Is anyone else watching the Sarah Palin interview? Wow...She sounds like she has no clue.
UPDATE: Let me be clear. This isn't simply liberal crowing--in fact, I think any liberal crowing about this is missing the point. This is not about strong disagreements on policy--this is about listening to someone who has no handle on the facts, and thus can't even really disagree. This woman could be president. She seemed to have utterly no idea what the Bush Doctrine even was. Amazing.
UPDATE #2 Wow what a mangling of Lincoln. That's not even close to what she said. I'm off the fence on Palin, if I ever was. That was an incredibly ignorant interview. She is way scarier than Dick Cheney. She seems to have at best a pedestrian understanding of foreign policy. Incredible.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
That was painful to watch. I almost started feeling sorry for her vis a vis the Bush doctrine question. Then I remembered that this woman has the potential to be leader of the free world, and my feeling quickly shifted to horror and disbelief.
The mind blows............
There's more than way to skin a pig. Maybe this one will skin herself with the power of her own awesome stupidity.
Facts are elitist!
Palin to Gibson: "What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant."
Holy Brain Damage, Batman! She's a damned ridiculous dipshit!
I must not be seeing the problem with the U.S. taking a stand that smaller Democratic country's should not be invaded by larger ones.
Libertarian: It's sure a problem if the stand results in us fighting a shooting war with the Russians because they invaded Georgia with a plausible casus belli.
what channel is this on?
I think the Obama Camp has smiles on her their faces right now. They can take her, no problem.
The debate is going to be good.
Sarah Palin doesn't know foreign policy? Well then, she is just like the rest of us, so we'll vote for her. At least, she isn't elitist.
/AverageAmericanVoter
That isn't what she said, again, it takes what she said totally out of context.
I've been waiting for a candidate who has the potential to say something dumber than Dan Quayle's all-time classic, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Palin has all the tools to knock Quayle off his throne.
It doesn't matter how ignorant she is. They don't care.
Libertarian writes: "I must not be seeing the problem with the U.S. taking a stand that smaller Democratic country's should not be invaded by larger ones."
The plural of country is "countries."
The US has invaded two countries recently... oh, but they weren't "democratic." And despite some bogus elections, they still aren't.
What if a country invades a country of equal size? Is that okay? How about if a country invades a somewhat larger country?
Is it sexist to say that Palin is about as articulate as a box of rocks?
Libertarian,
Shall we include the context?
"GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."
She wants Georgia (and other countries right next to Russia) in NATO. If said countries are then invaded, she wants us to go to *war* with Russia to defend random small satellites. War with a country with thousands of nukes. Not "that's a last option to be avoided at all costs", but "perhaps so, that's what the treaty says after all."
You can't explain away this one. Either she's actively trying to agitate the bear enough so he charges out of the cage, or she's just incredibly ignorant about foreign policy. Or both.
If the American people have any sense, McCain's candidacy was just finished. Now, on the "task of God" thing, I think she was right. She was praying that what we're doing is a task of God, not saying that it is. Her mangled grammar makes it a little hard to see that, but it is the case. That aside, she's incredibly ignorant and apparently not very bright. She's been briefed for a week now - if she had a decent mind, she would've done much better than that.
Marc Ambinder: "The news: Palin's deer-in-headlights moment when asked if she agreed with the Bush doctrine"
I just wonder if she ever finished her book report on "Goodnight, Moon."
"And despite some bogus elections, they still aren't."
If UN-monitored, multiparty elections with universal suffrage are "bogus" by your lights, then you ought to just shoot yourself lower the amount of ignorance in the world a little.
Um, doesn't Obama also support Georgia being admitted to NATO?
I'm not sure what your position is then, you think we should drop out of NATO, or that some NATO countries that we have a treaty with to defend if they are invaded aren't as good as others?
This is what I despise about American politics, her entire statement, in context, is perfectly reasonable, she mentions diplomacy, economic sanctions.
But, you want to hear "crazy warmonger" so that's what you hear.
News Flash: Barry Obama supports Georgia's inclusion in NATO as well.
Asher writes: "That aside, she's incredibly ignorant and apparently not very bright. She's been briefed for a week now - if she had a decent mind, she would've done much better than that."
FRED could do better than that. I'm shocked as hell and I EXPECTED her to be a nitwit.
I'm aware that Obama also wants Georgia in NATO.
He also wants to, you know, try diplomacy and sanctions and a billion other ways to solve conflicts in the area besides saying "well, you invade, we go to war". That's incredibly shortsighted and on a collision course for very bad consequences. Putin will obviously call that bluff, and then what the hell are you going to do?
