How refreshing. In her responses to Charlie Gibson tonight, Sarah Palin had the courage to actually give Yes and No answers.
Yes, on preemptive strikes.
Yes, on NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
Yes, on allowing Israel to maintain it’s own defenses.
You may agree or disagree with those responses, but give credit where it’s due: Bereft of a teleprompter, Sarah Palin not only doesn’t “Uh” or “Ah” frequently while searching for a nuanced position, she discards nuance altogether and answers in the affirmative or negative.
Update: Gibson and ABC are certainly concerned about foreign policy experience, aren’t they? Where have they been for the past year and a half while Barack Obama was strutting around the national stage insisting that such experience doesn’t matter?
Update II: The Beagle Blogger evidently thinks a substantive discussion of Iraq, the Middle East, and the War on Terror (not to mention foreign policy overall) would be a good thing for Obama. OK, Then. McCain is also apparently “dishonest and dishonorable” for not lying down and permitting Barack Obama to run yet another essentially unopposed race. It’s a fine day in America, isn’t it, when a man who trolled for unprotected anal sex on the internet without disclosing his HIV+ status calls a man who spent five and a half years in a POW camp in North freaking Vietnam “dishonest and dishonorable”? Pfeh.
Update III: I have only one quibble with my old friend Gaius…Salon is hardly MSM. They owe the majority of their circulation to online “punditry” like that spewed forth by noted “conservative libertarian” Glenn Greenwald(s) and this Cintra Wilson person. Other than that, Gaius is dead on…the media and the lefty blogs are consumed with hatred for Sarah Palin, and the “feminists”, Lord, I don’t even have a word for what they are feeling.
Filed under: Election 2008, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Wordpress Political Blogs
she did?
she avoided saying what we should do about Iran. She avoided saying whether we should cross into Pakistan.
And by the way…she disagrees with the Bush Doctrine…once Gibson had to explain what it was to her. She said we should attack if there is an IMMINENT threat. That is not the Bush Doctrine. Her answer on that is actually more in line with Obama’s. I just wish Gibson had asked whether she thought her answer applied to Iraq or not.
And, uh, why is nuance bad? Lack of nuance is why we are where we are with Bush. He’s “the decider” remember?
Obama, on the other hand, thinks we should talk to Iran under no defined set of preconditions. Hell, I’d rather a candidate who was still cogitating on the matter, to tell you the truth.
Pakistan? Wasn’t there a BREAKING on that earlier this week? Something to the effect of what the Bush Administration did was remarkably close to what Obama recommended? Mind you, I don’t agree with the action whatsoever…I think running covert operations with military personnel in an allies back yard is bad policy.
I’m puzzled, though, that in tandem with that bit of news, your commentary on Palin’s views on the Bush Doctrine lining up with Obama’s seems to upset you. That should be good news to you, right?
Finally, lack of nuance isn’t at all why we’re “where we are with Bush”. Nuance in foreign policy, the demesne of Christopher, Albright, and Sandy Berger is why the Islamists believed they could hit us in the manner they did seven years ago today, with little or no repercussion.
Of course, I imagine if Obama achieves the Oval office, he won’t make any decisions, thus won’t be a “decider”. Hail nuance, baby.
After all, had a bit more nuance been applied by the judge, the Rosenbergs might have been acquitted as well, right? Certainly my leftist professors told me it should have been so.
My question about Obama and Iran is this….what is so bad about talking? Obviously not talking hasn’t gotten us very far, and it’s bad to cover our ears and eyes and pretend that Iran doesn’t exist in a diplomatic sense either.
Going into talks with preconditions are generally bad, especially if they’re the type of preconditions that Bush tends to like to set, which basically amounts to “agree to all of our demands, and then we’ll talk.” What’s in it for Iran then? If they have to agree to all our demands to even sit at the table, then there isn’t any point to even sitting at the table to begin with.
As for what Obama recommended, I’d have to go back and look at his position. I know he favored going into Pakistan, but I don’t know to what extent. Going into Pakistan to take out bin laden is different from, say, going in just to take out some generic terrorists. And we don’t know whether the US asked for permission to go in first or not with what happened this week.
I agree it’s similar to Obama’s position, but I think it’s too early to say whether that’s what Obama had in mind.
