176 Comments

1. Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland:

The outright assault by the media on GOVERNOR Palin is quite pathetic. Even here in Ireland, saturated as we are by the liberal left in the media, the verbal bombast is unceasing. I can, sort of, understand a section of the American media attacking her: they are trying to sway the election vote. What I fail to understand is why, in a very small country such as Ireland, where there is absolutely NO chance of any comments here having one iota of an impression on the vote, the media takes sides as it does. One might consider that surely, where the media is not in a position to impact on the vote, they would be more responsible and professional and balanced, in order that there can be reasoned and intelligent debate. As an example of the childish bias which is displayed against GOVERNOR Palin here, a radio presenter at the top of his programme today said that they would be discussing GOVERNOR “Palin, who has just declared war on Russia”. How very childish; how very stupid; how very very left liberal pinko pathetic!!

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:22 pm 2. J.J. Sefton:

After being chastised for being tough with Obama during the debates (i.e. asking him real questions and not what his favorite color is) I think Charlie wanted to re-establish his bona fides with the libs and MSM by going after Palin. But his condescension and quite literally looking down his nose at her can only enrage women, as it obviously has enraged you, Phyllis. And rightly so. Stupid move by Gibson, and will probably drive even more women into her camp.

Sep 12, 2008 - 12:28 pm 3. Gianni:

To George:

thank you very much. It’s been nice from you.

To Phyllis:

While I may anticipate one of the subject I would like to discuss with you I have a curiosity which I decide to put in your forum.
I am very much interested in the opinion of Jewish women groups and of Jewish feminists about the election.
Which candidate they support? Why? Is there a wave toward one of the candidates?
Would they had preferred Clinton?
Are there divisions among different groups? Younger Jewish woman vs elders, orthodox vs secular, affluent urbanites vs small town Jews etc?

It would be interesting to know.

All the best

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:19 pm 4. Lusitanus:

I have witnessed police interrogations that were kinder and less hostile that MCharlie Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin. It was absolutely shameful.

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:25 pm 5. Jeff:

Charlie Gibson is a liberal elitist fool.
His condescending arrogance during his interview with VP nominee, Sarah Palin, was palpable.
The liberal, mainstream media are in a tizzy over Sarah Palin. They have no idea of how to deal with such a woman – a woman of substance and integrity.
This media will continue to attack and try to trap the VP nominee. I believe that she handled Charlie Gibson’s obnoxious demeanor quite well.
I have all of the confidence in the world in Governor Palin.
It is my hope and prayer that she and John McCain win the election on 11/4.

Sep 12, 2008 - 1:34 pm 6. Toby:

“Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe”
By Charles Krauthammer

“The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

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?”"

Later on he says:

“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.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Sep 12, 2008 - 4:32 pm 7. A Tutorial for Charlie Gibson – Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Self Defense by Jar Jar Binks « Rosettasister’s Weblog:

[...] “Charlie Gibson: This is No Way to Interview a Vice-Presidential Candidate Even if She is Sarah Palin…” Phyllis Chesler [...]

Sep 12, 2008 - 5:18 pm 8. Lorelei:

re: Gianni’s request for a Jewish woman’s opinion on the candidates,
I’m honestly torn. I am a strong Hillary supporter and was deeply
disappointed that she had not won the nomination. I had decided
prior to the selection of his running-mate, that I would vote for
McCain simply because I felt that his perception of Islamo-fascism was on target & that he might be supportive of Israel.
I honestly do not feel that Obama will be as pro-Israel.
What to do? I find Palin repugnant.

Sep 12, 2008 - 7:41 pm 9. ic:

Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland: Er, the reason is: our vote here counts. In your neck of woods, you have to vote and re-vote to arrive at the right result. Btw, when will you vote to reject that Lisbon Treaty thingee again?

Sep 12, 2008 - 10:48 pm 10. Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland:

“IC”, with all respect, I think you misunderstood my comment. In reply to mine you say “the reason is: our vote here counts”. That has NOTHING to do with why the IRISH media should show bias about the AMERICAN election!

As for your question about our vote on the Lisbon Treaty, Europe itself made the rules for the passing of the treaty. The rules clearly stated that if even one country did not ratify it, it fell. Ireland’s constitution demands a referendum on such issues. We voted against the treaty. In any proper democracy, that would be the end of the treaty. Finis! Caput!!

The fact that “they” are talking about a second referendum only serves to show that “they” are not concerned with proper democracy; they are concerned only with getting their own way.

Perhaps “they” misunderstand the Irish psyche. We are a VERY contrary people. If we know that “they” want us to vote YES the next time around, in this instance, unlike the second Nice Treaty vote, we might very well say NO again, by an even bigger margin!

And, BTW “IC”, I note that you ask when we will vote again to arrive at the “right” result. I presume this is tongue in cheek? Surely, in a proper democracy, the “right” result is the result of the vote in THE election. In a proper democracy, there is no such thing as “voting again” – the first result counts and the politicians accept the democratic will of the people, QED!

Sep 13, 2008 - 12:36 am 11. Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland:

Sorry! Apologies! Please scrap my last text – and this one! I hadn’t seen my comment, which you HAD actually published! Thank you for allowing me the space. Love your column.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:31 am 12. Gianni:

Thank you very much Lorelei.

This is interesting. I may be wrong but I have the feeling Hillary was the perfect candidate for almost all jewish women. For plenty of reasons.

Both Obama and Palin, for different reasons, seem not to be the perfct choice. Obama should intensify its jewish and pro-Israel outreach efforts. He seems to be very good on domestic issues but he raises some doubts on foreign policy. Palin is very worrysome on domestic issues.
She is the perfect choice for conservative and evangelicals but for voters who are not she is not good at all.
I have the feeling both Obama and Palin are attracting the most attention, in both poositive and negative way.
It’s quite interesting. The two white guys, McCain and Biden,according to what I know, are not on the receiving end of attacks as much as the black candidate (Obama and Palin) and the woman candidate are.
McCain is overshadoved by Palin, while Biden is almost invisible next to Obama.

These are my two cents contribution to the discussion. And this is how I percieve it from Italy.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that jewish women as a group are the more torny about the election.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:57 am 13. Gianni:

Sorry folks….I promise this is my last posting. I won’t disturb the discussion anymore.
These are the questions I’d ask, as a feminist journalist, to all the candidates:

-do you support safe and legal abortion or would you outlaw the procedure?
-do you support legal contraception including the morning after pill?
-do you this that all medical personnel should provide services or that some people can be extempted for religious reasons?
-would you re-estabilsh US funds for UN programs aimed at women or do you favor the actual policy which deny funds for programs or organisation who advocate for legal abortion?
-what are your policies about reproductive and maternal health care?
-do you support paid parental leave? Do you support just maternity leave? Both paternity and mternity leave? Paid? Unpaid?
-do you support quality child care? how?
-do you support title IX?
-do you support the ratification of Cedaw?
-do you support ERA?
-do you support funding for women’s shelters?
-do you support funding for programs aimed at fighting violence against women?
-is stopping violence against women a priority for you? How would you do it?
-do you support recruiting and retaining more women in the Police Forces?
-do you support recruiting and retaining more women in the military?
-do you support funding for program devoted to veteran military women?
-do you support fighting rape and sexual harrassement in the military?
-do you support quality child care for children of servicemen and women?
-would you allow gays and lesbians in the military?
-are you going to appoint more qualified women in government positions?
-do you support civil unions for same-sex couples?
-do you support anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation?
-do you support including gender, disability and sexual orientation as protected categories from hate crimes?
-do you support funding for disabled women and for women in mental health care?
-do you support funding and assistance for women business owners?
-are you concerned by the damage pollution is having on women and children health?
-are you concerned by the fact that women are the most hit and vulnerable by the natual disaster?
-are you concerned by global warming or do you think it’s a total fiction?
-do you support having more women scientists leading local communities into renewable energy that will lead US to become gradually indipendent from foreign oil?
-would you support an economic and/or diplomatic boycott of a country whose record on women’s human rights is depreacable?
-do you support international campaigns devoted to stamp out violence against women including when done by state actors?
-do you support the global decriminalisation of homosexuality?
-do you support funding for local women’s rights groups in the developing countries?
-do you support pay equity?
-do you support the separation of church and state? Just in some cases? Only for some religions?
-do you support a ban of burqa and of niqab in all public spaces?
-do you reject poligamy? always or just in some cases?
-do you support co-ed education?
-do you support equal opportunities in education and sports for girls?
-do you oppose gender segregated spaces? Always or in same cases?
-do you support that workers, with the excepetion of disabled, should all follow the same rules? or do you think that accomodation should be made according to culture and/or religion?
-do you support having a single uniform for everyone in the police forces without no exception?
-do you support heal and social care for older women?
-when it comes to minority women such as natives or immigrants do you the individual woman’s right to self-determination or do you think the cultural and/or religious group rights are more important?

Well…I certeinly forgot something but the basic are there.
I’d LOVE to know the candidates opinions on ALL these issues.

Sorry if I disturbed folks.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:19 am 14. Wadeusaf:

So, are you suggesting that Gov. Palin ought to break the bubble with the media types like Obama does.

What a hoot, I can see the sweat on Charlies brow and that twitch thing al la Chris Mathews, going on too. What then would be the condemnation for Jezebel Palin? Too funny, too, too funny.

Thank you

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:25 am 15. ApplePie:

Phyllis,
Excellent article but one thing you didn’t mention is the subtle yet effective manner in which Sarah Palin subtly countered Gibson’s blatant condescension — she constantly referred to him as “Charlie” – let’s face it “Charlie” doesn’t exude the “tut tut- look down my nose” persona that Gibson clearly wanted to project. I think this is yet another indicator that Sarah CAN handle herself among those “good ol’ boys” and deftly put them/him in their/his place.

I find it nauseating what the misogynist mainstream media et al did to Hillary Clinton and are now bellying up to do Sarah Palin. Gloria Steinem recently bashed Sarah Palin and touted the Democratic convention as having so many women………yet it was clear, nearly one year ago, that the Donna Brazile DNC gang was pushing for Obama to win….so the Dems thumbed their noses at a qualified female candidate in favor of a MAN. Guess it was just a coincidence that the Dem convention was planned well over 1+ yrs ago yet conveniently facilitated and enhanced the African American MALE nominee’s acceptance speech by having him give it on the anniversary of the MLK famous speech – pretty big coincidence- don’t you think??
Truth of the matter is Dems have dealt a huge blow to women by allowing Hillary to be publicly bashed by the media (and others) and then orchestrating the choosing of a totally inexperienced man instead of a Hillary –

Rather that be angry at the Republicans for choosing Sarah Palin – who does have the executive experience and is their VICE Presidential candidate- many women are angry that the Democratic Party powers-that-be think that women are dumb enough to vote for an inexperience man for president.

Sep 13, 2008 - 1:26 pm 16. Pajamas Media » Memo to Charlie Gibson: That Was No Way to Interview a Vice-Presidential Candidate:

[...] Read the entire story here. [...]

Sep 13, 2008 - 1:29 pm 17. Herb:

Seriously??? Hey, here’s a clue…if Sarah Palin is going to let Charlie Gibson push her around, maybe she really is unqualified for the position she is seeking.

Oh, and John McCain got OWNED on the View. No articles about how they were mean to him?

You guys need a new shtick besides, “Wah, the media’s mean to Republicans.”

Sep 13, 2008 - 1:51 pm 18. Don Kenner:

Gianni,

Your questions betray your position. They seem to imply that Obama, not McCain, would be better on these issues. As the questions tend toward feminist ones, I wonder: does the condescending, misogynist, and mean-spirited treatment of Palin bother you at all? Do you really see Biden as a warrior for womens rights? What about the constant, unrelenting, merciless brutalization and murder of women and homosexuals under Islam? Does Barrack Hussein Obama look like the man to combat that?

Many of your issues have merit, but it is not clear that taking my money to fund them at the Federal level is right or just. Here’s a few questions of my own:

Do you want a socialist in office who will raise taxes during a recession? How will women and minorities do when Jimmy-Carter-economics tear a huge gaping hole in job creation?

Do you want your grandchildren to live under Sharia law? Better hope those bed sheets show blood on the wedding night.

Do you want to live a country where a man who attended a racist, anti-Semitic Church for TWENTY YEARS can walk into the highest office? Where a man who is supposed to protect us from terrorism has a best friend who is a terrorist?

I don’t. And I have two daughters.

Sep 13, 2008 - 1:59 pm 19. chrisa798:

Instapundit (I think) has a link to an article showing just how deceitfully they edited–not for time, but to change the questions and answers, and to put things out of order and context. They cut answers and questions in half several times.

Not criminal, but definitely fraudulent.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:00 pm 20. chrisa798:

Here is the link via Instapundit:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:03 pm 21. Politijunkie:

Why is it unreasonable to feel her out to see if she is unqualified? Isn’t that the question most Americans want answered?? After all, there are questions about this, especially given McCain’s age!

