Why is she hunched over in the interview? She seems nervous like someone on their first job interview.

jeblis: Why is she hunched over in the interview? She seems nervous like someone on their first job interview.

Carrying more bullshiat than a constipated cow is pa(l)inful methinks.

Ok, I need to watch the interview for real. I'm dumbfounded but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is.

didn't get her first Passport last year? Making her less traveled than my 8 year old cousin?

RobsterCraw: Ok, I need to watch the interview for real. I'm dumbfounded but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is.

didn't get her first Passport last year? Making her less traveled than my 8 year old cousin?

She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

/Still think she should have done Fox first, but meh, Gibson's catching his own kind of hell from what I read :P

CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to

No she didn't,

She had no idea what he was talking about, even after he defined it.

get a clue.

Funny, but this sort of shiat is not helping.

Her responses are stupid enough without this kind of "help".


You learn in basic lifeguard classes that some people really deserve to drown.

Let her drown.

Putting Palin in the White House sounds like a good recipe for putting Soviet missles into the Western hemisphere.

And I thought Bush was a lightweight. Yikes.

Marcus Aurelius: Soviet missles

Do you mean Russian missiles, Senator McCain? :)

I imagine they have at least a sub or two still afloat even if they don't do some kind of a deal with Chavez.

You guys are all sexists. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Sarah's was too busy raisin' 5 kids all by herself and skinnin' a moose fer dinner. She didn't have no time for no fancy readin' 'bout some "Bush doctorin'".

Sarah knows her own doctorin' - you get a cut, rub some snow on it and keep on goin'.

T.M.S.: Funny, but this sort of shiat is not helping.

Her responses are stupid enough without this kind of "help".


You learn in basic lifeguard classes that some people really deserve to drown.

Let her drown.

When I was a lifeguard, they never really said that. Sure, some people don't know wtf they're doing and can't keep themselves above water, but I can't remember the course instruction ever including the phrase "sometimes they deserve to drown." Nor anything similar.

But I do agree - let this one go. I just think your comparison was bad. Like, President Bush-bad.

crappy liberal smear is crappy

Bad edit, poor taste, unhelpful.

lexshine: No she didn't,

She had no idea what he was talking about, even after he defined it.

get a clue.

Actually, if you watch the interview, she was asking him to clarify. Thank you for playing.

CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

No she didn't, you freaking apologist. She gave a canned sound bite about Bush's foreign policy. She had never heard of the Bush doctrine in her life. That was hardly a "gotcha" question.

You guys are unbelievable.

too funny!
good jorb!

Cinaed: Bad edit, poor taste, unhelpful.Just Stupid

Even your succinct comment was too wordy

I don't understand the "controversy". Having watched the interview it seemed she was more dodging than being ignorant to the question. She was immediately on the defensive as soon as he said "Bush Doctrine". He was trying to pin her on whether or not we should invade Pakistan- the same pin O'Reilly was trying to get Obama under. He just dodged it more eloquently.

Sounds like politics vs press as usual to me.

Descartes: lexshine: No she didn't,

She had no idea what he was talking about, even after he defined it.

get a clue.

Actually, if you watch the interview, she was asking him to clarify. Thank you for playing.

The disconnect between her answers and what he was asking were obvious. She had general talking points she had to remember to repeat; she couldn't get more specific to the questions he was asking because she obviously didn't know. Watch her body language.

/moose in the headlights look.

Descartes: lexshine: No she didn't,

She had no idea what he was talking about, even after he defined it.

get a clue.

Actually, if you watch the interview, she was asking him to clarify. Thank you for playing.

She asked 'In what respect?'. Gibson asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. This is an opportunity to say yes or no and explain why. She said it's a world view (inaccurate at best, wrong at worst) then goes into a spiel about Bush's attempts to rid the world of Islamic Extremism, then gets into 'new leadership' to push the newfound change rhetoric.

It was a good response by Palin to get Gibson to spell it out for her. He withheld the info and let her make a fool of herself.

A blizzard of words.

at least she didnt say like such as


/for realz

Two Dogs Farking: You guys are all sexists. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Sarah's was too busy raisin' 5 kids all by herself and skinnin' a moose fer dinner. She didn't have no time for no fancy readin' 'bout some "Bush doctorin'".

Sarah knows her own doctorin' - you get a cut, rub some snow on it and keep on goin'.

So ya know, you make alotta good points there.

The overdub actually makes her answer sound more intelligent.

The McCain/apalin team will be elected just by the constant media attention. It doesn't matter how much money Obama raises, there is no way he can compete with this kind of advertising. Media's liberal bias my ass. Thank you all for condemning this country to four years of hell.

CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years.

Huh? Seriously, WTF?. It hasn't changed at all; it's always been the policy of pre-emption.

Descartes: Actually, if you watch the interview, she was asking him to clarify

Did you watch the same interview as me? She clearly had no idea, and was fishing for clues as to WTF he was talking about

Honestly, I get that you right-wingers wanna spin this, but maybe the thread whose link is the full, unedited video isn't the best place to try. All we have to do to prove you wrong is say "watch the vid."

Mugato: CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

No she didn't, you freaking apologist. She gave a canned sound bite about Bush's foreign policy. She had never heard of the Bush doctrine in her life. That was hardly a "gotcha" question.

You guys are unbelievable.


I believe that Mr. Canis was commenting on her apparent state of nervousness in the interview, not on the "gotcha" status of that particular question. He was being empathetic to her in the situation.

this video is extremely lame...

Kind of a dumb video, but the first thing I thought of after watching the original clip was that Miss South Carolina girl.

Same empty grasping for the right soundbite, but Palin had more desperation in her eyes.

Johnny Savage: Mugato: CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

No she didn't, you freaking apologist. She gave a canned sound bite about Bush's foreign policy. She had never heard of the Bush doctrine in her life. That was hardly a "gotcha" question.

You guys are unbelievable.


I believe that Mr. Canis was commenting on her apparent state of nervousness in the interview, not on the "gotcha" status of that particular question. He was being empathetic to her in the situation.

If I'm a no-nothing dumbass teenager that went to sit for the ACT or SAT or some other significant test, and I score horribly because I was more than a bit anxious and nervous, am I excused for the low score?

No, of course not. I would be able to take it again, but not with a blank slate, the initial test still counts. So too with Palin's next interview, and the next.

She can improve, sure, but I'm not going to forget this lil nugget just because it's the first high-level nationally televised interview she's been set loose to give.

Oh geez, Dubya, the media has over-represented and chased the wrong stories on both sides of the coin. Just a few months ago, the media was all over Obama's European trip and almost completely avoiding McCain's campaign stops.

However, I agree that a sizable portion of the population couldn't care less about the interview. Palin never has to open her mouth again as far as they're concerned. It's not about isues - it's image, like so many things in American society.

She clearly had no idea what the hell the Bush Doctrine was.

CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years.

You were already lectured about this canard in the previous thread, but for those who missed it, it's had a stable definition since 2002, when Bush like published a book. And such as.

Gunther: Honestly, I get that you right-wingers wanna spin this, but maybe the thread whose link is the full, unedited video isn't the best place to try. All we have to do to prove you wrong is say "watch the vid."

LOL, you partisans are so funny.
So far this election cycle I've moved from Obama->Clinton->McCain, but because I no longer support Obama I'm suddenly a right winger.

You can watch the video yourself, she was doing what all politicians do. Seeking clarification and answering the question she wanted, not the one she got.

Cinaed: Johnny Savage: Mugato: CanisNoir: She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

No she didn't, you freaking apologist. She gave a canned sound bite about Bush's foreign policy. She had never heard of the Bush doctrine in her life. That was hardly a "gotcha" question.

You guys are unbelievable.


I believe that Mr. Canis was commenting on her apparent state of nervousness in the interview, not on the "gotcha" status of that particular question. He was being empathetic to her in the situation.

If I'm a no-nothing dumbass teenager that went to sit for the ACT or SAT or some other significant test, and I score horribly because I was more than a bit anxious and nervous, am I excused for the low score?

No, of course not. I would be able to take it again, but not with a blank slate, the initial test still counts. So too with Palin's next interview, and the next.

She can improve, sure, but I'm not going to forget this lil nugget just because it's the first high-level nationally televised interview she's been set loose to give.

No one expects you to forget the interview. Hell, I am as right wing as they come and I think this interview took some of the gloss off the lipstick (If you know what I mean). However, I agree with Canisnoir that this was her first major interview in front of a hostile media that is pissed they don't know more about her. I don't think she did that well, but I fully understand her nervousness.

I also don't think she did that bad. I think she is handling herself pretty well for the abrupt media exposure she has dealt with the past few weeks.

jeblis: Why is she hunched over in the interview? She seems nervous like someone on their first job interview.

I'd say she looked more like an unprepared student taking an exam.

yarnothuntin: I don't understand the "controversy". Having watched the interview it seemed she was more dodging than being ignorant to the question. She was immediately on the defensive as soon as he said "Bush Doctrine". He was trying to pin her on whether or not we should invade Pakistan- the same pin O'Reilly was trying to get Obama under. He just dodged it more eloquently.

Sounds like politics vs press as usual to me.

It sounded to me that she thought the question was if she agreed with Bush in general, more like "Do you agree with the doctrines by which Bush governs?"

This is why she requested clarification, she thought it was a general "do you agree with Bush?" question.

She caught on that he meant it in the 'monroe doctrine' sense, but still could not name what the Bush doctrine is beyond talking points on getting the terrists.

Honestly I'm a Palin hater but I don't think it is that huge a gaffe, there is no accepted definition of what the 'Bush Doctrine' is and no one talks about it because the only time it was ever mentioned was in the context of Iraq which was a huge disaster.

As much as I dislike the idea of Sarah Palin as VP, that video was worse than awful.

CanisNoir: RobsterCraw: Ok, I need to watch the interview for real. I'm dumbfounded but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is.

didn't get her first Passport last year? Making her less traveled than my 8 year old cousin?

She asked him to clarify which part of the Doctrine he was refering to; after all, it's morphed and expanded over the years. I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

/Still think she should have done Fox first, but meh, Gibson's catching his own kind of hell from what I read :P

I hope you aren't doing this for free. You can make big bucks as a moronic apologist these days.

Bah. I'm so goddamned sick of politics and politicians already. The whole political process and political opinions, the pomp and elation of the dnc and the rnc, the pointing of fingers and self rightious attitudes.... such bullshiat.

Johnny Savage: However, I agree with Canisnoir that this was her first major interview in front of a hostile media that is pissed they don't know more about her.

Oh, bullshiat. The media isn't pissed off about not knowing about her first. And this interview was far from hostile. He asked her a simple question that she hadn't been coached on and she choked. It's that simple.

You people's persecution complex is astounding to watch.

Descartes: Actually, if you watch the interview, she was asking him to clarify. Thank you for playing.

Actually actually, what she did was try to reflect back his question, ("In what respect, Charlie") in an attempt to get him to explain the doctrine itself without her having to admit she didn't know it. If she'd said something like "Which part, Charlie, the one about pre-emptive agression or the one about protecting our native soil?" that would have been a clarifying question.

No politician I can think of will frankly admit "I don't know." They see that answer as a sign of weakness, and it doesn't run down the clock.

Had it been me interviewing her, and she asked for clarification for something she should already know, I'd give her the clarification in the form of a mad-lib.

A rick roll (new window) would have been better.

CanisNoir: I'm sure she *was* nervous; her first high preasure national interview in front of a hostile press looking for "Gotcha" questions, hell I'd be nervous too.

1. Charlie Gibson is hardly the "hostile press".

2. This is the kind of question that would be considered too easy on a freshman international politics pop quiz. If someone tossed it at Joe Biden or Barack Obama it would be considered a softball. It is a softball: it's a question that allows the candidate to easily define exactly where they are in opposition to George W. Bush and talk grandly about the overarching themes of American foreign policy. She also had an out, although it also would have made her appear weak: she could have just talked about what John McCain believes.

3. If the candidate isn't ready for an easy, relaxed prime-time interview designed to show off her best side, she's a bad choice as a running mate. Any politician with significant media exposure is expected to face tough questions and, while answering them competently, turn them around to their advantage by hammering home key messages. The best politicians can do this without these messages seeming too much like the talking points that have been written for them that day. John McCain is pretty great at this, by the way; everything he says sounds conversational, and he can deliver even the most ridiculous statements in a reasonable-sounding way. This is an essential skill he's developed with experience. What we see here is the disadvantage of having someone completely inexperienced in national politics on the ticket.

Johnny Savage:
I believe that Mr. Canis was commenting on her apparent state of nervousness in the interview, not on the "gotcha" status of that particular question. He was being empathetic to her in the situation.

Seemed that way to me. Of course that doesn't stop rabid pack of attack dogs, does it?

lexshine: She had no idea what he was talking about, even after he defined it.

I agree with that. Completely agree with that.

Okay, I know this was her first interview, but it hasn't been her first issue to come up. Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but when was the last time a VP choice was dropped and replaced? If the McCain campaign thought she was going to be a liability, would they drop her like a bad habit or would they ride it out and hope for the best? Purely hypothetical, of course.

furiousxgeorge: It sounded to me that she thought the question was if she agreed with Bush in general, more like "Do you agree with the doctrines by which Bush governs?"

This is why she requested clarification, she thought it was a general "do you agree with Bush?" question.

She caught on that he meant it in the 'monroe doctrine' sense, but still could not name what the Bush doctrine is beyond talking points on getting the terrists.

Honestly I'm a Palin hater but I don't think it is that huge a gaffe, there is no accepted definition of what the 'Bush Doctrine' is and no one talks about it because the only time it was ever mentioned was in the context of Iraq which was a huge disaster.

Yeah, it was almost like a "Do you think Bush is a great president, or the greatest president?" kind of thing. Look, Bush's policies have been under constant scrutiny and criticism from the press and to ask a candidate who's current race is trying to distance themselves from Bush, while at the same time appease the conservative base and retain a "pro-military" stance it's kind of a Catch-22 question. She knows what the Bush Doctrine is, how can anybody in politics or America in general not. It's hard though, when your platform is trying to distance themselves from the current administration while keeping up a "we're the best party for national security" front. Yeah, there were a LOT of talking points.

Not a gaffe, just poorly executed.

Which, I guess is kind of a gaffe...

After the interview...

I would put Palin's knowledge of foreign policy and experience about equal to Obama's.

Take what you want from that.

Except Obama is the one actually running for POTUS.

bobbette: It is a softball: it's a question that allows the candidate to easily define exactly where they are in opposition to George W. Bush and talk grandly about the overarching themes of American foreign policy.

Exactly. Damn it, he was giving her a chance to give a frigging stump speech and she completely blew it.

jeblis: Why is she hunched over in the interview?


Because she has heavy, round and meaty tits.

Descartes: LOL, you partisans are so funny.

Wow, what a fantastic comeback. So full of facts, evidence and logic...

I don't get why this is so hard; The bush doctrine is NOT something that has had its meaning change at all since it was first used in 2002. it was codified in a National Security Council document and used as part of the rationalization for war with Iraq, FFS. What else could he possibly have been referring to?

Answer: Nothing. She just didn't know what he was talking about.

There is no other way to interpret this. None. You are lying if you claim their is.