Well, yes, I’m glad that her appeared stated position lines up with Obama’s. My problem with it is the sense that it is generally in opposition to Bush’s and McCain’s position of a broader view of when to use a preemptive attack. I also would have liked to see a question about how she thought that applied to going into Iraq to see whether that’s really want she meant, or if her views were closer to Bush than she initially let on.
If her initial statement is how she really feels, then great, though she may need to explain how those fit in with McCain’s position.
I’m not sure if fear of repercussion is really a driving force behind what terrorists wish to do. An indeed Clinton did launch strikes into Afghanistan as President, he just didn’t invade.
The other part of it is this: When attacking terrorism, who exactly do you attack? Afghanistan was an easy target because it was essentially run by a terrorist network, but beyond that, who do you attack? The thing with Pakistan is a great example of this.
Terrorists are in Pakistan, we know this, but that’s clearly not a reason to launch a full out invasion against Pakistan. And people can disagree over whether we should launch cross border raids or not. So what do we do? These are some of the problems that Clinton faced, that Bush faces, and who the next President will face. Responding to a terrorist attack is often not as easy as launching some missiles somewhere. That’s part of the problem.
Joe,
Thanks for the link. Actually, Rich Horton posted that. He’s the adjunct blogger over at BCB these days.
And, Lord, don’t the venom spew when the left’s facade cracks?
Gaius
It looks as if the A.P. did not find Sarah Palin’s answers in her first substantive interview, conducted with less than eight weeks until the election, either definitive or impressive:
Although she does get credit for taking keeping some things quite literal. Like her comment about whether living in Alaska has given her “insight” into Russian behavior:
Sounds like a pretty shaky first outing. She’s gonna have to get better fast.
First she doesn’t seem to understand the very basics of how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac work.
Now it becomes pretty clear she has no idea what the “Bush Doctrine” even is.
John McCain is pretty far out there on that limb with Gov. Palin, isn’t he?
I didn’t get to watch and haven’t read complete transcripts. But so far I have gathered that Gibson schooled her on the Bush Doctrine and she schooled Gibson on the terms of the NATO Treaty and historic speeches. It also seems that there has been some unfavorable “editing” of the conversation on her “Holy War” remarks.
And I see they are staying on message that energy independence is a national security issue.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and evidently Charles Gibson are completely blind to this concept.
I gotta be honest, I had no idea what the “Bush Doctrine” was. I’ve never actually heard it called that specifically. What she did was ask him what HE meant by it as it’s apparently not just a specific thing, but a series of ideas. Either way, though, the interview was “ok”. She did fine. Even talkleft thinks so. Charlie tried to force the old “holy war” bit down her throat by misquoting her and she handled that extremely well. The bit about “are you ready” kind of pissed me off. Let’s ask Obama that and go through his record with a fine tooth comb, shall we? No? Oh, ya, media bias. My bad.
And she does understand Fannie and Freddie, twc. She was right about the tax burden. You on the left are trying to distort the shit out of that one but are completely incorrect. Sarah was right.
Here you go, twc:
http://tinyurl.com/6guldb
http://tinyurl.com/5k4bl4
Gee. I wonder if ABC will ever show the entire interview? Word is that they edited much of the video, sometimes in the middle of Palin’s answers. Other complete questions and answers were removed, conveniently when Palin showed she knew what she was talking about.
And Ed Morrissey reports on the differences between the questions Charles Gibson asked Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
Here are the REAL transcripts. decide for yourself.
Well, congrats, bro! You’re qualified to be John McCain’s running mate, too.
Update (Sun., 9/14, 12:58): edited to make clear that first line was a quote from brogarn.
Ahh, yes. She only looked clueless, over her head, and ill-informed because of the Liberal Media Conspiracy!
Not because she is inexperienced and untried.
But not because some of her answers were either edited midway through, completely ommitted, or misquoted?
Would you sit back and excuse this while this was done to Barack Obama or Joe Biden?
And look at those questions Obama got. Taking public financing. Debating McCain in town halls. In the 10 questions I listed, how many answers did he give that have proven to be outright lies?
Meanwhile, the man who first coined the term “Bush Doctrine,” Charles Krauthammer says that Palin wasn’t any more wrong on the subject than the idiot interogating her about it was.
