It's very obvious after watching last night's interview with Charlie Gibson that Sarah Palin is not ready to be Commander and Chief of our Country...
In fact, I don't believe she is ready to be Vice President either...
She came across angry, defensive, uninformed and confused throughout the interview..
But don't just take my word for it...
Here are some excerpts from non partisan and respected media outlets...
Reviews of her performance tend to be NEGATIVE, with a focus on her labored efforts to deal with foreign policy questions.
The AP says Palin "struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state."
The Chicago Tribune also notes Palin "seemed unfamiliar with the 'Bush doctrine,' which says the United States does not need to wait to be attacked before going to war."
The New York Times says in "choosing Mr. Gibson as Ms. Palin's interlocutor, the campaign was going with a journalist known for having a mild manner but the gravitas to be taken seriously. But the interview was hardly gentle." Gibson "expressed exasperation" with Palin, complaining that she "had buried him in 'a blizzard of words.'"
The Washington Times reports Gibson "also asked her about her travel experience, and she acknowledged that before a recent trip to Kuwait to visit Alaskan National Guard troops she had only visited Mexico and Canada and had not met personally with any foreign leaders."
Other people had the following to say:
Palin interview: how did she do?
Reactions to Sarah Palin’s first television interview - on ABC News with Charles Gibson - have been polarised. But the majority of commentators appear to have been turned off by the combination of hawkish comment – especially on relations with Russia – and ignorance on certain aspects of US foreign affairs and national security policy.
The Huffington Post, is worried about Palin’s "dangerous sabre-rattling" on the subject of Russia. "From joking about bombing Iran, to talking about invading Iraq, Iran and Syria weeks after 9/11 to the misguided 'we are all Georgians now,' the McCain campaign is sending all kinds of horrifying signals to the world about the types of wars it would fight", writes Ilan Goldenberg. The bottoms line? "You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war."
Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo says that no one should be surprised about Palin’s warlike response: “The truth, though, is that Palin was doing little more that drawing out the logical inference of McCain and Co.'s unhinged policy vis a vis Russia.”
Andrew Sullivan, writing on the Atlantic’s political blog, says that Palin’s answers to many of Gibson’s questions were reminiscent of "Bush's decision-making style". Palin showed her modus operandi to be: “Minimal input, instant decision, refusal to ever think again, and disdain for any process of thinking things through or ever having second thoughts. Just gut.”
Norman J Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says on Politico that the "scariest" part of Palin’s interview was her assertion that she had “not a single doubt that she is ready to be president". Any sane human, writes Ornstein "no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job". Her answers suggest "utter inexperience and utter arrogance… the worst possible combination I can imagine".
Ron Bojean, Republican strategist, also joins the debate on Politico, and thinks Palin scored a hit. "My opinion of her was strengthened through the quick, unequivocal responses she gave to the questions on VP experience, foreign relations and her relationship with God," he says. “She was direct and clear in her interview. I think what people will take away from it is that she is strong, well-rounded and does not use extraneous language to make her points." On the subject of Russia, he admits she was perhaps too strong, "but where else could she go?"
Jack Shafer on Slate believes that one of the only things the interview showed us was that ABC News anchor Charles Gibson "knows volumes more about national security and foreign policy than does Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin". Shafer’s conclusion? "Never mind about her not being ready to be president. She wasn't even ready for this interview."
But one blogger put it on TPM Election Central: "Remember how we all laughed at Bush in 2000 for all of his gaffes, such as when he couldn't name most of the major foreign leaders? This kind of shit played well in large swaths of the country and established his 'everyman'
credibility."
THE SHRINK
In fact, I don't believe she is ready to be Vice President either...
She came across angry, defensive, uninformed and confused throughout the interview..
But don't just take my word for it...
Here are some excerpts from non partisan and respected media outlets...
Reviews of her performance tend to be NEGATIVE, with a focus on her labored efforts to deal with foreign policy questions.
The AP says Palin "struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state."
The Chicago Tribune also notes Palin "seemed unfamiliar with the 'Bush doctrine,' which says the United States does not need to wait to be attacked before going to war."
The New York Times says in "choosing Mr. Gibson as Ms. Palin's interlocutor, the campaign was going with a journalist known for having a mild manner but the gravitas to be taken seriously. But the interview was hardly gentle." Gibson "expressed exasperation" with Palin, complaining that she "had buried him in 'a blizzard of words.'"
The Washington Times reports Gibson "also asked her about her travel experience, and she acknowledged that before a recent trip to Kuwait to visit Alaskan National Guard troops she had only visited Mexico and Canada and had not met personally with any foreign leaders."
Other people had the following to say:
Palin interview: how did she do?
Reactions to Sarah Palin’s first television interview - on ABC News with Charles Gibson - have been polarised. But the majority of commentators appear to have been turned off by the combination of hawkish comment – especially on relations with Russia – and ignorance on certain aspects of US foreign affairs and national security policy.
The Huffington Post, is worried about Palin’s "dangerous sabre-rattling" on the subject of Russia. "From joking about bombing Iran, to talking about invading Iraq, Iran and Syria weeks after 9/11 to the misguided 'we are all Georgians now,' the McCain campaign is sending all kinds of horrifying signals to the world about the types of wars it would fight", writes Ilan Goldenberg. The bottoms line? "You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war."
Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo says that no one should be surprised about Palin’s warlike response: “The truth, though, is that Palin was doing little more that drawing out the logical inference of McCain and Co.'s unhinged policy vis a vis Russia.”
Andrew Sullivan, writing on the Atlantic’s political blog, says that Palin’s answers to many of Gibson’s questions were reminiscent of "Bush's decision-making style". Palin showed her modus operandi to be: “Minimal input, instant decision, refusal to ever think again, and disdain for any process of thinking things through or ever having second thoughts. Just gut.”
Norman J Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says on Politico that the "scariest" part of Palin’s interview was her assertion that she had “not a single doubt that she is ready to be president". Any sane human, writes Ornstein "no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job". Her answers suggest "utter inexperience and utter arrogance… the worst possible combination I can imagine".
Ron Bojean, Republican strategist, also joins the debate on Politico, and thinks Palin scored a hit. "My opinion of her was strengthened through the quick, unequivocal responses she gave to the questions on VP experience, foreign relations and her relationship with God," he says. “She was direct and clear in her interview. I think what people will take away from it is that she is strong, well-rounded and does not use extraneous language to make her points." On the subject of Russia, he admits she was perhaps too strong, "but where else could she go?"
Jack Shafer on Slate believes that one of the only things the interview showed us was that ABC News anchor Charles Gibson "knows volumes more about national security and foreign policy than does Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin". Shafer’s conclusion? "Never mind about her not being ready to be president. She wasn't even ready for this interview."
But one blogger put it on TPM Election Central: "Remember how we all laughed at Bush in 2000 for all of his gaffes, such as when he couldn't name most of the major foreign leaders? This kind of shit played well in large swaths of the country and established his 'everyman'
credibility."
THE SHRINK
op:
