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"
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJkZTY5YTcyZWI5ODFlZDk3NmU2ODg0NWNkZWMzZGQ=>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
Pofarmer
SSSSHHHHHHHHH You're going to get them all stirred up as to Palin's qualifications. They don't know Alaska is a state.
Posted by: bad | September 12, 2008 at 12:29 AM
All I can imagine is Obama sitting in silent shock
You must have missed his O'Reilly show. His response would be "no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, poke, poke, poke, no, no, no, no, hands on knee, poke, poke, poke, no, no, no - I have always said, no, no, I have always said, no, no, poke, poke, no..."
Re: the "Exact words" - dammit, I was waiting for that because I had seen the previous thread and was waiting for it - but I didn't see it. Thought I had missed it because I was in the process of winding up a search mission, but that is truly disgusting if they edited out something because it didn't play well in the leftosphere.
Governor Palin seemed to be particularly on offense right off the bat. Almost unnecessarily so - but then, I didn't see the "hubris" comment. Did that get edited out too? You know, I am the most mild mannered person in this world, but there are things that will set me off like a nuke, especially when I am expecting crap from someone. If Gibson said that, then that would explain what I saw when Sarah went off on him. The SOB deserved it.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | September 12, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Question: Why am I reading that she has never been to Europe or traveled to any foreign country except Canada and Mexico?
She has been to Germany to visit the wounded at Landstuhl and to Kuwait to visit with the Alaska National Guard stationed there.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM
So, the left says Governor Plain doesn't have the experience to be VP, to the point that she needs to prepped and molded - incapable of answering questions.
yet the very experienced Senator with 36 experience requires Gaffe Goons assigned to monitor him, and I guess "his words fed to him and massive message control strong arming":
Great. Are the going to retain the Gaffe Goons for his whole term as vice President? Who knows what he will say to some foreign leader?
This is a question Obama should be asked.
Biden living up to his gaffe-prone reputation
LUN
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | September 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Bill, the very first question in the 10 minute segment on You-tube(sorry no link) was "Do you feel you are qualified to be Vice-President."
I can't understand why she would be defensive.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Y'know, one of the best things about this is that it gets the lefties talking about national defense . . . a topic at which they suck egregiously. They think it's stupid, but then BHO said so, too, so it must be smart. Independent thought? Not happening.
The best one from that Insty link is from Taylor Marsh:
Right. Not insufficient strategic lift, difficult sea access under Russia's air umbrella, lack of suitable staging areas, or the threat of an all-out nuclear exchange . . . it's a lack of troops? Aggressive cluelessness. Lovely.Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 12, 2008 at 01:02 AM
A local Los Angeles drive time talk show, "John & Ken" had the two bloviating idiots all over Palin's performance with Gibson. While it was pretty obviously formulaic at times on her part, the performance of the two "libertarian" hosts was boorish, sexist, and very nasty. Something about Palin challenges the establishment mindset and makes these knuckleheads go completely wacko. Good for her! maybe they should interview that Rhodes scholar Pammy Anderson and her Fullbright comrade Damon....
Posted by: matt | September 12, 2008 at 01:04 AM
The hubris question just demonstrated what a fool Gibson is. McCain first interviewed her in February so she had 5-6 months to consider whether or not she was qualified to be VP in case she was asked. Of course she was able to answer immediately.
Posted by: ROA | September 12, 2008 at 01:10 AM
Pofarmer, everyone in the world, including Sarah, expected that stupid question because it had been asked on every talkshow/opinionshow/news?show by every moronic teleprompter reader for the last 10 days. That would not have set her off. Something pissed her off right away that I appear to have missed. She was going preemptive on Gibson for no apparent reason, which is a warriors natural response to an unprovoked hit. It had me wondering if something had already passed between them prior to the segment - but now that someone is suspicious that ABC edited out the "exact quote" comment that I didn't see, I wonder if they edited out something else.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | September 12, 2008 at 01:12 AM
We've got a local "libertarian" talk show host too. Lately he's been foisting the line, "There's really no difference between Obama and McCain."
Really?
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 01:13 AM
Clarice is right on Obama's "pay equity for women" comment. This is not about requiring that a given job has the same pay regardless of whether it's a man or a woman. It's "comparable worth," which is the theory that pay needs to be equalized across different occupations. So (e.g.) if nurse's aides (mostly female) are determined to have roughly the equivalent skills to (e.g.) truck drivers (mostly male), and yet truck drivers make more, then the government decrees this to be gender discrimination and says that all nurse's aides must get paid more.
Obama's "Fair Pay Act" would require this. See here and here.
Posted by: PapayaSF | September 12, 2008 at 01:16 AM
I dunno Bill, maybe we get to find out in a campaign add. The way the thing was cut up, there's no wayt to tell what went where.