Let’s apply the ABC hack-job standards to a fictional Barack Obama interveiw:
The New York Times conclusion could be:
Well, Red, if that interview was so biased and slanted, why doesn’t she call up NBC and CBS and ask to go on Meet the Press and 60 Minutes tomorrow?
Because she’s utterly unprepared, of course, and her handlers are absolutely petrified to let her be questioned.
It’s been two weeks since she was announced as the VP candidate, with seven weeks to the election, and she’s done exactly one interview?
She’s a joke as a candidate for national office.
Joe, the fact that John McCain acted courageously, honorably, and admirably forty years ago — as everyone agrees — does not mean that he therefore must always be acting honorably and honestly, though.
John McCain is responsible for the campaign he is running this time. Here’’s a man who, to his credit, apologized after his last run for national office for being dishonest in hedging his remarks about flying the Confederate battle flag over the South Carolina state capitol grounds.
His campaign this year has been pretty dishonest, and I think he will someday be ashamed of it.
Or we could just do away with press interviews altogether, and let voters ask the questions. After all, who are we trying to impress here—the media or the American people?
McCain and Palin will be doing Town Hall meetings beginning next week. As usual, I’m sure Barack Obama is invited to join in, if he would like.
Sarah Palin, demonstrating the depth of her knowledge and the firmness of her grasp on the one talking point she managed to memorize about Israel and Iran:
Does anybody out there think that Sarah Palin is truly qualifed to take over as President, if need be?
I might be convinced if I saw a lot more from her. So far, I’m pretty convinced she is not qualified.
Why should she have changed her stance during this interrogation? Gibson asked her the same damn question 3 times. Her stance didn’t change, so why should her answer?
What happens when a reporter asks Obama the same question 3 times in the same interview?
He gets pissy about it.
There, fixed.
Honestly, twc. That’s how about 47% of the public feels, compared with 36% of the public who feel that way about Palin.
I don’t think it’s Palin’s “experience” that Obama supporters object to, to tell you the truth. It’s simply inconceivable to me that anyone could put Obama’s experience on one side of a scale, and Palin’s on the other, and find anything but a hair’s worth of difference to argue about. I’d wager anyone not 100% loyal to Obama (any bets about how big a segment of the electorate that is?) feels the same way.
What do you think, Joe? Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to take over as President, if need be?
My point wasn’t solely about her experience. It’s about her apparent competence, judgment and depth of knowledge as well as her evident lack of experience. My basic point is this: if Sarah Palin has to be shielded from journalists and is too frightened or ill-prepared to answer questions from reporters, how can anyone claim that she is qualified to serve as President if need be?
Do you think that Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as POTUS, Joe?
As for their relative experience, I’m startled that you think that there is only a “hair’s worth of difference” between them. Let’s look at the facts.
You can make an argument that their experience has been roughly equivalent for the past two years (or a little less — 20 months). She has been a governor and he’s been a U.S. Senator. He’s been dealing with national and international issues and all of the things that the federal government deals with, while she’s been dealing with state government and all the things involved in that. Of course, they’re running for a federal office, so his federal experience is more valuable in that sense, but it’s an executive spot they’re seeking, so her executive experience is more valuable than his legislative. Setting aside for a moment the experience he has gained while running for the office — which is pretty valuable in its own right — let’s say they are roughly “tied” in experience over the last two years.
Before that? Two years ago, as of September 2006, Sarah Palin’s sole elective experience was a mayor and city councilor of a town of fewer than 5,500 people. Barack Obama, by contrast, had been a United States Senator for nearly two years at that point. He’d been dealing with all of the important national issues: national and international economic affairs, foreign affairs, the military, immigration, intelligence issues, the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, treaties and trade agreements, nuclear weapons, banking, bankruptcy reform, transportation, the federal budget, the federal government, etc., etc. He served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He’d traveled to foreign countries, including Iraq, and met foreign leaders. He’d voted on the nominations of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Sarah Palin had been the mayor of a town that wasn’t even responsible for its own schools or firefighting. She didn’t have her first passport yet. She hadn’t met a foreign leader yet (and still hasn’t).
Barack Obama had also been a state senator for eight years before his election to the U.S. Senate. As a member of the state legislature, he’d dealt with exactly the sorts of issues of state government that Sarah Palin would eventually face as Governor of her state. He had already served four times as long in state government as Sarah Palin will have served by election day. He served in the government of the nation’s fifth most-populous state, while she has been in the government of the nation’s 47th most-populous state.
Sarah Palin did serve for some months on a state board, to which she was appointed by the prior Governor. Apparently she served well in that position, but she quit after less than a year.
Barack Obama had been a constitutional law professor on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.
Sarah Palin had been a sports reporter for a local television station for a year.
Barack Obama practiced law in Chicago with a firm specializing in civil rights law for several years.
Since he’s been running for president, of course, Barack Obama has been focusing on exactly the issues and concerns that a president must deal with. He’s been meeting and talking to voters and standing for elections in every state in the country, thinking about, articulating, and defending his positions on every conceivable issue of national concern, answering questions, debating his opponents more than a score of times, and preparing to assume office should he be elected. He traveled this summer to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, and Jordan, meeting with the top American military and diplomatic officers and with President Karzai and Prime Ministers Maliki and Olmert, even being driven to the airport by King Abdullah. He went on to Germany, France and the United Kingdom, meeting with Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown, among others, and (judging from their public comments) evidently impressing them greatly. The governments of Iraq and the U.S. have essentially adopted the position he advocated on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki saying expressly that they had reached the position advocated by Sen. Obama.
His position on the use of force in Pakistan against Al Qaeda targets has been basically adopted by the U.S. as policy. His position on talking to Iran and to North Korea has been at least partially vindicated by U.S. high-level contacts with both of those countries.
Sarah Palin has done none of that. She still has no public position on most of the issues facing the next POTUS — not even the most basic one-sentence comment, in many areas. On Iraq, she said: “I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” She went to Kuwait and Germany. She claimed to have visited Ireland but that turns out to have been just a refueling stop, and she can’t establish whether she actually set foot in Iraq, another country she claimed to have visited, or just peered across the border.
She has yet to participate in a debate, or a press conference. She has given just one interview about the issues at stake in this election, and she looked uneasy and ill-informed in parts.
If you see that as no more than a “hair’s worth of difference,” I’d say you either need your vision checked, or you’ve got some massive hair.
Senator experience just does not equate to Governor or Mayor experience. Not even small town Mayor like you on the Left like to harp on. Like Obama himself said at the volunteer conference last Thursday night: (paraphrased) Mayors do the work, those in the senate just yak about it. Palin had to make executive decision every day and her approval rating is above 80%. She must have done some things right to have that happen.
Still, though, the joke here is that you are still comparing the experience of the person at the TOP of your ticket with the person at the BOTTOM of the other ticket. Your panic issue of McCain dropping dead day one is just that. Panic. He looks pretty damn healthy to me. So does his 96 year old mother.
So, you know, speculation aside, comparing experience with your 1 to the other side’s 2 is just not a good argument to make.
True enough, bro. I’ll just point out that I was responding to Joe’s comment there — he was the one making the comparison.
Competence and judgment are subjective measures, really, twc. Your disapproval of decisions she’s made are pretty obviously tainted by your partisan viewpoint…after all, compare the number of Palin posts and comments you’ve made to the number of Biden posts and comments I’ve made. I don’t agree with every decision Biden has made in the Senate, but I’m not questioning his judgment or competence.
As for her being “frightened” to answer questions from reporters, was Obama “frightened” of Fox news when he was avoiding them like the plague? Or did he believe he was going to be asked unfair questions? Geese, Gander, etc.
I think she’s as qualified to serve as president as Barack Obama is, so no. However, she’s not running for president, and Obama is.
Well, except for the fact that State Senators, like U.S. Senators are part of the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. Not exactly the same issues of state government there.
A part-time position, if I remember correctly, coinciding with his term as a State Senator and his work on Ayer’s Annenberg Challenge, and his brief stint with a law firm. And since when does that particular position serve as a qualification for the presidency? Would you want Hugh Hewitt for a president?
As for the contention that running for the presidency qualifies one for it, please. Obama’s the only candidate who’s ever had the balls to make such an assertion, and he’s had to do so precisely because his resume is so thin.
