Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview

Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview

"tries " being the operative word.

when i see her i can't help but think that tina fey is pranking the usa..

awesome.

It's worse then that, it's Tammy Fey Baker with less eye makeup.

So let me see if I understand this ... she

• doesn't know the requirements for the VP job. Didn't even have a passport 2 years ago.
• Thinks being physically close to a country means she understands it. I guess she studied for the grades she got in school by putting her textbooks under her pillow.
• Doesn't understand why we went to Iraq any better than anyone else does. Doesn't understand why we don't also attack Saudi Arabia, who are "Islamic extremis[ts], terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation" and who actually attacked us on 9/11.
• Thinks killing 1.25 million innocent people at a price of $1 million per corpse was making "a mistake". Oops! Thought they were moose!
• Willing to kowtow to Israel even if they start World War 3, just so long as she doesn't "second guess" them.
• Flip-flopped on a position she took in a church before God and her entire congregation.
• "Perhaps" Wants Us To Start A Freaking Atomic War With Russia!

Maybe Obama didn't mean it but I do:

I don't think there's enough lipstick in the whole world to cover this pig.

Get the terminology right. It is not preemptive war, it was preventative war. There is a world off difference. Preventative war is illegal under US and International Law.

Very poor interview. I saw a clip of the task of God part. She just kind of talked around the question and kept trying to repeat herself (i.e., keeping to a script).

Unfortunately, I think some people will overlook the fact that she faltered because they just think she seems "so nice."

He was mean to her because she's a women!

Thinks killing 1.25 million innocent people at a price of $1 million per corpse

Peter I have to ask where in the world you found such a number to base that statement on? I should also ask how you come up with the idea that Saudi Arabia which happens to be a staunch US ally is bent on destroying us. You might want to do some research into the way the Saudi's have cracked down hard on these extremists.

And how exactly would a potential Israeli strike against an Iranian nuclear facility lead to this statement?

Willing to kowtow to Israel even if they start World War 3, just so long as she doesn't "second guess" them.

What's even more sad than her interview, her knowledge of foreign policy and her readiness to be President given the fact she doesn't understand what is takes to be VP,

It's even more sad that people like, Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus (on the board above) and people like him write statements like "He was mean to her because she's a women!" to circumvent the fact that she is not ready for the task ahead.

If she had a problem handling "mean", which sounded more like direct questioning to me, then I'm sure with her obvious lack of experience, she would have a problem dealing with the "hate" of terrorism, or the "meanness" of rivals or the "pressure" of running a country.

Nice try Dan Hallo, I'm sure they paid you a good some of money to spread your mindless assumptions on this board in favor of the McCain camp but your employers wasted their money on you.

Saudi Arabia a "staunch" US ally? Hahaha

You do realize they let the PLO train in their country? That they publicly call Israel an illegal regime all the time? That most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? The Saudi royal family may be allied to the US *when it suits them* because more than us, they fear their Arab neighbors will attack them and they're a great customer for our weapons. But since they're a dictatorship, their foreign policy is highly susceptible to the whims of the current leader, and the whole country is trending towards more conservative Islam and anti-globalization (which they call anti-Americanism) these days. They really can't stand any foreigners, especially us, but they always have to keep what they call the "American option" on the table just in case Iran decides to invade them. They use to really fear Iraq to be honest, and it wouldn't surprise me given that the Bush family is friends with the Saudi royal family that we invaded Iraq partially in consideration for Saudi interests.

But seriously, go work in Saudi Arabia as a contractor and see how much of an ally you feel then, as a dhimmi/khafir American "pig" in their eyes.

@AmusedinVa

Those are shocking numbers, aren't they? Here's sources for the number of dead as of June:

A study by doctors from the Johns Hopkins School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from al-Mustanceriya University in Baghdad, published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006, estimated the number of excess deaths as a result of the occupation at above 655,000.

Just Foreign Policy, an independent organization "dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy" offered an updated total of 1,213,716 at the time of this writing.

