Now the AP poll has McCain ahead too. Uh-oh, Dems.Follow

I'm watching the interview now,

She avoids answering questions well enough, and when she navigates to "our troops" she starts regurgitating this meaningless crap in this annoying mothering voice, like she's looking round the PTA meeting daring someone to contradict her.

She thinks that Russia's attack on Georgia was unprovoked. LOL

She can see Russia.

She can't pronounce Nuclear.

He asks her what she'd do about Iran, and she spends 30 secs saying "you've got to put the pressure on Iran". @#%^ing genius.

She wouldn't mind Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities pre-emptively, and when asked repeatedly if the government would support it or not she repeats "We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself" like a malfunctioning presidroid.

"islamic believers"? Huh, apparently the people who bombed the WTC didn't agree with American ideals. She's still conducting the interview like Gibson is a 7 year old.

She thinks if the govt. believes the US faces an imminent threat then you should attack pre-emptively. It's like Iraq never happened.

She's a decent political interviewee. She repeats this obvious crap like she's actually answering his question, chugging along on her railroad and refusing to stop however many times he points it she's not telling him anything.

It's ROOT not ROWT

He asks "do you still believe global warming is not man made?". So she definitely did at one point? And she answers "man's actions CAN be contributing to climate change". "We need to do all we can to cut down on pollution"? Pollution =/= C02 emissions. She's not giving anything like an opinion, she looks like she's going to cry and is so far only admitting that climate change is happening. Oh, oh she admits to "Some of mans activities potentially causing some of the changes that are happening right now".

Look, he's backed down and she's smiling again.

Mindnumbing, 3/10 being generous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c <-- that's how you do a tough interview

Edited, Sep 13th 2008 4:54pm by Youshutup

And they're tied in the Newsweek poll! And the Hotline/FD poll has Obama +1!!!

By "gaining momentum", you mean "it's the same story it was on Monday"?

Palin did a complete deer-in-the-headlights over "Bush doctrine". The Pubbies are spinning it anywhere from "If you asked a bajillion-thousand people what the Bush Doctrine was, I bet none of them could tell you!" to "There's so many versions of the incredibily nuanced and complex Bush Doctrine that she couldn't possibly answer!!"

In reality, watching the video makes it obvious: She didn't have a clue. She was fishing for clues to bullsh*t her way out like any high school student caught text-messaging and asked to describe the stages of cellular mitosis. Charlie had to spoon-feed her the answer after a couple of failed tries and she was just floundering with non-answers until he finally spelled it out for her.

"His... world view?"

Edited, Sep 13th 2008 11:01am by Jophiel

The same one referred to 71 times on the White House website.You're not exactly my benchmark for what a VP is allowed to be ignorant of.Nothing vague about it.A good VP candidate would have known what the term meant. Palin wasn't coached on it during her foreign policy force-feeding and she completely fumbled it.Of course she can. She was completely ignorant of one of the major aspects of the administration's foreign policy decisions for the past seven years or so. She quite obviously only knows what her handlers have told her regarding foreign policy and is incapable of answering anything else via her own independent understanding.

I understand that you need to be apologetic for all her obvious failings but maybe you should just embrace her ignorance as "folksy" or something rather than trying to lamely excuse it.

Edited, Sep 13th 2008 11:46am by Jophiel

How much you wanna bet one of the foreign policy coaches is getting fired by her over this?



Remember guys, the polls mean **** for several reasons:

1. "Likely voters" don't include people who have registered and never voted before, or registered in the last few months. The Dems massive voter registration for the last six months means that there are approximately 3 million new registered Dems that aren't considered among those likely voters. Even if only half of em make it to the polls, that's still 1.5 million more Dem votes. And you can bet we're all going to be doing massive get out the vote efforts as well (I'm gonna be taking a day off work to drive people around.)

2. Obama's target demographics are the least likely to actually answer a phone poll. We use cell phones and half of us don't even have a land line (the only reason we do is that the DSL service around here is better than the cable.) And those that do have a land line tend to have some sort of call blocking or screening process. We let our answering machine answer every single call. Our friends know to leave a message like, "Hello guys, I know you're there, pick up the damn phone." Pull poll surveys just disconnect the line. With cell phones, if the number is Unknown or unfamiliar, we tend to let it skip to voicemail -- if it's important, they'll leave a message or send a txt.

3. It's the electoral college, stupid.

I dunno if she did well enough that they'll let her be interviewed again.

