Her Candidacy is a Festering Insult
From a recent Bob Herbert editorial in the New York Times — "How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride? . . . John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate."
Check the full piece here.
Also, in today's nytimes, this editorial, an even harder hitting condemnation of this joke/insult of a ticket. The shame of this entire episode isn't so much the hapless Governor. It's McCain, whose judgment has been reduced to a pure calculated insanity of the most insidious kind.
Comments
For me as a women's college grad, a Seven Sisters grad of all places, it's really difficult not to respond very viscerally to this Sarah Palin circus. It's just so egregious. The threads on my alma mater's listserve have been very impassioned.
Nice try. But really, it just highlights how desperate you are to find fault, and ignore any fault of the Dems.
Yes, your comment's accurate, the Bush Doctrine has some alternative interpretations, but are you really defending her befuddled answer? Does the 'Bush Doctrine' really mean anything more important than as a framework for preemptive strike? Do you honestly believe she had a VP-qualified answer?
Ultimately, is there any solid demonstration of her nuanced understanding of the complex world stage? This is a woman who didn't have a passport until well into her 40s. Are you just posturing or do you truly have a defense/offense for this farce?
I just didn't see her response as befuddled. Gibson asked a question that assumed everyone had the same view of Bush that he and his friends have. Palin took the question on its face, which was vague. She asked for clarification, and Gibson tried to sound superior. I don't think it worked.
And of course it means more than just preemptive strike (or as Gibson said, "anticipatory defense"). Read this, for instance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?sub=AR
Ultimately, nothing will satisfy the opposition that Palin has a "nuanced understanding of the complex world", so she doesn't need to name-drop or talk about all the world leaders she has or hasn't met. What she needs to demonstrate are fundamental principles that show that she understands America's importance in the world, and the continuing threats against us. That's not complex.
But if it makes you feel better, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame Republicans.