That Interview
THE CORNER
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
I don't think Palin was at her best but neither was Gibson at his. (Do we know if he's ever protested to Barack Obama about his a 'blur of words'?) Again, my biggest takeaway is: Why is so much is supposedly at stake with one interview? I look forward to seeing a whole lot more of her in the coming days, off ABC.
******************************************
re: That Interview
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
A reader review: 'She's got great potential- once she's in her groove. Maggie didn't start out knowing everything either.'
********************************************
Sarah Shows Her Lack of Foreign Policy Savvy
By Andy McCarthy
This really is painful. If she had real foreign policy experience, if she was really up to the job, if she was ready, on Day One, to be president if necessary, the answer to the question was obvious: GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? PALIN: No. Of course not. Seems to me that would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Russia.
*************************************
Another Reader Review
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Sent: Thu 9/11/2008 6:52 PM To: Kathryn Lopez Subject: I love her feistiness I am not your typical Republican. Pro-life, gun owning lesbian with a partner and we are voting for McCain and we are doing because of Palin. We love her feistiness and understand what it means to have to take on stupid, ignorant comments about who we are. So we hope she stays on offense and never backs down.
************************************
re: Day One
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
One certainly does not get the 'ready on Day One' sense about her from that interview but I'd love to hear her talk more about her wiring that she mentioned, philosophy, etc. If my surveys over the last half hour or any indication, no one who is optimistic about Palin are changing their minds about her based on this. The she's-got-potential e-mailer seems about the consensus and I don't think that's a bad reaction. The consensus is that and anger at Gibson.
*****************************************
I Get a Complaint
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
An e-mail: 'I don't think Palin was at her best...' I quibble with this. Sure, we have seen her look better in much, much, much easier circumstances. But I really can not imagine any time, any place where one person has been put under more pressure from a skilled and prepared interrogator with tens of millions watching her every expression and intent on her every word. And this a public test over a vast array of public concerns, many of which she does not pretend and has no possibility of being expert in. This is like setting a high jumper's bar five feet above the world record and then noticing that this athlete does not look great facing this impossible task. How much terror would you have seen in candidate George Bush's eyes facing this situation? How much would Obama stammer? This is a test where a 'c' would be a world-class mark.
*************************************************
And from a Reader in Harrisburg
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
You posed the question about so much attention and so much riding on one ABC interview. It seems to me that this is going to be the M.O. of the MSM from here on out. With every test that Palin passes (probably most with flying colors) they will continue to await the next 'big test' where she will have to 'prove herself' over and over ad nauseum. It's the old raising the goal posts every time the bar is cleared. Let's be real....this interview isn't going to affect the state of the race much one way or the other at this point. She did just fine. She could have come out and said there were better qualified people and better choices as V.P. ... but I mean who would say something that damaging...oh wait never mind.
**************************************************
And a Note on Editing
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Another e-mail: Was it just me, or was that the most hastily-edited, smash-cut, Max Headroom splice job ever to go on national television? One could be forgiven for concluding they bumped the rest of interview to the end of the broadcast because they were STILL EDITING. (And as has been observed elsewhere, they seemed to have missed the lead-in on that YouTube church video. Oops). ABC, take another 24 hours, and do a professional job. The nation can wait for you to get it right.
**************************
re: "Not at Her Best"
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
And another e-mail: 'Not at her best, huh? Let's see Obama, Biden or McCain do as well in a no subjects barred interview after Gibson had a week to prep. Did you see Obama get his head handed to him on a plate by O'Reilly? No comparison.'
