The lead from the Los Angeles Times: "The Alaska governor also reversed her stand on the cause of climate change, telling ABC News that she believes 'man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming.' Less than a year ago, she said the opposite."
The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg: "At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly..."
The Times' Alessandra Stanley: "At times, her eyes looked uncertain and her voice hesitated, and she looked like a student trying to bend prepared answers to fit unexpected questions."
The Washington Post: "GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin ... appeared to back Barack Obama's assertion that the United States could attack targets in Pakistan without the country's permission -- a position that her running mate Sen. John McCain has called 'na+»ve.'"
Howard Wolfson adds his two cents. "Up until last night's interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, the McCain campaign had shielded Governor Palin from the media. And based on her performance yesterday they were right to do so..."
The Boston Globe: "Palin ... presented a confident face in what was considered an important early test of her knowledge of foreign affairs. She answered most questions by repeating McCain's view of the world, but also made some missteps, at one point seeming unfamiliar with the 'Bush doctrine' of preemptive war while under repeated questioning from ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson.
The AP: Palin "...struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state."
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.
We don't know for sure about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.
This was fine. She was governor of Alaska, unable to affect the course of the war in Iraq, and was focused on the task on hand.
It is now clear she knows little about national security issues. As Fallows notes, she can spout talking points, but she is not conversant in the issues.
The issue will now turn to whether this matters. Already, you are hearing the meme of, "So what if she didn't know what the Bush Docrine was. I don't know either. I can identify with her."
We went through this in 2000, when Al Gore was the know-it-all and George Bush the guy you'd ant to have over for a BBQ. Well, we elected the idiot, and he turned out to be the most inept president since James Buchanan.
I wonder if voters have learned?
Now for the nit.
Fallows was too kind. I don't think Palin was confused about whether Gibson was asking bout a small "d" or big "d" Bush Doctrine. It is clear that she had no idea what Gibson was talking about, and so she used the tried and true debating tactic of asking Gibson to be more specific, hoping he rephrase the question into something she knew about.
Gibson was about to do so, but then he smelled blood. He realized she didn't have a clue, which is why he then asked the gotcha question. So, she defaulted to her "Bush Answer," i.e., Bush wants to fight terrorists; mistakes were made; blah blah blah"
About a year or so ago, Palin told an interviewer that she had not focused on the Iraq war, but was focused on domestic issues of interest to Alaskans.This was fine. She was governor of Alaska, unable to affect the course of the war in Iraq, and was focused on the task on hand.
It is now clear she knows little about national security issues. As Fallows notes, she can spout talking points, but she is not conversant in the issues.
A year ago, not focusing on the Iraq war isn't really that big a deal. I doubt Tim Kaine or any other Governor paid that much attention to it, relatively speaking.
As for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, it is true, I didn't recall what it was either, but I'm not running for VP.
Being a System Administrator, I wouldn't hire McCain to work on my help desk since he doesn't know anything about technology, and I myself, on the other hand, wouldn't run for P or VP because I don't really have that kind of experience.
So, essentially, McCain has chosen someone with one foot on a banana peel and the other in the oval office, based not on experience, but on fluff. Nice going, John. Country first?
The double talking, 72-year-old McCain would be the oldest president ever elected. He has recreated himself by lying, flipping 180 degrees on many fundamental issues, and he has been wrong on most of the great issues of the day- War in Iraq, Economy, treatment of soldiers, foreign policy, US bullying....etc.
He continues to lie about things even after the lie has been discovered, and he has chosen to divide this country by his Rovian electioneering, his choice of a polarizing (not unifying) VP candidate, & his character assasination of his opponent.
Palin is not the candidate. The GOP has one candidate for President and that is John McCain. He is the one that must be stopped. Give HIM hell, or "keep telling the truth and it will feel like Hell."
(""- H.S.Truman)
Obama need no longer adress her at all, but the narrative that the GOP has created for her needs to be debunked.
Not because Palin is so important, but because it will be a vivid demonstration of the dishonesty of the Republican brand.
Betond the human tragedy, the real significance of Bush and Katrina was that is was a real "Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. As the Administration said everything was fine in New Orleans, "nothing to see here folks," people could see with their own eyes this was untrue. That caused a reassessment of administration policies down the line.
Same thing with Palin. People won't look at the details of tax plans to know that McCain is lying about Obama's -- that will forever be a he said/she said debate on television, but while they are focused on Palin, if we can show that the narrative created about her is false, it will affect the general credibility of the GOP brand and argument.
But, again, I agree this is not Obama's job. It's ours.
Us talking about Palin isn't bad.
So now instead of Americans having a debate on how best to solve the country's problems, people are falling back into partisan camps and we are reduced to polarization -again.
McCain is unfit for the presidency. As a candidate that speaks of "unifying" the country and "being the president of all Americans," he has uterly failed. Instead, he has shown that he is only capable of stirring up the pot and engendering ugliness & division among the electorate just as we have seen with his compatriot, our current president, George W Bush.
-------------------------------------------------------
The above article makes the point very well.
As for the "unifying," that may be more of a sense I have got from his speeches over that last several months. He seems to talk often enough about republicans, independents and democrats coming together to work out the nations ills.
I'll look for the first one and let you know if i find it.
Two Democrats and one Republican voted for the subpoenas, rejecting attempts by the other two Republicans on the panel to delay them until after the November election.Sen. Charlie Huggins, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla, appeared in camouflage pants on a short break from moose hunting to cast his vote. He lamented the political maneuvering that he saw as trying to interfere with the investigation.
"I see all this duck-foot action under the water," Huggins said. "Let's just get the facts on the table.