UPDATE: Over at Right Wing News and Hot Air, I think that more than a few people are missing the thrust of the video. As I commented at The Arkansas Project:
I would say it’s less about Palin support and more about pushing back against some of the unethical tactics that have been used against her, such as rumor-mongering and sexism.It's not a sisterhood thing. It's not a Palin rules thing. It's a, don't think you can run me off with smears just because I'm female thing.
23 comments:
Obviously you are the blonde in the red (cranberry?) top. All I can say to that is WOW!
So, how long do you think it will be until Sarah: the movie hits theaters?
And, congratulations on being pregnant!
You're gorgeous!
You're also correct!
that cuts of you laughing were cute.
Seems one of those "viral" emails is circulating regarding the opinions and recollections of Alaskan Anne Kilkenny about her former acquaintance Sarah Palin. I found THIS on www.factcheck.org -- and they're not done sorting-through Kilkenny's drivel. And -- I'd like to enthusiastically echo the above comments! Your avatar photo just doesn't quite do "justice". Oh... and congrats on the Spring event-to-be!
How did you like Palin's fumbling, bumbling appearance on World News Tonight? As an Obama supporter, I was thrilled of course, but as a living creature on the planet I am worried. Here is what she said about a future nuclear war over South Ossetia:
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.
I am not willing to vote for a VP who is VERY VERY likely to actually take office who will risk the incineration of you, your unborn child, your husband, your friends and your family over South Ossetia.
DeltaLitProf:
Did you not notice the first two words of her response you quoted? You also may wish to just stay home on Nov 4 since BOTH of "your" candidates support admission of Georgia into NATO.
Larry
And Obama is wrong to take that position. But he has not gone on television and threatened war against Russia.
"Perhaps so." answers a hypothetical question extremely irresponsibly. Over the decades of US-Russia relations this country and theirs have been extremely careful about threatening nuclear catastrophe. Doing so off the cuff in a Charlie Gibson interview was a bad bad choice.
Palin was "threatening nuclear catastrophe" ... wow. I've seen a lot of criticism of her interview, but no one's gone quite that far.
As time goes on, Obama's biggest challenge will have much less to do with Palin, and more to do with his supporters' virulent reaction to her. At the least, it makes Obama look very weak that they are all so utterly distracted by his opponent's running mate.
Hey, they're entitled; but the undecideds and independents are going to be turned off by that. Up til now, I would've thought Obama had a really great chance, but his own people just might sabotage him.
Anyway, delta, keep it up. Those of us who don't want Obama to win appreciate it.
Knox,
"Perhaps so." is perceived by Russia as a threat. If a journalist had asked Medvedev the same question about us, and answered "Perhaps so" it would be front page news here. And it is front page news there now.
Why are thinking Democrats and others (especially independents) scruitinizing her so closely?
McCain is 72. There's a one in three chance this woman would be president.
You can call it losing our minds and overreacting and turning off independents if you want to. But the vetting will continue whether Democrats officially condone it (Both Obama and Biden have said her record and statements are fair game) or not.
Democracy demands we examine our representatives. For you it does not if those representatives are Republican. For me both parties' candidates need to be vetted extensively by those who will employ them.
It may be that I've read and taught too much Thomas Jefferson for you. But 1776 happened and to paraphrase Barbara Boxer, revolutions have consequences.
delta,
You do realize that we are under treaty obligation to defend any NATO member that is attacked - don't you?
Why do you think we have stationed troops throughout Europe for the last 60 years?
Russia has already threatened Poland, a member of NATO, with nuclear anihilation if they accept our anti-ballistic missile screen.
You do realize that NATO is engaged in Afghanistan because the Taliban aided and abetted an attack on us on 9/11.
Allies defend one another from attack when necessary, and strong alliances deter attacks in the first place.
As more detail that was left out of the ABC broadcast emerges, both through transcripts and unaired video, it's becoming evident that relevant parts of the conversation were left out of the original broadcast.
There are those who would not like any answer given by Gov. Palin in response to Mr. Gibson's questions. However, it's clear from the unedited transcript that her answers were, in fact, more detailed and considered than what was revealed to us by ABC.
DLP specifically notes one response considered "irresponsible," but makes that assessment knowing only 1/3 of the response, as ABC decided not to air 2/3 of Gov. Palin's answer. Nor did ABC air a couple of other related questions that put the answer in context.
