I guess, hanging out with the ivy league crowd, I have gotten used to hearing very nuanced positions and I enjoy hearing people really make an effort to show that they understand the root, depth, and breadth of a question. However, given the election of GWB, not once but twice, I would say that is not what the American people, on average, need in their President.

She came across as decisive (and defensive, yes, but since most people think she is being attacked by the media, it doesn't matter), she did not make a major flub that will give her horrible media attention, so Palin gets a point.

The point is not that Charlie Gibson tried for a gotcha moment in both cases, the point is that Sarah Palin wasn't familiar with something she should have known, something basic. If she had, she would have answered the way Obama did when Gibson tried to put words in his mouth about the same policy:

   During the debate, after Gibson asserted, "[W]hat you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine," Obama replied:

        OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.

        And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

when Charles Gibson asked, Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?", she thought Charles Gibson was mocking George Bush and his supporters. i honestly don't think she was familiar with the term "Bush Doctrine". so she probably heard it as, "Do you agree with the Gospel of Bush?", or something to that effect.

They seemed to have loved her performance on the republican blogs.   So she didn't flop.

She's a formidable opponent.  Maybe the answers were canned, but two weeks ago she was not even thinking about these issues.  She's a quick study.

Quick studies usually get better given time.  I think she'll do well in future interviews and in the debate.   I think strategies based on her falling apart are wishful thinking.  It's not going to happen.

I don't think for a moment that Palin is dumb; if you watch that interview Maria Bartiromo conducted with her a few days prior to her VP selection, you'll see she's quite knowledgeable and relaxed when she talks about energy policy. She'd come across a lot better if Lieberman or whomever stopped this "Now repeat after me" approach to teaching her about this stuff that they're obviously using. It's always best to make a student find their own words for something; that way they make the ideas their own.

those may have "won" the GWB the elections but we LOST a lot along the way.  If this is the tack you wish Obama to take, we are in very deep trouble.

Palin will do the GOP's bidding, make no mistake.  But to admonish her to the heights that the lefty-blogosphere is doing just diminishes the real issues that Dems could win with in the election and adds to the distraction.

  I think she's clearly having lot of mixed feelings about Iraq and her son going there and puts the best face on it.

  As for her shaky voice, it's been that way "from day 1" --
and on BTD's Palin announcement thread here on Aug. 29, I mentioned the stress, tension and edge I heard in it.

• privatize social security
  
• is against universal healthcare, in fact he wants to make easier for insurers to deny coverage.
  
• thinks people who are being forclosed on were just stupid for buying something they cant afford
  

For the rest.  Think Obama's feeling a little pressure right about now, after watching that interview? He knows he is all that is standing between that mentality--that Worldview, as it were--and the White House.

Here's Michael Seitzman's response to the Palin/Gibson interview:

I realized three things tonight. For one, if you are a McCain/Palin/Bush voter, you and I do not have a difference of opinion. We have a difference in brain power. Two, she really is as ignorant as I feared. And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)

The proper response to this was that Obama hadn't met any world leaders either until he went on his world tour.  And he's running for the TOP job.

First, the bar was set for her to MEET expectations of McCain's camp. That she did not hedge, was firm and assertive in her answers, that she held her own will be seen as meeting and EXCEEDING those expectations. She did no harm.

Second, she's a conservative Republican who toes that line: war with Russia, although to her credit she didn't paint this as absolute.

Third, in her answer about energy as a national security issue: Democrats, including Barack Obama, have said the same thing.

Fourth, regarding the Bush Doctrine: I agree with David Gergen: most people do not use this acronym when talking about preemptive strikes on other countries. Even the media shies away from it, with good reason: the Bush Doctrine has also arguably expanded since 9/11 to include the treatment of terrorists,  Patriot Act provisions, homeland security, FISA, etc. Technically, Palin's reply to Gibson was smart and put him back on his heels, as well. Also, I agree with BTD: I'm not sure Gibson even understands the Bush Doctrine.

Fifth, it is a minority of people (most of them online and blogging) who know and understand the microdetails of issues like Bush Doctrine, NATO alliances, terrorism in general and terrorism as it relates to the Iraq War.

It is irrelevant if Gibson knew what the Bush doctrine was, he will never be in a position to take us into war, he will never be held accountable for our past actions or need to defend our future actions, by anyone in this country or by any world leader with an army and nuclear missiles, as Sarah Palin may be, should she become VP or President of the US.  I have no idea if Obama or Biden knew what the Bush doctrine was when asked, I'm assuming they've been asked, but even that is irrelevant.  One candidate's ignorance of the substance and significance of this historic, unprecedented position is no excuse for another not knowing it.

The following is some text excerpted from the Bush doctrine.  

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat--most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

1. Thank you Jeralyn for posting the transcript so we could all read it if we chose.

2. Palin as shown is not ready for prime time. Reading off the memorized cards, including the mistakes in fact in them, is not the same thing as preparation. And the last thing I want after eight years of it is another administration which is the subordinated servant of unelected advisors, because the electes don't know their ears from a hole in the ground.

