quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Wow. She came off kind of flustered in text.
It is possibly one of the most uncomfortable interviews I have ever seen. She's all over the place with jargon, he's correcting her, she's repeating his name over and over, it's just a mess.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin is just about done riding the euphoric wave of being a surprise guest at a party. While my initial opinion of her has taken a few hits. It will take a few debates and more interviews for me to size her up.
She will get advice on how to interview better in the future, and that may be all she needs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
This part of the interview is just sad. Palin didn't know what he was talking about, then went with a cookie-cutter response once he explained it.
EDIT - I only just saw doc's post. Maybe the question wasn't as clear as I thought (I assumed the definition Gibson used.) After watching a video of the segment, it's not immediately clear to me whether Palin has no idea what Gibson was talking about or whether she thought the question was ambigious.
I still don't think she answered the question well. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think her national defense experience answer was pretty flimsy. Apparently the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is qualified to be Commander in Chief because of his knowledge of energy issues. While I personally think that energy issues are a part of a national defense strategy, that has nothing to do with the command decisions a CinC would have to make. Still, I can't blame her for trying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how what the Obama campaign said was technically false. Also it seems like there's a subtle contradiction between the two articles the guy posted to show McCain's knowledge of a computer. One seems to say McCain doesn't check his e-mails because of the emotional strain of hearing suffering veteran families, and the other says that one of his favorite things to do is read his e-mails while Cindy types the responses he dictates.
I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to... but at the same time, they were just quoting McCain who says he doesn't know how. It's not wrong factually. I'd say it was irresponsible, but... understandable?
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought both campaigns had decided to just make stuff up now? Was that not supposed to be common knowledge?
At the least, John McCain has something in common with Bush in that both either outright lie or fail to understand reality, and Barack Obama is stooping to their level.
Of course, both campaigns can bite me at this point.
posted
Well, even if Gibson got it wrong, Palin didn't know what it was at all. That's to be expected of most people- but this is a vice-presidential nominee. Even if the question was ambiguous, which I'm not sure of, she should know what Charlie is talking about *better* than he does himself. She should have a handle on the jargon as well as the key issues that exceeds that of a journalist, you'd think.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
On another note, if this is true, I think this is the biggest Obama campaign gaffe yet.
I find it unlikely that McCain's innability to send an email (that is, not know *how* to send an email) has to do with being tortured by the VC decades ago. Can he hold a pen? Didn't he fly a plane even after he was tortured (after lengthy physical therapy)?
Only those who really really want to see this as a mistake by Obama are going to feel that it is.
And, by the way, is the defense: "I'm physically unable to use the tools of modern communication," really a great comeback for the McCain campaign? It's a zinger to phrase it the way this article does, but it also took me less than the time it took to read the sentence to think: Umm... there are a few problems with that.
Edit: I don't, for the record, think knowing how to send emails is particularly important, as long as the president knows how they work. The implication of importance in the Obama ad is not that McCain is specifically unable to use email (no President to date has used email regularly) but that he is not, in contrast with Obama, familiar or comfortable with the modes of communication that are favored by younger people. That's debatable, but it's not much to do with McCain being a vet.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
I actually like the answer. When you think about it, the prsident doesn't officially get to do a whole lot. He's a great fund raiser and he gets a lot of press conferences telling us what he'd like Congress to do. And he gets to send troops places.
Then again, I'm in the "Han Shot First" camp, so maybe my opinion of pre-emptive attacks stems from that. If you've got Greedo in your face and you let him pull the trigger first, you're gonna die. International conflicts are certainly more ambiguous, but waiting for an attack where Americans die before acting is a bad plan, IMO.
She didn't thunder on about it. She didn't talk like we'd walk in anywhere and start trouble. (Heck, I don't think the Neo-Cons were wrong to push to invade Iraq and I still want a break from them.) But she said that she'd be ok with us defending ourselves before the first punch is thrown. With nuclear technology in so many hands and threats of chemical and biological weapons in more, we can't afford to.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I question whether the point is really relevent, but I don't think it's nearly the insult that doc's link is trying to make it out to be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: On another note, if this is true, I think this is the biggest Obama campaign gaffe yet.
