing sucked. Nothing but lines recited from her programming. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find ANY spot in the foreign policy section where there is any evidence of thinking, as opposed to repeating.
A "fairly competent BS answer"? Really?? Competent?? I guess you can see why she drives us insane.
Thanks for the info, Nob.
(And I appreciate the compliment, but really, I don't have the strong potential to be President of the United States.)
I think it's pretty clear from her face that she did not remember ever having encountered the term. This is not a case of disagreeing over terminology. It's a case where she didn't know what he was talking about, and delivered a fairly competent BS answer.
The question then is: So, what?
Many years ago, I asked a very knowledgeable Presidential scholar when the Presidency became unmanageable. He said with the New Deal. We have a very large government that deals with many, many complex problems. No person or group of people can possible know the details or how to handle them or even an outline of those problems. That is one reason I have become more and more libertarian as I progress through life.
Frankly, I am skeptical that the very brightest people make the best leaders, though I do think they have to be smart enough to pick good and great advisors. I am more confident with those who can simplify and not nuance things to death. I am not sure how smart Palin is but I think she is probably smart enough if she has a high enough emotional quotient.
Is the Bush Doctrine something like the Monroe Doctrine, something we ignore when convenient.
If you're upset that more people aren't basing their decision for president on a single interview that the VP candidate did with Charlie Gibson, blame Gibson and ABC. Their desparate reach for a gotcha question and the incredibly bungled attempt to purge the record of having done their prep research on DailyKos made the story about them, not about Palin's preparedness.
It doesn't matter how well Sarah Palin knows foreign policy. It doesn't even matter if she ever picks any of it up, even if she ends up as president. We've already gone through eight years of George W. Bush and it is pretty clear that ignorance didn't keep him from the White House. It is what these people believe, right or wrong, and that makes them crack for other ignorant people in America.
I agree wholeheartedly with derek. I wonder which one of the linked possible answers she should have given.
It's disappointing to see you jump on the "gotcha" train, Megan. Usually, you seem immune to that sort of thing.
I think it's pretty clear from her face that she did not remember ever having encountered the term.
Well, that certainly how I base my presidential picks - based on the candidate's facial expression.
Derek,
The McCain camp deserves no blame at all for the importance of said "single interview," I see.
I've seen a bunch of comments on other websites by people saying they found Charlie Gibson to be condescending toward Sarah Palin and that might be driving the polls. Also, he left out the words "Pray for" when he quoted her speech in the church, which changes the meaning. (Of course, he responded "Exact words.")
And Obama's going to be on SNL. Is that an indication he's in panic mode?
Also, it's not like Charlie Gibson was carefully selected by the McCain camp, or anything....
I think "the Bush Doctrine" is used to sound scary and make attacks on people.
If someone asked me if I support the Bush Doctrine, I'd ask them to define it in their terms and I'd let them know what I think about their definition of it.
Because it means different things to different people. For some it's a dictatorial unilateral approach to foreign policy that is akin to shoot first and ask questions later.
For others it is the same doctrine we've always had that if we think you're going to hit us, we'll hit first that has been expanded to, if we credibly think you're going to help those who hit us in the future we'll hit first combined with if you assist other entities in attacking us we'll consider that a direct attack by you.
When so many people think Bush = Hitler, asking someone what they think of the Bush Doctrine is something that should be expanded on a little more than just that.
Megan, do you want to see something else the prediction markets were clueless on? Fannie Mae. Unfortunately, it's only on the play money side. The bet is on whether Fannie Mae common stock will be under $1/share by the end of inauguration day, which interestingly enough falls near an option expiry day.
When the takeover was announced last weekend, I figured this sub-$1 share was a virtual certainty. Then, all the way into Monday, the contract was still selling only at 6, despite the real-world options prices basically guaranteeing that Fannie will be under a dollar that day.
Check out my blog post. I was able to buy a bunch of contracts at average price 12.2, and they're pretty much guaranteed to pay off 100 by January. In fake money :-(
The contract is now about 25.
Megan, thank you sincerely for upholding the notion that the political leaders of this country must be held to some standard. I really don't care if Maybel in Alabama knows what the Bush Doctrine is, but anyone who's remotely interested in foreign affairs should certainly know. I disagree about the Fed question - anyone with ANY interest in the economy should bew able to provide a very basic description of what the fed does (i would accept "sets interest rates" or "runs monetary policy"). This is not rocket science - the Fed has made the front page of national papers every week for the past year.
While it's true that the VP position is ill-defined and mysterious to most Americans, anyone who's interested in government certainly has an idea.
