Support NeoGAF

[Thunder Monkey]

The "how's she going to stand up to Putin" routine is also hilarious to hear from Obama supporters, when that question was initially leveled at him, pre-Palin, to much gnashing of hopium-stained teeth.


Edit re neocons: I don't think Cheney is a neocon, although McCain might be a neo-neocon. Rumsfeld is probably the closest and is definitely a neocon "ally" but even there I'm not really convinced. Both Rumsfeld and Cheney have / had their own agendas.

Neocons are known for their expansive ideas of American military power.

The funnier term that explains Cheney and Rummy is Chickenhawk. McCain is a Neocon Hawk. He's seen war, so he's no chicken, but he seems to think the way to American prosperity is through a warhead.

Yeah, Gibson having to clean up the drool coming from her slack jawed, gaping maw was really embarrassing.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the spittle.

 

[Mahadev]

Mahadev, ABCnews has some video excerpts that I can access. What topic were you referring to?

Like Anihawk said it's about the Bush doctrine. I'm not usually that bitter but after that interview I'm just dumbfounded. HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR THIS PERSON?

 

[sprsk]

Isn't this a "Band people call emo aren't emo" argument?

 

[APF]

I've only seen clips, but the only bad part of the "Bush Doctrine" question is her initial "in what respect" confusion. Note also that Gibson not only gets the BD wrong, but even going with his common miscomprehension he conflates preventative war with preemptive strikes and preemptive strikes with incursions / hits into Pakistan (further note he conflated these ideas in questioning Obama's aggressive stance viv Pakistan earlier this year as well)

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

She gave an interview. It wasn't exceptionally good, it wasn't exceptionally bad. Disagree with her all you want but saying she came off looking stupid stems from your disagreement with her on issues, not on how she performed in the interview.

Photoshop Obama's head in the video and all of a sudden the interview will bring a tear to PoliGafs collective eye.



who gets to vote in your world?

It's really little use replying to the likes of you. You are informed, but steadfastly choose to support republican nonetheless. You are (or may as well be) the 19% that supported Bush at the lowest point of his popularity.

No amount of persuasion, good logic and argument would make you turn your back on conservative ideals over liberal ones (irrespective of the fact that conservatives in power have completely subverted conservative values and ideals for their own twisted niches ideology).

If you can't put aside your bias for a moment and see how poor a performance that was, especially given the circumstances... well, it well explains why you still swallow the same crap different flavoured, after 8 years.

 

[APF]

Neocons are known for their expansive ideas of American military power.

That's like saying Democrats are known for their expansive ideas of government. But "Democrats" are different than "Socialists" are different than "Communists."

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Like Anihawk said it's about the Bush doctrine. I'm not usually that bitter but after that interview I'm just dumbfounded. HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR THIS PERSON?

"We need to go after the Islamic terrorists, hellbent on attacking America and it's allies."

 

[capslock]

“We’re sensitive to the fluid dynamics of the campaign, but we have a game plan and a strategy,” said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. “We’re familiar with this. And I’m sure between now and Nov. 4 there will be another period of hand-wringing and bed-wetting. It comes with the territory.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I've only seen clips, but the only bad part of the "Bush Doctrine" question is her initial "in what respect" confusion. Note also that Gibson not only gets the BD wrong, but even going with his common miscomprehension he conflates preventative war with preemptive strikes and preemptive strikes with incursions / hits into Pakistan (further note he conflated these ideas in questioning Obama's aggressive stance viv Pakistan earlier this year as well)

You have a future in spin doctoring.

 

[eznark]

I've only seen clips, but the only bad part of the "Bush Doctrine" question is her initial "in what respect" confusion. Note also that Gibson not only gets the BD wrong, but even going with his common miscomprehension he conflates preventative war with preemptive strikes and preemptive strikes with incursions / hits into Pakistan (further note he conflated these ideas in questioning Obama's aggressive stance viv Pakistan earlier this year as well)

I guess what some here are running with as stupidity I saw as her trying to fully understand Gibson's question to ensure she answered what he was actually asking.

It came off as cautious, not stupid. But that's just my opinion. I guess if that is the sticking point, I can see how some would choose to view it as stupidity or ignorance.

It's really little use replying to the likes of you. You are informed, but steadfastly choose to support republican nonetheless.

That would be a dope point except for the fact that I don't support McCain/Palin.

 

[AniHawk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Old.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I've only seen clips, but the only bad part of the "Bush Doctrine" question is her initial "in what respect" confusion. Note also that Gibson not only gets the BD wrong, but even going with his common miscomprehension he conflates preventative war with preemptive strikes and preemptive strikes with incursions / hits into Pakistan (further note he conflated these ideas in questioning Obama's aggressive stance viv Pakistan earlier this year as well)

Gibson is a talking head.

I barely expect him to be able to pronounce preemptive, let alone understand what he's asking.

Palin because of McCain's shitty judgment is on course to potentially be Veep. I'd hope for more then we got.

She might be the nicest person on this planet, but she's in over her head.

 

[sprsk]

I guess what some here are running with as stupidity I saw as her trying to fully understand Gibson's question to ensure she answered what he was actually asking.

It came off as cautious, not stupid. But that's just my opinion. I guess if that is the sticking point, I can see how some would choose to view it as stupidity or ignorance.

I think most of us saw her initial reaction as a "fuck, I've never heard of this before, try to get the answer out of him"


Cause if he was as wrong as APF says he is, she sure as hell didn't know well enough to correct him.

Whether or not Gibson was right was irrelevant.

 

[capslock]

Old.

YOU'RE old!

 

[SnakeXs]

Like Anihawk said it's about the Bush doctrine. I'm not usually that bitter but after that interview I'm just dumbfounded. HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR THIS PERSON?

The sad part is that, despite "us" knowing how she floundered and how fucking insulting it is that she could be 1 step away fromt he most powerful position in the world, their supporters probably think she did wonderful. All the airblowing defend America talk resonates, even if beneath the smoke and mirrors was a vapid answer proving she doesn't have a clue.

 

[Blackhead]

Why is our standard for foreign policy qualifications considered to be how obnoxious you can be to Vladimir Putin?

Palin wasn't picked for her foreign policy chops--in the Republican ticket's mind, McCain has that wrapped up and is generally unassailable due both to his experience in the Senate and to his history as a war hero. Palin is a pick to help build support and emotional credibility in areas unrelated to FP.

Well, it was McCain that brought it up when he said that a choice for President had to lead from day 1 and that foreign policy was the the greatest issue facing Americans. Given that there is a high chance he might not survive a first term, Sarah Palin might end up being President and then her lack of 'foreign policy chops' will really matter.

Not to mention, Gibson gets the "Bush Doctrine" wrong IMO; it's not about preemptive war--which was considered a "reserved right" but not "doctrine" and technically speaking preemptive strikes are different than the argument for going into Iraq, more a preventative war--it's Bush's judgment that he would make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them.

:lol

For most voters as with Palin, this will be the first time they hear of this term, meaning that while it will contribute to some sense she's not a FP whiz it will also likely come across as both some obscure bookworm gotcha and a repudiation of the idea she's a Bush devotee. The actual answer she gives is non-controversial boilerplate that a reasonable person would agree with, and this could be reassuring to an average voter.

That's if you only read the transcript. If you watch the interview you can clearly see that she is not sure about what it is and is uncomfortable answering the question. It might not matter if the average voter doesn't know enough themselves to say she got the answer wrong or right or was just bullshitting. Her behaviour gives her away for those who are independent.

Note for those attacking the intelligence of voters also, not being a hardened newswatcher is not the same thing as being "dumb" or even "uninformed.

I agree that non 'hardened' newswatching americans aren't dumb.

Posters in this thread are a special breed of geek that know a lot of surface talking-point level topics because they want to be prepared to pile on the one conservative poster who dares peek his head in every couple of months. Most informed voters will read the front section of their local paper and watch an hour of nightly news at most, and will not be versed in defending or attacking a specific talking point, even if they might be aware of the idea that Bush supports preventative war.

:lol

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I guess what some here are running with as stupidity I saw as her trying to fully understand Gibson's question to ensure she answered what he was actually asking.

It came off as cautious, not stupid. But that's just my opinion. I guess if that is the sticking point, I can see how some would choose to view it as stupidity or ignorance.

Here's the problem.

I know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Charles Gibson knows what the Bush Doctrine is.

Palin didn't and try to use a bullshit Rep rallying statement to "address" his question.

To no avail.

And she is running for VP.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

That's like saying Democrats are known for their expansive ideas of government. But "Democrats" are different than "Socialists" are different than "Communists."

I don't see much of a difference between the three.

I just happen to think ensuring everyone has access to water, housing, food, and electricity is a better goal then perpetual conflict. That takes government. Businesses can barely take care of themselves without government help, and war helps no one.

But I'll be the first to admit that Democrats aren't liberal enough for me.

 

[AniHawk]

YOU'RE old!

Only the soothing voice of Sarah Palin can help me now.

 

[scorcho]

Not to mention, Gibson gets the "Bush Doctrine" wrong IMO; it's not about preemptive war--which was considered a "reserved right" but not "doctrine" and technically speaking preemptive strikes are different than the argument for going into Iraq, more a preventative war--it's Bush's judgment that he would make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them.

i wouldn't say it's wrong. there's a difference between using preemption as a policy choice (as another tool in the arsenal) and outlining it as a doctrine by which this is the way things will be done to handle upcoming or current rogue threats. that's now the NSS frames it.

i don't think Gibson misstated it at all.

 

[APF]

ryutaro's mama: brilliant response, I was deeply and emotionally swayed by your convincing lack of content and prolific emoticon usage.

I think most of us saw her initial reaction as a "fuck, I've never heard of this before, try to get the answer out of him"


Cause if he was as wrong as APF says he is, she sure as hell didn't know well enough to correct him.

Whether or not Gibson was right was irrelevant.

Oh clearly she didn't know what Gibson was talking about, and the fact that neither did Gibson doesn't change that.



scorcho: so we've invaded Iran and North Korea? The issue is muddled even in conservative / Republican circles, but I think I'm right viv what actually is "Bush Doctrine" vs ideas they've accepted as valid; saying you reserve the right to do something is not enshrining it as "doctrine," and further preemptive is different than preventative--which is the reason it being considered compulsory is a huge step in aggressive FP.

 

[TheKingsCrown]

APF, you are ridiculous. She was totally forcing herself to talk in such a way as to distract from the meaningless answers she gave. Any intelligent person can see that. Unfortunately, most Americans are not intelligent. But even to them, I would think, she still came across as fake and rehearsed and repetitive.

I'm not even going to critique the particular answers because I think it is of non-consequence to the election at this point until the dems start to show the public her answers vs. "acceptable" answers, or start to show her lack of preparedness. But I will critique the fact that she sounded like someone who was trying to win an argument on tone rather than on actually knowing what they were talking about.

If conservative means taking her pile of bullshit and eating it so that you can argue about it on GAF, APF, then by all means eat it and enjoy your life as a false conservative. A true conservative would want what is best for our country in a vice presidential candidate, and she is not it.

 

[eznark]

I think most of us saw her initial reaction as a "fuck, I've never heard of this before, try to get the answer out of him"


Cause if he was as wrong as APF says he is, she sure as hell didn't know well enough to correct him.

Whether or not Gibson was right was irrelevant.

Oh, I don't care if Gibson was right or not, I took the hesitation to be her trying to make sure she answered only the question he asked, and nothing more. It was a bit of a broad question, and she narrowed it, or attempted to anyway.

Again, I saw it as caution, not stupidity.

Palin didn't and try to use a bullshit Rep rallying statement to "address" his question.

I simply didn't get that from the response. I think it really infers too much.

In the end though, it seems to give Biden a solid spot to hit her in any debates, so in a few weeks we'll see if she has a clue or not. (I'm not saying she is smart, I'm saying claiming she is stupid based on that answer is a stretch)

 

[Learn2read]

McCain Speechwriter Trying To Write Lines That Don't Lead To Creepy Smile

PHOENIX, AZ—According to campaign sources, Joseph Chappel, a 38-year-old speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has spent the last two weeks attempting to combine words and phrases in such a way as to not provoke a tight-jawed, dead-eyed smile from the presidential hopeful. Dreading a repeat of last month's speech to a group of businesswomen in Ohio, during which McCain followed a mention of his wife with an awkward and eerie smirk, Chappel has avoided personal anecdotes for the new speech, omitted any mention of "God" or "this great nation," and cut several phrases that had the potential to draw the 72-year-old candidate's mouth open in a horrifying display of teeth and gums.

"I've managed to make two out of every three sentences a question, but I'm not sure that will help," Chappel said shortly after deleting an introductory paragraph in which McCain welcomes the crowd. "Jesus, that [smile] makes me feel cold inside."

Chappel told reporters that if he is not able to write an appropriate, smile-free speech in time for the Republican National Convention, he will resign his position and return to his previous job, taking photographs of abused children for police reports.