No, I’m still comfortable with my assessment of their relative experience levels, twc. And once again…one of them is running for president. The other isn’t. This contest isn’t even between Palin and Obama, last time I checked…which makes all of the liberal hysteria concerning the woman as transparent as can be.
I would just like to point out a simple fact that I have not seen anyone bring up concerning state governors, federal experience, and the presidency.
George W. Bush – Governor of Texas
Bill Clinton – Governor of Arkansas
George HW Bush –
Ronald Reagan – Governor of California
Jimmy Carter – Governor of Georgia
There you go again, Red.
Facts, schmacts. Those have no place in the “Reality-based community”.
Oh, and H.W.? How’s war hero and Director of Central Intelligence sound? From where I’m standing, that’s a bit more executive experience than U.S. Senator…
I didn’t put anything for H.W. because my only point was past state governors, and he was not one of them.
I would certainly never short-change his list of qualifications, which was extremely long and powerful.
Obama’s resume apparently padded a bit:
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/09/15/shades-of-john-kerry/
Oh, and as I like to say, troopergate is bullshit:
http://tinyurl.com/57am6f
Interesting. So, have you changed your mind on your vote for President, Joe? I thought you had said you intended to vote for Obama. If I’m the one who talked you out of it, I take it all back!
;-)
So, let me see if I can get this straight, Joe: In terms of experience in government, you say Obama is not qualified because he only has four years as a U.S. Senator and eight years as a state senator, and service as a U.S. Senator, or a state senator, doesn’t actually count for much because it’s legislative rather than executive experience.
But you supported Hillary Clinton — how is she qualified? Because she served as First Lady?
What do you think it says about John McCain that he picked as his running mate someone who is not qualified to be President?
O.k., maybe not exactly. But pretty similar.
Who do you think Governors negotiate with?
The state legislature is a co-equal branch of government, with oversight responsibilities over the executive branch agencies — a power which most legislatures that I am familiar with guard jealously and exercise pretty vigorously. State Senators get their calls returned promptly.
“What do you think it says about John McCain that he picked as his running mate someone who is not qualified to be President?”
It says to me that John McCain, unlike Barack Obama and many of his supporters, is aware of the differences between the President and the Vice Prseident.
And personally, I think it’s Barack Obama who is talking Joe out of voting for him.
But I admit, I also try and do my part to bring him back into the Republican fold. *wink*
No, I haven’t changed my mind. I can’t vote for McCain because I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him after the immigration fiasco, and much as I dislike Obama and his campaign staff, I’ve explained my reasoning before: My vote for your liberal candidate qualifies me to demand your vote for the next non-liberal Democrat to run for the office.
I do feel better about my vote these days, however, now that it’s become obvious the general election isn’t the same beast as the Democratic primaries. If Obama wants this job, he’s going to have to earn it, and as I said many times during the primaries, that’s not going to be easy for him, given his experience deficit and ideological bent.
I supported Hillary because of the field of Democratic candidates, she most reflected my own views (Joe Biden, btw, even though I knew his campaign was hopeless, was my second choice). About 18 million other folks thought so as well. Hillary Clinton (love her or hate her) is a known quantity, Barack Obama is not. The guy just hit the national scene in 2004, immediately promised to serve a full 6-year Senate term and not run for president, then promptly abdicated that promise and started running for the job only 2 years into his term. That’s a self-regard and lust for prestige and power that I just can’t identify with. Whatever else you might say about Clinton, she’s damn sure served her time, and waited her turn.
I think he made an obviously brilliant political selection that knocked the Obama campaign on it’s heels, and that he believes Governor Palin is just as quick a study as you believe Obama is. He’s probably a lot more confident he’ll live through his first term than many folks on the left are…
“The state legislature is a co-equal branch of government, with oversight responsibilities over the executive branch agencies — a power which most legislatures that I am familiar with guard jealously and exercise pretty vigorously. ”
As I have been trying to explain in several comments, not all state legislatures and executives are created equal. For example, the Alaskan executive has the power of line-item veto. Most don’t.
In California, it’s the people who hold the true power of government oversight with things like initiatives, referendums, and recalls. Most other states don’t have these as part of their constitutions.
Things just aren’t black and white and subject to across-the-board comparisons when it comes to state governments.