It's just so insulting that they'd put someone up there who has NO IDEA what she's talking about.
I guess when Obama gets questioned unfairly, it doesn't make anyone question his bona fides.
I thought Palin did just fine, standing up to a bully who asked her both questions that he would not have asked any of the other candidates, and in a tone he would not have dared to use with any of the others.
Palin was surely within her rights to ask Gibson to further define what he was asking. Questions with "yes or no" answers are essentially methods to do a "gotcha" with the candidate - as anyone can then use their own interpretation of what the "yes" or "no" was intended to express.
Greg is entirely right about the role of a president today. We need to know their character, their abilities, their general philosophies and goals, and the like. But the notion that a president or vice-president must memorize every bit of data relating to our government, be it the name of a leader in some obscure nation or whatever - is ridiculous.
If Gibson had been more fair in his interview, it would have been easier to judge Palin's performance. Given what he delivered, however, most of what we were able to see is that Palin is a woman who will not get shoved around by anyone.
Megan, Charlie Gibson is actually the one who is confused on the topic of the Bush Doctrine. She, for example, this Media Matters piece, and this Talk Left post.
Gibson was a bully?????????????
Oh, great. Thanks a lot, KD (he says sarcastically). I thought I had it, and now I'm confused again.
Can you wonks please get together and sort this one out? What the hell is the Bush Doctrine?
Chalk me up as another person who see's the term "Bush Doctrine" as being too vague. Gibson should define his terms more clearly.
And I wouldn't presume to have the gift of mind reading. You're projecting your assumptions on her, Meagan, perhaps because of your visceral hatred of McCain (but there I go projecting as well).
No question, watching wingers defend the Alaska governor as qualified (and mistreated!) is the best political theatre, ever.
On the other hand, it is the defense by non-wingers that strikes fear in my heart. For the Republic, I mean.
I was less than thrilled with Palin's answers, but I don't watch interviews much so I have little to compare them with. I guess what I'd need is to compare similar pop quizes given to other candidates earlier in the cycle. On the other hand, candidates dance around issues all the time. Have to see what I can find.
That said, I don't vote for a ticket assuming the lead of it will drop dead within the next year, so that gives Palin a lot of leeway in my book.
What could kill it for me is an answer about the 'Bridge to Nowhere'. While not outright lieing, the McCain campaign has put too much emphasis on her final stance on it, rather than her long term stance. She is going to have to have an articulate answer to her changed opinion when she is finally called on it.
The interview was primarily an instrument for ABC and Gibson to burnish their credentials and boost ratings, which is fine. But it's hard to view it otherwise thanks to the heavy editing used.
Usually, you cite selectively and edit heavily when you're trying to back up an argument. The snippets of interview released so far tell us more about how ABC News views the world and Palin than anything else. Until they release the whole thing uncut, the exercise is nothing but editorializing.
I expect Palin was worried that there was a major "gotcha" lurking in the "Bush Doctrine" question, i.e., that there is some obscure piece of paper somewhere that officially defines the "Bush Doctrine." There isn't, of course, and the term doesn't have much meaning. The question would have been better designed to elucidate useful information if it had asked what she thought about the major principles of the Bush foreign policy.
It's not likely that any answer from Gov. Palin would win her many votes on the Upper West Side! I guess the Intrade participants don't know Pauline Kael.
The Bush Doctrine is that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, because he's the President and we're at war.
I just love the defenses of Palin: Gibson was a big old mean bully; who cares if the VP actually knows anything; and (left-handed compliment of the year) "for a two-year governor from Alaska, she did just fine."
I don't think so Megan.
It was clear to me that Charlie Gibson was the one who doesn''t know what the "Bush Doctrine" is. The term, as first and most often used, refers to either 1) Considering countries who harbor terrorists to be as culpable as the terrorists themselves, or 2) A strategy of spreading democracy to counter the spread of terrorism. Those two are somewhat linked.
The third description, use of preemptive war, is not usually lumped in to "the Bush Doctrine" mostly because of the logical problem that the doctrine was formulated before the Iraq War.
Oh, yes, her dreadful answer is due to the vagueness of the term "Bush Doctrine".
I guess it explains all of her excrutiating performance as well.
There was a hilarious defense of her answer on The Corner that explained she was OVER-THINKING things.
For god's sake, what alien thing has eaten everyone's brains?
For the record, I don't like Palin one bit.