You think he tripped her trigger then dropped that on her?
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 12, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Whatever he did, it was deliberate. No doubt he is under the gun - the first "journalist" to get a crack at her, his marching orders were to destroy her. She went preemptive on him right away and he appeared to be out of sorts for most of it. Quiet voice, almost mumbling, like he was afraid to provoke her again. I didn't get to see the whole thing, but I know I saw the part where "exact quote" was supposed to be, and I didn't hear it. Wich I had taped it. I *may* have missed the "hubris" comment, but I was watching the part where it should have occurred and I didn't hear it. That would have pissed her off- and that would explain the reaction I saw.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | September 12, 2008 at 01:25 AM
The question was raised today as to where Michelle Obama was and why she wasn't with her husband at Ground Zero.
The campaign said she was back in Chicago because it is her daughters' first week of school.
BUT
A LIE
She was campaigning in Indiana and Ohio.
Newbusters asks:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 01:30 AM
I have Part One and Two of the Interview on my blog:
Gibson/Palin 1 & 2
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 01:38 AM
Sara:
Wonder what else Barack doesn't know about Michelle?
Posted by: Quasiblogger | September 12, 2008 at 01:40 AM
...a warriors natural response
I see her as a warrior too.
Posted by: bad | September 12, 2008 at 01:41 AM
Why lie about something so easy to check? Good grief, presumably one campaigns in front of others. What are these people thinking? or not...
Posted by: bad | September 12, 2008 at 01:44 AM
Uh oh, we've got a problem brewing. As you read this remember that Putin just sent Chavez a nice big present:
Chavez Orders U.S. Ambassador to Leave Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez ordered the U.S. ambassador to leave Venezuela within 72 hours on Thursday, accusing the diplomat of conspiring against his government and saying he would also withdraw his own envoy from Washington immediately.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 01:45 AM
I don't expect defending Michelle to become a habit, but...
McCain and Obama were at Ground Zero at 4 PM. No way could she be there and also be home when her daughters got home from school.
However, she could easily set them off after breakfast, day trip to Indiana for a lunchtime rally, and be home when they got off the bus (out of the limo?)
I don't know her actual schedule for today, but it is at least possible that it is that simple.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 12, 2008 at 02:00 AM
CNN just told me that "Palin warns that war against Russia may be necessary". What is going on? That is just way too obvious a thumb on the scale.
Posted by: MayBee | September 12, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Except TM she was in Fishers, Indiana in the daytime and in Cincinnati that night, 7000 people according to the article linked within the Newsbusters link above.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 12, 2008 at 02:03 AM
TM, you could be right. She is using an extra green private plane to fly her in and out of venues so she can be home when the girls get home from school.
After cookies and milk, back in the no carbon footprint plane to speak at another event.
I do question her ability to tuck them in.
Posted by: bad | September 12, 2008 at 02:15 AM
CNN just told me that "Palin warns that war against Russia may be necessary". What is going on?
Fear. They've dropped all pretense of being objective. Their Annointed One is in trouble, and they'll prostitute themselves to rescue him.
BTW, Rasmussen EC map trends are interesting. For the past few weeks, every shift has been in McCain's direction.
Posted by: Fen | September 12, 2008 at 02:20 AM
This interview, when heard unedited, is evidence that if interviews with hostile MSM operatives is a qualification for "being ready on day one" to be President, she is as qualified as Carter, both Bush's, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and more importantly, Biden, BHO, McCain and every other candidate that ran for President this year except Rudy,who is in a class by himself.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads aka Vnjagvet | September 12, 2008 at 03:13 AM
Ah, finally the sore has been lanced and all the pus is starting to come out. You knew the minute they took this dingbat Barbie off script she was going to start stepping the moose doo doo. But whine about mean, bad man interviewers - it's so impressive that this kook couldn't hold her own against a tv journalist! It certainly gives confidence about her dealing with world leaders, especially if the US is in crisis because their president just died in office.
It seems more and more that this cynical pick was designed to give the redneck men something to ogle while they whined about SEXISM the minute she fumbled a tough question. Face it, Barbie came out of nowhere and started throwing scripted molotov cocktails the first minute we met her. She lied and she trashed Obama and she rallied the more brainless American women to some fake sisterhood (the kind of "sisterhood" that doesn't support equal pay or health care for kids or choice or any of that feminazi stuff). I've really enjoyed watching leering wingnut creeps decry sexism while making lewd comments about her cleavage. To say you don't get it over here is an understatement.