Not to mention, he would never unilaterily push for Georgia's inclusion, as neocons insist on doing.
Well said TC. The interview was painful. I actually felt bad for her. As my dad put it, she looked like a high school student who was un-prepared for a model UN debate. On a side note, I thought Charlie G was pretty solid (for him anyway)
They would have been better off sending R2D2 out.
So who do you guys think this lady will get us into a war with first--Russia or Iran?
Gosh jeese, she's so folksy. Just like us! Got to love her.
It doesn't matter..she could fumble every answer, she could mistake shia/sunni, she make a huge gaff..the republican party has shown already that critical thinkers aren't what they are after. The party didn't get exciting to they announced a little known Governor that was pro-life and part of the folk. That should of signified to all that the base of the republican party was no longer interested in what actually should matter. why independents and critically thinking conservatives are jumping on the bandwagon is beyond me.
To all the argument doesn't work the other way. Obama has spent years thinking about hard questions and has shown to anyone willing to look beyond bias that he has a grasp of what is going on and has put forth good ideas. No complaint towards john McCain he also has spent years thinking about tough questions and has put forth sound ideas...but the Palin choice is nothing sound, and answers one one question..what will tie up the base and capture the media's attention. I'm almost to a point where I'm like fuck it. If Conservatives and small town America don't see this for what it is, enjoy the country while you help burn it. I'll be in New Zealand. holla.
I hope Obama doesn't want to get Georgia admitted to NATO and then plan to refuse to live up to the treaty agreement if Russia were to invade.
I'm wondering if maybe its some members of the audience that need a brush up course on their own candidate's position and what NATO actually is.
Her attitude and understanding on foreign policy is about where mine was after taking two or three IR classes my first year of college. Cocky, overconfident, and terribly uninformed.
The point isn't that she favors Georgia's inclusion in NATO, the point is that she didn't seem to get that, if Russia were to attack a NATO member, we'd have to come to their defense. What's with the 'perhaps'?
I'm not watching -- has Charlie asked Palin her opinion on the threat of Communist infiltration, Communist subversion, and Communist preversion, especially with respect to the threat posed by water fluoridation to our precious bodily fluids?
Remember folks, Russia still is in possession of 5000+ nuclear warheads, most of which are still aimed at the US. Russia is also far less secure than it was back in the days of the Soviet Union. One of the basic tenets of Realism (as it applies to international relations) is that insecure nations are incredibly dangerous. We understood this during the Cold War, but have since forgotten it. Moreover, back then we knew better than to meddle in their back yard (the Cuban Missile Crisis showed what the stakes are when this happens), but we don't seem to understand that either. If you thought the possibility of nuclear holocaust died with the Cold War, think again. Be scared, be very scared. I've been offered a job outside the US and I think I'm going to take it for just this reason. It's a no-brainer, considering I live in Washington, DC.
Electing McCain/Palin could literally be the equivalent of signing the death warrant for civilization as we know it.
And this is the softball interview.
No wonder they aren't letting her anywhere near a real Q&A.
Wonder how soon McCain figured out that the people who recomended her as VP are all sandbagging him and thinking of 2012?
"I hope Obama doesn't want to get Georgia admitted to NATO and then plan to refuse to live up to the treaty agreement if Russia were to invade."
People seem to be misunderstanding the treaty agreement. The agreement is (in a nutshell) whatever the NATO committee decides as a response to aggression against a NATO member will be the response of all members of NATO. So if NATO decides on economic sanctions against Russia, then all of NATO does economic sanctions.
Since a declaration of war by NATO against Russia will invariably be a nuclear war, NATO would need to decide if the act against Georgia was worth that response. I'm guessing that would be a universal 'no'.
Jumping forward to the notion of a war is really getting very far ahead of ourselves. Remember, when Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet members, and Senators say things, they actually have meaning in the larger world. Russia will likely issue a statement in response to Palin's words.
Simply put, the people running for the top tickets need to be FAR more careful with their words than Palin is being here. Nations interpret words however they goddamn well feel like and however serves their needs. There's a reasons why diplomats have a very cautious and deliberate way of speaking. Gov. Palin better learn that lesson in a fucking hurry. Fallows (as usual) is right - she's gonna crash and burn on the details.
Purity of Essence, my dear Pesto. POE. Or you could say, Peace on Earth.
I'm quite certain she has never seen Dr Strangelove. Too bad she wsn't asked.
And too bad Gibson didn't play along with her take on the Bush Doctrine and ask her what parts of the Bush worldview she disagreed with . . . before his unilateral preemption of her ignorance.
They would have been better off sending R2D2 out. --John Henry
I wouldn't rule it out. It would dominate several newscycles once Palin wears off.
If the American people have any sense... --Asher
Oh, sure, set the bar up in Cloud City with the spokesperson.
Fred replies: "If UN-monitored, multiparty elections with universal suffrage are "bogus" by your lights, then you ought to just shoot yourself lower the amount of ignorance in the world a little."
Any election held in an occupied country that's engaged in a de facto civil war is bogus, chuckles.
Since a declaration of war by NATO against Russia will invariably be a nuclear war, NATO would need to decide if the act against Georgia was worth that response. I'm guessing that would be a universal 'no'.
You are 100% correct here, but you are forgetting that a decision to leave one its members out to dry would pretty much be a death blow to NATO. The alliance would have little or no credibility from there on out. Do we really want to risk either war, or the neutering of the most successful military alliance in history over Georgia? It's pure madness.
The really depressing thing is that it increasingly appears that the American people really would prefer to have their next-door neighbor as president. This anti-elite crap has really gone too far. I just read the transcript and I'm seething. She just doesn't know anything, plain and simple. The most powerful nation in the world being run by a "hockey mom". If this was a Democratic politician I'd be just as sick to my stomach.
Well I am no Palin fan and I can see a number of problems with the ways that she responded to many questions but I don't think she came off that badly in the larger picture. While I certainly hope she isn't elected, the truth is that I am not convinced that McCain is much better on these sorts of questions than she is. Keep in mind that we can count on a Schueneman influenced foreign policy. If McCain is elected we can count on going into ill advised wars anyway. She is not the reason anyone should be afraid.
When Gibson was asking her about her readiness for the Vice Presidency this exchange took place:
"GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. "
Two points. She obviously doesn't know what "hubris" means, which is very funny. And she is a freaking parrot who can't blink, can't blink, can't blink. Hers would be a blinkless administration. She's wired not to blink.
She's a bleeping idiot who can't blink.
I imagine that we shall now be told that asking Palin specific questions was part of a phallocratic and logocentric assault aimed at inscribing a patriarchal hegemony into public discourse. I do look forward to watching McCain repeat that particular claim with a straight face. I think what matters in the Bush Doctrine question is her expression, coupled with an obvious attempt to get some help, plus a desperate struggle to waffle her way out of trouble. The segment cries out to be made into part of a good attack ad:
"John McCain thinks Sarah Palin is ready to lead, but she doesn't even know what her own party believes. How can she keep America safe?" etc etc.
John McCain just said he wasn't voted Ms. Congeniality!! How offensive! The audience laughed too! That was obviously a dig on Sarah Palin who was voted Ms. Congeniality. I think The McCain Campaign should demand and apology for that sexist remark!!
"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. "
Oh, wow.
"That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia."
Good thing we can see it from Alaska, then, so we can watch it with our unblinking eyes, unblinking eyes, unblinking eyes. Awrk!
I think she did just GREAT!!
And I cannot wait to see her so jsut as well when Joe Biden rips her a new one, live and in lving color.
Hell, my German Shepherd knows more about foreign policy.
sc - the interview airs on ABC World News. If you're on the west coast like me, it doesn't come until 5:30 (you still have a few minutes...)
What I find truly terrifying is the idea that this is Sarah Palin's policy...of bringing Georgia into NATO, when it is supported by Obama, Biden and McCain.
It shows me that Obama's supporters don't really know their own candidate's foreign policy positions and so they jumped on her for having exactly the same stance as he does. Hilarious.
Can't wait to hear Ross's defense.
"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. "
Oh, wow.
Oh wow is right.
Obama said in March he supports Georgia in NATO, consistent with the criteria for membership, which requires that the country has clearly defined and uncontested international borders. Um, yeah. In other words, he supports Georgia in NATO, under conditions that did not apply when he said it and won't apply any time in the foreseeable future, the way that so many in Europe pretend to support Turkey in the EU with their rhetoric while doing so in a way it can never, ever happen.
Palin supports adding Georgia to NATO whenever, which would commit the U.S. to defending the country now. Assuming she knew what she was saying when she said it.
Duh, I mean how else would a country get into NATO unless they met the criteria for membership? Again, this is Obama supporters parsing words so they can slam and slime their opponent.
