I just watched the first section of the interview and I am, frankly, stunned. She so clearly is parroting answers fed to her by McCain advisers these past two weeks. I've already addressed the Bush Doctrine issue, but does anyone take her seriously when she tries to force her statements about God's Plan into an obviously-unrelated Abraham Lincoln quote?
Or can she really expect us to believe that it doesn't matter WHAT is causing climate change because she and John McCain are going to do something about it? How does one address the problem without first acknowledging the underlying causes? If it's attributable to man (which she very grudgingly accepted in some token fashion) then the proposed remedy would be vastly different than if it were simply global climate patterns.
She is out of her depth and I think - I hope - that this will be obvious to everyone who watched the interview. Her knowledge of foreign policy does not, and cannot, derive from the fact that one can view Russia from Alaska. Her obvious talking point on Russia and Georgia were stale and clearly disconnected to any depth of knowledge. Her repeated attempts to dodge questions was disconcerting and, thankfully, Gibson didn't let her off the hook too easily.
She looked and sounded intimidated, which I can understand. But with only a few months left before the election, we need to be convinced that she can be entrusted with the presidency. As of right now, I am thoroughly UNCONVINCED and UNIMPRESSED.
What to do?
1 year ago