It was a fun game, a nice little Disney movie fantasy for those low information voters Repubs rely on every year to vote on personality rather than issues. But the honeymoon's over. I'm sure her next few appearances will be carefully choreographed with Fox News and the wingnut radio propaganda brigade. But it's all down hill from here. Most Americans do love their country too much to ever let this dumb bunny within a thousand miles of the White House. The fact that she's been lying with a big loud microphone, that she freely exploits her own children for political gain, that she is the governor of a petro-state with population equal to Poughkeepsie NY and that she's clearly not that bright, despite a beauty queen's ability to memorize a speech - well, I hope you enjoyed the last week, all. Because that was your party. Now she just exposes how gruesomely old and boring McCain is. McCain....remember him? Your candidate? Have you noticed he looks even more preserved and doddering than usual?
Don't look now, but even racist Americans may just decide they love their country too much to ever hand it over to this JOKE of a ticket. For a week of short term gains, McCain has once again betrayed his principles and made a fool of himself. Almost feel sorry for the old grampa.
Posted by: NotSean | September 12, 2008 at 06:14 AM
Hey NotSean, it appears that Obama is losing his cage match against Palin despite the referee, the MSM, being on Obama's side. The announcer pulls Palin's arm to the sky and cries, The Winner and New Champeen, John McCain.
Oops.
===================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 06:22 AM
Don't look now, but even racist Americans may just decide they love their country too much to ever hand it over to this JOKE of a ticket.
Well, BHO can keep most of his supporters; I don't think anybody was counting on them anyway.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 06:23 AM
JM Hanes,
Your post Sept. 11, 2008 @ 11:05 PM
I don't know if this is going to drag Ayers from the CAC days into the present, but I wanted to respond to something you posted on the "With A Straight Face And A Pure Heart" thread Sept. 8th @ 2:18 PM.
Your comment implies that an education career was a second choice to politics for Ayers. I do not believe that is the case. According to Wik, he began his career in primary education while at U. of Michigan before he became radicalized by SDS in '65. He was a part of the national leadership of SDS by 1968, and did not splinter off into the Weatherman faction until 1969.
Why this is relevant today is because, IMO, his educational philosophy, and its' influence upon Barack Obama, can be found in, what I consider to be the Rosetta Stone of modern, or should I say, post-modern, liberalism, The Port Huron Statement of the Students for A Democratic Society, 1962
This blueprint of the New Left tells us just exactly how they were going to transform themselves from the street ragamuffins of the Sixties into today's powerbrokers who are going to change America from capitalism into their image of the perfect socialist state.
Near the end of this very long and labourious read, The Port Huron Statement, beginning with "The University and Social Change", we find that these radicals believed "the universities were an overlooked seat of influence which they saw as the critical institution in the formation of social attitudes,...and a potential base and agency in a movement of social change". They saw the university as the lever with which they would change the world.
It is from the university that liberalism was able to erode the foundations of our society by infiltrating and then dominating our most critical institutions; the legal system; the media; and the educational system. With these institutions under the influence of the liberal agenda, the powers of government would be the prize that would then fall into their lap. The fact that the citadel of Marxism is found in academia is testament to their success. Barack Obama is just the fruit of that success.
In summary, by reading The Port Huron Statement we can see why Bill Ayers selected education as his career of choice, and how he sees his role as a prominent force in curriculum development of the public schools as an ideal position for him to have the greatest influence on the minds of our youth and therefore the future of our nation.
IMHO, that is how we connect Ayers' past with Obama's future. I hope something in this rant will be of help to you. At least it felt good getting it off my chest.
BTW: In comparing Quasiblog's Radical Planks in the Democratic Platform with the Program of the Communist Party, USA, I found the phraseology very similar. The ending lines of the Communist Program had a familiar ring:
Posted by: Publius | September 12, 2008 at 06:23 AM
Hey, non-sean:
I bet BHO gets ALL the communist votes!
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 06:27 AM
The communist thing really exposes the average age around here. We're not fighting the Cold War anymore guys. It's been a few generations since we did that. And guess what? Ed Sullivan's not on tv anymore either!
Look, she had a good run. As long as they could keep her isolated from the media she could play her part, like Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. The Republican disdain for the American public's intelligence has worked for them. The Repubs may have run our government into a ditch, but they DO understand the psychology and lack of education of the American public.
Here's the problem with your Caribou Barbie: She's not smart. She's got nothing going for her except an ego the size of the Arctic circle and a nice rack. She was the mayor of a town smaller than most school districts that she managed to run into a debt of $2 million. Then four years later she became Governor of a state with the population of Poughkeepsie NY. She continued the Alaskan practice of taxing oil companie's windfall profits, returning them as cash to their citizens and then raking in federal welfare from the rest of us.
Despite McCain's claim that she is the Number One energy expert in the world, she even made false claims that Alaska provides 20% of US energy needs (more like 3. 5%) She exposed the depth of her ignorance on foreign affairs and showed that she'd be a stupid version of Cheney - war is the answer to everything! And she even managed to exploit another kid AND the US military by using her kid's deployment as a campaign prop. Oy vey! How anyone who considers themselves a patriot can support this dingbat is beyond me - unless of course they're not patriots at all.