.

 

[scorcho]

:lol at the Koch interview on CNN.

 

[Blackhead]

Wait did ABC edit her answers? I'm seeing cuts when she is talking...

 

[ryutaro's mama]

ryutaro's mama: brilliant response, I was deeply and emotionally swayed by your convincing lack of content and prolific emoticon usage.

I was equally swayed by your fruitless attempt to grasp at the straws necessary to prove a non-existant point.

 

[APF]

APF: "Clearly she didn't know what he was talking about"

GAF: "OMG APF U ARE TEH STUPID U FALSE CONSERVANAZI"

APF: "Uhh"

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I was equally swayed by your fruitless attempt to grasp at the straws necessary to prove a non-existant point.

SLAP FIGHT!!!

No using nails!

APF: "Clearly she didn't know what he was talking about"

GAF: "OMG APF U ARE TEH STUPID U FALSE CONSERVANAZI"

APF: "Uhh"

DAMMIT APF GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF PALIN'S ASS!

*visual sets in*

 

[AniHawk]

I simply didn't get that from the response. I think it really infers too much.

Unlike everyone else here, the "his worldview?" thing tells me that she didn't know what it was more than the "in what respects, Charlie?", which, in another light, makes it sound like she's trying to get a more focused question from Gibson. I think she took it as "Bush's doctrine."

 

[APF]

I'd say most people conflate "Bush's doctrine" with, "The Bush Doctrine," which is what I've been saying.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I think her answer to the "Iraq is a task from God" question was the bigger BS answer she gave. In addition, her being able to see Russia from parts of Alaska does not give her foreign policy experience. I literally laughed out loud when I heard her say that.

 

[AniHawk]

:lol at the Koch interview on CNN.

What's going on?

 

[ryutaro's mama]

In the end though, it seems to give Biden a solid spot to hit her in any debates, so in a few weeks we'll see if she has a clue or not. (I'm not saying she is smart, I'm saying claiming she is stupid based on that answer is a stretch)

I would argue that she is smart (you don't usually stumble into being a Governor) but this is the big stage for all the marbles.

To that end, I see why the Reps are keeping her away from the big bad "sexist" media.

Keep her hidden away and hope for the best.

Oct. 2 isn't going away.

 

[eznark]

Unlike everyone else here, the "his worldview?" thing tells me that she didn't know what it was than the "in what respects, Charlie?" I think she took it as "Bush's doctrine."

Like I said, I will certainly give it another, more critical viewing when I can, specifically looking at the points mentioned.

I think clearly she was simply confused by her recent visits to democraticunderground, where they define the Bush Doctrine as sexing frozen corpses (seriously, that thread existed over there...although it was Cheney who did the sexx0ring) and eating babies. She just wanted to know which Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring to.

To that end, I see why the Reps are keeping her away from the big bad "sexist" media.

This is a serious question as I don't watch a ton of television, but has Obama given many interviews? Does he make the Sunday rounds often? Does McCain? This cycle (and the last actually) feel like the candidates are all giving a lot fewer TV interviews...except Biden, who would appear in EdTV if given the opportunity.

 

[Mahadev]

And it's not just that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was, the rest of the responce is equally stupid.

SP: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic Extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though.

There have been mistakes made. (smacks tongue like a cheerleader) And with new leadership (crinkles nose), and that's the beauty of American elections of course, and democracy as well, (fist pump), and with new leadership...comes opportunity to do things better. ...and the Iraq, like, such as. Right Char-lee?

CG: No. The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.

(her eyes widen and she leans back) That's right!!!

[That] We have a right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

(more confident now)
(deep breath)

Char-lee, if there is legitimate, and ENOUGH intelligence, that tells us that a strike is imminent, against American people, (fist pumping the points home) we have EVERY RIGHT to defend our country. like, such as, the Iran.

CG: (sadface)

 

[capslock]

Only the soothing voice of Sarah Palin can help me now.

I like her, she's folksy.

 

[Mahadev]

APF: "Clearly she didn't know what he was talking about"

GAF: "OMG APF U ARE TEH STUPID U FALSE CONSERVANAZI"

APF: "Uhh"

Yeah that's exactly how it happened. It's not like you used tons of damage control before you got to that point.

