ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

Originally posted by Buck Division
Look -- if I wanted to -- I could be arguing that this editing process was actually bias towards Palin and not against her. For example, I was struck by the fact she said she was so easily "overwhelmed"

these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Hey -- I don't want a president or VP that is easily overwhelmed by something relatively minor like that. But maybe that is not what Palin really meant, in which case it was a good thing it was edited out, before it confused me or someone else.

Do you get my point?

Yes-- as in how disingenuous it is.

Do you really believe that mangled logic?

It's one thing to be concerned about her use of the word "overwhelmed" in the context of some responsibility. But you stretch all credibility when you become concerned by the use of the word in a context that is similar to saying one is "overwhelmed" by an outpouring of love.

It's a cheesy throw away political statement-- one you conveniently manipulate from its plain contextual meaning to conform to your own opposing view of the candidate.

Originally posted by Buck Division
In my opinion, there are some minor redaction, probably to keep the interview more interesting and to cut the interview down to fit particular time.

They need to fit the interview into a particular time slice, so they eliminate some redundant words that don't contribute much to the discussion. I don't think there is anything unfair or remarkable in this practice.

I'm comforted by your sense of priorities. "Time Slice" above accurate reporting and manipulation of the candidate's answer to make it more "interesting".

OMG!

Charlie???? Is that you???




[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam


Sounds to me like somebody's been posting altered video on YouTube, if you think that matched Levin's transcript.

Sorry, I was the anon poster. Couldn't remember my password the other day.

I looked at that transcript that you cited, and as I said, my wife and I both watched the aired interviews.

ALL of that transcript was aired. You may have been confused by the fact that they at times used different parts of her answers to his questions in different segments they aired, but if you put it all together and watch all three parts of his interview, they DID air it all.

I'll agree that it was clumsily edited. But editing is done by all media, one always records more than you intend to use, as time (as noted by another poster) is always short, so footage needs to be pared.

Besides, I REALLY didn't see anything on that Levin transcript, that even IF it had been cut as he said, really would have changed her answers, or made her sound better, had they aired it uncut.

She still sounded unsure and unready and really, just cause she can see the most remote, unpopulated shore of the Russian Federation from a remote, sparsely populated shore of her own state that is supposed to give her automatic diplomatic experience?

Don't force me to use one of those smiley icons you are so fond of!

reply to post by loam


Oh, and, yeah, there are a few Republicans here, enough to elect a Republican to the Governor's mansion, tho, unfortunately, not enough to keep him there in the last election!

Look, I'd like to see a more diverse collection of politicians in Washington, too, and don't see a problem with having a woman in the White House. But the two women to have gotten close in this cycle, Palin & Clinton, just don't cut it for me.

Clinton, I dislike with a passion that is only exceeded by my passionate dislike for her husband.

But I am sorry, Palin's lack of experience is laughable! Six years as a small town mayor? TWO years as the governor of a State with a very small population and even smaller State government? And she thinks that a 53 mile wide strait is narrow enough to give her diplomatic experience when she's never been out of the country on a diplomatic passport nor met a head of state?

Sorry, but meeting trade delegations does NOT give her that experience!

reply to post by rahrens


I guess we were watching two different interviews then, because I thought Plain came off as more professional and polished than Gibson, who spent too much time covering his mouth, and looking lost, like he was losing a game of chess that he was sure that he would win.

Being that Obama has never been in charge of anything, his campaign is being ran be the DNC machine, what makes you think Obama is qualified to be POTUS? At least a Mayor calls the shots, legislatures can get by without ever taking any real stands on any issues, and that seems to be Obama's strength, and we need a whole heck of a lot more ability than that.

At least Lincoln had established himself as a top notch trial lawyer. Obama has yet to succeed as the man in charge in any shape or form. While Palin has only been in the Gov position for two years, she has done a great job in reforming the state, moving it in a new direction, and is amazingly popular with the states residents.

How many executive you know of who have been responsible for a state as vastly large as Alaska, serving over a half a million residents.

Bill Clinton was one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history, and you don't like him. That puts an obvious black mark on your judge of leadership.

Considering that the Soviets tried to put Nukes in Cuba, U.S. efforts to bring Georgia into NATO are hardly that out of line, do you have anything else?

reply to post by poet1b


I guess we were. I don't remember Gibson being nervous at all, altho I'll say he did look unprofessionally exasperated with her a few times. Walter Cronkite must have done backflips in his grave at the way Gibson let himself react to her answers.

By the way, I didn't say I was disparaging Clinton's leadership. I said I dislike him, and I do. Not the same thing at all, bud. Learn to read.

