WaPo: Sources Say CBS has more embarrassing Palin footage to air this week

[Lunar]

Why couldn't she say that then instead of completely ignoring the question (which said "specifically") asked three times and lying and saying "all of them."

[Likely Voter]

Why couldn't she say that then instead of completely ignoring the question (which said "specifically") asked three times and lying and saying "all of them."

maybe she was referring to 'the Internets' when she said 'all of them'

[Lunar]

I'm not trying to really prove anything, only:
A) It's kind of funny
and B) It's ridiculous to try and argue that Palin wasn't confused/nervous and gave an inappropriate answer to a simple question. 

[cinyc]

Why couldn't she say that then instead of completely ignoring the question (which said "specifically") asked three times and lying and saying "all of them."

I couldn't answer which newspapers I read every day.  All of them is a pretty good answer.   Last week, it might have been the Tennessee papers and Knoxville TV station websites because of the Palin hacking story.  Tomorrow, I might read a bunch of articles from the Wall Street Journal to keep up on the bailout, articles from the print edition of the New York Post or Daily News, two New York Times articles, a Washington Times article, a National Post (Canada) article, a Telegraph (London) article from a Drudge link and an Anchorage Daily News article.  All of them.  

This isn't 1976.  Most Americans under 50 don't get our news from one newspaper.  We read the articles we want to read from multiple newspapers.  Which exact newspapers we read varies each day, depending on the news of the day.  

[Lunar]

Why couldn't she say that then instead of completely ignoring the question (which said "specifically") asked three times and lying and saying "all of them."

I couldn't answer which newspapers I read every day.  All of them is a pretty good answer.   Last week, it might have been the Knoxville papers and TV station websites because of the Palin hacking story.  Tomorrow, I might read a bunch of articles from the Wall Street Journal to keep up on the bailout, articles from the print edition of the New York Post or Daily News, two New York Times articles, a Washington Times article, a National Post (Canada) article, a Telegraph (London) article from a Drudge link and an Anchorage Daily News article.  All of them.  

This isn't 1976.  Most Americans under 50 don't get our news from one newspaper.  We read the articles we want to read from multiple newspapers.  Which exact newspapers we read varies each day, depending on the news of the day.  

If Palin said that, there wouldn't be a news story about the response.  I think Couric, who works for a television news-story, knows that newspapers are dying as a medium.  If Palin thought the question should be broadened to include her favorite news websites, she could have.  Couric was clearly looking for specifics (she said "specifics" three times), I don't know why you have to spin this so hard, Palin's answer was obviously flubbed - much like things Biden and Obama do occasionally.

[cinyc]

If Palin said that, there wouldn't be a news story about the response.  I think Couric, who works for a television news-story, knows that newspapers are dying as a medium.  If Palin thought the question should be broadened to include her favorite news websites, she could have.  Couric was clearly looking for specifics (she said "specifics" three times), I don't know why you have to spin this so hard, Palin's answer was obviously flubbed - much like things Biden and Obama do occasionally.

The answer wasn't flubbed.  That this is a "news story" speaks more about the sorry state of the MSM than anything else. 

If Palin wanted to name newspapers that she reads, I'm sure that she could.   You think she hasn't heard of the New York Times or Washington Post?  Just because Katie Couric asks for specifics doesn't mean someone has to give them.

[Lunar]

She doesn't have to obviously dodge the question if she doesn't want to answer.  I think she was simply nervous and got a bit of stage-fright, the entire interview is filled with awkward responses.  Remember: Q: How specifically will you spread democracy abroad? Palin: Specifically, I'll spread democracy around the world.  [democracy is great].  It takes a fair bit of spin to say her answer was right on, especially given the larger context of the universally panned interview, but whatevsky.

I'm not going to argue this any further, but Palin's response was obviously not responsive (Couric: "Can you name a couple of them?") to any objective observer.  It's not a big deal, I don't think she's incapable of simply naming a newspaper, it just showed that she was having a hard time dealing with Couric's aggressive pseudo-antagonism.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

She doesn't have to obviously dodge the question if she doesn't want to answer.  I think she was simply nervous and got a bit of stage-fright, the entire interview is filled with awkward responses.  Remember: Q: How specifically will you spread democracy abroad? Palin: Specifically, I'll spread democracy around the world.  [democracy is great].  It takes a fair bit of spin to say her answer was right on, especially given the larger context of the universally panned interview, but whatevsky.

I'm not going to argue this any further, but Palin's response was obviously not responsive (Couric: "Can you name a couple of them?") to any objective observer.  It's not a big deal, I don't think she's incapable of simply naming a newspaper, it just showed that she was having a hard time dealing with Couric's aggressive pseudo-antagonism.

agreed, the stage fright is causing her brain to freeze

[Lunar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE9BWP84sLo&eurl

The entire new video clip, included some non-talked about parts on this thread.  Wait until tomorrow for the rest.

[cinyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE9BWP84sLo&eurl

The entire new video clip, included some non-talked about parts on this thread.  Wait until tomorrow for the rest.

More importantly, the full (supposedly) unedited transcript is here.

[Eraserhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE9BWP84sLo&eurl

The entire new video clip, included some non-talked about parts on this thread.  Wait until tomorrow for the rest.

There wasn't anything too bad in there. The global warming stuff was pretty questionable but it certainly wasn't on the level of some of the previous stuff.

[Lunar]

Tomorrow or Thursday we get the Supreme Court decision though!

[Eraserhead]

Tomorrow or Thursday we get the Supreme Court decision though!

Yeah, I do want to see that.

[daboese]

She is always hovering above disaster with her answers.

I am sorry to say, but she is really stupid.
She did not want to name one newspaper, since she would have been stuck with that answer if someone from that newspaper critisised her, and she cannot cry "gotcha" like Statesright or ghostmonkey anymore. This is pathetic.

I can understand now why she did well in debates with someone (remember, Alaska has only 650.000 inhabitants) not listening carefully about what she is saying.
She seems to be so much used to give an eluding answer that she is unable to answer even one question straight. She doesn't want to make any mistakes, so her answers are even more far away from the point. All of her answers are like "I believe in this, but [of course] I would always accept the other opinion and I am for letting things the way they are".
The whole world is laughing about her.
She believes that global warming is not only made by mankind, but we have to do something against it (Couric didn't elaborate on this one, since she could have asked that, if Palin thinks that it is partly due to the cyclicity, how we could do something against it). She believes that it is not right for a 15-year old to have an abortion even if she was raped by her father, but noone should go to jail for it if she did an abortion. She believes that science is wrong and creationism is right, but she wouldn't impose it on schools, and so on ... And so she is trying not to offend anyone, by just making those typical politician-statements without ever proposing anything. Aren't you tired of exactly this kind of stuff?
One day, she might come up with the idea that all of her beliefs should be made law, and then you guys will have a BIG problem. Much bigger than you can ever imagine.

Remember: It is just your average hockey mom with Joe sixpack who want to become VP, anyone could do that! Isn't this great?!?!

[Franzl]

One day, she might come up with the idea that all of her beliefs should be made law, and then you guys will have a BIG problem. Much bigger than you can ever imagine.

Oh...I'm sorry, you must know much more about the Constitution then I do. Presidents are able to pass laws as they see fit?

[daboese]

You know that your question was very stupid, right?

[Franzl]

You know that your question was very stupid, right?

lol, you were implying that Sarah Palin, because of her beliefs, would pose a danger if she ever wanted to make these beliefs into law.

I don't see any relevance, seeing as no law can be passed without congressional approval.

If anything, that implication was stupid.

[daboese]

One day in the future, the Congress might be controlled by Republicans again?
Possibly those who would support the president?
Of course, then you will still have the judiciary power who might overturn it. Still, it is a potential danger in any way. Again, your question was stupid. Possibly, try to believe that I am not.

Why are you actually voting for a president if he/she cannot make any politics anyway?

[Franzl]

One day in the future, the Congress might be controlled by Republicans again?
Possibly those who would support the president?
Of course, then you will still have the judiciary power who might overturn it. Still, it is a potential danger in any way.

depends which views you're talking about. Abortion is impossible, considering that a ban has been ruled unconstitutional. See Roe v. Wade. (although I don't see how a ban on abortion can be considered "dangerous".)