I got the feeling while watching that Obama ad that it was condescending towards older people who don't use computers. While older voters aren't Obama's base, it seems like a bad idea to (apparently) put down an entire demographic like that.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
i see no problem with the video, if McCain can't use a computer he should be president.
IP: Logged |
quote:I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to
Do his injuries prevent him from using dictation software?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to
Do his injuries prevent him from using dictation software?
I was wondering the same thing. As someone who has a disability (visual impairment), I know that there is a world of equipment and programs out there designed to help people with disabilities.
I don't have a particular problem with him not checking his e-mail but I would prefer our leaders to be well versed in technology since congress is passing laws effecting our use of the internet and technology.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I highly doubt that his injuries prevent him from dictating software.
It's why I pointed out what I thought to be a contradiction in the articles the blogger posted. One of them suggested McCain doesn't like e-mail because of the emotional strain. The other said he let's Cindy work the computer while he dictates.
I'm in the camp that Obama didn't really do anything wrong. I'm just saying that if there were something wrong with the ad, something that could hurt Obama, it would be the possibility of seeming insensitive.
posted
There are quadriplegics and blind people that regularly use computers, so the claim that his injuries prevent him from doing so seems awfully dubious to me. Heck, for some severely disabled individuals, computers can sometimes be the only practical means for them to communicate.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but he's also old, so if he's able to get by without using them, maybe that's enough of a reason for him (only half-tongue in cheek. as you can see from it poking out.)
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I think it's a lot less inaccurate than McCain's ad saying Obama supports sex education for kindergardeners when said education was actually anti-sexual-predator education.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apparently there is a disconnect between what Palin says and what her aids are saying.
I don't think Palin intentionally tried to mislead people, more likely that aide was given a bad press packet and believed he was telling the truth.
McCain's ad stating that Obama is engaging in desperate acts of criticism against Palin is patently false IMO. His dirty ad stating that Obama favors sex education for kids in kindergarten is despicable as well.
I wonder sometimes if McCain actually OKs every ad that is run in his name.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now McCain has a Spanish language ad claiming that Democrats and Obama railroaded immigration reform, even though Obama and McCain have identical votes on the issue, and it was senate REPUBLICANS that fillibustered the bill to death.
Apparently McCain really is just making stuff up now. God forbid the media stops spending so much time playing paparazzi to Palin's past and actually starts to call McCain on some of this stuff.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been a variety of position statements Pres. Bush has made that the media has chosen to call "the Bush doctrine," even though they are substantially different. Gov. Palin did speak to one of them. Gibson apparently had a different one in mind. Palin was not wrong, and Gibson had no call to correct her, just because he had a different "Bush doctrine" in mind.
Note what this article in Wickipedia says:
"Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive 'Bush Doctrines' in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Among the Bush doctrines: We will hold nations accountable that harbor Al Qaeda--thus we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban government when they refused to give up Al Qaeda. This was probably the first position statement that was called by the media THE Bush Doctrine.
Another Bush doctrine: We will seek the coopration of our allies, but if necessary we will go it alone. This was called by the media THE Bush Doctrine.
Yet another Bush position statement, that also was called by the media THE Bush docrine: We reserve the right to be proactive, and engage in pre-emptive attacks, when we have definite knowledge that someone is preparing to attack us, or we hear that they are in the process (as Saddam Hussein claimed) of building and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and planning to share them with terrorist organizations.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, Sen. McCain's charge that Sen. Obama has favored sex education for five-year old kindergartners is absolutely true. It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators, as if that were all the program were about. But that program did have a section in it which included identifying all the intimate body parts, saying it feels good to touch them, and advising kids that if they want to masturbate, they should do so in private. It also explained homosexuality, and spoke of it in favorable terms designed to encourage kids to be tolerant of it. This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergarten students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying.
Here is an excerpt from the Fox News website:
"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003, but he was not a sponsor.