Posted by: NotSean | September 12, 2008 at 06:40 AM
Your enthusiasm for BHO nails yours, too.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 06:50 AM
Oh, and about fighting the Cold War? Who's "we"?
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 06:52 AM
Well, "we" would be the citizens of America. I know in your wingnut bubble, there are worthy Americans and unworthy Americans - which only goes to show how shallow and counterfeit your "patriotism" is. We're all in this together and the days when cranky old white guys ran the country (including nominating their pornstar fantasies as Veep) are coming to an end. If not this election, then soon enough. You can't fight Mother Nature, boys and girls. And you can put lipstick on a Caribou Barbie but she's still a dingbat. Don't expect your secret to stay safe any longer.
Posted by: NotSean | September 12, 2008 at 07:06 AM
I don't doubt you took a stand during the cold war (perhaps your first steps?) I just wondered on which side you stood?
Yes, we are all in this together...where are you?
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:10 AM
Hasn't anyone told you, NotSean, that exposing the degeneracy of your soul in this fashion is counterproductive to the Democratic Party? Keep this up and the battle for Congress is going to swing even more to the side of the Republicans.
Pornstar fantasies indeed. If you made that up, you are projecting; if not, then Obama's little disinformation campaign is sicker than anyone had imagined.
Reread what you wrote and ask how it would effect a blue collar undecided. Especially one who has to work all day instead of snark all night.
Really, it's the lack of self understanding that is one of the amazing things about the Democrats attack on Palin. This kind of crap might work internecinally in the Democratic Party, hey, it apparently did against Clinton, but on a wider stage, there are just too many sensible Americans.
The levers of power of the Democratic Party may have been captured by the Moveon types, but they didn't take the people with them.
======================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:28 AM
kim,
Hold the facts...he's about to slay the serpent, pick up a power tab, and clear this level...and the short bus arrives at 0800 sharp.
Besides, he can't vote for a few more years.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Leo, on other threads, is another example. Do you think hate and disinformation are persuasive. Well, maybe they are to you, but it palls, and is inauthentic to the mass of Americans. The ones who get to project their will with their vote.
You've got a madman down on the corner screeching hate at all passersby. Do you think they'll elect him mayor?
Frankly, you are batshit crazy. Mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Heh, too bad. You've been exposed for a nasty little maniac. You hope for change to a world where a transparent fraud and lightweight can laugh about insulting women. Buddy, you got another think coming. Four years worth of another think.
================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:33 AM
Holy carp, could it be?
Keith...is that you?
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:35 AM
Another thing, old Pal, it seems as if your intelligence quotient is such that you can't even imagine how bright Palin is.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Not likely, M; just another acolyte upset at being sidelined.
====================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Go roar in the corner, NotSean, your bellowing is becoming embarrassing.
===================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:42 AM
He's in the catbird seat, kim; if they win, he get to gloat. If they lose, he gets to bitch. I don't think he's happy either way.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:47 AM
I really like the irony of NotSean's 'Don't expect your secret(Palin) to stay safe much longer'. Now who's the one who has gone to extraordinary means to hide his past? This irony will not escape the mass of American voters, that Palin's past is under the microscope, and Obama's is behind the curtain.
================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:48 AM
NotSean == Matt Damon
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 12, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Palin has secrets? Hell, I can't see that she even has any privacy.
She's gonna do just fine.
The moonbats are not going to enjoy this.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:52 AM
If they lose, he gets to crawl into his dark space and lick his festering wounds. The difference between Palin and Obama is illustrated by ambassadors like NotSean.
Nobody he knows believes in God. How can Obama, the One and Only, be losing to this, this, backwoods hick?
=================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:52 AM
"crawl into his dark space and lick his wounds"
At the same time? "Flexible"!
Posted by: Mustang0302 | September 12, 2008 at 07:55 AM
Make no mistake about it, NotSean, Obama is running against Palin, now, and losing. He might have beaten McCain, but he'll lose to Palin. It doesn't matter if she is presently sophisticated at foreign policy or not. She holds the future in her hands, now, just as surely as she once(five times?) held it in her womb.
This is the wellspring of your hate. I'm sure you'll continue to hate as the rest of the country and the world moves on into the future. I actually pity you. That wellspring will turn into an ash heap, honey.
================================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 07:58 AM
It's gotten so bad that whenever Obama tries to bring up Bush or McCain it looks like an attempt to dodge Palin. I am laughing my ass off at the tactics of the Pubs.
===========================
Posted by: kim | September 12, 2008 at 08:02 AM