Victor Davis Hanson on Obama, his flips and the press:
http://tinyurl.com/5s9xat
I was comparing the experience of the Palin and Obama, as you first suggested, Joe. While he was a US Senator, she was a governor. While she was serving for less than one year in an appointed position to a state board, he was serving his first two years as a U.S. Senator. While she was a mayor for six years of a municipality of fewer than 5,500, he was a State Senator for eight. While he was teaching constitutional law for 12 years at a major university law school, she was a sports reporter for one year and raised her kids. While he was practicing law, I guess she was on the PTA. He went to Harvard Law, she changed colleges six times in six years.
I think teaching constitutional law is excellent preparation for Presidential service. There’s probably no better way to gain a deep knowledge of our government’s founding document. I bet every president (well, except maybe the current occupant) would say that a solid grounding in constitutional law and processes is about the best foundation that a President can possibly have. Bill Clinton taught Constitutional Law. (Joe Biden does, too, by the way).
No
But maybe that’s because Biden has shown his judgment and competence over a 30-plus year career in public service, including at least two presidential bids — while she’s apparently incapable or unwilling (I’ll try to avoid “frightened,” although that’s how it looks to me) even to answer a simple reporter’s question.
The difference between the two VP nominees could not be greater. And it seems pretty clear to me — a partisan, certainly — that he is eminently qualified, and she is not.
So, bro, is John McCain qualified to be President?
At least, shouldn’t he be the number two to Sarah?
Ah, be careful with that elitism, twc :-) I went to four different colleges / universities myself, a great deal of it driving to Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, Stuttgart, and Mannheim to attend UMUC or Temple University classes at night, because that was the only time I had available. Uncle Sam is pretty good about paying for college, but he’s not so friendly about giving you the time to do it. I finished my degree at a full-time school, but that was after I DEROS’d and ETS’d.
That presumes every president should be not just a lawyer, but a law professor. I’m sure most law professors “would say that a solid grounding in constitutional law and processes is about the best foundation that a president can possibly have”, but I doubt most presidents would. Except the ones who were Con Law professors.
Until Obama releases his grades there is no need to discuss his academic career.
John McCain is plenty qualified. Long history. Lots of experience. Obama isn’t, he’s got neither. He’s got comparable or less experience than McCain’s VP candidate.
But, bro, you say “Senator experience just does not equate to Governor or Mayor experience.”
And John McCain does not have any experience as Governor or Mayor. But you say he’s plenty qualified. So you don’t need experience as Governor or Mayor to be qualified to run for President.
Yet you say Barack Obama has “comparable or less” experience than Sarah Palin, even though he has 50% more years in service (12 years, 8 state and 4 federal) than she does (8, 2 state and 6 Wasilla) and his experience is federal and state while hers is just state and local.
Is there some sort of standard you are using here?
No, it doesn’t, Joe. I didn’t say that. I simply said that teaching constitutional law is one type of excellent preparation for serving as President. There are, of course, other types of preparation, many of which are excellent, and some of which will also involve a knowledge of the constitution.
McCain being in the Senate for as long as he has has given him the experience he needs. Obama has not been in the Senate long enough to get the same amount. And unlike Palin, he’s never had to make serious executive decisions on a daily basis. So even though their “time in office” may be comparable, the quality of that time swings far into Palin’s court.
If Barack Obama is not a known quantity, after competing in long primary season with elections in every state and territory and defeating Hillary Clinton (and every other candidate), then what does that make Sarah Palin?
A complete cipher — unknown to almost every American outside the state of Alaska until two weeks ago.
And she refuses to answer press questions? It’s just ridiculous.
And now she’s even refusing to meet with the investigator looking into her firing of her Public Safety Director?! She claimed she welcomed the probe because she had nothing to hide, and now she’s gone into hiding.
It’s going to be pretty hard for her to campaign as a reformer while she’s ducking the investigators looking into her own abuse of power as Governor of Alaska.
Sarah Palin is a joke as a national candidate.
And why the hell is the McCain/Palin campaign making announcements about whether the Governor of Alaska will cooperate with a duly established state investigation?
If I were an Alaska taxpayer, I’d be wondering why my own Governor can’t speak for herself — and why she won’t speak.