But I have to say that after her initial pause she handled the Bush Doctrine question quite well from a political standpoint: While she defended some specific policies rather than the ideas behind them, so what? There are indeed distinctions to be made there, and she failed to make them, but she did defend a set of policies in a way that would appeal to many of the viewers. I may not like the policies, I may not agree with her defense of those policies, but from a standpoint of making the case to the audience it's clear that she did it. The case needs to be countered, not sneered at.
I expect that in the VP debates, Biden will provide very detailed, knowledgeable explanations of a variety of issues. Palin will probably stick with defending basic Republican stances, and do so in a way that appeals to (some) voters. Palin's arguments will probably be wrong (at least IMHO) but sneering because she missed the details of Biden's critique will utterly miss the point.
Palin is a very skilled politician. She may not be terribly knowledgeable on policy, but politically she knows how to appeal to the audience. Anybody who underestimates her and sneers at her for not grasping fine points is going to get steamrolled and not even realize it.
Maybe she comes across as clueless in the video (I haven't watched it), but the transcript doesn't look embarrassing at all.
But either other people didn't pick this up, or InTrade investors don't care; McCain is still marching steadily upward.
So what? Intrade is not infallible. Just remember what chances they once gave Obama and McCain in their respective primaries. It just shows there are a lot of foolish people willing to spend their money foolishly.
Oh, I don't think the interview was unfair, and I don't think she botched it. She was on new terrain and fully aware of potential pitfalls.
But the content of the interview shown so far was largely irrelevant trivial nonsense. I'd rather hear more about her views on the US and its role in the world than speculation over what to do in response to Russian or Israeli actions -- the complexity of such situations as they arise will make nonsense out of any definite answer on the campaign trail.
Still, for all the griping that Palin hasn't been exposed to real media inquiry, where has Obama taken serious, critical questions about how he intends to fund all of the expansive government he and his Dem Congressional pals promise us?
The MSM are the ones acting perturbed by the Palin pick, because McCain's choice interrupted their ongoing love-in with Obama. The MSM are still angry about McCain causing them to experience unintentional coitus interruptus, if you will...
"For god's sake, what alien thing has eaten everyone's brains?"
HAHAHA. Wow, I needed that, anon!
Irrelevant, but did she remind anyone else of a second-grade sunday school teacher in the way she addressed Charlie? I'm not just being a hater - Biden reminds me of a used car salesman.
Could somebody please tell me, in unequivocal terms, what the Bush Doctrine is? I thought it was "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." But Gibson seemed to think it had something to do with preventative war. So I check Wikipedia (okay, it's not a perfect source, but still), and that says it's both, plus more besides. What gives?
There is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. However, given the derivation of the term, I am not going to give the Republicans and Palin a pass.
You see, the "Bush Doctrine" was the creation of Karl Rove's people, a talking point that was put out to conservatives in an attempt to make George W. Bush, who knew nothing about grand foreign policy theory, seem like a deeper thinker (like James Monroe or Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman). As a result, for awhile, LOTS of pronouncements on foreign policy by Bush were labeled BY CONSERVATIVES the Bush Doctrine, in accordance with the talking points put out by the White House and movement conservative publications. One was making no distinction between terrorists and the states that harbor them. Another was preemptive war.
There never was a Bush Doctrine because Bush isn't smart enough or sufficiently intellectually curious to come up with any grand foreign policy theories, and because "doctrines" are things that are applied to a series of circumstances and not one-use-only contrivances.
But since this is a matter of conservative spin biting conservatives back, I don't have any sympathy. If you guys don't want people talking about a Bush Doctrine, stop trying to make the idiot you chose look like a deep thinker.
Is this really what's it's come to? Really?
That the vp choice is qualified, even though she is unable to simply give her own answers, think her way through, a pretty mild interview from Charlie Gibson?
Really? Really?
I think that, even people who must know better, for reasons unknown, are unable to take the final step, quit qualifying everything they say with some added niceties, and simply declare that the Alaska governor is utterly, dangerously unfit to be vice president, much less president.
It is not remotely sexist, or unfair, or mean, to take this step.
11:59 - "Well, that certainly how I base my presidential picks - based on the candidate's facial expression."
Actually, facial expressions are the best way for people evaluate one another, and are, by most accounts, universal to humanity.
The lapse is made even more acute when you consider she was a sportscaster, and has a decent amount of training in making the right facial expressions. So while you know good and well Megan's evaluation doesn't rest on this single lapse, you went ahead and mentioned this anyway. Her face is far more telling than the words she jettisoned from her mouth.
12:02 - "Megan, do you want to see something else the prediction markets were clueless on? Fannie Mae. Unfortunately, it's only on the play money side."
There's a voter theorem, I forgot by who, on how a vote doesn't technically cost the voter anything to make, which is part of the problem. Allows people to act irrationally. I think then that Intrades play money might be more like voting than we think. Just a thought.
12:04 - "I thought Palin did just fine, standing up to a bully who asked her both questions that he would not have asked any of the other candidates, and in a tone he would not have dared to use with any of the others."
I may be showing my partisan stripes here...but this single, handpicked interview was hardly bullying. This is the first time she's ever been asked questions that are relevant to taking the White House, and we have a right to those answers. A significant right. Inalienable.
And to complain that she wasn't asked questions similar to other candidates--forget that every candidate is asked different, tough questions based on issues that pertain to their candidacy--is to ignore that their campaign has been framing the debate since her announcement and that these questions, caused by their statements, need to be answered.
Am I mad to believe that this is a necessary part of the process? That no ones being "mean" to this poor lady who was unfairly thrust, without regard to her feelings, into the national spotlight?
Completely off topic, but a good article (really, really good) on health care in Slate (I'm shocked... they've been getting too partisan recently). http://www.slate.com/id/2199645/
Now as to Palin - I saw a good point that her frozen point was she saw the headline PALIN SUPPORTS BUSH!!!1!eleventy flash through her brain. Definitely not a good soundbite to give. So go with a bit of a tap dance.
The very aggressive editing and piecemeal roll out made for a useless interview. McCain made a big mistake by allowing ABC to do the interview in this manner - they should have known that all editing will be as unfriendly as possible. Both parts of the ticket should only do live interviews with guarantees that there will be no editing for any time zone and only one camera. The media is the enemy and needs to be treated as a particularly untrustworthy one. The changes in the interview to Cover Charlie's screw up shows that - lay a hit in th teaser and then clean it up after it's proven that you lied. ABC doesn't have to pull anything but the press the next day relies on yesterday afternoon's transcript rather than what aired.
Geoff: Play money betters don't want to run out of their limited play money either. Where there is a play money and a real money contract for the same thing on InTrade, their values are usually very close.
So I don't think your analogy to voting holds.
I'm curious.....If Obama had been queried about the Bush Doctrine back before he was the nominee, would he have been able to answer it coherently? ummmmm....uh......mmmm.....I don't think so.
I think too many people miss the point.
If you are not disturbed, deeply disturbed, by the fact that the vp nominee cannot sit for interviews and think and answer, in her own words, some pretty basic questions, then I really am wondering how we have come to this.
May I remind you that she had to stay away from the press until she could be trained.
That the campaign hand-picked Mr. Gibson, that he is in no way a tough interviewer.
And her her answers were, frankly, disturbing in that they were so obviously being recited from memory.
We cannot expect the vp nominee to demonstrate that she can think and reason on her own? Without a couple of weeks of training?
And she gets compliments even from many of her critics?
How do you think Ms. Palin would do with some truly interesting questions that really probed her depth of thinking? Do you think she's read Thoreau or Whitman?
Jeepers.
I don't know if anyone saw Mr. Obama's interviews with Bill O'Reilly, but even O'Reilly gave Obama grudging respect for his performance. THAT was a tough interview.
And Obama, love him or hate him, agree or disagree, demonstrated what is, to me, one of the crucial qualifications: he can think and reason, using his own mind and words.
And courage, too.
If O'Reilly gave exactly the same kind of interview to Palin? The mind reels.
Wanna bet that will EVER happen?
Pit bull, indeed. That might be their biggest lie of all.
I don't know if anyone saw Mr. Obama's interviews with Bill O'Reilly, but even O'Reilly gave Obama grudging respect for his performance. THAT was a tough interview.
Exactly. It'd be the equivalent of Palin or McCain interviewed by Keith Olbermann.
The Bush Doctrine is terribly ill-defined. Nobody seems to agree on what it meant originally, what (if anything) it means now, or even how many Bush Doctrines there have been. (Jacob Weisberg counts six.)
Asking someone if they support the Bush Doctrine is silly because no matter how much of a foreign policy wiz you might be, you'll need clarification in order to answer it. (And, for the record, I think Gibson's explanation of the doctrine was simply wrong; he came off much worse than Palin did.)
I always thought the Bush doctrine was "Fool me once, shame on...Shame on you...You fool me, can't get fooled again."
But seriously, I think Palin looked somewhat unprepared in the interview, but honestly I thought that most discussions of the Bush doctrine was that the United States will hold those who harbor terrorists as accountable as those who practice terrorism.
As someone noted above, they were mutually condescending towards each other. The way Palin keeps saying "Charlie" when she's slightly uncomfortable does in fact remind me of an elementary schoolteacher who is on the cusp of losing control of her class.