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:09 pm 22. Sandra M:

Ms. Chesler said:

“Psychological research on “touching” indicates that it is a statement of power. Whoever does the “touching” is indicating that he is the more powerful of the dyad. Thus, “touching” is not necessarily a touchy-feely anti-corporate kinda thing but is quite the opposite.”

I was outraged by Obama kissing Mrs. Biden on the mouth when they got together on stage at the DNC. THAT more than the touching is a violation personal psychological space.

i would have groin-kicked any man who did that without permission, My husband might have done worse. But, of course, because he’s Black, such a response would have been labelled “racist.”

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:16 pm 23. dvd:

charley was auditioning. There is a void in the output department of control media central, they need someone with gravitas to step up…..charles got his audition in lets wait to see what happens.

as far as i am concerned, a system is only as good as its sensory organs….charlies trying to get his hat in the ring…..pretty pathetic…imho

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:36 pm 24. Rotwang:

Sandra M:

You realize, of course, that Obama and Mrs. Biden know each other.

It’s not like he grabbed a stranger out of a crowd and bent her over a chair.

A lot of folks in America just aren’t happy if they’re not being outraged by something, even if it’s all in their own heads.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:46 pm 25. schnargley:

“You guys need a new shtick besides, “Wah, the media’s mean to Republicans.” (Herb)

Right on, bro! Cripes! I am like, sooooo tired of hearing that one. It is like, soooo forty years ago. Hello? Calling “Old news”? Get it through your Neanderthallic, little whinging brains – the Press is NOT biased, or arrogant, or manipulative in any Goebellian way. ! It is just more intelligent than you stupid, right-winger reactionaries. Why don’t you idiots just accept the fact that the Media is on our side because they are much more educated and intelligent than you. Stop complaining! Get over it! Shut up!!!

BTW- Does anybody know what was Obama’s response to Gibson, when he was asked what his favorite color was? I am redecorating my condo in SF and would love to know!

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:48 pm 26. Greg:

Gianna,

“Would you outlaw the procedure?”

You know the president doesn’t make laws, right? That is for the Legislative Branch. Why do people think the Pres (or VP) would just come in and make a law about abortion? You can argue about Judicial picks, but even that is not cut and dry.

Also, your questions are somewhat…leading. “Do you support fighting rape and sexual harrasement in the military?” C’mon, really? The question is, as Don Kenner stated, do you believe the Federal Government is the best, or only, way to handle problems.

Sep 13, 2008 - 2:59 pm 27. Anonymous Patriot:

Dear Herb,

Don’t you find it hypocritical how the drive-by media is covering a VP nominee (Palin) as opposed to how they should be covering a presidential nominee (Obama)?

Sarah Palin is NOT running for president, Obama is. Why hasn’t the drive-by media put Obama under the same microscope as Governer Palin? The answer is simple: the left-wing drive-by media is in the tank for Obama.

Sarah Palin has been elected as a mayor and governor. Obama has been elected as a senator. Big difference.

Sarah Palin is not afraid to take a stand on issues like right to life, guns and earmarks. Obama voted “present” how many times?

Obama has admitted to marijuana and cocaine use in his memoirs and the drive-by media chooses to ignore it. Todd Palin got a DUI 20 years ago and the media hammers him.

Nobody in the drive-by media has asked questions about Obama’s relationships with radicals like Ayers, Pfluger and Rev. Wright. Why?

This is what is known as “media bias,” and it does exist. Look it up.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:00 pm 28. JMS:

Hey Schnargley,
If what you say is true, then why did ABC feel the need to edit out most of Palin’s responses, including her answers to Gibson’s foreign policy questions (actually editing her in mid-sentence at one point)? Why didn’t they just air the entire interview uncut? If you read the whole transcript of the interview, not just the mangled version that ABC presented as “news,” you might understand why people feel that the MSM is biased. Here’s a link to the full text of the interview:

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:11 pm 29. Anonymous Patriot:

Regarding schnargley’s comments:

Are you living in some strange parallel universe? Dems/Liberals whine a multitude or order more that GOP/Conservatives.
That’s because GOP/Conservatives are too busy working, raising families and paying taxes and don’t need/want a handout from Big Government.
By the way, I find it interesting how Libs love to tell people with opposing views to shut up.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:12 pm 30. Mike Shuster:

A couple things:

I gotta say, I think Krauthammer is on target a lot of the time, but not this time. His argument about the Bush Doctrine evolving is in some technical way correct, but ask anyone who follows foriegn policy what ‘the Bush Doctrine’ is, and you’ll get an answer: that it’s the preventitive (as opposed to pre-emptive) strike doctine he laid out at his West Point 2002 speech.

Is it a big deal that Palin doesn’t know this? Well, that’s another issue, and I think reasonable people can disagree. But come on.

Also, I saw the blog-posts about how ABC cut up the footage unfairly. But I saw the segments that ABC aired, and reading the transcripts, I only see a couple things they cut (in fact only one, but I might have missed something). My sense is that the people who are making an issue of this are referring to the re-caps ABC (and affiliates) aired on their nightly news programs– which of course are going to be sliced up.

I’m not a fan of Gibson’s tone, but as other people pointed out, she ought to be able to deal with it– which, I think, she was. She did okay. Not great, but not awfully. (Unless you think the VP needs to know about things like the Bush Doctirine. Actually, I was more disappointed in the vagueness of her answers about the economy and her apparent non-understanding of how entitlements work)

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:14 pm 31. ozziepat:

Here’s a nice “racist” comment for you liberal twits:

Do you honestly believe if Obama were not “black” he would have been anything other than a short-lived joke in the Dem primaries? Do you honestly believe *anyone* would have considered him a serious candidate for President? Do you understand the meaning of “honestly believe”?

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:15 pm 32. Ed Wallis:

“schnargley 2:48pm,” I thought hippie retreads and Socialits wannabes like you considered “so forty years ago” a good thing, being 1968 and all, dude….

Your writings also reflect that demented era, so I don’t quite get the snorting and snarky snipping. “‘bro”?! Puh-LEASE! Or, should I encourage your written panhandling with an equally outdated, “right on, man!”?

But I must admit, the more I read your screeds, the easier it gets to understand all the socialist echoes in your heads. Whenever you should chance to step out into the sunshine of reality, however, you may realize that your poor little head can’t quite cope with its heat.

Grow up, kid.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:26 pm 33. Marina:

One point I want to get more attention is the – somehow brutal – editing of the interview. In the second part that aired I got the impression that there hardly was any answer that had been left untouched. Apparently, to make Sarah look worse (in qualifications, judgement and positions). Here´s what I posted earlier on what I found most horrifying about it:

DANGEROUS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
ABC has edited Sarah’s interview, horribly. Even dangerously. Because Russia really could conclude the next war is coming. But the full version shows that Sarah said exactly the opposite. THE DEMS RATHER PROVOKE A WAR THAN LOOSE THE ELECTION. What a party.
THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH SARAH, WITH EDITED OUT PARTS, Pt. 1:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:27 pm 34. Concerned Citizen:

Phyllis, these are fair questions many people would like to hear the answers to from Gov. Palin, Senator Obama, Sen. Biden and Sen. McCain. If we don’t like the way people are treated by the media, we have the right to turn it off, ignore it or change the channel. Gov. Palin doesn’t have to do any of these MSM type interviews. The MSM is so untrustworthy, they have lost all credibility because they moved away from News to Opinion without disclosing this masquerade to their viewers.

The people who will decide this election don’t get their “news” from Ivy League types, anyway.

I’d say this entire interview was completely irrelevant.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:33 pm 35. Ed Wallis:

QUESTION TO “Jeff” of 1:34pm who wrote:

“Charlie Gibson is a liberal elitist fool.
His condescending arrogance during his interview with VP nominee, Sarah Palin, was palpable.
The liberal, mainstream media are in a tizzy over Sarah Palin. They have no idea of how to deal with such a woman – a woman of substance and integrity.
This media will continue to attack and try to trap the VP nominee. I believe that she handled Charlie Gibson’s obnoxious demeanor quite well.
I have all of the confidence in the world in Governor Palin.
It is my hope and prayer that she and John McCain win the election on 11/4.”

If you, sir, ARE the same “true Independent Jeff,” could you please relate what has seemingly changed your mind 180-degrees…as most-if-not-all your other posts have been thoroughly critical of McCain and Palin?

This would enlighten many here as to what aspects of either the Obama or McCain “camp” (for lack of better words) have moved you so. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:34 pm 36. CFM:

Herb, you’re dripping foam on the carpet.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:36 pm 37. Marina:

@ Phyllis:
Sorry,
first reading the article, I somehow missed the fact that you already mentioned the editing.
My apologies.

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:42 pm 38. ahem:

schnargley:

Love your nails….

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:49 pm 39. BMoon:

herb,
If decades of verified, documented Media bias against Republicans and in favor of liberal Democrats, including this year’s appalling act, to you is a “schtick,” what on earth do you call the foisting of the most inexperienced, tainted, phony, extreme leftist personna upon the American public by the elite? Some of us still have a sense of history and civil studies to understand that the Fourth estate was not supposed to play as if it were Pravda and as if Americans were witless, passive Soviet serfs.

“Schtick” this in your global warming aparatus:

http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=n1ronxelmtin

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:51 pm 40. Sean Busse:

Do you think many of these comments are from actual real everyday Americans? I wanted to post this to help give some actual truth when people see comments listed for articles and videos pertaining to this years election. I was involved with this in 2004 and up until this past Wednesday when I finally quit from it taking a toll on my health and mental state. It involved six of us in a Missouri county field office with our jobs to control the web. Give the image that a vast majority supports McCain/ Palin or posting Anti-Obama comments. Imagine a life of 12 to 16 hour days working off at least 50 ghost email addresses per person registering on every newspaper website in the country let alone monitoring youtube videos, waiting for the next article to make the wire online or opinion poll. To project the image that everyone else supports McCain, so should you and if you should support Obama? It’s just a losing battle from each time you do read a web article comment’s section it is blanketed with McCain support. On each comment I am suppose to be a working mother and the next comment a blue collar male, a Hillary voter now for McCain, etc., etc.. This decision wasn’t made from the campaign heads but from the ground level of a little Missouri county field office. Yes, grassroots officials think this up. I consider myself an idiot now for actually volunteering to do it all this time. The next time anyone reads the comments sections of web articles or youtube videos. Just ask yourself are some of these from actual voters?

Sep 13, 2008 - 3:59 pm 41. Doug:

I compared Gibson’s Palin and Obama interviews and the Ferraro/Palin ‘views as well.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/creaking-decrepit-hypocrisy-of.html.

Ridiculous hypocrisy.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:01 pm 42. Patterson:

“Oh, and John McCain got OWNED on the View.”

Herb I really wouldn’t admit to watching that. Even if you are a female…

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:04 pm 43. misanthropicus:

A propos Gibson: Sarah Palin vs. Michelle Obama – another take on liberal rank hypocrisy

Gibson acts like all his liberal cohorts who’ve been stricken by terrow when Palin was chosen for the VP job, and now are trying in any manner to diminish and discredit her.

Now back to liberals and their selective treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama – where is Michelle Obama?
What happened with her since Sarah Palin’s nomination? Why the Obama campaign is doing now the suicidal act of keeping Michelle out of media’s sight?

Wouldn’t such an accomplished, sophisticated professional woman like Michelle (a hardworking hospital community outreach officer making a well deserved 260 K), provide for the Dem ticket the necessary balancing, neutralizing act when juxtaposed in news to a rank arriviste like Sarah Palin? Of course it would!
Wouldn’t Michelle Obama’s mere presence (boy! hasn’t this woman fought her way up through academia and institutions!), offer America the relieving image of a woman of character and talent, whose achievements would instantly dwarf that shameless impostor from Alaska? Of course it would!
Wouldn’t Michelle’s image and achievements when contrasted with Palin’s give the ultimate burnish of legitimacy to the liberals’ claim of progressism and open-mindedness? Of course it would!

Why did Michelle Obama disappear from news since Sarah Palin was nominated?
Axelrod, Plouffe and the rest of the crew – What are you doing? You miss the greatest opportunity to re-launch Obama’s campaign by keeping Michelle away!

Wow! I just learnt! Carl Rove has poisoned Michelle and she will be available only after the November election – those Republicans stop at nothing!

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:15 pm 44. Self-hating boomer:

Someone else (give me a few hours, I will dig up his name), has suggested that from now on, interviewees should take their own camcorders with them on the set–and then release the unedited interview on the internet.

That was none other than PJM’s own Glen Reynolds:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bring_your_own_camera_128856.htm

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:22 pm 45. john from cinncinati:

more educated and intelligent than I. so if i poke you in the eye unintentionally does your eye still hurt? that’s just the point, you say the media isn’t biased but it is. my eye still hurts. no amount of rationalizing will make the eye quit hurting. you and your kind aren’t as smart as you think. it doesn’t take a PHD. to recognize a cowpaddy when you step in it

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:23 pm 46. Donnie Mac Leod:

As a Canadian , I watched the interview and found the lack of civil exchange to open the interview to be shameful on Charlie Gibson’s part. It was inappropriate because he never even gave his Viewers an opportunity to get a feel for the dialog that was to be exchanged. After all , he is supposed to be not only interviewing but introducing Palin to his audience. To open the interview in the manner that he used was disgraceful. Do you think you are qualified right out of the blue like he did. He could have just as easily stamped Unfair Interview about to happen on his forehead. When she jutted out her jaw line and asked what do you mean “charlie” I saw the kind of no nonsense woman that is capable of putting anybody on the mat for being condescending towards her. If Obama has steel in him it doesn’t matter, because that Lady could cut through steel like it was butter on a hot day. She is the real deal and she represents those that don’t want big brother pushing them around.