**********************************************
A Reader from Memphis on the Palin Interview
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
I thought she did just fine. She answered the questions with sincerity and poise, and had a good grasp of the issues presented. What everyone needs to always keep in mind is that Charlie has note cards and Sarah does not. Doesn't hurt, of course, that I agree with her almost completely. (the dropping of the 'Pray that....' from the 'quote' was a particularly cheap-shot, I thought, but again it wasn't Charlie who wrote the question, it was some Columbia j-schooler who wants to make it big with Disney. And she handled it just fine with 'I'm not sure if that's exactly what I said' (paraphrasing)) What I did notice- and this has been a big selling point for me and many I know- is her 'realness'. Her way of talking, her cadence, her syntax, are real-American ways of communicating. Even down to that cute little accent she has. The shores of Lake Erie are populated almost entirely with folks who sound that same way, God love 'em. Sometimes you 'coasters' don't 'get' that part. She connects to middle-America not just in the guns-and-God way, but in the.... what's the word.... genuineness. She speaks in the way most people (especially those lacking a JD from some ivy-covered structure) really talk. No parsing, no equivocation, but also not giving away the store. You must be doing something right when the best the 'elites' can do is criticize grammar or proffer loaded questions. The elitism and condescending attitude of the media is blaring through, and it doesn't go unnoticed in the new media culture. When does Obama get asked these same questions ? Can he do it without umm'ing and err'ing, turning what should be a 30 second answer into a 3 minute snooze-fest ? She does need some new stump material, as many have said. I'd like to think she's been a little preoccupied what with still running a state, not to mention sending her oldest child off to war. Once Track gets boots on the ground I trust she will become 100% more involved (does she know any other way ?) in the campaign, and will dazzle for weeks, months, and hopefully at least 16 years to come. Don't let one small maybe/sorta not-stellar performance diminish your enthusiasm. It certainly hasn't diminished mine.
*************************************************
My Take on The Palin Interview -- So Far
By Jonah Goldberg
There was a lot in the interview she could -- and should -- have waved off as hypothetical or said it would depend on the context. Because A) that's what 90% of seasoned politicians say and B) because 90% of seasoned politicians say that sort of thing because it's the right answer. Invade Pakistan? It depends. What's the nature of the threat? What's our relationship with the Pakistani regime? What are our alternatives? Is Nato with us? Her ultimate answer was right, of course. We should invade Pakistan if, absent any other option, our national security is at stake. But I think Palin needs to walk through that stuff a bit better, or just dismiss the questions with boilerplate. I think her response on Israel was largely right for the same reasons. At the end of the day we shouldn't -- and can't -- second guess Israel if they feel they're in mortal danger. We may be able to restrain Israel on the timing of the small stuff, but if they feel like Iran's an existential threat, how does Charlie Gibson or anybody else propose stopping them? Are we going to bomb Israel to prevent it from bombing Iran? Hardly. Anyway, I'm not saying Palin should dodge or be fake about anything. But on foreign policy almost all 'statesmen' and 'experts on international affairs' use code phrases to dodge offering firm answers because that's the responsible thing for them to do. There are some commitments we don't make in campaigns. Politically, I think she seemed a bit nervous and offered some phrasing that will cause the people who already hate her irrationally to irrationally hate her some more. Beyond that, she did herself little to no harm and came across as a real person put in an unreal situation which is pretty much the reality of things. She beat the expectations her biggest detractors set for her and at least met the expectations of everyone else. There were no huge gaffes (though her answer on the Bush Doctrine came close I thought), despite what lunacy you may read at TPM or elsewhere. But I must say, I don't understand why anyone would give Kathryn grief for saying Palin wasn't at her best, unless you honestly think this is the best interview performance Palin will ever give. I doubt that very much. Good politicians are quick studies and she is a good politician. Once she figures out how this game is played (and I don't mean game in the trivializing way) she'll do better and better. It only gets easier.
*************************************************
Of This I'm Sure
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
More people were into the Palin interview (and said 'You, Go, Girl!') than are watching this forum with the actual presidential candidates on right now. (I don't completely understand the premise other than a commercial for Time ... though now I'm noticing a pattern tonight. Political 'events' as commercials for the media outlets who could use the boost?)