I'd love to watch her try to navigate a Colbert interview though.
I have no idea what this "anonymous" character is on about, but the old fashioned approach to politics was that somebody found something they didn't like in town, discovered that the way to fight it was to get a position in the city government, then started climbing the ladder from there. By the time they got into any national political offices, they had a history of progressively increased responsibilities and leadership experience as a basis for moving forward.
In that light, I would expect that Palin's 14 years in politics culminating in having spent the last two as a state governor, is at least as good a qualification for the vice-presidential candidate slot as Barack Obama's ten years in politics culminating in having spent the last two as a US Senator, is for taking the presidential candidate slot. You would think.
Sarah Palin established her bona fides as an intellectual featherweight in her interview with Charlie Gibson.
Unfortunately, this doesn't matter to many voters. For these people her intellectual deficit is balanced by the fact that she is a drop dead gorgeous woman. For many shallow minded men and some shallow minded women, Palin's overpowering sex appeal is the only thing that matters.
Sarah Palin established her bona fides as an intellectual featherweight in her interview with Charlie Gibson.
It was her first interview. Obama's been at it 18 months and he's still a lightweight.
For many shallow minded men and some shallow minded women, Palin's overpowering sex appeal is the only thing that matters.
Yeah, that must be it.
Person,
As someone that plays poker both for real and play money, the difference between the two games is like that between night and day. You see far, far more mistakes made in the play money versions.
so gibson asks about "exact words" that aren't exact, or even close really, and that's ok? but asking for clarification on what he means by the bush doctrine isn't? as many, many people have pointed out, even smart, knowledgeable folk are unlikely to know what someone means by "the bush doctrine" without more. this is yet another classic case of people seeing what they want to see based on their politics (i like her, she did pretty good; i don't like her, she didn't do well). of course, like good pomo believers, we recognize there's no objective answer anyway, etc.
John Mc
Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician.
Palin isn't ready for primetime. Megan McArdle knows it, the Washington press corps knows it, and John McCain knows it.
If you truly believe that Palin is ready to be Vice President, I want some of what you're smoking!
Palin was chosen for 2 reasons alone
1) Her religious fanaticism
2) Her sex appeal - Rush Limbaugh could barely control himself shortly after her name had been announced as VP. He boasted "we're the ones with the babe on the ticket"
I don't want a hot babe for Vice President, I want a competent, capable person who is ready on Day 1.
Palin continues to lie about the bridge to nowhere.
Palin is the candidate to nowhere.
McCain gave Palin a drive thru window vetting and owes voters an apology for his appalling lack of judgement.
McCain put his ego first and his country last when he selected Palin.
so Bill O'Reilly inteviews Barack Obama and I see a short story buried in the first section. Charles Gibson interviews Sarah Palin and it is front page news.
The media and the Democrats have totally lost it!! Sarah Palin is running for VP not President. By Obama focusing on Palin he can't see the forest from the trees.
lauren asks: "Irrelevant, but did she remind anyone else of a second-grade sunday school teacher in the way she addressed Charlie?"
That's exactly what she reminds me of - a smug, half-bright know-it-all who actually knows very little. She's Dumbya Bush with a vagina. No thanks.
Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician
Thanks for the deep insight.
Competent? In what respect, Megan? She certainly did a more than competent job of demonstrating that she is obviously incompetent. No one with a reasonably active mind and a trace of intellectual honesty could have missed that. Very nicely done. I'm duly impressed.
I am bemused by the fierce (negative) reactions to Sarah Palin -- by otherwise mature and sensible women (I'm a guy, of a certain age BTW). Of course, it's not just the liberal women -- the men, too, who have invested their hopes for their team on the slender shoulders of Obama are equally crazed.
But the women, the women who are so vehement in their quest for more rights for themselves and their sisters, who would have taken to the streets if one of their own (political sisters) had received a tenth of the vitriol directed at Sarah, the women who revel in their declared victimhood -- these are the broads who hate our Sarah the most.
What a stitch!
Here's a couple of clues, Megan. This gal has real talent and a great personal story. She's lived an exemplary life and she'll skin that gasbag Biden quicker than moose (or a caribou). No, Gibson didn't faze her one bit. And the old white guys in her home state whose butts she kicked on her way to the governership didn't either.
And I'm laughing heartily at your discomfort. But, I really, really don't understand it.
Does anyone know where I could watch the video in its entirety? So far I've only found some snippers on youtube. Thanks.
