Jack was right on every point. But it wasn't a fair fight. Ol' Charlie was picking on a girl. At least that's how the unevolved Palin base will write this off. Jim Fallows in his Atlantic Monthly blog has a withering, must-read review of Round 1 that's the scary read of the day.

Link please.

<link>

"What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

"Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition."

It doesn't matter. She is a woman and the whole point of putting her on the ticket is putting "A WOMAN" on the ticket. Mission already accomplished. The onus is now on the rest of the males, in media, in the Democratic party, not to appear as "sexist", a label as damaging as, say, a "child molestor", or a "serial killer". Difficult road continues for males. Did Gibson survivied? Maybe for one night, but could he continue to do so? Could Joe Biden do so? Could Obama?

Are you for real Canexican?!?!?! What a laughable nitpicking. It was a question, a simple question, she either didn't have a clue, as the article suggests, or was so constrained by fear of telling the truth about her positions that she BS'd for an uncomfortably long time. We need a leader who is not afraid to define their positions clearly, and believes in what they stand for. At least McCain can speak a little bit more clearly (but not much).

Remember, Palin is a tough political hand who single-handedly took on the corrupt political establishment in Alaska (also known as her own party). She is a hard as nails, bare-knuckle fighter who stands guard at the Bering Straight to protect us from the dreaded Russkies. She is an unstoppable force who will stand up for what she believes in no matter what hardships she must face, whether it's a pregnant daughter, polar bears, or books with naughty words in them. She endured a flight halfway across the continent and a lengthy car ride after he water broke just to deliver her baby with the best doctor in Alaska. She can shoot a moose from helicopter. There is absolutely nothing she can't face! Nothing!

But don't be mean to her because, you know, she's just a girl.

Wassabi Cracker:

Are you for real Canexican?!?!?! What a laughable nitpicking. It was a question, a simple question, she either didn't have a clue, as the article suggests, or was so constrained by fear of telling the truth about her positions that she BS'd for an uncomfortably long time. We need a leader who is not afraid to define their positions clearly, and believes in what they stand for. At least McCain can speak a little bit more clearly (but not much).

Somebody didn't read the whole article. The portion in my first post (you know in quotes) is actually from the piece that I linked. They aren't my wrods, if you don't agree with them direct your criticism in the correct direction.