Here's an interesting video that shows how objectivity becomes a cover for weakness. I think Dacid Gergen just disagrees, and I'll give him a pass. But two things stick out to me from this: 1.) It's OK that Palin was clueless about the Bush Doctrine because most Americans and journalists are clueless about it. By that logic, most Americans are qualified to be president. 2.) Palin's ignorance only matters if it affects the "game." In other words, unless McCain loses votes on this, it's actually irrellevant. This is the sort of analysis that arises when your more interested in process than in actual results. It's also, interestingly enough, pretty judgemental. The more I watch, the more I think it's not that you have to be objective, you just have to be careful what you're objective about.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
To me, it's not so much that she didn't answer the question, it's that she couldn't ask intelligent enough questions to extract knowledge from Gibson as to what he was after.
Sorry, but I am still not convinced "The Bush Doctrine" is an established term with an universally recognized definition. I certainly didn't kow exactly to what Gibson was refering. I don't particularly care for Palin, but she was right to demand a clarification.
The problem here is one of political leanings coloring perception; liberals across the blogosphere had prededermined that Palin was an anti-intelectual ignorant of foriegn policiy or the higher working of government. To them, the interview provided what appeared to be proof of this. The only problem is, it doesn't look that way at all to the conservatives, the moderates and the average guy sitting at home. The more the liberals trumpet this, the worse they look. Its amazing (and disheartening) to see Obama supporters rush to impale themselves on their own swords in ill-considered attacks on Palin.
The Democrats are runnig around like chickens with their head cut off. If you want to win this one, take the advice on the twice posted poster and chill the fuck out.
KevDog,
That, and the smarmy, almost smart-assed way she responded, with a "you've caught me, but you're too stupid to know it, so I'll be able to get away with it." Gibson knew he'd busted her, of course, which is where Palin fans get the "he was looking down on her," even though I thought his response was more one of wonder, as if he'd given them the questions in advance and she'd still whiffed.
The media will give Tweedledum McCain and Tweedledumber Palin a free pass on everything because the media wants them to win.
Obama and Biden don't just have to fight McCain and Palin. They have to fight the Washington press corps that has thrown in its lot with McCain and Palin.
I'm just wondering when the media went wrong when they were actually the *impartial arbiters of truth* that they claim to be. Was it the beginning of cable news? Did the collective media get too big headed after toppling Nixon or too cynical after the Vietnam War (because everything traces back to Vietnam)? Or was it always a sham to begin with?
Latest slogan for McCain/Palin
Mendacity, Hubris, and Kakistocracy
Triumvere,
Anyone who has paid any attention to the last 8 years knows exactly what the Bush Doctrine is. It is the rationalization for invading Iraq.
If you want to pretend that they do not know this fine, but it makes you either disingenuous or ignorant.
That Palin finally answered by sating a policy that is the opposite of the Bush Doctrine shows she is clueless.
As for "it doesn't look that way at all to the conservatives, the moderates and the average guy sitting at home" I suggest you read Dreher or Douthat, both conservation but with enough intellectual honesty to face the fact that Palin is not ready to be Vice President.
Incertus,
Speaking as an engineer, I work in a field where bullshitting you way through an answer isn't just unacceptable ethically, it gets people killed.
I wouldn't accept such blatant crap from a first year intern. Well, I would at first and then point out why they were completely situated with head up the posterior.
On the other hand, engineers who say honestly and forthrightly "I don't know, but I will find out", or "Your question is ambiguous, could you be more specific" are generally regarded as the people you want to work with.
Kevdog,
I work as a college English instructor, so I deal with a daily stream of students trying to bullshit their way through questions and essays--I'm not grading a pile of them as I type this, as a matter of fact. But while a student trying that in my class might not have the same effect as an engineering intern doing that on a building project, it's still a problem, and I have to call them out on it. And a student who doesn't learn how to argue articulately or use evidence honestly in my class won't move onto the next one.
Can anyone here defending Palin's ignorance honestly say (or type) with a straight face that if Obama or his running mate didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was, they would pretend that it's okay because it's vague, trivial, and most people don't know anyway? Please try to imagine a scenario where it would be ignored as inconsequential.
