ABC News: Charles Gibson interviews Sarah Palin
When I heard Charles Gibson was tasked with interviewing Sarah Palin, I groaned. Clearly, the entertainment executives over at ABC News wanted Ms. Palin to have an easy time of it and hoped that Gibson would turn in a milquetoast performance ala this year’s debates. Now, I’m not saying his performance throughout the Palin interview was stellar. Honestly, I haven’t seen all of it. But I will give credit for moments of good journalism when I see them and the video above is about as close as the msm gets.
Gibson asks his question numerous times in the face of dim-witted rambling and, though he never gets an answer, the lack of an answer is self-evident. Palin is either unprepared to or unwilling to answer the question and that speaks volumes about her. It appears that the McCain camp thought they could put up this political tike and the rabble would be so excited by her story they would overlook her gross ineptitude. I certainly hope that doesn’t happen. If Biden would actually vote on important issues, he would clearly be ahead in the VP game. With leadership like this, it is no wonder we are in this national funk.
#1 by Heather on September 12, 2008 - 2:52 pm
I’m so happy that Gibson called her out and let her fall on her face. It’s not enough to distract people Sarah, you have to know your shit. She’s no more capable of being in the White House than I am and that’s the real story.
#2 by Mike on September 12, 2008 - 3:06 pm
This just goes to show how clueless she is. The question was asked in the context of the Bush Doctrine, not in the context of “what does Sarah Palin think is justifiable.” Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States can unilaterally strike a terrorist target within another country’s border. No questions asked. She could have said, pursuant to the Bush Doctrine, the United States may strike an Al Qaeda target inside Pakistan. She could have also said that her and John McCain would use the power of diplomacy first. Boom. Perfect answer.
Political tike, indeed.