Not true. She was using what is called the "broken record" response. It is a very effective interview tool. What it communicates to the other person is that they are getting all the answer out of me on this that you are going to. http://workhelp.org/content/view/87/64/
I use it when dealing with adversaries from time to time. It is very effective when used properly and beats Um, ah, well, charlie, um, we must be supportive, and, uh, but, the middle east, um, you, know....
Now THAT is a blizzard of words.
You're mistaken in this case. The "broken record" response is only meaningful as a way to tell someone you are refusing to actually answer their question. When is that the right response? If you are a pro athlete accused of taking steroids, you use this response. If you are anyone famous accused of cheating on your spouse.
This was a valid (and might I add within the realm of possibility) policy question, and she filibustered. That means she knew she didn't have any good response, so she dodged the question.
Actually she answered the question and I liked her answer. She switched to "broken record" when the other party kept drilling for more info and her answer technique made it clear that Charlie was not getting any more. It takes a lot of discipline to do it. She did it and I was impressed. I firmly believe it would have been inapropriate, under the circumstances, and withn the context of current events and her position (she is not the president) to elaborate. One does not set specific policy in an interview like this. She stated her philosophical position, if she were to become president, and that is all they are gonna get. And that is all they SHOULD expect from a non-stumble-bumbling pro.
But out of curiosity, what answer would have pleased you?
"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She's a governor of a state where 20% of America's energy supply comes from there. And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending $700 billion of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue."And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia."
1) doubt she knows more about energy than anyone in the country. Perhaps knows more about Alaska's oil production.
2) Alaska is where 20% of the oil our country produces comes from. Not total energy.
3) I CAN'T BELIEVE HE ACTUALLY SAID THE NEXT TO RUSSIA THING!!!!!!!! A COUNTRY SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO!!!!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!
Actually, it DOES matter. You may want to check what direct relations she has had with Canada as well.
However, if I were McCain and I was asked, "What experience does she have in the field of national security?", my response would be, "Compared to whom?" If they said "Obama", I would trot out her experience with the national guard and point out that the experience difference between the two is staggering. She held an executive position. He was a senator, a representative for a state. Two completely different jobs with different challenges. And with a Governor, the buck stops there. Not so with a senator.
That is why most of our presidents are ex-governors.
Honestly, I've never heard anything about any direct relations that she has with Russia. Have you? I'd love to see them.
They are close to Russia, but there is still an ocean in between the two countries. It makes more sense that she had a relationship with Canada, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Russia. And this is something that keeps on getting brought up by the republican side. They have nothing more to say about her foriegn policy experience than "she is gol darn close to Russia, ain't she?". If she had actual dealings with Russia, then why have we not heard about them? Please show me if they exist.
Also on experience, she's not running for prez. She's running for Vice. I'd take Biden's experience over hers anyday.
Honestly, I've never heard anything about any direct relations that she has with Russia. Have you? I'd love to see them.
First, wnenever I hear people ask about any candidates qualifications, I always think of it within the context of "compared to the other side". Jan Ullrich was an excellent cyclist and if he had been born just a touch sooner or later, He could have won some tours. But He was competing with Lance Armstrong. If only.
Sarah is Obama's Lance...
Likewise, I always laugh when people ask about her foreign relations experience I look at Obama and even Biden and say, "huh?". Do they really want to go there? And THEY are the ones going there.
And how about Obama's (or Biden's) experience. What did they negotiate from across the table with any foreign dignitaries?
They are close to Russia, but there is still an ocean in between the two countries. It makes more sense that she had a relationship with Canada, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Russia. And this is something that keeps on getting brought up by the republican side. They have nothing more to say about her foriegn policy experience than "she is gol darn close to Russia, ain't she?". If she had actual dealings with Russia, then why have we not heard about them? Please show me if they exist.
Also on experience, she's not running for prez. She's running for Vice. I'd take Biden's experience over hers anyday.
Yeah, Biden has exposed how deep his experience is every time he opens his mouth. It may be very "wide", but "deep" it aint.
Do you realize just how historic this election is? When was the last time you remember the collective perspective of the country from BOTH sides is that one party's Pres nominee is running against the other party's VP nominee? This is the most fun I've ever had during an election cycle.
Just an aside since only political junkies would still be in this thread.
We had over a week of coverage on Obama's pastor.
Palin's Pastor has said some pretty interesting things as well, but is anyone hearing anything about it on TV? From the Huffington post:
But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."
Let's see how she does in the debate with Biden. [/quote]
On the first one, she has no control over the Coast Guard. How does this speak to her experience?
On the 2nd one, Bush and Putin have a semi-friendly relationship as well. Besides, Dick Cheney is a hunter too. That certainly didn't help in negotiations about Georgia, did it? And is it a good idea to say that war with Russia is a good idea when they're sending bombers to venezuela?
On the 3rd one, I'm assuming those are not national guard fighters that are talked about in the last paragraph where there is a brief mention of Alaska. Therefore, she had nothing to do with any of those exercizes. She hasn't done anything with the National Guard since she's been Governor remember.
On the 4th one, that's the first that I've heard anyone say anything about actual diplomatic contact with Russia, other than proximity. I'd be interested to know actual detail about her dealings with Russia on this issue.
Here's an article I found from the Boston Globe about her experience:
Not true. She was using what is called the "broken record" response. It is a very effective interview tool. What it communicates to the other person is that they are getting all the answer out of me on this that you are going to. http://workhelp.org/content/view/87/64/
I use it when dealing with adversaries from time to time. It is very effective when used properly and beats Um, ah, well, charlie, um, we must be supportive, and, uh, but, the middle east, um, you, know....
Now THAT is a blizzard of words.
But she did not stammer, she did not stutter. She did not look for words. She nailed it, virtually verbatim, both times. She is a pro.
Regarding the particular question, it would have been HIGHLY inappropriate to go into more detail and Charlie and she both knew it. He was going for yet another "gotcha" moment and hit a brick wall. He was clearly, yet again, irritated with his inability to rattle her.
It is very clear people interpret these interviews through the lens of their pre-conceived perceptions of the world and our culture. I suppose that is why every candidate for every office, no matter how lunatic fringe they are, will get SOME votes.
Why didn't she just say it was "highly inappropriate to go into more detail?" And why would it have been? Am I the only one here who actually wants to know what the US might do in a situation like that? In the realm of things that might start wars, Israel and Iran seem like two pretty touchy points these days. (Speaking of wars, her misunderstanding of the Georgia-Russia conflict was also eye-opening. I can't wait for Palin to use the "broken-record" technique on Putin.)
Yes, she didn't stutter. Or "Look for words." You know why? Because she wasn't thinking! That's the point here. She heard "Israel-Iran." She went into the memory banks and found a semi-appropriate response (that actually didn't really answer the question). And when pressed for a real response, she just repeated the same line. She does the same thing in response to a question about the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. And I think she accidentally picked the complete wrong response to the question about the Bush Doctrine.
Charlie Gibson was not her adversary. He was hand picked by the McCain campaign. He was giving her a chance to talk about something substantial after 2 weeks of the press talking about Bristol and Trig (which, as far as conspiracies go, is a rather strange one). Yes, surprise! People want to know more.
I wonder when McCain will let her out of the box of learning again.
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
I'm still completely surprised that no one in the MSM is reporting about Georgia starting this conflict. I mean, it has been a couple of years in the making, but the Bush Administration had been urging Georgia for months not to bomb Osettia, and they did it anyway. Russia had peacekeepers in there that were killed by the bombing. What was Russia supposed to do?
now, Russia was in the wrong by going into Georgia and by not pulling out right away, but will someone please report the truth on this one?
I pointed this out after McCain's speech, where he made similar claims (loosely "Russia invaded a tiny democratic neighbor to gain control of more of the world's oil supply"). Everyone gave him a free pass on it, just like everything else he's throwing at the wall, and Palin simply rehashed his story.
Nobody seems to bother with the details of the conflict, notably that Georgia started it.
Yeah, on the Russia/Georgia conflict, I still can't believe that most people don't know that Georgia started it.
Granted, I will say that I do believe that Russia knew it was going to happen and was just waiting for it as an excuse to go in and mess up Georgia badly. That still doesn't excuse Georgia for bombing Osettia and starting the problem.
On the first one, she has no control over the Coast Guard. How does this speak to her experience?
On the 2nd one, Bush and Putin have a semi-friendly relationship as well. Besides, Dick Cheney is a hunter too. That certainly didn't help in negotiations about Georgia, did it? And is it a good idea to say that war with Russia is a good idea when they're sending bombers to venezuela?
On the 3rd one, I'm assuming those are not national guard fighters that are talked about in the last paragraph where there is a brief mention of Alaska. Therefore, she had nothing to do with any of those exercizes. She hasn't done anything with the National Guard since she's been Governor remember.
On the 4th one, that's the first that I've heard anyone say anything about actual diplomatic contact with Russia, other than proximity. I'd be interested to know actual detail about her dealings with Russia on this issue.
Here's an article I found from the Boston Globe about her experience:
This article fleshes out much better what her experience with US military and the National Guard "experience" actually is.
And I'm very much looking forward to all of the debates. They're going to be great entertainment![/quote]
I am not trying to argue she has "lots" of experience. After all, few presidential hopefuls do/did before being elected. That is one reason they have advisors. I was pointing out that she was not a complete babe-in-the-woods as some want to imply or, in the case of the MSM try to get joe sixpack to infer.
Most presidents were former governors. Most of them did not have the "foreign relations" experience of 100 term senators, but what experience they did have still trumped it.
Like we say in computer development, some guys have ten years experience, but it is really the same year repeated ten times. IOW, I am more interested in actual accomplishment and, more importantly, their ability to learn fast. Sarah has aced that test.
Why didn't she just say it was "highly inappropriate to go into more detail?"
Yes, she could have said that, but he would have pressed further anyway. This was an adversarial interview. The whole point of the broken record is to help the questioner realize, both consciously and uncounsciously, that they are wasting their time. The fact that it worked was clearly evident in his exasperated response.
And why would it have been? Am I the only one here who actually wants to know what the US might do in a situation like that?
No you're not. Iran would also like to know. International relations is a mix of chess and poker. You do not show all your cards. Even when the other side folds you don't show all your cards. Knowledge is power.
In the realm of things that might start wars, Israel and Iran seem like two pretty touchy points these days.
Which is why she was "brief" in her response.
Yes, she didn't stutter. Or "Look for words." You know why? Because she wasn't thinking! That's the point here.
Um, no. I've been interviewed in front of a large audience. It is very stressful. When you are a presidential candidate, or important political figure of any kind, everyone (especially your opponents and their surrogates) disects every paragraph, sentence, word looking for anything they can twist or use to attack you. It is happening on this very thread, for example.
Your mind can turn to mush - it can absolutely lock up to the point you don't remember your name (especially if a few million people are watching). An obvious sign of this is the Obama um, ah, you know verbal dance. You can sweat profusely and your voice can be audibly quivering and you can get the shakes so bad people can see your pant legs vibrating. I've seen it plenty of times. When I was younger I even experienced it myself on more than one occasion. Her composure was a thing of beauty to those who deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. She clearly shocked the hell out of Charlie. He is the one here that is highly experienced in verbally skewering interviewees and tripping them up. It was a complete failure for him and he was visibly affected.
Her clear responses showed (to anyone who has had experience with it) an unbelieveable ability to stay cool under fire (without a teleprompter) and still give coherent answers without doing the Obama stutter dance. That is quite literally the inverse to "not thinking". It is, frankly, brilliance and I have NEVER seen it in a politician at this level, even from Reagan or Bill Clinton. I believe she could stare down any world leader this particular planet has to offer.
Charlie Gibson was not her adversary.
Either you didn't watch the video or that is the best joke quote of the day. But don't worry, you'll get plenty of chances to hear her in interviews and press conferences in the next couple of months. It'll be fun!
Just to clarify where I stand on this, she did not score 100% on the interview, but neither did she on the convention speech. She didn't have to. To use one of my favorite phrases, "strive for excellence, not perfection". Her performance was WAY ahead of whoever is in second place. It was indeed "excellent"!
Yeah, on the Russia/Georgia conflict, I still can't believe that most people don't know that Georgia started it.
Granted, I will say that I do believe that Russia knew it was going to happen and was just waiting for it as an excuse to go in and mess up Georgia badly. That still doesn't excuse Georgia for bombing Osettia and starting the problem.
I like your "lets look at both sides here" response.
It sounds as though you are saying, if I may paraphrase, that Georgia was like a person being verbally egged on by a bully and as long as they kept their cool they would have been fine, but they couldn't keep their composure and took a swing. They were then summarily pummeled by the bully. Does that get the kernel of it?
Yeah, on the Russia/Georgia conflict, I still can't believe that most people don't know that Georgia started it.
Granted, I will say that I do believe that Russia knew it was going to happen and was just waiting for it as an excuse to go in and mess up Georgia badly. That still doesn't excuse Georgia for bombing Osettia and starting the problem.
I like your "lets look at both sides here" response.
It sounds as though you are saying, if I may paraphrase, that Georgia was like a person being verbally egged on by a bully and as long as they kept their cool they would have been fine, but they couldn't keep their composure and took a swing. They were then summarily pummeled by the bully. Does that get the kernel of it?
I think it does essentially. I mean, this has been trouble brewing for a couple of years now and US diplomats were telling Georgia constantly not to do what they ended up doing. So they went against our countries advice, cried uncle and we went running to their aid.
I think that Russia blew it pretty bad on this. I mean, they could've come out of this looking like heroes. Georgia coming in and bombing civilians and all. If they had just gone and booted Georgia out of Osettia, they could've made a great case for themselves. Made a good case to the world (right or wrong mind you) about the US military support of aggressive nations. But by rolling into Georgia and destroying a bunch of the infrastructure there, they really blew it.
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.
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.
