I watched the first segment of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin and my initial impression is that she made no truly self-defeating blunders. To be sure, she came across a little more fallibly human and a little less of the hockey mom/policy wonk/Arctic warrior idealized image the GOP would like to foster as long as possible. However, this was inevitable and only for the good in the long term.

I saw some awkwardness but nothing that will cause the voting public to turn from her and most certainly not the Republican base. Democrats will undoubtedly play up her mistakes but they will regret it if they attempt to conflate them into major issues and then run them into the ground.

Let me start by looking at two moments that some pundits and reporters seemed to find controversial.

The first is when Gibson asked about Palin’s statement in church that U.S. troops are on a “mission from God” in Iraq. Palin first attempted to suggest she was misquoted. She then evoked Lincoln by insisting she “would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.” While her defense was slightly arcane, I think it was completely accurate.

You have to take the line Gibson selected and then put it in context with the sentence that followed it. Palin said, “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task from God. We have to pray there is a plan and that it's God's plan.” The first part, especially on its own, does sound like an admonition (i.e. Go forth and kill infidels, oh noble crusaders) but the second part is plainly entreaty (i.e. Please let us be doing the right thing). Palin’s church may be conservative, even fundamentalist, but I do not see anything in what she said as fanatical.

The second moment was Gibson’s question about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Russia over its invasion of Georgia. Palin’s immediate responded, “"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

This is indeed what membership in NATO implies and Palin later amended her response after several follow-up questions, to add, “It doesn't have to lead to war . . . but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us.” The quibble here is that some voters probably would have like to have heard the other options placed before a strong endorsement for possible military action. Some criticize McCain as being too “trigger happy” in his foreign policy. Palin’s answer did not put those concerns to rest.

The response I found far more interesting along this line came much later in the interview, when Palin asserted her hope that someday we would “get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.” Do most Americans see war as an inevitable first option to foreign policy threats today?

Overall, Palin struck me as personable and likable but holding views and supporting policies I often found less than admirable. Many voters feel about Obama this way. Indeed, I was struck by how much Palin reminds me of Obama and I do not mean in the sense that both are young, both have rapidly risen on the national scene, and both are criticized by their opponents as insufficiently experienced.

No, Palin reminds me of Obama because both are smart; specifically, both learn quickly from their mistakes. I find Obama more forthcoming in admitting he has changed his mind or even been wrong. Palin is a little more the traditional politician in avoiding such admissions but she will adjust her style and positions to reflect reality and common sense.

A fine example of her ability to learn is her first year as mayor of Wasilla, which was profiled is yesterday’s Seattle Times. Palin herself has acknowledged, “I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor.”

Palin’s first bid for mayor was in 1996, after four years on City Council. She ran as a reformer, promising to fix the town's “current tax-and-spend mentality” and its “stale leadership,” which she accused of meeting citizen requests for help with “complacency, inaction and even total disregard.” Her campaign was energetic and aggressive. Several of the city's department heads objected Palin went “too far” in vilifying them but she won with an impressive fifty-eight percent of the vote.

It quickly became clear that while Palin ran as a populist, she intended to govern more as an ideologue and had a tendency to reduce issues to a “me versus them” mentality.

On the day she took office, Palin fired the city’s Museum Director. Ten days later, Palin requested all city department heads provide her with letters of resignation, saying she would decide which to accept. Palin made it clear those wanting to remain must demonstrate their loyalty and support to her personally. She eventually fired the Police Chief, telling him, “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern.” Several other department heads and city employees chose to quit.

Palin twice asked the city Librarian about the possibility of banning certain books. The Librarian refused to consider the request both times. Although insisting the questions were purely rhetorical, Palin subsequently attempted to fire the Librarian, withdrawing the order after a public outcry.

She attempted to fill vacancies on City Council by appointing replacements herself until the City Attorney informed her she had no right to do so and ordered her to cease and desist.

Except for this last example, none of Palin’s actions were illegal; a federal judge ruled in 2000 that Palin had the right to fire any city employee purely at her discretion. Her actions were not even very unusual in the world of politics. However, as the town paper, the Frontiersman, opined, Palin seemed to regard her election as a “coronation.” The mood was sour enough that some residents met and talked about a recall.

