Eager to see more Palin interviews

Among the things that Sarah Palin seems to do well is that she gets better with practice.  Perhaps the “gotcha” mentality of the press isn’t so bad.  Since the MSM is so eager to capture a “gotcha” moment on videotape, Palin will be certain to have no shortage of opportunities to appear on TV.  I think she’s good for TV ratings, and I think more people will hear her message, and I think more people will accept her message.  These interviews, I believe, will do more good for the McCain-Palin ticket than paid advertising will do.  I hope there will be several more prime-time and evening news interviews in the very near future.

7 Responses to “Eager to see more Palin interviews”

  1. muley Says:

    …….Dang, and I thought I had my mind made up. I almost feel like voting “none of the above” but would hate to “not” vote for a president.

  2. buckeyerino Says:

    Last I checked, you were leaning Obama. Are you now among the toss-ups? Or still leaning Obama, but with a little less certainty?

  3. muley Says:

    ……I really want to vote Obama, for I feel thats our best chance of ending the war soon, but listening to Joe Biden yesterday and all I heard was “Palin this…and Palin that” I want to hear about issues, what Is Obama going to do, not what Palin has done as a small town mayor. I would suggest Joe talk about Barack Obama and how he can fix our country if they want to get the votes needed to win in November.. But Daniel, I now consider myself “undecided”.

  4. Daniel Jack Williamson Says:

    Muley, it’s really hard to know what Obama’s true intentions are. Foreign policy can be tricky. Journalists want everything spelled out in black and white, but there are repercussions with each word spoken. Remember the Israel-Iran question Sarah Palin was asked three times in a row by Charlie Gibson? Palin stuck to her guns and delivered the same answer (the only responsible way to answer that loaded question) each time. Palin had to answer in a way that didn’t sell short the sovereignty of either the USA or Israel, and that’s just what she did. Observers in Israel and observers in the USA would not find anything alarming in Palin’s message.

    Obama prefers to take a populist stance when answering such questions, but since foreign observers could become alarmed, he sends staffers to engage in back-channel communications to assure foreign nations that he didn’t mean what he said. Here are two examples: 1) When the primary campaign came to Ohio, Obama questioned NAFTA, and Hillary’s support of it. Obama told union workers that NAFTA would be re-worked. Canada and Mexico didn’t want to hear talk of re-working NAFTA. An Obama aide was in Canada reassuring them that Obama was just trying to get elected, and that Canada shouldn’t take Obama’s words literally, as Obama wouldn’t renegotiate NAFTA. 2) Obama’s early campaign clearly had an early withdrawal message, which created worries in the United Kingdom, as the British government, who was assisting the USA in Iraq, did not want their sacrifices to be made in vain, as a crushing defeat in Iraq after hasty withdrawal would have played the same way in the U.K. that Vietnam played in the U.S. The British public would have eaten the British government alive. An Obama staffer in London reassured the British that Obama wouldn’t really pull the American troops out so suddenly, but was just trying to tell voters what he needed to tell them in order to get elected. Once the back-channel communications were made public, that Obama staffer was gone. After the primaries were over, the Obama campaign did adopt a more centrist position, and did shift the rhetoric to say Obama would be just as careful about pulling out as Bush was reckless about going in. Obama has morphed his Iraq position in just the way that the former Obama staffer in London had predicted.

    Over the past few days, I’ve been puzzling over this article, trying to figure out what the REAL truth to the matter is:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

    Did Obama visit Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe to learn of the facts on the ground? Or was he trying to recruit VIP’s to his side to help him manipulate events, as this article opines? I’m still trying to track down other sources to see where the evidence points.

  5. muley Says:

    ….thanks for the follow-up, DJ Dubya. I’ll keep this bit of info stored in my memory bank to help me decide. As I stated earlier, my main issue is bringing our troops home, and soon. I’m not real thrilled about 2012 or later, regardless of what reasons it can’t be done sooner, And I surely am not comfortable with McCain’s thinking, “it could last another 20 years” from earlier in his campaign. Again, thanks for trying to help me make an educated vote.

  6. buckeyerino Says:

    Right now, I think the candidate pushing for the fastest withdrawal is Ralph Nader.

  7. muley Says:

    ………i ain’t even goin’ there!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s