My favorite defense of this drivel comes from Dr. Strangelove, sorry I mean Charles "hell on wheels" Krauthammer, who said the "Bush Doctrine" can mean several different things so it doesn't matter if she doesn't know. Following that logic, if the Bush Doctrine can basically mean four or five different things, then that means she couldn't identify ONE of them.
I saw this dynamic play out on Bill Maher's show on Friday where John Fund aped her profound ignorance and pretended even he was confused about what it meant. He made the case that the more "liberals" make fun of how ignorant she is the more it helps the Republicans. I've read similar sentiments in the comments on this blog, like from Triumvir above. Whether pointing out her complete lack of curiosity about the major issues of our day will remind "regular" "normal" Americans of how mean all those know-it-all snobs really are remains to be seen, it very well might. But Maher was right to point out that's a political question that is separate from the the actual meat of the issue, which is, "is this woman intelligent enough to be one 72 year old multiple cancer patient heartbeat away from being president?" You can equivocate all you want and to quote Triumvir, yes Liberals are convinced that Palin is indeed anti-intellectual, incurious, shallow, and completely ignorant of foreign policy and the higher workings of government, there is more than enough in the public record to back this up.
So my question is, forget the political calculus of how it "looks" to various groups, just give me one honest reason why the above critique made by conservatives as well as liberals is actually wrong on its merits, and make the case that she really does have a vigorous intellect and keen grasp of the issues at hand.
It wasn't that she couldn't define the particulars or aspects of the Bush Doctrine, but that her understanding of foreign policy is seemingly formed by talk radio and the Fox News Network. She didn't seem to understand that the Bush foreign policy was a huge disruption from the policies of presidents Republican and Democratic going back to WW2.
I think she thinks that foreign policy veers leftward and rightward with each change of presidency, that we always have a wussy foreign policy under Dems, and then return to kicking ass and taking names under Republicans. When in fact our postwar foreign policy has been characterized (until Bush) far more by consensus than controversy. What differences there were have heretofore been more of rhetorical emphasis than strategy, until now. Bush's abandonment of that bi-partisan consensus is the single most important fact of the last 8 years, and has been calamitous by any objective measure. That Palin doesn't get how novel, disruptive, unprecedented (to use adjectives that Bush's neocon followers probably wouldn't take issue with) the Bush Doctrine was, suggests that what little thinking she does on foreign affairs is informed by right-wing propaganda more than the study of history, let alone policy.
The Simpsons covered this years ago:
Have to agree with dearleader nyc that it is totally unacceptable for someone on a presidential ticket not to know what the Bush Doctrine is. While it is true that quite a few Americans don't know what the Biush Doctrine is, none of them are running for President or VP. But I guess when we point out her ignorance we just look arrogant or elitist? I for one find it extremely troubling that Sarah Palin did not even have a freaking PASSPORT until last year. Again, many Americans don't have passports but they are not running for POTUS or VP. But I guess we are elitist Chardonnay drinkers if we point this stuff out. I for one use my passport to do relief work in Africa rather than to go wine-tasting in Europe.
Triumvere--what advice do you have for us besides just chilling out? Because I am having a hard time getting through each day knowing that it is increasingly likely that the country is going to put the GOP back in the White House despite the fact that this administration has made America a worse place by nearly every objective measure (higher unemployment, greater income inequality, a needless war, debt, debt, debt to the Chinese to finance said war and now a total financial meltdown on Wall Street as a result of lack of oversight of the credit industry.) I am starting to have that sick feeling in my stomach that I had on election night 2000.
Triumvere writes: "I am still not convinced "The Bush Doctrine" is an established term with an universally recognized definition. I certainly didn't kow exactly to what Gibson was refering. I don't particularly care for Palin, but she was right to demand a clarification."
That's funny. Charlie Gibson asked McCain and Ron Paul the same question during a Republican primary debate, and they didn't have any trouble answering him. Few seasoned, informed politicians would.
Sarah Palin is a woefully unprepared muttonhead who has no business being on a national ticket.
Is there any evidence that all of these attacks on Sarah Palin are doing OBama any good?
