ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 13-9-2008 @ 08:31 AM by Dronetek

ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but not Obama.


www.upi.com
Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to
(visit the link for the full news article)




[edit on 13-9-2008 by Dronetek]




Edit to alter thread title in line with submission guidelines.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by SkepticOverlord]


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:28 AM by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Dronetek


Mccain and Obama have had their flack over the past 12 months.
No one knows anything about her, she's a new comer, lets get to the core issues immediately.



reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 10:09 AM by Major Discrepancy
The Major would like to include the following for the edification and clarification of the troops:



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

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

www.washingtonpost.com...


To be honest, the Major hasn't had much interest in a "doctrine" since Brigadier General Billy Mitchell formulated the foundation of air support for the Major's troops, and strategic bombing. The Major may be a bit behind the times, but the Major could have brought up the Monroe Doctrine, the last relevant presidential doctrine. To be honest, the new fangled trend of the internets that compels witty labels and the "need' to be "in the know."

The Major expected better of Charlie Gibson, and is of the mind that an interview such as this should be intended to inform the public at large, not to denigrate or humiliate Sarah Palin. There will be ample time for all the candidates to parade before the electorate with pie and worse on their respective faces.

Dismissed.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 10:50 AM by vor78
reply to post by mental modulator


Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 12:44 PM by mental modulator
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mental modulator


Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.


I can agree with you on this to some degree. Both intended to "git" the other...

Fair enough


reply posted on 14-9-2008 @ 08:52 PM by Frogs
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by mental modulator


Actually, I think both interviews were reasonably fair. I have some problems with the way Gibson portrayed the 'exact quote' exchange as well as this question on the Bush Doctrine which, IMO, painted Palin into a corner regardless of her response, but otherwise, it was a typical, hostile interview, much as the O'Reilly-Obama interview was. Gibson and O'Reilly simply have different styles.

Note that I did not say that a hostile interview was necessarily an unfair interview.


I've been in the woods for a bit and haven't seen all of the Gibson / Palin interview yet (I've just seen clips from it). But, I did see the O'Reilly / Obama interview.

I did think both were "hostile" interviews. However, I noticed a couple of times O'Reilly smiled and joked a little bit (for instance asking Obama how many points he would spot him in basketball).

In the clips I've not seen Gibson smile at all and his general demeanor seems to be that of someone faced with the task of scraping something very unpleasant from the bottom of their shoe. I'm asking because I've yet to see the whole thing - Did he ever smile? Tell a slight joke to break the tension?


reply posted on 16-9-2008 @ 03:46 PM by Sublime620
Why would it backfire?

Every candidate has been grilled to the point of being charred on the outside - half of the time with lies, rumor, and spin. It is disgusting. But what makes her special?

Why can she get away with not commenting? Why is it that she shouldn't be treated differently because she's a woman, but Hillary needed to take the heat and "quit hiding behind her apron"?

I listened to Rush Limbaugh today - to the point of getting ill - as he rambled on a rampage about how the "liberals" were the cause of all the world's problems. Do you know he said that "liberals" do nothing but plot and plan (while conservatives are out with their families and doing real things). Yes, he said that. He said liberals are responsible for Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Liberals are responsible for the downturn in the economy. He said it was liberal legislation caused the mortgage crisis. And don't get me started on him talking about this interview with Palin and how unfair it was.

But it was all just propaganda. It was all spin - salted with a little truth.

The fact is, even if every single piece of legislation that caused this crisis was brought in the "evil liberals", they've never had enough control to push it through themselves.

The Clinton era was countered by a very conservative Congress. The beginning of the Bush era... the "liberals" had little to no control. Now, they barely have control over Congress, and not nearly enough to overwhelm a Presidential veto. That means, of course, the Republicans had just as much to do with it. Sure, they may not have agreed at first, but once they were allowed to add riders and fill it with enough pork to satisfy them, they didn't care (which I think is one of the largest issues in US politics - pork filled riders and lobbyists).

As far as Palin... who's Rush to talk? His entire program is set up to slander any liberal who opens his mouth.

I know it's a bit off topic to talk about Rush, but I found it to be representative of this entire topic. By that I mean, it is useless.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Sublime620]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^