September 12, 2008

9/12: Mixed Reactions To Palin's First Interview

Liberal bloggers are panning Palin's performance in her first interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. They're describing the interview as "embarrassing" and arguing that Palin's answers demonstrated a shallow understanding of foreign affairs. Liberal bloggers are focusing on two exchanges from the interview: (1.) Palin's apparent lack of familiarity with the term "Bush Doctrine", and (2.) her remarks about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia.

While most (but not all) conservative bloggers believe that Palin slipped up on the Bush Doctrine question, they're defending her response to Gibson's question about Georgia and NATO. Overall, most righty bloggers believe that Palin did a fairly good job of answering Gibson's questions, and they expect her to do better in tonight's interview, which focuses on domestic issues.

PALIN INTERVIEW: Moose In The Headlights?

Liberal bloggers are panning Palin's interview with Gibson, arguing that her performance was "embarrassing" and that she clearly has little understanding of foreign policy:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Honest, I'm trying not to write endlessly about Sarah Palin. I really am. But this interview with Charlie Gibson is just embarrassing. Is the Republican Party really serious about this?"
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "Sarah Palin gave an interview tonight to ABC's Charles Gibson. It should end John McCain's hopes to be President. [...] In the interview Palin made the jaw-dropping suggestion that 'maybe' we should go to war with Russia over Georgia's break away provinces. She then added the equally provocative notion that the US should automatically accept Israel's decision to start a war with Iran, without mentioning any caveat about its impact on US interests or any desire to avoid war if possible. She then showed that she doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is, the centerpiece of Republican foreign policy."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Well, now we know why they've been hiding her. That interview was embarrassing. What I'm about to say I don't mean in any sort of personal way. But as a selection for Vice President of the United States, she is a complete joke. I'm sorry to be so snarky, but it's hard to convey the utter absurdity of the whole thing in a respectful tone. I know Democrats have a million different strategies for countering the Palin phenomenon. Should we avoid talking about inexperience? Should we recognize what a talented politician she is? Well, I'm through walking on eggshells. That interview confirmed what's become even more clear in the past few days -- McCain's selection was a joke. She (like me) has absolutely no business being a vice-presidential nominee."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "We're starting to see just why the McCain campaign has been working so hard to shield Sarah Palin from the media..."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Forget about Trooper-gate and creationism. Forget about the truly low, cynical people who think that being the target of 'liberal ridicule' neccessarily means you're qualified to lead the country. Forget about moose-hunting and pipelines. You simply can't be a credible VP nominee and have no idea what the Bush doctrine is."

PALIN INTERVIEW II: Sarah Smile

Most conservative bloggers believe that Palin did a fairly good job in her interview with Gibson:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Charles Gibson threw fastballs -- fair, but hard fastballs -- and Sarah Palin connected on every one save the Bush Doctrine and even there she recovered nicely, demonstrating a poise that will serve her very well in the next 54 days."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I didn't get home from work in time to see Governor Sarah Palin's performance on ABC tonight...but I've read the transcript, and it appears to be an excellent job by Governor Palin. [...] Today's interview dealt almost exclusively with foreign affairs, presumably Governor Palin's weak spot. Nevertheless, she did very well."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "The important thing about the Gibson interview [is] to try to look at it through the eyes of the undecided independent voter, who doesn't care if she can describe the Bush Doctrine or not. [...] This election won't be decided by foreign-policy wonks. It will be decided by ordinary people who see a mother concerned about Islamic extremism. Charlie Gibson's 'gotchas' won't bother those people, who like Sarah Palin a lot more than they like Charlie Gibson. [...] America likes [Palin] a lot, and she's good on TV. So if ABC wants to show Sarah Palin on TV for 10 minutes, it doesn't really matter what questions they're asking her, and it doesn't matter what the pundits say about her responses."
• CBN's David Brody: "Her answers seemed short, not full of policy depth but the bet here is that since her answers seemed to cut to the heart of the matter she'll probably get a pass on a lot of them. Plus, when she answers questions you really don't get the sense that she is a typical politician who bloviates for 3 minutes and doesn't say a thing. You can tell that she doesn't hang out in Washington. That may be the best thing that comes from her interviews."
• AmSpec Blog's Wlady: "All in all, in part one, she did fine, other than in badly answering a rather trick question on the 'Bush Doctrine' -- when's the last time that was in the news? It's not as if Charlie and his colleagues have been spending much time these last several years talking about it. For all inents, it's, if not defunct, in deep freeze."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[Palin] did well tonight."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Sure, I wish she answered some things better, I'm sure everyone watching, wanting to cheer her on and know her better, did. But, bottom line? In that first part of her interview with Gibson, Sarah Palin expressed poise and confidence. She kept her voice. She kept to the mission."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I think she seemed a bit nervous and offered some phrasing that will cause the people who already hate her irrationally to irrationally hate her some more. Beyond that, she did herself little to no harm and came across as a real person put in an unreal situation which is pretty much the reality of things. She beat the expectations her biggest detractors set for her and at least met the expectations of everyone else. There were no huge gaffes (though her answer on the Bush Doctrine came close I thought), despite what lunacy you may read at TPM or elsewhere."