Charlie Gibson was badly out classed by a Lady that he thought to be beneath his intellect. He proved himself wrong. I could almost feel a sense of Palin snickering at Gibson’s desire to destroy her politically . However in her intelligent personality she knew, she wasn’t going downward into mediocrity. “charlie” was.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:29 pm 47. Roark:

Is Gibson a complete idiot? He must think everyone is an ignorant chump. Doesn’t he realize that this is the information age and that you can’t fool people with editing gimmicks like the old days?

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:30 pm 48. TheFixIsIn:

http://www.FightTheSmear.org

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:31 pm 49. cedarford:

A woman at a Hillary website (nom de plume – Nancy Kallitechnis) posted what she found reviewing Gibsons questions to Obama compared to the questions he later asked the VP nominee Palin:

The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama…He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead..

I showed this to a few co-workers. Two of the women, both Obama supporters, were completely disgusted with the dramatic difference in the puffball questions Obama got compared to Palin. Both were offended and said the media was so in the bag for Obama that they never would question the media is sexist, was out to destroy Hillary, and now is working on Palin while “our guy” is clearly getting red carpet treatment..Then one said – you know, seeing this shit happen makes me think he isn’t my guy…I really feel for Gov Palin getting abused like that..

Link to what may be Nancy from Cal Tech’s work and Anchoress’s own (irate) thoughts on the smear editing work Gibson’s staff did was by The Anchoress, at her website:

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:42 pm 50. J.H.Lee:

You’re reading tea leaves. Maybe Gibson was aloof, maybe Gibson was detached but you’re assuming that he was condescending in some way. As far your analysis of touching, it’s a load and it’s steaming high.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:44 pm 51. Calvin Dodge:

The suggestion to “bring your own camcorder” is from Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit. He opined on the subject at http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bring_your_own_camera_128856.htm

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:48 pm 52. RE:

Gianni,

That’s long list of questions! Something tells me that if Governor Palin answered every single one to your satisfaction, you’d invent another long list of perceived injustices and outrages. Why? Because that’s what professional victims do. Your glass will always be half empty. That’s a pretty sad way to go through life.

I hate to break the news to you, but the McCain/Palin campaign slogan is ‘Country First’, not ‘Womyn First’.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:52 pm 53. MikeM:

Gianni:

You did not disturb me, but by your list of questions, you are certainly disturbed.

Kindest Regards

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:54 pm 54. BackwardsBoy:

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit was the first one I saw to suggest the candidates bring their own cameras to interviews. Given that ABC just has to do their best to put Sarah in a bad light as often as possible, that’s not a bad idea.

Sep 13, 2008 - 4:54 pm 55. Ant:

She could very well be the president of the most powerful country on earth. If she can’t handle a tough TV interview, how the HELL is she going to deal with the leaders of other nations, like Russia and Iran? Hell, how is she going to deal with other politicians? She SHOULD be challenged, especially if it exposes her utter lack of foreign policy understanding.

When asked what insight into Russian activities living so close to Russia gave her, she said, “You can see Russia from an island in Alaska”. WHAT???

When asked THREE TIMES if she felt it would be a good idea if Israel decided to attack Iran, she simply repeated “We can’t second guess what Israel does to defend itself.” No elaboration or explanation, just a talking point, which is all she’s been trained to parrot. A person who knew what she was talking about would rephrase or clarify her response if asked about it three times.

She seemed in the dark about Social Security and the government’s role in it. Why, a few months ago, she DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE DUTIES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ARE! She was waiting for someone to tell her! What the hell kind of leader is this?

Sep 13, 2008 - 5:07 pm 56. Alice Finnegan:

Charlie Gibson has taken up the “fake but accurate” banner that Dan Rather was forced to abandon after being caught aiding and abetting a news fraud. Gibson needs to take a lesson from what happened to Rather. Next time it might be worse.

The puff of smoke that is Barak Obama has been stinking up the atmosphere for too long. Time for some fresh aire.

Gianni: Your comments are tiresome and irrelevant to this topic. Please post in a more suitable forum.

Sep 13, 2008 - 5:45 pm 57. Judy, NYC:

herb and schnargley: you watch the view. how sweet. its level of intelligence and the degree to which joy behar (!?) understands the issues and the candidates makes your impressions and opinions posted here, quite beside the point. Go with oprah, boys, and take baba wawwaws with you.
mccain will be the next president and sarah palin, our vice-president. i giggle at the thought of the media or charlie gibson imagining themselves in charge of how we vote. so far, even their man love for obama has not saved the fake messiah from having tanked. Barry, is going down fast, taking with him an assortment of media airheads, including olbermann and matthews. the two, noted for kissing barry obama’s picture on the mouth, are now considered barnacles dragging down their cable news ratings. unceremoniously dumped into the nether regions of msnbc, we can be sure they will soon be taken up by oprah and the view. guess white house press badges for the two miscreants will have to wait until this democratic party adjusts its panties, and otherwise gets itself in some sort of order.

Sep 13, 2008 - 5:52 pm 58. notutopia:

Ahem,
I think Ms. Chester has inferred that Mr.Gibson was insidiously inflecting his own biased beliefs and opinions in this INTERVIEW. Not a debate, an INTERVIEW. Look at the coverage video again. Pay close attention to the following: his choice of voice command intonation, his body posturing, with slumping of his rear to the forward of the chair so his back is high but fartherest away from her as he could get, his carefully cue cards selected and cutoff sentences presented to Gov. Palin, his abrupt baiting by asking a question that had many correct answers, but still wasn’t the “magic” wikipedia answer he researched and demanded for proof of her foreign policy intelligence, The magnifying eyeglasses slid down his nose, the cantering responses back to her answers goading for additional clarification on her original answers. I have to agree, “Charlie”, was biased with a preset agenda to again attempt to discredit her femininity, her ability to mix motherhood and career, her stance on transparency of earmarks, taxation and financial reform plans, her views of homosexuality, stem cell research, her belief in G-d and then in a greater plan in government. Then he wants to know if Obama has any regrets about not choosing Sen. Hillary as VP while a train is blowing it’s whistle in the background and he is slithering away to leave?
Gov. Palin was again expected to “prove herself worthy” against THE Charles Gibson. And you know, she was just her, herself and handled “Charlie” the way he was asking to be handled. TOUGH, Quick to appropriately respond with keen intelligence and even asked for clarification when appropriate to be able to answer him. How gracefully accommodating of her. I think he was relieved of his own anxiety and surprized to find that SHE IS READY to be VP of our G-d fearing USA in 2008! Bravo “INTERVIEW” Gov. Palin!

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:20 pm 59. Javelin:

Oh spare me Chesler, I guess you must feel really guilty turning on your old friends, so you have to re-play the mean old media tune on your turntable. When someone doesn’t have something to say concrete or important they split hairs over petty subjective crap like this utterly predictable kvetch!

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:27 pm 60. Debra:

Oh, for heavens’ sake. The woman IS unqualified. She IS ignorant of everything from economics to foreign policy (”you can see Russia from here”). Good grief, we are talking about a person who would love to establish a theocracy so that she could do anything she wished and blame God. She cuts care for pregnant teenagers, espouses ‘family values’ and has her own pregnant daughter paraded along with her challenged infant son like a toy. I am a 56 year old woman and am sick or hearing the sex excuse used against journalists who are asking tough questions. She will take away a woman’s right to her body and gleefully rob us blind. Check this out, I think it is a most thought provoking assessment.

http://www.chopra.com/wordsdeepakarchives

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:30 pm 61. Angie:

Gibson certainly lost my respect with his smug condescending manner with the Governor.

I thought she handled him well. I would vote for her in a heartbeat. As a matter of fact, I am sending my used lipstick to the DNC and wearing a tacky lip pin to show my support for a woman in the White House! Would it not be fun for them to receive lots of used lipstick! LOL!

Would love to see the unedited version of the interview. Liked the way she called him Charlie..do ya suppose Gibson liked it? I think he was very unprofessional..as are so many journalists these days.

Good post!

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:57 pm 62. SAF:

Lorelei:

It is simple. Vote for Obama, that is what your natural tendency wants you to do anyway. Israel has gone down a path that will lead it to much blood and horror. Doesn’t matter who the American president will be.

There is some advantage to the US if Tel Aviv is badly damaged and there are lots of casualties. We in the US may wake up to the terror we face.

Sep 13, 2008 - 6:57 pm 63. Evil Pundit:

Here’s a direct comparison of the differences between Gibson’s treatment of Palin and Obama.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:08 pm 64. seguin:

politijunkie – actually, I don’t think that hard questioning is the issue. It’s the double standard. The only news outlet to even get close to grilling Obama has been Fox News.

Charlie Gibson would never have asked any gotcha questions of Obama.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:11 pm 65. blogengeezer:

Schnargleys previous comment, just gave the perfect example of why we will work and vote for John and Sarah. Thank you schnargley, that was great :>)

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:12 pm 66. silviomossa:

O’Reilly interviewed Obama pretty harshly. Mostly far, but he was hard on him.

Gibson give her about a tenth of O’Reilly’s fire, and the GOP party of victimhood can’t stop crying out loud. Very revealing.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:20 pm 67. jeff:

OOOPS

A lot of the interview ended up on the cutting room floor. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
Here is the link.

Shame on ABC. Report news, don’t manipulate it.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:34 pm 68. Kirk:

Charlie Gibson is another talentless hack who does his research on Daily KOS. He was not informed enough to interview Gov. Palin. From now on, conservative leaders should have an underling pre-interview the empty headed morons who want our time and consideration, and see if they have done their homework, that they are civil enough to be taken seriously and intelligent enough to handle the task. Charlie Gibson fails on all three counts, and should have never been allowed to waste everyones time.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:39 pm 69. Boris:

This article was delusional.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:43 pm 70. Huan:

Gibson. Two things should be considered. Firstly is that he is a Washington insider and well entrenched in MSM. Even if he was conscious of elistism from being both I doubt he could counter it. I thought he was more elitist than bias. The fact that Palin is an outsider has rattled the establishment on the right and the left. The Left is just more shrill about it. Secondly, there was significant editing of the interview and what complete transcript is available so far, the broadcast edit clearly suggest bias of the producer, which may not have been clearly anticipated by the McCain camp and may have been beyond Gibson’s control.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:50 pm 71. Javelin:

Kirk,
why not just have their friends in AM radio do all the vetting and interviewing, so empty headed people of your ilk won’t get so worked up over nothing like a stupid bully drinking at the bar. Spare me the media kvetching, it is what foolish people do when they have nothing intelligent to add, they look for petty little nuances and details to tease some evil plot out of.

Sep 13, 2008 - 7:59 pm 72. Paul, Australia:

@ Eamonn, Ireland

I could say the same for Aussie news outlets. A clear majority just take as gospel liberal msm talking points. They parrot them incessantly the result being an utter whitewash of anything remotely resembling what could be viewed as fair and balanced.

With the exception of Andre Bolt and a couple of other journalist at The Australian, most Ausssies have been fed an unhealthy regimen of Obamamania for the last 19months where Obama has been coddled and protected by his msm guardians. Most Aussies have no idea who Tony Rezko is, or Auchi, or Khalidi, or Ayers and Dohrn, who Saul Alinksy was, what ACORN is and how it operates, let alone the Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s wily relationships to all these suspect individuals and special interest groups. They have no idea of the nature and notorious history that is and surrounds Chicago’s corrupt political landscape and what little in way of results and accomplishments Obama has shown to ascend to where he is today.

Many a time when I’ve raised to my fellow Australians how much they really know about Obama’s track record and history, his poor legislative and his non-existent executive records I’m met with the proverbial stunned mullet look followed by accusations that I’m a bigot and racist. It’s beyond bizarre, it’s dangerous; and the msm is largely to blame. Respective parties have their platforms to run on and to win the trust of the people, but what the liberal msm press has done by favoring and protecting their darling Obama for 19 months (and counting) while going on an all out assault of Sarah Palin and her family in the space of 10 days flies in the face of ethical and respectful journalism.

Charlie Gibson cannot look at himself and honestly say he was fair. Anyone who watched his edited interview with Sarah can see he’s just another liberal journo/host, and one of many liberal hacks in the media and press. They’re all heavily invested in their darling Obama, and I really cannot see them realizing the errors of their ways – for themselves and their profession. They do a massive disservice to journalism worldwide, and their ease at accepting and delivering ‘astroturfed’ misinformation to the masses is beyond negligent, it’s disgraceful, dishonest and reprehensible.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:22 pm 73. David in Indian Wells:

I just finished watching the interview.

She is a BSer. If she doesn’t know the answer, which is often, she just talks and talks and talks hoping the other person glazes over.

When asked about adult stem cell research, she referred to them as “adult skin cells”. I even checked with the closed captioning on to see if I was hearing things. OMG she is George W Bush in drag!!!

Being the humanitarian that I am, I will be using a loofa tonight and donating my “adult skin cells” for research.

God save us from your followers!!!

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:44 pm 74. Jim Baker:

Charlie Gibson is a lefty who thought it is up to him to stop the Palin landslide. Expect a lot more of this crap from the lazy and stupid American media.

Sep 13, 2008 - 8:50 pm 75. chrisa798:

Note for Ant and other people: most of the VP’s actual day-to-day work and duties are–in reality and unofficially–assigned by the President. If you have ever read the Consitution, then surely you know that the VP has little to nothing in the way of official duties. (Go read the Constitution, take a nap, and then try to figure out how long those official duties would take you during an average day. Then divide by three and that’s how long it would take Palin, who is a successful governor)

What Palin probably meant is that she’d want to discuss with the prospective President what her role would be in an administration because she wouldn’t want to be an early 19th century style VP but would probably warm to the Gore / Cheney VP model.

However, all of the above doesn’t matter, because in your malice and stupidity you are bitterly clinging to an off-hand comment so you don’t have to ask yourself why Palin is such a popular sitting governor. Yes, she is a popular current Chief Executive.

Consider yourself stepped on, Ant.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:00 pm 76. cedarford:

Debra:
Oh, for heavens’ sake. (1) The woman IS unqualified. (2)She IS ignorant of everything from economics to foreign policy (”you can see Russia from here”). (3) Good grief, we are talking about a person who would love to establish a theocracy so that she could do anything she wished and blame God. (4) She cuts care for pregnant teenagers, espouses ‘family values’ and has her own pregnant daughter paraded along with her challenged infant son like a toy. (5) I am a 56 year old woman and am sick or hearing the sex excuse used against journalists who are asking tough questions. (6)She will take away a woman’s right to her body and gleefully rob us blind. (7)Check this out, I think it is a most thought provoking assessment.

1. This is a lady with 2 years in senior executive positions and 8 years in junior exec spots in local gov’t. McCain had 2 years as a CO of the largest Naval wing for his exec experience. Both Palin and McCain did well. Not as long in exec spots as Clinton or Reagan, but they did well, and better than Obama and Biden with no exec experience.

2. The woman has prepared budgets and run finances for a small commercial fishing fleet, direct involvement in the same for 8 years in a town government, then almost 2 years as Gov of Alaska. And gotten increased dividends to residents from Big Oil. No, she doesn’t have Romney’s economic credentials, but her record is clearly superior to anything the “men” in both parties have dealt with.
As for Russia, yes, that you can see it and Russians coming in daily for trade and business is a fact. When Russia is closer than CONUS, that frames part of your perspective. Same with the new Bear bomber patrols. Most importantly, with the likelihood of sea passage through the Arctic soon, the huge increase in geostrategic importance of Alaska is a big discussion item not just in DC “old hand” soirees, but in Alaskan Gov’t. Because then Alaska will not just be the State closest to Russia, China, N Korea, but also Northern Europe.

3. Establish a theocracy? You come across as someone who likes to bash Christians. On top of ignoring the fact that in 10 years in exec positions, Palin showed no signs of pushing her personal religion on others or made any “theocratic” move. Nor do you have any evidence that she wants to do anything she wants in her God’s name then diss the very same God when things don’t work out. She doesn’t do that, and you are ignorant of Christians in general if you think they go around blaming God for any setback or misfortune that strikes them.

4. She did not cut pre-natal teen care but increased budget by 174%. That was one of the early lies that you still bought and swallowed. Nor is there any conflict between family values and religious families falling short of that. Too many people and atheists ignorant of Christian faith believe that those in that religion somehow are morally bound to be “perfect” in a way that they are not, and when such families as Palin’s fall short, that they LIED! and are hypocritical, Nothing is further from the truth. And with gals getting married after getting pregnant a common phenomenon, why do Lefties like you, Debra, think that is something to be ashamed of? While at the same time in other venues cautioning people against criticizing women that never marry and suck up welfare – as being “nasty and judgmental”. And your crack about “parading” her newborn around “like a toy” is simply repulsive. Is a Down’s baby something to be ashamed of, you think?

5. If you are 56 years old, more the pity, because you missed the big difference, as illustrated in the Gibson interviews – between a man they annoint and and the trashing Hillary and now Palin are getting from the media’s “Good old Boy Network” and the trained feminist barking seals blabbering about how no woman burdened with children is fit for a Big Job if they are Republican…

6. Expalin how any executive in Federal Gov’t will take away a woman’s right to her body – a euphemism your menopausal self clearly means “abortion” by. How? By excecutive decree? By magical appointments who say they will secretly pledge to ensure Roe is revisited? And even if Roe is overturned, no executive order can limit “a woman’s right to her own body” as you put it.
Only the legislature can do that if the courts stop usurping the Legislative function – and there is no sign that the majority of states will have elected officials “take away” your imagined “Right” that appears nowhere in any State or Federal Constitution – nor is it in any Constitution of any other country or spelled out as a Right in International Law.
But do feel free to indulge your female hysterics on that and other Palin matters.

7. Deepak is now a DC insider, and as such, can’t imagine anyone outside the DC elites having legitimacy as President. Even though the success of Governors and military leaders argues against Deepaks’ implicit notion that Presidents somehow must come out of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, VPs who get seasoned attending state funerals, or the State Dept Foreign Service.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:07 pm 77. silviomossa:

If “crap” means questions about issues, then I *better* see more of that from the American media.

More likely, it’ll be photo shots with the baby, well-delivered speeches by the words of others, and few questions by the media or the public, unless she has had a week or more prep in advance.

And cederford, the reverse psychology, Limbaugh-led tactics are tired and transparent. Take a lead from your hero, Ms. Palin, and stop whining about sexism.

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:26 pm 78. Russian Bear:

Why should Gibson ask Obama and Palin the same kind of questions? He is a journalist and his goal was not to please somebody, but to make an interesting interview with learning significance to the viewers. It is obvious that Sara Palin knows nothing about foreign affairs and about other countries. I bet, she did not know that there was another Georgia, somewhere in Caucasus, not in the USA, before having been chosen by McCain. She makes the impression of not even watching political programs on TV, otherwise she would pick it up how to pronounce the name IRAQ. She keeps saying [ai-rak] though the right pronunciation is [ee-rah-k]. She is a provincial former vice-beauty queen, a former mayor of a 9000 population town, who by some lucky for her chance, became a governor of the state with just 800 000. She may be a good mother of five, be able to drive a snowmobile, to hunt, and even wear “stars and stripes” swimsuit yet all those does not make her qualified to run the USA.
Choosing her as a running mate, McCain is targeting the category of the voters which is called “Soap Opera Lovers”.
Now the Americans can watch with thrill how this heroine with breast feeding duties is struggling on Gibson’s show. having 5 kids and her 17 y.o. pregnant daughter on background and no political experience. It is going to be a tough campaign. Will she make it?

Sep 13, 2008 - 9:44 pm 79. chrisa798:

“well-delivered speeches by the words of others”

Congrats! You just described Obama’s top achievement.

The “words of others” canard is entirely sexist, by the way. I base this on the ill-informed idiots who have made this argument to me in real life.

My response that Obama has speechwriters, too, brought out al the crickets.

Telling us to stop whining about sexism would work better had you not vomited forth a flagrant bit of sexism just 3 lines up.

Obama and Palin both use speechwriters. Palin is a successful governor.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:18 pm 80. chrisa798:

Those of you extolling the fairness of Gibson, if you can think analytically: go compare the Obama questions and the Palin questions.

Also, please cite where Gibson accused Obama (with NO exeuctive experience and 2 unanimous consent self-insinuations worth of U.S. Senate accomplishment) of hubris.

Oh yeah, you can’t.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:21 pm 81. Sandra M:

Rotwang said:
You realize, of course, that Obama and Mrs. Biden know each other.

It’s not like he grabbed a stranger out of a crowd and bent her over a chair.

A lot of folks in America just aren’t happy if they’re not being outraged by something, even if it’s all in their own heads.

Mrs. Biden seemed startled and if touching a man’s shoulder is a “power move” what in the world is kissing another man’s beautiful blonde wife on the mouth in front of millions of people?

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:34 pm 82. Javelin:

cedarford,
nice to see you ride to the rescue, those horrible liberal feminazis would have all of us in Buchenwald without you on point. Since she is very prolife, it would be very probable that she would not only work to over turn Roe but establish federal laws or amendments prohibiting abortion,
But if my memory grows weak, the last time all the right thinking Republican folks offered up some small town, red state governor with strong Conservative Christian faith to go to Washington and set things straight, we got Bush. So Palin does not impress me. There are plenty of red state small town people who could do better. McCain picked her not because she was best but because a) pretty woman b) all the right conservative beliefs. c) He knew that she would be protected by all the folkss like you from any criticism based on misguided gallantry.
That Chesler has joined the chorus shows what a light weight she is.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:47 pm 83. Javelin:

Anonymous Patriot,
“drive by media”, a term that fat right wing loudmouth, who never covered a story in his whole garrolous life uses. Spare me the whining about liberal media, there are tons of outlets.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:51 pm 84. Debra:

Cedarford: My, my my….a bit judgmental yourself, eh? Sorry, none of her ‘experience’ in local or limited state government gives me any anything to give her my trust if she stumbles into the presidency, God help us. YES, I, to believe in God. I just don’t think, as she has said, that God has anything to do with our wars or any other atrocity we get ourselves into; which she seems to believe from interviews. Her record (some of which she is being investigated on as we speak) seems to show a person with quite a nasty streak; eliminating persons not agreeing with her, threatening to ban books (presumably because they carry messages or language she doesn’t like)and as for dividends from Big Oil along with her Bridge to Nowhere Funds no wonder she is so popular up there. Hope there will be a bit of wildlife and/or open space left before she is done. Women getting pregnant out of wedlock is their business, but her MESSAGE has been quite different as to her religious-right thought process, which makes her a bit of a hypocrite. And no, of course there is nothing wrong with a child with ANY disabilities. Just don’t think that ANY baby that young should be in the glare of the lights and subjected to the noise levels of the RNC OR the DNC. Just my opinion. So she can run a budget! Great, so can I. Enjoy bashing women yourself, do you? Yes, a government COULD overturn Roe v Wade. Easily. Familiarize yourself with our current Supreme Court and what could happen with an imbalance of power-shift to the right. I am a proud menopausal liberal, cedarford, and you may find some of what I say to be true. But I don’t expect you to admit it. Oh, and God bless you.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:13 pm 85. trangbang68:

Lorelei’s description of Palin as repugnant tells you every thing you need to know about leftist feminists. Palin is an accomplished attractive well spoken woman who has made her own way in life. She should be the epitome of modern successful woman, but not in Lorelei’s fworld. Normal is repugnant. What is truly repugnant is normal to the left. Check out a Zombie photo essay of protests in the Bay area. There are people in these photos which make the gag reflex kick in. People so breathtakingly ugly in body, mind and spirit; you can only marvel at what trash can they crawled out of.

Sep 13, 2008 - 11:46 pm 86. bobal:

Let’s see, Russian Bear, you were saying on another blog how your Russian confederates would be out of Georgia some many days ago. What is your new time line?

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:10 am 87. Jeff:

Ed Wallis posted Sep 13, 2008 – 3:34 pm,

Those other Jeffs are mere doppelgangers of me on the Right who are misguided just like you. I am true to my beliefs and here is my take on the Palin interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC.

People wake up and smell the coffee. The MSM is not bias, one sided, or is even in favor of the Obama campaign. The MSM has been, if not, more critical of every move that Obama has made and they literally have him on a microscope. When was the last time that the MSM has reported on McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five? For those of you who have never heard of the Keating Five, take a look at the link below —

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

As far as the Palin interview, it clearly shows that she has zero foreign policy experience by not knowing the Bush Doctrine. Charles Gibson would not ask Obama that same question because that would be an insult to his intelligence and Gibson knows better. Also, her reference to wanting to add the Ukraine and Georgia to NATO is clearly inexperience on her part. These were states of Russia that broke apart from Russia. Adding them to NATO would clearly be an offensive move to Russia, instantly. When Gibson asked Palin that by adding Georgia to NATO, if Georgia is attacked by Russia, we would have to retaliate to which Palin responded, “Perhaps so”. Does she even know that Russia is just as powerful militarily as we are? Being able to see Russia from your coast DOES NOT make you an expert of who they are and Palin is the true example of that. Are we ready for a second Cold War with Russia? I’m sure you all are a well educated bunch and know the answer to this one.

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:19 am 88. MrTender:

If she cant handle a tough interview then she should not be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:19 am 89. Kirk:

Javelin wrote…
“”"Spare me the media kvetching”"”

But ..um .. we’re posting on Pajamas…never mind. I forget as a humorless liberal facing 4-16 more years locked out of the white house any hack job done in your name is acceptable. Just what acts fall over liberals ‘line-in-the-sand?” Really. No matter what is done by your side, leftists gather ’round and defend, support and excuse. Any crime, any behavior is justifiable because of the “greater good.” So Gibsons behavior was just fine for you. What if he had stood up and started yelling? Spitting? Leftists did that to Republican delegates during our convention. I suppose that’s ok with you too? How far do you people go before a thread of real human empathy is displayed?

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:07 am 90. Judith:

Gibson is a smug prig still basking in the glory of Obama’s faceless mediocrity when he accompanied Obama on his seven day European photo-op meeting all those foreign leaders for two seconds & shunning the troops. I saw Gibson being interviewed on Israeli TV during that Obama European romp w/ the MSM reporters & Gibson sounded like Obama’s campaign manager extolling Obama’s “historic & great narrative.”

If anything, Palin’s narrative trumps most Americans in general…she’s a wonder woman, making-it w/o running on her husband’s coattails, and puts all the pseudo-elite chattering classes of the media or boasting liberal Harvard lawyers to shame. (I have more than my share of ivy degrees & I know I couldn’t hold a candle next to Palin given her accomplished juggling act, happy family & meaningful work.)

The camera was angled to have Gibson hover over Palin & make her look small…yes, Gibson was gonna cut this Governor down to size. McCain people should have orchestrated this better, maybe having Palin sit at her desk in the Governor’s office w/ the seal of Alaska & a moose head behind her. (McCain kowtows to the MSM too often…remember his deference to the NYTimes only to get screwed by them w/ slanderous rumors.) The 20/20 package-intro to the Palin interview could’ve been an ad approved by Obama.

Hope Palin is allowed to continue jabbing Obama like she did in her convention speech. It’s up to McCain to prove Obama a fraud since the media certainly won’t do it.

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:46 am 91. MrTender:

If she cant handle a tough interview then she should not be running for VPOTUS

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:55 am 92. schnargley:

The elction tide has turned bcak again! Not only was Sarah annhilated by Charlie, but the girls over at the View made McCain look like whipped butter. Journalistic integrity reigns!

I only wish Rosie had been there. She would have made McCain’s torturers look like Tellietubbies.

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:31 am 93. Gianni:

Phyllis wrote:
Look: It is fine to disagree with someone on the issues. But this must be done with civility, not hostility.

Mike M wrote:
Gianni:

You did not disturb me, but by your list of questions, you are certainly disturbed.

Kindest Regards

My comment:
Insulting someone is a form of hostility. I just want Phyllis and others to take note.
Mike: call me names if that makes you happy but please…spare me your “Kindest regards”

Sep 14, 2008 - 4:07 am 94. RE:

The outrage is the media double standard and the free pass they give to Obama on Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Rezko, the Woods Fund, The Annenberg Foundation, an just what Obama has accomplished as a government official or community organizer.

Were Gibson equally as critical of Obama, there would be no issue. But the disparity of Gibson’s interviews with Obama and Gov Palin do give credibility to the argument that Gibson’s interview (and ABC’s editing) was a political assassination attempt. That Gov Palin survived it only serves to strengthen her and further diminish a dishonest media outlet.

The ‘destroy Sarah Palin’ sentiment circulating though the left leaning media is quite obvious. Gov Palin could not have asked for a better rallying cry!

Sep 14, 2008 - 4:52 am 95. Wadeusaf:

“but her MESSAGE has been quite different as to her religious-right thought process,”

Debra, are you using the actual MESSAGE or the Wikipedia version of the MESSAGE. Is it the message that Gov. Palin gives in context or the one you receive in alternative texts and discourse? You and Charlie make quite the pair! So Doctrinaire!

Sep 14, 2008 - 5:18 am 96. LionRor:

Debra – you come across as bitter, could envy be driving your rants? Are you trying to save us – or perhaps yourself from your current condition. No judgement here, just concerned that you don’t hurt yourself. Please take care, breathe in, exhale and relax. Remember, you will find meaning in a new McCain/Palin administration: it will give you something to hate, and isn’t that what you really want to do after all?

Sep 14, 2008 - 6:28 am 97. Jeff:

Ed Wallis posted Sep 13, 2008 – 3:34 pm,

Those other Jeffs are doppelgangers of me on the Right who are misguided just like you. I am true to my beliefs and here is my take on the Palin interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC.

People wake up and smell the coffee. The MSM is not bias, one sided, or is even in favor of the Obama campaign. The MSM has been, if not, more critical of every move that Obama has made and they literally have him on a microscope. When was the last time that the MSM has reported on McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five? For those of you who have never heard of the Keating Five, take a look at the link below —

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

As far as the Palin interview, it clearly shows that she has zero foreign policy experience by not knowing the Bush Doctrine. Charles Gibson would not ask Obama that same question because that would be an insult to his intelligence and Gibson knows better. Also, her reference to wanting to add the Ukraine and Georgia to NATO is clearly inexperience on her part. These were states of Russia that broke apart from Russia. Adding them to NATO would clearly be an offensive move to Russia, instantly. When Gibson asked Palin that by adding Georgia to NATO, if Georgia is attacked by Russia, we would have to retaliate to which Palin responded, “Perhaps so”. Does she even know that Russia is just as powerful militarily as we are? Being able to see Russia from your coast DOES NOT make you an expert of who they are and Palin is the true example of that. Are we ready for a second Cold War with Russia? I’m sure you all are a well educated bunch and know the answer to this one.

Sep 14, 2008 - 6:47 am 98. Art Eiff:

This is a perfect example of the media trying to overthrow the election process that our founding fathers put in place and which has served us fairly well for all these years. The agenda is to discredit, not define the candidate. The way in which Charlie went after Ms. Palin only displayed his bias and agenda. And for the liberals who are trying to make freedom our national tyranny, there will be payback one of these days. Stop trying to overthrow a government founded on great ideas and work on the idiots from all the parties that are tearing it down for their own personal benefit.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:00 am 99. Big Al:

I e-mailed Mr Gibson asking for a link to where obama had been asked similar questions to his of Gov Palin. Form letter response stating they are under staffed to answer all the emails they receive daily………..please.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:09 am 100. Sean Leslie:

I’m ticked at whoever in the McCain management set up this Antichristian Colisseum with Gibson. All the while Bob Scheiffer with humanity and decency was looking forward to and should have been first. Bob likes true blue women – first Carly, then Sarah – he smiles and welcomes as you hope a journalist would. Not robot Gibson; I was appalled when I heard it was Gibson – he and George Stephanopolis blew the Democratic Primary debate – and now this. One more thing – whoever are the “geniuses” at the McCain Hdqtrs better bloody well soon allow Sarah to be Sarah and write her own speeches because she is a natural – instead of their canned stuff.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:39 am 101. Another View:

Calling all Hypocrites;

Bill O’Reilly- Nuff Said!

Sep 14, 2008 - 8:03 am 102. Jeff:

For those of you who aren’t sure if Palin is ready for her Vice Presidency, here is her answer in the link below on an interview —

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loUHRv3ipLE

Sep 14, 2008 - 8:32 am 103. CTWoman4Palin:

I sent ABC and Charlie an email excoriating the editing job done on this interview video. Now I read that they might have even used “movie” camera angles to diminish further the stature of Sarah Palin.

I requested they run the entire, UNEDITED version so the electorate could make up their own minds.

Sarah Palin is more qualified to serve as PRESIDENT than Obama with his Marxist/socialist leanings and domestic terrorist friend, Bill Ayers and anti-American filth spewing Rev. J. Wright. And tissue, doctored up resume.

I call on Time, Newsweek, CNN, ABC and NBC to really investigate and report on Obama. Just google it and it becomes not a pretty picture.

Sep 14, 2008 - 8:41 am 104. Lizzy:

To Anonymous Patriot & Cedarfor:

Thank you so much for your great comments. Everything you said is what has been on my mind and you couldn’t have said it better! I am 28 years old, voted twice in my life for President and this is the worst biast media I have ever seen. It just amazes me!!!! No one ever attacks Obama like they do to Palin. They never gave her a chance, you know why “because they are scared of her!” She has so much more experience then Obama it makes him look sad! I am just so sick of the liberals throwing their beliefs in and when someone comes along with different beliefs they go on the attack. Yet they have the nerve to preach fairness and peace. Just over this past year I have really, really realized how different people are in this country. But that’s ok, people need to get together as AMERICANS and stop being so dam divided! Sure I think Abortion is wrong, but I know others don’t and that’s they’re opinion. I am not going to mock them for NOT BELIEVING IN WHAT I BELIEVE IN. That is why we live in this great beautiful country! We have the freedom of religion, choices and the right to work where we like. This brings up the whole handouts issue. I feel that too many people want freebes and it’s sad. I know many people that have started with nothing and are very successful today. Why? because they worked hard their whole life and succeeded for themselves. Obama just wants to give away all this free stuff that in actuality is not free. If you can’t get yourself to work hard to get where you want to be, there’s the door! Don’t expect the government to bail you out. I feel that this is Obama’s tactic to get the poor vote. They will see the word FREE and vote for him just for that. I just wish people would open there minds and eyes and see the real Obama. He has such a bad record and it’s crazy that the media doesn’t bring much of it up. Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are some of the only people that will say the truth about him.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:09 am 105. John the Libertarian:

It’s all right, it’s okay. McCain/Palin will win handily, and then Sarah can return to Charlie Gibson with a huge strap-on with the words “Bush Doctrine” on it, and have a little heart-to-heart with him.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:15 am 106. Lizzy:

PS

After reading a lot of peoples posts on different websites including this one, it just makes me realize how divided our country has become. This is so sad and it depresses me. I’m not going to let it ruin my life of course, but I realized how hard it has hit me. Will our country ever be united? The main issues seem to be: Religion, Abortion, Gay Rights, War. I just don’t see how everyone could agree on all these issues. God help us!

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:29 am 107. Jbl:

This is not about the media being “mean” to Palin. Serious candidates demand serious vetting. What this is about is the media’s overenthusiasm in their vetting of Palin with their complete DISINTEREST in asking similar (or even substantive) questions of Obama. He is, after all, running for PRESIDENT, not the veep slot, and yet the press cant muster up enough curiosity to ask him anything more difficult than, “how’d you get to be so dreamy?”

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:31 am 108. Norberto:

” set up this Antichristian Colisseum with Gibson”
Are you a ***, what kind of right wing babbel is this? Check your spelling too. Porcine folks like you say Obama thnks he is the Messiah yet your artless biblical imagery has Palin as a martyr?

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:43 am 109. Javelin:

Kirk
what is your point? You write in cliches because you are just another talk show blog tard clone. Tell me, you simple minded little droid, what exactly is the problem? You are splitting hairs over nothing like some old lady. You don’t know what you are talking about, your opinion is worthless.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:50 am 110. Javelin:

Kirk Contimued;
What crimes or atrocities did Mr. Gibson commit, conduct an interview where you didn’t like the results? I didn’t realize there was a law against that. Spare me your kvetching, your self righteousness is only exceeding by your dimness.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:58 am 111. Herb:

Anonymous Patriot, “Why hasn’t the drive-by media put Obama under the same microscope as Governer Palin?” Where have you been the last year or so? Obama’s been getting daily scrutiny for many many months.

Palin gets a few weeks of it, and omg, the media is just soooooo biased…

I think you should wait for more than one interview before you start crying about media bias. I also think your bias against the media is coloring your analysis of events…

Patterson, Careful with your View bashing, bud. If simply watching the show (or in my case, the clips on Youtube) is emasculating, then what are you if you’re actually a guest?

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:03 am 112. Herb:

John the Libertarian, Did you just say you hoped Sarah Palin rapes Charlie Gibson with a strap-on? You, sir, are a pervert. Moderator!!!

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:12 am 113. Herb:

Jbl, Where have you been the last year? Obama has been under intense media scrutiny for pretty much the entire 2008 calendar year.

Palin gets a few weeks of it, and the media is biased???

What, they weren’t biased when they were reporting that he was educated in a madrassa? Or when they were wondering if he was a muslim who refused to recite the pledge of allegiance? You heard that he bragged about campaigning in “57 states” from who? Oh…it was the media???

Yeah, dude, Obama has a free pass, alright…..

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:30 am 114. Nine-of-Diamonds:

“Serious candidates demand serious vetting. What this is about is the media’s overenthusiasm in their vetting of Palin with their complete DISINTEREST in asking similar (or even substantive) questions of Obama.”

Well said. If they put even half the effort into vetting O that they’ve put into trying to discredit SP, I doubt that he’d even have been nominated.

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:31 am 115. Jeff:

Folks, what Mrs. Phyllis Chesler is trying to accomplish here is, “Psychology 101″. Get the masses, especially the women in this case, so upset and outraged that they will be more favorable towards the opposition. This whole website, PajamasMedia, is one big propaganda machine. Just read all the articles on this election, from this website, it’s ALL one sided, and they blast the mainstream media for being bias, go figure.

