CBS Has Horrible Transcript of Palin Interview
From the CBS News transcript of Palin’s interview with Katie Couric:
Next, Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt – and whether she supports it.
Palin: I’m all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout.
When I read that passage I thought: Jeez, what a ditz. I’m, like, all about the position America’s in, fer shure!
Except, that’s not what she said. I just watched it, and she said:
I’m ill about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout.
The incorrect phrase has been picked up by a host of morons.
P.S. They also completely leave out a part of her answer, with no ellipsis to note that it’s missing. Here’s how the transcript reads:
Here’s what she actually says:
I’ll bold what’s been left out of the CBS transcript:
Palin: I’m ill about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. At the same time, we know that inaction is not an option. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this — nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be — unless there are amendments in Paulson’s proposal, really I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They’re not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this [mimics holding her finger to the wind] and just see what way the political wind’s blowing? They’re waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson’s proposal.
Why did they skip over a whole phrase, about inaction not being an option?
As for Palin’s performance, I agree with Beldar that Couric was throwing gotcha questions at her — and that she didn’t bother to throw similar questions at Joe Biden. But when Couric pressed her, Palin needed to be far stronger than her weak response of “I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya.” I’m no politician, but I’d suggest something like this:
Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more. . . . I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: Well, Katie, I don’t mean to belabor the point myself, but I just gave you a strong example of John McCain taking decisive action in the right area at the right time. We didn’t need 26 years of more regulation, we just needed it in one sector at a particular point in time. Now, if you had bothered to ask Joe Biden what Barack Obama has done, you wouldn’t get one example. Now, as it happens, John McCain and I don’t believe more government regulation is always the right answer to every problem. But in 2005, when the mortgage industry needed regulating, John McCain was pushing for reform while Barack Obama was building his record as the second biggest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the Senate.
That’s what we need. Not “I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya.”
Yes, Couric was being unfair. The media is almost always unfair to Republicans. So, Sarah, you have to throw it back in their face without looking like you’re whining.
And learn how fast, because they’re virtually always going to be that way.
The “all” versus “ill” can plausibly be a transcription error, but the rest is more problematic.
Palin is right that no one is waiting for Obama’s opinion on this – there is no sense that any of Obama’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate care what he thinks either.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2008 @ 6:51 pmSorry to hijack the thread but I must.
Oregon State is taking it to USC. Kicking their ass.
OSU 14 USC 0 2nd quarter 7:26 left
For the record I’m an Ohio State fan and grad.
jharp (f4bed7) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:02 pmFor the record you’re also a fatuous ‘tard.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:05 pmI’m wondering why you think bringing up McCain’s record on regulation vs. deregulation is a “gotcha.” McCain has fought long and hard for deregulation — so much so that in an unfortunately timed article, he’s favorably comparing the deregulation of the banking industry with what should happen in the health care sector. I don’t think there’s any way to deny that. The thing is, McCain and Palin’s handlers aren’t doing what you did up there — namely, emphasizing the significance of the one instance in which he thought deregulation necessary. Instead, they’re sending Palin out without properly prepping her. In the segment that preceded the formal interview, Palin answers two different questions the exact same way. The only reason the later questions seem like “gotchas” is because her people have done a piss-poor job of prepping her for non-Hannity interviews.
Myself, I think there are two reasons for this: one, McCain’s averse to this sort of preparation himself, because he thinks he sounds better when he rehearses ideas instead of answers (which is entirely understandable, but that doesn’t mean Palin’s the same way); and two, because they’re setting up a counter-narrative of the Big Bad Liberal Media — whose imposing rage-filled face belongs, somehow, to Katie Couric — ambushes the aw-shucks truth-tellin’ VP candidate every chance it gets.
I’m more inclined to believe the latter, if only because I hope McCain doesn’t think what works for him works for her — but honestly, her answers are utterly without content. I’m with Timothy Burke on this one: Palin’s failing miserably. She’s making absolutely no sense, as is obvious to anyone who watches the video. If this does constitute a “gotcha” moment, it’s only because someone in the McCain campaign deserves to be fired for incompetence. The fact that you sat down and composed a reasonable response that wasn’t made available to her is nothing short of an indictment of the McCain campaign.
SEK (072055) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:11 pm(I agree with SPQR’s point about Obama but…)
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when she said that everyone was waiting to see what McCain would do. Until he started grandstanding yesterday I don’t remember anyone mentioning his name in regards to this bailout mess.
And his chief contribution seems to be to derail the Democratic-Bush plan in favor of pushing something more in line with conservative principles. (I’m in favor of derailing the bailout, but I have yet to see anything more than a vague description of what his proposal was.)
McCain seems to mistake showing off for leadership.
kishnevi (acf973) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:12 pmYou also hijack EVERY THREAD HERE IN EXISTENCE.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:12 pmThat’s for sure! Bush never learned that. He played to the media, and they never stopped hating him. Bush gave billions to Africa for AIDS, started up a new senior boondoggle program, fought the softly softly way in Iraq–and still they hate him. They will always hate him.
Good lesson.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:15 pmI absolutely agree. Republicans concede 10-15 points in every election. We can’t afford to lose a down. Speaking of downs, USC was driving but fumbled and now Oregon State has the ball.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:17 pmSEK — what the FOOK would Palin be an expert on McCain’s Senate voting record on matters of deregulation???????
That’s about as pointless a question as I can think of. Let Couric ask McCain — he could probably hold court on the subject for about 8 hours. See how long CBS is interested in keeping their camaras rolling with Katie shaking her head like she understands a word about the questions her producers hand her to read.
Its an absolutly bullshit question to ask once, much less twice.
And the first question about Rick Davis, asking it twice and then showing Palin giving the same answer twice is all the evidence the McCain camp needs to show that the media will simply not be fair in the way it edits these interviews. You can go back to the way ABC edited out portions of her interview with Gibson, putting in only the first sentence or two of her answer, and leaving out the balance which provide explanation and context.
Frankly, Palin should have said “Katie, you use the loaded phrase “conflict of interest”. How exactly do you think it is a “conflict of interest”?
I doubt CBS would have used the footage of Couric looking over at her producer for an answer.
If I were the McCain camp I’d also get away from this “Walk & Talk” style. Too many things in the surrounding environment can be distracting when complete concentration is required in order to see in advance that a question is a set-up.
WLS (26b1e5) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:23 pmAt this point I can’t figure out why Palin doesn’t just go into these assuming she’ll be slyly attacked or overtly set-up. As such, I’d like to see her fight back and show the same chutzpah she did when running in Alaska.
Bush appeared to need the media’s approval more than they needed access to him. It made him look weak. No doubt there’s a fine balance to strike but Palin must show she is the one in control – not powderpuff Katie Couric or whoever is interviewing her.
Dana (4d3ea0) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:24 pmOh my, jharp and I, along with hewitt, have something in common, Buckeye football…
In my opinion that is not a terrible thread hijack as these things go, but I don’t live near LA, either.
Back to the thread.
When the blogosphere humiliates someone as they did with Rathergate, and they still have the gall to stick to their story, I guess that says something about the recalcitrance of the MSM.
I’m not so sure that Palin gave a “weak” response as she gave an (hold your breath) “honest” response.
She knows how to literally put a surgically sharp knife into the gut of a 1,000+ pound animal and disembowel it. She needs to learn how to do the same thing figuratively, with a smile, to reporters.
The Clintonesque answer would have been, “Katie, you know very well that John McCain had spoken about the need to give more oversight to Freddie and Fannie years ago, there is discussion about it all over. John McCain has had a long and active career in the US Senate that I’m not going to try to summarize in a sound byte for you. If you would like, I can tell you how many times Sen. Obama has spoken for more regulation of Freddie and Fanny…” 😉
Ah, to be polite, truthful, and figuratively eviscerate your opponent with a smile.
Do people still refer to this kind of reporting as a “profession”? Not exactly the kind of stuff we would get away with, eh Pat? I think it would be called tampering with evidence for you, downright stupid and write out a malpractice check for me.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:27 pmAnd now Palin’s aging parents on going on GMA tomorrow morning!
Nooo! Don’t go! Somebody save them before it’s too late!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:30 pmSEK — what the FOOK would Palin be an expert on McCain’s Senate voting record on matters of deregulation???????
Because 1) it’s been in the news for five days now, 2) she’s the VP candidate being interviewed about something that’s been in the news for five days now, and 3) this is Politics 101.
Admittedly, 3) should be 1), but seriously, you can’t honestly believe that a candidate’s record about the most pressing issue of the day is something a VP candidate can safely ignore. If they were prepping her to speak to the media like every other VP candidate in history, she’d have had those answers in her pocket. Instead, she has a notebook on her lap that’s helping her to produce gibberish. (You can see her glance at her notes numerous times during the interview, despite having miraculously performed her RNC speech with a teleprompter displaying the script to Orgazmo. Granted, I’ve got no more against teleprompters than I do, uh, meaningless verbals tics, my friends.) What that tells me is that she’s going into this unprepared.
And the first question about Rick Davis, asking it twice and then showing Palin giving the same answer twice is all the evidence the McCain camp needs to show that the media will simply not be fair in the way it edits these interviews.
It’s not newsworthy if she gives a canned answer — it is newsworthy if she gives the same canned answer twice, despite the questions being different. I imagine you’d rather they have edited out the second iteration, but you can see how that’s significant, can’t you?
That’s about as pointless a question as I can think of.
I’m not sure how you can write that with a straight face. You honestly don’t believe that a VP candidate should 1) know and 2) be able to defend their running mate’s record? Especially when the issue is so important their running mate’s suspended his campaign to deal with it?
Frankly, Palin should have said “Katie, you use the loaded phrase “conflict of interest”. How exactly do you think it is a “conflict of interest”?
You and Patrick are doing the same thing — demonstrating that it’s not difficult to produce these answers, and in so doing, pointing out that the McCain campaign’s failure to do so is evidence of gross negligence.
SEK (072055) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:34 pmYou’re kidding, Patricia? Why would they do this nonsense? The campaign seems to look at this through childlike eyes …like, let’s them over! Give us an opportunity, you’ll really like us! This is right up there with McCain allowing himself to be played on The View – and not by very smart people but a bunch of gossiping bitchy fishwives.
Dana (4d3ea0) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:38 pmLet’s not forget the big picture here. Palin has superior foreign policy experience. She can see Russia from Alaska!
john (b6fddf) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:43 pmI saw that part of the interview and interpreted the answer as sarcastic. Couric was obviously into the Gibson mode of trying to test her knowledge and not interview her. These “interviews” are validating the McCain team’s decision to limit access to her before the debate.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:44 pmMcCain has been in the Senate for 26 years. He has cast literally thousands of votes.
He’s voted on both sides of regulatory issues — he voted to deregulate the securities markets, but sponsored legislation to create a regulatory entity to specifically watch over Fannie and Freddie.
Why not ask her about a specific issue rather than “Name an instance where he has supported regulation”. THis is no different than the “Bush Doctrine” question from Gibson.
Why not ask her, “Gov. Palin, in 1991, John McCain voted to end price supports for short grain rice, but argued that price supports for medium grain rice were critical to national security. Can you defend his reasoning?”
The bottom line is that he media is NOT INTERESTED in gleaning from Palin her policy views. They are ONLY interested in producing videotape which conveys the impression that she is out of her depth.
The McCain camp’s ground rules from here forward should be “How much time will the interview get on the broadcast? Four minutes — ok, you can shoot four minutes of tape, so make your questions count.”
No more editing. Let her answers stand and fall in their entirety – not based on how the producers and editors want to make her look.
WLS (26b1e5) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:46 pmAnd the first question about Rick Davis, asking it twice and then showing Palin giving the same answer twice is all the evidence the McCain camp needs to show that the media will simply not be fair in the way it edits these interviews.
You think CBS butted Palin’s first answer to Couric’s follow-up question?
Play the clip back and listen carefully.
steve (e9d4d6) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:47 pmIf you haven’t already, wait until you see the interview portions dealing with foreign policy and the middle east.
It’s not easy to make Katie Couric look highly intelligent…..
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:48 pmThat’s what we need. Not “I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to ya.”
My immediate reaction to Sarah Palin’s response was a smile; Palin was giving her a well-deserved middle finger.
BillB (9cdf5f) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:50 pmI think Palin shoulda said that she doesn’t live and breathe Washington and doesn’t have the slightest frickin idea why she would know every detail on McCains voting record on deregulation.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:51 pmI think it’s a plus that she doesn’t have the answer at the tip of her fingers…
I commented elsewhere that off the cuff, Biden probably couldn’t point to any of Obama’s accomplishments in the Senate on deregulation either… Obama’s done next to nothing. His name was cut and pasted onto a few things to gussie up his resume, but Obama has nothing of substance on the subject to even recall.
Biden would just unravel into buffoonery…
WLS@7:46pm – You mean like in a press conference . . .
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:51 pmMD in Philly — 9/25/2008 @ 7:27 pm
Palin knows how to literally put a surgically sharp knife into the gut of Couric and other reporters.
Unfortunately, her handlers from the McCain camp have told her to put away the knife.
As suggested above, she should have told Couric that if Couric wanted to know more McCain’s record, Couric should ask McCain.
Palin should have also asked Couric why Couric did not know that Herbert Hoover was president and there was no network television in 1929.
slp (adbb56) — 9/25/2008 @ 7:53 pmbob — I’d rather her have full media coverage at a press conference than subject herself to the editorial decision making by network producers.
She is only hurting herself by giving these canned answers on questions where she is not certain.
They need to have a variety of canned answers on subjects where she is not in command of the issue. The basic politician “non-answer answer.”
In a press conference you can give the “non-answer” answer, then ignore the effort at a follow-up by going to the next reporter.
And she needs to call the press on “gotcha” questions when they ask them. There is simply NO UPSIDE to answering a gotcha question unless you have complete command of the issue and can make the questioner look foolish.
That’s why I suggested that she should have put Couric on the spot by asking Couric to define what she meant by “Conflict of Interest” and not answered that question until its meaning was clear.
The fact is that there is no “conflict of interest” involved in Davis’ situation, and Couric could not have made one out. That would have got Palin off the hook of answer the question that should have never been asked, much less answered.
WLS (26b1e5) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:05 pmAndrew Sullivan on Chris Matthews gotcha on Obama supporter Kirk Watson:
“So here’s a challenge for Chris Matthews, or anyone else in the media who wants to take it up. Go over Clinton and Obama’s actual legislative records. Find the genuine legislative accomplishments that each has to his or her name. Report to the American people on what you find. Until you do, don’t accept statements from either side about who has substance and who does not, or who traffics in “speeches” and who offers “solutions”. That’s lazy, unprofessional, and a disservice to your audience.”
I’m sure Sullivan feels different today
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:07 pmsteve — I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the CBS producers made a decision to air both answers for the purpose of showing that she answered in the same canned fashion each time — that she had been programmed to give that talking point on that subject.
Her answer was eloquent, and they could have simply broadcast the first one she gave and then moved to another subject. But broadcasting both questions and both answers, the only purpose was to show that Palin couldn’t formulate a different response the second time around. The only thing it added to the story was the idea “Look at this, isn’t she stupid?”
WLS (26b1e5) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:09 pmSarah Palin, The gift that keeps giving. Please, keep her talking. I am so blessed just listening to her talk about “good guys” and “bad guys.” Classic.
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:10 pmThere is some truth to giving the nonsense back to the press (or a political opponent). Consider this famous line:
“…There you go again…” with a smile.
That worked. And that kind of approach would work again. The press is definitely more partisan, and more unfair, than thirty years ago. But the approach works, because most of the public does not trust the press. And with good reason.
Eric Blair (d07d10) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:15 pmI don’t have time to go through it, but someone should post, the trascript on tonight’s CBS interview segment is missing her answer on Pakistan and another strong section on Akmenejad (sorry on spelling, in a hurry) is also missing. Amazing, in the video, but just not there in the text.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml
dieselm (84b4cf) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:19 pmActually, WLS, she was deeply uncomfortable when she was talking about Rick Davis. Her tone of voice was much different answering those questions than when answering the other questions.
She may have been uncomfortable because she was spinning on behalf of the campaign, giving an answer that she privately disagreed with; or she was uncomfortable because of the setting–being outside and talking over competing noises while walking.
And I was wrong in my previous comment about McCain’s contribution to the apparent failure of the bailout deal. Apparently he simply indicated general agreement with the House GOP plan, and otherwise kept his mouth shut. Which is not showboating, but it’s not an example of leadership, any more than Obama’s promise to vote however the Senate leadership asks him to vote is an example of leadership.
(Correction in light of posts at HotAir.)
kishnevi (fbc22c) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:20 pmYou’re right, MD in Philly, she should stop pretending that it’s a civil interview, and give it right back to Couric, et al.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:21 pmI agree with WLS and others, best to avoid giving your opposition (the MSM) the opportunity to edit your answers to make you look bad and them look good.
She has two interviews and numerous instances of misleading editing. Live questioning only, and if they ask why no interviews (please, please), give the specifc examples and names of people who were dishonest with the American public.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:35 pmSarah just needs to deploy “the cackle”.
MayBee (c0df75) — 9/25/2008 @ 8:44 pmI think that to show your face at the journalist club, you have to hit Palin as hard as possible in any interview. Otherwise you’re going to be called a “tool.” Never mind the irony.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 9/25/2008 @ 9:01 pmLet’s not forget the big picture here. Palin has superior foreign policy experience. She can see Russia from Alaska!
Icy Truth (2c3adb) — 9/25/2008 @ 9:04 pm— And if she’s standing outside your bedroom window she can see you parading around in six-inch spiked heels and a latex bikini.
love2008 —
I am so blessed just listening to her talk about “good guys” and “bad guys.” Classic.
Icy Truth (2c3adb) — 9/25/2008 @ 9:08 pm— That’s right. She has the stones to identify the evil regimes that exist in this world.
Compared to Gaffe-O-Matic her shakiness on a couple of loaded questions is NOTHING. Not that it will keep the MSM from piling on; they already did it tonight when CBS generously shared her answer to the Russia question with NBC.
Icy Truth (2c3adb) — 9/25/2008 @ 9:10 pmTHIS IS THE REAL MORON –
PALIN: “That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.”
Steve J. (d50eed) — 9/25/2008 @ 10:30 pmPalin is a white republican woman.
That is the only reason she is being attacked by the MSM.
If she had been American of African origin and a Democrate with the same eperience, not a word would have been said.
Hate is hate. Judging anyone based on skin color is wrong, just ask Hussein Obama.
Barry only cares about one skin color and thats why his is racist ass is going to lose.
highpockets (eee2ff) — 9/25/2008 @ 11:15 pmI appreciate everyone trying to save Sarah Palin from the media, but the woman who spoke at the convention has disappeared.
We will never know if she could have built on the outpouring of love that Americans felt for her because the handlers neutered her.
Blame the media. But don’t let McCain and his campaign wiggle away. I love Sarah. But the person I saw since the Convention is NOT Sarah.
And anyone who thinks her answers make sense does not really understand how Governor Palin can speak when she is not programmed like a robot. And John McCain, the pre-2008 darling of the elites, allowed her to be programmed.
If McCain DOES win, can anyone be sure what he really believes?
mccainpalin=demwin (4f133c) — 9/25/2008 @ 11:50 pmVariety’s blog got it right (‘ill’ about the position, not ‘all’). The readers are otherwise giving Palin the whole bimbo routine, though. Dare we treat Barry with labels in this post-racist era. White women are still good targets for the left set.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/26/2008 @ 12:05 amScott Conroy at CBS did an article about Palin being briefed on Russian military incursions into Alaskan airspace…. and he concludes with this dumbassery
“In a final effort to provide details of her experience on Russia, Palin suggested to Couric that Russian leaders fly over Alaskan territory when they travel to the U.S.
“As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska,” Palin said. “It’s just right over the border.”
But when Russian leaders travel to the United States from Moscow, such as when then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited the White House in 2005, their flights travel on a westerly path over the Atlantic, thousands of miles from Alaskan airspace.”
Obviously when she refers to “Putin rearing his head” she is speaking metaphorically.
She is telling us that an attack on US soil by Russia (Putin rearing his head) would come through Alaskan airspace… which is something everyone is Alaska has heard forever and is why we keep a nice bunch of aviators up there at Elmendorf.
Scott of course assumes Putin would “rear his head” by taking a flight from Moscow to NYC, maybe stopping for lunch in Paris.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/26/2008 @ 12:17 amhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/25/politics/fromtheroad/entry4479278.shtml
For your enjoyment
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/26/2008 @ 12:22 amNo offense to good people here, but when YOU have to explain “What Sarah meant”, obviously we are wasting a woman whose STRENGTH is her ability to say clearly what we, and most real Americans think and feel and live.
McCain is not my favorite candidate. I do not trust him; I think he worries too much about pleasing democrat liberal media types who have shown over and over they would rather betray than defend America and our values.
And McCain is throwing this election by his use of Sarah.
It is not too late: turn her loose and tell her, “Speak from that great heart of yours!”
mccainpalin=demwin (4f133c) — 9/26/2008 @ 12:49 amActually, there was an incident not too long ago where Russia violated our airspace near Alaska. I wonder if that is what Palin had in mind? Here is the link.
SAZMD (0949b6) — 9/26/2008 @ 12:51 amPalin is demented. That’s not debatable anymore. Blame this on liberal conspiracy all you want, but she’s just demented.
Nikolay (f5b13d) — 9/26/2008 @ 1:38 amBlame this on liberal conspiracy all you want, but she’s just demented.
Unfortunately, to have a conspiracy, the perpetrators must at least attempt to conceal their actions. Nikolay – you don’t know anything about editing, do you?
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/26/2008 @ 2:44 amSo you claim that this gibberish that Palin is spouting is not really her words, but just some psychodelic cut-up? Really? And you have any proof of that?
Nikolay (d3a496) — 9/26/2008 @ 3:34 amSo I take it you have trouble with reading and comprehension Nikolay? Your schooling inadequacies like being able to read is not our problem.
Noelie (5e0c47) — 9/26/2008 @ 3:50 amThe problems with transcript have nothing to do with the clip I’m linking to. Did you watch it? It’s just Palin being asked about the central question of today and answering, uniterrupted, with the diarrhea of endless robotic nonsense. I don’t see anyone claiming that these were not his words in this thread.
Nikolay (d3a496) — 9/26/2008 @ 3:59 am“his” who?
Icy Truth (f6198c) — 9/26/2008 @ 5:14 amjohn wrote: Let’s not forget the big picture here. Palin has superior foreign policy experience. She can see Russia from Alaska!
I am sure that in the aftermath of 9/11, one of the options that Palin considered did NOT include sending $300 million in cash to Iran.
