Know Your (Warmongering, Insane) Candidate
Glenn sends us to Mark Hemingway at The Corner, who provides this bit of hysterical hysteria from Josh Marshall, reacting feverishly to the Palin-Gibson interview:
Wow, going to war with Russia might be necessary if Russia invades another one of the former states of the Soviet Union. So says Sarah Palin.
...[This] sort of shows the consequences of taking a freshman governor with no experience in foreign policy and giving her a ten day crash course with Randy Scheunemann and the rest of John McCain's neocon brain trust that got booted from the Bush inner circle for being too nutty.
Late Update: Do we all understand now why former Sen. Chafee (R-RI) called her a "cocky whacko" earlier this week?
I'll hold off on the punchline while I present this follow-up post in which Dr. Marshall expands and expounds on his theme:
Sarah Palin's "perhaps" in response to the question of whether we might have to go to war with Russia over Georgia is getting a lot of attention. The truth, though, is that Palin was doing little more that drawing out the logical inference of McCain & Co.'s unhinged policy vis a vis Russia -- not a huge surprise if you've just learned the policy in the last week.
Hmm, speaking of policies learned in the past week - in March of this year Obama supported NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine. And did he back down during the scuffling in Georgia this August? He did not:
Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.
Too funny. I think we can count on Dr. M to simply move on (what, you expect a correction or clarification? [Well, you get one, and its a whopper.]) but the real fun will be in seeing how many other Attack Drones follow his lead.
So let's look in on Andrew:
All I have learned thus far is that a McCain administration would be prepared to go to war with Russia over Georgia...
Actually, folks who read the transcript learned that Charles Gibson is prepared to go to war with Russia - he misunderstands our NATO Article Five mutual defense obligation, which includes but is not limited to using force to defend a NATO ally.
Time dos not permit me to wallow in Marshall's embarrassment or to see how many sheep have followed him out to pasture. But do enjoy the barrel-fishing.
PROPS WHERE DUE: Kevin Drum:
This is not a gaffe of any kind. Nor is it something that Palin blurted out due to inexperience. John McCain's official position on NATO expansion is that we should include Georgia and Ukraine posthaste. This means that if either of those countries gets into a border skirmish — or worse — with Russia, the United States may be obligated to go to war on their behalf.
However, unless I'm mistaken, this is also Barack Obama's official position. So I wouldn't expect a whole lot of pushback on this from his camp.
THE LAUGHS KEEP COMING: Dr. Marshall backpedals, or at least staggers backwards in an attempted clarification:
Late Update: A further point. It's true that Obama and Biden both favor Georgia's accession into NATO -- a very bad policy position, as I've argued before. However, I do not think that their positions and McCain's positions are equal. The best analogy I can point to is the nominal agreement on Iraq policy (embodied in the Iraq Liberation Act) between the Clinton administration and the most radical neocons in the late 1990s. Nominally, they shared a policy. In practice, however, it was one group that was completely nuts and gung-ho in favor of a reckless idea and another that was sort of dabbling in and passively favoring the same policy. Not that that is saying much in the latter's favor. But there's a big difference.
Sure, there was a big difference on Iraq - Clinton was posturing and the neocons really believed the military option made sense. But only the most delusional partisan could take Palin's answer, where she said "Perhaps" to Gibson's misstatement of our treaty obligation and then cited the intermediate steps we could take (such as sanctions) and turn that into advocacy of war with Russia. Let me provide a snippet of her response as a reminder:
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
But we are left wondering - Palin advocated economic sanctions to support our NATO treaty obligations in the hypothetical scenario described. What does Dr. M imagine that Obama would suggest? Would Obama completely ignore the treaty? Declare war? Or do something in between?
Maybe his 300 foreign policy advisers could put on their thinking caps on this one. I don't know what they'll advise but I know it will be muscular.

Well if you ,too,had a PhD from Brown you'd see that he couldn't possibly be this stupid,TM. Tut tut.
Posted by: clarice | September 11, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Palin did fine in the interview. Malkin commenters are irked at Gibson. And I agree that he was overly aggressive. For instance the "Bush Doctrine" was silly. If he wants to know about pre-emption, ask about it. However, Palin has great poise and energy and was composed and firm.
The media has this meme that they are supposed to vet the candidates rather than reporting the news and letting us vet them. Which is kind of silly. Reporters think they are more than what they are.
I highly doubt he would have played that hard with Obama or Hillary. But that's life in the big city. And Gibson was careful not to take Palin on in the sex/motherhood things that have been a boomerang nightmare for the Democrats.
Palin did well.
Posted by: TCO | September 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Dick Morris said they used Hillary as a red cape to draw the fury of Republicans away from Bill allowing him to slip in. Sarah's doing this and then some. Dems know it but they can not help themselves. It's quite amusing. And people thought W made them froth?
Posted by: Furious Diaper | September 11, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Tom, am I the ONLY person who heard BHO say that he would return ROTC to Columbia U?
He's really getting desperate. Those Ayers commercials in Pa. must be working.
Posted by: J Verner | September 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM
TCO-
The media has this meme that they are supposed to vet the candidates rather than reporting the news and letting us vet them.
That must be the reason why Obama has gotten this far.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Know your weaselmongering ABC editors who put this up for the East Coasters:
But dropped Palin's perfectly accurate challenge and Charlie's false rejoinder from the West Coast version. ABC got caught with their pants down.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | September 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM
The problem J Verner, is that he doesn't mean it. Next week he will say: "As I have always said, ROTC cannot be returned to campus until Congress gets rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell".
Posted by: Jane | September 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
So let's see, Gibson doesn't understand NATO obligations and choices, and he wants to vett the potential VP. mmmm.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | September 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
So they dropped it from the west coast version. Let's see if they correct it for the east coast viewers tomorrow. If not, give them unshirted hell for it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Oh Jane, I know he doesn't mean it. Just another Gramscian ploy to convince bougeoise voters in swing states that all the commie rumors are completely untrue. Though unless they knew about it in advance bet the Ayers-Dohrns were a bit taken aback...LOL
BO will have some 'xplaining to do to the "Progressives for Obama" over that one.
Posted by: J Verner | September 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
In my life, I recall two extreme cases of "buyers regret".
The first was when a friend got out of high school and bought a brand-new Yugo instead of a used Camero.
The second was when Barak Obama picked Joe Biden instead of Hillary Clinton.
The Yugo lasted 2 months. I don't expect Biden will last much longer.
Posted by: Terry | September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Has someone already posted this.
graf-
Nice of the MSM and the Obama campaign to admit the close working relationship.
more-
Posted by: RichatUF | September 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM
In addition, advertising themes will be pay equity for women
That should work - not
Posted by: Jane | September 11, 2008 at 11:03 PM
didn't quite finish-
In addition, advertising themes will be pay equity for women, an issue that has particular resonance as the campaigns battle for female voters
How is this sort of camapign message going to close the very real gap he has with blue collar workers in PA, OH, MI? Also isn't the choice of NH a bit odd.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
advertising themes will be pay equity for women
Where is this actually an issue? Is this something most women get worked up over?
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
My fifteen year old saw Obama's interview with O'Rielly where Obama was advocating raising taxes even higher on those making more than $250,000 per year. Obama tried to call it "Neighborly." Youngest bad said, "Income redistribution. He's a communist."
Posted by: bad | September 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
O/T to Clarice - bad - Rick - resident CACklers:
I've been trying to pull together something which drags Ayers from the CAC days into the present. Not sure what I'm going to do with it, but I temporarily resurrected Quasiblog to put up a draft of Radical Planks in the Democratic Platform . If ya'll have a spare moment to take a look at, it I'd like to make sure there aren't inaccuracies with regard to the CAC, chronology or how I characterize the players.
I'm also wondering if I'm a little short on details about exactly what kind of tripe Ayers et al are dishing out in the name of education. I don't want it to sound like just another Republican lament about big government, but I've rearranged the damn thing so many times at this point, I don't know whether I've taken the punch out of it completely.
The piece directly below it was actually the center section in what started out as a single long post! Unfortunately, that buried Ayers at the end -- where only the intrepid few would ever find him. So I pulled it out and lightened it up in "The Howdy Partner! Platform." I'm still concerned that the primary post may be too long to be effective.
In any case, I'm aiming at a clear and present danger argument, and I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions that anyone has time to offer. I could hardly pull myself away from the threads over here to write it, so please don't feel obliged! I'll probably let it age for a day or two before reworking any more of it.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 11, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Jane-
That should work - not
I read your mind.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 11, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Her reforming is going to foreign aid like the 'loans' that Biden has Treasury forgive every year like your mortgage. 100s of billions.
We need the cash and can't just give away hundreds of billions a year.
Posted by: kx | September 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Also isn't the choice of NH a bit odd.
Small market? Cheaper? Is NH in play?
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM
JMH
I was hoping you were working on something!! I'll head over and read it now. Busy day today.
Posted by: bad | September 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Josh Marshall is just on freak out auto-pilot..
the word 'perhaps" means drawing out the logical inference of McCain & Co.'s unhinged policy vis a vis Russia
Meanwhile, Obama says he will unilaterally order battles in Pakistan.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 11, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Where is this actually an issue? Is this something most women get worked up over?
Not since the mid-seventies when we fought hard and won, at least where I worked. I think we passed a law about no discrimination too. Glad to see he is going to fight the old battles.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM
The new tone is to be presented in a speech by Mr. Obama
Telepromptered and prepared speech to fake being a new person? Carefully prepped and crafted candidate to fake a a difference?
Stepford Obama. Windy City Ken doll. Plastic President.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I'm increasingly convinced that TPM and Marshall are getting payola from somewhere in the Democratic establishment...Soros, I guess.
Posted by: Blue | September 11, 2008 at 11:18 PM
JMH, I see no error in it. If you'd like, I'll write up a blog citing it. I could also send a link to a friend on the Hill with a request she try to make sure McCain's campaign sees it. It's your call.
Posted by: clarice | September 11, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Is anyone else amazed at how much power the left imbues on a Vice President. A VP does not make policy, that is the President's job. A VP doesn't make law, that is the job of Congress. The VP doesn't interpret law, that is the job of the Courts.
Most VPs spend their time going to funerals and statue unveilings.
Cheney took on a broader role, but mostly because we've been at war and as former Secy. of Defense during the Gulf War, he was/is the go-to guy.
This heart beat away B.S. is just that B.S. Everything about Sarah Palin says she will rise to any task put in her path. And it isn't as any President operates in a vacuum. They surround themselves with experts and advisors as would she.
She was put on the ticket to compliment the ticket and John McCain, not be a heart beat away clone.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 11, 2008 at 11:23 PM
There is pay equity. I suppose what he'll be promoting is the preposterous "equal pay for equal work" which would abandon market pricing for salaries and let some bureaucrats determine the worth of each position.
Posted by: clarice | September 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Pofarmer-
Bush won it in 2000 by 1.3% and Kerry won it by 1.4% in 2004. I thought McCain had a pretty good organization there and it wasn't in play this go around. Not sure I understand why Obama is making a "I won't be swiftboated" speech there.
Posted by: RichatUF | September 11, 2008 at 11:25 PM
"advertising themes will be pay equity for women"
Why is Obama's answer to everything dollars for votes?
Posted by: Syl | September 11, 2008 at 11:28 PM
As I noted in my comment to the post of yours that you link back to, you don't quite understand what that particular passage is referring to. Believe it or not, the common sense notion that we are actually politically obligated to use military force if necessary to defend another NATO member is correct. Your abilities to Google, copy and paste, and read, do not really qualify you to argue otherwise.
Posted by: Xanthippas | September 11, 2008 at 11:28 PM
O.K. Charlies very first questions simply makes him come off as an ass. Asking Sara Palin about Hubris?????? What kind of a moron starts off asking a vice presidential candidate are you qualified? What qualifies a vice presidential candidate????
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 11, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Ooooh, the Anchoress is p!ssed:
Gov. Palin on ABC w/ Gibson
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 11, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Posted by: Blue | September 11, 2008 at 11:18 PM
He coordinates his post message directly from Obama's team, that's for sure. It's obvious many lefty bloggers are burning the bandwidth with Townhouse.
His total bug-crazy kneejerk proclamations indicate it's for free, he's overcome nuts, not even stopping to think before he feverishly hits the publish button anymore.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 11, 2008 at 11:43 PM
"advertising themes will be pay equity for women"
Why is Obama's answer to everything dollars for votes?
I've noticed that Obama doesn't seem to have any qualms about spending other people's money.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Furthermore, has Biden even been asked if he feels ready to lead? Because I’m getting the impression, lately, that he does not.
way to go Anchoress
Biden says Hillary = Obama's opponenet = is more ready to lead than he is.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 11, 2008 at 11:45 PM
I'm tired and going to bed.
