GatewayRedbirds.com

Jocephus wrote:

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

The media is doing themselves no favors with this kind of thing. They look desperate to get something on her.

While they weren't there in the beginning, it's well known that there's Al Qaeda in Iraq today. Al-Zarqawi was killed there back in 2006. What she said is true.

EDIT - Looks like they changed the article to acknowledge that.

another palin/gibson snippet:

[/youtube]

Meanwhile, here's a story someone could use to go after McCain, the person who's actually running for President.

[/youtube]

interesting stuff...

also...does that guy ever blink?

Folks, the YouTube effort is commendable, but some of us either can't listen or can't watch during our working hours. If you could "summarize" the YouTube links, that would be great. Thanks!

While I don't think Palin said anything "damning" during her interview, I think it probably hurt her more than it helped her. She seemed "flawless" in her convention speech. The Gibson interview clearly shows that she's pretty weak in some areas, and not quite as "eloquent" as most people probably originally thought. More and more, I think she'll struggle in debates, especially on real issues.

ghostrunner wrote:

Jocephus wrote:

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

The media is doing themselves no favors with this kind of thing. They look desperate to get something on her.

While they weren't there in the beginning, it's well known that there's Al Qaeda in Iraq today. Al-Zarqawi was killed there back in 2006. What she said is true.

EDIT - Looks like they changed the article to acknowledge that.

I think it's a stretch to imply that the media is somehow "picking on her". They're covering everything that she says & does, the good and the bad, just like they do for the other candidates.

Senator Barack Obama will intensify his assault against Senator John McCain, with new television advertisements and more forceful attacks by the candidate and surrogates beginning Friday morning, as he confronts an invigorated Republican presidential ticket and increasing nervousness in the Democratic ranks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/po ... ref=slogin

Socnorb11 wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

Jocephus wrote:

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

The media is doing themselves no favors with this kind of thing. They look desperate to get something on her.

While they weren't there in the beginning, it's well known that there's Al Qaeda in Iraq today. Al-Zarqawi was killed there back in 2006. What she said is true.

EDIT - Looks like they changed the article to acknowledge that.

I think it's a stretch to imply that the media is somehow "picking on her". They're covering everything that she says & does, the good and the bad, just like they do for the other candidates.

I don't think it's picking on her, more of a feeding frenzy. I don't mean that in a biased way, though there's probably some of that. It seems like they're in too much of a rush to get news on her, and so don't fully analyze the stories before printing them.

I sympathize with the press in this area. They're in a bad spot. Bloggers publish information before they do, because they don't always care about the context or the accuracy. MSM doesn't want to be trumped there, but it seems to me their best selling point as of now is to be fair and accurate wherever possible.

Socnorb11 wrote:Folks, the YouTube effort is commendable, but some of us either can't listen or can't watch during our working hours. If you could "summarize" the YouTube links, that would be great. Thanks!

While I don't think Palin said anything "damning" during her interview, I think it probably hurt her more than it helped her. She seemed "flawless" in her convention speech. The Gibson interview clearly shows that she's pretty weak in some areas, and not quite as "eloquent" as most people probably originally thought. More and more, I think she'll struggle in debates, especially on real issues.

I agree with you here, though she does seem quick on her feet and able to deflect questions.

Though, like in the convention speech, she seems to get pissed momentarily. The constant "Charlie" thing is annoying. I don't think she came off very well, and the Bush doctrine question wasn't good. Though again, I don't think the average voter is going to penalize her on that. The Bush doctrine is fairly muddy anyway. I'm still not sure I get it. It sort of says when imminence is imminent, then we can attack. But then there's also the whole thing about terrorists and those who harbor them, which came from Afghanistan.

ghostrunner wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Folks, the YouTube effort is commendable, but some of us either can't listen or can't watch during our working hours. If you could "summarize" the YouTube links, that would be great. Thanks!

While I don't think Palin said anything "damning" during her interview, I think it probably hurt her more than it helped her. She seemed "flawless" in her convention speech. The Gibson interview clearly shows that she's pretty weak in some areas, and not quite as "eloquent" as most people probably originally thought. More and more, I think she'll struggle in debates, especially on real issues.

I agree with you here, though she does seem quick on her feet and able to deflect questions.

Though, like in the convention speech, she seems to get pissed momentarily. The constant "Charlie" thing is annoying. I don't think she came off very well, and the Bush doctrine question wasn't good. Though again, I don't think the average voter is going to penalize her on that. The Bush doctrine is fairly muddy anyway. I'm still not sure I get it. It sort of says when imminence is imminent, then we can attack. But then there's also the whole thing about terrorists and those who harbor them, which came from Afghanistan.

I don't know what the Bush Doctrine states, but I'm not campaigning to be a heartbeat away from the highest office in the world. I didn't think she "muddled" her way through that question very well. I thought she had a "deer in the headlights" look, and then spewed out some nonsense that had little or nothing to do with what he was asking her about. Gibson ultimately explaining the whole thing to her was a bit embarrassing, in my opinion.

It wasn't a disasterous exchange, but it clearly showed that she's pretty weak on some issues. Definitely not the rock-solid specimen that we saw at the convention. She's going to have to do much, much better if she's going to maintain the strong image that she's portrayed to this point.