She doesn't have the expected experience. Neither does Obama. That being said, I think either of them will do a good job or at least a good enough job as president. We tend to forget that we're mere mortals. No one person can know *everything* there is to know about running a country as large as ours but thankfully no one person has to.
JK babbled:
Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician.
ROFLOL!
The Candidate of "Hope and Change" is a serious and substantive politician? What drugs are you on?
Am I happy with all of Palin's answers? No. But I'm a politically obsessive policy geek. And she, unlike Obama and the Democrats, has the right answer on facing down Russia military adventures.
Do I wish Palin was more of a foreign policy geek? Sure.
OTOH, if you'd asked me "what do you think of the Bush Doctrine" I would have had to tap dance the same way she did, because the question doesn't provide enough information.
And when it comes to having thought about things, I think she's clearly light years ahead of Obama.
What was Obama thinking, when he:
Picked Biden as his running mate?
Spent 20 years in Rev Wright's Church?
Tied his political start to an unrepentant terrorist?
Completely blew off the Clintons this summer?
Hired such complete political idiots that he entirely team was blind-sided by the Palin pick (anyone who paid attention to the right-wing blogs knew about her. How the hell do you do opposition research w/o checking out the other side's blogs)?
I could go on.
But, nothing I've seen, or read, has made me think that Obama has more experience, or more competence, than Palin.
And he's the Democrats' #1.
"I've watched part of the Sarah Palin interview, and I think it's very hard to argue that she isn't woefully unprepared; she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. "
I got the same vibe from Obama when he got the double questions on taxes in the last Democratic primary debate. He answered the first one fine -- said he'd prevent tax increases for people making less than 250K. Then answered the second one fine -- said he'd increase the payroll tax limit. Then the moderator pointed out that these two answers were in conflict.
Obama had memorised the rote answers fine. But he hadn't ever stopped to think about his own plans. He -- and his campaign -- have kludged these two incompatible goals together by proposing some kind of rebate (or something) so that yuppies making between 100K and 250K don't actually have to pay any more tax to prop up social security. But I got the strong impression that Obama neither knows nor cares about his own policies.
He just wants to be president.
I remember this kind of question in school, in classes where the teacher didn't know much either. "Please define the Bush Doctrine in 25 words or less." I always hated them. We all knew already that she wasn't much into foreign policy; I don't think that it was a secret. In practice, when she explained what she thought, it came out as the same as the Bush Doctrine, at least in one version: We will hold other nations responsible if they harbor terrorists.
So if you want to take off points for her poor grasp of the vocabulary of foreign policy, fine. But I don't think most of us will care that much. Maybe we had different ideas of what these interviews are for. We're not so interested in her grades as a foreign policy wonk, but rather in what her policies would be. Anyone taking a new job has to learn new things.
Full disclosure: It would be nice if she hadn't made any mistakes. But that has more to do with the gotcha nature of American politics. Even if she hadn't, she still wouldn't be a foreign policy expert at this point. She'll learn, and have advisors. More important to me: Her competence and integrity at was she does, her ability to learn, and the values and policies she favors.
"Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician."
Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaa.....
HAaaaaahahahaahahahahahahaahah...choke, choke...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. Hahhahaa. Ha. Oh god.
That's so good.
Almost as good as the incessant comparison of Palin to Obama. Why do his supporters think this will win him any points, even if the average voter buys it?
Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician
"Thanks for the deep insight."
"Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaa.....
HAaaaaahahahaahahahahahahaahah...choke, choke...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. Hahhahaa. Ha. Oh god."
"ROFLOL!
The Candidate of "Hope and Change" is a serious and substantive politician? What drugs are you on?"
Those were some seriously thoughtful debunkings of that argument, guys. If nothing else, the Palin fanboys prove that Lincoln's observation that there are some folks who can always be fooled is still true.
"I am bemused by the fierce (negative) reactions to Sarah Palin -- by otherwise mature and sensible women (I'm a guy, of a certain age BTW)... But the women, the women who are so vehement in their quest for more rights for themselves and their sisters, who would have taken to the streets if one of their own (political sisters) had received a tenth of the vitriol directed at Sarah, the women who revel in their declared victimhood -- these are the broads who hate our Sarah the most..."
A couple of points I want to address. First, in case you forgot, Hillary did face a great deal of negative reporting based on her gender. But the majority of that came from Republicans and the Right-wing media, so apparently it must not count.
Secondly, I am a woman of a certain age and I do not hate Palin. But I would never vote for any ticket that has her on it. She may be a woman, but she is a woman whose beliefs are in direct opposition to my own.