Frankly, if Obama had wanted to debate the issues with John McCain he would have agreed to the town hall forums that McCain wanted. But he didn't, he refused. Obama wanted to go on a rock star tour instead. Now his supporters are pissy because McCain found his own rock star and started playing the only kind of politics the media cares about: the politics of scandal and sensationalism.
I am sick to death of this country and its divisive politics, with both sides constantly lying about the other side and claiming the moral high ground.
Didn't Georgia invade the Russian supported South Ossetia first?
Watching Sarah Palin and hearing her absolute conviction that she is ready to be VP and even President, God forbid, sent a cold chill down my spine. She has the same ignorant zeal that W had when he was running in 2000 and she is even less prepared than he was, if that is possible. I shudder to think of the debacle that will ensue if by some means the Bush/Palin ticket is elected. She is not ready and never will be and his health is too precarious for this grave risk.
Watching Palin reminds me of Monica Goodling. The same dishonesty, the same violation of the law for party advantage, and the same basic cluelessness about why good government matters.
Duh, I mean how else would a country get into NATO unless they met the criteria for membership? Again, this is Obama supporters parsing words so they can slam and slime their opponent.
You are being deliberately obtuse. The point is that he was leaving room for the possibility that Georgia would not be granted membership under precisely the sort of circumstance they find themselves in now. Whether you agree with that or not, it is not an especially complicated point. In simpler terms, if the question was should we allow Georgia into NATO, he was finding a roundabout way of saying "maybe." She was saying "yes."
Frankly, if Obama had wanted to debate the issues with John McCain he would have agreed to the town hall forums that McCain wanted. But he didn't, he refused. Obama wanted to go on a rock star tour instead. Now his supporters are pissy because McCain found his own rock star and started playing the only kind of politics the media cares about: the politics of scandal and sensationalism.
This entire paragraph, besides being a complete non sequitor, is based upon the very lame concept that the only "real" way to discuss issues is in town hall meetings. Setting aside the fact that Obama did propose to have one Presidential townhall meeting added to the customary three debates which McCain rejected, there is no reason that McCain and Obama could not agree to focus on the issues in their campaign sans townhall meetings. I am not sure why you believe the selection of Palin is relevant to that issue. She can focus on the issues to if that is what the campaign wants.
Someone made a point last week that selecting Palin is analogous to what would have happened if Kerry had selected Obama as his running mate in 2004. Let Palin give that redmeat speech as keynote speaker and it would have launched her national political career, positioning her well for 2012 or 16. She'd have a number of years to expand from "issues that affect Alaska" to "issues that affect the nation," write some op-eds for WaPo, etc. Trying to do it all in 2 weeks, then 2 months to elections and then 4.5 months before she might take office doesn't help the situation.
As far as I can tell she's pretty good on Alaskan issues. As we've seen, those are not the same as national issues or even as those faced by other states. (e.g. What do you do with all the extra oil money? How about most of the state being federal land and use restricted? Should we shoot wolves from helicopters? How's Canada feel about fishing?)
I can see Canada from my backyard, does that mean I can speak French?
Uhh...no. Unless I studied it, which I didn't.
Short and to the point from Hilzoy:
I want someone who might end up being President to have a reservoir of background knowledge to draw on in times of crisis. And Sarah Palin just doesn't have one.
KevDog, you could be president! In fact, you are uber-qualified in that I gather Alaskans must travel to a remote bird-watcher-infested island to see Russia.
I just watched most of the interview on YouTube (is the full interview anywhere on the internet?) and it was painful to watch. She is in way over her head. I'm not sure who has worse judgment: McCain, for choosing her for his running mate, or Palin, for accepting the offer.
Libertarian, James Fallows does a pretty good job of explaining the importance of nuance when you are running for President or VP here:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/my_prediction_about_sarah_pali.php
So, true to Fallows' prediction, she has already tasted an awful lot of her own foot in this, her very first, interview as a candidate for Vice President of the United States.
I hope that many people watch this interview and recognize that, no matter how much they admire Sarah Palin, electing John McCain, at 72 years old and after four bouts of cancer, creates the very real possibility that Palin would have to take over the Presidency of the United States and that she is no way prepared to handle that job.