That is where someones political vision comes in. Because her vision matches mine, I LIKE the content. If I were pro-abortion, pro-nationalized health care, pro-"yes man is causing it"-global warming, pro-big government, pro-cun gontrol, I would not like her at all. In fact she would scare the crap out of me, literally, because the republicans ARE gonna win this one. In my entire life it has never been so obvious as in this election cycle.
I very much like her track record and I very much like what she says.
I also disagree with you regarding Obama being able to talk. He can't. Unless he has a teleprompter. He gaffs pretty much daily without one.
It is, frankly, brilliance and I have NEVER seen it in a politician at this level, even from Reagan or Bill Clinton. I believe she could stare down any world leader this particular planet has to offer.
Guys we are being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for it.
It is, frankly, brilliance and I have NEVER seen it in a politician at this level, even from Reagan or Bill Clinton. I believe she could stare down any world leader this particular planet has to offer.
Guys we are being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for it.
Nope. It is quite sincere. It does demonstrate the utter cultural divide going on in this country though. We differ so strongly that you think I MUST be baiting you. I'm not!
But I will add that I am one of those that believe there is a high probability that there will be major riots in some of our cities when Obama loses. The real question is just how major will they be and how many cities? Detroit, LA and Cincinatti for sure!
It is, frankly, brilliance and I have NEVER seen it in a politician at this level, even from Reagan or Bill Clinton. I believe she could stare down any world leader this particular planet has to offer.
Guys we are being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for it.
Nope. It is quite sincere. It does demonstrate the utter cultural divide going on in this country though. We differ so strongly that you think I MUST be baiting you. I'm not!
But I will add that I am one of those that believe there is a high probability that there will be major riots in some of our cities when Obama loses. The real question is just how major will they be and how many cities? Detroit, LA and Cincinatti for sure!
I think the only way riots are coming is if Obama loses in 2000 fashion. I don't think the blowout that you predict would raise the same feelings. Anyway, I certainly hope not. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
I think the only way riots are coming is if Obama loses in 2000 fashion. I don't think the blowout that you predict would raise the same feelings. Anyway, I certainly hope not. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
I firmly agree it would not be good for anyone. The Watts riots were not good for anyone. Still happened though.
This one does not even need to be close for them to riot. In fact, a blowout could more guarantee it. It could cause a very powerful feeling of disenfranchisement. Lots of people seriously believe that 911 was orchestrated by our government or Israel. In that vein, never underestimate people's ability to delude themselves into believing that even a rout was caused by voter fraud.
Do you realize just how historic this election is? When was the last time you remember the collective perspective of the country from BOTH sides is that one party's Pres nominee is running against the other party's VP nominee? This is the most fun I've ever had during an election cycle.
What's even crazier about this election is that the republican VP is now running against the republican presidential candidate. McCain rallies are not filling up unless Palin is included...
FWIW, I watched at least part of the Gibson/Palin interview. I found Palin uninspiring...again. She doesn't really know her stuff, but then Bush didn't when he won the general in 2000 so who's to say that fact even matters. Actually, she kind of reminded me of a typical middle aged mother answering questions.
I see her as being kind of like a new republican toy. They love her just because she's new and shiny. Eventually the lipstick will wear off this particular pit bull (or is it a pig?) and she won't be so compelling anymore.
That is where someones political vision comes in. Because her vision matches mine, I LIKE the content. If I were pro-abortion, pro-nationalized health care, pro-"yes man is causing it"-global warming, pro-big government, pro-cun gontrol, I would not like her at all. In fact she would scare the crap out of me, literally, because the republicans ARE gonna win this one. In my entire life it has never been so obvious as in this election cycle.
Is that vision? It sounds like just causes to me. Personally, I'm abortion agnostic, for nationalized preventative health care (let's provide the yearly checkups/generic medication/dental appointments, and then encourage people to buy their own insurance for only the really big things), I accept the fact that man is increasing the global temperature, for smaller government, and for gun control. Guess what, none of those are why she scares me...it's because she sounds like Bush #2.
Also, I was appalled by her response when Gibson asked about banning...I can't remember the term exactly, but semi-automatic assault rifles. Her response was in Alaska they need guns like that for sport. Really?!? It's not sporting enough to take one (or two) shot(s) and then reload before killing whatever it is your killing? You need a semi-automatic? If I were president for a day, all automatic/semi-automatic/concealed guns would be banned for citizens. Police could care concealed weapons, and military could carry whatever is approved for their procedures.
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:
Is that vision? It sounds like just causes to me. Personally, I'm abortion agnostic, for nationalized preventative health care (let's provide the yearly checkups/generic medication/dental appointments, and then encourage people to buy their own insurance for only the really big things), I accept the fact that man is increasing the global temperature, for smaller government, and for gun control. Guess what, none of those are why she scares me...it's because she sounds like Bush #2.