As for experience, I found a very good answer to that one on another site, tothecenter.com.... The poster, identified as MplsVala, had this to say:

"Obama’s experience has repeatedly been called into question"

I ran across a really great response to the experience comparison from someone who doesn't mind being quoted:

Meme Says:

” Experience. People are questioning Palin’s experience. Really? What about Obama? I have not met an Obama supporter who can name a single thing he’s accomplished.”

You’ve met one. Obama was graduating from Ivy-league Columbia University with a degree in Political Science with a focus on International Relations when Palin was graduating high school and competing in beauty contests. He was professor of Colombua law university, organizing Chicago’s largest voter drive in history, and a professor constutional law when Palin was changing between six low-key colleges and earning a degree in journalism (minor in polysci), then working as a part time sportscaster and fisherman. Obama was in the state senate authoring over 800 bills when Palin was elected mayor with just over 640 votes, to a job that she herself described in one interview as trivial (talking about how there were only 53 employees and a six million budget). Obama was elected US senator from one of the US’s largest states with 3.5 million votes and has served there twice as long as Palin has served as Governor, where she was elected with 114k votes. As a Senator, he served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, probably the most prestigious committee in congress (as well as 12 other committees), and has met with dozens of leaders across the globe in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. She only got a passport in 2007; her foreign policy experience is listed as Canada (because she’s crossed the border before), Kuwait (because she visited the national guard there and never left the base), Germany (stopped there on the way back from Kuwait, same thing), Ireland (because her plane stopped to refuel there; she didn’t even leave the plane), and Russia (because Alaska is close to Russia). Heck, he’s been campaigning for president almost as long as she’s been a governor, dealing with donations from over twice as many people as Alaska has taxpayers and managing almost twice as many volunteers as Alaska has state employees. That’s just his *campaign alone*.

Oh, and in case you were asking about bills? He’s sponsored, last I checked, almost 150 and cosponsored over 500, ranging from international nuclear disarmament to making it illegal to transport toys to the US that contain lead to banning banks from misleading wording with mortgages to a number of cleantech and healthcare bills, housing for veterans, making the millenium anti-poverty goals binding, and so on. He’s even the reason why it’s illegal for lobbiest bundlers to act without reporting. I can get you a list of resolution numbers of his bills that passed if you’re interested.

Meme Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Here you go — I just found a URL where you can see his bills:

thomas.loc.gov...

Oh, and I was wrong about the number of bills: that was just the number of bills he’s sponsored and cosponsored in the *110th* congress alone.

That says it better than I would have.

I understand the concern IF the interview was edited (and if it was it needs to be outted and I don't want to do anything to diminish that), but I have to say I read the entire allegedly edited out portions and it only deepened my depression over the situation. I have not - in 44 years of fairly cognizant life and in 26 years of voting power seen such an unqualified candidate for a position at this level of our government. And the "edited out" statements just make that more clear.

I keep waiting for her to allude to "world peace" like all bubble-headed beauty pageant contestants do. She truly is in way over her head and I do NOT want this shady woman (who has already shown tendencies of not having a clue of the difference between what is constitutional behavior and unconstitutional behavior) a "McCain-heartbeat" away from the Oval office.

Sorry - but I solidly believe I have just watched McCain throw this election.

[edit on 9-16-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by rahrens


reply to post by Valhall


I have no beef with drawing conclusions against a candidate based on the evidence. But when the evidence is distorted to lead you there, I have a HUGE problem with that.

That is the point behind this thread.

I'm not sure why you think the youtube version of the interview does not match the aired version, but it is clear that it was added to the site hours after its original airing.

Moreover, the McCain camp railed at the edit job, so even they seemed to believe ABC cut out relevant portions of her answers.




[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam


Loam you should create a new thread, with the unedited video in your OP, and have the intent of the thread be for the ATS community to evaluate the questions and her answers (hopefully as unbiased as possible).

Just a suggestion

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I'm not aware of an unedited version of the video. Is one publicly available?

reply to post by loam


Sorry Loam I think I just made that assumption.

I just assumed this was the case because the first time I saw the video, and the subsequent times I saw it, I saw new footage. Granted, that could have been editing done by anyone, as I don't recall all the different sites I viewed it on.

I am probably just misinformed.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


No worries. I wish that footage was available, though.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by rahrens

 

reply to post by Valhall

 

I'm not sure why you think the youtube version of the interview does not match the aired version, but it is clear that it was added to the site hours after its original airing.



[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]

Doesn't take long, really, if you've got the equipment, and anybody with a decent Mac can do the job with just a modicum of skill.

But really, I think so, because I WATCHED THE ABC INTERVIEWS, in their entirety, on all three aired segments, AND on Nightline. Looking at the Transcript on Levin's website, with the bold/underlined sections allegedly edited out, ALL of those allegedly edited out portions, I REMEMBER in those interviews! THEY WERE AIRED. I remember Palin saying that stuff!

