On Gear Live: Samsung S95C: The OLED TV You Can’t Afford (to Ignore!)

Friday September 12, 2008 12:30 pm

The Palin Interview

In her longest and most in-depth interview since the Republican party’s surprising Vice Presidential announcement, sat down for an intimate one-on-one with ABC anchor Charlie Gibson. She called him “Charlie” like they were old friends, he called her “Governor Palin” to remind us all that she is, indeed, a high-ranking public official. Otherwise, it might be too easy to take one look at her and say “wait, what’s she doing on TV?”

“Can you look the country in the eye and say, ‘I have the experience and the ability’?” Gibson wanted to know of Palin, whose short political career has never taken her to Washington, D.C. (Palin has not served in the Congress or Senate).

“I do, Charlie…” Palin affirmed, “I’m ready.”

In this case, she meant she’s ready to lead the country. But I saw her interview, and I’m convinced she wasn’t even fully prepped for that much.

Read More |


Palin said she “did not think ‘no’ even for a moment,” when asked to carry the VP torch for her party. “Absolutely I wanna do this with you,” was how she said she answered ’s offer. “I didn’t hesitate.”

Of course she didn’t - it was a thoroughly ridiculous question to have been asked. I got the idea, throughout the entire interview, that the whole thing was meant to make Palin look good. She was carefully rehearsed and the questions weren’t nearly probing or pointed enough. Even so, and even under her professionally polished mien, I got the feeling Palin was terrified. There was so much tension, I got a headache just watching her repeat herself, stick to the party line and blatantly side-step several questions.

According to Palin, the party’s mission is to aim toward “reform of this country and victory in the war.” She explained further, “it is about reform of government, and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people.” Palin also, quite randomly, took this moment to point towards her own work in “energy Independence.”

Somewhat confused by this odd insertion on Palin’s part, explained, “National security is a whole lot more than energy.”

“Energy is a foundation of national security,” Palin replied. Yes, yes, we do need something to power the missiles, after all. I can see exactly what she means by “energy is a foundation of national security” - can’t you?

Gibson took only one pointed dig at Palin’s political past - I personally think he might’ve picked a better one. “Have you ever met a foreign head of state?” He demanded at one point.

“I have not,” Palin admitted. No side-stepping here - such a thing is too easily confirmed with a little research. “We gotta remember what the desire is in this nation at this time,” Palin explained to him, saying that the American people may not necessarily desire “a big, fat resume.”

I think ’s poll numbers are already quite enough to drive that point home, Palin…how the hell do you think you got here in the first place?

But the topic of the evening was not Palin’s inexperience (no, we’ll save that for the Vice Presidential debate when sure as **** will bring it up all on his own), it was foreign policy. “Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty?” Gibson wanted to know.

Palin hemmed and hawed around on this one, saying more than once that we “gotta keep an eye on Russia,” and that “we will be committed to Georgia.” Of Russia, Palin said “they’re our next-door neighbors,” in relation to Alaska’s proximity to the superpower. On going to war with Russia, Palin remained vague - because she doesn’t want to alienate all those female Democrats. Because it just won’t do to alienate Republican voters either, Palin’s final answer on war with Russia was “perhaps so.” How political.

Charlie Gibson delivered another zinger further into the interview, the question coming out like a bullet. “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” Palin made a desperate bid for more time while her brain worked furiously at a plausible answer.

After some clarification, Palin had this to say about the nation’s current commander-in-chief, : “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremists, terrorists…” she went on for a while before admitting “there have been blunders along the way.” Palin was firm that “we have every right to defend our country,” but said war is something of “a last option.”

“Are we fighting a Holy War?” Gibson questioned.

This led into a large discussion about what God wants, complete with a clip of Palin at her church. “Never presume to know what God’s will is,” Palin said, but explained she was referencing Lincoln (the first Republican President) during her church speech. “Let us pray that we are on God’s side.” Palin added, “I believe that there is a plan for this world, and that this plan for this world is for good.”

It was, all told, about exactly what you would have expected. Palin’s answers were carefully stated and she obviously had a ton of coaching before making this important national appearance. Gibson’s questions were largely focused on policy and not Palin’s political record - note that she even managed to mention her son’s part in the war effort (a gentle reminder to one and all that Palin isn’t just a politician, but a mother).

Sarah Palin, after all, has a very specific role to fill in the upcoming election: be a woman. Get other women to vote for you. Sarah Palin is much less a vice presidential candidate and much more an Eliza Doolittle to McCain’s Professor Higgins. He has plucked her from obscurity and given her the world’s biggest political stage. All she has to do is look, sound, and be feminine, with a little party policy coaching from the right-wing camp. The Republicans are hanging their hopes on this alone, that it might just be enough to tip the scale of votes in their favor.

Is it going to work?


Forum Discussion

anarchy is against the government because of reasons like corruption, cofusion and pissing off other coutries its not a political party, if anything its the opposite of one

yeah i think that its possible hilary could be a better president than bush i could never understand, almost everyone i know disliked bush before they voted who the hell voted for him?!?!?!?!

i know, thats what i meant by against the government i meant against the idea of one in general

i am neither either way whoever wins they lie to get there so really dont make no difference to me. jsut as long as bush is outta there thats all i care about.

no, anarchy is not an official party if theres anarchy somewhere it just means theres no government

Lol. Not against the government. It's FOR the lack of government. I don't believe that confusion and pissing off other countries is included with it though. And I voted for other so that should count. I wonder if anyone will go for feudal hierarchy... certainly not me XD

"I rarely hear about this party in the US." ur kinda missing what im trying to say.... they arent a party, an anarchist country is like a more official way of saying they dont have a government

[quote author="sharkhead7854" date="1212606073"]no, anarchy is not an official party if theres anarchy somewhere it just means theres no government[/quote] Do you know any specific countries that contain an anarchy? I rarely hear about this party in the US.

Anarchy all the way. With the democratic (government type, not the party) polity we have right now, I think anarchy is the best. <_< At least there's no such thing as corruption.

[quote author="SkyFuser" date="1212571587"]Anarchy all the way. With the democratic (government type, not the party) polity we have right now, I think anarchy is the best. <_< At least there's no such thing as corruption.[/quote] I have never heard of such thing in my life. What goals do they have? Are they more like Republicans or Democrats?

   • Reply to this forum thread


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.