did you watch the Palin interview?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
did you watch the Palin interview?
102
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 6:03am

I taped it and will finish it this morning. i know it was released in segments, but i wanted to see the whole thing with the introductions to get the context. i also wanted to see it without commentary from pundits.

of course i expect this community to view it through their own biases. but did you watch and how did you watch? in segments or the whole thing? with or without commentary?

and if you watched without commentary, what was your own opinion?

Bea

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 1:29pm

We're having some television problems, so I haven't watched it yet.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 1:47pm

thanks for the bump.

and it is online.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

i watched the second part that was aired on Nightline. but it ended abruptly and left me thinking there is more? I'm confused about why it was sliced up and shown so many different times. i wanted one solid piece but i'll live.

I'm still processing it -

Bea




Edited 9/13/2008 1:50 pm ET by queenbea4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 5:08pm

There's a transcript here:

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 6:25pm

Wow.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 09-13-2008 - 9:02pm

Thank you for the link.

 

Avatar for thefalliblefiend
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Sun, 09-14-2008 - 3:02am
I didn't watch it, but I will - and I'll follow your links to do it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Tue, 09-16-2008 - 3:11pm

Please reconsider that part of your opinion about Sarah Palin that relies upon your mistaken belief that "She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was."

The LA Times {which, in the event you might mistakenly assume bias, has openly endorsed Barack Obama for President}, at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-abc.html

ran the following:

So, looks like it was Charlie Gibson's gaffe on Bush doctrine, not Sarah Palin's

"Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist, writes this morning that it was ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson who actually bobbled a question on the Bush doctrine during one of his recent interviews with new Republican vice presidential nominee Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Testing Palin's foreign affairs knowledge, GibAlaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin talks with ABC News anchor Charles Gibsonson asked her if she agreed with "the Bush doctrine."

"In what respect?" Palin responded.

When Palin did not answer a follow-up, Gibson informed her that the Bush doctrine is "we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

"Wrong," writes Krauthammer. "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001.

Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' "Special Report" Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and that Gibson's definition isn't even the latest."

It's easy to assume she's "scared to death, and looked and sounded like she was reciting words that she rehearsed. She didn't really answer half his questions, just side-stepped around them." Maybe she wasn't side-stepping, but ACTUALLY asking for clarification of his unclear question (as her actual language would indicate). Maybe it's jumping to conclusions that it was a frightened effort to avoid a too-tough question. And, frankly, wasn't at all surprised sounded rehearsed. Every politician prepares for these interviews, and every politician's staffers and speechwriters and campaigners put their heads together to anticipate the questions so the politician can put out some thought-through answers without stumbling. (Funny, if she stumbled around, that would bring a whole different round of criticism, but she was smooth and rehearsed, so that's somehow a problem). I thought it was the easiest interview--every single topic and question was perfectly predictable, nothing off the radar, and really relevant stuff. It was as if Charlie gave her a practice run, she was so smooth and didn't miss a beat. Nervous? So what. Charlie wants her to admit she "blinked," and then when she doesn't, she's "too prepared." What the heck would make people happy--she can't be lost and stammering, but she's not allowed to sound prepared either.

Finally, Krauthammer, in his original blog entry, has a different perspective on what he saw in that moment:

"{Gibson} looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."

It's amazing what biases will do to the facts when people don't get their information straight.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Tue, 09-16-2008 - 5:08pm
Plus for it to be a legitimate doctrine it must be written and submitted into government to be a real doctrine.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Tue, 09-16-2008 - 6:41pm

Oh, I don't need to reconsider.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Tue, 09-16-2008 - 6:42pm

She still should have known what it was - I do, and I'm not running to be one of the most powerful people in the world.


Photobucket

Pages