[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Please get it - just this once, I beg you.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Point is - even the LIBERAL media agrees his phraseology was awkward enough to be misconstrued that way - yet he is a "brilliant public speaker."

Please get it - just this once, I beg you.

'when' is use in place of 'if' as a conditional statement because 'when' is a more concise and definitive term which it limited to time or an event.

'if' is more general and broad.
'when' is more concise and definitive.

If Macrobat is gay, he would not be able to get marriage.
When Macrobat gets married, it would not be with a guy.

[Macrobat]

Obviously, you didn't get it, even though I begged.

Here I will break it down for you, just once.

The "brilliant public speaker" mangled the concept so badly that even the pro-Obama interviewer had to get a SECOND voicing of it to try and clear it up.

It's not about your attempts to rescue his syntax, it's ABOUT his syntax.

If you have to parse it this hard - he is NOT all that brilliant. If someone needs Hyteckit to continually clarify what he MEANT to say - he is - by definition: NOT BRILLIANT.

And there is no state in the Union where gays CANNOT get married, it's not illegal ANYWHERE.

Parse that.

[besson3c]

I'll let you guys chew on the whole KSM thing, that issue doesn't interest me a whole lot right now, but I will clarify regarding Palin that I don't think she is stupid at all. I just think that she rarely provides much in the way of substance. This could be either a conscious decision to withhold substance as all politicians do to cover their asses, or because she is not comfortable being grilled over substance, or both.

However, regardless, she rarely offers it. Obama can be hard to pin down too, all politicians can, but if you give Obama the appropriate venue that is not a sort of rapid fire quiz, he often will deliver on the substance that Palin has not.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll let you guys chew on the whole KSM thing, that issue doesn't interest me a whole lot right now, but I will clarify regarding Palin that I don't think she is stupid at all. I just think that she rarely provides much in the way of substance. This could be either a conscious decision to withhold substance as all politicians do to cover their asses, or because she is not comfortable being grilled over substance, or both.

However, regardless, she rarely offers it. Obama can be hard to pin down too, all politicians can, but if you give Obama the appropriate venue that is not a sort of rapid fire quiz, he often will deliver on the substance that Palin has not.

So what you are saying is, that the sitting President talks about more substance than someone who was involved in national politics for three months?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So what you are saying is, that the sitting President talks about more substance than someone who was involved in national politics for three months?

No, I think this was the case when Obama was a presidential candidate too, possibly even prior.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, I think this was the case when Obama was a presidential candidate too, possibly even prior.

Really? You mean BARACK OBAMA? The one who was FAMOUS for making speeches that said nothing during his campaign?

[besson3c]

Yes, not his campaign rallies, but stuff like his Google speech, and some of the other more private forums like the one with that Christian Warren dude (can't remember his name). There is also his book(s)...

[besson3c]

Here is the Google thing, November 2007:

YouTube - Candidates@Google: Barack Obama

[besson3c]

There is also his big campaign speeches on Race and Patriotism (that he wrote himself)

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Spoken by someone who has obviously never actually listened to her and draws his opinions from the media (you know, the people with the obvious agenda to trivialize her, yet it's obvious they actually fear her).

Gee, what a moron:

YouTube - Sarah Palin on the economy and bailouts

She sounds like a Democrat in that speech, promoting new regulation of financial markets and placing restrictions on CEO compensation. Interesting that THAT would be held up as a sign of her intelligence.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll let you guys chew on the whole KSM thing, that issue doesn't interest me a whole lot right now, but I will clarify regarding Palin that I don't think she is stupid at all. I just think that she rarely provides much in the way of substance. This could be either a conscious decision to withhold substance as all politicians do to cover their asses, or because she is not comfortable being grilled over substance, or both.

However, regardless, she rarely offers it. Obama can be hard to pin down too, all politicians can, but if you give Obama the appropriate venue that is not a sort of rapid fire quiz, he often will deliver on the substance that Palin has not.

Agreed. I certainly don't think Sarah Palin is stupid or unintelligent. However, what I think came across during the campaign is that she was woefully uninformed on topics of national and foreign policy. Sure ... she could regurgitate some canned Republican talking points that her handlers prepped her on. The problem was when she was asked to expound upon her views she had an EPIC FAIL moment. The Katie Couric interview clearly showed that ....

A) She didn't really know what she was talking about.

B) She tried to pretend that she did and got tripped up as all her canned talking points got jumbled up all together in her head.

C. Consequently, she came of sounding downright incoherent. As if she couldn't put together a complete sentence that made any sense. (No point in denying this because in her recent interviews even she admitted that she screwed up royally.)

Fumbling a major interview like that so badly on national TV would have been bad enough if it only happened one time. Unfortunately, it didn't. The Charlie Gibson interview was a disaster too. The bottom line was that for me and millions of other people, she did not come across as someone who truly understood the issues ... rather as someone who had (badly) memorized the cheat sheet.

Now contrast that with President Obama. Some of our friends on the right like to criticize his use of a teleprompter for his speeches. Which is beyond stupid IMO because nearly every president has used them since they've been around and it's not as if he isn't involved in actually writing them ... and his most lauded speeches he wrote entirely himself. But beyond that, in any setting where he was asked questions .... on any topic ... be it a town hall format or a one on one interview .... at no point did he ever come across like he did not know the issues. Now you may have disagreed with what he was saying ... but you didn't have legions of people going "WTF is he talking about? That isn't even a coherent sentence!" afterward. The McCain campaign only allowed Palin to give canned speeches for a reason. She is pretty good at that. She has a certain charisma. She can deliver a good speech. And she can stand there and look pretty. But let's keep it real people ... the woman simply could not handle a Q&A. And that is why she was off-limits to reporters. Again, even the McCain campaign acknowledged this in the way that they handled her. And after the election some of the campaign staffers even came outright and said the woman was a disaster in that regard.

The Obama campaign, OTOH, did not do this in the slightest. And in my view, that simply speaks for itself.

OAW

[besson3c]

Okay, so any Republican here that can admit that Obama is a good public speaker earns points in my "can I take you seriously"-o-meter...

Any takers?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Palin doesn't need a teleprompter because nobody expects her to say anything intelligent in the first place. Seriously, what was the last thing Palin said that made you think, "Wow, that was really intellectually stimulating"?

I can't think of any.

Come to think of it, I can't think of anything that Obama has said in non-prepared statements that was intellectually stimulating either.

I think I see a pattern here.

Palin and Obama are really good public speakers. One isn't a very good President and the other one might not be a very good President in the future.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I did think Stewart said it well when summarizing what it is about Palin that bugs him (the fact that when you peel back the onion, there is no onion there).

Does he say the same about Obama?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so any Republican here that can admit that Obama is a good public speaker earns points in my "can I take you seriously"-o-meter...

Any takers?

I accept the title.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so any Republican here that can admit that Obama is a good public speaker earns points in my "can I take you seriously"-o-meter...

Any takers?

He is a good public speaker. I never said otherwise.

My issue is with your use of the word brilliant. You use it like most people use the word hilarious.

[SpaceMonkey]

Obama is also brilliant in the slot.

YouTube - President Obama, United We Serve, and the NFL Team Up for Fitness and Service

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He is a good public speaker. I never said otherwise.

Mu issue is with your use of the word brilliant. You use it like most people use the word hilarious.

That's ironic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He is a good public speaker. I never said otherwise.

Mu issue is with your use of the word brilliant. You use it like most people use the word hilarious.

Most people use hilarious to mean "good enough to become the president on that characteristic alone"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Agreed. I certainly don't think Sarah Palin is stupid or unintelligent. However, what I think came across during the campaign is that she was woefully uninformed on topics of national and foreign policy.

I'm quite sure she did.

When you create interviews specifically to create that impression, then naturally that will be the case. A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Obama had zero real foreign policy experience. He wasn't ever really grilled on what he himself did in dealing with foreign powers. He wasn't ever asked "pop quiz" without a "right" answer in regard to things like the Bush Doctrine either. In fact, he didn't really give that many live interviews to people who didn't throw him softballs so it wouldn't be apparent that the guy on the top of the Democrat ticket had little to no experience doing much of ANYTHING.

..and this isn't limited to Obama. Clinton was given pretty much a pass on a lot of foreign policy stuff when he was just a Arkansas governor who believed that it was "the economy, stupid."

Now contrast that with President Obama.

Why should we contrast someone who had months on the campaign trail to hone their skills and practice the "right" answers that where given to him by his staff, while being tossed softballs by a media who he gave "tingles" down their legs?

Really? Why?

Palin's now had about the same time as Obama now to practice giving interviews and bone up on the answers most likely to be asked. I saw most of the Oprah interview, and despite the typical eye-rolling and sexist liberal condescension, I haven't heard any real, valid criticism of her performances of late.

Some of our friends on the right like to criticize his use of a TelePrompTer for his speeches.

He requires them for press conferences as well.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm quite sure she did.

When you create interviews specifically to create that impression, then naturally that will be the case. A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Obama had zero real foreign policy experience. He wasn't ever really grilled on what he himself did in dealing with foreign powers. He wasn't ever asked "pop quiz" without a "right" answer in regard to things like the Bush Doctrine either. In fact, he didn't really give that many live interviews to people who didn't throw him softballs so it wouldn't be apparent that the guy on the top of the Democrat ticket had little to no experience doing much of ANYTHING.

I seem to recall that Obama did interviews on Fox News. Why don't you talk to your boys over there and find out why they couldn't 'gotcha' Obama?

Sarah's problem is that she just makes it too easy. But no, that couldn't be her fault at all...

Why should we contrast someone who had months on the campaign trail to hone their skills and practice the "right" answers that where given to him by his staff, while being tossed softballs by a media who he gave "tingles" down their legs?

Really? Why?

Palin's now had about the same time as Obama now to practice giving interviews and bone up on the answers most likely to be asked. I saw most of the Oprah interview, and despite the typical eye-rolling and sexist liberal condescension, I haven't heard any real, valid criticism of her performances of late.

Wait, so are you saying that Sarah wasn't ready when she was nominated to be the candidate for VPOTUS? And that now, over a year later, she finally is?

[hyteckit]

Speaking of sexist condescension.

Did you guys see Sarah Palin showing her "sexist condescension" when talking about Katie Couric on Oprah?

Sarah Palin said Katie Couric was the Perky One with low self-esteem.

I bet Sarah Palin would never call a male news reporter "perky".

[turtle777]

Geez, are you for real ?

You give petty bickering a new meaning.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, are you for real ?

You give petty bickering a new meaning.

-t

Yeah, I was asking the same question about Sarah Palin.

Such petty bickering from Sarah Palin.

Did you read her new book? Hundreds of pages of blaming, whining, and bickering.

Sarah Palin. Everything that went wrong was someone else's fault. How about some personal responsibility. You are doing women a disservice with all the whining.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Did you read her new book?

Why? YOU didn't.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah, I was asking the same question about Sarah Palin.

Such petty bickering from Sarah Palin.

Did you read her new book? Hundreds of pages of blaming, whining, and bickering.

Sarah Palin. Everything that went wrong was someone else's fault. How about some personal responsibility. You are doing women a disservice with all the whining.

You know what, I'm not a Palin fan.

But it seems like you are a Palin fanboi. You seem just like her: pages of blaming, whining, and bickering.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You know what, I'm not a Palin fan.

But it seems like you are a Palin fanboi. You seem just like her: pages of blaming, whining, and bickering.

-t

Are you whining about me again?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm quite sure she did.

I'm glad you can admit the obvious.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When you create interviews specifically to create that impression, then naturally that will be the case. A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh jeez. Yet another conservative persecution complex run amok.

Just who created the interview specifically to create that impression? Because it seemed to me that the McCain campaign setup the interview. And it seemed to me that she was the one that fumbled it. Or perhaps you mean Katie Couric ... Ms. Perky .... was overly tough on her? Hmmmm. Let's see what was said during some of the more "memorable" moments .... (my comments are in italics).

On her FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE:

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that? (Hmmm ... this is such a tough question right here.)

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. (WTF does this mean? The statement is simply unintelligible!) And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. (Notice how she doesn't answer the question? Who is "we"? The question wasn't if someone in your administration conducts a trade mission ... the question was about whether or not Palin was personally involved in any of the negotiations. ) It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.(And the entire rest of the statement is talking about things that the US Air Force does. Things that the Governor of Alaska is not involved with.)

But wait ... it gets worse!!!! On the BAILOUT:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.

But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas.

And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. ALl those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

(That, my friend, is downright incoherence. Again, she doesn't KNOW the material. She's trying to RECITE talking points and mixing them all up together.)

On the BUSH DOCTRINE:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

(Clearly Palin had no freaking clue what Charlie Gibson was talking about.)

Now these are some relatively "soft-ball" questions for sure. Never mind that you even had conservatives (those who weren't in abject denial that is) saying she was a complete disaster on those interviews. Even some who were calling for her to step aside for the good of the ticket. But let you tell it, it's not her answers that gave people the impression that she was uninformed .... no, that's just a figment of our imaginations .... it's the fault of those (timely, relevant, and really not all that difficult) questions.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama had zero real foreign policy experience. He wasn't ever really grilled on what he himself did in dealing with foreign powers. He wasn't ever asked "pop quiz" without a "right" answer in regard to things like the Bush Doctrine either.

Notice how you changed the subject? What I, and many others, criticized Palin about was for being uninformed. I haven't said anything in this thread about her experience. Certainly Obama was "inexperienced" in foreign policy. Never said he wasn't. However, he was definitely "informed". He was knowledgeable about the relevant issues. He could actually answer questions about foreign policy in an intelligible and coherent sentence. Sarah Palin could not. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

And let's keep it real here. The Obama campaign never overplayed his foreign policy experience. They never tried to make it out to be more than what it was. They were smart enough not to try to go toe to toe with the McCain campaign on that front. The McCain campaign played his foreign policy experience up. As was proper because that was a strong suit for him. The problem was that the McCain campaign didn't just leave it at that. They attacked Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience. Repeatedly. That precedent had been set, but then they went and decided to go with Palin for VP. Someone with virtually no foreign policy experience either ... a heartbeat away from the Presidency when the guy at the top of the ticket is older than Methuselah. So it's only natural that the press was going to question her about her foreign policy credentials when the McCain campaign and Palin herself had previously attacked Obama for his inexperience in that department. Something about "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind .......

Finally, asking about the Bush Doctrine wasn't a "pop quiz" on some obscure foreign policy topic either. In fact, it wasn't a "pop quiz" at all. If he had asked her "What is the Bush Doctrine?" you might have some semblance of a point. But he asked her if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. A question that presupposes that she is already familiar with the topic. A topic that was the most controversial shift in US foreign policy in decades. A topic that was used to justify the war that was ongoing at the time and costing the US billions in dollars and thousands of lives. It was, in fact, the foreign policy "issue du jour". And the woman was totally clueless about it.

So please. Just build a bridge and get over it.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

On the BUSH DOCTRINE:

In Palin's defense, I do think the "Bush Doctrine" knock is a little unfair. It really hasn't been a term in common circulation, and Gibson didn't explain what he meant after Palin asked him to. Obama used an entirely different definition of the "Bush Doctrine" during the Democratic primaries: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine" - Political Radar

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Just who created the interview specifically to create that impression?

The person asking the questions. You know, the guy or gal who has control of the interview. I figured you knew what I meant.

On her FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE:

She mentioned the fact that the land she controlled bordered two foreign countries. Katie didn't understand that meant that you naturally would have some interaction and relations with these foreign countries. Apparently, she wanted her to numerate each and every time she or her people had contact with those across the borders.

..actually, Katie and everyone else knew what she meant. They were just disappointed that she had more interaction with foreign governments than either the last Democrat president candidate who won (in his first campaign) and the guy at the top of the current ballot for Democrat president. Obama really didn't have any more experience than Palin, and he was asking to be the guy in charge.

But again, we are comparing someone who was on the campaign a comparably short time, being "pop quized" by people who have made it clear they had an agenda. They steered clear of the issues that Palin would have experience with, and focused intently on the stuff they knew they could play "gotcha" with.