On Sep. 14, 2007, Opinion Research Business (ORB), an independent polling agency located in London, produced a figure of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the invasion.

If I have my arithmetic right that's about 700 corpses a day.

And here's a Nobel winning economist and Harvard lecturer totting up the cost of the war pre-surge. That comes out to about $700 million dollars per day. You divide that by the number of corpses to get $1,000,000.00 per corpse.

Of course these numbers are only estimates and they ignore a lot of things. Like innocent people in Europe getting cancer and birth defects from Depleted Uranium dust created by our armor and weapons. And the future cost to America of diverting tax dollars from roads, ports, schools, hospitals, and similar essential domestic services ...

Oopsie, says Ms Alaska of 1984, we made a blunder. But she's still ready to be President.

Perhaps.

@WhyIt,

You forgot to mention the Saudis Funded 9/11. The insurance companies that paid out on 9/11 are right now pursuing them for it in open court.

With allies like this, who needs enemies?

ABD3,

Attempted...correct. Badly, also correct.

I agree with the above based on excerpts from the interview provided to viewers and from what I read in this article. It is obvious that some responses were manufactured, though she attempted to pass them off as her own and to convince us they are. Palin needs additional training courses on foreign policy--two weeks isn't enough time.... I can't wait to watch the debate between her and Biden. Hopefully she won't be asked simple questions. She's a "pit bull" with a whole lot of mouth. Therefore, she should be able to respond to tough questions and not given easy ones because of gender. A president and VP are suppose to be tough, which is partially the reason voters chose them to govern a country. I am not sure if I will be watching the interview, but I will definitely watch the debate.

Nice try Dan Hallo, I'm sure they paid you a good some of money to spread your mindless assumptions on this board in favor of the McCain camp but your employers wasted their money on you.

I'm pretty sure Dan was joking.

Obama / Biden For President 2008!!!

-In the words of Obama, "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past."

--- In the words of Obama, "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past." ---

Right, going back to the policies of Carter is just what we need.

LOL - Hope not, but of course... Time will tell...

Wow she did this badly on 'easy' questions....

how would she do w/ some real tough questions?

--- In the words of Obama, "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past." ---

Right, going back to the policies of Carter is just what we need.

Transformative Change: All I've seen you do since joining Newsvine is quote Obama and make inaccurate statements. Do you have an opinion on Palin? The point of comments is not to spew your own propaganda but to discuss the articles.

You're doing a great job of contributing to the noise on Newsvine and not actually ever saying anything of value.

Ben, it wasn't Transformative Change that made the comment but someone else. Besides that I agree with you that- Change? to be continued- needs to at least contribute something of substance.

That's because it's difficult to find people that want to have actual intellectual discourse.

Agreed, many individuals would rather promote their stance and opinions opposed to expanding their thinking.

MALife and Transformative Change:

For starters, I'm not wasting my time arguing with you guys. It's pointless... Vote for who you like because I'm voting for who I like, all the while, spreading the word.

Instead of worrying about what I'm doing, blog about where you stand in this. Who do you want to see in the White House? If you want to see McCain, fine. If you're and Indenpendent, great!!! Spread the word...

OBAMA 08

That's great. So am I, but I'm basing mine on a educated decision. What about you?

Of course...

Agreed. Doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Moron.

100% completely unprepared to lead. The idea of having her in the 2nd chair should scare the hell out of all Americans and all of our allies around the world. She'd fumble and bumble us into a nuclear exchange.

Drinking much cool aide Mike?

Laughable. At least Obama and Biden can answer the tough questions without looking like idiots. And enjoy the lead while it lasts. The RNC bump will soon fade. The arrogance comes from the McCain supporters, who actually believe this lead will last.

It's a Jim Jones surviver! Did you get the "I Survived Jonestown" T-Shirt? It was the only one.
Amazing what some people will sacrifice to keep their delusions safe.

"A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792.