[/qoute]
Your list is almost 180 degrees from my position. This is the issue, not Palin.
Also, I was appalled by her response when Gibson asked about banning...I can't remember the term exactly, but semi-automatic assault rifles. Her response was in Alaska they need guns like that for sport. Really?!? It's not sporting enough to take one (or two) shot(s) and then reload before killing whatever it is your killing? You need a semi-automatic? If I were president for a day, all automatic/semi-automatic/concealed guns would be banned for citizens. Police could care concealed weapons, and military could carry whatever is approved for their procedures.
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
My point was actually that it's probably a small population that completely agrees or completely disagrees with every position you just laid out. I'd guys something like 10% on either side, and congratulations Robroy you're one of those people.
Those of us who neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with the positions (and reality of what they might deliver), we are forced to apply a more complex metric in deciding whom to vote for. On what I've seen so far of the interview, Sarah (I'll call her that from now on since she prefers first names and no titles apparently) earned a C-. That's me trying to be unbiased and give her a truly fair shake. She sounded small time, she contradicted herself over earmarks, she rambled, she misunderstood national and international issues.
Basically, she had all the same problems you claim Obama has without a teleprompter except...when he's looking for words you can tell he's actually thinking. Sarah...not so much.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
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. :roll:
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
My point was actually that it's probably a small population that completely agrees or completely disagrees with every position you just laid out. I'd guys something like 10% on either side, and congratulations Robroy you're one of those people.
Those of us who neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with the positions (and reality of what they might deliver), we are forced to apply a more complex metric in deciding whom to vote for. On what I've seen so far of the interview, Sarah (I'll call her that from now on since she prefers first names and no titles apparently) earned a C-. That's me trying to be unbiased and give her a truly fair shake. She sounded small time, she contradicted herself over earmarks, she rambled, she misunderstood national and international issues.
Basically, she had all the same problems you claim Obama has without a teleprompter except...when he's looking for words you can tell he's actually thinking. Sarah...not so much.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
With all due respect, we differ so strongly on this that it is hard for me to take your post seriously. That's ok though, 'cause I suspect it is hard for you to take some of my posts seriously.
I don't know if I said it here, but I know I said it on Freerepublic:
Right now, during this election cycle, it is as if a "1950's sensibilities" US woke up after a 50 year drinking binge and a bad hangover and said "Oh my God! What have we done!"
They (we) are determined to put it right. Sans the stuff that really WAS wrong, like white dashed lines in the middle of two way roads.
The culture war in the US will hit this year - full force. I have VERY little doubt there will be major rioting in some (or many) cities when Obama loses.
What did all this was the internet. People, by the millions, discuss what they see on "The six o'clock news" instead of just swear at the TV as we did in the last century. This means the truth easily wins over the long run.
Dan Rather could call the documents "probably authentic" all he wanted. The truth was exposed anyway and he is no longer at CBS. He would have won handily before the internet.
Rambling? You got your rambling right here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJH2n4aFEhA
Look at his answer about Iran compared to Sara's. No contest. She said it in one sentence, repeated. He rambled much as when he jumped the shark on abortion at Saddleback.
I'm waiting for the "C" Palin equivalent of the above video, but I'm not holding my breath.
Obama IS being thoughtful when he "stutters", as you say. But it is the "thoughtfulness" being used by a teenager when asked by a cop why he was speeding. Sarah, on the other hand, need only to choose words to line up with what she believes is the truth. That is much easier and quicker.
As you may also know, the biggest gaff of the charlie interview with palin was by charlie himself. No wonder she was puzzled by the "bush doctrine" as charlie described it.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
I disagree. Here is how I would put it:
Speech Skills | Interview/Debate Skills
Obama A | F
McCain C | B
Biden B- | D
Sarah A | B+
Yeah, we're really that far apart. The debates will give us a clue as to who is closer to the truth. But then, it is as subjective as who won an Olympics event.
For what it's worth, I've never seen anyone outside of local politics flub interviews as badly as Obama does. He is in a league by himself (when not being graded by True Believers). It is why I went on record even before the conventions that this would be a rout by McCain.
That belief is confirmed for me LITERALLY every single day.
Comments
But out of curiosity, what answer would have pleased you?
Honestly, I've never heard anything about any direct relations that she has with Russia. Have you? I'd love to see them.
They are close to Russia, but there is still an ocean in between the two countries. It makes more sense that she had a relationship with Canada, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Russia. And this is something that keeps on getting brought up by the republican side. They have nothing more to say about her foriegn policy experience than "she is gol darn close to Russia, ain't she?". If she had actual dealings with Russia, then why have we not heard about them? Please show me if they exist.
Also on experience, she's not running for prez. She's running for Vice. I'd take Biden's experience over hers anyday.
