Good news for Alaskans - Palin resigning

[Steely Dan]

What must be said in this kind of, "hullabaloo", for wont of a better term, is where are Jacko's remains?

 

Weird isn't it? Palin retires and Jackson's body goes missing a short time later!

[KD in CA]

OMG!! Now Levi Johnson is making statements! Someone get Bishop Hedd some hand lotion!

[Alaska Darin]

I am giving my opinion, moron. As you are. That's what a message board is. I have strong opinions as you do. You feel just as strong about your opinion as I do about mine.

Way to face your hypocrisy.

[Magox]

I am giving my opinion, moron. As you are. That's what a message board is. I have strong opinions as you do. You feel just as strong about your opinion as I do about mine.

The question is, what kind of a moron are you talking about?

[Kelly the Dog]

Way to face your hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy is that? I said I THINK ALL CONSERVATIVES IN CONGRESS ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, and I said one, Sarah Palin, is stupid. The least intelligent person in congress besides Palin I said was a liberal, Maxine Waters.

Post #139

For what it's worth, I think pretty much every Republican in Congress is an intelligent person. There are probably a few on both sides of the aisle that if I got to hear them more I wouldn't think so. The person I think is the least intelligent is Maxine Waters, but there may be others I think are more so. Sarah Palin is simply an uneducated, ill-informed, stupid person. She really is. That has ZERO to do with her personality, charisma, appeal, views, religion, ability to give a speech, or politics.

 

I also think very intelligent people from all walks of life make gaffes and meaningless mistakes like saying JOBS is three letters. And it's just plain stupid to say a guy who was as drunk as Biden was would think enough to stop singing when a friend has a camcorder. They're crappy examples. I also admitted he makes far too many stupid mistakes to go higher in government than he has. And I said I would bet everyone in congress thinks Joe Biden is a highly intelligent guy.

 

But saying he is not an intelligent person is like saying Peyton Manning is not an accurate passer because once a game out of 30-40 passes one is wildly inaccurate. Palin repeatedly shows her stupidity and lack of knowledge most every time she faces a camera without a prepared speech.

[IDBillzFan]

But saying he is not an intelligent person is like saying Peyton Manning is not an accurate passer because once a game out of 30-40 passes one is wildly inaccurate.

Yep. Palin mispeaks, which clearly happens every time she opens her mouth, and she's the queen of stupid. Biden mispeaks, which only seems to happen every once in a great while despite his being known throughout the world as "the gaffe machine," and he's simply Peyton Manning throwing off his back foot under pressure. Happens to the best of them.

 

I think the only way to grasp the unfair perceptions of Biden as a gaffe machine is to blame it on the massive right-wing MSM -- like MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS - and the crazy late-night conversative hosts like Letterman and Conan -- who seemingly go out of their way to mock a man whose intelligence and grasp of the "think first, then talk" concept of Communications 101 is simply misunderstood.

 

Damn that right wing MSM. Damn it to hell.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yep. Palin mispeaks, which clearly happens every time she opens her mouth, and she's the queen of stupid. Biden mispeaks, which only seems to happen every once in a great while despite his being known throughout the world as "the gaffe machine," and he's simply Peyton Manning throwing off his back foot under pressure. Happens to the best of them.

 

I think the only way to grasp the unfair perceptions of Biden as a gaffe machine is to blame it on the massive right-wing MSM -- like MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS - and the crazy late-night conversative hosts like Letterman and Conan -- who seemingly go out of their way to mock a man whose intelligence and grasp of the "think first, then talk" concept of Communications 101 is simply misunderstood.

 

Damn that right wing MSM. Damn it to hell.

 

Go on, say it in public, "I, LABillzFan, truly believe that Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Joe Biden."

[DC Tom]

Go on, say it in public, "I, LABillzFan, truly believe that Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Joe Biden."

 

A comparative statement such as that serves nothing more than to mask the simple truth that neither of them has the intelligence of an oyster.

[IDBillzFan]

Go on, say it in public, "I, LABillzFan, truly believe that Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Joe Biden."

My discussion with you has absolutely nothing to do with who is more intelligent, though I give you points for trying to shift the discussion so you can keep typing "Palin is stupid" over and over. But my discussion has nothing to do with Paliin, and is simply and strictly about one very clear and obvious point: Biden has the all the intelligence of a used tampon.

[jester43]

Hey here's a good one for all you rightie rightie wingnuts: ...Brink Lindsay of the Cato Institute equates Sarah Palin to Marion Barry:

 

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21007?in=...7&out=55:45

[Kelly the Dog]

Way to miss the point.

