but the question should be clear. I also was unclear with what Gibson was calling the 'Bush Doctrine' until he said what he thinks it is.

In general I think the questions were reasonable, but the tone he took, much like a 'Grand Inquisitor' was not. I could not not imagine any other candidate being subjected to questions in that tone and demeanor, and taking it.

In fact, I have never seen Barak Obama being questioned that hard at all about anything. When the media questions him with the same intensity and tenacity like I saw with Palid, then I will believe the media is doing its job.

I agree that Palin was definitely unprepared for this interview, however I found Gibson's voice very calm and quiet - unlike her shrill responses. She really had no clue as to what The Bush Doctrrine is or our obligations to the rest of the NATO community. At this point I wonder how she would react to the removal of our ambasador to Venezuala.

As others may have seen me post on here in the past, it is known that I'm quite conservative (at least with respect to responsiblities given to the government) and I don't plan on voting for Obama (even thojugh I'm socially liberal (coudln't care less what people do in tehir own home))(call me one of the undecided Libertarians.)

I think that Gibson's questions were fair, however I did find his tone, inflections, and body language as very much the old professor would be to a very young naive graduate student. I haven't decided (we haven't seen the whole interview) whether that really matters since I felt the whole time that Palin wasn't up to the challenge.

Palin appeared quite unprepared, and while I wouldn't describe her as shrill as that has become right up there with lipstick on a pig, she definately appeared strained at times (if not most of the time). That is not something you would want when speaking with a foreign dignitary. The interview definately goes in the negative column for Palin, especially since I didn't feel her questions were even that difficult.

jburd1:

but the question should be clear. I also was unclear with what Gibson was calling the 'Bush Doctrine' until he said what he thinks it is.

Well, you're not running for the second highest office in the nation. It would expect someone who is to understand something that was the cornerstone of the current administration's foreign policy.

She clearly didn't until Gibson explained it to her.

I think you misunderstand. It was the name 'Bush Doctrine', not the concept. I don't remember anything ever formally naming it the 'Bush Doctrine'. So I think her better response would have been to say, 'You tell me what you are calling the Bush Doctrine and I will answer that, rather than trying to guess what he meant.

It was made part of strategic policy in 2002 or 2003. The admin harped on it for a couple of years. You don't hear about it anymore because it is stupid and sophomoric. But anyone on McCain's ticket is committed to it, so they should know what it is.

jburd1:

I think you misunderstand. It was the name 'Bush Doctrine', not the concept. I don't remember anything ever formally naming it the 'Bush Doctrine'. So I think her better response would have been to say, 'You tell me what you are calling the Bush Doctrine and I will answer that, rather than trying to guess what he meant.

Well, there's a wikipedia entry for it:

<link>

"Key elements of the Bush Doctrine include increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. The Bush Doctrine includes the controversial policy of preventive war, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. The Bush Doctrine was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

Too bad Gibson didn't Palin use her phone a friend option for that question.

But that doesn't make the definition right, nor does it make it the only possible response to the question. I still think she would have been better served to have just asked him which Bush Doctrine he was talking about.

It just seemed like Gibson was working too hard at setting the stage as the test proctor and putting her in place as the young student in for an examination. I am really surprised she let him get away with it.

jburd1:

But that doesn't make the definition right, nor does it make it the only possible response to the question. I still think she would have been better served to have just asked him which Bush Doctrine he was talking about.

You're right. She probably should have first asked him to define what he meant by the Bush Doctrine. Instead, she first tried to fumble her way through with several rehearsed talking points.

I think Gibson was genuinely surprised that she clearly had never heard that term before in any context and didn't expect to have to define it for her.