ABC News edited key parts of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin. Now, I’m not a professional journalist, but I would think if you need to edit a segment for length, you cut out questions, along with the answers. It appears to me that all the answers that reflected the depth of her understanding of issues ended up on the cutting room floor.
But hey, ABC News has an election to win. All is fair in politics right?
Micheal Moore won awards for doing the same thing.
Our gas only went up 10 cents a gallon. We’re not fed by the southern refineries that were affected by Ike.
Exact words from the interview:
Charlie Gibson: I… am… George… Washington…
I dunno…that link is making its way around the blogosphere and frankly I don’t see anything that exculpates Palin on the big booboo to come out of the interview.
Let’s not oversell here–the reality is that foreign policy and experience isn’t going to be her strongpoint, and she’s pretty clearly just not that knowledgeable about those subjects.
Oh, I agree that she’s a novice, but she’s clearly more knowledgeable than that interview makes her out to be as edited.
Palin has about as much foreign policy experience as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I just cannot fathom this insistence by the media that a state Governor that is the BOTTOM OF THE TICKET go under such scrutiny for their foreign policy bonafides.
Palin has about as much foreign policy experience as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
I meant to say that Palin has about as much foreign policy experience as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton HAD when they ran for President.
Yeah, I think that’s true. The reason she’s under such scrutiny is because even if she is technically at the bottom of the ticket, she’s been overshadowing McCain.
They were doing it in ’68 and it worked then (I was there, I know), so why change a winning formula?
Well, the Russia thing, for starters. I can understand a moral stance holding war with Russia to be worthwhile in some circumstances, but that’s about as likely to fly politically as a lead balloon. Advocating political and economic disincentives is a little Obamain, but it’s also a bit more mainstream. Similar results on the Iran thing. They also cut out a lot of stuff that plays well with libertarian fanboys on “duty to defend”.
It doesn’t completely clear her of the “Bush Doctrine” matter, but I think you’ll find that most Republican- and moderate- leaning individuals don’t know what that is, either.
“Bush Doctrine” is an epithet generated by the media. There is no such thing. If you ask the media to define it, it is whatever about current Bush administration foreign policy that they disagree with.