*****************************************
The Palin Interview
By Yuval Levin
The very rough editing job by ABC makes you yearn to see the whole thing, and hopefully they'll make it available. But from what they showed, Palin comes off a bit nervous but pretty strong. Her instincts and basic views seem to be in the right place (and of course, by the nature of the VP role, are where John McCain is too). Substantively there was nothing (for me) to disagree with and essentially nothing to criticize. She swatted away the "are you saying the war is a mission from God" nonsense very effectively and calmly--and the question really seems very silly if you actually listen to what she says in that clip from her church. She's only met as many world leaders as most governors have, and she's only traveled to as many countries as most Americans have--hardly disqualifying for a vice president, though it would certainly be nice if she were more worldly; I don't think it's completely unreasonable to raise those questions. She would have done well to have spoken about judgment and decision-making experience in response to Gibson's queries about foreign policy experience and, as Joe Biden would have, to answer a good number of the questions she was asked with "that all depends on the circumstances." The only real problem spot, I'd say, was her asking Charlie Gibson which aspect of the Bush Doctrine he was referring to. It certainly seemed like she didn't know what it was--whether that's the case or not. Gibson's clarification, by the way, didn't help all that much, or at least wasn't quite accurate. The Bush Doctrine originally referred to the policy of treating nations that harbor terrorists as terrorists themselves. It has since also come to include other elements, like regime change and democracy promotion as elements of the war on terror, and preemption in the face of evident but less-than-imminent threats. Gibson's description--"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," wasn't a good description of even the preemption element of the Bush doctrine (and his claim that the preemption element was enunciated in September of 02 is also incorrect), though Palin's answer suggested she didn't quite agree with Bush on the question of imminence. Neither one of them came off too well from the exchange, but only one of them is running for office and Palin should have done better with that one. On the whole a good start, though perhaps not a great one. Tough questions, all handled well, and a decent command of complicated issues. How many members of Congress, for instance, would have done as well? I'll be curious to see the full transcript and video, and the remaining clips to air tonight and tomorrow. And by the way, when do we get to hear Barack Obama explain why he thinks he's ready on day one?
******************************************************
Best E-mail About the Palin Interview
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
'she didn't say anything was above her pay grade.'
*********************************
Palin Interview
By Jonah Goldberg
From a buddy of mine: After reading the Corner before i watched it, i was expecting much worse. Two thoughts: 1) I haven't seen editing like that since you were on the Daily Show. At least then, they let the audience in on the joke. 2) That portion of the interview was on national security which, lover her or hate her, is her greatest vulnerability. While i think she did fine tonight, when they start talking about her job as mayor, governor, energy, reform, challenging her party, and other domestic issues, she should be on much more familiar ground.
******************************
The "Palin Didn't Know What the Bush Doctrine Is" Canard
By Andy McCarthy
Seeing reports along those lines, like this one. What a bunch of nonsense. Peanut gallery denizens like me, who don't have states to run and who follow this stuff very closely, disagree intensely among ourselves about what the Bush Doctrine is. To take just one example, the eminent Norman Podhoretz and I have strongly disagreed about it: Norman says the promotion of democracy has always been an essential element; I think it's been at best a subordinate element and that the real Bush Doctrine simply holds that terror sponsoring states will be treated exactly as terrorists (i.e., open themselves up to attack) if they don't convincingly foreswear terrorism. Norman may very well be right -- he backs his argument up with lots of statements by the president. But the point is that reasonable, informed minds can differ. Gibson homed in on preemptive attacks -- in the tone of 'Oh, you didn't know the Bush Doctrine was all about the right to attack preemptively.' I would dispute the premise that the Bush Doctrine is necessarily about preemptive attacks. The right of preemptive attack is an element of the right of self-defense, which is a natural right of states and was a bedrock of international law before there ever was a Bush Doctrine. News Flash for you Democrats and media types out there: About 40 years before there was a Bush Doctrine, JFK was relying on the self-defense right of preemptive attack during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Bush Doctrine, technically, is not asserting a right of preemptive attack. It is saying that if Country A facilitates terror, it is responsible for that terrorist organization's strikes, and therefore we can attack Country A. That is not preemptive; it is retributive. It was utterly reasonable for Gov. Palin to press Charlie Gibson on what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine. Everyone does not mean the same thing by the term, there is lots of good faith argument about what it means, and -- because the administration itself has only half-heartedly adhered to it -- there is also the confusion between theory and practice.
******************************************
EVERYONE Knows What the Bush Doctrine Is ....
By Andy McCarthy
Well, not exactly. A reader points out that Wikipedia thinks it means many things: The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002 corner.nationalreview.com |