Joe Biden, on the other hand…
L.N. Smithee (72cd90) — 9/26/2008 @ 6:03 amAlthough I’ve seen the clip only a few times, Sarah’s response was clear to me in a particular local way. Sarah’s facial expression when she answers should clue people in to our Alaskan context.
ken in anchorage (8ee641) — 9/26/2008 @ 7:02 amSimply put, Sarah is P.O.’d at Katie and isn’t gonna be taking an garbage from her. Think of it this way. Down south, when you’ve said something and a Lady responds “well bless your heart.” She isn’t really saying bless your heart now is she.
Watch the clip again with this in mind and see if you believe Sarah to be bewildered. She’ll bide her time and then let loose later.
Myself, I would pull out a clip of McCain being interviewed by Katie herself and just expose the MSM for the idiots they are.
love 2008 –
Are you kidding? It’s not Sarah’s words that you love. It’s the edits and Couric-style questions that make you laugh. At least give credit where credit is due.
Any idea if Ho’ would threaten the networks’ license if he were treated this way? He can’t even handle discussion without calling in the attorneys. That’s your dictator. Maybe McCain should threaten people. Re-read # 31, 32 and 39 up-thread for help. And thanks for supporting A-A at this crucial time.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/26/2008 @ 8:28 amSarah Speaks much better then this guy.
“I Give uh Good um Speech“
ML (14488c) — 9/26/2008 @ 9:32 amCBS is not unfair to Republicans, especially John McCain. In June, I believe, but definitely during this summer, either during Obama’s trip or during the Olympics, Ms Katie “I’ll edit McCain’s answers to make him look smarter” Couric, unethically edited McCain’s interview to make him look much smarter and in touch than he was. It was so egregious that I complained, along with many others, to CBS to no avail. She never, ever apologized or explained, nor did CBS.
Another Sarah (bb3605) — 9/26/2008 @ 11:34 pmMedia Matters for Marxist America “graces” us with its presence once again.
Icy Truth (e88f15) — 9/27/2008 @ 12:41 amI have to wonder who are the idiots that run McCain’s campaign. Thier PR/media stragety is just God-awful.
1 – When the banks started to fail, they should have been ready to go with “Fannie Mae is the Democrat Party’s Enron” and beat on the Democrats. Instead we get complaints about Wall Street greed.
2 – They have some spokesman named Tucker something , who is completely unable to BS his way out of a question he doesn’t want to answer or know the answer to.
3 – Didn’t they ever watch the infamous Ann Coulter – Katie Couric interview on the Today show for Ann’s book Slander? Katie was a nasty little c-word… they should have expected the same treatment.
It’s just pathetic
VinceP1974 (46af2d) — 9/27/2008 @ 2:04 amI don’t understand the complaints about “gotcha” questions.
She wasn’t asking tabloid questions, or attacking her character with her questions, as far as I could see.
She didn’t lob softballs either, which surprised me a bit from Katie Couric.
But aren’t they supposed to ask “gotcha” questions, when they interview candidates? Not “gotcha” in a mean sense, but yeah, ask them the hard questions.
I want “journalists” when they interview these people, be it Obama or Biden or Palin or McCain, to ask them some hard questions. To inform me.
Because we get the answers to most of the softball questions already, in the campaign ads and press releases. Why bother having an interview, if they don’t ask something that challenges the interviewee?
If candidates want to enumerate their positives and their qualifications, they can do so at any time, and through other intermediaries like their supporters.
But when we get these rare chances when a reporter gets an interview with a Ms. Palin, for example, we deserve to see some hard questions asked. And perhaps especially in her case, since her past national exposure is virtually zero, so we consequently have little information to go on.
squirrel (6aeeca) — 9/27/2008 @ 12:34 pmThere is everything good and right with Sara Palin. Let her be herself and don’t over rehearse her. She is best being herself, honest and open. I would trust this lady with America. I would not a certain senator who was a Saul Alinsky — Chicago organizer. He seems to plays the race card very other day, when he is not pouting over a campaign ad.
Marie Jon
Marie Jon (56a0a8) — 9/29/2008 @ 3:26 am