An exception is AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein, who felt that Palin displayed a shallow understanding of foreign policy issues: "[I] just got through watching the first segment of the Palin interview, and I have to say, she did pretty awful. It wasn't a matter of an obvious gaffe you could point to -- though she did draw a complete blank when asked whether she supported the Bush Doctrine as she clearly had no idea what it was, and seemed to endorse strikes within Pakistan if there was actionable intellegence, which [Barack] Obama was mocked for by conservatives last year. But overall, she looked so rehearsed and scripted, and just kept repeating catch phrases without displaying any depth of understanding about the complexity of the national security issues being discussed. She came off very nervous, like a student who had crammed for an exam and was speaking in generalities becuase she doesn't have an understanding of the specifics."

PALIN INTERVIEW III: Maybe She Should Have Looked Up Bush Doctrine On Wikipedia...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Palin after she "appeared unsure of the Bush Doctrine" in the following exchange with Gibson:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
Palin: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "Clearly Palin did not have the foggiest idea what Gibson meant. This is absolutely huge. The Bush doctrine of preemption and the National Security Strategy of 2002 was the central element of debate for almost 2 years in the foreign policy community and in the country during the run up to the invasion of Iraq and in the years after. It was probably the single greatest shift in U.S. foreign policy in a generation. [...] For her to not know what it is, raises serious questions about her experience and preparation to potentially be the leader of the free world."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "...Gov. Palin's answer to the 'Bush Doctrine' question...implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job. [...] Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the 'Bush Doctrine' exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "How absolutely, head-in-the-ground oblivious do you have to be to our national politics to not be familiar with the Bush Doctrine, the very cornerstone of this administration's foreign policy and the doctrine that led us into the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Palin doesn't have the foggiest idea what the Bush Doctrine is. Literally, not a clue about the guiding U.S. foreign policy principle of the last seven years. When she tried to fudge it, her ignorance on the issue was even more glaring."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "This matters not because I think a whole lot turns on whether or not someone can correctly identify the Bush Doctrine, in particular, but because it is not a hard question to anyone who has been following foreign policy for the last few years. 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."

Several liberal bloggers were surprised that Palin said that the U.S. has the right to launch a preemptive strike when intelligence indicates that a threat is "imminent" -- which appears to be a stricter standard than the one implied by the Bush Doctrine:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "As we know, George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls 'preemption' but that's really prevention or 'anticipatory self-defense.' It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine. Sarah Palin doesn't seem to know that this is what the Bush doctrine is, and, once recovered from her deer-in-the-headlights pose she outlined a different position, advancing an imminent threat standard. [...] Which naturally raises the question of whether or not McCain discussed the issue of the Bush doctrine, or preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense, before putting her on the ticket."
• Mark Kleiman: "Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but she's for it anyway. When she explains what she's for, it turns out to be the opposite of the Bush Doctrine: pre-emptive war (striking to forestall an imminent attack) not preventive war (striking a regime that might be mean to us at some undetermined future moment)."

PALIN INTERVIEW IV: Rattling Sabers?

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Palin for saying "perhaps so" when Gibson asked her about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia:

"Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she'd favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: 'Perhaps so.'"