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:35 am 116. frank:

As to Israel support, communists have never been in favor of Israel. Whether they organize the People, or not.

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:45 am 117. Believer:

Same scrutiny? I don’t think so.

I just came from American Thinker. Clarice Feldman asks some good questions in “Obama’s Missing Years.”

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:59 am 118. Grover Pillsbury:

Charlie, I always respected and admired your objectivity. The interview with Sarah Palin changed all that. You are reduced to pandering to those who have bought you. Would you lose your job if you hadn’t handled the interview in the way they scripted it? Is the loss of your well-earned reputation worth what they paid you? What will you do next for them I wonder? You certainly couldn’t have done any worse!

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:00 am 119. Steve:

She made Quail look smart….”I can see Russia from Alaska”?!?!?!?!?!?! OMFG she is more then qualified to be the President as McCain will pass away soon.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:27 am 120. M. Simon:

You know. None of Obama’s answers to Gibson’s questions gives me any confidence in his Foreign Policy expertise.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:39 am 121. Jim:

ApplePie hit the nail on the head . . . Mr. Bigshot Journalist Extraordinaire CHARLES Gibson sat through an entire interview being referred to as “Charlie”; reminded me of how a mother would respond to a recalcitrant child, and there wasn’t a thing he could do about it. Gov. Palin put him in his place with a smile, and that is the measure of how effective she can be as a national leader.

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:04 pm 122. Ed Wallis:

“Jeff”,

You do a few WIKIPEDIA searches (WOW! THAT must have taken you all of 5 minutes!!!) and you try to put someone else down (no one can say you even TRIED to “refute” a point…look THAT one up, Mr.Postin’-From-Momma’s-Basement…) by saying you have “researched” the subject.

HAH!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

TRY READING. TRY READING A BOOK. C’mon, YOU can say it! I KNOW you can…B O O K.

_________________________

“Herb”, and just what scrutiny has Zerobama received for his yearlong professional [Woods Fund, The Annenberg Challenge] work with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?! NONE.

SAY IT WITH ME, *** N O N E.

You both are frauds.

*** McCain / Palin ‘08 !! ***/B>

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:34 pm 123. Believer:

Now I’m reading that polling shows a likely “Gibson bounce” — with McCain now a few points ahead of BO.

I was thrilled when Palin was announced as Veep for many reasons. Her position on life being one of them. And particularly her — because no words need to be said on the issue. Her life alone demonstrates that there is another choice. And I hope she encourages others to brave that difficult decision to give life a chance, no matter the circumstances.

And now, unexpectedly for me, we may be seeing the ‘uncovering’ — for those who denied its existence — of media bias. It’s been a long time in coming. But I hope it’s finally here.

Already, this woman has done America some good.

Sep 14, 2008 - 12:58 pm 124. Jilery:

Wow, for anyone that doesn’t think Obama has been through the ringer the last 18months obviously hasn’t been paying attention…Perhaps it seems like Palin is being attacked so much because there is SO MUCH BAGGAGE associated with her? As a 32 year old White Mother of three little boys…I will be voting OBAMA! How can anyone vote for a woman that would lie right to their faces EVEN AFTER it was reported that her “stump speech” lied DIRECTLY about not supporting the Bridge to Nowhere (she supported it until the vote was NO but kept the money anyway) she is also in the Gibson interview stated that she isn’t against PORK she just doesn’t agree when it is hidden…WHAT? Her small town of Wasilla (sp?) had $6000 people in it and SHE HIRED A LOBBIEST to get over 27MILLION dollars in pork for her town??? That Equals $4500 for EACH person living there…Obama’s earmarks for his district equalled about $300 per person…What a load of crap comming from the McCain/Palin camp…Additionally, McCain chose the commercial about kindergardners learning sex ed…TOTAL LIE! As a mother to small kids that bill would have taught STRANGER DANGER- You know- how to identify a person that may hurt you? I am ALL for it as a mother to a 6 year old, 4 year old, and a 16month old…I am DISGUSTED that McCain would out and out LIE about that program and make it seem unseemly!

And one final thought…Charlie Gibson’s interview was asking the questions that McCain’s camp REFUSED to answer! Mrs. Palin is indicating she is a pitbull with lipstick but so far no one has allowed her to take the muzzle off…Why? Are they afraid if they let her off script people will run for the hills towards Obama? and for the people that are ga ga over Palin- Can you indicate Why? Strong women don’t need to hide behind their men or in this case, their campaign…Let her loose if she is SO GREAT! but they won’t and soon it will catch on…

Oh did anyone notice that when she went home to Alaska in her speech she didn’t mention the “Bridge to Nowhere”…hmmmm…I guess getting that lie to pass your lips in front of a huge croud of people you BETRAYED would be difficult even for the most proficient of LIARS!

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:40 pm 125. Ed Wallis:

Jeff,

I apologize for my comment. I know that sometimes, I can be a mindless, over-the-hill, idiotic baffoon. Please accept my apologies because my stupidity really knows no bounds.

Sep 14, 2008 - 2:08 pm 126. wiz-ziw:

Liberal cut ups on Palin
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/alexander

Even though I detest her politics, as I watched Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated interview with ABC News’s Charles Gibson, God help me, I had to admire her steeliness. …

… more than a few of us who drift off, from time to time, on the delicious fantasy of what it would feel like to draw down with shotgun on the misbehaving men in our lives. We don’t know if Palin has ever done such a thing …

But I do know that by over-intellectualizing this steeliness factor, and by underestimating its power to sway voters, we are not being true to our cultural history…

Sarah Palin is a strong woman, and that is good….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302037.html

For all the focus on her supposed befuddlement about the Bush doctrine, the question was imprecise and Ms. Palin’s initial puzzlement understandable. Her eventual response — that any president has the right to respond preemptively in the face of an imminent threat — restated an undeniable proposition while reflecting little appreciation of real-world complexities, in Pakistan or elsewhere…

… this was an unsettling interview, with a frustrating lack of follow-up questions. …

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0914edit2sep14,0,1170419.story

… Our judgment is that she passed this test but didn’t ace it. …

Palin had spent little if any time contemplating issues of national security and foreign affairs. As a mayor and governor, she had no particular reason to. (Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush didn’t either.) …

From what we’ve seen so far, it’s safe to say that Palin is a natural politician who connects well with people but has a lot to learn about many international issues. She is probably quite equipped to be vice president. …

Sep 14, 2008 - 2:23 pm 127. Ed Wallis:

NOTE TO PJM:

“Jeff” is USING “Ed Wallis” as a TAG (see fake post 2:08pm) – this IS NOT FROM ME. Please DELETE HIS POSTS, and BLOCK his use of my name.

_____________________

NOTE TO “Jeff”:

YOU***. You are so immature. As soon as you demonstrated this weakness of PJM to me, I WROTE THEM TO INFORM THEM OF THIS. I ADVISE YOU TO DO THE SAME, and to cease from your childish behavior IMMEDIATELY.

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:14 pm 128. Paula H:

Concerning the Gibson/Palin interview talk: It’s as silly to comment on the Palin interview without having read the uncut, actual version as it is unethical of ABC to have cut it and air it as the words of Palin. Shame on them and their little dog, too.

Sep 14, 2008 - 3:28 pm 129. LL:

As a Cuban American it seems to me Obama is alot like Castro. Better yet the media is behind Obama just like they were when Castro first came into power and before. The media portrayed Castro as this great savior of the Cuban people and a new leader of the Latin American world. Obama even claims on bringing on change, so did Castro. As you well know even you lefties out there Castro did bring change. He brought communism and along with it he dragged a very modern country in it’s time to it’s knees in a matter of years. Call me what you will, but I’m not buying the Change bullshit. For a matter of fact, I forgot the writers name from the Bohemia magazine back in the late fifties, but he ended up killing himself. I guess he couldn’t stand the fact that as a journalist he let himself drink the Castro juice…Unfortunately for the Cuban people the Change that Castro brought was SHAM. I’m willing to vote for McCain, but as for Obama he and his party are just completely full of shit. If Obama really does want to win, he would be open about his past and not try to hide it. We all know he won’t do that, he must have alot of skeletons…Better yet, he probably owes alot of favors.

Sep 14, 2008 - 4:14 pm 130. Cristina:

Phyllis:

One reason to admire Sarah Palin is that she’s no Maureen McCarthy Scalia, who, by Judge Scalia’s own admission, bore 9 children on the “Vatican roulette” and, again, by Judge Scalia’s own words, at Federalist Society’s annual dinner in 2006:

“I must thank my advisor in everything else: the product of the best decision I ever made, mother of my nine kids, who raised them with very little assistance from me — and there’s not a dullard in the bunch. My wife, Maureen McCarthy Scalia.”

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/11/from_the_belly_of_the_beast_an.php

Palin is no “product” of anybody else’s decision. No loathsome Vatican roulette there. She’s clearly her own person and a master of her life.

Sep 14, 2008 - 6:46 pm 131. Marion L.:

critical post for today:

Dear Dr. Chesler:

Whatever the perceived flaws in Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin, he is
far from having a “Grand Inquisitorial nature.”

The first interview took place in a well-appointed TV studio. The second interview took place in Sarah Palin’s own home.

To use a “Grand Inquisitorial” metaphor for a challenging interview with a journalist is to trivialize the horrible suffering of the actual victims of the Inquisition.

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:05 pm 132. Gina:

Please, if she thinks Charlie Gibson was tough, she should imagine what VP will be like…Oh yeah, she doesn’t know exactly what a VP does! I remember that interview on CBS! She is dumber than a bunch of rocks! Sarah Palin is Alaskan Trailer Trash!!!!

Sep 14, 2008 - 7:11 pm 133. Barb:

I just emailed ABC about their bias position. My husband and I have watched Gibson for the world news a long time, but not anymore. I always thought he was fair, but his treatment of Palin was inexcusable. And ABC’s editing showed just how bias they are. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is their guy. Their actions have lost them lots of viewers as well as change our opinion of Charlie Gibson. He had this brotherly talk with Obama in their interview, but put on the boxing gloves with Palin, and it really upset me!

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:51 pm 134. Josh:

While there are times where Republicans cry fowl a little too quickly on the media. (Lipstick comment for one – see my blog) I do think that this interview Palin had with Charlie Gibson was another attempt by one media elite to prove himself to the other media elite. Seriously Charlie, the least you could have done was look someone interested… Sitting there looking down you nose at her over your glasses as if to say, “You can’t seriously be running for VP.”

Stay informed!
http://www.americaforpalin.blogspot.com

Sep 14, 2008 - 10:53 pm 135. A Clay:

Thank you for posting the link to the unedited transcript. I had to stop watching the interview, it was all gotcha, no insight.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:21 pm 136. Nana-J:

I think Gibson did just fine. Palin held her ground fairly well. I think it would have been more insulting to her if he’d just done a powder puff interview with her.

McCain and his campaign basically foisted Palin on us without adequate vetting. The media stepped into that gap asking questions that should probably have been asked of Palin before she was introduced to the us all.

As has been brought to the fore in numerous media sources over the past few days, both McCain and Palin are big liars. I’m guessing Gibson was hoping he could get through Palin’s BS and the answers she’d been given to say by her handlers.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:52 pm 137. Joshua:

Okay, so Krauthammer’s argument — and, by extension, the argument underpinning this article — is that Gibson was wrong to imply — even if only by the expression on his face — that Sarah Palin didn’t know what the Bush doctrine is. He was wrong because there have been several Bush doctrines, and the one Gibson was focusing on is just one of many. So the hypothesis here is that an informed person would hear someone ask them whether or not they agree with the Bush doctrine and respond with, “In what respect?”

Interesting.

Obviously you can demarcate doctrines any way you want, but if we were to use Krauthammer’s standard the Monroe Doctrine could reasonably be assumed to be not only the doctrine that European nations were no longer to colonize or interfere in the affairs of the Americas, but could also refer to limiting the naval presence of the U.S. and Great Britain in the Great Lakes, establishing the border between Canada and the U.S. at the 49th parallel, or invading Florida; Krauthammer basically equates any semi-cohesive foreign policy platform with a separate and distinct nominative “doctrine.”

Of course, that’s not how most people define presidential doctrines; most people draw a distinction between a foreign policy platform, or plank, and a distinctive doctrine such as the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine. Bush’s unique contribution to history will be his declared intention to engage in preemptive warfare. Most people consider that policy declaration to be the Bush Doctrine. If you had googled “Bush Doctrine” a week ago, the overwhelming majority of the cites you would find would be about preemptive warfare. That’s what most people mean when they say “Bush Doctrine” and the meaning of a term like that is established by usage.

Obviously none of these points is definitive: Palin’s supporters can still claim that Palin’s response to Gibson’s question signals a more nuanced understanding of Bush’s policies than might be suggested by the expression on her face when Gibson asked her the question. But, personally, I regard that perspective as charitable to the point of being delusional: Palin obviously didn’t understand the question, her answers were clearly intended to mask her ignorance as well as was practicable under the circumstances, and I think anyone who honestly believes otherwise is reaching.