"The measure said schools offering sex education must include medically accurate information appropriate to the age of the students. The lessons were to cover the consequences of unprotected sex, the effects of various forms of contraception and the option of abstinence."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blackblade, Sen. McCain's charge that Sen. Obama has favored sex education for five-year old kindergarteners is absolutely true. It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators, as if that were all the program were about. But that program did have a section in it which included identifying all the intimate body parts, saying it feels good to touch them, and advising kids that if they want to masturbate, they should do so in private. It also explained homosexuality, and spoke of it in favorable terms designed to encourage kids to be tolerant of it. This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergartern students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying.
Maybe next time you should use sources to back up your claim.
Newsweek seems to thoroughly debunk the idea that Obama wanted explicit sex education taught to Kindergarteners, but let's go a step further, eh?
Here's the bill itself. The only time kindergarten seems to be mentioned is through the range that this will be taught. (k-12) And that's only done three times (by my count) in the bill itself. What is mentioned in this is that all instruction would be age-appropriate. So don't pretend that teaching kindergartners how to masturbate was Barack Obama's plan. (Also of note, this wasn't Obama's plan, merely an item he supported.)
And what's more, I would think that teaching students early about the dangers of sexual assault and harassment are a good thing to do. Especially with the dangers of sexual abuse happening at home, even at that early age, the best tool a child can use to stop the abuse is knowledge. Teaching the kids what the 'intimate parts' are and what's appropriate and inappropriate could possibly help bring to light the problems that happen at home sooner. The plan also wouldn't force children to learn the information as there was a no-questions-asked opt-out plan for parents. If a parent would feel better suited to teach a child that information, they can do so.
This claim by John McCain came by cherry-picking quotes from Obama during his debates with Alan Keyes, and has disfigured his position entirely. It's disgusting to me because it came out as a flat-out lie. I can understand him making arguments that Obama would raise taxes. I think its unethical that they portray it like everyone would feel a tax-increase, but it's true that a small portion would get their taxes raised.
But to outright lie, especially about something like this, revolts me.
EDIT: You posted an excerpt from foxnews, and it still doesn't support your argument, especially considering it too uses the word 'appropriate.'
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators,
It's dishonest obfuscation to identify the MAIN POINT of the program?
Are you on any prescription medications?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators,
It's dishonest obfuscation to identify the MAIN POINT of the program?
Are you on any prescription medications?
I suspect pot and heroin being the favorite drugs of the crazed Republican right.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Firing off officials and replacing them with high school buddies with scant qualifications. Using personal e-mail for the specific purpose of avoiding subpoenas. Pursuing personal vendettas on government time. Refusing to meet with legislators.
quote:The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.
Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”
It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”
The focus on Palin is important, because it is becoming more and more evident that McCain is not in charge of his campaign. I'm starting to wonder if he would be in charge of the White House, and his second-in-command is just what the current pack in charge would love to step behind: another power-hungry ideologue, ignorant and uncaring of important issues, who is good at parroting the positions that have been carefully explained by the "right" people.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergarten students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying."
Ron, using that exact style of argument, it is also absolutely true that John McCain favors leaving kindergarten children vulnerable to child molesters. Can you prove otherwise?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
posted
CT, it's wonderful to hear that. It fits in completely with what I believe. Our bodies aren't evil, and know the clinical names for things makes everyone, even near-babies (in my mind, they are babies until they can read) less vulnerable to being manipulated by those who seem to know more about their own bodies than they do.
Innocence is not the same thing as ignorance. I don't understand any desire to keep things like clinical names for body parts and basic awareness of their bodies away from those who need that kind of knowledge. Since when did pretending that everyone is built like a smooth Barbie equate to innocence?