Sarah is Obama's Lance...
Likewise, I always laugh when people ask about her foreign relations experience I look at Obama and even Biden and say, "huh?". Do they really want to go there? And THEY are the ones going there.
But here is some interesting stuff, in the context or remembering that she is the governor of Alaska and what that implies in these stories relative to her responsibilities as the Chief Executive of that state...
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/636762683.shtml
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/colum ... -21793130/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 2386.story
And even this: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/05/pal ... a-fishing/
Ignore the sour attitudes and just focus on the meat of what is said. Especially the last words from Harber.
And how about Obama's (or Biden's) experience. What did they negotiate from across the table with any foreign dignitaries?
Yeah, Biden has exposed how deep his experience is every time he opens his mouth. It may be very "wide", but "deep" it aint.
Do you realize just how historic this election is? When was the last time you remember the collective perspective of the country from BOTH sides is that one party's Pres nominee is running against the other party's VP nominee? This is the most fun I've ever had during an election cycle.
Let's see how she does in the debate with Biden.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp
Just an aside since only political junkies would still be in this thread.
We had over a week of coverage on Obama's pastor.
Palin's Pastor has said some pretty interesting things as well, but is anyone hearing anything about it on TV? From the Huffington post:
But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/636762683.shtml
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/colum ... -21793130/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 2386.story
And even this: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/05/pal ... a-fishing/
Ignore the sour attitudes and just focus on the meat of what is said. Especially the last words from Harber.
Let's see how she does in the debate with Biden.
On the first one, she has no control over the Coast Guard. How does this speak to her experience?
On the 2nd one, Bush and Putin have a semi-friendly relationship as well. Besides, Dick Cheney is a hunter too. That certainly didn't help in negotiations about Georgia, did it? And is it a good idea to say that war with Russia is a good idea when they're sending bombers to venezuela?
On the 3rd one, I'm assuming those are not national guard fighters that are talked about in the last paragraph where there is a brief mention of Alaska. Therefore, she had nothing to do with any of those exercizes. She hasn't done anything with the National Guard since she's been Governor remember.
On the 4th one, that's the first that I've heard anyone say anything about actual diplomatic contact with Russia, other than proximity. I'd be interested to know actual detail about her dealings with Russia on this issue.
Here's an article I found from the Boston Globe about her experience:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... xperience/
This article fleshes out much better what her experience with US military and the National Guard "experience" actually is.
And I'm very much looking forward to all of the debates. They're going to be great entertainment!
Why didn't she just say it was "highly inappropriate to go into more detail?" And why would it have been? Am I the only one here who actually wants to know what the US might do in a situation like that? In the realm of things that might start wars, Israel and Iran seem like two pretty touchy points these days. (Speaking of wars, her misunderstanding of the Georgia-Russia conflict was also eye-opening. I can't wait for Palin to use the "broken-record" technique on Putin.)
Yes, she didn't stutter. Or "Look for words." You know why? Because she wasn't thinking! That's the point here. She heard "Israel-Iran." She went into the memory banks and found a semi-appropriate response (that actually didn't really answer the question). And when pressed for a real response, she just repeated the same line. She does the same thing in response to a question about the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. And I think she accidentally picked the complete wrong response to the question about the Bush Doctrine.
Charlie Gibson was not her adversary. He was hand picked by the McCain campaign. He was giving her a chance to talk about something substantial after 2 weeks of the press talking about Bristol and Trig (which, as far as conspiracies go, is a rather strange one). Yes, surprise! People want to know more.
I wonder when McCain will let her out of the box of learning again.
I pointed this out after McCain's speech, where he made similar claims (loosely "Russia invaded a tiny democratic neighbor to gain control of more of the world's oil supply"). Everyone gave him a free pass on it, just like everything else he's throwing at the wall, and Palin simply rehashed his story.
Nobody seems to bother with the details of the conflict, notably that Georgia started it.
Granted, I will say that I do believe that Russia knew it was going to happen and was just waiting for it as an excuse to go in and mess up Georgia badly. That still doesn't excuse Georgia for bombing Osettia and starting the problem.
On the first one, she has no control over the Coast Guard. How does this speak to her experience?
On the 2nd one, Bush and Putin have a semi-friendly relationship as well. Besides, Dick Cheney is a hunter too. That certainly didn't help in negotiations about Georgia, did it? And is it a good idea to say that war with Russia is a good idea when they're sending bombers to venezuela?
On the 3rd one, I'm assuming those are not national guard fighters that are talked about in the last paragraph where there is a brief mention of Alaska. Therefore, she had nothing to do with any of those exercizes. She hasn't done anything with the National Guard since she's been Governor remember.
On the 4th one, that's the first that I've heard anyone say anything about actual diplomatic contact with Russia, other than proximity. I'd be interested to know actual detail about her dealings with Russia on this issue.
Here's an article I found from the Boston Globe about her experience:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... xperience/
This article fleshes out much better what her experience with US military and the National Guard "experience" actually is.
And I'm very much looking forward to all of the debates. They're going to be great entertainment![/quote]
I am not trying to argue she has "lots" of experience. After all, few presidential hopefuls do/did before being elected. That is one reason they have advisors. I was pointing out that she was not a complete babe-in-the-woods as some want to imply or, in the case of the MSM try to get joe sixpack to infer.
Most presidents were former governors. Most of them did not have the "foreign relations" experience of 100 term senators, but what experience they did have still trumped it.
Like we say in computer development, some guys have ten years experience, but it is really the same year repeated ten times. IOW, I am more interested in actual accomplishment and, more importantly, their ability to learn fast. Sarah has aced that test.
Which is why she was "brief" in her response. Um, no. I've been interviewed in front of a large audience. It is very stressful. When you are a presidential candidate, or important political figure of any kind, everyone (especially your opponents and their surrogates) disects every paragraph, sentence, word looking for anything they can twist or use to attack you. It is happening on this very thread, for example.
Your mind can turn to mush - it can absolutely lock up to the point you don't remember your name (especially if a few million people are watching). An obvious sign of this is the Obama um, ah, you know verbal dance. You can sweat profusely and your voice can be audibly quivering and you can get the shakes so bad people can see your pant legs vibrating. I've seen it plenty of times. When I was younger I even experienced it myself on more than one occasion. Her composure was a thing of beauty to those who deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. She clearly shocked the hell out of Charlie. He is the one here that is highly experienced in verbally skewering interviewees and tripping them up. It was a complete failure for him and he was visibly affected.
Her clear responses showed (to anyone who has had experience with it) an unbelieveable ability to stay cool under fire (without a teleprompter) and still give coherent answers without doing the Obama stutter dance. That is quite literally the inverse to "not thinking". It is, frankly, brilliance and I have NEVER seen it in a politician at this level, even from Reagan or Bill Clinton. I believe she could stare down any world leader this particular planet has to offer. Either you didn't watch the video or that is the best joke quote of the day. But don't worry, you'll get plenty of chances to hear her in interviews and press conferences in the next couple of months. It'll be fun!
Just to clarify where I stand on this, she did not score 100% on the interview, but neither did she on the convention speech. She didn't have to. To use one of my favorite phrases, "strive for excellence, not perfection". Her performance was WAY ahead of whoever is in second place. It was indeed "excellent"!
It sounds as though you are saying, if I may paraphrase, that Georgia was like a person being verbally egged on by a bully and as long as they kept their cool they would have been fine, but they couldn't keep their composure and took a swing. They were then summarily pummeled by the bully. Does that get the kernel of it?
Answer here: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/200 ... 3opi3.html
(From Austrailia)
I think it does essentially. I mean, this has been trouble brewing for a couple of years now and US diplomats were telling Georgia constantly not to do what they ended up doing. So they went against our countries advice, cried uncle and we went running to their aid.
I think that Russia blew it pretty bad on this. I mean, they could've come out of this looking like heroes. Georgia coming in and bombing civilians and all. If they had just gone and booted Georgia out of Osettia, they could've made a great case for themselves. Made a good case to the world (right or wrong mind you) about the US military support of aggressive nations. But by rolling into Georgia and destroying a bunch of the infrastructure there, they really blew it.
As for the substance of what she's saying.... well, that's a different story.
I very much like her track record and I very much like what she says.
I also disagree with you regarding Obama being able to talk. He can't. Unless he has a teleprompter. He gaffs pretty much daily without one.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... l_election
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html
This thing just has to age to "perfection".
Guys we are being trolled here. I can't believe I fell for it.
Nope. It is quite sincere. It does demonstrate the utter cultural divide going on in this country though. We differ so strongly that you think I MUST be baiting you. I'm not!
But I will add that I am one of those that believe there is a high probability that there will be major riots in some of our cities when Obama loses. The real question is just how major will they be and how many cities? Detroit, LA and Cincinatti for sure!
I think the only way riots are coming is if Obama loses in 2000 fashion. I don't think the blowout that you predict would raise the same feelings. Anyway, I certainly hope not. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
This one does not even need to be close for them to riot. In fact, a blowout could more guarantee it. It could cause a very powerful feeling of disenfranchisement. Lots of people seriously believe that 911 was orchestrated by our government or Israel. In that vein, never underestimate people's ability to delude themselves into believing that even a rout was caused by voter fraud.
What's even crazier about this election is that the republican VP is now running against the republican presidential candidate. McCain rallies are not filling up unless Palin is included...