 

[deadbeef]

Yeah, I think she probably thought he meant Bush doctrine (or Bush's doctrine), rather than Bush Doctrine. Now, that's not saying that she knew what Bush Doctrine was of course. Either way, it was an uncomfortable exchange, that's for sure.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Like I said, I will certainly give it another, more critical viewing when I can, specifically looking at the points mentioned.

I think clearly she was simply confused by her recent visits to democraticunderground, where they define the Bush Doctrine as sexing frozen corpses (seriously, that thread existed over there...although it was Cheney who did the sexx0ring) and eating babies. She just wanted to know which Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring to.


This is a serious question as I don't watch a ton of television, but has Obama given many interviews? Does he make the Sunday rounds often? Does McCain? This cycle (and the last actually) feel like the candidates are all giving a lot fewer TV interviews...except Biden, who would appear in EdTV if given the opportunity.

He's even appeared with Bill-O.

 

[Huzah]

I don't see much of a difference between the three.

I just happen to think ensuring everyone has access to water, housing, food, and electricity is a better goal then perpetual conflict. That takes government. Businesses can barely take care of themselves without government help, and war helps no one.

But I'll be the first to admit that Democrats aren't liberal enough for me.

Who in America doesn't have access to water, housing, food, and electricity?

War helps noone is strawman.

Businesses can barely take care of themselves is a laughable hyperbole.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Char-lee, if there is legitimate, and ENOUGH intelligence, that tells us that a strike is imminent, against American people, we have EVERY RIGHT to defend our country.

Or Iraq.

We know that having enough intelligence worked out swimmingly in that theater.

She's a reformer!

 

[The Chosen One]

Also Palin's answer to the NATO question while technically correct, it was politically an unsound answer. You don't flat out and say you're willing to go to war with Russia. There's a certain diplomatic tone heads of state should always maintain even when they're speaking on the facts. You don't bring up the prospect of war against a major foreign power unless it's part of a thought-out strategy.

This is why you can't just put anyone within a heart-beat of the presidency. If they don't know what they're talking about, they can inadvertently cause diplomatic tensions. Even if they don't have foreign policy experience, they should at least be well-versed on foreign policy issues like Bill Clinton was and Obama now.

 

[eznark]

He's even appeared with Bill-O.

So besides interviews with joke characters (which is why I specifically mentioned the Sunday shows) has he done much?

 

[artredis1980]

:lol You think Obama would ever reply like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

And this isn't exceptionally bad? Take off the blinders guys.

turn the audio off and you can tell by the way she is sitting and talking she is just putting out words leiberman put into her

 

[AniHawk]

This is a serious question as I don't watch a ton of television, but has Obama given many interviews? Does he make the Sunday rounds often? Does McCain? This cycle (and the last actually) feel like the candidates are all giving a lot fewer TV interviews...except Biden, who would appear in EdTV if given the opportunity.

This week had Obama on This Week (with George Snufaluffagus), The O'Reilly Factor (the final three parts of a four parter that started last week), Countdown with Keith Olbermann (where Obama and I proceeded to fall asleep

Spoiler

I actually did fall asleep

) the Presidential Forum, and that hard-hitter, David Letterman.

McCain did an interview with some local news channel somewhere, the Presidential Forum, and he was on Leno not long ago.

Biden was on Meet the Press.

Palin was on World News with Charlie Gibson.

I think Biden and Obama appeared on Hardball together this week, but I don't remember anyone saying anything about it so it could have been canceled or I might have dreamt it during Countdown.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Who in America doesn't have access to water, housing, food, and electricity?

War helps noone is strawman.

Businesses can barely take care of themselves is a laughable hyperbole.

See the part that I bolded?

This is the part that's wrong.

 

[artredis1980]

So besides interviews with joke characters (which is why I specifically mentioned the Sunday shows) has he done much?

Bill O Rielly
Wolf Blitzer
Joe Scarborough
Mathews
Olbermann
ABC news
etc etc

 

[DenogginizerOS]

John McCain takes Sarah to school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw

 

[Huzah]

I would argue that she is smart (you don't usually stumble into being a Governor) but this is the big stage for all the marbles.

To that end, I see why the Reps are keeping her away from the big bad "sexist" media.

Keep her hidden away and hope for the best.

Oct. 2 isn't going away.

If McCain was 8 years younger this wouldn't really be an issue as McCain is probably one of the stronger FP canidates we have had, for better/worse. Governors usually aren't to good at FP, as they don't deal with national politics much.