If it's a matter of protecting their virtue, I would imagine that actual knowledge of what is going on inside the bodies of both men and women would give kids the tools they need to make decisions and understand that while they can't control how they are feeling, they can control how they will act on those feelings instead of pretending that the raging hormones don't exist. If there's a fire burning in a closet, you don't close the door and hope nothing happens.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Right, but before he clarified, he tried to do his little "gotcha": "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?" At that point in the conversation, it's still entirely unclear which aspect he's referring to - even after she explicitly asked for clarification.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself a bright guy who doesn't like being talked down to by the likes of Charlie Gibson, and I don't like made-up doctrines, especially when they are tossed off by newspeople to make me appear stupid. It's the opposite of good faith, and I think it's the opposite of good journalism. I'm worried about Palin, especially with regards to how she picks American allies, but when I heard Gibson say, "Bush Doctrine," I thought, "Does he mean preemptive strikes? And if he is talking about preemptive strikes, why doesn't he just say preemptive strikes?" Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" move is the exact kind of crap the Right rightfully latches on to to denounce the mainstream media. The Bush Doctrine statement wasn't about Palin's views on the issue, it was a move to see if she was willing to speak in their jargon.
posted
So Blayne, am I right in my assessment that you don't actually care about discussing politics and would rather simply toss off simplistic insults?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't fault anybody for not knowing what specifically was implied by "The Bush Doctrine." To me it refers to preemptive strikes against foes who will eventually attack American citizens. But that phrase has not been used to the point that all Americans would, (though maybe they ought to) know what it means, unlike, "The New Deal," "The Monroe Doctrine," or, "McCarthyism."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So Blayne, am I right in my assessment that you don't actually care about discussing politics and would rather simply toss off simplistic insults?
Actually, I'm pretty sure he'd rather be talking about video games. But if he can't work that into the conversation, I think simplistic insults are about the only thing he's got left.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Possibly. Your comments about drug use and allusions to Nazis may have driven from my mind all your scintillating commentary on the issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the Bush Doctrine goes, I too thought he was specifically referring to preemptive strikes. I sort of agree with Dag that he might have been playing, well, if not gotcha, then at least trying to catch her in a gaffe by asking her to define an ill-defined "doctrine."
I don't by any means think it was partisan, I think it was Gibson just trying to snag a headline. Lord knows after ABC's ridiculous moderating of that Obama/Clinton debate that they are no friend of Obama's.
Both the NYT and the WashPost have big articles about Palin this week.
In other news, Obama smashed his fundraising record last month. His previous one month high was $55 million. August's total was $66 million with 500,000 brand new donors. This comes after I think I read a half dozen articles last week about how Obama's fundraising has been lackluster and many feared he wouldn't be able to even keep up with McCain. Going into the final stretch, McCain just got $80 million from the public financing thing, and Obama has $77 million cash on hand, with another few weeks of fundraising to go. On the one hand, it takes some time away from Obama's campaigning to have to spend time at fundraisers, but at the rate things are going, he's going to have a huge advantage if he can hold that rate for the next seven weeks. That August fundraising total doesn't include the estimated $10 million he got the day after Palin's convention speech alone. At the very least, the enthusiasm behind Obama hasn't wavered at all apparently.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
I think you made this point better than I was going to!
I have a 2 (almost 3)-year-old boy and a 3-month-old girl and we use the right names for everything. When our son asks about his body parts, we tell him what they are, whether he is pointing to a chin or a penis. When I am nursing my daughter and he asks what my breasts are, I tell him breasts. (And I don't cover up in my own home.) Our bodies are not dirty or embarrassing and quite frankly, if anyone touches my children inappropriately I want them to be able to tell me about it with the right words.
Last year we had a guest speaker come to our MOPS group to talk about preventing child sexual molestation. (She brought a giant teddy bear who went to talk to the pre-school kids about their privates and about welcome and unwelcome touches. Completely age appropriate and well done, IMO.) She had worked with many children and stressed the importance of kids knowing the right names for things because no one may know what a child means if (and this was her example), a little girl said someone had touched her pussy.
As for older kids who are near sexual maturity, I believe studies have shown that abstinence only education doesn't decrease the incidence of sex, but it does increase the incidence of teen pregnancies.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain might be incapable of using computers because of his injuries but would the RNC REALLY want people to dwell on McCain's infirmaries?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