3. An Obama administration will be run by Obama, not by whatever posters the commenters here dislike. Their evidence that he is a sexist is lame, lame, lame, which is why they keep citing bloggers and internet sources. But of course, they do not cite the racist stuff against O. O's own presentations are essentially free of this abuse, but those who are bound to find sexism will find it using whatever they got, and use it to justify anything.

4. The proper text for sexism or preparedness is to imagine, say, Jim Webb, sitting in that chair and giving those answers, and what you would think about that. If he gave those answers, I'd call him a blubbering idiot and none of you would object. If the point of equality is that men and women are to be judged and treated by one standard, not two, and to be treated equally, all this Palin-protection crap is as unequal as it gets. All of this don't beat up the woman stuff is nonsense. Automobiles and governmental problems don't care about your gender or your eagerness, and do care about fixing them correctly, preferably the first time. And do you really think Putin is going to be as touchy-feely or 'nice', or China, or Iran, or even Israel. And none of them will wait while she shuffles through her talking points cards to find something useful.  Ain't happening. We need the best American can produce, and neither McCain nor Palin is it, and there is better on the other side.

Fact: Illinois is near Canada. It has just as little relavence.

Fact: Palin has asked for more earmarks in one year as Governor than Obama has in the last TWO years in the Senate. Who is Captain Earmark?

Fact: He has voted more this year than McCain has.

The term "Bush Doctrine" was created by the Left as a term of derision.  It's hardly used at all on the Right except to extent it's rubbed off because of the MSM.  

she either doesn't know how babies are made, or just can't keep her legs closed, she keeps pumping them out, like clockwork.; she wouldn't authorize an abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, for her own daughter.; she thinks because alaska is across the bering sea from russia, she has foreign policy experience.; she thinks because she's the "commander" of the alaska national guard (total troop strength (on a good day) less than 5,000), she has military experience.; she has no clue what the term "conflict-of-interest" means.

i could go on, but the pattern is self-evident.

clueless you ask? well hell yes, of course she's clueless! don't use the term in public though, you'll be accused of being sexist. because, you know, you'd never say that about a man, like oh, i don't know, say, john mccain for example.

After looking at the interview, I must say that I don't agree with the criticism.

She handled the Bush Doctrine thing fine. She didn't fumble it.

Her statements regarding Georgia and Russia were fine, and apparently the same as what McCain has been saying.

She appeared to be a tough cookie and fairly smart, to me.

And of course you realize that the lipstick on a pig comment was not about Palin, or when McCain said it was he calling Hillary a pig, too?

Her answers were of the stock variety but so were the questions.

Going back to the original topic I doubt any Pres or vp candidate has had serious military experience since Eisenhower. I would expect the next Pres/vp to rely on the joint chiefs of staff of the military to provide sound military advice and dont expect any candidate of either party to be the next Clausewitz.

As to her foreign policy experience it ranks up there with Senator Obama's. Thats not a dig a Obama either, just my reading of the facts.

On the question of the Bush doctrine I'm somewhat perplexed as to why this is news. We have proactivly sought to defend this country for decades with our military and post 9/11 really is not any different than pre 9/11. Clinton used force quite often during his term, though not always effectively.

Overall this interview was a non-event for me. It will not change any minds as to who to vote for. I personally am not thrilled at either parties candidates as my center/right/libertarian streak leaves me without a candidate.

She had one "deer in the headlights" moment when asked about the Bush doctrine, which I would think any successor to Bush would be very familiar with (she did not have a clue).

She avoided the national security question by jumping to energy.

And her answers about foreign relations sounded like a Democrat - we will forge new relationships.

Her response (emphasis added):

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."

What is so historic and controversial about the Bush doctrine is that it was a departure from the very policy Palin stated.  It gave us the right to strike WITHOUT needing enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against the American people. It gives us the right to strike whenever and wherever we choose based solely on our belief that a country poses a threat to the US, including and perhaps especially even if the threat is not imminent, it can be a long term threat and we can still strike.  It declares our right to strike a country with, in our estimation, a "rouge regime" or terrorists, even if they aren't planning an attack.  The operative concept in the Bush doctrine is PREVENTATIVE, not preemptive or imminent.

oh good (none / 0) (#185)
by rachelann on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:43:41 AM EST

Can you delete this one below
actually, (1.00 / 6) (#58)
by cpinva on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:17:34 PM EST

I don't know any democrats that would talk like that and I'm pretty sure there are lots of republicans trying to stir things up

perhaps that's the problem, not enough democrats are talking like that.

i note you didn't deny the truth of any of my statements of fact, merely wished they'd go away. facts are annoying things, they don't go away, no matter how much you'd prefer to whitewash them.

gov. palin is demonstrably not fit to be sitting one heartbeat from the oval office, i simply pointed out several factual reasons why.

Charlie Gibson, September 11, 2008: "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."

Charlie Gibson, September 21, 2001: "The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated."

But Palin is the dumb one.