More than what Palin says, it's the way she says it... She looks and sounds like a somewhat-above-average collegian bullshitting her way through an oral exam. She repeats some phrases, parrot-like, looks for affirmation here and there, uses elaborate elocution to hide a lack of specific knowledge, keeps trying to return the conversation to the one topic she thinks she knows--a mixture of misplaced assertiveness and unreciprocated appeals for leniency. Gibson, for his part, comes across as the veteran professor--unimpressed by her feigned confidence, willing to help her out a bit through a rough patch, but not without letting her know... "You really should have known that one... But let's keep going"
So THIS is what she's been preparing over the last two weeks? If the woman had a reasonable knowledge basis to build on, she might have been alright given the round-the clock training she's received. What little is on display here is clearly perched on the edge of the abyss. There is almost nothing to anchor these opinions to, little in the way of knowledge or prior reflection. It comes off as what it is: almost competent BS.
"She looks and sounds like a somewhat-above-average collegian bullshitting her way through an oral exam."
Okay, while I don't want to sound snide, I have to say with responses like that she would have been destroyed by any of my professors, and it's not like I went to an Ivy League school. She looks to me like the below-average collegian with the kind-hearted professor who is willing to help her along, and will probably give her a B- even though it's pretty clear she didn't do any of the readings. But perhaps I'm nitpicking.
The correct answer to the question is that "America should work with a EU allies to show Russia that we are unified in any decisions that we will take"
Europe has a much bigger stake in Russia and having peaceful relationships with Russia than the US.
The EU get 16% of it's natural gas from Russia.
Remeber NATO is a group and their are requirments for membership. Georgia haven't met the requirments with respect to the break-away areas. Second other NATO members have to agree to ally Georgia into Russia.
Gibraltar is part of Britain (though hardly undisputed, of course) and all countries' embassies are their soil. So if the ability to see an uninhabited part of Russia from an Alaskan Island gives one foreign policy credentials ... well, the mind boggles.
Wow. This explains a lot...the lipstick B.S., the kindergarten sex education ad that pretty much horrified everyone, the negative Obama push-polling that folks in MI have told Marc about, etc.
It makes sense. The Republicans witnessed the interview; they knew it would look this bad as soon as the film was in the can. If I were them, I'd be trying to throw as much sleaze around to o.
Adam,
WTF do you think it means to have Georgia in NATO? It means exactly, "well, you invade, we go to war".
This is one area where unfortunately there is little daylight between Obama and McCain and those of you with man-crushes on Obama don't even think twice about it. Putting Stalin's birthplace in NATO will likely lead to a shooting war with Russia.
Anyone who has been paying attention even mildly to America's two wars, has a knee-jerk definition of the Bush Doctrine that can be summed up in two words: unilateral preemption.
This whole notion of it having an amorphous definition is to assume this administration is capable of a complex foreign policy.
Facts are not liberal or conservative, and sometimes perception is solid truth.
Wow what a mangling of Lincoln. That's not even close to what she said. I'm off the fence on Palin, if I ever was. That was an incredibly ignorant interview. She is way scarier than Dick Cheney. She seems to have at best a pedestrian understanding of foreign policy. Incredible.
This will sound rude, but what's incredible is that the Atlantic pays you to produce such simplistic tripe. Pro or anti Palin, no matter. Can't you find a dictionary and at least pretend to be a professional writer?
Cal, Ta Nehisi is trying to write in a way that is accessible to you as well as the rest of us. A little gratitude, please.
Cal, it's a blog, and an awfully good one. The man can clearly write, but if you want everything to be publication quality, go read one of the guys who spends two hours agonizing over his lone post of the day. TNC has a running conversation with his readers, and I think most of us like it that way. If you want flowery prose, go start your own blog.
Let me see if I understand what Sarah Palin thinks.
We mustn't second guess our ability to put all options on the table when it comes to not blinking at Islamic terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies.
Got it.
ledem writes: "Let me see if I understand what Sarah Palin thinks.
We mustn't second guess our ability to put all options on the table when it comes to not blinking at Islamic terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. "
Yup. She's a deep one. Heck, she's deeper than Mrs. Godzilla's tampon.
(Beat that, gocart mozart!)
Yes, Cal, that did sound (and was) rude. Seems like an emotional response to criticism of Palin.
McCain's only hope at this point is to ride that wave of irrationality into the White House. He's blunted his best argument against Obama, that he's a celebrity/messiah with no experience, with his choice of Palin. Now he's relying on his own celebrity/messiah with no experience to earn him just enough holy roller/white female/low-information votes to win. But, unlike Obama, she is clearly not prepared to handle a stage this big.
I felt sorry for her during that interview. She shouldn't be anywhere near this election. Maybe in four years, but not now. She is way out of her league.