She is for abstinence-only sex education; I am in favor of comprehensive sex education. She would deny abortions even in cases of rape or incest; I support a woman's right to choose any medical procedure she deems necessary for her own health. She opposes gun control; I support the outright ban of assault weapons and control of all others. She tried to ban books from Wasilla's library, and attempted to fire the librarian when that person refused to comply. I believe that a well-informed populace benefits everyone, so we all should be able to read what we choose.
To me, her gender is not an issue so much as her policies and positions are. So this is one, "broad," who is able to fairly assess another, "broad," and find her unsatisfactory. BTW, welcome to the new millenia. "Broad," is as insulting to females as, "bum," is to men. Either you used it to deliberately inflame your readers, or you truly are an antiquated, myopic blowhole.
Those were some seriously thoughtful debunkings of that argument, guys.
As silly talking point such as Obama is a serious, thoughtful, substantive politician deserves nothing more than a simple put down.
For those who didn't like Palin's answers to some of Gibson's questions - I'll bet that she knows we do not have 57 states in our nation.
And bap1. If you read more, I believe you will find you are incorrect on some of your data about Palin. She believes in contraception, and does NOT have a problem with it being taught in sex-ed classes. If you watched the interview on ABC this evening, you will see that her personal views are as you describe about abortion - but she believes the law should be "community standards." If those standards are contrary to what Palin believes, she will uphold the law.
"Palin tried to ban books" is another canard.
Criticize her as much as you wish. Just try to be basing your criticism on accurate facts and not distorted or made up falsehoods.
Unfortunately, this doesn't matter to many voters. For these people her intellectual deficit is balanced by the fact that she is a drop dead gorgeous woman. For many shallow minded men and some shallow minded women, Palin's overpowering sex appeal is the only thing that matters.
Request for clarification: Was this in reference to her supporters, or her detractors?
So how exactly is this so-called "Bush Doctrine" different than the "Clinton Doctrine?" Lest we forget, before Bush even took office Clinton had been high-altitude bombing Iraq in and out of the no-fly zone for 8 years. And he invaded Yugoslavia without any UN mandate and we are still stuck with that quagmire ready to explode at any instant. The notion of lefties trying to deride this administration's foreign policy by labeling it "Bush Doctrine" is amusing at best. When interviewers throw crap like "Bush Doctrine" around it says more about their own integrity vacuum than anything else.
Okay, so you want her to fail. I understand that since you have zero kids and no man at 35 and she has five kids and is married at 44.
But is it wise to go a whole election without seeing Obama in a non-teleprompter setting instead of covering your ears and saying, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I'm still voting for him because it makes me feel less guilty!
Sarah Palin is breathtakingly clueless. She has no grasp of economics, healthcare, entitlements, taxation, or national security.
John "You Will Know Their Names" McCain owes the nation an apology for choosing Palin.
Palin needs to drop out immediately. She should read The Idiot's Guide to the Vice Presidency and maybe in 8 years she'll be ready for the Vice President's job.
Occam's Razor
A. She'd likely heard it before, as we all have.
B. It was likely as vague in her head as it is in ours, thanks to the abysmal communications record of the Bush administration
C. She was being hyper-cautious to avoid gaffes
D. So she first asked Gibson what he had in mind to focus the vagueness
E. Then she responded with an answer aimed right down the center (an imminent threat test, over against Condi's pre-imminent smoking nuke argument)
Don't tell anyone, but I suspect she's not that "conservative". Hard to be another Bush when you're dissing part of his doctrine, or, as some claim, you haven't even heard of it.
According to Krauthammer, who was the first person to use the term "Bush Doctrine", there are 4 different versions of the "Bush Doctrine", and Charles Gibson focused on the 2nd one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_2.html
Krauthammer seemed to think that Charles was wrong in selecting this one, but the fact is, the term "Bush Doctrine" is vague.
And, really, if a nation is going to attack us, why can't we hit them first?
nob akimoto-
What's frightening is that someone who has the strong potential to be the President of the United States can't even articulate what the major shift to the National Security Strategy has been under the Bush Administration.
Mesnwhile the actual Presidential candidate on the other side can't even quantify what he did as a "community organizer".
Mao was a community organizer.
FDR was a Governor.
And, really, if a nation is going to attack us, why can't we hit them first?
Yeah, it's a good thing we got Iraq before they attacked us. Ditto Serbia, Iraq (the first time), Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Spain... We'd probably all be speaking Spanish or Vietnamese by now if we hadn't taken those suckers out.
