Originally Posted By woody >>You, of all people, should know that content doesn't matter. It's all about perception. The perception is that he got her.<< I'll concede this narrowly. Many women might not buy this and they are a big voting block.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Her "deer in the headlights look" said it all. As Mawnck said, perception matters. And as Reagan's people said "if we control the visuals, and it doesn't matter what you write." Her look said it all. What's also certain is that if Biden, Obama, or McCain had been asked that same simple question, they could have answered instantly, and in depth. This woman should not be one 72-year-old heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world.
Originally Posted By mawnck Only time will tell if anyone of importance to this election noticed the "deer in the headlights" look. I sure did, but then I was watching for stuff like that, and I'm 100% for Obama. (I should make that my signature.)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>What's also certain is that if Biden, Obama, or McCain had been asked that same simple question, they could have answered instantly, and in depth.<< I wouldn't say it was "certain" by any means, Senator Obama wouldn't have a telepromter and would be going, uhh, huh??? Senator Biden would say, the McCain Doctrine instead of the Bush Doctrine, and to be honest, I am not sure what Senator McCain would do, but he would have a more casual, easy going answer.
Originally Posted By mele I think the only difference between any of their answers would have been the looks on their faces. They're a lot more experienced and are smoother operators.
Originally Posted By DlandDug There is no "Bush Doctrine." It's a term that has been thrown around by most everybody (but not the Bush Administration itself, interestingly) since 2001. From that paragon of on line information, the Wikipedia: >>The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; the doctrine of preemptive war; and the president's second-term "freedom agenda" as outlined in his second Inaugural Address.<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...Doctrine</a> I thought the words "journalistic term" were most apt, especially in this context. It's a loose term, used by journalists (of all political persuasions, I might add) to bolster the agenda of the moment. As to Ms. Palin's responese to this specious question, it is, frankly, little more than a Rorschach test for voters. Those who think she's the most brilliant VP choice ever saw a measured response to a dopey "gotcha." Those who think she's the biggest disaster the GOP has ever had to deal with saw a deer in the headlights response to a dumbfoundedly obvious question. The response in the mainstream media (and it is that response that actually matters in the long run) has been, basically, a big yawn, with a few yelps from the left and right here and there. Sarah Palin isn't Dan Quayle (darn!) and she isn't Lloyd Bensen (whew!). Oh, and the most interesting piece of analysis I've heard (from one of those pesky historians on an NPR broadcast) pointed out that the last time the VP made any diference at all in an election was when Lyndon Johnson carried Texas for JFK in 1960. So chew on that piece of moose fat...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Senator Obama wouldn't have a telepromter and would be going, uhh, huh >> You have never actually watched Senator Obama speak to an audience have you? He does extremely well without a script. You should watch sometimes. It might actually influence your opinion beyond the boundaries of the right wing propaganda that you digest everyday.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What scares me more is that she knew so little of the Russia/Georgia situation that she would unequivocally call it unprovoked...twice.>> It was unprovoked. Say there were a few counties in southwestern Texas that decided they were tired of the yahoos in Austin. They decided to informally break away and become self governing. Because of the local culture and proximity to Mexico they felt that they would really rather be a part of Mexico than a part of Texas. They really hadn't done anything about it; but they had become a thorn in the side to the government in Austin. So Austin decides enough is enough and sends the National Guard down to take control of "North Mexico" once again. The Mexican government decides screw them... they kind of like the idea of "North Mexico" becoming part of Mexico. So they send tanks rumbling across the border. The Mexican forces not only take control of that part of Texas, they continue on to Houston and take control of the port, effectively cutting of Texas from all international shipping. Now. You tell me. Were the actions taken by Mexico unprovoked? Did they have any right whatsoever to do what they did?
Originally Posted By mawnck We're not talking about the US and Mexico, we're talking about Georgia and Russia. A bit of a difference in power there. Even "justified" cowboys can be killed if there are enough Indians.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<A bit of a difference in power there.>> I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean to say that although Mexico would be unjustified in doing what I outlined, somehow Russia would be justified because of its far greater power? So are you saying might makes right or what? Your statement frankly makes absolutely no sense.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean to say that although Mexico would be unjustified in doing what I outlined, somehow Russia would be justified because of its far greater power? So are you saying might makes right or what? Your statement frankly makes absolutely no sense.<< I'm saying that overwhelming might makes considering one's strategy a bit more important.