FWIW, I watched at least part of the Gibson/Palin interview. I found Palin uninspiring...again. She doesn't really know her stuff, but then Bush didn't when he won the general in 2000 so who's to say that fact even matters. Actually, she kind of reminded me of a typical middle aged mother answering questions.
I see her as being kind of like a new republican toy. They love her just because she's new and shiny. Eventually the lipstick will wear off this particular pit bull (or is it a pig?) and she won't be so compelling anymore.
Is that vision? It sounds like just causes to me. Personally, I'm abortion agnostic, for nationalized preventative health care (let's provide the yearly checkups/generic medication/dental appointments, and then encourage people to buy their own insurance for only the really big things), I accept the fact that man is increasing the global temperature, for smaller government, and for gun control. Guess what, none of those are why she scares me...it's because she sounds like Bush #2.
Also, I was appalled by her response when Gibson asked about banning...I can't remember the term exactly, but semi-automatic assault rifles. Her response was in Alaska they need guns like that for sport. Really?!? It's not sporting enough to take one (or two) shot(s) and then reload before killing whatever it is your killing? You need a semi-automatic? If I were president for a day, all automatic/semi-automatic/concealed guns would be banned for citizens. Police could care concealed weapons, and military could carry whatever is approved for their procedures.
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/
Again, I agree with her position and you disagree with her. It is why we will probably be voting for different people in November. It's ok though. Heck my friend I rode every STP with since 1991 is a HARD liberal and I am very conservative. We passed the time on the ride jabbing each other. It passes the time, and we're still friends.
My point was actually that it's probably a small population that completely agrees or completely disagrees with every position you just laid out. I'd guys something like 10% on either side, and congratulations Robroy you're one of those people.
Those of us who neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with the positions (and reality of what they might deliver), we are forced to apply a more complex metric in deciding whom to vote for. On what I've seen so far of the interview, Sarah (I'll call her that from now on since she prefers first names and no titles apparently) earned a C-. That's me trying to be unbiased and give her a truly fair shake. She sounded small time, she contradicted herself over earmarks, she rambled, she misunderstood national and international issues.
Basically, she had all the same problems you claim Obama has without a teleprompter except...when he's looking for words you can tell he's actually thinking. Sarah...not so much.
I've got an interesting "graph" for this election. Agree, disagree?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Biden would be the only above average candidate on both areas.
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. :roll:
With all due respect, we differ so strongly on this that it is hard for me to take your post seriously. That's ok though, 'cause I suspect it is hard for you to take some of my posts seriously.
I don't know if I said it here, but I know I said it on Freerepublic:
Right now, during this election cycle, it is as if a "1950's sensibilities" US woke up after a 50 year drinking binge and a bad hangover and said "Oh my God! What have we done!"
They (we) are determined to put it right. Sans the stuff that really WAS wrong, like white dashed lines in the middle of two way roads.
The culture war in the US will hit this year - full force. I have VERY little doubt there will be major rioting in some (or many) cities when Obama loses.
What did all this was the internet. People, by the millions, discuss what they see on "The six o'clock news" instead of just swear at the TV as we did in the last century. This means the truth easily wins over the long run.
Dan Rather could call the documents "probably authentic" all he wanted. The truth was exposed anyway and he is no longer at CBS. He would have won handily before the internet.
One can say Obama is "thinking" all they want. The truth gets exposed anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlVPwEeyOFY
Rambling? You got your rambling right here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJH2n4aFEhA
Look at his answer about Iran compared to Sara's. No contest. She said it in one sentence, repeated. He rambled much as when he jumped the shark on abortion at Saddleback.
There is a lot more like this about your "C+ Obama": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt ... re=related
I was in toastmasters for a couple of decades. The "internal Ah counter" is something you never lose.
I'm waiting for the "C" Palin equivalent of the above video, but I'm not holding my breath.
Obama IS being thoughtful when he "stutters", as you say. But it is the "thoughtfulness" being used by a teenager when asked by a cop why he was speeding. Sarah, on the other hand, need only to choose words to line up with what she believes is the truth. That is much easier and quicker.
As you may also know, the biggest gaff of the charlie interview with palin was by charlie himself. No wonder she was puzzled by the "bush doctrine" as charlie described it.
Speech Skills | Interview/Debate Skills
Obama A | F
McCain C | B
Biden B- | D
Sarah A | B+
Yeah, we're really that far apart. The debates will give us a clue as to who is closer to the truth. But then, it is as subjective as who won an Olympics event.
For what it's worth, I've never seen anyone outside of local politics flub interviews as badly as Obama does. He is in a league by himself (when not being graded by True Believers). It is why I went on record even before the conventions that this would be a rout by McCain.
That belief is confirmed for me LITERALLY every single day.