It's refreshing that she obviously doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy? You can't honestly watch that video and say she did a good job.

I can't say Obama has done ANYTHING that gives me an once of confidence as president, he's the guy slotted #1 on the ticket you support. Here's another confidence builder about him.

 

I can't say Obama has done ANYTHING that gives me an once of confidence as president, he's the guy slotted #1 on the ticket you support.

 

Can you tell me what you thought of Palin in the interview?

Can you tell me what you thought of Palin in the interview?

More than I think of Obama.

More than I think of Obama.

 

Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.

Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.

Glad I could help you out. :thumb:

Let's see a sample of how Obama can sound:

 

 

 

:lol:

 

Geez, that was awful.

:lol:

 

Geez, that was awful.

:lol: I know, and the left talks about how moronic Bush sounds. :creepy:

:lol: I know, and the left talks about how moronic Bush sounds. :creepy:

 

Was he complaining about crowd noice when he said he couldn't hear himself? There is no way, IMO, that room could have been that loud.

Nice try to divert the topic, guys.

 

Back to the topic, Ms. Palin's interview with Katie Couric:

 

Palin has been held from the media, ostensibly to prepare her for just such interviews. One would have to believe that she would be schooled in how to answer questions on her foreign policy experience. In a nutshell, her rambling non-answer was an answer. She has none, and quite possibly may not even be "up" on the global issues of the day, beyond the war in Iraq.

I totally disagree with him on meeting without preconditions.

 

I know, but I suppose that is a discussion for a different thread. The point here is that Henry Kissinger is an ad hoc adviser to the McCain campaign and met with Palin earlier this week to discuss foreign policy. Yet, in this interview she not only disagrees with him, but calls him naive and doesn't realize she's doing it. I've never met Henry Kissinger, let alone been advised by him, yet I know of his opinion on the matter. Why doesn't Palin?

 

Or take her response to the bailout:

 

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

 

What?!? How can she not put together a cogent response to the issue dominating the public dialogue? This isn't a simple case of a poor speaker, or her mincing words - there is no substance, there isn't a glimpse of reason. She's attempting to regurgitate talking points that don't apply to the question. Why can't she answer it? I'm afraid it's because she simply doesn't know enough to do it.

 

Palin is obviously an exceptional person evinced by her ability to climb against the grain and assume the highest office in Alaska. She's an intelligent woman with a nice looking family. But, she's had no reason to follow along with foreign affairs or economics, even, while in state government and that fact is becoming incredibly evident. She's in too deep. She's been plucked before she was ripe.

I know, but I suppose that is a discussion for a different thread. The point here is that Henry Kissinger is an ad hoc adviser to the McCain campaign and met with Palin earlier this week to discuss foreign policy. Yet, in this interview she not only disagrees with him, but calls him naive and doesn't realize she's doing it. I've never met Henry Kissinger, let alone been advised by him, yet I know of his opinion on the matter. Why doesn't Palin?

 

Or take her response to the bailout:

 

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

 

What?!? How can she not put together a cogent response to the issue dominating the public dialogue? This isn't a simple case of a poor speaker, or her mincing words - there is no substance, there isn't a glimpse of reason. She's attempting to regurgitate talking points that don't apply to the question. Why can't she answer it? I'm afraid it's because she simply doesn't know enough to do it.

 

Palin is obviously an exceptional person evinced by her ability to climb against the grain and assume the highest office in Alaska. She's an intelligent woman with a nice looking family. But, she's had no reason to follow along with foreign affairs or economics, even, while in state government and that fact is becoming incredibly evident. She's in too deep. She's been plucked before she was ripe.

 

But sometimes Obama doesn't sound good.

 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

But sometimes Obama doesn't sound good.

 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

 

Fair enough.

Here's the positive for the Republicans. Her ineffective communication skills have set a very low bar for the VP debate.

I dont see the problem in her admitting that she has little or no foreign policy experience. How much foreign relations experience did Clinton have before he took office? or Reagan? or GW Bush? They were Governors and their selling point was domestic policies and their experience in running a government/economy. I think that it is good that Governors havent been biased in foreign matters by serving on Senate committees. While experience would be preferable, lack of it shouldnt be a deathnail for serving in the White House. The important thing is to surround yourself with the "best and brightest" the country has to offer in the area of foreign relations.

I did not see this interview in its original context, and only saw brief snippets of it after the fact, so I can't comment so much on what was said. What I did see however, that struck me boldly was the very real "Star Trek Chic" soft focus effect on Katie Couric and the very hard light and lack of softness on Palin. I literally sat up and laughed when I saw this on television. It is not as obvious in the computer clips.

 

You can say what you want about the mainstream media being unbiased, but stunts like this suggest otherwise. Such an effect is virtually unnoticeable to the average viewer, but subconsciously, it creates a feeling of harshness toward the woman without the filter.

 

Hi-larious I say... hi-larious. :lol: