Posted on 09/12/2008 7:55:47 AM PDT by IrishMike
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson may have thought he was giving a fair but “tough” interview to Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, in the first press contact with the new vice-presidential candidate.
But ABC did itself no favors. Viewers watching the dagger-and-sheath interview — aired on national television last night and endlessly replayed on “YouTube” — could easily draw a different conclusion. Unconsciously or not, Gibson’s manner and language fairly dripped with condescension and disbelief.
It was the flourish of a trial attorney who chooses to substitute body language for substance, in persuading the jury that the witness is unworthy.
It was, to be plain, a distraction from what could have been an interesting conversation.
Most women, even now, are quite familiar with being talked over and not so subtly demeaned when they venture an opinion. It happens at dinner parties, in Washington and New York, where Gibson reigns as a network anchor, and even in educational classrooms.
It can happen to students who venture to Ivy League colleges without the benefit of a private preparatory school. They may never have heard about a “Nash equilibrium” or “Pareto optimality.” It doesn’t mean they are stupid or without cunning.
There was no evident need to demand of Palin three times in a row how she could consider herself to have the necessary qualifications for the vice presidency. The host’s closing line was a debater’s sally — “doesn’t that take some hubris?” Gibson asked, demanding again how a local mayor and Northern Exposure governor could properly consider national office.
Religious folk may also not chuckle, when the assertion that God has a plan for the world is recast as a claim that God is sending down Defense Department snowflakes for the conduct of the war in Iraq. Believing that the Iraqi people have a right to live in freedom, without Saddam Hussein, does not mean that Sarah Palin thinks she is Joan of Arc.
And then there is the issue of the “Bush doctrine.” Charlie Gibson seemed to delight in suggesting that Governor Palin did not know what the phrase meant. But there are “Bush doctrines” on any number of issues, not least, educational policy and free trade (which the Democrats have now abandoned).
Without saying so, Gibson had in mind the 2002 National Security Strategy statement, which noted that a country does not have to suffer a catastrophic attack before using the prerogatives of self-defense, and can act when a foreign attack is imminent.
But Gibson is wrong to suppose that the right of anticipatory self-defense began with George Bush. Indeed, it was put forward early in the history of the American republic, by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, in the so-called “Caroline affair” in 1837.
And strangely enough, this doctrine was carved out in the frozen North. In the middle of winter, American sympathizers crossed the Niagara River to help Canadians in their rebellion against the British Crown. The British burned their boat and sent one man to his death over the falls. Daniel Webster conceded that the British were permitted to use force because the "necessity of that self-defence” was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”
It would have been delicious if Governor Palin had responded with the name Daniel Webster. But she had the idea, and one may excuse even a national television anchor for not knowing the doctrine’s real origin.
In one last flurry, Gibson complained that he was “lost in a blizzard of words here.” The trope was unconscious, no doubt.
The television host, who came to broadcasting from Princeton and its Tower Club, via Washington’s Sidwell Friends School, would have been well served to ask some local folk (or even some big city women) what they thought of his navigation skills.
I have observed that type of body language in many liberals who think their IQs are higher than yours and that only they know best.
Elections come and go, but Sarah Palin is a fundamental threat to the base of the Democratic Party.
It was Cato the Elder, and he would end any speech in the Senate about any subject with “and furthermore, Carthage should be destroyed”. “Carthago delenda est”
She threatens a core element of the dRAT party’s base - women.
The Democrats and liberal media are hysterical.
I guess I’m alone here, but I thought Gibson was fine.
Gov. Palin has to be able to handle these tests, to show she is strong. And so far, so good.
Look she can’t just go on Limbaugh’s show, he wouldn’t ask anything of substance. She also can’t have a press conference, she’d take too many shots.
But Gibson is fine, Brokaw better, and Lehrer better yet.
“...fear the power of a conservative woman.”
As they should. A conservative woman is sure of herself, can administer a blow between the pant legs in a skirt and heels, and look graceful doing it, tag a moose at 200 yards, field dress it, then get home in time to stir things up as a community leader (unlike a community organizer).
I'm hoping that McCain-Palin will not allow even the setting to be repeated - they were sitting way too close - Palin seemed small and what's his name large - which is the case, but compare that to the setting between O’Reilly and Hillary - even the setting was fair and balanced.
The obvious “I don't believe you” demeanor of Gibson was way over the top.
“Gov. Palin has to be able to handle these tests, to show she is strong.”
Brother, have you ever seen those photos of her with the moose? We know she’s strong. Gov. Palin has five children, for goodness sakes.
No conservative objects to interviews with the “reporters” from the Red propaganda machine. It is the double standard we object to. A perfect example would be Oprah.
McCain's campaign probably only chose ABC News, who in turn tapped Gibson. It is easy to see why it was ABC. NBC is too lefty, CBS would use Couric, which would be a distraction, Fox would be considered too friendly, and CNN not worthy. So it was ABC.
I would like to know what “Charlie” thinks are credentials that prepare someone for the office POTUS. Seriously can anyone say they are truly ready any more than she can? Maybe a vice-president, but know one in this election, IMO.
I personally take great delight in the thought that the “reigning anchor” of New York news was unable to smite Governor Palin with his grim, disapproving stare.
Remember, folks, that this was her first mano-a-mano with the MSM. She’s only going to get better...
Will there be any casual interviewing? You know, walking with the candidate through Wasilla instead of grilling her?
I trashed the letter.
It was the least I could do.
Get off the air ya big dope!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
. . Hah! With the “Obama One”, most high, most exalted, Charlie was lost in a flurry of “uh’s” . . . “uh, uh, change, uh, uh, hope, uh, uh, uh, stinky, uh, uh, lipstick, uh, uh, fish . . . . uh, uh and for good measure, uh, Charlie . . and, oh yeah, I forgot, uh, I might add audacity . .”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.