What I can' believe was her outright lie about what she meant by the war being "'a task that is from God." She never mentioned Abraham Lincoln, she never mentioned ANYTHING about us not knowing that the true purpose of the war was, ""Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God." That is not differential, that is not thoughtful, that is vaguely fascist. Bob Dylan should strike up the band and start playing "With God on Our Side" right now...
No. Her interview was like watching a chess match, except she only knew how to play checkers but pretended like she still knew what she was doing.
I have to admit, after watching this interview - i feel a lot better. I guess I was sorta upset about recent events and that the rovian politics was working. But there's no way they can spin this performance. i mean, it might go down in history as the worst performance by a VP candidate in history....or of any political interview for that matter.
I agree with you in part, but I still think that some stuff has to bounce right for this to hurt the GOP. The key is how much the news media calls here out for it. How much the buzz builds about her doing badly, and how much it feeds into a 'climactic' debate between her and Biden. The best thing this does for the Dems is it washes the taste of her acceptance speech out of people's mouths and forces them to start thinking about her as a politician. The more they do that, the more scared they'll be.
I don't think she looks dumb, but she looks overconfident for her minimal knowledge. She is just not ready to lead a country or be VP......Obama got blasted for inexperience, but Palin is like a raw recruit, she really has some isolated experience in an isolated state.... She is the definition of inexperienced...... DD
I think your analysis is absolutely on point. It was a very weak and feeble attempt on her part to spin those words. Even a hardcore supporter could see right through that. She came off as being very fraud. I do agree with others who have said that she's just out of her league. All we have to do is take a look at where she spent 10 years of her life working (first as a city council woman and then mayor): What is that place? It looks like a mom and pop hardware store.
This is a little over the top even for you Rox. Palin = Lincoln? Please. And on the quotes, here is Palin's... Lincoln's quote: I can sort of see how you could read her quote in a way that it could marry up with what might be Lincoln's. However, what's really perplexing to me is that I could not find the quote attributed to Lincoln on any scholarly site. Not the quotes pages, not the Lincoln specific pages. It only appears through Google on rightie blogs and fundie sites. Makes me wonder if this is another example of history that she picked up through her church... sort of like the Pledge being created by the Founding Fathers. And really, I have trouble seeing Lincoln saying that. there is danger in either order you place those and one could easily convince oneself that you are indeed on God's side. Furthermore, it is also at odds with his attributed quotes, like these... and... and... and... and... Now, one of the Lincoln quotes on this page is not like the others. I could be wrong and Lincoln could have uttered the quote Palin is referencing, but based on 15 minutes of internet research, I'm thinking that's a made-up Lincoln quote.
Hell she makes Dan Quayle look Presidential. How can anyone seriously consider her to be one step from the Presidency? Mind boggling.
Republicans are embarrasing themselves when they say this. You guys have to compare Barack Obama fresh out of law school to Sarah Palin less than 2 years ago to try to somehow make her more experienced.
Meh. Not a big deal. This will just be emphasized in response: It's irrelevant anyway. Anyone who would have (rightfully) found this ignorance appalling already sees her for the charlatan she is, and anyone who would have already been voting McCain/Palin due to her presence on the ticket either A) won't find it appalling or B) will fail to even see the factual inconsistency. It's really nothing a few God,hockey,family,country,mom,God quips won't rectify and even that won't be needed.
Thanks for the clarification as well. This was not obvious in the original article. Still, it is incredibly troublesome that she did not even bother to make a reference to diplomacy in talking about Russia of all things. If we were talking about Iran we could at least dismiss it as typical "neocon" hawkishness, but this is freaking Russia. You would at least give a thought to it. This is the Republicans' version of "change"?
<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26662513#26662513" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> According to MSNBC she did reference diplomacy, sanctions etc. Note the use of the phrase "expect to be called upon and help" -- it was the reporter who said bound to go to war. I don't have any faith in her foreign policy insight either -- but maybe were reading into her statements what we want (or expect) to hear.
were politics always this scary in this country? because this woman truly scares the hell out of me if she were president. im not really down to experience world war 3.
she said war with Russia would be a possibility. "Perhaps" was the word. Now, that's not true. There is no way we can go to war with Russia. No way. Because two massive nuclear powers fighting an open war is tantamount to doomsday. It would be ludicrous for both the U.S. and Russia. Let Russia have some territory. Georgia messed up - they really screwed up. And the best lesson we can tell them is - if you go ahead and do something stupid, America is going to talk tough but it's not going to actually cover your buttock.
Most of you guys thought her RNC speach was horrible but most everyone else (even in the media) thought it was a home run. I think there are a lot of people here just looking for negatives and no one is really giving her a chance. What does Obama think? Is he for letting Russia do whatever it wants? That war is off the table no matter what? Even Hillary was smart enough in their debates to say that, for example, Nukes were NEVER off the table. Obama saying that nukes would never be used shows his lack of experience, if you ask me. From the New York Times: Mrs. Clinton has challenged Mr. Obama — at one point, calling his foreign policy stands “irresponsible and frankly naïve” — while he has sought to portray his positioning as an example of how he would change Washington. But this raises a good point. If you think that Obama's comment that nukes never be used is a good stance for a president to take (and I realize he was using Pakistan as his example) then it makes sense that you guys would not like Palin or McCain. If you guys think war should just be off the table, period, then it makes sense that you would not like Palin or McCain. I don't think that's what the majority of Americans think but it makes most of these comments understandable. And to be clear I don't think most Americans want war... just that they realize that sometimes push comes to shove. This is why the Iraq war is so polarizing: there really was no push come to shove.
Y'all need to read the interview. She didn't bring up the war...the interviewer asked specifically would the USA need to go to war with Russia...she answered directly to that "perhaps so." Then as she expounded she later stated, "It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries."