An analogy might be the first two years of Bill Clinton’s first term, when he interpreted his election as a mandate to undo the Reagan years. Clinton saved his Presidency and was re-elected when he adapted and began promoting what people liked about Reagan (i.e. smaller government) and reforming what they did not like (i.e. big deficits). In much the same way, Palin learned to check and redefine herself, twice winning re-election as Wasilla’s mayor.

Contrast Palin’s rocky start then to her wildly successful first two years as Alaska’s Governor. She genuinely cut what she felt was waste and pork and took on the oil companies. But Palin also understood that it sometimes matters less what you do than how you position yourself.

She sold the Governor’s airplane as an unnecessary extravagance but continued to fly often on commercial airlines, sometimes with her husband and/or children, billing taxpayers for the trips as “official business.” She fired the chef at the Governor’s mansion, saying she preferred to cook herself but then found the woman other jobs in state government.

The “Bridge to Nowhere” is the highest profile example of her political acumen. Critics deride her statement “I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’” as a lie but it is absolute truth on face value. Palin was the one who ultimately killed the project.

As for the charge that she was for the bridge before she was against it, I give her credit for recognizing it had become a boondoggle in Congress and an embarrassment for Alaska. I can easily imagine President Bush building the bridge no matter what because he had given his word. I only wish McCain could walk away from unpopular and unsuccessful ventures so easily.

The real genius in Palin’s “Thanks but no thanks” and her follow-up line – “I told Congress if we want a bridge, we'll build it ourselves.” – are their implication that Palin turned down federal funds and might even tax Alaskans instead. Saving federal taxpayers money, taking an unpopular stand against her own constituents – what a courageous, honorable public servant, what a maverick.

In truth, Congress had already given Alaska $223 million of the estimated $400 million needed for the bridge’s construction when Palin kyboshed the project. Rather than return the money, Palin kept it and used $150 million of it for other Alaska state highway projects, including an access road to the point where the bridge would have stood (dubbed “the Road to Nowhere” by Alaskans). The remaining $73 million sits in a bank account, as per the Alaska Department of Transportation.

Palin did prevent the building of a bridge many voters had come to see as silly but she never saved federal taxpayers a dime. As a citizen, I find this reprehensible. As a political observer, I have to admire Palin’s shrewdness.

In her interview last night, Gibson asked Palin if she supported the Bush Doctrine. Palin stared a few seconds and then asked, “In what respect, Charlie?” From this and their subsequent verbal sparring, it was obvious that Palin had no idea the “Bush Doctrine” referred to justifiable preemptive military strikes by the U.S. against perceived enemies.

Is this a big mistake or a big deal? It would have been preferable had Palin been able to associate the concept with its label, even if most Americans watching her probably could not have done so either. However, once the concept of preemptive strikes was made clear to her, she was direct and forceful in expressing her support for them, saying, “If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”

I would have liked to hear her thoughts on what constitutes “legitimate and enough intelligence” as well as an “imminent strike” but, alas, those follow-ups were not asked.

In any case, to the extent Palin looked bad in that exchange, it was not because of her failure to know what the Bush Doctrine says specifically but rather her attempts to avoid admitting she did not know the answer to a question.

Republican strategist John Feehery believes voters’ opinions are formed by overall impressions and overarching themes. In the case of Palin, he warns would-be Democratic critics, “There's bigger truths out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter.”

I do not agree with Feehery; I think facts matter. However, Democrats are going to have to content themselves with chipping away at chinks in Palin’s armor because she is not going to be the one to give them a knockout punch. I guarantee that in future interviews, Palin will be painfully knowledgeable about the Bush Doctrine as well as having a better strategy for dealing with questions that leave her flummoxed.

TheBell:

It would have been preferable had Palin been able to associate the concept with its label, even if most Americans watching her probably could not have done so either.

the fact that most americans are as uninformed as palin is an important item for democrats to note--not because it demonstrates one of palin's weakness, but rather one of her strengths.

Comparing her mind with Obama's in this context only reflects how little you expect from our leaders. There is absolutely no linkage between her capabilities and grasp of issues and what you hear from Obama on any number of issues. The mere fact that you think her answers were valid tells me that even the Great Bell has succumbed to the danger of expecting so little from these candidates and the nation itself. If she is going to be compared with Obama, let ask her complex questions and do not allow her to softball her way out of them using unspecific talking points. You say she was a reformed in Alaska. Real reform would have been giving back the money for the bridge and saying "thanks but no thanks, we need to use that money for paying down the debts incurred by the WOT".

Sorry big guy but if even you now accept this type of leader, then we deserve the government we elect.

Looks like she's at a job interview, while Gibson's leaning back and peering at her disdainfully over his glasses. But like you said, it was her first interview, and on her weakest subject. I wonder if tonight's segments will play more to her strengths.

Her answer about God's will was very strong, and will play well in Peoria (or Scranton, as the cliche now reads).

I disagree with your substantive claim about the Bush Doctrine, which doesn't formally exist in a consistent way, and means different things to different people. Gibson's explanation of it was incomplete at best. But you are right in pointing out that she gave the impression of being confused.

On Georgia and Ukraine, there was a unanimous resolution to include them in NATO, sponsored by Biden, and co-sponsored by McCain and Obama, so her position isn't out there in loony-land. It would've been nifty to bring that out, but I didn't know about it until today, and can't blame her for missing that opportunity.

I cannot imagine Obama starting out in office as Palin did as Mayor nor being so quick to fire those not willing to sign a loyality oath to serve. Perhaps you could get away with saying that their mistakes would be different but both will make mistakes due to inexperience but that is not the point you are making.

Palin has herself said she has not paid that much attention to Iraq and it was glaring in her unpreparedness for the Bush Doctrine question -- one that most people posting here in BOTF could have answered.

That leads me to wonder why she has been so incurious on national security issues up until now. And how big of a learning curve does that represent? James Fallows explains it here. <link>

and stop calling him Charlie with that little nasal upper midwest accent about half as often.

with a widescale unapologetic scorched-earth, arrogant partisan purge and repeated demonstrations of an anti-democratic, anti-due process instinct.

That's how cons govern.

and I agree with just about every point you made. The most salient is your John Feehery quote. General impressions and overarching themes - yes, Americans mostly rely on their gut. We are a visceral nation tempered - not ruled - by our intellect. It has worked for us so far.

So far, Palin passes all of my tests for Vice Presidency but one. She does not appear ready to assume the Presidency if McCain were to croak on day one. But she's got talent and she's a quick study. In all fairness, George Bush had almost eight years to figure out that job and he still ain't quite got the hang of it.

Bell, Congress took itself out of the picture on the bridge over a year before Palin was even elected. She "told Congress" nothing. She's lying. I'll let Bob Somerby do the lifting:

------------------------------­-----

Palin’s claims about the Bridge to Nowhere have been widely discussed for almost two weeks. But [the media still has their] basic chronology wrong. As all sentient beings must know by this time, the project “became a symbol of legislative abuse” shortly after it was proposed, in the fall of 2005. In response to that public firestorm, the Congress rescinded its “Bridges to Nowhere” earmark in November 2005. We explained this fact at the start of last week, linking to the detailed New York Times news report from November 2005 which explained these elementary facts. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/1/08.

Boys and girls, let’s say it again: The bridge became a “symbol of abuse” in the fall of 2005. For better or worse, Palin didn’t “reverse field” on the project until September 2007, almost two years later; the project was under debate in the state of Alaska until that time. But so what? Even now, the editors of the New York Times can’t explain the simplest facts about this widely-discussed issue.

But then, it’s hard to find an upper-end journalist who can explain this bone-simple chronology. On Sunday, the super-foppish Michael Dobbs discussed this for the Washington Post, in his ironically-named “Fact-Checker” series. Uh-oh! Dobbs, who may be the world’s dumbest human, also got the basic facts wrong:

DOBBS (9/7/08): The Republican vice-presidential candidate is overstating her opposition to earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin endorsed the the bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Gravina Island while running for governor in 2006. She only decided to kill the bridge project in 2007 after Congress voted to remove the $223 million earmark, and allow Alaska to use the money for other purposes.

That can all be defended as technically accurate (but only barely). But Dobbs quite plainly gives the impression that “Congress voted to remove the $223 million earmark” at some point after Palin became governor—it would seem, in 2007. That, of course, is baldly wrong. But then, this bungled chronology also drove that gruesome Wall Street Journal report by hapless Elizabeth Holmes:

HOLMES (9/9/08): Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.

But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

Holmes’ statements are also technically accurate. But she too conveys the clear impression that the project “became a national scandal” after Palin took office. Again, this is flatly inaccurate. Boys and girls, can we say it again?

1. The bridge “became a national scandal” in the fall of 2005.
2. Palin was elected governor in November 2006.
3. As governor, Palin stopped the project in September 2007.

It’s hard to imagine a simpler chronology. But in the mahoganied world of the upper-end “press corps,” the hockey mom’s tale has now gone for the hat trick. In just the past six days, the Post, the Journal and the Times have all managed to bungle these bone-simple facts.

Hi, Snolly G. Yes, the best attack against Palin by Democrats is not a direct attack against her but rather a general education of the facts. Many voters want to like Palin and that is coloring even some of GOP's most blatant exaggerations/misdirections/li­es at the moment but I don't think the image will look nearly so attractive if consistently portrayed in the harsh light of reality.

The Obama camp senses this but they are still too in love with the idea of why McCain is so bad on kitchen table issues instead of working harder to sell why Obama is so much better. They need to package this in a few, simple, easy-to-remember tag lines.

Thanks for your reply.

Hi, Woolley. To be clear, I am not impressed by Palin as a great leader or as an anti-pork champion or as a champion of morality and fair play. I am not going to vote for her and I will be unhappy if McCain and she are elected. However, I recognize a smart politician when I see one. She knows how to play the game well, even if the game she is playing is not an especially admirable one. I was not arguing for Dems to convert to her; I only argued she gave away nothing that would allow them to put her away. Unless some "gotcha" pops up in the next two segments of the Gibson interview, I suspect it will be a cumulative effect if she eventually loses some/most of her current shine. And she will never be anything but a hero to the Republican base.

In checking her record, Palin really has done some positive things as Governor of Alaska, including cutting pork from the state budget. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was NOT an example of it, as you rightly point out in your reply and I pointed out in my top post. Despite her manipulation on this high-profile item, she is not all talk. You can argue she is not enough real reform and I will probably agree but that is a different criticism.

Hi, Urquhart. Yes, the "God's will" business will make her unpopular with nobody but the strong anti-church in government crowd who would not have voted for her anyway.

I'll agree Palin not knowing anything specific about the Bush Doctrine is insubstantive if you'll then agree we went to war with Iraq for reasons "which don't formally exist in a consistent way and mean different things to different people." We both agree her reaction to the question was more damaging than her answer to it.

I'm not arguing that McCain is extreme for wanting to place Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. I'm arguing the impression that McCain, and apparently now Palin, see our commitment to them as NATO allies makes a military attack a highly likely/most likely first response is what brands this ticket as extreme in some eyes.

Thanks for your reply.

Hi, DallasNE. You make your case quite well but it is a different case than mine. You explain how Obama and Palin are different. I quite agree the two will make different types of mistakes because they have almost antipodal personalities and ideologies. My point is how they are alike, which is to say I think both learn from their mistakes and tend not to repeat them in the same way that Bush and, to a lesser degree, McCain and many other politicians are prone to do. I heartily agree that does not make them the same sort of politcian or the same sort of person.

As a side note, nobody who posts on BOTF could even remotely be considered "a typical American voter."

Thanks for replying.

Hi, ducadmo. She looked nervous/tense during the interview but she was seldom shaken and never completely thrown by anything. In reading some of the text myself later, I was struck by how much more rote and formulaic her answers looked in print than they sounded when she spoke them. She brings a lot of intensity and conviction to what she does, which is what has helped sell her -- and now McCain -- so effectively so far. Thanks for your open-minded reply.