The US has launched a number of wars against other countries that had not attacked us. In no case was there any risk of an attack on the US by that country. In some of the cases US intervention was justified for other reasons, such as an attack by the other country on a US ally or other third country, or an internal humanitarian atrocity; but the US has never launched a preemptive or preventive war that was justifiable because of the imminent or long-term threat of an attack on the US. Neither has any other country ever launched a justifiable preemptive or preventive war against the US. I can think of one instance of a justifiable preemptive attack: Israel's 1967 Six-Day War. The strategic situation of the US vis-a-vis any hostile country is so different from that of Israel vis-a-vis the Arab states in 1967 that it is almost impossible to imagine the US carrying out a justifiable preemptive strike, let alone a justifiable preventive war.
nob-
The Bush Doctrine at least as it pertains to most foreign policy discussions is the concept of using preventive war (rather than preemptive war; that is war on an imminent threat) as a regular part of national security policy.
Nonsense.
The first declared "Bush Doctrine" was that "states" who had neglected to pursue/
prosecute terrorists in their own country deserved any beatdown we chose to deliver at our pleasure. (see Afghanistan 2002)
The second "Bush Doctrine" was that Iraq- (cosidering their violation of UN 1441 and the cease-fire agreements from 1991- deserved a beatdown- and Bush added them as the "wedge" in a larger strategy. (See Iraq-2003)
The third "Bush Doctrine" (nation building) included a "domino effect"-- that if we could possibly convert one government from some part of Arabia to a more Western viewpoint, it would enhance our efforts to reform other Islamic enemies over the long run. (I also didn't vote for Bush either time...)
Charlie don't surf (the Net)!
I think Palin's mistake was being drawn into a discussion of her foreign policy. A VP candidate shouldn't have her own foreign policy! She should have said something along the lines of 'Senator McCain's foreign policy will be to oppose tyranny instead of accommodating it. I support that policy, and it will be my policy, too."
The "Bush Doctrine" question was a gotcha question. His question was unclear, and he made her squirm before he would clarify what he was asking. I identified with her, rather than with him. I don't blame her for not knowing the "Bush Doctrine" because nobody else seems to know what it is.
I also think Gibson was looking for a headline that would either say "Palin supports Bush Policies" or "Palin Rejects Bush Policies". She managed to avoid those headlines. Good for her!
It's disappointing to see you jump on the "gotcha" train, Megan. Usually, you seem immune to that sort of thing.
I think Megan's decided that Palin is the "wrong" sort of woman to be running for high office. The first woman veep shouldn't be like Palin, she should be unmarried, childless, left-leaning and sarcastic, like...Megan.
Am I the only one who felt a bit embarrassed for Obama when NPR yesterday quoted him comparing his experience running the campaign to his opponent's *veep* candidate's experience as *mayor of Wasilla*? Will voters not notice that she's been doing something else for 22 months?
@aMouseforallSeasons, @anonymoose - if perchance y'all are related to anony-mouse, shall we celebrate the long-awaited return of my favorite commenter from Megan's old blog?
"According to Krauthammer, who was the first person to use the term "Bush Doctrine", there are 4 different versions of the "Bush Doctrine""
Karl Rove also says that there are 4 versions of the 'Bush Doctrine'. If Krauthammer and Rove couldn't have answered the question without first asking for clarification, how does Palin's performance prove that "she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was"?
I seriously doubt Megan could answer the question either other than pulling something out of her ass about pre-emption. As people rightly point out above, there is serious doubt whether there is any such thing as the "Bush doctrine". Bush has never anounced such in any of his speeches. The "Bush Doctrine" such as it is can be anything from preventitive war (which is a dubious term in itself) to spreading democracy as a way of addressing the causes of terrorism.
I think there is a serious argument to be made that there is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine in that it doesn't assert anything that we haven't done before and that the idea of "premptive versus preventative war" is a distinction without difference. But that is a pretty nuanced debate that can be had among people with a good understanding of the Law of War. That alas is something that Megan does not possess. That would be okay if she didn't come out with the "she doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is", like Megan knows either. I can tolerate snobery if you have something to be snobby about. Megan, in this case, doesn't.
"I think there is a serious argument to be made that there is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine" - John
How convenient! Now if we can just find a way to make "serious arguments" that there is no such thing as Fannie Mae, no such thing as traveling to Iraq, no such thing as earmarks, no such thing as the Bridge to Nowhere, no such thing as a rape kit, and a few more, we can obscure all the lies and displays of ignorance Palin's come up with in her first 2 weeks on the national scene.
A BS answer for a BS question. She should have thrown in some insulting comments for the interviewer. That she didn't makes her look weak.