Posted on 09/11/2008 3:35:40 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
Is it just my local cable tv company, or is the ABC sound not synchronized with the lip movements?
If this is national, it's really unforgivable.
The only answer she flubbed on was the “Bush Doctrine” and, frankly, this is absurd reaction. W. Bush flubbed on a leadership quiz back in 2000. So friggin’ what! It was obviously an attempt at gotcha and I do agree with the posters that Gibson came across as the condescending jerk he is and Palin seemed to realize his behavior and these attempts, but I think she came across good and has the right ideas in regards to our defense so I’m not fazed by “the Bush Doctrine”.
I was about to post your answer.
As much as Bush has been lambasted in the media, there is NO WAY I would have assumed what he meant by the “Bush Doctrine”. That could have meant any number of things.
I don’t know exactly how she handled it (haven’t seen the interview yet), but that is NOT that big a deal. It’s better to say “I didn’t know exactly what you meant” or “That term slipped my mind” rather than cahrge off on a wrong answer or down a verbal trap path.
To me it looked like gov. Palin OWNER Charlie...He was trying to fluster her and she calmly corrected him. I really like her part about her son serving in the military as well. I think ABC would have led with their best ‘gotcha’ momnet on tape thus far, in order to drive more viewers to nightline. If this is the best they have, then the McCain campaign has completely sandbagged the MSM. The narrative of ditzy, religous zealot, ‘moose shooter’ that they are trying to put out is blwoing up. She came off as the adult, and Charlie the whiny kid trying to trap her. Score thus far Palin 1 Gibson/MSM 0.
I agree... Everyone needs to relax. she did fine.
Gibson came off extremely hostile and condescending.
I think most every female watching this will feel similar.
She must have just been nervous mental block, like having trouble recalling the name of someone you know very well. How could you be on the ticket and not know what the Bush Doctrine is?
Of course not. Those terms are coined by academics and the media. I doubt if James Monroe called his the "Monroe Doctrine."
What we just saw was Charlie taking a hostile stance against a Vice-Presidential nominee on the GOP ticket, and the VP nominee responded to the hostile person with consistency and confidence.
Charlie did not look well in this interview.. he came off looking like a little man, whose best attempt at intimidation was looking down his nose as he asked a question.
He couldn’t survive 15 minutes of an unedited “conversation” with the VP nominee.
My concern is that other interviewers will try to emulate Charlie Gibson and try to find “pop quiz” type questions that she won’t know the answer to. But regardless, she needs to prepare for the debate, so she might as well go through the pain now. Debate moderator Gwen Iffel is going to be in the tank for Obama so she can expect no fairness there.
The best way to avoid this in future is to refuse interviews with interviewers who look over the tops of their eyeglasses when asking questions!
Interrogation is the right word. Charlie did not come across well at all.
One edit was so bad it cut her off. She was saying “again” the edit cut off the i and the n.
The Bush Doctrine question was to catch her. She handled that one right. She is not a Bush clone. That’s what they wanted.
His head kept twitching, as though it was all he could do to restrain himself from leaping up and yelling at her. Which is pretty pathetic for an allegedly neutral newscaster. I think I could interview Satan himself and do a better job of keeping my cool then he did with Palin. If he's supposed to be a professional, he's way overpaid.
ABC, if you're reading this, give me a call. Let's talk about me and that anchor position.
William F. Buckley patented that look ;-)
Charlie, you're no William F. Buckley.
He said I got lost in a blizzard of words in response to her answer. He wanted a yes or no on whether to attack Pakistan or not.
That was my intent. Just do what you think is right. If some egghead wants to call it a “doctrine” thats he’s business. Doesn’t mean I have to buy into it.
I thought she handled the NATO question very well. Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack against one is an attack against all. If Georgia is a member, the assumption of the question asked by Gibson, then her response was spot on. I also liked the way she did not say that our response had to be limited to just a military option.
Gibson tried to make her into a religious zealot bent on launching a crusade against Muslims and using a plan from God. She handled it well along with her son's service.
The editing was atrocious sometimes cutting her off in mid-sentence. The question is what was cut out. And Gibson's palpable condescension was transparent and offputting. What an a**hole.
Please see my reply #50 on this thread for your answer.
Good point. Looking back, she handled it well in that context. I guess I've been listening to too many pointy heads ;-)
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.