Now, that being said, they were aired over three segments, some of which showed repeats of Gibson asking various questions, and Palin answering. It was confusingly done, and in order to settle this question, one MUST look at separate transcripts of EACH separate segment, compared with the separately aired, matching video.

Do that, and I'll bet a dollar against a hole in a donut you'll not see any missing footage, or not enough to matter.

(Of course, that doesn't say that there isn't footage on the "cutting room floor" (or PC trash can) that isn't on that transcript that ABC posted. But you can take that for granted, there always is.)

Again, after reading Levin's marked up transcript, even if those parts he alleges to have been cut had been, they don't make spit's worth of difference in how she is portrayed.

She still betrays her unfamiliarity with diplomatic language, her unfamiliarity with current foreign affairs and Administration policy, and shows how much she doesn't understand the qualifications for the job.

Sorry, but anyone that says (whether she believes it or not) that just being Governor of a State 53 miles from the Russian Federation automatically gives her diplomatic experience is either crazy or thinks that I am to believe it.

Or do you think that George Bush, as Governor of Texas, automatically got the same experience as Governor of a State just across a shallow river from Mexico?

And what politician with experience will continue to use a lie in her campaign EVEN AFTER SHE'S ALREADY ADMITTED IT WAS A LIE?? Her allegation that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere has been proven to be a falsehood, and she finally admitted that it was.

But she has continued to use it in her campaign speeches!

This kind of bad behavior we don't need.

Oh, and to clear one thing up. My wife corrected me on one thing.

ABC aired FOUR segments. Last Thursday's ABC Evening News aired two, then on Nightline that night there was one more, then on 20/20 Friday night they finished it.

Perhaps some of you missed one or more of those segments. Each was supposed to cover different stuff, but Nightline had some stuff that was repeated, as did 20/20. It is possible that either or both used different parts of Palin's answers - they do NOT use the same editing teams!

Yes, this is confusing, but if you get the opportunity, try to watch all of them, and you WILL see that the entire transcript IS covered in those four segments. Print that sucker out, watch all of those broadcasts, and you'll see.

This has been blown all out of proportion!

Originally posted by rahrens
Doesn't take long, really, if you've got the equipment, and anybody with a decent Mac can do the job with just a modicum of skill.

But really, I think so, because I WATCHED THE ABC INTERVIEWS, in their entirety, on all three aired segments, AND on Nightline. Looking at the Transcript on Levin's website, with the bold/underlined sections allegedly edited out, ALL of those allegedly edited out portions, I REMEMBER in those interviews! THEY WERE AIRED. I remember Palin saying that stuff!

Then I tell you what. Produce for me the video which demonstrates the edited parts were aired. Surely not all of the versions posted on the internet were edited to manufacture this ABC editing conspiracy.

Originally posted by rahrens
Now, that being said, they were aired over three segments, some of which showed repeats of Gibson asking various questions, and Palin answering. It was confusingly done, and in order to settle this question, one MUST look at separate transcripts of EACH separate segment, compared with the separately aired, matching video.

As I mentioned previously, there were assertions that some of Palin's answers were added to different questions. In this UNACCEPTABLE sense, what you describe is possible. So, unless you can demonstrate that the SAME questions were re-aired with the corresponding absent parts, I refuse to believe what you are asserting.

Originally posted by rahrens
Again, after reading Levin's marked up transcript, even if those parts he alleges to have been cut had been, they don't make spit's worth of difference in how she is portrayed.

Your opinion. I disagree.

Originally posted by rahrens
She still betrays her unfamiliarity with diplomatic language, her unfamiliarity with current foreign affairs and Administration policy, and shows how much she doesn't understand the qualifications for the job.

Not the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by rahrens
Sorry, but anyone that says (whether she believes it or not) that just being Governor of a State 53 miles from the Russian Federation automatically gives her diplomatic experience is either crazy or thinks that I am to believe it.

Or do you think that George Bush, as Governor of Texas, automatically got the same experience as Governor of a State just across a shallow river from Mexico?

This is where I call you out.

You are posting a lie.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

[Bold portions not aired.]

So where did she say "53 miles from the Russian Federation automatically gives her diplomatic experience"?

Continuing:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. 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.

[Bold portions not aired.]

So again, where did she say "53 miles from the Russian Federation automatically gives her diplomatic experience"?

Originally posted by rahrens
And what politician with experience will continue to use a lie in her campaign EVEN AFTER SHE'S ALREADY ADMITTED IT WAS A LIE?? Her allegation that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere has been proven to be a falsehood, and she finally admitted that it was.

But she has continued to use it in her campaign speeches!

