Press bias against Palin because she's a woman or Rep?

[kestra]

On Palin's interview, the one chord that struck me so wrong was the question that a lot of the media has latched onto to promote her inability to do the job: "Do you support the Bush Doctrine?" (Or something to that effect) What a loaded fucking question!! Give Obama that same question and he'd still stumble over it. the Bush doctrine? I couldn't tell you what it is. There was the pre- 9/11 doctrine. Post 9/11 doctrine. Iraq war doctrine, "Iraq quagmire" doctrine. I couldn't tell you what it is. And the refusal to explain exactly what he meant, which doctrine he was referring to, I found rude and uncalled for.

I thought the question was reasonable. Perhaps not if you're trying to become Ms. America, but it is if you're applying to become the 2nd most powerful person in the world.
I don't understand how calling her out on qualifications (and Obama too, for that matter) is automatically condescending.

[Gaviani]

Originally posted by kestra
I thought the question was reasonable. Perhaps not if you're trying to become Ms. America, but it is if you're applying to become the 2nd most powerful person in the world.
I don't understand how calling her out on qualifications (and Obama too, for that matter) is automatically condescending.

The only problem with this statement is that what "The Bush Doctrine" is is necessarily ambiguous - but don't take my word for it, believe Charles Krauthammer, the pundut that originally coined the term. What is conventionally called "The Bush Doctrine" has actually evolved through four distinct phases over the last eight years - so Palin's answer as to "in what regard" did she agree with the doctrine was not only not ignorant, but Gibson was a pedant at best and disingenuous at worst in acting as if her answer somehow indicated ignorance. The question was inherently vague as it stood, and Gibson's reaction to her understandable attempt at clarification belied his intrinsic bias towards the interview.

Given that I'd bet you couldn't tell me the four phases of the Bush Doctrine without resorting to Google, Kestra, I won't expect you to be able to articulate your specific objection to her answer, much less appreciate the inherent flaw of the question, but sufficed to say, not every question that serves to hurt the perception of Palin is inherently "fair."

Maybe you can look up a witty Family Guy quote and get back to me on this one.

[kestra]

Maybe you can look up a witty Family Guy quote and get back to me on this one.

How's "Giggadi giggadi goo" work for ya?

Given that I'd bet you couldn't tell me the four phases of the Bush Doctrine without resorting to Google, Kestra, I won't expect you to be able to articulate your specific objection to her answer, much less appreciate the inherent flaw of the question, but sufficed to say, not every question that serves to hurt the perception of Palin is inherently "fair."

I at least knew the reference pertained to the principles of preemptions, which were used to justify invading Afghanistan. (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, FYI) But you're right Gaviani, I didn't know the four phases. But then again, I'm not a public figure, or politician trying to convince a nation of my qualifications, otherwise I'd be pretty embarrassed.

[Gaviani]

Originally posted by kestra
How's "Giggadi giggadi goo" work for ya?



I at least knew the reference pertained to the principles of preemptions, which were used to justify invading Afghanistan. (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, FYI) But you're right Gaviani, I didn't know the four phases. But then again, I'm not a public figure, or politician trying to convince a nation of my qualifications, otherwise I'd be pretty embarrassed.

Again, I don't think you get it. The "gotcha" moment wasn't that she "didn't know it" - she offered a responsive answer once Gibson clarified what it was he was looking for. Rather, the "gotcha" moment, so styled, was when she ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ABOUT AN INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS TERM. Pedestrian, politician, king, or street-sweeper, if you ask someone a vague question with distinctively disjoined, multiple answers, you will get either a bullshit response or a question for clarification. To wit: if I asked you what you thought about Aristotle's post in the last page of this thread, you'd ask which post I meant - and I wouldn't be entitled to pretend you were a simpleton who hadn't read up on what his critics were saying before entering into this debate. Of course, you're not running against The One, so you're entitled to simple things like disambiguation.

[kestra]

I can see your point, however perhaps clarity could've been better achieved with a return question on Palin's part with something along the lines of: What part of the doctrine would you like to discuss? I do this all the time. By returning the question back to the original person asking, you can gain insight to the actual question being asked. In other words, bullshitting to buy you time.
Did she have an opinion on record prior to the Gibson interview on the doctrine? If not, it's my hypothesis that she hadn't heard of it, or gave it much thought. I realize, however how impossible this is to prove, and at the end of the day, doesn't mean much.

[kestra]

Creepy and funny!!
http://gizmodo.com/5046568/sarah-pal...ck-barbies-ass

Someone left a funny comment down below: "Does she come with a bionic press blocker and onboard question avoidance systems?!"