<p>The media and public watchdogs have been monitoring the likes of Obama, McCain, Biden, Hillary, and Mitt Romney for almost two years. They've been thoroughly vetted, and all of them have had some highs and some serious lows. But they've been "hazed" if you will, and they've been initiated. They survived basic training.</p>
<p>But Sarah Palin has been parachuted into a position of extreme privilege NOT based on any kind of democratic system but by complete patronage on the part of McCain (or more likely, his campaign advisors). With only 60 days until the election, the country seriously needs to gut and vet the woman who may one day be president of the country. This is a fundamental right of the American citizenry, and the Republicans are trying to take it away because as we saw in the Gibson interview, Palin doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Instead, she is a campaign prop used to bolster lethargic McCain rallies like a Barbie doll with a pull-string that says the same thing (and same lies) over and over again before being put away in her mint-condition box. God forbid the ploy attracts enough ignorami to vote for someone who see in Palin's mediocrity and unqualified status a validation of themselves, and consequently imperils the country.</p>
<p>Sarah Palin, stop being a coward and face the media.</p>
<p>I think that what is being said is that it is doubted that she has spoken to the media on its own terms. The other pertinent people have already laid themselves before the call-ins and commentators with their confirmed candidacies discussed. If you have a link to a video of her engaging hard discussion after her candidacy was confirmed, please PM me with it (or post it if possible). Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s almost right, but what are these ** magazines ** in the policy process? Also, consider her statements against sex education. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are you saying that? Should you really be tempering a handicap in a Presidential Election? Does being “not even that bad” make her any good? Explain please; if “that bad” means Bush, beware that he listened to his advisor(s) (re: Architect), whereas she rejected some sound suggestions cognate with her own (declared) motives (re: Librarian, Shea).</p>
<p>By “she’s not even that bad” I mean that there are many worse options to try to land the conservative right and she doesn’t seem to be entirely stupid.</p>
<p>The media? They don’t seem to want to hear about her position when they can just call her a bad mother and whatnot. Magazines are, after all, a facet of the media – I haven’t been watching/reading the news much lately, so I only used magazines as an example after seeing them in stores. Though I can guess her daughter’s pregnancy was featured quite a bit on television with not many people wanting to hear anything else…</p>
<p>NBAChris: I am an Obama supporter. I too am scared at the notion that Palin will slide into the presidency never having been “vetted” by the press.</p>
<p>Two things are clear: 1) The McCain campaign decided it would be better to have her not talk to the press right away rather than the opposite. They were pretty clear in saying it’s because she’s not ready for prime time. You and I would agree this seems unfair and a bad thing. But they made a political calculation, and probably the right one for their campaign, even if it might be the wrong one for their country. 2) The anticipation that builds around a Palin media appearance has a couple of effects: a) It draws a lot of attention to her. I’ll bet the ratings for the Gibson interviews are going to be great. b) It allows folks to play the expectations game.</p>
<p>Here is a clip from ABC News interviewing Palin:</p>
<p>I would let the clip speak for itself. And her speak for herself. To me, she reads as someone who’s just not ready for prime time. The sort of “we’re on a mission from God” stuff is really awful, in my opinion, and I am not anti-Christian. But to other people they will say she explained her actual views well. To me, her views were altered 180 degrees for the purposes of the campaign, and what she really thinks is what she said in church. She said those things. It wasn’t her pastor saying them.</p>
<p>Beyond that, she doesn’t seem to have the gravitas or sharpness that would give me confidence in her as a representative among world leaders. She comes across too much for me as a naive. Sure some people are going to say I’m elitist. So be it.</p>
<p>I thought she was a train-wreck this evening with Charlie Gibson. She’s not un-intelligent, but she’s certainly ignorant of very important issues. Scary stuff.</p>
<p>The other candidates for president and vp have one big difference with Palin. They’ve all spent the last year or more running for president not VP, a very useful way of spending time helping our country.</p>
<p>There is nothing crazy that she said.
[Media</a> Matters - During NH debate, ABC’s Gibson characterized Obama’s Pakistan position as “essentially the Bush doctrine,” ignoring Bush contradictions](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001)
That liberal blog already noted how it is Gibson that is pushing a “Bush Doctrine”. The PR Bush Doctrine is to attack if we feel threatened, “no matter what”. No one would be so deluded to prescribe to such an ideologue…[Obama’s</a> woes have nothing to do with ‘lipstick’ - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26640489/]Obama’s”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26640489/) except maybe an arrogant man that won’t listen..:D</p>
<p>I’m an Obama/Biden supporter. Palin is starting to come out of her bubble, so let’s give her a fair chance to speak unscripted. Either she’ll prove her worth or she won’t. The Gibson interviews are only the beginning. If, after the Gibson interviews, she doesn’t begin responding to the press while on the campaign trail, then we’ll know that she’s hiding something and/or the McCain campaign only wants to trot her out for show. And don’t forget the upcoming vice presidential debate – she’s not going to be able to hide from the press or from Joe Biden when that airs. So be patient. We’re just getting started.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between having tabloid stories published about you and going in front of a press conference. What we need is the latter. Sarah Palin doesn’t get a free pass from having to answer important and tough questions just because tabloid idiots decided to jump on her family issues. If she can’t answer questions without making a fool out of herself, then she has no right to be potentially president of the United States.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, while campaigning is a lot of pomp and circumstance, it does force candidates to talk to people and debate opponents and answer media questions. Also, how a candidate runs a campaign can tell you a lot of how effective an administrator they will be as president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m glad we’re on the same page. The “Average Joe” president has been in office for the last eight years, and it was an abject failure. As George Carlin said: “Anybody can become president in America. That’s the problem.” There are some cretins out there that believe we should continually elect dumbass white conservative Republicans over and over again no matter how many times they screw up the country, but will never dare “risk” putting a black person (or a gay or an atheist, etc.) in the White House. No, that might result in, um, an unjust war and terrible economy?</p>
<p>The Republicans are doing EXACTLY that by refusing media access to her. Again, this is NOT the same as people writing stories about her family issues. I’m talking about hard-hitting journalists directly asking her things. The Republicans are refusing the press to do their job because they know she will make a fool out of herself and discredit McCain’s political ploy. They want to keep her as scripted and controlled as possible. God I hope Biden crushes her in the debate.</p>
<p>I am a researcher and my husband is a chemist. We have worked many years in the scientific area. I am astonished that we could put someone so close to the presidency who a) believes in teaching creationism in science class b) who doesn’t value education enough to fund it or encourage her children in their own educational studies and c) doesn’t believe in stem cell research. We can not afford this kind of thinking in our leaders. Scientific thinking and education in this country has been devalued to such an extent that we rank 25th in the world nations on science and math scores. I believe in science. That alone is my reason to reject the Republicans this year.</p>
<p>Really? I was thinking that the fiscal sensibility far outweighed the importance of any social policies that might be proposed (and voted down, btw) – Palin and McCain can’t do much without the approval of a heavily Democratic congress, and I’m hoping that the combination makes everyone finally make sense!</p>