 

How about you first?

 

Go on...admit it......when a liberal makes a gaffe its a "mistake" and when one say something offensive, its "comedy or satire"...but when a conservative makes a gaffe "all republicans are morons" and if one says something offensive, s/he needs to book their flight to Mars by tomorrow.

 

How many times do I have to say it in the same thread, this will now be three or four, I don't think liberals are necessarily more intelligent than conservatives. I think ONE conservative is not, and I do think Joe Biden is intelligent despite a huge number of gaffes, which aren't a sign of intelligence to me, even though they are mistakes that shouldn't be made.

 

A gaffe never made George Bush stupid, it was just a gaffe. Joe Biden knows how many letters there are in JOBS. In order for one to think he is "stupid" for making that gaffe, one would have to actually believe that he doesn't know how many letters there are in "JOBS".

 

I don't think that ANY gaffe that Sarah Palin has ever made shows either her intelligence or her stupidity. Gaffes have nothing to do with it. I only think her serious statements show her lack of intelligence and her stupidity.

 

I also think there is an ENORMOUS difference between a gaffe, and a stupid thing to say. Joe Biden makes too many of both. He often doesn't filter himself when he should do it more.

 

It lessens his intelligence, it doesn't negate it. He makes too many mistakes. But it's a gotcha/perfection world in politics these days, and when you make ten mistakes out of ten thousand things you say, it hurts if not kills you politically. That is Joe Biden's fault and his worst problem. He's a gaffe machine as LA says, and he says things he probably shouldn't say far too much. I agree with that completely, but it's still less than 0.01% of all the things he says.

 

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, doesn't usually answer any random series of questions, or give any random news conference, without showing her lack of knowledge.

 

That part of Biden's personality has kept him from being a serious Presidential candidate.

[Wacka]

How many times do I have to say it in the same thread, this will now be three or four, I don't think liberals are necessarily more intelligent than conservatives. I think ONE conservative is not, and I do think Joe Biden is intelligent despite a huge number of gaffes, which aren't a sign of intelligence to me, even though they are mistakes that shouldn't be made.

 

A gaffe never made George Bush stupid, it was just a gaffe. Joe Biden knows how many letters there are in JOBS. In order for one to think he is "stupid" for making that gaffe, one would have to actually believe that he doesn't know how many letters there are in "JOBS".

 

I don't think that ANY gaffe that Sarah Palin has ever made shows either her intelligence or her stupidity. Gaffes have nothing to do with it. I only think her serious statements show her lack of intelligence and her stupidity.

 

I also think there is an ENORMOUS difference between a gaffe, and a stupid thing to say. Joe Biden makes too many of both. He often doesn't filter himself when he should do it more.

 

It lessens his intelligence, it doesn't negate it. He makes too many mistakes. But it's a gotcha/perfection world in politics these days, and when you make ten mistakes out of ten thousand things you say, it hurts if not kills you politically. That is Joe Biden's fault and his worst problem. He's a gaffe machine as LA says, and he says things he probably shouldn't say far too much. I agree with that completely, but it's still less than 0.01% of all the things he says.

 

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, doesn't usually answer any random series of questions, or give any random news conference, without showing her lack of knowledge.

 

That part of Biden's personality has kept him from being a serious Presidential candidate.

 

Obama can't answer anything coherently without it being on the TOTUS.

[Kelly the Dog]

Thank you, Peggy Noonan, an extremely "intelligent" conservative.

 

"She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful."

 

"She never learned how the other sides think, or why."

 

"In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity."

 

"She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence."

 

"In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying."

 

"She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated."

 

"Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!"

 

"Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?"

 

"Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think."

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

[IDBillzFan]

A well-written article that truly seems to break it down for everyone who doesn't automatically believe that people who disagree with you are, by default, morons.

[Magox]

Thank you, Peggy Noonan, an extremely "intelligent" conservative.

 

"She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful."

 

"She never learned how the other sides think, or why."

 

"In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity."

 

"She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence."

 

"In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying."

 

"She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated."

 

"Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!"

 

"Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?"

 

"Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think."

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

Since you agree with her, what do you think about this article she wrote?

 

To-Do List: A Sentence, Not 10 Paragraphs

 

By trying to do too much, he risks not doing enough

 

Something seems off with our young president. He appears jarred. Difficult history has come over the transom. He seemed defensive and peevish with the press in his Tuesday news conference, and later with Charlie Gibson on health care, when he got nailed by a neurologist who suggested the elites who support a national program seem not to mind rationing for other people but very much mind if for themselves. All this followed the president's first bad numbers. From Politico, on Tuesday: "Eroding confidence in President Barack Obama's handling of the economy and ability to control spending have caused his approval ratings to wilt to their lowest level since taking office, according to a spate of recent polls." Independents and some Republicans who once viewed him sympathetically are "becoming skeptical."