I think she did fine in a ridiculous forum with an idiotic and biased interlocutor.(Ditto McCain's performance and forum tonight).
In any event their performance in these events makes no difference.
These events were so formulaic and mind numbingly stupid no truly uncommitted voter would sit through them or draw any conclusion from them.
It's a political version of "Games People Play"--the equivalent of reading Andrew Sullivan and wasting time critiquing his addled brain spews.
Posted by: clarice | September 11, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Is it necessary to point out that since 1963 federal law has mandated that women receive the same pay as men when they do the same job? That's "equal pay for equal work," as determined by and in the marketplace. Any attempt to define some jobs as "equal" to some others for purposes of pay is not only futile, it is an invitation to corruption and extraordinary political pressuring from various interest groups.
Drive a stake through the heart of this crap.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 11, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Here, Vern--here's what I mean:
"Tomorrow Strategic Vision will be releasing Ohio and Georgia polls, and what they found in the Buckeye State really surprises me.
In Ohio, they find McCain-Palin ahead of Obama-Biden up, 48 percent to 44 percent. But what makes those numbers really eye-opening is the breakdown of the sample: 576 (48%) identified themselves as Democrats; 444 (37%) identified themselves as Republicans; and 170 (15%) identified themselves as Independent or other party affiliation.
In Georgia, they find McCain/Palin ahead of Obama/Biden, 52 percent to 39 percent. In that sample, the GOP/Dem/Ind split is 46-41-13.
The margin of error in both polls is plus or minus three percentage points.
It's now pretty plausible to argue that if Obama is going to win the presidency, he's going to have to do it without Ohio and without Florida. Not impossible, but quite difficult.
09/11 02:38 PM"
But for the vote theft, the party;s Over
Posted by: clarice | September 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Someone pays Josh Marshall to be this way?
Hardly. He is this way whether he's rolling through Boardwalk in Rich Uncle Pennybag's Rolls Royce or digging his way out of jail.
Reporters actually read this tripe from Mr. More on that later.
Any day we might see ole Dr. Marshall rip open the archives to start tattling his tale of Italian truth spelunking. For now we have to settle for shameless bloviating liar that hopes you never ever try to correct him.
TPM Cafe, Election Central, whateverthehellbrand: Comments are open.
TPM Castle Grayskull: Don't you dare email him the accurate picture. Only regular readers that correct Marshall further left receive the almighty blessing.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | September 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I'm trying to picture Gibson asking Obama "Doesn't that take hubris?" in an answer to the same question.
All I can imagine is Obama sitting in silent shock, planning to fire whatever adviser told him it'd be okay to get interviewed by Gibson under the bus the moment it was over, until someone manages to roll a teleprompter in with something to say other than "Don't you know who I am??!?".
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn | September 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Is it necessary to point out that since 1963 federal law has mandated that women receive the same pay as men when they do the same job?
Solving 45 year old problems?
At least we're past the Great Depression.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 12:04 AM
I just watched the Nightline version. The hatchet job that ABC did with the 5:30 version should go down as journalistic malpractice.
Posted by: Sue | September 12, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Clarice and anyone else interested, via Murtha Must Go!:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 12:06 AM
X-
As I noted in my comment to the post of yours that you link back to, you don't quite understand what that particular passage is referring to.
Article 5 was invoked after the 9/11 attacks shows what it means in practice.
graf-
Posted by: RichatUF | September 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Yeah! I had a fundraiser here last night for Allen West--lots of military guys came and they want Murtha's ass so bad they can taste it. I wouldn't be surprised to see ever retired marine in America parading thru Murtha's district to support Russell.
Posted by: clarice | September 12, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
And what kind of a stupid question is that?
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Ace and Allah are checking out that Corner email claim that ABC edited out the "I don't thinks that's what I said"(paraphrase) and Gibson's "exact quote" in the west coast airing...anyway, Ace's headline
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 12, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard.
Drop hints all week from the leftynutosphere to get them to pressure ABC and Gibson to bring the whole army, Gibson does, and in the process comes off as the bully applying a second standard to a woman.
Tomorrow should be awesome.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | September 12, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Just for the record, and the trolls, and to refresh my memory.
The qualifications for the vice presidency are the same as those for the presidency. The vice president must be a native-born American of at least 35 years of age who has resided in the United States for at least 14 years.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 12:24 AM