« The U.S. Paying More Than 80,000 In Iraq A Salary Not To Kill Or Blow Things Up | Main | Cindy McCain's Dirty Little Secrets »

Palin Gets an 'F' in her Very First Foreign Policy Try

Karl Rove decides on the person to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency... and she doesn't have a frickin' clue... She was a choice made based on polls and demographics, not qualifications.

Peering down at Palin through reading glasses set at the tip of his nose, foot circling over knee ever more impatiently, Gibson, 65, wouldn't let her coast. Yes, she had mastered the pronunciation of Georgia president Mikhail Saakashvili's name, not to mention that of Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And maybe that would have been good enough on ``Good Morning America.''

But no-one had coached her in something called the Bush Doctrine. Doctrine? What doctrine would that be, Charlie?

Palin, 44, apparently never heard of the Bush Doctrine until yesterday. She flashed a smile nearly as frozen as her running- mate's and did that tenth-grader thing of tap-dancing around the question, skittishly ad libbing her way with gibberish about Bush's ``global vision.''

Gibson was having none of it, pressing her for specifics she didn't have at her command and finally -- his glare set to iceberg blue, foot circling like a lasso -- he impatiently explained what the doctrine is, when it was introduced, and gave her another chance to answer.


No wonder they kept her under lock and key, away from the press for all this time. She's a great little teleprompter reader, but the thought of this woman running this nation is so frightening as to be unimaginable. You can see it in her eyes - she hasn't a clue what Gibson is talking about when he asks her about the Bush Doctrine.

Sarah Palin has obviously not paid an ounce of attention on what's been going on in Washington for the eight years under George W. Bush. Senators Obama, Biden and McCain all understand - but differ in their conclusions and approaches as t how to go forward...

But Sarah Palin doesn't have a clue, and is the wrong answer for the White House - the absolute wrong answer, and she proved that in the ABC Gibson interview, and she'll prove it again and again as the real Palin emerges from behind the facade of coiffed one-liners and "I'm such a victim" press releases.

Palin is not ready for the White House.

Watching Palin I felt an uneasiness about her that at first I attributed to her evasiveness and political posturing... she was obviously uncomfortable an that made me uncomfortable.

An expert saw this in Palin's performance:

On The Early Show Friday, body language expert Jo-Ellan Dimitrius said Palin rated about a five on a scale of ten during the interview. As Dimitirius put it, "There were some aspects that could have been better and some that could have been worse."

Dimitrius, who with Wendy Patrick Mazzarella co-wrote the new book, "Reading People: How to Understand People and Predict Their Behavior -- Anytime, Anyplace," told co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez Palin was slouching a bit in the chair. "She's not erect. Most people look at body posture as being a sign of credibility, or professionalism. The way she's hunched over, it also shows a bit of insecurity and a lack of confidence."

Palin didn't come off as being as confident sitting there as she seemed during her speech to the Republican convention, Dimitrius added.

Also, accoridng to Dimitrius, Palin isn't a good listener -- she hurried the conversation.

And she had clenched hands at many points. That, says Dimitrius, is a fighting, defensive stance, also revealing a lack of confidence. It's one of insecurity. She was being protective.

What's more, at times, when Plain was saying "no," she was shaking her head "yes." That, says Dimitirus, indicates she wanted Gibson's approval.



Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.6/5 (7 votes cast)


Comments (26)

Herman:

What do you expect? She's unprepared. And before he made a choice not on who's best qualified to be VP, but on who could help him most in winning back The GOP Base, John McCain himself knew she was unprepared, saying this about himself in late 2007:

"I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." -- John McCain

William Naegele:

Gee, I hope all Libs view this interview as the poster did. Palin was less than smooth -- but would Obama have done any better? As well? All I know is Gibson, whose demeanor during the Palin interview was well described above, asked Obama during a 2007 interview such zingers as "How did you meet your wife?" He certainly never got into Obama's face and demanded "Do you think you have the experience to be president?" Gloat as you will, folks, but by far the biggest loser in this interview was Gibson -- and MSM [yet again]...

Ed:

William Naegele, you demonstrate a severe case of denial, which I might add prevails among conservatives; after all, it's been said that truth has a decidedly liberal bias. Gibson lost? Since when was this a referendum on Charlie Gibson? This was about Palin! She stumbled through her interview with all the grace of a 5 year old trying to explain the laws of quantum physics to Stephen Hawking. Let me tell you something - when the journalist has to take time out of his interview to school the Republican Vice Presidential candidate on what the Bush Doctrine is, that is not a good thing!

And you criticize Obama, a man who stood toe to toe with the sleaziest, loudest, and most domineering tool masquerading as a journalist - Bill O'Reilly - and actually had the guy giggling like a schoolgirl at the prospect of playing basketball with him? You know the difference between Gibson's reaction and O'Reilly's? O'Reilly left the interview with a newfound respect for Obama...

Ray H.:

Gibson was clearly hostile towards Palin, asking questions that were condensending and in the Bush Doctorine example vague. Asking her if she thought she wasn't qualified in one form or another 3 times was assinine and when the "Bush Doctorine" is more then just his thoughts on taking the war on terror to the terrorist, it's a wide encompansing policy that one could spend hours covering all the different pieces. Gibson was clearly continuing to try to get that gotcha moment through out the entire interview. It's one thing to ask questions and probe to get the real answer, but asking vague questions trying to get dirt isn't journalism, it's politically biased crap.

I still don't know who I'm voting for, but unless the candidates and the media really focus on the issues and specifically the what, when, hows of how they will tackle those, I'll vote for Kevin. If Gibson's interview of Palin helped you make your decision, you are just as blinded by liberal propaganda as anyone on Fox may be conservatively biased.

Lanie:

HAHAHAHAHA!

Keep it up you Looney Libs!

Your HATE SPEECH will guarantee a McCain landslide.

Dan S.:

I thought Palin did pretty good. Not really seeing the problem with her that you all are. I'm almost 40, voted for Bush twice, have a college degree, and I couldn't for the life of me tell you what the Bush Doctrine was nor give two craps about it.

How well did John Edwards do with his grilling under Charles Gibson in 2004? How many times did Edwards have to answer the question of whether or not he felt qualified to be VP?

Sloan:

I'm a long-time conservative and I had only a hunch as to what the "Bush Doctrine" was...had to look it up as well. Turns out my hunch was right, but it appears that the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is largely a media contrivance and is not often used by administration officials...if ever (I couldn't find any examples in Google, but it was a quick search and there were a lot of links).

Perhaps Gibson would have done better to phrase the question this way: "Can you outline the President's policy toward terrorists and the nations that sponsor them?"

Johnny:

I think Sarah Palin presented herself well and she speaks clearly.

It is her support of non-abortion (even if raped, incest or danger of mother), no sex education in school, no condoms and she is religious (go to church, read the bible and prays) and loves guns ofcourse, that is just too extreme for me.

Her views are from the dark ages. Can her old views really appeal to any woman in America?

I hope not.

Doubting Thomas:

Ed -

"it's been said that truth has a decidedly liberal bias"

Truth doesn't HAVE a bias, one way or the other. That's like saying 'reality' has a liberal or conservative bias - it's simply not affected by what you think or what biases you put on it, regardless of what you'd want it to be.

I've been paying attention to politics closely, and like Palin, if someone asked me what the "Bush Doctrine" was, I'd need further clarification of what aspect they were referring to.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"I've been paying attention to politics closely, and like Palin, if someone asked me what the "Bush Doctrine" was, I'd need further clarification of what aspect they were referring to.

You absolutely nailed it, doubting thomas -- you and Sarah Palin are equally unqualified for the job of Vice-President or President.

Doubting Thomas:

Ah, but the devil's in the details - the 'Bush Doctrine' has been defined as various things at various times. So which 'Bush Doctrine' would be the 'right one' according to Gibson?

My thought would be - whatever she DIDN'T say.

Of course, that would be your pick also, wouldn't it?

Does this mean YOU are suitable for the VPship, Lee? Maybe you can run on the same ticket as Paul H - and mandate scrapping cars to save energy and replace them with government-supplied electric scooters.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Gibson gave a decent summary - Sarah Palin didn't. She didn't give any relevant definition and just "tap danced" around the question.

She clearly did not have a clue what the f*ck Gibson was talking about, and for a candidate that is frigging pathetic.

I had never heard of the "Bush Doctirne" so I googled it and this came up on wikipedia (Not a definitive source, but a good starting point)

"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."

So it's not an offcial U.S. doctrine, like the Monroe Doctrine, but a term used by the media. No wonder I didn't know what it was. And no wonder that Gov. Palin didn't know either.

DaveD:

Dwayne,
Thank you for the clarification. I agree Wikipedia may not be a definitive source but it will be accepted here. Lee himself has quoted it in the past.

DaveD:

By the way, as a person who will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, I feel Ms. Palin should always be ready to face this sort of questioning. There is no excuse. The past two weeks have been a feeding frenzy of lies and distortions by the MSM and I feel the Gibson interview was softball. She was less than impressive in my mind but I have not lost any confidence in her ability to serve this nation as vice president. In fact, I hope she (and the McCain staff) take a "put me in again coach, I'll be even better next time" kind of approach. The more of these she does now the more I believe she will hone her skills for the televised debate. Even if she were doing well now, if she flubs her debate with Biden on TV I feel that would be a killer. To cloister her would serve her poorly in the stretch. Let her take a few lumps. The fact that the polling is still close in the face of a currently unpopular president shows the public is not sold on the Democrats. Heck, Pelosi's desire to sit on an entire session's agenda and do nothing means Obama's short term tenure is in a legislative body which has done basically zilch. McCain is not constrained by that problem. He's been around a while. I say put Palin in front of some more interviewers. If she improves as I expect she will the past will mean nothing. I know folks whose votes are sitting on the fence for this election and they want see her do well. I think the McCain campaign should study the editing job, learn from it and keep putting her out there.

D.D.Mao:

Yeah? Like the top of the other ticket knows more or is more qualified? LMAO

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"No wonder I didn't know what it was. And no wonder that Gov. Palin didn't know either."

Yes, you're both equally uninformed and equally unqualified for the job of VP or Pres.

I assure you McCain knows what it is (although in light of Palin's flub he might pretend he doesn't) -- and I absolutely assure you Obama and Biden know what it is.

In fact, my 81 year old father knows what it is, and so does my 22 year old daughter.

But there are a lot of uniformed voters out there who voted for George Bush in 2004 without even knowing what the guys' world view was -- and obviously Sarah Palin is one of those uninformed voters.

At least know you guys are admitting that she hasn't a clue of what it meant, and you're just trying to convince yourselves that it doesn't matter that she didn't know -- that's an improvement.

DaveD:

The media is failing at this point to tie McCain to Bush. Now Palin is the target. I don't think Gibson expected Palin's initial answer to his question about the "Bush Doctrine" to ask for a clarification but he did well enough with it because it is a media term which I am sure he has used frequently. Palin needs to better avoid this trap of the media trying to tie her to Bush, ie, the past. So, she needs to learn to say something like, "in our administration or policy will be..." The libs will go ape shit and claim she is dodging the question but the public is not going to care a with about that one. For crying out loud, how can a mere mortal like McCain still be polling so close to someone who is the savior of our past sins and our brightest hope for the future? I can't figure it out but according to the savior's disciple we are just idiots.

Mike:

Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine," says in this Washington Post piece that there have been four "Bush Doctrines" during the last 8 years:

1) The early Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that Krauthammer coined the "Bush doctrine."

2) Immediately following 9/11, Bush declared, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

3) In announcing his plan to remove Saddam Hussein by use of military force, Bush established that the US would not hesitate to use force in order to neutralize threats before they become imminent.

4) After the Iraq invasion, Bush declared that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.

It's doubtful that Charles Gibson actually thought this question through enough to realize that Palin could have answered in respect to any one of these four "doctrines." Gibson is clearly the one who got "owned," not Palin.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"It's doubtful that Charles Gibson actually thought this question through enough to realize that Palin could have answered in respect to any one of these four "doctrines."

If Palin had touched on any of the Bush Doctrine's facets in her answer it would not be so blatantly obvious that she hasn't a clue.

Any of the many areas of the Bush doctrine would have been fine for her to address and elaborate on, but Palin simply didn't know what the frack Gibson wasn't talking about -- not a clue.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:
Kelly Eisenhour:

Before you all make decisions on how well Palin did or not, you ought to hear her FULL answers that were left on the cutting room floor. It seems to me that ABC did an edit job that was very unfair, and did not allow us as listeners a full view of what Palin really said. Sometimes she was cut in mid-sentence. Very unfair and it seemed to me, they were trying to paint her in a certain light. You can find a link to the full transcript here:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Let her answers be heard. If you still think she did badly, so be it. At least hear the woman out.


Joe:

"Gibson gave a decent summary - Sarah Palin didn't."

Gibson's 'decent summary' was, at best, incomplete. At worst, he was flat -out wrong.

ClassicGirl79:

Y'know, as soon as I saw the infamous exchange, I called it - I just KNEW there would be people who would completely miss the point and argue, "Well, I didn't know what it was, either!"

I first thought I'd respond to those people by saying, "Yeah, but you're not running for Vice President of the United States!"

Unfortunately, I think I have to conclude that this is part of Palin's appeal. It's her, as Colbert would say, "truthiness." She makes people feel that if she can be "qualified" to be VP, then any ignorant hillbilly with a (former) sportscaster smile can!

Did anyone else happen to giggle when she repeated the same answer, damn near verbatim, when Gibson pushed her on the whole "Israel/Iran" hypothetical?

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

I can't be the only person who thought of that moment in "True Lies" - Rewind the tape, play it again... Ha! :-)

Chuck:

This is the first time I have seen "Wizbang". It appears that Mr. Ward is as "brilliant" as most liberal tools.

Shelby:

"It is her support of non-abortion (even if raped, incest or danger of mother), no sex education in school, no condoms and she is religious (go to church, read the bible and prays) and loves guns ofcourse, that is just too extreme for me."

Really? Killing babies is ok... so when do we start killing off the old people or the ignorant ones like you Johnny?

No sex ed in school... since when do you need 6th graders to know exactly how sex works. I'm sure the line "Don't have sex... Here's a condom." works quite well with teens. "Don't do it, but when you do... use one of these." That's like telling a child "Don't play with guns, but if you do... here's a first aid kit."

Religion is now extreme... do you realize that your non belief in God is also religion?

Have you even been to Alaska or Texas... guns are apart of life buddy... taking guns away from citizens, won't take them away from gangs, mobs, terrorists, or criminals. But maybe you are right, maybe we should all just sit here and let them take over!

I never would have thought that believing that babies lives are worth something, that sex is not just a game...it's to make children (which by the way if kids weren't told that having sex was ok then you would probably have alot fewer women even contemplating abortion in the first place), having actual morals and beliefs, and having no problem with guns would be extreme.

You seriously need a reality check.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.