Why did I post this quote? Because the genius Neo-Con up thread thinks having a sense of social responsibility is "Socialism" Marx wasn't born till 1818.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

wonder if any of the candidates would be able to get security clearance and if so how high

Biden, McCain, and Obama can all get lower level clearances by being senators. Biden probably has the highest level clearance or maybe him and McCain equally due to their senate committee assignments. Palin would have minimal access to any classified data. Only a handful of congressmen have the highest level clearances and I don't think any of the current candidates are in that group, but am not positive of that in regard to these three senators.

In other words they were given the clearance they need to do their job as Senator - and since they were elected, in couldn't be not given. I'm wondering more along the lines of like myself. I had a job where I need clearance, if I couldn't get clearance I didn't get the job. I'm curious how high they would be authorized.

As just candidates they have no more access to information than you or I would by using the Freedom of Information Act. The documents they could get would be heavily blacked out to prevent revealing any classified information.

In regard to like you or myself getting a job, if you had a job requiring clearance you would be granted that only to the level needed to perform your job. But if you failed a background check to qualify for the clearance you wouldn't get the job.

A real good example of things would be the FBI investigations leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The field agents didn't have access to CIA and NSA intelligence that could have helped their investigations. The FBI director doesn't even have full unlimited access to that information.

In regard to like you or myself getting a job, if you had a job requiring clearance you would be granted that only to the level needed to perform your job. But if you failed a background check to qualify for the clearance you wouldn't get the job.

And hence the crux of my question. The fact is as president they'll be granted whatever level of clearance they need because they are elected and there is no choice in the matter. What I'm wondering if lets say to be President you had to have the highest level of clearance (or whatever is the standard for President) or you couldn't be President. I wonder if any of the candidates would qualify.

It is totally irrelevant to our system, but would be an interesting factoid to know don't you think?

That is a very interesting concept. The president just by being elected does receive the highest level security clearance there is. But by the same token there's no qualification to run for president except being at least 36 and being born here. Does create quite an irony.

Yes, ultimately clearances are granted by the White House. McCain/Obama respectfully receives a NSA briefing everyday and has been for quite some time. The governor of a respective state also receives a briefing every day. Usually, the governor's National Guard Commander actually listens to the briefing and then advises the governor about matters of concerns and threat assessments in their state. Charlie Gibson's point about the security clearance was that she has a clearance to a certain extend obviously being governor but how much attention does she devote to these briefings and is she able to understand what her general's are talking about? Something not yet discussed in the press yet is Sarah Palin's somewhat stressful relationship with the National Guard. As I said before, I am not so much criticizing Sarah Palin as much as the McCain Campaign for not having her better prepared. Obviously, Sarah Palin does not leave Alaska very often but that does not mean she would not be more informed about the people, cultures and countries of the world other than the headlines she reads in the Anchorage Daily News.

What we witness tonight was a rookie governor who obviously did not devote a great deal of time thinking about matters outside her state until she became a nominee. She really does not know too much about NATO, Russia, the EU, Iran, Iraq or Israel and has not spent any meaningful time overseas. In contrast, Romney lived in Europe as a young adult missionary and travels pretty much around the world doing business and has personal friends in several countries.

Which brings us to the point, the US can't afford another shoot from the hip go it alone defense strategy at the moment. We need friends and Allies from around the world especially now more than ever. The Ukraine is sweating bullets and it may be necessary to engage in military action with the Russians, though it is hoped it will be avoided. This being said, you really have know how you can trust and who is backstabber overseas and in our own military if Palin is going to have any kind of effect on international relations. If Palin is incapable of having a meaningful relationship with her own national guard, how is she going to be able to build a relationship with the regular military, let alone NATO?

Uh, I don't think they meant "clearance" when they said "credentials". The question was probably probing her national security experience.

Uh, I don't think they meant "clearance" when they said "credentials". The question was probably probing her national security experience.

I don't think they did either this is just my offshoot speculation of a notion I've been wondering for a bit (I should probably write an article). As AmusedinVa says the President gets the highest clearance (or I've always mention clearance high enough to his job, I've always figured there were things he doesn't get cleared for unless it becomes relevant to a decision being made) by default. They don't have to go through the background vetting process others would have to. What I'm wondering is how high through the process they could get.