Scott writes: "I felt sorry for her during that interview. She shouldn't be anywhere near this election. Maybe in four years, but not now. She is way out of her league."
Ever see "The Matrix," Scott? The only way Palin will ever be ready is if she exhausts the knowledge-by-injection resources of the Nebuchadnezzar.
On the Georgia issue - those who say that Obama also supports (eventual) membership for Georgia and Ukraine are correct, but this is a matter of degrees. In fact Georgia and Ukraine were virtually guaranteed eventual membership after Bucharest in April 2008. Until this debacle, both could have reasonably expected to move to the membership action plan (MAP) stage sometime in the next two years. HOWEVER, possessing a MAP is not the same thing as being an Alliance member. Article V (collective self defense) does not apply to MAP holders, and it takes years to move from the MAP stage to the point of being issued an invitation.
So, yes, I believe Obama supports the decision of the leaders at Bucharest to reassure Georgia and Ukraine that they would eventually ascend. However, this is different from hustling them in (which McCain would like the Alliance to do in December) or from starting a new Cold War with Russia with or without NATO.
Obama is calling for cooperation with the Europeans, who as others have pointed out get much of their energy from Russia and have a vested interest in energy security in Eurasia and the Caspian, and therefore in security and peace in the region.
Membership Action Plans lead to membership. Obama can't equivocate every issue. Does he want Ukraine and Georgia in NATO eventually or not? If so, why? Why in hell should we commit to going to war for former Soviet Republics that have been in Russia's sphere of influence for centuries? It would be like Russia signing a mutual defense pact with Mexico. It's strategic overreach, pure and simple.
At least McCain and Palin have some skin in the game; having kids in harm's way in the military might make them think twice about this stupid bipartisan policy if they get elected.
Fred writes: "At least McCain and Palin have some skin in the game; having kids in harm's way in the military might make them think twice about this stupid bipartisan policy if they get elected."
Since there's no evidence that McCain or Palin ever think once about anything, let alone twice, that's just wishful thinking. Palin NEVER BLINKS!
What you refer to as Obama's 'equivocating' actually means that he thinks about issues and comes up with thoughtful responses instead of communicating with the clicks and grunts that conservatives prefer. "Double Gitmo!" Rrrrrooooaaaaarrrr! "Hate us for our freedoms!" Arrrrrrrrrrr!
Fred - Wait a minute, I thought the whole "why aren't your kids fighting" meme was out of line. It was when George Bush's adult daughters didn't sign up for service. Now that Obama's elementary-age daughters haven't put down their dolls and taken up arms in Iraq, the argument is back in play?
Ok, so it is back in play. Beau Biden joined the Delaware National Guard in 2003 and will likely be in Iraq by the end of the year. His brigade begins training at Fort Bliss, TX in October.
Fred,
A President/Vice President's offspring is not a valid argument in this case by any stretch of the imagination. The mere fact that those children of our leaders would be "on the ground" some where in a war zone is extremely dangerous for the entire unit. The military knows this. There would be some incredible propagada distributed if they were captured or killed by the enemy. Having our leader's children in the line of fire is very counterproductive to military strategy and anyone who is responsible knows it.
I bring up their kids' service for two reasons:
1) It's nice to see the children of our political leaders serve sometimes. It would have been nice if the Bush daughters had served too.
2) I think both Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin are wrong on their foreign policy ideas with respect to Russia. There's nothing nuanced about NATO membership: an attack on one country obligates us to go to war to defend it. They all want Georgia in NATO at some point. It's a bad idea at any point. It's a reach, admittedly, to hope that having kids in the military might get McCain-Palin to think twice about this, but I do have that hope.
I can understand some of the reaction to the whole "Bush doctrine" thing, but I can't even fathom how someone could disagree with the bit about the Lincoln quote, which immediately came to mind when I first heard of the "God's will" statement, and which lines up perfectly with what she was saying. When Gibson read her words back to her, he ommitted the first half of the sentence, which aligns perfectly with her explanation. Read the quote more than once. I'm stunned that this is even arguable.
TNC,
You might remember that Sully got you to go along with his claim that Palin would withdraw within days a la Eagleton. Turns out she has given her side an 8 point bounce, caused panic among the dems, and is now the most popular politician in America. Oops. Following Sullivan has you looking very very silly.
Get off this train before you look even worse.
I am happy that the democratic party is shooting themselves in the foot with their hysterical hatred of Palin (check today's Rasmussen numbers) but you are our only pundit who knows what a mind flayer is. Don't throw it all away and wind up like Andrew.