Whether she was "coherent" in your book is irrelevant, given what was up. Especially since her opposition Joe BIden has never been coherent, makes up answers as he goes along when he's not busy plagiarizing or engaging in racial slurs, and he got treated with kid gloves in comparison.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Obama never got the "pop quiz" treatment - especially early in his campaign. Joe Biden was hardly allowed to talk because he couldn't go a few sentences without saying something really unintelligent or something damaging to his campaign. Of coursre, this was never something highlighted by the media - they helped cover up Obama's lack of experience and Biden's total lack of control over making any sense, and focused on Palin because they had an agenda to put forth.

It would be different if Obama had experience or gave many interviews - he didn't. He rarely speaks without a teleprompter. The one reasonably hard interview he did give to Bill O'Reilly he sounded like someone was typing out his answers "hunt and peck" style and he was just stutteringly regurgitating them. It really wasn't a pretty sight (or sound).

It would also be different if Biden wasn't a complete idiot who now isn't really allowed to talk to the media.

BTW: Your inserted verbal virtual eye rolling in regards to the interview points really doesn't do your argument any justice.

On the BUSH DOCTRINE:

(Clearly Palin had no freaking clue what Charlie Gibson was talking about.)

The same with about 99% of everyone else who wasn't Charlie Gibson, though Charlie Gibson didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was either. Charlie Gibson's "gotcha" ending up backfiring on him, making HIM look like the stupid one in retrospect. When the guy who first coined the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" goes on record as saying the guy interviewing Palin doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, it's kind of hard to expect someone just hitting the campaign trail to do much better.

This was another sad (and backfired) attempt at "POP QUIZ" time which was intended not to find out Palin's stance on the issues, but try and make her look bad since she had the same basic experience as Obama.

Now these are some relatively "soft-ball" questions for sure.

Softballs that not even the interviewers knew the answers to.

GOTCHA!

And let's keep it real here. The Obama campaign never overplayed his foreign policy experience. They never tried to make it out to be more than what it was. They were smart enough not to try to go toe to toe with the McCain campaign on that front. The McCain campaign played his foreign policy experience up.

Which HE had. They never played up Palin's foreign policy experience.

She, like Obama, and Bill Clinton when he ran, and just about EVERY state Governor who runs HAS NO REAL FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. To make a concerted effort to highlight this in order to try and diffuse Obama's lack of experience really was a pathetic sight. The logic you have to twist in order to say that Sarah Palin isn't fit because she doesn't have any foreign policy experience, but the guy at THE TOP of the other ticket is, who has no more real experience, it torturous just to try and think about. It would be different if they were giving McCain the pop quiz. They weren't. They were holding a Vice Presidential candidate to a higher standard than they held the guy who was running for President on the Democrat ticket. That's pretty jaw dropping.

Finally, asking about the Bush Doctrine wasn't a "pop quiz" on some obscure foreign policy topic either. In fact, it wasn't a "pop quiz" at all. If he had asked her "What is the Bush Doctrine?" you might have some semblance of a point. But he asked her if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine.

An answer which requires you to know what the hell Charlie Gibson is talking about, when even Charlie Gibson didn't know what the hell he was talking about. There was no "right answer" here.

Charles Krauthammer - Charlie Gibson's Gaffe - washingtonpost.com

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

- Charles Krauthamer

Dan Froomkin - What Is the Bush Doctrine, Anyway? - washingtonpost.com

PostPartisan - Krauthammer, Gibson and the Bush Doctrine

So, looks like it was Charlie Gibson's gaffe on Bush doctrine, not Sarah Palin's | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Had Gibson really known what he was talking about, he might have gotten away with his attempt at trying to play "gotcha" in order to create an impression favorable to the Obama campaign. The fact that even experts explain that Palin was in a no win situation, and Charlie Gibson was in over his head, made the one really with egg on their face Gibson in this instance.

But, the goal was to try and make Sarah Palin look like less of a serious candidate than Obama, who had little experience and few real accomplishments. They were going to do that even if it mean risking looking stupid themselves, as Gibson and Couric ended up doing. That's not to say that Palin did the best job she could. She could have done much better if she had more time to prepare. She wasn't given months before she ever had a tough interview, and even then have only softballs thrown. That's reserved for Democrat candidates for President.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She mentioned the fact that the land she controlled bordered two foreign countries. Katie didn't understand that meant that you naturally would have some interaction and relations with these foreign countries.

No, Katie and everyone else understood that's what Palin wanted to suggest. Katie and I both felt that this vague implication was insufficient. More on this after the next quote.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They were just disappointed that she had more interaction with foreign governments than either the last Democrat president candidate who won (in his first campaign) and the guy at the top of the current ballot for Democrat president.

Don't be silly. John Kerry and Barack Obama were senators for a country that bordered way more than two others. Since apparently being in government in a place that borders other countries counts as foreign policy experience, obviously they had way more experience than Palin.

Unless you mean that specifics are relevant here beyond how many countries border the territory you govern. But that would mean Katie's question was actually good.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They steered clear of the issues that Palin would have experience with, and focused intently on the stuff they knew they could play "gotcha" with.

If Palin actually had a international experience like she tried to imply, I don't see how that's a "gotcha" question since she should actually know the answer pretty well. It's only a "gotcha" if she was full of crap.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It would be different if Obama had experience or gave many interviews - he didn't. He rarely speaks without a teleprompter. The one reasonably hard interview he did give to Bill O'Reilly he sounded like someone was typing out his answers "hunt and peck" style and he was just stutteringly regurgitating them. It really wasn't a pretty sight (or sound).

Wait, so a wimpy former "Today Show" host like Katie Couric is "gotcha" journalism, but Bill O'Reilly — a right-wing icon and all-around jerk who just completely cuts people off when he disagrees with them — is a fair interview in your mind?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Don't be silly. John Kerry and Barack Obama were senators for a country that bordered way more than two others. Since apparently being in government in a place that borders other countries counts as foreign policy experience, obviously they had way more experience than Palin.

Being a senator for a very short time does not by default give you more foreign policy experience or knowledge than someone whose government role puts them directly bordering two foreign countries. Especially if the area of your expertise or the committees you sit on really have nothing to do with foreign relations.

Obama started campaigning pretty much right after he got into office after not having much to do other than the issues in his home state, which doesn't border on any foreign country which he'd have to have "relations" with. Obama was never quizzed at any point in his campaign in the manner Palin was, and Palin never suggested prior to the interview that she had any substantive experience. The questions where not asked of Obama for a reason, and were asked of Palin for a reason. Both, due to the agenda the asker hoped to put forth.

True, Palin's answer didn't sound good - but there was really no "right" answer that would sound good. Obama wouldn't have been able to really give a "right" answer either if pressed as he started his campaign.

Wait, so a wimpy former "Today Show" host like Katie Couric is "gotcha" journalism, but Bill O'Reilly — a right-wing icon and all-around jerk who just completely cuts people off when he disagrees with them — is a fair interview in your mind?

No. I don't. Both have an agenda. Couric, even when she was with the Today Show often times would go rabid when she had a chance to put it to Republicans and Conservatives. I remember clearly when Bob and Liddy Dole where supposed to appear on the Today show to talk about, I believe a children's book Liddy wrote, she went loony with partisan questions on stuff like "big tobacco" that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Essentially turning what was supposed to be a fluff "Today Show" interview into a inquisition into a politician she clearly didn't like.

When Obama was faced with a similar type of challenge as Palin (which he chose to do when he knew the very fewest amount of people in America would be watching) even though he had MUCH, MUCH longer to prepare and had been on the campaign trail for a year or so, he stammered, stuttered and rambled too. He even was forced to admit he was dead wrong on the one major foreign policy matter he took a stand on during his very short stint in elected office before essentially abandoning his post (as all politicians really do) to go campaign for another office.

You didn't see a parody of his halting, stuttering acknowledgment that he didn't know what he was doing in regards to the war in Iraq as John McCain did, on Saturday Night Live. You didn't see a new, popular "Joe Biden" character on there every week that could have, and would have been comedy gold given the material Joe provided comedians with every couple of days. They, unlike Palin, where treated differently when they had less than stellar performances with the media.

Now, about the same amount of time Palin has had in regards to the national limelight as Obama had, she sounds much more sure of herself in interviews and I watched her argue back and forth with O'Reilly about foreign policy issues that they didn't agree on. While I'm sure O'Reilly agreed with her more than he did Obama, this interview is a much better barometer of her abilities to discuss issues than the ones shown during her first times out during a campaign she was thrust into. Of course, it doesn't matter. The media still have an agenda to sell.

[ebuddy]

Thread: Can we all agree that Obama is a brilliant speaker?
Participant: No because example, example, example...
Obamatons: But Bush... But Palin...

Can we all agree that it's possible Obama has not been nearly as brilliant or effective as his faithful would have you believe?

[besson3c]

Okay Republicans, still waiting for a little more acknowledgement here... I can't believe there are this many people I ought to not be taking seriously!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay Republicans, still waiting for a little more acknowledgement here... I can't believe there are this many people I ought to not be taking seriously, but then I've never really been able to address people who disagree with me!

fixed.

[besson3c]

Really ebuddy?

I'm confused by so many narratives that are floating around. I thought it was that Obama was a great speaker, but a dangerous one? Or that he is eloquent but wrong (I think this is what the McCain campaign used to say?) Or that he is a great speaker, but it didn't matter because he relied on a teleprompter and didn't write his own speeches? Need I go on? Now you're saying that he actually isn't a good speaker at all, and that stuff about teleprompters didn't matter anyway? Or something?

Here's my narrative: you disagree with him and therefore have great difficulty acknowledging the painfully obvious.

[BadKosh]

His cadence sill makes him irritating to listen to, no matter what he's saying. I don't like the way he forms his "S" sounds either. This is true both on and off the teleprompter. Off the teleprompter he uses more um's ah's, etc and this also lowers his score. He's a B- at best. Limbaugh is a better speaker than Obama, whether you like his content or not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really ebuddy?

I'm confused by so many narratives that are floating around.

I apologize for this, but there's a great deal of material to be covered.

I thought it was that Obama was a great speaker, but a dangerous one?

When he says he's fully in support of a single-payer plan for example, then does a complete 180 saying he's not; he's being woefully dishonest. Well-documented dishonesty eventually takes its toll on an Administration and its goals. I believe we're seeing this now. You don't have to disagree with Obama to witness the damage he's causing his party, his own approval ratings, and his agenda.

Or that he is eloquent but wrong (I think this is what the McCain campaign used to say?)

McCain is the arbiter of brilliant speaking now? Not withstanding everyone's favorite example; Palin who most could agree spoke exceptionally well at her first formal speech at the RNC. This certainly doesn't make her an exceptional speaker.

Or that he is a great speaker, but it didn't matter because he relied on a teleprompter and didn't write his own speeches?

This became more of an item for discourse when Obama thanked himself for inviting everyone to a speech for the Prime Minister of Ireland. Call it a chink in the armor if you will, that gained traction with the multiple engagements he's botched due to teleprompter malfunctions since.

Need I go on? Now you're saying that he actually isn't a good speaker at all, and that stuff about teleprompters didn't matter anyway? Or something?

Often times someone who opposes Obama's policy will throw a bone to his faithful by claiming Obama is a brilliant speaker. This is strategic politically. They do this to appear fair and lend more credibility to their critique of policy.

Here's my narrative: you disagree with him and therefore have great difficulty acknowledging the painfully obvious.

I'm given the blessing of anonymity in this forum which allows me to forego the contrivances of political strategy in lieu of an honest assessment of Obama's abilities. While I've never claimed Obama is a bad speaker, I certainly don't believe he's a brilliant speaker.

Using your logic then, should I assume you are willing to place him in this high a regard using praise generally reserved for the most noteworthy throughout history, only because you are an ardent proponent of his?

[besson3c]

Thank you for acknowledging that Obama is not a bad speaker, ebuddy.

