Drudge has been slamming Obama for weeks. Now that Palin FINALLY gives her first interview, not a peep..

Asked about credentials on Russia. "You can see Russia from Alaska".
Asked about traveling abroad prior to last year. "I've been to Canada & Mexico."
Have you met a foreign head of state. "I have not. Many (ex) VP's probably will give you the same answer".

What a joke.

I am waiting for that same interview from some MSM organization where they ask Obama tough questions. Granted now he could answer them after 18 months of hard campaigning and press coverage where he never got asked those kinds of questions in any meaningful way.

I thought the interview was a good one all things considered. Gibson came off as a condescending, "look-down-the-nose" snob. With all the edits made, we still have not seen the way the interview actually went in some places, and with Israel you would think Gibson has some issue with them. He kept wanting her to say something different I guess, but honestly, for all the other questions she answered so well, I don't think anyone is going to be overly critical of her answers there, or about the "Bush Doctrine" - other than all the other MSM outlets that want a new reason to cheer for Obama.

Last night I watched the interview clips and was mildly annoyed with the way Gibson handled himself, and not totally happy with some of her answers. After finding out about how some of the answers were edited, I have changed my mind. Gibson and ABC showed their bias for what it truly is, and for all that it would not have mattered how she answered, they would have clipped her answers to fit the headlines they wanted to print. That is bias - period. After all the fawning over Obama, and the lack of any real depth into what his background is, I don't understand any of the hype over him other than that he is a very charismatic.

The reason they are having problems now is that they planned to tie George Bush around McCain's neck and make that their whole campaign, and now that he chose Sarah Palin they are finding that harder and harder to do. Obama's big "change" mantra was that he was not George Bush - but by picking Biden, and now having Sarah Palin on the other side, he is finding that other than NOT being George Bush, there isn't much more to him other than a nice voice and a series of Democratic talking points. He is like Hillary repackaged, just as a black man (no disrespect intended - just a fact). That was essentially all his change represented, and that is what is causing so much angst amongst the democrats right now.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am waiting for that same interview from some MSM
> organization where they ask Obama tough questions.
>

You are an idiot, Did you not see Bill O'Reilly interview Obama? O'Reilly wasn't exactly soft-balling it.

Yes, that has nothing to do with Palin.

Obama still had issues with that interview - 18-19 months of prep will help - but then again he is running for PRESIDENT. Palin is the VP remember?

This interview will not change anything at the moment. The debates will have a lot more significance to all of this. If she fails miserably there, or McCain does poorly against Obama, then you can crow all you want.

Can we guess where she went in Mexico? Cancun? Cabo?

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we guess where she went in Mexico? Cancun?
> Cabo?

I'm guessing Tijuana trying to get her daughter an abortion.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, that has nothing to do with Palin.
>
> Obama still had issues with that interview - 18-19
> months of prep will help - but then again he is
> running for PRESIDENT. Palin is the VP remember?
>
> This interview will not change anything at the
> moment. The debates will have a lot more
> significance to all of this. If she fails
> miserably there, or McCain does poorly against
> Obama, then you can crow all you want.


Let's compare Obama to Palin until it doesn't look good for Palin then let's say she's ONLY running for VP and he's running for Prez. Nice strategy... Typical, but nice...

Again, why this fixation on Palin? Obama is running against McCain.

The sad part here is, even Hillary noted how Obama was not being questioned by the press on anything of importance. Now that she "backs" Obama, she is not speaking out against Sarah Palin - and you wonder why.

I notice.. no wait I don't... Joe Biden is like the silent partner in the background. Well, at least you all wish he would be silent. Between his incredibly stupid comments (like telling the guy in the wheel chair to stand up), and his belief that Hillary would be a better VP pick than he would, you have to wonder whose side he is on. The MSM is certainly doing their job NOT looking into his current issues, let alone his old ones.

Obama's poll numbers are starting to work their way back up and McCain's have stalled and are starting to come back down. Looks like people are hearing what McCain and Palin have to say and it sounds an awful lot like what George W. Bush had to say.

Poof

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress-Suddenly-Looks-Competitive.aspx

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, why this fixation on Palin? Obama is
> running against McCain.
>

I agree. But apparently the Rightys didn't really care for McCain that much and bet the farm on this little jewel. Now that's she's on record, do you think they were right?

You know why folks are happy about seeing Sarah Palin as VP? They see her as an obvious successor to McCain when he leaves office (whenever that is - and based on his mother, he will probably serve out two full terms if re-elected). By that time, Palin will be more than qualified, if McCain does poorly, then maybe not. At the same time, it will give Obama another 4 years to prove himself.

Assuming McCain wins, in 4 years Obama will have a much better shot at winning if McCain does a poor job. I would guess we would see an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket then.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Rightys didn't like McCain but they like McCain/Palin and willing to wait 4-8yrs of McCain so they can have Palin? Huh? Sounds like they like Palin more then McCain. Do you agree?

It has been well documented that while McCain won the nomination, there was not a lot of excitement for his selection, other than by the middle of the road folks he appealed to. If he had selected Joe Lieberman for his running mate he would have lost for sure because he would have lost a lot of the Republican base - they probably would have gone and voted for Bob Barr or something. A big part of that was because they don't see much of a future in his running for President since he would not be representing their interests.

By selecting Palin, he actually selected someone who has broad, across the board support. Her biggest detraction is her religious views, otherwise while she holds strong personal religious beliefs, she has not advocated for those beliefs to be applied to others by the government. The Republicans who did not feel they would be fully represented by McCain, now feel they will have someone in the position to actually advocate for their views.

So it isn't that folks didn't like McCain - he was kind of a necessary choice. Ron Paul has a kind of fringe element, and Huckabee, while a good guy, just didn't get the kind of reception he wanted. Sarah Palin just made the choice a lot better, and it also gave folks hope for future chances in winning the Whitehouse.

It is almost too bad Sarah Palin didn't run for President in the first place - in a race with Obama straight up neither of them would have been able to harp on experience, and it would have come down to an issues argument.

What is it that will make you vote for McCain/Palin over Obama/Bidden? I really would like to know. Thanks!

In nutshell - I don't believe in Socialism or Communism. I don't entirely agree with unchecked Capitalism either, but I don't think the Federal Government should get so much of our money, and spend so much of it, that we end up beholden to the hand that feeds us.

The other night in the forum that McCain and Obama were at, Obama certainly sounded very smooth, but he and McCain couldn't have been further apart on service. Obama's plan sounded like setting up a new little National Socialism, where service to the State is expected, and grooms all the little service folks to become greater serving members in the government as they grow up. Kind of like a citizens elite of service "community organizers". I am not calling this Nazi like, I just feel that any government based on "service" like he seems to be espousing, is setting itself for elite citizens versus the common folk who didn't fit the mold of joining their wonderful cause. McCain made it clear that we should have more incentives for retention of good people that choose to volunteer, but nothing should be obligated for service, nor should it give you any special status. Once it becomes obligatory, it loses the whole luster of the "goodness" of the act for itself.

I liked an earlier thought proposed by McCain at some other forum or Town Hall he was in where he put forth that any company that takes government subsidies or benefits from significant government tax breaks should not have CEOs that are so highly compensated like we see today. They should be held to some form of standard while receiving government assistance since the money is not theirs, it is ours.

Having been a contractor for many years, it seems we should be trying to get back to companies that actually are held accountable for providing some kind of incentive to retain employees - even the Federal Government gets around FTEs by contracting out - many times an agency will have more contractors working for it than actual employees. That is just nuts,

I don't believe that France, or other countries in Europe have proven that Socialism is all that great, and having many relatives and friends that live in Canada I can say with good authority that the health care system up there is not all Michael Moore cracks it up to be. If you need any kind of specialized care, you will be in for a long wait. My sister-in-law used to pay a bit extra for medical coverage and take a trip down to see us so she could go to the doctors down here when she had a problem that was more complicated then a flu. And I am sorry, but Michael Moore is the last person I will take as an authority on "truth".

That is just some of my thinking, take it as you will. I have other reasons as well.