As long as we’re all sharing our opinions and everything.

Sep 14, 2008 - 11:54 pm 138. Ed Wallis:

“Marion L.”7:05pm –

Are you SURE you got that comment OK’d by the Obama/Axelrod/ABC censors?

Based on their behavior, Team Barry would just *love* to revive – let’s all say it together like Monty Python – The Spanish Inquisition!

But, seriously, Marion…I KNOW how sincerely you “care”…we do too…just not for Obama’s socialist vision of America.

Sep 15, 2008 - 2:01 am 139. Peg C.:

This was a good and fair piece on the extreme differences between the media treatment of Obama vs. Palin. What galls me is not that Sarah Palin is being grilled by toads like Gibson, but that every single interviewer has given Obama a complete pass. This guy has never been tested once and his history has been left unexamined except by bloggers. It is not that the media aren’t curious but that they know they dare not reveal Obama’s associations for public consumption. For some reason, the MSM believes dragging Sarah Palin through the mud and/or running her through a gauntlet will win this election for Obama. Americans sneer at the thought of anyone being “annointed” and, while we love winners, we also love underdogs. The media do this at their grave peril.

Sep 15, 2008 - 2:55 am 140. Frank L:

All these Dems and Lib. media succeed in doing when they try to attack, slime and destroy Palin is to drive undecideds like me to vote Rep.

Sep 15, 2008 - 3:36 am 141. Robert Hurley:

Please – what a bunch of whiners! You would not be satified unless Gibson genuflected and kissed her ring. Get real – this is a person who could be President – Everyone need to find out who she is – not from puff pieces or rote recitations of scripts

Sep 15, 2008 - 6:14 am 142. Donnie Mac Leod:

You Know Charlie you can see Russia from Alaska:::: Cut!! Cut!! Cut!! we got her!!!!!!!!! That will make her look really shallow and dumb.

Leave this part on the World Views Cutting Room floor!!!!

Pallin “” I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. “”

Sep 15, 2008 - 6:29 am 143. 888:

Russian Bear: What a stupid, condescending statement you made about Sarah Palin’s pronunciation of Iraq. I lived in the Middle East for 5 years, and the English-speaking expats, as well as the Arabs there, pronounced Iraq any which way they wanted to or cared to — ee-roq or ai-raq. In the US, we have Americans who pronounce theater thee-ay-ter, and some who pronounce it thee-uter. That’s the beauty of America — it’s a melting pot of people from all over who are tolerant of each others’ cultures, languages, dialects, accents and patois. Before you go judging Gov Palin as some dunce, get some education yourself. And if you are really from Russia, before getting involved in our politics, you need to worry about your break-away regions, your females marrying any American to get a green card so they can leave your miserable icepack, G7 kicking you out of the world’s most elite club and NATO gaining the membership of Georgia, Ukraine and all those freedom and democracy-loving countries the former Soviet Union used to own. That’s probably why you like Obama — you’re used to that socialist way of life.

Sep 15, 2008 - 6:39 am 144. Gibson & Greenberg (Media Double Standards~No Standards Actually) « Zipline Conservative:

[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/09/12/charlie-gibson-this-is-no-way-to-interview-a-vice-... [...]

Sep 15, 2008 - 6:41 am 145. 888:

Joshua, you sound like you’ve never been interviewed before. If someone asked you a question, and you needed more information in order to answer that question, you should not be scared to ask for further delineation, which is appropriately what Sarah Palin did when she asked Gibson for clarification.

As for the Bush Doctrine, your statement trying to make President Bush out as some irresponsible warmonger (”his declared intention to engage in preemptive warfare”) is totally off the mark. As this Congressional Report stated, “The Administration’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was swift, wideranging and decisive. Administration officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the Bush Doctrine…Preemptive use of military force against foreign terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Administration policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, gave added emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism” (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/23182.pdf). That preemption policy was about averting future terrorist attacks, not starting wars for the sake of starting wars.

But another Bush Doctrine, his Freedom Agenda, will be Bush’s lasting legacy. His Freedom Agenda speaks for itself — everything from Iraq once it becomes a successful and prosperous democracy in one of the most volatile region on earth, to the strengthened alliance the Administration made with the former Soviet Republics and Latin American countries, his Israeli/Palestine Road Map and his Africa Command (http://www.africom.mil/) and Africa agenda which Bush created to help Africans build/rebuild their economic, social, security, education, defense, medical, legal and political infrastructure and to combat terrorism. This 2007 Foreign Policy article says it all: “Democracy promotion wasn’t a core mission of U.S. embassies and combatant commanders before Bush’s presidency, but now it clearly is. Just this summer, at a conference on democracy no less, the president announced a “directive” to every U.S. ambassador working in an unfree nation: Seek out and meet with democracy and human rights activists. Even at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), democracy-promotion efforts before Bush’s democracy bureaucracy began taking root look sluggish in comparison. Since 2001, the NED has awarded roughly 100 political dissidents from around the world with democracy fellowships that allow them to study and speak out in the United States. Compare that figure with the late 1990s, when the NED brought over, on average, just five activists a year” (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3959).

There is no comparison in US history as to the extent the liberal press, left-coast celebrities and elitist Democrat Party machine have criticized and disrespected President Bush. But this decent humanitarian of the highest order, with strength of true faith and character, will also be vindicated like no other.

Sep 15, 2008 - 8:04 am 146. Bugs:

“…no comparison in US history…”

I’m wondering about that. The Dems and their newspaper cronies were pretty hard on Abraham Lincoln. Today’s political atmosphere reminds me of those times. All we lack is congressmen thrashing other congressmen with canes…

Sep 15, 2008 - 8:59 am 147. Marion L:

Dear Mr Wallis of Sep 14, 2:01 am:

As I do not believe in censorship, it would not occur to me to have my comments approved by Obama, Axelord, ABC or anyone else. I am speaking only for myself when I post comments on this blog.

Dear Dr Chesler:

My positive post for today is that among the many blessings I am thankful for as an American is the First Amendment and freedom of the press; including freedom of the press both for journalists with whom we agree and journalists with whom we may disagree.

Sep 15, 2008 - 9:38 am 148. Jeannette:

“Steve:

She made Quail look smart….”I can see Russia from Alaska”?!?!?!?!?!?! OMFG she is more then qualified to be the President as McCain will pass away soon.
Sep 14, 2008 – 11:27 am”

1) Palin’s response was chopped off midsentence, just like her supposed gaffe asking what the VP does.

2) Thank you for reminding us what the MSM did to Dan Quayle, who is an intelligent man. It’s been going on for a long time.

Sep 15, 2008 - 10:53 am 149. schnargley:

“She made Quail look smart…” (steve)

And the unrelenting torrent of attacks by the Media on Palin and McCain are making them all look like birdbrains!! I salute the Fourth Estate for stepping into the ring to courageously fight to try and help the movement to social justice and progressive ideas of hope and change to win this election. That is their job. They are generally much more informed and intelligent (except at FoxNews) than most stupid fat Americans in zombie-like Middle America. If they did not engage the enemy of enlightened progress by trying to influence this election, even by using some questionable tactics, outright smears, creative editing a la Michael Moore, and manipulative propaganda tactics taught by German communications geniuses from 80 years ago, as the more eductade members of society they would not be acting responsibly.

Sep 15, 2008 - 11:46 am 150. Shirley J. Erwing:

I never saw these comments layed out like this. Man, is this what America has come to? I will never watch (ABC) Charlie Gibson again. I am a Hillary supporter who will either support McCain or Cynthia McKinney, not a front man like Obama. As a Black woman, I will not vote for someone just because of color. Obama is part of the Chi town politics, but he has missed on so many occasions; one – he let me know that he stole Bill Clinton’s playbook, two- he stated that he didn’t care for Clarence Thomas, well that left the door open to any Blacks re the color thing, three – his total disrespect for Hillary.

Sep 15, 2008 - 3:11 pm 151. Tina Trent:

I have been watching Charles Gibson for as long as I can remember, and I have never seen him behave in the way he behaved with Sarah Palin. And “behave” is the operative term: it was less an interview than a condescending, disrespectful effort at “gotcha.” I turned on NPR for just two minutes yesterday morning, and they were reading Barack Obama’s utterly rote press release on being concerned about the hurricane — “our thoughts are with them” stuff — as if it was the second coming and the First Amendment rolled into one. Then they grudgingly said something like: “John McCain expressed concern too.” I just had to laugh. We aren’t the ones who are condescending Obama. But the treatment of Palin is on a different scale. I have some serious reservations about her, and I will wait to learn more. But the media has lost a great deal of credibility this week. I didn’t even know that interviews like that were edited for content. Troubling.

Sep 15, 2008 - 3:18 pm 152. Susan:

If Sister Sarah had been properly vetted before she was announced as the VP candidate, such detailed questions would not need to be asked.

Contrary to the GOP expectation, people do care who is elected to our highest office. Not everyone is going to accept a candidate just because we are told to do so. Sorry.

Sep 15, 2008 - 4:27 pm 153. Joshua:

888:

You’re either a brilliant satirist or a complete nutjob. In either case, I salute you.

Sep 15, 2008 - 5:38 pm 154. TLewis:

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I am curious, why do American Jewish women distain Jewish women in Israel.

I really want to know why Jewish women would hate or dislike their very family members living remotely in Israel. You know who I’m talking about, those very Jewish women who live, have children and make their home in Israel. I’ts time that Jewish women just say it like it is, and speak their mind.

If Jewish women prefer socialism, just say it “Socialism has been good for me.” If they prefer Marxist Islamic Fundamentalism then let the world know that Communism and Islamism is a great thing and you want to continue developing the Worlds Worker Movement. On the otherhand if Jewish women prefer a conservative philosophy, or even Pro-Life perspectives, then go for it girl.

Seriously there is no reason to hide behind a Republican in name only, Or a Democrate who won’t admit that he completely follows in Saul Alinsky footsteps.

Stand up for what you believe. If you believe that Israel should be destroyed by the Iranian Islamo Facist (which is ever grownig in the Middle East), then be proud and vote Obama – he will help bring it about.

Tell your fellow Jewish women in Israel that you want them to lose their homes, family and possibly even their lives.

On the other hand, if you really have some real compassion for the Jewish women in Israel, please let them know. In fact let us all know.

I do not believe that American Jewish women are a solid voting block – all 100 per cent behind Barack Obama, knowing full well that he will probably perform worse than Presidential Jimmy Carter. If you have the freedom to speak you mind in this country do so, during this presidential election – otherwise quit mumbling. Act like Sarah Palin – be yourself, what ever that is, and what ever you believe in. Sarah Palin is willing to do whatever it takes to show her political position – she is only helping you – by showing women throughout American and the world that you should be a full women, not a socialogically politically correct stepford zombie who takes marching orders from NOW are Planned Parenthood Inc. All you Jewish women need to have the courage to show the world what you really value. Be courageous!

Sep 15, 2008 - 6:32 pm 155. rocketeer:

Susan – That’s fair. Can you admit that there has been a distinct lack of interest on the part of the major media to do ANY investigative reporting on either Obama or Biden and ALL of the shenanigans that those two have been involved in? No one on the right side of the aisle is concerned that SP cannot handle herself with the tough questions. What we are concerned about is the total lack of equality in the difficulty of the questions being posed to the other candidates for the two highest offices in the world.

Sep 15, 2008 - 7:00 pm 156. Concerned Citizen:

The latest from the Obama blog, now it’s not just race, but riling up the Jews, go look before it disappears;
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5qtn/commentary#comment-gG3MZf

Where is it? | Report to Admin Reply
By Florida4Obama08 39 seconds ago (Updated 39 seconds ago)
Where are all the surrogates, Ads, media contacts punching McCain hard on Economy on all sides? …

Also, we need some surrogates to start to spread the mesage, very slowly, that having Palin as VP is scary. This needs to be done but very subtle. And we need to use her with our Jewish friends, like Koch, to drive the message that Palin is not a good chice for Jewish voters at all…..

We need to act fast and show we are fighting for it. In this way people will feel that Obama will be strong in National Security.

Sep 15, 2008 - 9:31 pm 157. Wadeusaf:

Why does Charlie use those magnifiers? If the effect makes him look snobbish I have to wonder if this is intentional or just a bad fashion statement. Charlie, get bi focals or use bigger fonts.

Sep 15, 2008 - 10:05 pm 158. Donnie Mac Leod:

If one can’t get beyond the fashion of a persons writings and see value in the substance they could claim the use of fonts as being to creative and thus snobbish without addressing the substance. Wink.

Sep 16, 2008 - 3:18 am 159. Donnie Mac Leod:

Reading concerned citizen’s report shows why Politics is so unjust and divisive and polarizes the truth to the point that it becomes unrecognizable on both sides unless it is your brand of truth. This Quote is what makes people go mad during elections as the director of such nefarious goals and as folk willing to take on such a task.

