Vanity Fair tries to lighten the mood:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politi ... tters.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politi ... rning.html

okay... i dont consider myself a read-the-newspaper-everyday-watch-c-span-24/7-write-op-ed's-political-guru... at all. like at all...

but really? come on, i've known what the bush doctrine was for like 5 years. i thought it had become a useful and codified term in politics and someone running for VP not having a clue what it is even referring to is... scary.

you on the other hand? a poster on this phillies board not knowing what it is? meh... i can live with that i guess. i am, however, a little surprised, no offense.

LOL at RT's artwork

TenuredVulture wrote:If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

She's in a no win against her opponents. For example, to continue the no win and to counter the assesment that she may be a bad pick - the McCain campaign is at the same time being criticised because she's become the center of the campaign and not McCain.

Permanant no-win.

I guess there's no point in saying that a strict definition of the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist (what would be considered a slam on the doctrine any other time) and that the people who helped develop it don't even agree on what it means.

BuddyGroom wrote:The second one is funny. A bit mean, perhaps, but right now, what Democrat cares about that? Hit them, and hit them hard, I say. The Republicans like red-meat campaigns - fine by me. McCain and Palin are pretty easy targets - so get to it.

Cool. Just don't complain when the GOP hits you higher and harder.

According to an internal GOP email, "There are numerous definitions of and aspects to the Bush Doctrine. They include democracy promotion, no safe harbor for terrorists, and willingness to act first." If you go back to Bush's speeches in late 2001 and 2002 all three of these items are in there. Obama supports the first two, so it's reasonable to ask which part? Interesting.

The email also says, "Governor Palin most certainly did not take Barack Obama's position on Pakistan." Um, yeah. Right.

VoxOrion wrote:I guess there's no point in saying that a strict definition of the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist (what would be considered a slam on the doctrine any other time) and that the people who helped develop it don't even agree on what it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

I feel redeemed. CampHoldout's surprise can go suck on that.

However, the doctrine was articulated more fully in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when President Bush declared that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor terrorist groups as terrorist states themselves.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

She's in a no win against her opponents. For example, to continue the no win and to counter the assesment that she may be a bad pick - the McCain campaign is at the same time being criticised because she's become the center of the campaign and not McCain.

Permanant no-win.

That's very confusing. All this time, I thought she was the main cause for McCain's bounce. Silly Me.

I think it was pretty clear, from her reaction, that Sarah Palin had never even heard the term before the question was asked. And she still never really answered the question even after Gibson clarified what he meant (probably because it would have required deviation from one of her 5 talking points).

Grotewold wrote:

dajafi wrote:But, really, would you feel very confident with this woman in the presidency? Is it that you think she'd be guided by more senior/knowledgeable/responsible Republicans? That she'd just be a figurehead?

Let's definitely give that eight more years...

and with the crazies from Bush's first term, too. The craziest of the neocons will be running the show, which means more war and lots of it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I guess there's no point in saying that a strict definition of the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist (what would be considered a slam on the doctrine any other time) and that the people who helped develop it don't even agree on what it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

I feel redeemed. CampHoldout's surprise can go suck on that.

However, the doctrine was articulated more fully in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when President Bush declared that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor terrorist groups as terrorist states themselves.

dude are you serious?

im saying i could answer a question about the bush doctrine for 5 years now... i was somewhat surprised that you couldnt (because i consider you pretty well informed and intelligent based on other posts here). and i wanted to throw up that a VP candidate couldn't either. i hold her to a slighlty higher standard than you sorry...

oh and hey, maybe sarah could have clicked on that little wikipedia link you have in your post. maybe then she would have been able to some kind of answer that had some kind of relevance to the question.

sorry, im getting worked up here, and i promised to stay away from politics until the debates. and i do enjoy JH's posts and tend to learn things from them. but if anyone is defending that answer... whew... okay... deep breaths... i might need to enact some bush doctrine and sit on the john for an hour.

She did fine. The average person doesnt break it down like you guys are.

And yet, another lost news cycle for Obama.

BuddyGroom wrote:
I support this effort (1) because I agree with it, but also (2) because I think this is an issue that with wider exposure can bring moderate white female voters back into the Democratic fold.