 

You can say this is due to a lot of things, and it probably is, most especially the economy, which all the polls mentioned. But I think at bottom his problems come down to this: The Sentence. And the rough sense people have that he's not seeing to it.

 

New White Houses are always ardent for change, for breakthroughs. They want the sentence even when they don't know the sentence exists, even when they think it's a paragraph. The Obama people want, "He was the president who gave all Americans health care," and, "He lessened income inequality," and, "He took over a failed company," and other things. They want a jumble of sentences and do a jumble of things. But an administration about everything is an administration about nothing.

 

Mr. Obama is not seeing his sentence. He's missing it. This is the sentence history has given him: "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror." That's all anybody wants. It's all that's needed.

 

It is a great and worthy sentence, the kind that gives you a second term and the affectionate memory of history. If Mr. Obama earns it and makes it true of himself, he will be called good to great. But you have to meet it, you have to do it.

 

To get the first part of the sentence right would take a lot—restoring the confidence of the nation, getting spending down so people don't feel a sense of horror as they look at the future, getting or keeping the dollar sound, keeping the banks up and operating. A friend says that what's missing is an adult and responsible sense of limits, that we need to remember—we need to be reminded by our leaders—that it's not un-American to see limits. It's adult to see limits, it's right and realistic.

 

Are we beginning the journey back to anything like fiscal health? Who thinks the answer is yes? There's a pervasive sense that still, nine months into the crash, "we live in castles built on sand." We're not building on anything secure. Instead, and more and more, we have a series of presidential actions that seem less like proposals than non sequiturs. A new health-care program that Congress itself says will cost a trillion dollars over 10 years? A new energy program that will cost however many hundreds of billions in however many years? Running General Motors, and discussing where its plants should be, and what the interiors of the cars should look like, and shouldn't the little cup holder be bigger to account for Starbucks-sized coffee? Wait, what if it's a venti latte? One imagines the conversation in the car czar's office: "You know, I've always wanted to see a mauve car because mauve is my favorite color, I mean to the extent it's a color."

 

There is a persistent sense of extraneous effort, of ambitions too big and yet too small, too off point, too base-pleading, too ideological, too unaware of the imperatives. And there is the depressing psychological effect of seeing government grow so much, so big, so fast. This encourages a sense that things are out of control and cannot be made better.

 

Our economy and our security are intertwined. They are at the heart of everything, even to our ultimate continuance as a nation. Mr. Obama cannot replace his sentence with 10 paragraphs, and he can't escape it, either. Because history dictated it. History wrote it. "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror." Sentences don't really get better than that. He should stop looking for a better one. There isn't a better one.

 

Here is the full article

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124596573543456401.html

 

Do you agree with everything she just wrote?

[Kelly the Dog]

A well-written article that truly seems to break it down for everyone who doesn't automatically believe that people who disagree with you are, by default, morons.

 

Wow, an ultra conservative no name saying there is a liberal bias in the media? ANYONE who doesn't think there there is a liberal bias in the media is a moron, including any and all liberals.

 

The part in that article that really stood out to me was this section:

The first of her in-depth network sit downs came with ABC's Charles Gibson. In those sessions, Palin came across as iffy, just barely treading water. But the press dunked her, particularly after witnessing this exchange: GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: What do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His worldview? GIBSON: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. (Palin, clearly not knowing what he's driving at, responds with generalities before Gibson interjects as though he's a civics teacher and she's a lazy student.) GIBSON: "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. That we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?" This was widely cited in the media as proof that Palin was unready and over her head, and that McCain had done something "cynical" in choosing her. Except that Bush never said that, exactly, and certainly never suggested Iraq was one of many nations to be invaded. Gibson was simply wrong in suggesting the so-called "Bush Doctrine" was as immutable as the Monroe Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was always a fuzzy concept, usually described that way by the president's critics as a way of expressing disagreement with his approach to foreign policy. I remember seeing the phrase for the first time in a think piece by Steven Weisman in The New York Times in April 2002 – the very time frame suggested by Charlie Gibson. Weisman, writing about Ariel Sharon and the Middle East, defines the "doctrine" much differently than Gibson. ("Washington is filled right now with speculation about the state of Mr. Bush's thinking and which of his advisers have gained the upper hand," he wrote. "Vice President Dick Cheney and the hawks in the Pentagon are said to have encouraged Mr. Bush to support Mr. Sharon's military drive, arguing that it was simply an extension of the so-called Bush Doctrine, which holds those who harbor terrorists accountable for terrorism.") Okay. Despite how it was portrayed in the press, perhaps Charlie Gibson didn't really expose Palin as an ignoramus.