This kind of bad behavior we don't need.

Again, not the subject of this thread. Start another one on that topic and I'd gladly demonstrate how you have perverted that issue as well.

Next.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by TheRooster


OK, this is disappointing. Charles Gibson and ABC have usually impressed me. However, do you REALLY thing she is ready to be President?? This country is in shambles. We need a change, someone to stir things up. I'm sure someone will say that she will do exactly that, but be honest with yourself, would you have EVER picked her as the vp candidate?

Originally posted by rahrens
Perhaps some of you missed one or more of those segments. Each was supposed to cover different stuff, but Nightline had some stuff that was repeated, as did 20/20. It is possible that either or both used different parts of Palin's answers - they do NOT use the same editing teams!

So your position now is that it's ok to alter the meaning of an interviewee's answers because the edited portions might appear elsewhere on a different television show????

Come on, admit it, you're Charlie.



[edit on 16-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by rahrens


Yeah, I see, because Obama's grandma could send him to an Ivy league college, while Sarah Palin won a beauty contest to pay for her college, that makes Obama more qualified to be president than Palin? Anyone who starts out claiming Obama's experience is better than Palin's experience with this nonsense isn't worth reading.

frontpage.americandaughter.com...

After high school, much to her older brother’s amusement, Sarah entered the Miss Wasilla pageant and won. “I remember asking Sarah why she would enter a beauty pageant when that seemed so prissy to the rest of us,” Chuck Jr. said. “She told me matter of factly, ‘It’s going to help pay my way through college.’ ” Her family makes a point of saying Sarah was never the beauty pageant type. Even though the scholarship she won did help pay for college, years later Sarah seemed
chagrined by the pageant experience. “They made us line up in bathing suits and turn our backs so the male judges could look at our butts,” she said in a 2008 interview with Vogue magazine. “I couldn’t believe it!”

Now liberal bigots like to attack her because she won a local beauty pagent to pay for college, how PC. They attack her for jumping around to a few different colleges, which tends to be the norm these days, and never bother to consider her financial situation, being that she was the third child of a school teacher with a great deal of love for the outdoors.

What is it that you don't like about Palin, she is too smart and too good looking?

While I see the difference between you stating that you don't like Clinton, and offerring an opinion on Clinton's leadership abilities, I notice you made no commitment on Clinton's leadership abilities. Did you vote for GW? And if so, was it because you liked him?

Do you know what it means when a legislature authors a bill? It doesn't mean that he actually wrote the bill, and Obama got a lot of credit for bills that he did very little work on. So Obama is the darling of the DNC elitist establishment, that is a reason not to vote for Obama in my opinion.

Anyway you cut it, Obama has no experience in a leadership position where he is the guy who calls the shots, and that is where Palin's experience surpasses Obama's experience, and Palin is only the Veep candidate, Obama is actually running for POTUS.

By the way, Palin did stop the bridge to nowhere, Congress insisted on giving her the money for the bridge, and gave her the choice whether or not to build it, and she chose not to build it. Where is the lie? By the way, her support for the bridge had always been luke warm, and she quickly chose to oppose the project, proving that she has good decision making skills.

reply to post by Valhall


Once again with the beauty pagent attack, it is jealousy? If that is the basis for your opinon, then excuse me if I find it seriously lacking in objective reasoning. Any comments on her actual statements?

In my opinoin Obama is the least qualified candidate for POTUS that has ever ran for the office. The only thing he seems to know how to do is deliver a decent speech. Oh, I take that back, GW was even less qualified. For some reason people see that ivy league degree and assume it means something more than having a family with the money to send you to an Ivy league college.

reply to post by loam


First of all, if you haven't seen all four segments that were aired last week, you have no standing to accuse anybody of anything.

Produce those four segments from youtube or anywhere else and prove that your assertions are true. You produced ONE segment without really noting which program aired it and make assertions as to biased editing.

Prove it, by posting ALL FOUR segments aired by ABC last week, accompanied by the full transcript posted by ABC showing where they failed to air anything.

Then perhaps you've got something.

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.

Didn't lie at all, this excerpt from the transcript clearly shows that since you can see Russia from Alaska, she is asserting just that! No, she didn't SAY 53 miles, but she DID say you can see one from the other, and that IS the measured distance from Alaska to Russia!

Don't be daft. Mere physical proximity to a remote shore 6000 miles from that neighbor's capital city does NOT confer diplomatic experience, which that quote clearly does on her part!

In short, YOU made the assertion of editing bias, it is up to YOU to prove it.

You have posted only one segment of the four broadcast. Until you post the other three, with marked up transcripts proving your allegation, you have nothing.

This thread is getting interesting

I look forward to seeing how it fruits in the morning