It appears to me that they are not doing Obama any good because McCain continues to tighten Obama's lead or overtake him in the polls.
So, I ask myself, if attacking Sarah Palin is not doing the Democrats any good, why are they doing it?
My answer is that they are too arrogant to admit they were wrong about her impact and they simply cannot stand the fact that this in their eyes unqualified hick is on the VP ticket and helping the Republicans...so they continue to attack her, hoping to get a different result.
Maybe, cumulatively, if they continue their attacks it will have the desired effect...only time will tell.
Incertus,
I apologize if my comment was taken so as to disparage those in the liberal arts, (my theatre professor wife would kill me otherwise).
My point is that lying has to be taken seriously, rooted out, and destroyed for the soul-killing crap that it is.
My larger point was something along the lines of "Imagine what a total bullshit artist could fuck up with their hand on the button and the 101st Airborne at their beck and call."
Turning the tables, playing gotcha with the process is claiming that the answer on the "bush doctrine", a creation of the media actually exists. And even if such a definable doctrine exists obsessing over it as being substantive is silly.
All that people are doing here is reading into this -- if she doesn't know this what else doesn't she know? Because clearly it can't be that she isn't familiar with the phrasing associated with of Bush's supposed policies, a policy that everyone on the left disdains?
What most Americans want is not someone who can sum of a policy term, but someone who can reason through and think through things like them and come to a similar reasonable conclusion.
So that means no voting present. It also means no whining about being called a pig with lipstick or at the bare minimum being called a piece of lipstick.
Sam writes: "What most Americans want is not someone who can sum of a policy term, but someone who can reason through and think through things like them and come to a similar reasonable conclusion."
What evidence do you have that Sarah Palin specifically, or the conservative movement in general are capable of doing this? I'd love to hear about some of their "reasonable conclusions."
I know its horrible of me to point out, but the reason so many people "identify" with this specific type of politics or personality is because they genuinely and desperately don't want to think things through, and are deeply suspicious of those who do. It worked with Bush and I fear it will work with Palin.
I'm hearing a lot about whether these "attacks" will work or not, but I've yet to hear anything about whether they're true or not. The same thing was said of Bush, and how disdainful "liberals" were and how "misunderestimated" he was, but look what an absolute disaster his presidency has been, at this point how could anyone not hold him and those who continue to support him in contempt? Isn't it time to at least consider that those of us "snobs" and "coastal elites" who are so "dismissive" of the type of person that Bush and Palin represent, are maybe just a little bit right? I know it may not win the election, but is it so terrible to ask why this type of demonstrable ignorance is held in such high regard by the electorate.
"Is there any evidence that all of these attacks on Sarah Palin are doing OBama any good?
It appears to me that they are not doing Obama any good because McCain continues to tighten Obama's lead or overtake him in the polls."
I'm trying to determine which one of these two paragraphs is more wrong. It seems clear to me that the polls seem to be going back to pre-convention levels. Am I missing something? Also, what are they supposed to do, let everyone continue to think that Palin is some ass-kicking reformist who's ready for Washington? That's clearly not the case, and I think the idea that she is in over her head is starting to catch on. Whenever you hear conservatives say that they want the Democrats to continue to attack Palin, its obvious they don't really mean it. She still shouldn't be taken lightly, but attacking her policies and record are the right way to go. Obama just doesn't need to do it personally.
It's OK that Palin was clueless about the Bush Doctrine because most Americans and journalists are clueless about it. By that logic, most Americans are qualified to be president.
Not at all. You'd have to know everything that most political journalists know to be qualified, and that's a lot. Not knowing the Bush Doctrine - okay, it isn't a codified thing. Not knowing anything about the budget - not okay.
I also didn't know what Gibson was reffering to and I listen to NPR 24/7. Now I am very familiar with Bush's philosphy of prememptive war but I was not aware that it was being called the "Bush Doctrine." However, if you are running for VP you have to know the lingo. I think she was in a lose-lose situation. If she asked what he was talking about and answered the question intelligently we'd still pick on her for not knowing. However, let's stop speculating because she was just going over her talking points and it didn't include that. Even if she knew what it was but she didn't have a rehearsed answer she still would have stumbled.