• Goldenberg: "No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don't. [...] Barack Obama would never give that answer. Joe Biden would never give that answer. They would say that we don't discuss those types of hypotheticals. That might sound like a cop out, but think of the Palin alternative and what kind of alarm bells that sets off in Moscow. Prescisely the type of alarm bells that could one day lead to mushroom clouds."
• publius: "[Palin] was way too specific on the Russia-Georgia stuff -- good politicians and diplomats never say so specifically that we would go to war with...RUSSIA!"
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "The US has spent damn near 70 years avoiding a war with Russia, because it was understood that both nations have the ability to destroy the other nation utterly. The Ukraine and Georgia are both deep inside Russia's sphere of influence. The equivalent would be for Russia to say 'If the US ever invades Panama again, we'll declare war!'"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Sarah Palin today threatened to declare war on Russia if they invade Georgia, the country that hired John McCain's top foreign policy aide as a lobbyist. [...] Georgia is also the country that John McCain recently declared 'we are all Georgians.' These people are nuts. Oh, and don't forget, as McCain said today, Russia is her strong suit -- she lives next door, you know -- and she's threatening to declare to war on Russia. [...] We're screwed, people."
• Kleiman: "Sarah Palin talks casually of going to war with Russia, which last time I checked had several thousand nuclear warheads deliverable on the U.S. Maybe there's no target in Alaska worth hitting."

PALIN INTERVIEW V: What's Wrong With Keeping Our NATO Commitments?

Conservative bloggers are defending Palin's remarks about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia:

• Lewis: "The operative word is 'perhaps' -- she said we would 'perhaps' go to war. Second, the question assumed that the country invaded would be a member of NATO. We are obliged to defend any member of NATO. Third, what should she have said...that if she were president, Russia could do whatever the heck they want without fear of any consequences? That would have emboldened Russia to do as they please..."
• The Next Right's Conn Carroll: "If Georgia joined NATO, and then, if Russia then invaded Georgia, Palin would defend Georgia. This isn't news. This is decades old mainstream U.S. foreign policy. The real news would be if Barack Obama believed otherwise. So we look forward to ABC News asking Obama whether he would honor America's militarty commitments under NATO, or if he plans to abandon the foundation of post-WW II U.S. national security."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Palin says that she supports putting Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO [...] Once they're in NATO and if they're attacked, we might -- stress might -- have to defend them. But obviously a major part of the reasoning in letting them join NATO is that it might make Russia less likely to attack, no? [...] As much as [Josh] Marshall would like to construe Palin's sentiment as needlessly bellicose, that's just not the case."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Gov. Palin has simply reiterated the central and foundational element of the NATO Charter. Article 5 of the NATO Charter, to which Gibson and Gov. Palin refer here, 'states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.'. Article 5 is the reason for NATO's existence, and of course it was originally drafted in 1949 precisely to deal with the situation of a Russian (then Soviet) invasion of the easternmost frontier of NATO, which is precisely what Georgia and/or Ukraine would become if their NATO membership is approved next year. [...] No responsible American leader would offer a different answer to Gibson's question. Any other answer would simply be a declaration of intent to withdraw from NATO."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "She simply means admitting Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and bringing them under the aegis of the all-for-one principle, which is McCain's position."

PALIN: That Doesn't Sound Like Compassionate Conservatism

Liberal bloggers are buzzing over the news that during Palin's tenure as Mayor of Wasilla, the town required rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests:

• hilzoy: "[This is] abhorrent, especially when you note that as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin had no problem raising money to build a sports center, but drew the line at paying for rape victims' forensic exams. [...] You'd think that $5,000 to $14,000 a year would be a small price to pay for putting violent sex offenders behind bars. Apparently, Sarah Palin disagrees."
• BooMan: "I've heard the 'she had it coming' rape defense before, but I've never seen a town before that handed the victim a bill for their post-rape forensic exam."
• Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "In a state with the highest sexual assault rate in the nation, nearly three times the national average, [Palin] allowed sexual assaulted victims the opportunity be victimized twice: once by their attacker and again by the cold concept of justice (or lack thereof) that Wasilla offered."
• Atrios: "I actually haven't mentioned this story because there were a few details I wasn't quite sure about so I wasn't sure if it's as bad as it sounded. I guess it was."
• Ezra Klein: "Like Atrios, I'd stayed away from the rape kits story because some of the details seemed shaky and it was explosive enough to ignore until it firmed up. Now it has. Eight years ago, the Alaskan Legislature had to pass a bill that banned towns from charging rape victims for the kits used to prove the crime and capture the perpetrator. These kits cost between $300 and $1,200 a piece, and are an essential portion of the investigation. There was only one town in the state doing this: Wasilla, where Sarah Palin was mayor. This was the same town that received tens of millions of dollars in pork, and had the money to hire a high-priced lobbying firm to bring in yet more."
• TPM's Marshall: "While Gov. Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in the late 1990s, the city's policy was to charge rape victims for the cost of the 'rape kits' used to collect forensic evidence to help prosecute the rapists. Eventually the state had to step in and pass a law banning the practice. And according to former Gov. Tony Knowles, the law was passed specifically in response to Wasila's policy. 'There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla,' says Knowles."
• Aravosis: "She's a barracuda all right. What a great issue to explode and showcase how bad McCain and Palin really are. How extreme she truly is. How anti-women they really are. What a great issue to make McCain cringe. To drive a wedge between him and women and independents. To put McCain and Palin on the side of rapists versus rape victims."