“Also, we need some surrogates to start to spread the mesage, very slowly, that having Palin as VP is scary. This needs to be done but very subtle. And we need to use her with our Jewish friends, like Koch, to drive the message that Palin is not a good chice for Jewish voters at all…..

We need to act fast and show we are fighting for it. In this way people will feel that Obama will be strong in National Security.”

Sep 16, 2008 - 3:23 am 160. radical_moderate:

“I honestly do not feel that Obama will be as pro-Israel.”
=======
loreli, are you an American citizen or an Israeli? Point of fact, Obama has plenty of Jewish advisors, has brown nosed AIPAC, and has paid the appropriate fealty to the sovereign state of Israel. jeesh. When did the USA grow this extra appendage? Why are we even talking about Israel in this election?

As for Palin, I suspect that she is as tough as old boots. After all, it takes balls of brass for her to have answered that she is “ready” to be VEEP with her lack of National and International experience. Further, If she can’t answer the tough questions now how would she deal with both our friends and our enemies after being elected?

I think that Gibson was trying not to appear to “softball” her, I didn’t find his tough questions disrespectful, although I suppose that he didn’t, to use Rick Davis’s term, pay “deference” to the Governor. The fact is, even throwing out the “trick” Bush Doc question, Palin just does not have a grasp of foreign policy, nor did she prove to me to have an original thought (she stuck to by rote McCainisms for her answers), or the sort of nuanced intellect that a good Vice President, or eventual President needs.

The “sexist” charge is a smoke screen that the McCain campaign is using to cover up the fact that Palin is simply not ready to be on the ticket for the highest public office especially in such trying economic and foreign policy times.

BTW, schnargley…effective satire is a delicate art, the best satirists make their point with the lightest touch, the worst use a sledgehammer…

Sep 16, 2008 - 8:13 am 161. Richard:

Next time Sarah Palin does an interview with these jerks, maybe she should bring her moose hunting gun with her. (Hat tip: Jay Leno)

Sep 16, 2008 - 8:13 am 162. view from afar:

Herb can I see a link to mainstream media asking Obama a real hard question and Obama giving a real hard answer not political nonanswers? A question about something real, like the questions that were asked of Mrs.Palin…and then let’s talk about the editing of the interview, have any of you “liberal-left-progressives or whatever(respectfully written, NOT sarcastically written)” even gone on to look at the editing done by ABC of the interview? Oh and Debra, cedarford makes alot more sense than you do…had the Democrats elected Hillary, I’d have probably voted for her, I lean right but am so impressed by Mrs Palin…and this comes from an article I read about her before she was nominated for Vice President and was published last spring…sorry I can’t remember the name of the magazine but it was before all the hoopla-la, and I read it while in the US…I’ll post it if I can get a hold of my dad…and Gianni, you are dealing with Americans and it is SO different than European politics, your questions are all about the government running peoples lives, and most AMericans aren’t interested in being told how to be like it is here in Europe…

Sep 16, 2008 - 1:15 pm 163. view from afar:

oh and Sean Busse you don’t really deserve to be answered, but who is going to defend you from the accusation:”you are an Obama fan writing to discredit the McCain supporters?” Oh and I am a real person, and in my middle of the raod opinion Obama is a left version of George W Bush, he isn’t as qualified as he should be so he’ll surround himself by more competent than himself, and we’ll end up a bigger mess having had two opposite version of underqualifieds…thought of that one anyone?

Sep 16, 2008 - 1:22 pm 164. radical_moderate:

or Richard maybe Palin should only be interviewed by those who are enthralled with her…

Sep 16, 2008 - 1:24 pm 165. Ashleigh:

I really didn’t realize until the Palin nomination how biased Hollywood/media is. It began, for me, with the US Magazine article on Palin, talking about her baby Trig being her daughter’s son and the whole thing was very, very defamatory, while meanwhile a previous issue on Obama was very soft and all about his family.

The more I have followed this campaign, and I’ve been following closely since Palin’s nomination because I am so excited about her, I have seen such utter bias. It has really, really disgusted me. Isn’t there a way to fight it? I mean, why are the media “allowed” to get away with it?

If Obama wins, I know it will be “shoved” in our faces in a very ugly manner. I really, really like Palin, and McCain also, and sometimes I think that it would’ve been better for her to not have run because of all the venom aimed at her, all the insults, the slander, the half-truths, and that HORRIBLE Gibson interview (I totally agree with your description of it. It was like she was a naughty elementary school student in the principal’s office, being grilled and intimidated until she confessed, “Yes, Sir, I did chew gum in class.” UGH. It was the worst interviweing skills ever, and the editing, too, was so wrong!!). Although I have a feeling that she knew going into this that it would be ugly, but I truly think that she is doing this for the people and that is why she is willing to endure all the cr*p!

Anyways, I wish more Americans would not allow themselves to be manipulated and deceived by media and Hollywood. I, myself, am now watching/reading more news from Fox News and I am fully aware of the bias of MSNBC, The NY Times, AOL.com, and all the other news outlets that are pro-Obama. And of course, I know that probably 95% of Hollywood support Obama, so whenever they come out to tell Sarah to “suck it” or insult her, it just doesn’t affect me (although their arrogance angers me, and I think they come off as just plain stupid when they angrily air their opinions).

I also have stopped buying US Magazine and all magazines for that matter except People magazine who had a decent article on both Sarah and the McCains.

Too many people do not know how to think for themselves. I, myself, have become more aware of the manipulation and am much more discerning now when I read about all of Palin’s many faults in the news reports. Actually, I don’t even read half of them anymore because I know they’ll be negative. For the first time in my entire life, I’ve actually been going to the Rush Limbaugh website. I don’t really like him that much (his personality) but I like the way he exposes the media.

It seems to me that this election is McCain/Palin vs. MEDIA/Hollywood/Obama, and I think if Obama wins, it will be mainly because of the media’s support of him and their smear campaign against Palin/McCain. If Obama wins, the media will, unfortunately, be even more empowered in their egotistical, arrogant, biased reporting of “news.” Heaven help us all!

Sep 16, 2008 - 9:47 pm 166. Marko:

McCain/Palin/Big Oil/Big Business/Wall Street/Media Owners vs. People/Obama

Sep 17, 2008 - 10:21 am 167. Christine West:

First of all, do any of you realize that Charlie Gibson wears bifocals? For those of you who are not familiar with bifocals it is impossible to wear them up on your nose so you are able to read and still be able look off in the distance. Gibson was not “looking down” at Hockey Mom like you all are insinuating. He was simply trying to read his notes and look directly at her.
Second- I find it ironic that everyone is bad mouthing this interview when it was the McCain camp that specifically picked Charlie Gibson to handle Hockey Mom’s first unscripted speaking opportunity. Obviously the interview did not have the effect that the RNC was hoping for.
And third- let’s not forget the media harassment and scrutiny that Obama and his family have been through. It’s easy to forget because it was almost a year ago now. Hockey Mom is going through the same scrutiny that current and past candidates have suffered. She, as well as you, will just have to deal it. Call it sexism if it makes you feel better, but I believe that what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

Sep 17, 2008 - 11:20 am 168. Marion L:

Dear Christine West of Sep 17, 2008 – 11:20 am:

I agree – very well said!

Sep 17, 2008 - 11:48 am 169. Believer:

Marion L:

I noticed above you posted a comment about the blessing we have as Americans to our rights to Freedom of Speech.

You are an Obama supporter, I assume. This article might interest you:

hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/obamas-character-assassins-target-another-national-review-journalist/

Many of us find this troubling. It runs counter to what you value, don’t you think?

Sep 17, 2008 - 7:46 pm 170. Christine West:

Believer- how do you presume to know what Marion L values?
Does it really matter if a person supports Obama, McCain, Ron Paul or Kermit the Frog? We are all American’s (I am assuming) and we owe it to our country and our soldiers to utilize our best judgment in making this crucial election decision. In making an educated decision one needs to learn to weed through the different philosophies, ignore the media crap, give fair dues to each candidate, and take into account personal values. Nobody deserves to be criticized for what they believe in.

Sep 18, 2008 - 7:59 am 171. Marion L:

Dear Christine West:

Thank you for your kind words and insightful comments about the upcoming election.

Dear Believer:

Thank you for calling the National Review article to my attention. I will have more to say about it in a subsequent comment, as it appears that there are other possible accounts of how the Obama campaign responded to the Stanley Kurtz radio interview.

Sep 18, 2008 - 1:13 pm 172. Believer:

Christine:

Marion stated what she values. Free speech. I took her at her word.

The link I posted gives us yet another example of the Democrat candidate for President of the United States allowing his supporters to thwart one man’s freedom to speak. The Democrat candidate has every reason to hide who he is – and has been – from the broader public. He knows that if the truth were know, he could never be elected.

Journalists have a right to speak. The American public has a right to be informed. And they have every right to weigh this journalist’s research along with that of the army of 30 the Obama campaign sent to Alaska. (I might now ask — was not enough discovered in Alaska — that a Democrat supporter resorted – in desperation – to violating the privacy of the opponent? I’m referring to an email account.)

Did I understand you that an “educated decision” is important? Perhaps – in some cases – you disagree?

Sep 18, 2008 - 1:27 pm 173. sherian St.Patrick:

Charles did his duty as an interviewer. Shame on you for thinking the opposite. Palin needed to be asked those questions because she is the new candidate on the block and virtually an unknown. What was he supposed to ask her, how many hockey games she has been to and how many times she looks over to Russia. She is patronizing, condescending, arrogant, not too bright, and thinks she can change Mc Cains views on some issues…I thought she was running for VP not President. I love when she said she would be ready to step in as President. She is just another obnoxious Republican that needs to get her head out of the sand and wise up. She is no better the Bush, who will go down as the worst President of the Century.

Sep 18, 2008 - 3:56 pm 174. Believer:

Marion, you might want to read this also:

americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obamas_dogs_of_war.html

I would think you and Christine might care about a man’s character and judgment. It’s an important indication about the kind of decisions he would make. And those decisions would affect you and me.

Early on, I found the manner in which Obama won his earlier political contests troublesome. Supporters of his have, from the beginning, resorted to tactics that have had little regard for his opponent or their families. These tactics have been cruel to their children in particular.(I’m thinking now of opening – against the wishes of both parents – sealed divorce records in order to eliminate an opponent from competition.)

Whether or not you’re Christians, I would think you would agree that the teachings of TUCC were harmful to those who listened – hardly encouraging understanding or forgiveness between men. Obama exercised the poorest judgment by putting his two young children in the pews of that church.

Taking so little care with the welfare of his own daughters, it’s no surprise he would do the same with others.

The projects – and people – he’s associated himself with – whether at the state or federal level – have benefited no one but himself and his friends who are usually either radicals or crooks. In fact, they’ve been abject failures. Those who’ve been hurt the most are the very people he assures us he wants to help: the poorest among us.

On threads here at PJM, we read of Chicagoans like “Ruby” who tell us Obama has only taken and not given at all to their community. Would you want the awful schools, lousy public housing, gun violence and political corruption of that city replicated around the country?

But Obama would have us believe he cares about those in need. I wonder even now if he continues to ignore his own brother living in poverty ($12/day) in Africa. There is a school he promised to help in Africa — they gave it his name. He hasn’t followed through as of a few months ago, so I believe a Christian organization has taken up offerings to help them instead. His tax records show no charitable giving except a small amount in the last year or two. Did he make $4million last yr — and one might think he only gave knowing his records would be public.

Character matters. Judgment matters. Having neither leads to doing what he hasn’t denied doing on his overseas visit to Iraq. You can read about it here at PJM.

If true, that action would betray those who trusted he wanted our troops out as soon as possible. Instead, he showed he was – once again – only interested in himself and his political ambitions. And not above breaking the law to achieve his goals.

The American public should consider this on November 4, even if it matters little to you.

Sep 18, 2008 - 3:58 pm 175. Marion L:

Dear Believer:

If you look at the action as posted on Obama’s website, he does not ask people to close down the radio station or disrupt the program. Rather, as is to be expected for a call-in radio show, he asks his supporters to call in to rebut the view that there is something wrong with Obama because of his association with Bill Ayers; which is the guilt by association tactic that the right has been pushing on this issue. Here is a link to an article from the Chicago Tribune that gives an objective account of the action:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story

Two more quick points:

1. As Stanley Kurtz is associated with the National Review, it’s not surprising that the Review’s account would cast Obama in a negative light.

2. The people who agreed with the perspective presented on the radio show were as free to call in and send emails to the station as Obama’s supporters were. Obama cannot be faulted for encouraging his supporters to exercise their First Amendment rights by calling in and emailing to a call-in radio show with which they disagree.

Sep 23, 2008 - 1:41 pm 176. gail:

Shame on you Charlie,I expected more from you.I am very disappointed.I will not watch you anymore.My list is getting longer,Oprah,The View,MSNBC,NBC,Larry King,I am not a right wing radical.I am a registered female independant voter who will vote Republican for the 1st time in 16 yrs!This media bias is ridiculous!

Oct 6, 2008 - 10:48 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: