Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin is slick

Sarah Palin held her own during the interview with Charles Gibson. She’s too glib for my tastes (no surprise). More style than substance despite all the coaching. High potential for gaffs. I don’t think she is going to wear well. Her handlers fear this and will continue to limit her press availability. That's smart politics but shameful leadership.

If you want an evaluation of how the press covered the show, turn to Howard Kurtz, the media critic for the Washington Post. Click here.

I'm going on a bike ride to get some fresh air.

11 comments:

The South Plainsman said...

People who support Obama shouldn't be critical of Palin until Obama sits down with a seriously good reporter for an unlimited interview with nothing off the table. He did give O'Reilly 30 minutes, which is not enough time to really get into it, and O'Reilly is an entertainer looking for ratings.

That said, I thought that both Obama and McCain were very impressive last night at Columbia talking about public service. That was a very interesting presentation. It appeared to me that both of them are on the right track. I thought McCain sounded more like a Kennedy era Democrat than a Bush Republican. He would probably deny that. LOL

Jeff Hebert said...

I find it interesting that she instinctively repudiated the Bush Doctrine (which McCain endorses) of preventative war in favor of the traditional preemptive war philosophy of the past. I'd like to see her questioned on why she differs from McCain on this key point.

For me, the interview shows me someone who displays all the worst vices of the Bush Administration -- overwhelming personal hubris, a refusal to question their rightness on anything, contempt for expertise in favor of "the gut", appalling ignorance of even the basics of international relations, unwavering confidence in their own moral rectitude, and an astounding ability to say or do anything to get elected, even if it flies in the face of what they previously stood for.

The more we see of Sarah Palin, the more we see why we're not seeing more of Sarah Palin.

Jeff Hebert said...

People who support Obama shouldn't be critical of Palin until Obama sits down with a seriously good reporter for an unlimited interview with nothing off the table

If only Barack Obama had the courage to stand in for some serious questioning from a reporter like Charles Gibson for an extended period of time, maybe even with other candidates around to immediately counter his statements and argue with him, all televised somehow for everyone to see.

Oh, wait, that's called a candidate debate, and he did twelve -- twelve! -- of them in the course of the Democratic primary! And let me check, yes, here it is, one of them WAS with Charles Gibson.

But those twelve debates, and the seemingly interminable two years of campaigning that have accompanied them, don't count in the face of Sarah Palin's immense courage in taking a one hour-long sit-down interview with Gibson almost three weeks after being nominated. Not even close.

I don't know how you guys make some of these arguments with a straight face, I really don't.

Anonymous said...

Jeff ,It's not hard to keep straight face when you know that the right things were said to the questions asked.
Charlie Gibson asked the same question 3 different ways and Palin gave the same answer 3 different times. Could it be that you Libs have been right hooked by a successful female??
I don't know what the' Bush Doctrine' is. That is a tag tied on by the liberal press to a President that believes in not letting the opponent throw the first punch. I guess that's why the libs don't like the policy.
-----Goose

JohnSBoles said...

"...a President that believes in not letting the opponent throw the first punch." Now I get it. The Bill of Rights had to go. We are now engaged in ferreting out pre-crime. Next, let's get rid of the whole pesky constitution and continue to govern by Executive Signings.

Jeff Hebert said...

Goose,

If you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, that's no big deal because you're not going to be the Vice President of the United States. Sarah Palin is. There's a decent chance she'd be President before too long. She ought to know what the policy of the US is regarding the starting of wars, especially since in the same interview she had us directly involved in a shooting war with Russia over Georgia and Syria over Israel.

Look, if I took my car to you to get my catalytic converter fixed and you didn't know how, that's no big deal -- you're not a mechanic. If I do take it to a mechanic, though, by God they better not only have heard of it, but how to fix the damn thing. That's the job.

For Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and not have even a basic working understanding of what our national security policy is scares the hell out of me, and if you weren't too busy hating liberals to think it'd scare the pants off you, too.

By the way, the Bush Doctrine replaced the old national policy of preemptive war -- you know the other guy is in the process of attacking you so you attack first -- with preventative war -- another country might at some point in the future have the capacity to attack you, so you attack them first.

It's a big, big change, essentially putting us on par with Germany in WWI or the USSR in Afghanistan in the 80's, asserting the right to unilaterally invade anyone we like, any time we like, for pretty much any reason we like. No other nation in the world asserts this right, and any one in the past that has was declared a rogue state for doing so. Now it's the policy of the USA and the woman you claim should be our next VP has no clue what it is.

Anonymous said...