Criticizing her as supporting war with Russia based on what ABC decided to air is like writing an analytic term paper with only Cliff's Notes as reference.
knox,
What did Washington say about the dangers of "entangling alliances"?
NATO should not be in the business of admitting every country that wants to join. Nuclear war should not be fought over the internal politics of Georgia and the Ukraine.
You may be perfectly fine with being vaporized because Georgia does not want to part with South Osettia. I am not. Admitting that country to NATO risks that very thing occurring.
derek,
"Perhaps so" and "In what respect Charlie?" is all I needed to hear. But I'll read the transcript of the full interview.
In addition to the transcript, I'd also like to reference Charles Krauthammer's piece in yesterday's Washington Post. Mr. Krauthammer notes that he coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in June 2001 to describe the unilateral withdrawal from international treaties such as the ABM treaty, and that Mr. Gibson's "understanding" of the term is, in fact, the fourth in a series. There is no single definition of what the phrase means.
Given the ambiguous nature of the phrase due to multiple definitions, asking for clarification is hardly a sure sign of intellectual weakness - regardless of your opinion of Gov. Palin's eventual answer to the question.
(Apologies for any redundant comments. After deleting an incomplete post, I've had difficulty with the blogger system.)
Derek,
Here elementary logic suffices: if she had known of several potential Bush Doctrines, her question would not have been "With what respect?" but "Which one?"
There's nothing logical about a political interview. Both sides are playing for advantage, not mutual understanding.
Cliff May, at the Corner blog, on 9/13:
"I think Charles Krauthammer makes a persuasive case that Charlie Gibson's understanding of the Bush Doctrine is wafer thin. I also think... Palin's answer demonstrates that she has a lot of material to master...
But ask yourself: How would a real foreign policy sophisticate have replied to Gibson’s question?
Well, Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She was interviewed by Alan Johnson, for a book titled 'Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews'.
Here's how the exchange begins:
Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between 'the Bush doctrine' and the 'grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law'?
Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine'.
In other words, Dean Slaughter gave the same answer as did Palin."
Another explanation of the BD may be found in Norman Podhoretz' book "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win" -- the excerpt of which may be read HERE. [A lengthy book excerpt. At bottom right of linked page click on "View All", then on next page loaded scroll down about 1/3-way to "Enter the Bush Doctrine", in bold.]
Larry,
If "With what respect?" means the same as "Which one?" you and I don't speak the same variety of English. But what do I know. I only teach it for a living.
DeltaLitProf:
It's obvious that you don't intend to use any "reason" about this issue. Did my 7:31PM comment make ANY effort to equate those two responses? Dean Slaughter said neither; she said "Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine'". I'm no high-falutin' Lit Prof, but I certainly know the differences of those three replies. True-to-form, the liberal prof talks-down to the dredge of fly-over country. I'm exceedingly tempted to continue, but conclude I'd perhaps say some things I may regret later.
Larry,
Have you just lost your mind?
The woman said, "In what respect, Charlie?" not "Which one, Charlie" or "Tell me what you mean by The Bush Doctrine."
And as I've said elsewhere, this LitProf was born in Gurdon, Arkansas (try to find that on a map) to a chicken farmer and a nursing home kitchen worker. I probably make half what you do a year.
Try that elitism horsepucky on somebody else. I'll spit it back at you with some Redman juice.
Elitism isn't income delimited, Professor. Where one grows up and one's income do not inoculate against it. Neither does one's willingness or ability to expectorate on someone else.
Rather than insisting that others support positions they've never written (something "elementary logic" would suggest we avoid), would you consider explaining why "In what respect?" knots your knickers? It is certainly not the most erudite of inquiries, but I don't see how it's less appropriate than the more explicit question from Dean Slaughter.
I guess the thing that leaves me immensely frustrated with the immediately-above exchange with DeltLitProf is that my 7:31 PM comment was mostly quoting Mr. May, who was quoting the dean. So instead of asking ME if I've lost my mind [or spitting on me], ask that of Cliff May, since HE is the one who declared "Dean Slaughter gave the same answer as did Palin." [I had all of his words in italics.] Assumptions, assumptions. So you only make around $12,700/year as a prof? You just gained some sympathy from this guy. And if you indeed concluded "the same answer" were MY words I now publicly retract my charge that "you don't intend to use any 'reason' about this issue."
I saw this days ago and didn't realize you were in it! You are so gorgeous!
Wow, it's a small blogosphere.
Post a Comment