Posted on 09/12/2008 7:55:47 AM PDT by IrishMike
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson may have thought he was giving a fair but “tough” interview to Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, in the first press contact with the new vice-presidential candidate.
But ABC did itself no favors. Viewers watching the dagger-and-sheath interview — aired on national television last night and endlessly replayed on “YouTube” — could easily draw a different conclusion. Unconsciously or not, Gibson’s manner and language fairly dripped with condescension and disbelief.
It was the flourish of a trial attorney who chooses to substitute body language for substance, in persuading the jury that the witness is unworthy.
It was, to be plain, a distraction from what could have been an interesting conversation.
Most women, even now, are quite familiar with being talked over and not so subtly demeaned when they venture an opinion. It happens at dinner parties, in Washington and New York, where Gibson reigns as a network anchor, and even in educational classrooms.
It can happen to students who venture to Ivy League colleges without the benefit of a private preparatory school. They may never have heard about a “Nash equilibrium” or “Pareto optimality.” It doesn’t mean they are stupid or without cunning.
There was no evident need to demand of Palin three times in a row how she could consider herself to have the necessary qualifications for the vice presidency. The host’s closing line was a debater’s sally — “doesn’t that take some hubris?” Gibson asked, demanding again how a local mayor and Northern Exposure governor could properly consider national office.
Religious folk may also not chuckle, when the assertion that God has a plan for the world is recast as a claim that God is sending down Defense Department snowflakes for the conduct of the war in Iraq. Believing that the Iraqi people have a right to live in freedom, without Saddam Hussein, does not mean that Sarah Palin thinks she is Joan of Arc.
And then there is the issue of the “Bush doctrine.” Charlie Gibson seemed to delight in suggesting that Governor Palin did not know what the phrase meant. But there are “Bush doctrines” on any number of issues, not least, educational policy and free trade (which the Democrats have now abandoned).
Without saying so, Gibson had in mind the 2002 National Security Strategy statement, which noted that a country does not have to suffer a catastrophic attack before using the prerogatives of self-defense, and can act when a foreign attack is imminent.
But Gibson is wrong to suppose that the right of anticipatory self-defense began with George Bush. Indeed, it was put forward early in the history of the American republic, by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, in the so-called “Caroline affair” in 1837.
And strangely enough, this doctrine was carved out in the frozen North. In the middle of winter, American sympathizers crossed the Niagara River to help Canadians in their rebellion against the British Crown. The British burned their boat and sent one man to his death over the falls. Daniel Webster conceded that the British were permitted to use force because the "necessity of that self-defence” was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”
It would have been delicious if Governor Palin had responded with the name Daniel Webster. But she had the idea, and one may excuse even a national television anchor for not knowing the doctrine’s real origin.
In one last flurry, Gibson complained that he was “lost in a blizzard of words here.” The trope was unconscious, no doubt.
The television host, who came to broadcasting from Princeton and its Tower Club, via Washington’s Sidwell Friends School, would have been well served to ask some local folk (or even some big city women) what they thought of his navigation skills.
For the Obama interview Chuck asked if he could refresh his coffee and if he wanted a piloow.
What is a piloow?
It’s okay! Watching the MSM crying a river come November 4th and the following morning will all be worth it.
I love watching liberals cry.
Hey, the McCain compaign picked this boob over many others. Anyone else would have been better, anyone.
did anyone see Obama last night on the presidential forum? How did he do?
Cayce Anthony would have gotten a fairer shake...
Gibson reminded me of some college dean interviewing an incoming freshman who he thought didn’t deserve to be interviewed in the first place. Despite Gibson’s arrogant tone and rude and demeaning manner, I think Palin came across as determined, likeable, and trustworthy.
I cannot believe what an a$$ Gibson is.
I thought Sarah did great, especially after sending her oldest son off to war.
I would be in tears for days if mine had gone off to war.
Hang tough Sarah, you have the base behind you.
We are going to SWIFT BASE Hussein.
Lost in his own words, that is. Her words were clear and distinct.
Early morning show on FOX had a lefty, liberal radio host stating that, (paraphrase) ‘Just because Palin’s a woman, she shouldn’t expect to be tossed softballs.’
The dems simply don’t understand the depth and width of their misogyny. No wonder the DNC killed Hillary’s chances with an untested, unprepared, inexperienced man.
They simply couldn’t allow her to win.
Charlie Gibson, the Hammer and Sickle banner waving propaganda representative for Red.
At least he didn’t ask her to take off her glasses and shake out her hair.
There was a woman caller who telephoned into a conservative talk show this morning (WIBC/Indianapolis). She stated that Chris Wallace of Fox News (who watched the whole Palin/Gibson interview on Nightline) stated that it was very clear to him that ABC News edited the Palin/Gibson interview to manipulate the appearance of Sarah Palin as being arrogant and uninformed. For Chris Wallace to say this is quite a statement.
The doctrine of preemptive strikes has been around at least since Cato (The Younger I believe) and “Carthage must be destroyed!”
I think the McCain camp doesn’t want to be seen complaining about how unfair Gibson was, but that entire interview, including their intro and name for the segment (War. God and Oil) was an absolute left wing hatchet job.
Someone ask “Charlie” (appropriately the name of a mentally retarded savant in the movie of the same name) if mankind is causing the global cooling that has occurred the last several years.
I think that selecting Charlie to rake Palin was another good choice. Sarah did fine and Gibson exposed himself as a a$$. It could have an opposite effect of either pissing off women and moderates and drawing them to McCain & Palin.
Bravo Charlie! Lets see if he tones down for the encore interview.
Oh, they do understand. Their blind hatred for captilism and America completely overshadows any ounce of sense in fair play or logic.
The propagandists play by their own rules, and relativism is one of the principle rules in their game.
The liberal Democrats and Muslims fear the power of a conservative woman.
As D. Morris said:
...’Basically, it’s this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.
She threatens a core element of the party’s base - women’...
Gibson is insipid!
Which Gibson didn't even acknowledge when she mentioned it in the context of her answer. He just pressed on with his BS questions.
I knew this interview was going to be bad.
Remember when Pelosi became Speaker of the House. This guy was fawning over her ability to “look after the children”, and the country.
I about puked.
Pelosi is the “right” kind of woman. Palin is the “wrong” kind for the MSM.
In their mind, her primary DISQUALIFICATION is that she didn’t abort her children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.