The Monroe Doctrine was Monroe's worldview, right? And the Roosevelt Corollary was Roosevelt's opinion about Monroe's worldview, right? Right?

We had to do a brief satire in one of my classes and I picked Palin. One of my points was that the extent of her foreign policy experience is being able to see Russia.

HI-larious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc3Zxq078ns

cnn shows it is 46-46. a dead heat.

it is still obamas to loose. after the dnc he went up to 50 from 48, but down to 46 after the rnc and the tirade of obama smashing that the repubs take for "discussing the issues".

palins shine is starting to dull, especially after her first interview that left her looking clueless.

regualrdless, unless obama makes a terrible mistake, or mccain suddenly finds an issue ti really shine in, other than obama smashing that is, if things basically remain the same untill nov 4th, its obamas election to loose.

he only needs to win EITHER florida, ohio, or the three toss up states to win.

mccan needs to win BOTH florida, ohio AND one of the toss up states to win.

the ball is in obamas court to win or loose baring some major upset one way or another. he is currently 5 points ahead in ohio right now.

While this may be true some of the time, I think you are wrong in this instance. I didn't watch the interview at the original time of airing, but after reading about her blunders and missteps on the internet, hearing about it on NPR and seeing the spoof of her on SNL, I just had to watch it to see how bad she actually was.

And I wasn't disappointed.

More to the point, people love to see someone balls something up. And once the word was out that this wasn't Palin's best effort, I suspect that MANY people watched the interview.

The fact that you post here and discuss political issues puts you into that 1% category. I'll also assume that you also fall into the "going to vote Obama no matter what" category as well...


As to the interview. What exactly did she do or say that you consider a "blunder". I'm honestly curious since I watched the interview and while there were a couple spots where I felt she missed the opportunity to provide a better answer, I certainly didn't see anything I'd categorize as a blunder.



You're missing a huge component though. Where would that word come out from? Liberal leaning blogs on the internet? That's *not* the target audience that Palin is attempting to appeal to.

So you're definitely not in the "99% of the voting public" group then. ;)




Actually, the painful bit for me was how blatant Gibson was about digging for specific responses he wanted to hear. It's rare to see an interview where the interviewer repeats the exact same question 8 or 10 times because he clearly didn't get the answer he wanted, but doesn't seem interested in challenging or questioning the answer that was given.

You're correct that it's subjective. If you were inclined against Palin you'd see that as Palin giving such a bad answer that Gibson didn't even bother to acknowledge it but just repeated the question again to give her another chance. If you were inclined towards Palin, you saw him being so focused on "getting her" that he really wasn't listening to what she said at all. He wasn't responding to what she said and then adjusting his line of questioning to it, but just ignoring any answer from her that didn't fit what he thought the answer should be (or what he wanted it to be).


That's how I saw it though. So did the two other people watching it with me at the time. Of course, they're both conservatives too, so go figure!


I will certainly grant that she didn't redirect the questions with as much skill as she should have. But that's not really about skill at being in front of a camera and general public speaking. There's a very specific methodology used by Washington reporters that is unlike anything you'll see in any other field of journalism. As I suggested earlier, the focus tends to be on soundbites, not the substance of the interview itself.




Possibly. But that still doesn't really mean much. You said you wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Um... How many political interviews have you ever seen before? Can you honestly say you're comparing her performance in that format to other politicians? Or are you using some other form of measuring stick here?


I guess what I'm getting at is that the process you're describing is somewhat self fulfilling. You hear she did poorly, so you watch the interview and then think she did poorly. If you'd heard she did very well but Gibson was an idiot, you'd have seen a very different performance, right? So people's perception of the interview itself is going to vary based on the mindset they approach it from. So those on the right, who may have heard about it on some conservative talk show, will not see the same thing you saw. I can't say what radio station you listen to or what newspaper you read, but can I guess that it's not the same sources that joe random mainstream US voter is going to hear or read?


Most people aren't that tuned in to politics. They'll see the clips from the interview after the fact. And in those clips, they'll edit out the fact that Gibson asks the same question over and over, leaving one question and one answer for each topic essentially (with maybe a followup her and there). Once you trim the interview in that way it doesn't look at all like she's unsure or unsteady. What appears as dogmatic recitation of a party line in the full interview looks like a smart and ready answer to each question. And *that's* what most US voters are going to see out of this interview.