Seattle Bubble Forum Archive

What's the matter with Sarah?

Answer here: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/200 ... 3opi3.html
(From Austrailia)

Why does anyone doubt her ability to speak in front of a large audience? She's been doing it successfully for 25 years. If there's an ability we shouldn't be doubting, this is it. Clinton, Obama, Reagan - they could talk. McCain, W, Quayle, Gore - they aren't/weren't as good. Palin is clearly in the category with the former group and not the latter.

As for the substance of what she's saying.... well, that's a different story.

Just gets better and better. This one hits VERY close to home:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... l_election

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html

This thing just has to age to "perfection".

Y'know, a president is judged by the advisors he surrounds himself with. Obama continues to demonstrate that he is utterly unqualified.

His whole campaign should be called the "gaff a day" campaign. This is utter incompetence on display. I should know, I am a business analyst. You don't just throw this stuff out there without consequences:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... -injuries/

This is an excellent compilation done by a guy at Freerepublic. He just listed the questions by Gibson (not the answers by the interviewee) so one can compare what he asked Obama to what he asked Palin: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081560/posts

It is not about how each candidate answered he questions. It was about the form and substance each one was asked. It is quite revealing. I interpret this list of questions in the context of the simple fact that in both cases the US needed to learn who exactly the person being questioned was. Neither had been vetted much.

Enjoy.

edit: for those who don't want to read much, just look at the first question asked of both candidates.

And to amplify, wouldn't it have been nice if Gibson had started Obama off with the same challenge he shot to Palin. Sorta sets the mood, don't it just.