Would it have any effect on the election if they were put through the process and it was announced that any (or all of the) candidates were not qualified for highest clearances.

Well, Obama was an International Relations major, and also serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such he has traveled on many occasions to meet with foreign diplomats and heads of state. Palin lives close to Russia....

And btw, how's this any different than Obama? lol

Obama has been running for president for 19 months. He has met with heads of state, he has traveled to foreign countries, he has studied the Constitution. Obama also has Biden has his running mate.

So you think she did well? Be honest.

She was pitiful. Simply pitiful.

She is one scary ex beauty queen reminds me of a puppet on a string.

I hope that the American public wakes up soon and realize that we need the best and brightest people in our leaders not people who had to go to 4 or more colleges before getting a degree in journalism and McCain is no brainiac either having finished 4th from the bottom of his class.

Did you really expecr her to have been sitting down, in the last months of her own responsibilities as a governor and focus on memorizing and knowing all the intricate details of certain areas of defense?

A politician claiming She is qualified to lead, not knowing what The Bush Doctrine is? Yes I damn well expect her to know this. Or at least if she doesn't, to be able to admit it. She was clueless.

not knowing what The Bush Doctrine is

In honest fairness Dan, I doubt that most republicans have any idea what the "Bush doctrine" is. It's part of the reason most of his own party has abandoned him. He quit representing the party years ago and now only represents GW's own interests, whatever those may be.

How is this different from Obama? I'm a well heeled, registered independent and I would love to keep getting the tax breaks I now enjoy under the Republicans.

I will be honest. In the beginning Obama scared me. But as I watch how he has handled himself over the course of 19 months especially under pressure like when "Rev. Wright popped up, I began to admire this guy. I mean Clinton folded under the heat and thats why she lost.

This lady (Palin ) making a statement that "we might have to go to war with Russia" makes Obama look like the Easter Bunny ( reference the ears..lol)

I mean not even Reagan, Bush, Nixon and Even Kennedy who had to stare them down, never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever said "we might have to go to war with the Russians" Apparently some might take this lightly, but a war with them will be WW3 and it will possibly destroy the world. Unlike 9/11 there won't be anyone left to remember the dead.

This is no laughing matter dear lady. Not at all!!!!

Another dumb post, Legalize The Constitution,

You wrote: "Did you really expecr her to have been sitting down, in the last months of her own responsibilities as a governor and focus on memorizing and knowing all the intricate details of certain areas of defense?"

This was a really dumb statement. The answer is, if she is going to be VP and possibly President, YES, YES, YES and um, YES.

You wrote: "Do you believe this proves, that if it were her focus, her new responsibility that she has no chance of knowing it, or being capable and being a deep part of it?"

She is running for VP, SHE SHOULD KNOW IT NOW. So, no I don't believe she has time to study for her next quiz. She gets retake next election.

You wrote: "And btw, how's this any different than Obama? lol "

Obama, knows the answer LOL (jokes on you and your GOP camp)

The answer is, if she is going to be VP and possibly President, YES,

I think that given the fact that Obama has had two years and hundreds of advisers to guide him to where he is now, and Palin has had basically two weeks says a lot. If McCain does win then there is plenty of time between now and January 20, 2009 for the advisers to bring her up to speed on what she will need to know.

For those who seem to think she should have all the details to everything right now let me ask this question. Do you honestly believe that 2 weeks into his campaign Obama knew all the answers to everything?

Exercise a little fairness in judgement not based on partisan rhetoric's, and determine whether or not you think she can learn these things. None of us start out knowing the answers until someone teaches us. Let's see how she handles the debates, that will be more telling than a first interview.

I would HOPE that someone interested in the job of PotUSA would also have a general, ongoing interest in world affairs and our foreign policy, as well as our history of international relations.

You can get a cursory overview of pretty much any country we've dealt with by reading the CIA world factbook, which is available on the internet. For more detail and history, there are some wikis and history sites.