And concerning global warming...of course, her answer was quite vague (I'm not arguing against that point), but is it really necessary to believe that 100% of global warming is caused by humans? I've heard plenty of reasonable arguments that other factors also play a role.

And about creationism...she didn't argue against teaching science...not at all. The mere fact that she wishes to include creationism as a part of the school program is not a problem, in my eyes at least, as long as it is clearly identified as a non-scientific theory. We teach Greek mythology as well, after all. (Not to mention that the Federal government doesn't have to much to say in the matter, anyway, so why are her views even relevant?)


I think it's perfectly legitimate to question her judgement because of any of these issues, which I have done on several occasions. I do not think Palin is qualified for the job...but I think people should be more careful with words like "dangerous" or "crazy".

[Franzl]

Why are you actually voting for a president if he/she cannot make any politics anyway?

because the President does have influence on many many issues, but the fact remains that anything too crazy would get thrown out by congress, even if a Republican one.

There are some left-wing liberals that want to completely abolish free trade...Obviously, even with a big Democratic majority in Congress, that wouldn't be happening.


And of course, the President is commander-in-chief of the military...obviously that's a pretty important role.

[daboese]

depends which views you're talking about. Abortion is impossible, considering that a ban has been ruled unconstitutional. See Roe v. Wade. (although I don't see how a ban on abortion can be considered "dangerous".)

It would move the US more and more into the right-wing corner. And with time, the judges might think that Roe vs. Wade might be overthrown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 10 years, 100% of global warmimg is caused by humans. Simply because without CO2 emission, it would be even at the peak of the cyclic period colder than then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This scorns science. You can also teach the spaghetti monster theory then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. It is dangerous, much more than you believe. If you know history, then you will always see a movement towards certain policies. It is unhistorical that mankind is suddenly doing one thing, or something happens in simply one day. It will take years, if not decades. And the way she wants to go is towards these laws. No, they are of course the last step, possibly not even done by her, but these policies and her beliefs are the very first step in this direction.
Overthrowing Roe vs. Wade. Having the cold war again. Convince the public that global warming is not caused by men. Having creationism being taught instead of science. No, she is not saying this, but she is clearly going into that direction, when she will believe these things publically and it is accepted. The next step is then that there will be small inroads towards these policies, and in the end you have the law.

[Franzl]

No. It is dangerous, much more than you believe. If you know history, then you will always see a movement towards certain policies. It is unhistorical that mankind is suddenly doing one thing, or something happens in simply one day. It will take years, if not decades. And the way she wants to go is towards these laws. No, they are of course the last step, possibly not even done by her, but these policies and her beliefs are the very first step in this direction.

I agree in theory, but you can say that about practically any political movement.

In fact, I'm sure conservatives thought just that about Roe v. Wade when it was decided. What makes liberals' fears of illegalizing abortion more justifiable?

Believe me, I get just as scared when I think about what might happen if the Linke ever got any power in Germany.

[Lunar]

Daboese, two things:
1) You should click on Cynic's link to the full transcript, posted right my giant text link.  Couric actually does try and force Palin to elaborate on the global warming thing.  The interview segment is actually much longer than that YouTube clip.
2) If you look at her debates in Alaska, or previous interviews as governor, she's quite solid.  It's a bit offensive for you to declare she's stupid when at worse she's ignorant and at best (which is more likely) she's just a deer caught in the headlights - panic from Couric's aggressive, cold interviewing style.

[Lunar]

Here's an article headlining Politico, posted an hour ago:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14158.html

It's about her small debate wins.  Guten nacht.

[daboese]

In fact, I'm sure conservatives thought just that about Roe v. Wade when it was decided. What makes liberals' fears of illegalizing abortion more justifiable?

Because it is the right of the women to decide whether she wants a child or not. For an unwanted child, things are much worse than for one which is wanted by its parents. This, however is another discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is a small player, and will get increasingly unimportant. And "die Linke" will never have a chancellor.