Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was the point of the question? She's not running as Bush's VP. She's running as McCain's. So when McCain is elected the so-called Bush doctrine will go out the window and be an historical footnote. A more pertinent question would have been what she understands McCain's position to be with respect to nations or entities that threaten us and whether she agrees or disagrees with that policy position. Who cares about the "Bush Doctine" now that he only has 4 months left in office? That was merely Charlie Gibson trying to pull a gotcha in a smarmy way. These newsmen are sooooo brilliant!
There is not one exact meaning for the "doctrine," but the best response is that type of situation is to say something to the effect of: "That has a number of meanings or interpretations. Are you asking me about ________." (fill in the blank with preemptive strike or harboring terrorists, or better yet, both). The fact is that she had no idea what Gibson meant, and it is clear in her response. She should have been able to at least point to one or the other of those. In fact, if she had, she would have probably tripped him up because HE didn't give a clear definition, either. She would have looked polished and professional.
Agreed that this would have been the best approach.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in voter sentiments.
"In what respect Charlie" I laugh every time I hear that, but if she says Charlie one more time Im gonna puke LOL
I'm going to use that phrase every time I clearly don't know what somebody is talking about. I'm tempted to use it here at work in response to a mysterious client email...but that would probably be a bad idea.
Agreed that this would have been the best approach.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in voter sentiments.
Depending on the MSM play it gets, it could turn out to be insignificant. Or, it could become part of a pattern of naivete that unfolds over the next 7 weeks or so. A lot of us have the feeling, however, that she is in over her head - that she is cramming for a test she really isn't prepared for.
Of course, Bush was hardly prepared, but got better and better at playing the game as his campaign went forward. She has a lot of work to do to catch up and not much time to do it, IMO.
What was the point of the question? She's not running as Bush's VP. She's running as McCain's. So when McCain is elected the so-called Bush doctrine will go out the window and be an historical footnote. A more pertinent question would have been what she understands McCain's position to be with respect to nations or entities that threaten us and whether she agrees or disagrees with that policy position. Who cares about the "Bush Doctine" now that he only has 4 months left in office? That was merely Charlie Gibson trying to pull a gotcha in a smarmy way. These newsmen are sooooo brilliant!
This was exactly my thought when I heard the exchange. Gibson's question was poorly worded and definitely came off as a "gotcha".
I am not a big fan of any of the four candidates but will be voting for McCain because I trust him more than Obama and I agree wholeheartedly with the McCain/Palin energy policy. However, I think the Dems have only themselves to blame for the pickle they are in, because given all the advantages they had with discontent with Bush, one would think that they could come up with better candidates.
The observations I heard at the gym this morning were pretty interesting to me.
Apparently some folks, especially the ladies, felt that Gibson was a bit demeaning in his treatment of Palin. They seemed to think he was a bit obnoxious with repeatedly asking her about Israel and Iran after she clearly stated her point of view, as if "I can't believe that you think this". Also, they thought that his approach in the interview made the Bush Doctrine question seem like a trick question.
They then started discussing how the TV interview shows treated Obama and Clinton, and how the news was unfair to Clinton.
Overall, they seemed to be more disgusted with Gibson than Palin.
This whole "Poor little Sarah Palin" is getting pathetic. This is the same woman who branded herself as a "pitbull with lipstick". If she can't stand to be scrutinized, then maybe she shouldn't have accepted the nomination.
If you're going to boast about breaking the Glass Ceiling, then perhaps you should brace yourself on the glass fragments that fall.
This was exactly my thought when I heard the exchange. Gibson's question was poorly worded and definitely came off as a "gotcha".
I am not a big fan of any of the four candidates but will be voting for McCain because I trust him more than Obama and I agree wholeheartedly with the McCain/Palin energy policy. However, I think the Dems have only themselves to blame for the pickle they are in, because given all the advantages they had with discontent with Bush, one would think that they could come up with better candidates.
Well what was Charlie supposed to do, ask about the McCain doctrine? She probably thinks the McCain doctrine's name is Cindy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