MEDIA CRITICISM: Is The Post Smearing Palin?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing today's Washington Post article by Anne Kornblut, entitled "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska." Kornblut writes:

"Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would 'defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.'"

• Confederate Yankee: "When Palin referenced '...the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,' is was an obvious reference to al Qaeda in Iraq, an offshoot of the parent al Qaeda organization that plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, and while still funds and loosely controls the failing Iraqi branch. [...] Sarah Palin was obviously addressing the living al Qaeda terrorists that soldiers would face in Iraq, no the ghosts of a regime long dead. How biased or simply dishonest does a reporter have to be to twist that?"
• Michelle Malkin: "[Palin] simply said that Iraq-bound U.S. troops would 'defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.' As McCain Campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb notes, 'It seems we are to assume that this group [al Qaeda in Iraq], despite sharing a name and leadership with the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has nothing at all to do with those who "planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."' No connection at all?"
• RedState's Streiff: "One would have thought after five years of war reporterette Anne E. Kornbut would be somewhat clear on who exactly the combatants are in Iraq but then one would be working under the assumption that basic honesty and integrity are useful traits when you are in the tank for Barack Obama and writing a tawdry hit piece in his support. [...] That brigade will be going to Iraq to fight the people that planned and executed and, indeed, rejoiced in the attacks of 9-11-01. Those people being al-Qaeda. Under any other interpretation Kornblut has to believe that Palin is talking about fighting the ghosts of the hijackers."
• Hinderaker: "News flash to Ms. Kornblut: the Alaska National Guard isn't going to Iraq to fight 'the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.' Saddam is dead, and the government of Iraq is now our ally. The only organized opposition these troops will encounter in Iraq comes precisely, as Palin said, from 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans,' al Qaeda."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: On Liberal Condescension

Ta-Nehisi Coates:

"...I've always thought the What's The Matter With Kansas thesis to be condescending, but that's because as black person, I know what is to be subject to stick-figure, crude algebraic analysis. Of course because such condescension comes from conservatives, nobody calls it that. But really, what was the 'welfare queen' trope but condescension to poor black women? [...] Conservative bloggers have been in quite a lather over alleged liberal sneering toward Sarah Palin. But if Palin's sneering toward 'community organizers' wasn't condescension, then the word has no meaning. [...]

This is a numbers game -- there are simply more white people then blacks, thus the market for righteous outrage and umbrage is bigger in white America. Ditto for the gays. This is why we can agree that the Manhattanite who disses NASCAR having never seen it is condescending. But the exurban church-goer -- armed with no evidence -- who says two men marrying is an abomination is 'traditional.' This despite the fact that both views are ultimately rooted in ignorance, and ultimately seek to employ that ignorance to define someone else. Condescension happens, no doubt. But it's a lazy, weak, and ultimately dishonest, thinking that sees the white working class (to the extent that such a thing exists) only as targets of condescension, and everyone else as authors of victimology."

LEST WE FORGET: Female Fans Out For Season With Tom Brady's Knee Injury

From The Onion:

"FOXBOROUGH, MA -- More than 90 percent of female football fans were lost for the season on Sunday when New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady suffered a left knee injury that will require extensive treatment. The Patriots announced Monday that Brady, the 2007 NFL Most Valuable Player and arguably the NFL's most handsome man, will be placed on injured reserve, where despite being no less attractive than before his injury, he will only be partially visible for the rest of the 2008-2009 season. [...]

Brady left Sunday's game against Kansas City after suffering an ugly anterior cruciate ligament tear in his incredibly handsome left knee after being hit by merely average-looking Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard.

'We feel badly for the nation's women about the injury,' [Patriots coach Bill] Belichick said. 'And for Tom, of course. You hate to see anyone with that kind of masculine yet boyish appeal go down. No one has worked harder or done more for this team's female fan base than Tom has, and we expect him to set his rugged, chiseled jaw, keep his twinkling blue eyes on the prize, and be ready to get back on the field and in front of the cameras by next year.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at September 12, 2008 01:29 PM