The fact that Palin's town charged women for rape kits and the Alaska legislature had to step in to ban the practice also won't help her with women. In fact, as women find out about her actual policies, I see more and more of them turning back to Obama. Certainly that's the case with the people I know.

seke2 wrote:I think it was pretty clear, from her reaction, that Sarah Palin had never even heard the term before the question was asked. And she still never really answered the question even after Gibson clarified what he meant (probably because it would have required deviation from one of her 5 talking points).

She did answer the question. I thought she made it clear (I'm paraphrasing) that Bush made some mistakes, and a new leadership will obviously do things differently, but still keep an eye on the ball.

BTW, she has really nice legs.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

dajafi wrote:But, really, would you feel very confident with this woman in the presidency? Is it that you think she'd be guided by more senior/knowledgeable/responsible Republicans? That she'd just be a figurehead?

Let's definitely give that eight more years...

and with the crazies from Bush's first term, too. The craziest of the neocons will be running the show, which means more war and lots of it.

Please, just please.

Monkeyboy wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:
I support this effort (1) because I agree with it, but also (2) because I think this is an issue that with wider exposure can bring moderate white female voters back into the Democratic fold.

The fact that Palin's town charged women for rape kits and the Alaska legislature had to step in to ban the practice also won't help her with women. In fact, as women find out about her actual policies, I see more and more of them turning back to Obama. Certainly that's the case with the people I know.

I love when you drop these bombs. Here'sthe other side of the story to balance things out

cshort wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:
I support this effort (1) because I agree with it, but also (2) because I think this is an issue that with wider exposure can bring moderate white female voters back into the Democratic fold.

The fact that Palin's town charged women for rape kits and the Alaska legislature had to step in to ban the practice also won't help her with women. In fact, as women find out about her actual policies, I see more and more of them turning back to Obama. Certainly that's the case with the people I know.

I love when you drop these bombs. Here'sthe other side of the story to balance things out

You know, that response from National Review was really weak.

TenuredVulture wrote:If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

Exactly.

There's no defense for her performance. She's the VP pick. This isn't freshmen political science class. She shouldn't be graded on a curve -- oh, not bad for a beginner, give her a chance to learn as she goes, etc. They had the interviewer they wanted in the situation they wanted for the interview they wanted, and she still flubbed it. She didn't blow it completely, but it was a very poor performance when everything was set up in her favor. What's she going to do when Russia tries to test her, ask for some more study time or a makeup test?

No offense to Jerseyhoya because I like the guy, but he's just lowering expectations at a time when we should be raising our expectations for our leaders. We have a lot of problems in our present and near future and we can't risk having a lightweight learning on the job when she's one heartbeat away from the presidency. If she was Obama's pick, that's EXACTLY what McCain would be saying.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

Exactly.

There's no defense for her performance. She's the VP pick. This isn't freshmen political science class. She shouldn't be graded on a curve -- oh, not bad for a beginner, give her a chance to learn as she goes, etc. They had the interviewer they wanted in the situation they wanted for the interview they wanted, and she still flubbed it. She didn't blow it completely, but it was a very poor performance when everything was set up in her favor. What's she going to do when Russia tries to test her, ask for some more study time or a makeup test?

No offense to Jerseyhoya because I like the guy, but he's just lowering expectations at a time when we should be raising our expectations for our leaders. We have a lot of problems in our present and near future and we can't risk having a lightweight learning on the job when she's one heartbeat away from the presidency. If she was Obama's pick, that's EXACTLY what McCain would be saying.

The whole winning through low expectations is a lot like a "moral victory" in sports. It's fine for little leaguers, I love the Bad New Bears (the one with Walter Matthau) as much as anyone. It might even be ok in high school sports. But there are no moral victories in the Superbowl.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

She's in a no win against her opponents. For example, to continue the no win and to counter the assesment that she may be a bad pick - the McCain campaign is at the same time being criticised because she's become the center of the campaign and not McCain.

Permanant no-win.

Then maybe they shouldn't have picked her and shoved her in front of McCain as a shield. They want her front and center and that comes with both bad and good things. You can't just have the good.