The Republicans arguing this then and now are completely missing the point that the other side is saying. Her defenders are saying "There isn't a single definition of the Bush Doctrine!" There are all kinds of them and it has changed over time, so it was a trick gotcha question!"

 

The point is she didn't know the term. She didn't know there WAS such a thing as a Bush Doctrine. She could have gave ANY interpretation at any time of what that Bush Doctrine meant but she couldn't because she'd never heard of it. She doesn't follow politics enough, she doesn't read the paper, she doesn't know there was ever such a thing, and THAT is what the liberal media and liberals were complaining about, and it's exactly the same thing that I was talking about in this thread and exactly the thing Peggy Noonan was talking about.

 

She just doesn't know, she doesn't read, she doesn't want to know, and even if she did, she cannot understand these complex things in this complex world.

 

To say she cleaned Joe Biden's clock in the debate is indeed laughable. All polls including the Fox polls and the conservative outlets said the complete opposite. Basically all she did was answer one or two questions over and over and over and over and whenever they asked her about anything else she said, "I don't want to answer that, I want to answer this", and then repeated it. It was embarrassing.

[IDBillzFan]

Wow, an ultra conservative no name saying there is a liberal bias in the media? ANYONE who doesn't think there there is a liberal bias in the media is a moron, including any and all liberals.

 

The part in that article that really stood out to me was this section:

 

The Republicans arguing this then and now are completely missing the point that the other side is saying. Her defenders are saying "There isn't a single definition of the Bush Doctrine!" There are all kinds of them and it has changed over time, so it was a trick gotcha question!"

 

The point is she didn't know the term. She didn't know there WAS such a thing as a Bush Doctrine. She could have gave ANY interpretation at any time of what that Bush Doctrine meant but she couldn't because she'd never heard of it. She doesn't follow politics enough, she doesn't read the paper, she doesn't know there was ever such a thing, and THAT is what the liberal media and liberals were complaining about, and it's exactly the same thing that I was talking about in this thread and exactly the thing Peggy Noonan was talking about.

 

She just doesn't know, she doesn't read, she doesn't want to know, and even if she did, she cannot understand these complex things in this complex world.

 

To say she cleaned Joe Biden's clock in the debate is indeed laughable. All polls including the Fox polls and the conservative outlets said the complete opposite. Basically all she did was answer one or two questions over and over and over and over and whenever they asked her about anything else she said, "I don't want to answer that, I want to answer this", and then repeated it. It was embarrassing.

I think you missed the part where I said it was for everyone who doesn't automatically believe that people who disagree with you are, by default, morons.

[Kelly the Dog]

Since you agree with her, what do you think about this article she wrote?

 

Something seems off with our young president. He appears jarred. Difficult history has come over the transom. He seemed defensive and peevish with the press in his Tuesday news conference, and later with Charlie Gibson on health care, when he got nailed by a neurologist who suggested the elites who support a national program seem not to mind rationing for other people but very much mind if for themselves. All this followed the president's first bad numbers. From Politico, on Tuesday: "Eroding confidence in President Barack Obama's handling of the economy and ability to control spending have caused his approval ratings to wilt to their lowest level since taking office, according to a spate of recent polls." Independents and some Republicans who once viewed him sympathetically are "becoming skeptical."

 

You can say this is due to a lot of things, and it probably is, most especially the economy, which all the polls mentioned. But I think at bottom his problems come down to this: The Sentence. And the rough sense people have that he's not seeing to it.

 

New White Houses are always ardent for change, for breakthroughs. They want the sentence even when they don't know the sentence exists, even when they think it's a paragraph. The Obama people want, "He was the president who gave all Americans health care," and, "He lessened income inequality," and, "He took over a failed company," and other things. They want a jumble of sentences and do a jumble of things. But an administration about everything is an administration about nothing.

 

Mr. Obama is not seeing his sentence. He's missing it. This is the sentence history has given him: "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror." That's all anybody wants. It's all that's needed.

 

It is a great and worthy sentence, the kind that gives you a second term and the affectionate memory of history. If Mr. Obama earns it and makes it true of himself, he will be called good to great. But you have to meet it, you have to do it.

