not knowing anything is not a bug, it's a feature

Biden should not get tricked into pulling his punches at the debate. Destroy her, Joe- show her up as the dangerously ignorant Shrub clone she is. Anybody stupid enough to buy into the idiotic sexism meme is already beyond reach, so forget about them.

Q. "Governor Palin, in less than 6 months, you could be President. So give us your thoughtful, detailed reply -- In 1993, the World Trade Center was attacked. In May 1998, bin Laden announced his intention to "bring jihad to the United States." In December of that year, a US intelligence briefing declared that bin Laden was "actively planning against US targets and already may have positioned operatives for at least one operation." President Clinton's December 4th Presidential Daily Briefing was titled, “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The Rudman report in 1999 actually used a picture of a hijacked airliner aimed at a skyscraper to illustrate the threat. Over New Year's 2000, a Presidentially-directed alert got lucky, and terrorists planning major operations were arrested at the border. So President Bush kept Richard Clarke, director of counterterrorism under President Clinton, on the National Security Council staff. After President Bush was inaugurated, then National Security Adviser Rice said that President Bush was briefed at least 40 times on al Qaeda's plans to commit terrorism in the US. In May 2001, a Counterterrorism Security Group reportto the President is entitled: “[Osama bin Laden]: Operation Planned in US," and of course the most famous and last of these briefings was given on August 6 directly to President Bush while he was on vacation after having been in office just 7 months: a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Yet on 9/11, nearly 3,000 Americans died because we didn't stop it.

Since you may be President in less than 6 months, please tell us in detail what President Bush did wrong, and what you would have done differently."

spot on Steve...it's a wonder that some say she did well...she survived but it was not so good. If this is any indication of her ability, McCain again should be questioned about his judgement for this pick. Political expediency is the only answer that you can honestly come up with. And Honesty is something that John McCain abandoned quite a long time ago...

Yes, but the real question in this election is who would you rather eat a mooseburger with?

...and how come it's Palin getting the big primetime interviews like this? Isn't there some McCain guy who's supposed to be on top of the ticket? What ever happened to him?

Caribou. Highway. Headlights.

Also, if Alaska's proximity to Russia is such a strong foreign policy experience, I have one question:

Ms. Palin, have you ever met any of those Russians that live so near to you?

"And it was eerily reminiscent of watching George W. Bush, circa 2000."

Also it's important to remember... Bush won.

Everytime the media calls Palin a liar, rather than punishing her, it makes many voters feel that it's the liberal media just making a partisan attack. Remember, as Lakoff states: "Negating a frame activates the frame".

Take a look at Lakoff's newest article: http://www.truthout.org/article/dont-think-a-maverick

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah...keep talking Sarah

Kill (and "dress") a Commie for Christ.

Nuke the bastards before they nuke us. Bushit has planted the radioactive seeds for a rebirth of the Cold War. McAce and Trigger happy palin will nurture that seed to a full grown weed. We'll be fighting al Qaeda overtly and the Ruskies covertly as we tumble into obscure poverty both phiscally and morally. That ticket is truly a scary one.

But don't let that stop those Wal Mart moms from putting lipstick on that pig.

Kill a Commie for Christ.

>> "And it was eerily reminiscent of watching George W. Bush, circa 2000."

Yep. And he got the job, too. Doesn't bode well, eh?

As this blog noted a few days ago, it is rare to have governors as VP picks, just because it takes so long to grasp national issues like foreign policy, the economy, etc. Like Spiro Agnew before her, her role in the coming weeks is to be an attack dog. For Agnew, it was to rabble-rouse support in Nixon's "Southern Strategy". For Palin, it is to appease the Christianists. So a grasp of the facts is not necessary.

What did come across strikingly is that she has endless confidence in herself. In Massachusetts we saw this terrible combination (completely unprepared, but confident to a fault) in Jane Swift, our not-so-Swift Republican governor standin after Cellucci stepped down.

Jane Swift pretty much crashed and burned politically, but now locally, she is the McCain/Palin sound-bite repeater for the local media. That's all Swift and Palin have - idiotic repitition of whatever the GOP tells them to say.

The electorate is comfortable if not desirous of leaders equaling their ignorance of current events and global politics. You don't want a plumber or auto mechanic effing up your possessions but a VP or Prez without a clue are OK. Watching a DIY show about a botched bathroom remodel elicits "Oh my god, I'm glad that idiot didn't build my house!" Watching Palin speak of nuking Russia gets "Meh, won't be my ass on the griddle." We get the representation we deserve. Palin is an apt fit for our citizenry.

Everybody on the left is saying that since she didn't drool she wins. Everybody on the right are saying that Charlie Gibson is sexist.

I have a hunch the folks in the middle who watched it were not impressed. That was a bad interview for Palin.

After 8 years of George Bush even the independents are leery of fools. I don't think they will see Charlie Gibson as an overbearing sexist toad.

In other news, what is not being reported about last night's presidential forum is that John McCain is practically begging to go on the road with Barack Obama. That is a sign that his internal polling show he is losing and losing big.

With the "I dream of Jeannie" hairdo and weird winking mannerisms, Gov. Palin unleashed a torrent of words without hesitation after each question. She carried on an uncomfortably long time about the "Bush Doctrine" before Charlie quietly informed her as to what it was. Worse than being woefully under prepared is her unbelievable confidence and willingness to go head first into a question she apparently did not understand.

The thought of this woman in the room with a nookular football is terrifying. She even pronounces the word nuclear just like Bush.

They picked Gwen Ifill to moderate the VP debate well before Palin was chosen, but it might be a stroke of luck for the Democrats. Having a woman ask the (hopefully) tough questions will prevent it from looking like a couple of men picking on Palin.

principal?

Yglesiasitis seems to be an infectious disease among bloggers.

I'm not sure I want to know what her thoughts were before she had two weeks to prep. And who in the world are her tutors? Did they just go over the highlights of Foreign Policy 101? On the other hand, she's good at making it up as she goes along. But the similarities to GW Bush are amazing. Did John McCain go out of his way to find Bush's twin? In terms of ideology, intelligence, faith, emotional IQ?

george - it's not political expediency, it's a downright reckless dereliction of duty for a 72-year old, not in the best of health, to nominate a far-right fetish object from Alaska to the ticket. It's all too likely that we'll be in a position where the most powerful job on the planet goes to an inexperienced, dishonest, and deeply corrupt governor of a welfare state.

The only way Bush scored a pass in 2000 was that he had a the credibility that his Dad was a President - an internationally respected one at that - and the Bush family had lots of experienced connections, advisers, and helpers. Even if he was a buffoon, the thinking went, his top-rate aides would ensure the government was ably managed.

Yeah, I know, but that was the thinking at the time.

Yes, she does seem a lot like George W. Bush: the same complete certitude coupled with pride in being ignorant and no apparent capacity or desire for reflection.

Holy fools of a sort.

An unqualified disaster for Camp McCain. Gibson is being accused of sexism, there's been some watery praise at best. Had she done even reasonably well we'd be buried right now in an avalnche of hosannahs, "grandslams", "she's ready on day!", "game over"...

Palin had to move to the next level with this interview. It was too hyped, to orchestrated for anything less than a big success. In fact she flopped. She talked and talked, but it was clear she was clueless. Coupled with McCain's own disastrous interview with the Maine tv station this couldbe a turning point. The Obama campaign MUST take this gift and use it for all its worth.

And Joe Biden...don't hold back atthe debate.

Gwen Ifill is a neocon. She'll be asking Palin if she knows why the Democrats are so racist they nominated a black guy out of guilt, but so sexist they can't stand the idea of having a woman as VP.

Everyone knows Palin is a Zero on foreign policy and a lot of people like her anyway.

The way to go after Palin is on the economy and jobs, foreclosure, economic crisis, trade and other pocketbook issues. Voters think Palin will fight for their economic interests (She won't). That is her appeal.

After a couple of weeks of cramming, she was still woefully out of her depth

That's it exactly.

Boy, she was just awful. Anyone think that Charlie Gibson will be joining the ranks of journalists abandoning the McCain train?

Got to agree with some of the commentors here, though... she is not there to demonstrate foreign policy expertise, she is there to appease the religious right. I suspect a lot of those folks will be happy enough with the sound bites.

Still, I kind of hope that Obama uses that clip in an ad saying something like "The President is supporting Senator Obama's plan in Pakistan, even John McCain's running mate is supporting Senator Obama's plan for tracking down terrorists in Pakistan... John McCain thinks that we should wait at the border in the bushes and hope bin Laden comes to us. That's not going to happen, and McCain's plan is not change, it's more of the same."

I am sorry to say this, but I have to - a resignation rather than a conclusion - that after 8 years and what has transpired, the fact that we are here indicates that, generally liberals don't have a clue. I am not the sort that would say that based on the fact that they haven't managed to succeed alone - though that highlights the resigned nature of that conclusion. But, clearly, liberals don't have a clue.

Evidence #1: A liberal - such as myself - would never have been able to accept the performance of Palin (based on the excerpts we have seen) as anything but pathetic. Apparently, that is not the case - never mind what Steve Benen says (because he is a liberal). Only opinions that matter are those of conservatives - I offer you that of a heavyweight Joe Kernen of CNBC, who weighed in with the statement that Bush has propounded so many doctrines during his office that its impossible for him -imagine HH Sir joe himself - to answer the question. QED.

Evidence #2: No matter what the standard of measurement of a VP is, if applied to the current VP, its either sexist (TM) or disrespectful or otherwise unwarranted attack. Obviously, this very evidence mitigates against liberals getting a clue - as in the process of getting it they will have to throw up their hands. As the correspondent who reported on CNBC (in that weighty exchange with Sir Joe did) on the ABC interview with Palin did, in the end.

Evidence #3: So that you don't dismiss me as a business channel cooook, here is Mara Liasson (sp?) on the veritable bastion of liberal media, not, weighing in on Palin's performance. It was perfect. Well, maybe that is contrary evidence - indicating one liberal media outlet does get it?

Here is to 8 more years of McSame or McWorse?

--d

She does seem to think that confidence trumps intelligence. God help us.

Palin in accepting the VP nod from McCain, Palin explained that she did not even blink because she is "wired" differently. So does being wired differently mean that you can short circuit the rational process in making such a weighty decision? McCain must be wired differently too because there is now no doubt that he and his advisers short circuited the heavy task of choosing a VP candidate who could assume the awesome task of POTUS. Neither McCain nor Palin are ready for the task. It is time to put a ground wire on their short circuitry.

Great. We are going to a President with Rush's hate, Savage's vitriol, and Hannity's ignorance, but three times the confidence of anyone of them.

Having no doubt that she's ready to be president after her fly-weight experience tells me that everybody who has ever put themselves forward as a candidate for any elective office secretly saw themselves as presidential material. Look around at your city council: it's scuppers awash in loonies who hum "Hail to the Chief" to themselves in the shower. Palin's response answers the age-old question: do the really dumb know that they're dumb. The answer, sadly, is "No".

Yeah, she did look like Bush in 2000, and he did win. However, Charlie freakin' Gibson seemed irritated with her evasiveness. He actually said, "I don't want to get lost in a flood of words. Is that a yes, or a no?" That's not what I would have expected from him. In 2000, Bush got away with this crap, but things look a little better with Gibson actually being annoyed with it.

After years and years of Republican rule, NPR has gone right.

After a call from the head of GE so has NBC.

It is up to us to save America. The neo-cons are going to get us killed. At the very least America will emerge from a Palin administration looking a lot like Mexico. A country made far poorer and far weaker by a clueless oligarchy than would be the case if real democracy were to take hold.

Steve, I'll agree with you on all points except the Cold War one. Everyone knows Ronnie Ray-gun won the Cold War. HW Bush just was the lucky recepient of the ashes.

But in seriousness, I don't think you can credit HW, at the least, Reagan was able to finish off the staggering Soviet bear - it took decades to get there. Got to give Reagan some credit.

Here's another way Palin is like Bush: After Bush became President, Rove created a sort of home study course on how to be a president, not unlike Palin's cramming. At least hers is before she takes office.

Sarah Palin - you can put lipstick on George W. Bush, but she's still going to be George W. Bush.

In case no one else has heard, the spin has begun that "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" was a gotcha question. Clearly an ambush. Clearly a subject that someone seeking the position of VP would know nothing about.

She did O.k considering it was her first time being asked about complex global issues.She only looked weak to those who have a good grasp on these issues and they're not going to vote Republican anyway.

I thought I detected a sense of irritation coming from Gibson.

palin reminds me of an old -- possibly apocryphal -- story about a rating system the prussian army had for officers.

1. smart & ambitious -- a dream officer
2. smart & lazy -- a damn shame, but no harm, no foul
3. dumb & lazy -- won't do anything, but won't do anything bad
4. dumb & ambitious -- a disater waiting to happen

palin definitely falls into category 4.....

HUGE typo in the Palin transcript. I was just reading it, and the transcription clearly put the word "blink" where I'm sure Palin must have said "think."

Here's the quote as I'm sure it was intended:

"I answered yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't Think, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't Think," she told Gibson.

Sounds like a very honest and candid answer from candidate Palin.

I am disturbed that she didn't think it through for her family's sake. Is there a little narcissism there?

Palin in accepting the VP nod from McCain, Palin explained that she did not even blink because she is "wired" differently. So does being wired differently mean that you can short circuit the rational process in making such a weighty decision?

I think that was a little wink to the faith-based reality crowd. She is there because God wants her to be there. And you don't turn your back when God calls you to do something.

Arrrrgh, I feel sick.

"And it was eerily reminiscent of watching George W. Bush, circa 2000."

Exactly. That's the entire point and a tremendous opportunity for the Democrats. Just make it clear that Palin is like Bush in 2000. That one move will help take gender out of the picture and force voters to contemplate whether they want to let another inexperienced governor take the national reins.

Frankly, you can be sympathetic while doing this, along the lines of Bush and then Palin were wonderful people who just happened to be kicked upstairs by their own party before they were ready.

The real kicker is the obvious: Palin likes Bush, admires Bush, voted for Bush, and all that. How is she supposed to push back when compared to him?

Thoughts?

Palin's spittle-flecked, defensive responses will make her a hero to the "these colors never run" crowd that thinks never backing down, even when you're wrong, is a positive attribute.

The Republicans have figured out that their base operates on staunch adherence to belief, even in the face over overwhelming facts. The right wing base will see her performance as a triumph. Here's hoping folks in the middle will see her as a bull in the china shop who will be unable to fix all the plates already broken by the Bush administration.

"I think that was a little wink to the faith-based reality crowd. She is there because God wants her to be there. And you don't turn your back when God calls you to do something."

She didn't say that she prayed on it either. So, you could interpret that as having a short circuit to the grand plan maker too. If god had a plan for Palin, don't you think he would have drilled her a little better and made her a more credible deliverer of the plan?

To bastardize a great line from Goldwater (written by Karl Hess), "Extremism in the defense of nonsense is no vice".

Her answer to the Bush doctrine question reminded me the line of b.s that a student might generate when answering an exam question about which they knew nothing.

What struck me was her face: she appeared scared to death. After answering, she looked at Charlie for some validation that her answer was correct.

I can't remember a thing about it! Every time she said "Charlie," I did a shot. I don't think I made it to the first commercial break.

Damn! Where are my pants....

If Gibson went for the jugular in Round One, look for him to softball it in Round Two. That way he seems like a journalist, but leaves America feeling good about Palin.

In case no one else has heard, the spin has begun that "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" was a gotcha question. Clearly an ambush.

...which means that even the dishonest right-wingers -- but I repeat myself -- can't spin that she didn't utterly boff the question.

But again: She had weeks to cram, and still blew the exam.

"Got to agree with some of the commentors here, though... she is not there to demonstrate foreign policy expertise, she is there to appease the religious right. I suspect a lot of those folks will be happy enough with the sound bites."

Wrong way to look at it. Palin has the base no matter what. She could have spoken in tongues during this interview and she wouldn't have lost a single one of them. It's the undecideds and wavering women who count at this point, and Palin's interview was a jackpot of unpreparedness. After this interview you have to wonder how she ever got elected governor.

I'm trying to picture the mayor of my small city (three times the size of Wasilla) as VP and having trouble making it work.

Palin, honest to god, scares me to death. I know the charisma and power of the Pentecostal religion, having grown up in it, and I know exactly the kind of manipulative tactics it teaches. I can also recognize the codewords she throws out at each public showing.

Noting all of Palin's failings is not going to turn evangelicals away from her. It simply doesn't work that way in the religious right community. Short of sleeping with men or supporting women's rights or the environment, there's nothing that can be done that is unforgivable amongst them.

The only way that Palin can be stopped is if she is found to be insincere in her faith. She has turned this into a personal campaign by her very presence. And I have no idea how we're going to stop her.

I think the salient point to all this is that no matter how bad Palin did in the interview, no matter how unprepared for VP she reveals herself to be, no matter how ignorant she shows us she is concerning foreign affairs - none of that matters to a large segment of the electorate.

Someone mentioned that it's the people in the middle - the undecided - who are the important element here.

Sadly, I have no confidence in that group after the 2000 election and more to the point the 2004 election when no one could claim they didn't know of Bush's woeful ignorance, dangerous extremism, willful mendacity, and glaring incompetence. And still he got enough votes for the Republicans to cheat him into office.

Why should we expect anything different from the electorate this time - nothing's really changed that's going to produce a different pattern.

Look I appreciate that we all have been through two nightmare Presidential elections in which we witnessed a total fool getting election. I appreciate that it could happen again. But, get a grip. One of Rove's chief go-to plays is to project absolutely confidence that his side will win, that it is inevitable. He did it in 2000, and 2004, remember the trip to California in 2004, and his statements that they would win in California. It was a head fake, but it really rattled Kerry's camp. He also did it in 2006. He predicted that Republicans would pick up seats. He got trounced. Rove is in our heads people! He is telling us repeatedly to give up because it is inevitable that the Republicans will win. This is his strategy directed toward the Democratic base. It is a ploy to dampen enthusiasm and reduce turnout. The handringers in the press and Demcratic party are doing his work for him, dampening enthusiasm for Obama even among his supporters. Last night on CNN all the stories were about Obama's problems with his campaign. If we don't change that dynamic soon, it will become inevitable and look a lot like Kerry. Bottom line, both Presidential candidates came off pretty well in the Service Forum. McCain was suprisingly good. Obama was much better than Saddleback. As for the Palin interiew, it was excrutiatingly embarrassing to watch. I actually felt sorry for her. I don't know how it will play with independents, but anyone who watched that interview had to be uncomfortable. The press was unfortable, nobody could sell it convincingly. Bay Buchanan tried and everyone just laughed and said nice try. It was a train wreck, pure and simple. The only question remaining is who are these independents and how did Palin's performance impact their view of McCain? This handwringing saps the energy that we need to win. That's Rove's game plan directed to the base of the Democratic party and we are buying into it. We liberals need to grow a pair. Enough!

A military confrontation with Russia would make the oil fields of Alaska a primary target. Will the
ANG be ready?

"We're going to build new relationships with these countries..."

Yes lets meet and talky-tawk!