In reply to John Boles, Number 1 I don't hate liberals.If you knew how I feel about one train of thought or one ideal, ask George.(who is probably laughing his head off).
Yes I believe in throwing the first punch if I am convinced the opponent is going to throw one.I have a friend in Chicago who got tired of going to school for a session with his son and the Principal. It seems that the son would promote fights with other kids.
To make a long story short, my friend gave his son instructions that he could not hit anybody unless they had hit him twice.
Suffice it to say that the other kids heard about it. The other kids one come up and knock the crap out of him and then walk off laughing.
Dad got tired of seeing his sons face look like hamburger and had to change the rules.Now the kid just had to see the opponent start to swing and he was free to do what ever was necessary.
ow what has all this got to do with the Bill of Rights?? I consider myself a devout student of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,and I just can't find where it alludes to your premise. As for the Constitution, Its the Republicans who are fighting to keep it intact and insist on strict constructionist values.
Despite what Al Bore, or the other mind wanderers say, the Constitution is not a "living breathing" Document.It means exactly what it says.The writers had enough sense to add a provision for change. Its called an amendment!!! -------Goose

Jeff Hebert said...

As for the Constitution, Its the Republicans who are fighting to keep it intact

This is the most fascinating thing you've written yet, Goose, because that's the exact same reason I've become an activist for the Democrats this year.

The way I read the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to start a war, not the President. And yet, George Bush started this war with Iraq.

The way I read the Constitution, there are three co-equal branches of government, and yet George Bush has vigorously pursued the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, in essence turning the Presidency into a kingship.

The way I read the Constitution, the right of habeus corpus is so vital to the functioning of a free nation that it was written right into the document. And yet George Bush's administration has seen fit to throw it out the window.

No matter which party has power, so long as the fundamentals of the Constitution remain in force, so long as we respect the rule of law and agree that everyone -- even the President, even the Vice President, even the Attorney General -- is bound by it, we'll be fine. The reason I am so vehemently against the Republicans for this election is that they've seen fit to use the Constitution as toilet paper for the last eight years.

And every time someone stands up to say "Hey, wait a minute, that's against the law!" they shout "9/11! 9/11!" and all those tough Republicans wet their pants and shout the bastard down.

I am not exaggerating when I say that this administration has done more harm to the Constitution and to the rule of law than any since Harding. Come on, Goose, they've outright endorsed Nixon's "If the President does it, it's not illegal" construct! You can't get any more anti-Constitution than that!

JohnSBoles said...

Goose, I can't find within my previous post a suggestion that I thought you hated liberals. As an individual who has voted for both major parties and an independent in previous Presidential elections I consider myself an independent. I don't hate liberals either, nor do I hate conservatives. It wouldn't do me any good to "ask George" as we have never met. I happened on this blog as a result of the death of James Hollars. Even in his death, as in his powerful life, he continued to lead me to an educational experience.

This administration has not followed in the footsteps of past republicans of note. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Goldwater wouldn't recognize the Cheney/Rove party in power today.

I am unimpressed with the current administration and their certainty that they are the only ones that can protect us from our enemies. It was a Democrat that led the country through World War II. It was a Democrat that pulled the largest of triggers to end that war. And yes, it was a Democrat that "stayed the course" all too long in a war we couldn't win and then a Republican who ended it.

I am not persuaded that throwing the first punch is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Jeff and John Boles--- There re certainly things that I disagree with the Bush administration,but some of the habeus corpus events should never have seen the light of day.
Jeff where were you snoozing when the congress gave Bush the autority to go to war? After the war became unpopular with some of the Hollywood inteligentsia and they began their "We are smarter than anyone" tone, the liberal media, not to be outdone,decided that they didn't like the war either.
Well guess what; I don't like war either,but there comes a point that people with backbone and character have to get involved when others are being stomped on. The premise of Saddam Husein having weapons of mass destruction to initiate war was justified by the entire administration of Clinton and their reports that he definitely had them. It doesn't take a genius to know that Saddam had more than ample time to get them off his soil and into Syria or some other terrorist state.
---Goose

Anonymous said...

Johns Boles- I'm sorry you haven't met George. He's a great guy even if he is a liberal. I try to look past that due to the fact that he was brainwashed by some of his newsy friends.
I too was a friend of James Hollars.
His death was a great loss to us here on earth.I so admired his strength and courage during his fight with Parkinson's.I went to school with Jim from the 7th grade through high school. I never saw or heard anything negative about him.
We were not close buddies or anything like that but were friends just the same.
I talked and e- mailed him quite often during his last days. When he had his surgery, I went up to visit him and was not too surprised to see him up and witnessing to the guy in the next bed.What a man of God!
That was the last time I saw Jim!!
-------=-Goose

National Politics

News on Aging

Geriatric Medicine News

Senior Health Insurance News

Social Security & Medicare News

Posts From Other Geezer Blogs