 

To get the first part of the sentence right would take a lot—restoring the confidence of the nation, getting spending down so people don't feel a sense of horror as they look at the future, getting or keeping the dollar sound, keeping the banks up and operating. A friend says that what's missing is an adult and responsible sense of limits, that we need to remember—we need to be reminded by our leaders—that it's not un-American to see limits. It's adult to see limits, it's right and realistic.

 

Are we beginning the journey back to anything like fiscal health? Who thinks the answer is yes? There's a pervasive sense that still, nine months into the crash, "we live in castles built on sand." We're not building on anything secure. Instead, and more and more, we have a series of presidential actions that seem less like proposals than non sequiturs. A new health-care program that Congress itself says will cost a trillion dollars over 10 years? A new energy program that will cost however many hundreds of billions in however many years? Running General Motors, and discussing where its plants should be, and what the interiors of the cars should look like, and shouldn't the little cup holder be bigger to account for Starbucks-sized coffee? Wait, what if it's a venti latte? One imagines the conversation in the car czar's office: "You know, I've always wanted to see a mauve car because mauve is my favorite color, I mean to the extent it's a color."

 

There is a persistent sense of extraneous effort, of ambitions too big and yet too small, too off point, too base-pleading, too ideological, too unaware of the imperatives. And there is the depressing psychological effect of seeing government grow so much, so big, so fast. This encourages a sense that things are out of control and cannot be made better.

 

Our economy and our security are intertwined. They are at the heart of everything, even to our ultimate continuance as a nation. Mr. Obama cannot replace his sentence with 10 paragraphs, and he can't escape it, either. Because history dictated it. History wrote it. "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror." Sentences don't really get better than that. He should stop looking for a better one. There isn't a better one.

 

Here is the full article

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124596573543456401.html

 

Do you agree with everything she just wrote?

Not everything. I agree with a substantial amount of it.

 

First, I think he is more defensive lately, and it is somewhat of a weakness. He is getting frustrated with how a lot of things are going, but there are a lot of things going on.

 

I totally agree with the main elements and theory of "The Sentence". It's an extremely interesting way to look at Presidencies, and it's novel to me at least. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I even agree with her analysis of Obama and his administration and how they are dealing with "the sentence", and that they are seemingly unhappy with "the sentence", they want "the sentences".

 

Where I disagree with her is that "The Sentence" is enough, or that only one sentence at a time is sufficient. I agree his Presidency could be looked at as a very successful one if one sentence has been gained.

 

But I think, and I believe Obama and his people believe, that there are 3-4 or even more serious problems or sentences that have been put aside for too long and it "is" possible to complete more than one sentence.

 

1] The economy needs to be fixed and set on a correct track (both sides did it equally).

2] We have put off or screwed up Health Care (both sides did it equally) for too long.

3] Our dependence on Foreign Oil is untenable (both sides did it equally) and we don't produce things anymore, so if we make new green energies we can kill two major birds with one stone.

4] We have screwed up our education system over the last couple generations (both sides did it) where other counties are leapfrogging past us in many areas especially math and science and it needs to be fixed.

5] We lost a lot of clout around the world because of the Iraq War and other Bush policies and the United States desperately needs to re-establish itself as not only the world power but the good guys (the only problem that I think is more because of the right than the left although Clinton and other Dems screwed up, too, and didn't solve things)

 

I think we need to do all of that now, and I think we can. Not because Obama is God or can do everything, but because he is unwilling right now to just pass it on. He sees them all connected and I agree. He sees this is a time when more than one major thing is possible because of the necessity and his (perhaps fleeting) popularity.

[DC Tom]

To say she cleaned Joe Biden's clock in the debate is indeed laughable. All polls including the Fox polls and the conservative outlets said the complete opposite. Basically all she did was answer one or two questions over and over and over and over and whenever they asked her about anything else she said, "I don't want to answer that, I want to answer this", and then repeated it. It was embarrassing.

 

It IS laughable, but so is the complete opposite. The polls generally said that Biden won, but Palin nonetheless did a very creditable job (which mostly represent, I think, the very low expectations people had of her after Gibson's piece).

[GG]

The point is she didn't know the term. She didn't know there WAS such a thing as a Bush Doctrine. She could have gave ANY interpretation at any time of what that Bush Doctrine meant but she couldn't because she'd never heard of it.

 

I said it at the time, and will repeat it now - I did not know there was a "Bush Doctrine" at the time this brouhaha hit, so it's not a big deal to me that she didn't know about it.

 

Of course she then provided other examples of things she didn't know.