Then I would make her available for moderated, real-time, on-line interviews with established internet news and opinion forums. Like Free Republic, for example.
"No Sarah for you!"
Palin reacts and answers perfectly. The questions were hardball and were handled deftly by Palin. Gibson put a lot of emphasis on certain questions that were totally ridiculous such as asking her if she believes our troops are in a "Holy war" based on a comment she had made in church. But, these are fair questions to be asked and her response was classic. She pointed out that they were based on a statement by Lincoln, not that we pray that God is on our side, but that we should pray that we are on God's side.
Contrasting this to Obama's "uh uh uh" stuff it looks very good.
I, too, have the "Palin incoming radar" running at full tilt, but she must be able to handle tough interviews filled with incredible questions, and this is a good start.
Questions like this are being posed all over the internet, they are attempts to attack Palin's character, so it is a good deal that she has the opportunity to answer and put to rest these silly notions dredged up by Obama's attack dogs.
That being said, I haven't seen the whole interview yet, and I hope things went as well in the rest of the interview. Regardless, it wasn't important that she score perfect, the campaign has a long road ahead, but if she stands well at all I predict it will be taken well by those wanting to consider her because the tougher the interview the more respect she will get just for showing up and staying cool.
I just remembered why I haven’t watched MSM in 18 yrs. It’s a wonder they still have an audience at all being this bias. Fox only from now on Mrs. Palin.
She didn't give a straight-up yes or no answer to Pakistan border incursions, but no politician does. They have to be more diplomatic than that.
The toughness of his questions toward Obama is a different subject.
Waiting for Charlie to sit down with Biden to give him a similar grilling...waiting...waiting...waiting......
Fwiw... I haven’t watched it, but I read the transcript... From the lukewarm comments here, to what I read, she didn’t do so well. Does anyone else agree? Will this be the turning point for zero?
What an insufferable ass the man is! He needs a sock in the jaw.
She did good in the face of tough snarky questions that haven’t even been asked of Obama.
I wish Ms. Palin would learn how to pronounce “nuclear”.
Even after the edits, I thought she did fine.
The longer the liberal media keeps up the “inexperience” drumbeat, the worse it’ll be for Obama.
Okay I watched it.
Madam Cuda, you blew him away. Gibson, you have nothing.
What I noticed:
1. Sarah did a great job with some very tough questions.
Questions on the level I have never seen asked of a VP candidate, or even some Presidential candidates in the last 35 years.
2. Sarah did not get rattled. She was a fluid speaker—no uh’s, um’s.
3. Sarah has a very clear view of the world and of her country, and of what is most important in life. Not like Obama, who always talks like he is in a values shooting gallery, trying to hit something, anything.
4. Charlie Gibson did not even show her the minimum level of respect due to her AS A GOVERNOR of a state.
5. Charlie Gibson was dismissive and patronizing.
6. Sarah showed that she has faced condescending men like this before. She handled him very well.
7. Sarah did not flinch from handling foreign policy questions. I could see her as President very easily.
8. Sarah uses very powerful hand gestures when she speaks. These gestures indicate a surety of belief in what she is saying, and not trying to be inclusive. She has a point to make, and uses the gestures to reinforce that. Watch carefully when she speaks—you will see it if you are looking for it.
9. Charlie Gibson was a condescending, disrespectful man. I already said that, but it needed repeating.
10. Sarah showed she can handle gotcha type questions. I can’t wait to see her debate with Joe Biden. He better wear some extra-strength Depends.
Then I would make her available for moderated, real-time, on-line interviews with established internet news and opinion forums. Like Free Republic, for example.
"No Sarah for you!"
Sarah did just fine.
Gibsons performance actually made her look good.
I sure don’t see what all the complaining is about.
What a total jerk! I do believe our Sarah had him rattled at one point.
When a candidate grants a network an interview, there's negotiations in advance between the campaign staff and the producers of the show. Demands are made by both sides....some are met, some are not. Compromises are made. But the campaign advisers fight to insure their candidate comes off at least looking well during the interview.
Unfortunately, in her interview Sarah came off sadly lacking in the staging department. She was not seated, lighted, etc. to her advantage. Thank goodness, the force of her personality and appealing facial expressions negated a lot of the poor pre-planning by her handlers.
I think it was Trump who said that his desk and chair are higher than any other furniture in his office as it commands a position of power right off the bat to all who enter his sanctorum. Charley completely commandeered the presence in last night's interview with his seating position and he used it to his advantage against Mrs. Palin.
One would think the experts on Sarah's staff would have learned lessons from the past such as the Nixon-Kennedy televised debate where adequate safeguards were not taken to put Nixon in the best light and it proved to be a turning point in JFK's campaign.
Leni