Originally Posted By mele <<Those who think she's the biggest disaster the GOP has ever had to deal with saw a deer in the headlights response to a dumbfoundedly obvious question.>> I dunno, I haven't really formed many opinions about Palin. I wanted to hear what she had to say but couldn't help but notice the look on her face. I didn't think her non-answer was that bad. Par for the course. I never expect a politician to ever simply answer any question. ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm saying that overwhelming might makes considering one's strategy a bit more important.>> Hey... are you dissing the fine Mexican Army?? lol
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Hey... are you dissing the fine Mexican Army?? lol<< OK ... let's say that it was a Mexican county or two that wanted to join America. Would it really be wise for the Mexican army to go marching into those counties, knowing that a US Army battalion or 10 was waiting just across the border (assuming they were back from Iraq, of course)? This is not a Disney movie. The three good fairies aren't going to help you throw the sword at the dragon just because God loves you more than He loves them. Might may not make right, but it does make it necessary to be careful in your actions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>What's also certain is that if Biden, Obama, or McCain had been asked that same simple question, they could have answered instantly, and in depth.<< <I wouldn't say it was "certain" by any means, Senator Obama wouldn't have a telepromter and would be going, uhh, huh???> Nice revealing of your bias. Obama has done tons of forums, debates, Meet the Presses, etc., without any teleprompter and has never once said "uhh, huh???" But apparently, you think he does. Telling. <Senator Biden would say, the McCain Doctrine instead of the Bush Doctrine,> Okay, just a cheap shot. <and to be honest, I am not sure what Senator McCain would do, but he would have a more casual, easy going answer.> He'd have answered the question, because he would have known what it meant. That's the point. And this new talking point about the Bush Doctrine being multiple things is just an attempted smoke screen. McCain, Obama, or Biden - if asked that question - would simply have outlined where they agreed or disagreed with the various aspects of it. (For instance, Obama might have said "I agree that nations who harbor terrorists are responsible for that and I favored us going into Afghanistan. I do not believe in preemptive invasions of other countries based on perceived future threats, certainly not when the intelligence is decidedly mixed, and I did not favor invading Iraq.") The point is, the other three would have simply answered the question, because they would have known what the Bush Doctrine is, at least in broad terms. They could have clarified which parts of its various components they agreed or disagreed with. Palin's deer in the headlights look told you she simply didn't have a clue HOW to answer.
Originally Posted By mawnck And if anyone knows what deer in headlights look like (not to mention moose, sheep, goats, caribou, bears, etc.), it would be Palin.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Speaking of looking at animals, anyone see the picture of Palin with her young child and a moose whose bloodied face was all shot up on 20/20 last night? Truly disgusting. What a nice family photo.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling <<McCain, Obama, or Biden - if asked that question - would simply have outlined where they agreed or disagreed with the various aspects of it. >> Thank you. I cannot accept the whole spin I am hearing on this part of the interview. I watched that interview and I know what I saw. People will disagree, of course. But from what I saw, it seemed clear that she did not know what he meant. And it wasn't because her mind was racing through all the different versions and evolution of the policy either. She's not shy. She's not stupid. She's an eager beaver. In everything I've ever seen her in she's quick to answer and she certainly did that in this interview. Until this question. She had no idea. Does that matter? It sure should. Some (not just on this board either) are saying that it doesn't matter because there is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. Well, if that's so, then why didn't she just say that? Why didn't she just own Charlie Gibson from that point of the interview forward? If that's true, and she knew it, she should have schooled him on that. She should have had a field day and shone like a star - something like, "Well, Charlie, I'm so glad you brought that up. As you know, the media has been bantering that term around for years now but there really is no "Bush Doctrine." However, you do bring to mind some important issues that I'd like to talk about: bing, bang, boom." It is also being said that the term "Bush Doctrine" is just a short hand journalistic phrase and was used to play a mean game of "gotcha" against Palin. Well, then why didn't she get call Gibson on that? She could have said something like, "The Bush Doctrine? Really, Charlie? You know as well as I do that there is no such policy pronouncement called "The Bush Doctrine." It's just a made up journalist's nickname you sneaky-no-good-tricky-liberal-reporter-trying to-play-"gotcha"-with-me you!" She didn't. Why didn't she? People LOVE stuff like that! ("I paid for this microphone!; I am NOT a potted plant!) She didn't because that's not true, or if it is true, she didn't know it. Are either okay? To ignore things like this or p-shaw it saying "Ohhh, who cares. She'll never be President anyway," just cheapens, well, everything, imho.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling <<Truly disgusting. What a nice family photo.>> I had no problem with that at all. That's a regional thing, imho. I think a separate thread to discuss her position on guns, etc. would be interesting though.