The "there is nothing positive about Obama" crowd is first and foremost on my mind here... the same crowd that criticizes Obama's bowing, Michelle Obama's appearance on Sesame St., his citizenship, comparisons to Hitler, etc. - the same crowd that you acknowledged exists and will use any and every possible opportunity to whine, complain, criticize, or do whatever they have to do to bring him down a notch or three without picking and choosing their battles.

If there was no acknowledgment that Obama is at least a good public speaker, I would have tried "can we agree that he is a good looking man?" or maybe "can we agree that he wears nice clothes?" - there has to be something that even these people can acknowledge?

I'm also curious as to why if many on the right claim that Obama is doing the same stuff that Bush did where was all of the freaking out during the Bush administration that we are seeing now? All of the "oh, we are inches away from being a socialist nation, from being absolutely destroyed as a nation" sort of stuff... I guess our nation is only this fragile under a Democratic administration? People apparently voted for "change", and now it's either there is too much change causing people to freak out, but simultaneously not enough change? Or something? It's all pretty dizzying.

Perhaps this should be left to another thread though...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

His cadence sill makes him irritating to listen to, no matter what he's saying. I don't like the way he forms his "S" sounds either. This is true both on and off the teleprompter. Off the teleprompter he uses more um's ah's, etc and this also lowers his score. He's a B- at best. Limbaugh is a better speaker than Obama, whether you like his content or not.

How dumb do you think we are to think that vocal mannerisms are enough to evaluate what is an extremely difficult and challenging task for anybody, Republican or Democrat, as a "B- at best" and think that this is all there is to this assessment? From you of all people? Mr. 0bama?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Speaking of sexist condescension.

Did you guys see Sarah Palin showing her "sexist condescension" when talking about Katie Couric on Oprah?

Sarah Palin said Katie Couric was the Perky One with low self-esteem.

I bet Sarah Palin would never call a male news reporter "perky".

Obviously, you haven't read the book, because that's a blatant lie.

It's an autobiography and there is less than 1/8th of the book even devoted to the campaign.

It was Couric's co-workers who made that statement.

Keep phoning it in.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

His cadence sill makes him irritating to listen to, no matter what he's saying. I don't like the way he forms his "S" sounds either. This is true both on and off the teleprompter. Off the teleprompter he uses more um's ah's, etc and this also lowers his score. He's a B- at best. Limbaugh is a better speaker than Obama, whether you like his content or not.

Limbaugh is raucous and unpleasant to listen to.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How dumb do you think we are to think that vocal mannerisms are enough to evaluate what is an extremely difficult and challenging task for anybody, Republican or Democrat, as a "B- at best" and think that this is all there is to this assessment? From you of all people? Mr. 0bama?

In other words: you give him an A+ for effort, nothing else gets factored into the grade.

-t

[turtle777]

May I offer one more piece to the puzzle: I think most of us agree that Bush set a pretty low standard in most of things.

Just because someone operates slightly above that low standard doesn't make him brilliant.

-t

[chabig]

^^

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

In other words: you give him an A+ for effort, nothing else gets factored into the grade.

-t

I never said he was perfect.

His brilliance is in relative comparison to other prominent politicians of our generation. I think he is better than McCain, Palin, Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Carter, both Clintons, Gingrich, I'm not terribly familiar with H.W. Bush but I would guess him too, Paul, Leiberman, Huckabee, Romney.. Who else should I be including? I think he stands out above anybody of this generation. I'm not prepared to assign him a grade, but to me standing out above anybody else I can possibly fathom in my generation is worthy of the classification of "brilliant".

[chabig]

To me, the term "brilliant" says more about someone's intellect than their ability to read words from a screen. By the way, I think Reagan was better.

[besson3c]

Heh, I knew it was only a matter of time before the teleprompter argument surfaced (despite the fact that he, in fact, writes many of his own speeches). Which is it, he is a good/brilliant speaker but uses a teleprompter, or he isn't a good/brilliant speaker at all?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by chabig 

To me, the term "brilliant" says more about someone's intellect than their ability to read words from a screen. By the way, I think Reagan was better.

So you don't believe it's possible for somebody to be a brilliant painter or guitarist without having their IQ tested first?