Whenever something big happens, like the invasion of Georgia, thousands (or millions) of people do research on the region, history, and our presence in the area. If the internet information is sparse, more serious readers and writers scour books, and augment the available information.

There is absolutely no excuse for Palin's ignorance. She should have had some basic knowledge even when she was the governor.

I like the CIA world factbook, matter of fact I referred to it to learn about Georgia myself when the hostilities broke out. I'm curious here now though at what you consider to be her ignorance. I've had to watch the videos several times now to be certain I wasn't missing something, but I don't really see where she did poorly. Except for the Russia is our neighbor bit which I found to be lame, I didn't see any real problems with her answers for this point in time.

I think the point everyone is trying to make is not what she said, it's what she didn't say.

Keeping in mind that the McCain Campaign ultimately edited the interview and signed off on the final version to be aired, many things were obviously left out that may have been more enlightening about her knowledge and feelings on various topics.

She obviously has an opinion on many of these matters however, it was thought best not to make those opinions public.

EXACTLY, Barack spent 2 years getting prepared. 2 weeks is rush job and I don't want a rush job running the country.

Yes, you do not go for a job interview and not be prepared. Why should a person going for a job to run the entire Nation. Is that fair for all the woman McCain could have picked who has years of experienced?

He passed them up because he is ancient and Palin is young. Jan. 20, 2009 will be here before we know it. There is a lot that will be going on between now and then.

I'll tell you, she will handle the debate the same as her interview... sticking to the script. A VP who cannot think on her own but must stick to a script should not be in a position to lead the country because she won't be leading, she'll be following.

Niiice.

Maybe Jeb learned by osmosis just like Palin did.

Well, the fact Jeb Bush actually travelled to Cuba and around the Caribbean and was doing business in several Caribbean and central American countries as a private business person before being governor is a major difference. Jeb also reads and writes in Spanish, studied in Mexico as an exchange student (where he met his wife) and then lived in Venezuela as a banker.

Another little known fact about Jeb is that he is Catholic and spent several years doing business deals with European Catholics who were investing in Florida before he became governor.

As I've said before, the extent of her foreign policy decision making is ordering Belgian waffles at IHOP.

Called for Georgia and the Ukraine to be included in NATO, a treaty that requires the U.S. to defend them militarily

I think is amuzing that the Obama suporters attacking Palin on her position dont even know Obama has the same position!

OBAMA:

Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship

I think its funny you support Obama and you dont even know his positions?

no one here is saying that they disagree with her remarks on Georgia, Ukraine, and NATO. However her answer to the Bush Doctrine question showed no insight into the matter (even you have to agree on that)

I think its funny you support Obama and you dont even know his positions?

I think its funny that you claim to be a Democrat yet spend every day bashing on them every chance you get.

But you know what, let's address the issue at hand. I admit, that I should've been clearer here:

Called for Georgia and the Ukraine to be included in NATO, a treaty that requires the U.S. to defend them militarily. She also said Russia's attack into Georgia last month was "unprovoked." Asked to clarify that she'd support going to war over Georgia, she said: "Perhaps so."

Sure, why not? We're America, by God.

Yes, Barack Obama supports Georgia's membership in NATO. The key difference between his stance and Sarah Palin's is this:

The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia - the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.

Sarah Palin could've mentioned diplomacy. Yes, standing up for the sovereignty of NATO's members does mean that you may have to go to war for them, but it should be the last choice -- in all cases, not just in the cases where the army you want to go up against is the same size as yours. My beef is with Sarah's jingoistic outlook on the world.

Obama recognized in this case however that Georgia attacked first. This situation would be like if Canada started bombing the @!$%# out of Toronto, and of course there would be thousands of American citizens there -- do you think we would not act?

do you think we would not act?

Do you believe we would launch a full scale invasion in response?

There's a difference between reacting to protect and deep bombing runs inside a country into areas well beyond the conflict zone.

You bet we would take out key military installations just like Russia did -- it's normal tactics! They're bombing your people, so apart from defending with human shields, what do you do? You go into the territory and TAKE OUT the airfields and artillery. Make them think twice about doing it again next week! And in case you didn't notice, they've withdrawn their troops from all but the separatist regions and now have UN troops patrolling Georgia instead.

And seriously, probably the biggest criterion in who is wrong in a war is who attacked first. Just look at WWII ... we killed a lot of people, including civilians, but we did it to end the war -- the Japanese and the Germans attacked first. It's a major deciding factor when it comes to pointing the finger, and for some reason, a lot of people in Washington want to point it at Russia even though it was Georgia that attacked first and didn't want to resolve their problems with the ethnic minority separatists peacefully. Some "fledgling democracy!" And in case people didn't forget, Russia is not Communist -- hell you can buy stock freely in their companies and unlike China they don't censor satellite or internet.

Wow I must have severely under estimated Georgia's military capability then. I would have never guessed that an air force of a dozen or so planes could be threatening enough to an air force of over 1000 planes. I guess bombing the airfields was much better strategy than just engaging and destroying those 12 planes in the air.

And the Georgians must have some great artillery to be able to fire 100 miles. Even the US army doesn't have that type of guns.

I don't criticize Russia for acting and am glad they've withdrawn. I just criticize what seems to be overwhelmingly disproportionate use of force. Russian tanks could have easily destroyed the forward Georgian army positions without needing to push deep into Georgia. Pursuing the already retreating army was what crossed the line from "peacekeeping" to full blown offense.

I agree. Too many people are buying into Russia's we were only trying to stop the fighting argument. Look, Russia has invaded these countries before and for much of the same reasons they are citing now. You really can't lose sight of that when you're out there trying to defend Russia.

I just criticize what seems to be overwhelmingly disproportionate use of force.

Reminds me of 'shock and awe'...

When you go to war, the whole point is to use as much disproportionate force as possible. Do you think they wanted to get embroiled in something that would last months? Look how well the surge strategy worked for us! I mean, truly disproportionate would have been if Russia nuked them or something -- they kept the conflict to conventional weapons. Few civilians died, and Georgia killed as many Ossettians with their surprise bombardment.

The point isn't that Russia should have feared Georgia, the point is that Georgia was attacking an area that immediately bordered their country in an area where ethnic unrest and violence is already bad, and was also killing Russian citizens in the process. Georgia bombed civilian areas, Russia didn't. Take that into account as well. Why are you defending Georgia?

Reminds me of 'shock and awe'...

That strategy worked great but our intention was to occupy afterwards. It was the occupation part we screwed up big time.

WhyIt

I'm only critical of Russia's strategy in the way they handled it, not in what they accomplished or why they did it. Georgia was without a doubt in the wrong, and personally I think the Georgian leadership should be held accountable for that. But the Russian army had literally obliterated Georgia's military in hours. The deeper push to knock out infrastructure and support facilities was only meant to display Russian superiority, not to shorten any conflict. Russia essentially decided to teach them a lesson and send a warning to other countries in doing it.

Yes and God help us. I am dreadfully afraid of this women and what she stands for. Sheesh, if she can be a Vice President pick, then Paris could really be President. I liked her ideas better anyway.

Does she even know where Georgia is on the map or does she think Russia invaded the Southeastern US seaboard? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan. Of course McCain doesn't seem to know either since he referred to the Iraq/Afghanistan border awhile back. I sure hope they don't have him teaching her about foreign affairs!!!

She probably can't even find alaska on the map.

No joking around. That is the scariest scenario I have ever heard.

Easy -- she'll invite the enemy leaders over for moose burgers, and then lock the door, Braveheart-style and beat the hell out of them with a hockey stick. It's so obvious. You libs need to get a clue, lol.

you need to stop making ridiculous jokes... the future of our country is at stake.....

You mean the Republican Change(TM)* Party, brought to you by Johnny McMaverick and the Pitt Bull.

* Offer expires January 20th, 2009

It is a scary thought indeed. She has that consummate skill of answering a direct question with a barrage of words. In fact, she said the same thing verbatim three times in response to Gibson's prodding on Israel's right to strike Iran.

Her greatest weakness in her overconfidence. I predict she will make a major blunder within the course of this campaign because of this weakness. Biden will have the hard task of going for the jugular without appearing elitist, condescending, or sexist. He should stick to a professional no-nonsense demeanor in breaking her facade apart piece by piece. This IMO is the only effective approach.

Lets all Laugh at the GOP

What does this bimbo do after she is shown the world map?

There is a fedex (or ups) commercial where the guy couldn't find China on the map, so he acted like he fell and ripped the map off the wall.... that's what she would do.

Who cares, if she's President, there's no second-guessing Israel, so I guess they'll be running the show.

I would guess that Condi Rice was banging her head on the desk throughout the interview asking herself, why does she even bother.

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, she is so condescending! Ole gal you can't wing it, the American people will demand straight answers!

Sooner or later she can't hide behind her own skirt and will have to answer questions about her stands on the issues and then don't be surprise if they, (the left wing media) [that's sarcasm, folks] claims that people are picking on her because she is a woman.

Continuing with the excerpts:

She actually said this:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

I can see San Quentin prison from my office. That makes me qualified to be warden?

Gibson talked about the proximity of Russia and she talked about how you could see Russia from Alaska....her point was confirming how close Russia is the US....Gibson jumped in before she continued....so what....the O-man thinks there are 57 states...and he's your presidential candidate...looks like you're screwed.

Someone misspeaking and someone actually thinking living next to a place gives them experience with it are two very different things.

In the actual statement he said he had "been to 57 states, and had 3 left to go to." He meant he had been to 47 - it is clear if you watch the video. He misspoke, probably because he was tired from visiting 47 states in 15 months, and people think that makes him unqualified to be the President? Give me a break. If next time you misspeak everyone overreacts you'll understand, I'm sure.

I can live with a president who misspeaks (I have for 8 years already) but I cannot live with a VP who is inept (I have done that for 8 years too, and it is far worse for the country).

Try presenting an actual issue, rather than a divisive insult, and maybe then you'll actually contribute to the conversation and debate on Newsvine.

Try presenting an actual issue, rather than a divisive insult, and maybe then you'll actually contribute to the conversation and debate on Newsvine.

Not likely though.

At least he had to renew a passport. The Bimbo still has 8 years on her first

Bull@!$%#... find something real instead of wasting space.

The O-man thinks there are 57 states...and he's your presidential candidate...looks like you're screwed.

That was debunked, as a toung slip. Once again fear mongering neo-cons have to argue with their fear, because they know their foriegn policies don't hold very much water, in fact it pollutes it.

Their economy plan need a lot of help too. :-)

I find that the only thing that the Republicans are really good at is fear mongering, lying, telling half truths and calling people names who dare question their rationale on the issues.

It's 'Merica dammit. We can do it all.

Ye HA!!!

"Yes Yes I think we should go after Osama, however, It is unethical and dangerous to enter another country, especially without permission."

Guess you won't be voting for Obama then....
"Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

WOW you think Obama is unethical and dangerous...

Perhaps dangerous but completely ethical and called for when Osama bin Laden, who was directly responsible for 9/11, is the target. And much less dangerous and much more ethical than starting a war with a country which had nothing to do with 9/11.

Senator Obama proposed this course of action a year ago and was ridiculed for it by Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, and the rest of the presidential candidates. Subsequently of course, unilateral action in Pakistan has been adopted as this country's "new foreign policy" much like the other new foreign policies that Senator Obama was the first to publicly discuss have become.

The fact is Senator Obama has demonstrated a better grasp of foreign policy and strategic actions that should be taken and implemented in our best interest over the last year than any of the "experienced" presidential candidates including Senator McCain.

I am amazed at the people who trash Palin dont know that Obama has called for Georgia to be part of NATO as well.

They support Obama and havent done any research. If they actually did they wouldnt vote for him.

The "dumbing down" of the American voter!