The Untied States of Amurka

/snark

Someone elsewhere did the research - you have to go back to at least Coolidge to find a VP who hadn't met a foreign leader before being elected or appointed.

Why are you so surprised at the stunning effectiveness of the "us versus them" divisive, taunting, disingenuous tactics employed by McCain/Palin/Rove?

Most progressiver-than-thou Obama supporters were all too happy to pull out the "us versus them (the Clintons)" card to the level of absurd, hateful ranting (Clintons are racist!?!?) The frustrations you are experiencing now are very familiar to those of us who watch the trashing of Hillary Clinton by someone with an almost identical progressive voting record.

This irrational (elitist?) view went on to the point of some of the Obama supporters here darkly assuring everyone else that Hillary still had something up her sleeve and would sabotage the convention. Being a Clinton hater means never having to say you're sorry. Well, let's see who's sorry after the election. It's so freakin' obvious to every Democrat but the progressiver-than-thous that Hillary's working class, older woman appeal and 18 million voters needed to be on the ticket to absolutely assure a win.

Obama showed his obvious inexperience (as he is now doing "responding" to the Palin thing now), and before that, by not swallowing his pride and irritation a bit, making peace with Bill Clinton earlier (as soon as it was obvious he was going to win it), and getting Hillary to commit to being on his ticket. This would be an invincible team and Palin wouldn't even have happened.

The Republicans know that first, you have to win. Kennedy hated LBJ, but swallowed hard, listened to the Dem advisers and put him on the ticket anyway, and won a very close election.

Don't worry. Most of us Clinton supporters will have no problem working for and voting for Obama. I sincerely hope he wins. However, he's made it a closer race than it needed to be. Joe Biden?!? Honestly!! Palin has completely overshadowed this boring man who can't even capture the imagination of Democratic true believers. How do you think Palin would be faring toe-to-toe against Hillary Clinton?

people on the right are still arguing exactly what the Bush Doctrine is.

Arguing about it assumes that you at least know what is is.....

Kenneth Cavness on September 12, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Palin, honest to god, scares me to death. ... The only way that Palin can be stopped is if she is found to be insincere in her faith. She has turned this into a personal campaign by her very presence.

Very informative comment. Scarey, but be interesting to see if this is what the nation chooses. There are always the catacombs.

Fifth - Reagan's work ended the cold war. Much like Clinton's inaction caused 9/11.

You sir, are a lying POS.

To play political football with the memories of 3000 dead innocents is vile and ugly.

Go Away and never come back you odious little scumbag.

colonpowwow on September 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Being a Clinton hater means never having to say you're sorry.

And being a Clinton supporter means praying for the accession of Joan of Arc just because you can't sit in the Big Chair?

Get a grip, there's a real world out there; and Hilary would say this.

I thought I detected a sense of irritation coming from Gibson. Posted by: Coral

Definitely. He certainly looked peeved when he had to clarify what he meant by the Bush Doctrine for her.

In case no one else has heard, the spin has begun that "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" was a gotcha question. Clearly an ambush. Clearly a subject that someone seeking the position of VP would know nothing about. Posted by: Lifelong Dem

You're fucking joking, right? The Bush Doctrine is the primary reason our country is so fucked-up right now to the tune of pounding some $300 million a week down rat holes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"And it was eerily reminiscent of watching George W. Bush, circa 2000."

Also it's important to remember... Bush won.

Yep. And he got the job, too.

Bush didn't win, Gore did. The worst Supreme Court decision in history reversed the results and installed the boy emperor.

"woefully out of her depth"? My Mom (a wise woman) would put it a little differently... "woefully out of her shallow". She is showing herself to be the small-minded, small-town girl, who was probably one of the mean popular girls in junior high school, when the social relations with her peer group in town solidified, and have not changed.

"woefully out of her depth"? My Mom (a wise woman) would put it a little differently... "woefully out of her shallow". She is showing herself to be the small-minded, small-town girl, who was probably one of the mean popular girls in junior high school, when the social relations with her peer group in town solidified, and have not changed.

Looking at the video, I think it odd that she's "hunkered down" in the chair. Hunched over might be a better definitive phrase. Good gods---if she can't even sit up straight for a softball one-on-one interview, how in the infernal regions is she supposed to stand up to real threats?

"Beating the drums of war" against an adversary whose military is intact, when yours is effectively broken, is so---how shall I put this---Kamikaze-ish? You don't get "raptured" by dying for stupid reasons, or for making other people die for your stupid reasons. You either (a) die for being stupid, or (b) risk execution for crimes against humanity.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to figure out how to turn a herd of Alaskan moose into antiaircraft gun-crews---so they can shoot back....

"After 19 months as the governor or Alaska, you didn't want to pause and think about the weight, seriousness, and responsibilities associated with this kind of decision? Not even a moment of humility? Who are you, The Decider?"

To be absolutely fair, even though I think she's the worst VP choice in decades, she presumably knew why McCain was coming to meet with her, so it's conceivable that she'd thought about what her answer would be before he ever asked it. It wasn't like he just asked out of the blue, and she said, "Sure, why not?"

she's obviously well outside the scientific mainstream.

Hell's bells---she's a freaking Pentecostal, for crying out loud. She's SUPPOSED to be outside the scientific mainstream....

Steve, you're wrong on Georgia.

First, a lot of Republicans believe that.

Second, a lot of Dems do, too, and since Obama-Biden agrees with McCain-Palin on the COLOSSAL STUPIDITY of admitting Georgia to NATO, this is a no-win issue for Dems anyway.

It's the Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment, stupid!

The entire attitude toward the Georgia Russia conflict is enormously irresponsible. All it did in the past was embolden Georgia's undemocratic leadership to try and alter the status quo and invite Russian intervention.

1) We have NO capaiblity to defend Georgia. Zero. 2) The Russians have the same rational in the Caucuses as we had in the post-Yugoslav Balkans.
3) Our screwing around in the Balkans (it turns out we trained and equipped Georgian paramilitary) is about our need for oil and gas.
4) these idiotic policies are going to drive the price up, which will actually further enrich Russia
5) The Georgians are as much to blame as the Russians (and so are WE)

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, 'Am I experienced enough?'

No Charlie. If I used your standard for quotes, I would have to say that it was Jimi Hendrix.

Jassalasca Jape:

What insightful comments. I stand corrected, thank you.

colonpowwow

I am a lifelong Dem, but I fail to understand the left's antipathy toward Georgia. Most argue that the leadership is undemocratic, but this isn't true. Georgia's leadership was recently re-elected in presidential elections in January and parliamentary elections in May, which were characterized as free and fair by all credible international observers. New Jersey's elections are less free and fair. Many argue Georgia provoked the recent conflict, and while testosterone certainly played a role in their overplaying their hand, to pretend Russia didn't pick this fight is either ignorance of or blindness to the facts.

No sane person wants Cold War 2--though we can agree McCain and co, reckless and out of touch, would like nothing more--but I think it is even MORE irresponsible to let Russia run roughshod over small, young democratic countries on its border just because it's too far away for us to care about. That's not a policy that has served us well in the past.

Steve... Gibson exceeded my expectations, asking reasonable, substantive questions, and Palin fell short of my expectations, appearing unprepared, programmed, and generally unaware of current events.

I'm surprised at your comment, since I would have thought that your expectations of Palin on any issues of foreign policy would be very low or even zero. By "fell short", I gather you actually believed she had some policy awareness. How inconsistent of you!

Benen is part of the liberal media machine and Gibson is a condesending liberal.

End of Story

As with George W. Bush , I'm so afraid that once again many Americans will want tovote for someoen dumber than they are. They were lucky enough to have this available to them with Dubya now they will once again have the opportunity with the beauty queen.God help us!

Gibson wsa excellent. Lets hope someone gives Obama a real interview.