Let me clarify my point that a full blown military operation involving the occupation of US forces in yet another country would be the Unethical part of that equation. I do not think it would be Obama's intention to take on yet another "pre-emptive" war to another country in the so called "goal" of spreading Democracy at the end of an assalt rifle.

Obama~ "if we have bin Laden in our sights, we target him and we knock him out," he says. However he adds that "nobody talked about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan."

Taken from Rueters.com in an article on Sept 6 2008.

Yes, shame shame shame. Seriously though, I do agree with you, news media should be objective. however you seem to have no qualms about the McCain campaign's dishonest agenda. bend-the-truth ads is what they're all about. I demand objectivity from news reporters but I also demand straight talk from the candidate's respective campaigns.

Well I would agree with you but the tough part for me is this. SHE SAID THIS STUFF OUT OF HER OWN MOUTH!!!!

Now unless the AP got someone with a Mac Pro to edit the audio and change her words, this lady is simply NOT READY for the world stage. Sorry

Q. How do you know a presidential candidate has thin national-security credentials?

A. When he has to cite his undergraduate major as evidence of his experience.

Q. How do you know a vice-presidential candidate is in way over her head?

A. When she cites the PTA as evidence of her experience.

Or Mooseburgers, or lipstick, or being a hockey mom, or trying to sell a FREAKING JET ON EBAY... YOU KNOW HOW DUMB THAT IS.........

Hmmm no buyers... I wonder why??

Q. How do you know when a Presidential candidate is ever further over his head?

A1. When he cites community organizing as evidence of his experience.
A2. When he pokes at a Governor's experience compared to his 143 days in the Senate.
A3. When he says he's going to create a world free of nuclear weapons.
A4. When he doesn't even know that Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council

HINT: It's not multiple choice.

Q. How do you know when a Vice-presidential candidate is in over her head?

A1. When she's running with John McCain and says:

we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

LINK

A2. Wait.......A1 says it all..........

Good quote mhally
How much do you want to bet, Palin cries before November 3 to get sympathy.
The wonder what odds are down in vegas, you know someone has a bet on it.
If she doesn't you can still make a lovely bit of profit.

"I also think even though she's apart of the "Bush Administration" she would bring the reform message home."

She is way too tied to the Bush administration....4 more years wouldn't be empty words then.

Good point "Transformative Change"... But if McCain who supported "Bush" can be for reform why not "Madame Secretary of State." Which would show republicans that even someone so close to "Bush" can be reformed. Trust me I don't want 4 more years! She would have gave McCain a good face instead of Palin!

Yeah, grab an accomplice to the most heinous crime against the US and a foreign county in this nation's history. That promotes change. Good idea. Make sure Dicky gets a seat at the table, too. Hell, bring in the whole bunch and have a slumber party. You can all make smores and play a rousing game of RISK! Good times.

I'm a Democrat, so take this for what you will, but you Republicans should be pissed off. John McCain has shown so much disrespect to you by selecting a running mate solely for political reasons, simply to try to siphon off HRC voters and to draw the rabid and divisive evangelical crowd, showing no concern whatsoever whether or not she is actually qualified for the job.

Point taken BizEBea and Mark in Worcester, I'm a Democrat and I'm voting for Obama! And I think that Palin was a wrong pick for McCain and I would have spoken out against Obama if he had made the wrong VP choice and would have spoke on who I thought would be a better choice for him. I not one of those "swing voters" who go back and forth from one party to another. Nor am I one of those "undecided voters"... I voting for Obama and proud of it. But if the McCain camp wins this election (which I don't think he will) I would want the VP to be someone that I know already, and what her/his record was. Pain record is some what shrouded and she was picked in haste. I know the republicans are pushing for Pain because she energized the party and getting the poll numbers up. And face it this is our future we're talking about. If McCain wins with Palin and heaven forbid that something should happen to him and she becomes president... I don't want to go up in a mushroom cloud because she don't have a clue about the world and it people. That's why he could have chosen a better republican senator or governor for his VP spot!

It sounds familiar. I think after eight years of a grammatically challenged president, we shouldn't put another grammatically challenged person in. Look where it has gotten us.