Dr. Red Eye

I don’t intend to analyze every single interview that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin does, but since this interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson is her first since being picked as McCain’s running mate, it has a higher significance that any other interview she will subsequently do. People are generally curious to see how she does.

So how did she do?

Well, let’s first analyze the analysis: the liberals will of course criticize her while conservatives will say she did well.

I tend to view myself as more objective than most conservatives. So here’s my take on her interview.

Overall, I gave her 3 out of 4 RedEyes. She didn’t give a great response to questions of her qualifications but she also showed the guarded but forceful approach over foreign affairs (her supposed weakness) that is expected of a good leader. Furthermore, when taking into account that she also had to deal with Charles Gibson’s condescending words and mannerisms, she performed quite well for her first post-pick interview.

Breaking it down…

1) Her credentials.

The situation: Gibson stated that McCain offered “command of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia” as Palin’s qualification, then asked Palin if those were sufficient credentials. Palin offered her energy independence work.

My analysis: Not a great response, in my opinion. A better one would have been to say, “I’ve governed the great state of Alaska. A test of whether you can handle a bigger test is to see how you handle the smaller tests. And I’ve handled the smaller tests with flying colors.”

Alternatively, she could have said, “Do you think Barack Obama has sufficient credentials? If you think he is qualified to run as president, then I, having had actual executive experience, am more qualified as vice-president.

Topical grade: half RedEye out of 4.

2) Meeting foreign heads of state.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she met any foreign heads of state. Palin responded that she had not but many vice presidents before her also had not. Furthermore, she added, some politicians have met many foreign heads of state thanks to their “decades and decades in that Washington establishment” but “it is time for no more politics as usual.”

My analysis: A home run. Meeting foreign heads of state prior to becoming a vice-president is no indicator of success in that position nor in the position of president, just as meeting athletes prior to becoming a team owner is no indicator of success in that position.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

3) Russia-Georgia foreign policy.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought the U.S. should restore sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and later asked if she favored putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, followed by a question of whether we should go to war if Russia went into Georgia under the NATO treaty. Palin responded that she had just talked to Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili (zing!), that Russia’s actions were unacceptable, that Georgia and Ukraine should be in NATO, and that we possibly may have to go to war as a NATO ally.

My analysis: Palin handled herself well, demonstrating understanding of foreign names and policies, and citing a recent example of how she had delved right into foreign affairs since being picked rather than shying away from it.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

4) Iran-Israel foreign policy.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she thought a nuclear Iran was an existential threat to Israel, what we should do with a nuclear Iran, and whether we should agree with Israel if it felt the need to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. Palin responded that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be “extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe,” to put pressure on him to not use them nor give them to terrorists, and that we shouldn’t second-guess Israel if they felt the need to defend itself from a nuclear Iran.

My analysis: Palin answered the questions competently and appropriately, and demonstrated knowledge of the players involved in the situation. Gibson asked Palin three times if it was OK for us to allow Israel to take out Iranian nucelar facilities even though Palin answered very clearly that “We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.” What part of that answer is so confusing, Charlie?

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

5) Motivations of the 9/11 terrorists.

The situation: Gibson asked, on the seven-year anniversary of 9/11, “Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?” Palin answered, “There is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme, and they are violent, and they do not believe in American ideals. And they attacked us. And now we are at a point, here, seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post- 9/11 world, where we are able to commit to never again. The only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have, instilled in us, because we’re a democratic and we are a free-thinking society.”

My analysis: Curious question. Perhaps Gibson was hoping for a wacko answer. Personally, I don’t think the percentage of “extreme” Muslims is very small, but that’s for another topic. In any event, Palin gave a good reply.

Topical grade: 3.5 RedEyes out of 4.

6. The Bush doctrine.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Palin expressed unfamiliarity with it. Eventually, Gibson defined it for her as the right to pre-emptive strikes if we think a country is going to attack us. Palin then replied that if we have legitimate and intelligent evidence that America will be attacked, then “we have every right to defend our country.”

My analysis: This is the part of the interview that’s getting the most buzz. Pundits are blogging about Palin’s cluelessness but the reality is that many people do not know what the so-called Bush doctrine is, including Palin-hating liberals. I bet if you asked random people on the street, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” you’d get a lot of “The what?” responses and blank stares. And here’s the finishing blow: Barack Obama doesn’t know what the Bush doctrine is either; he thought it was the policy of talking to leaders of rogue nations only after they met some U.S. conditions first.

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, the Bush doctrine (which is not an official term used by the Bush Administration but coined by the media) evolved over time, with different variations and interpretations like this one and that one.

What really strikes me about this part of the interview is not that she didn’t know the Bush doctrine but how Gibson intentionally tried to make her look bad by leaving her hanging when she expressed unfamiliarity with it. Look at how the exchange went down:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

Apparently, Gibson was going to explain it to Palin but stopped. Then he decided to toy with her by asking her what she interpreted it to be.

Wow. This is supposed to be credible journalism from a chief anchor of one of the Big 3 nightly newscasts? Shame on Gibson.

Let’s return to the exchange:

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush octrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

When Palin doesn’t make the right “interpretation”, Gibson continues to string it out, giving only a little more info and still not defining it. Remarkably, Palin responds with what is actually a good response to the Bush doctrine even though Gibson hasn’t defined it yet. What many pundits missed is that Palin actually might have known what the Bush doctrine is at this point! Here’s her response:

I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson then defines his understanding of the Bush doctrine, implying that her response was not correct. But if you read how Gibson defines it and then re-read what Palin said above, she actually answered it beautifully. Here’s his definition:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us.

Then Gibson asks Palin if she agreed with the Bush doctrine, even though she already answered it by saying Bush had the right intent but made some mistakes along the way. Nevertheless, her response reinforces what she just said, declaring that if there is intelligent and legitimate evidence of an imminent strike against the American people, “we have every right to defend this country.” That is the only right answer. After all, imagine what the president will have to answer to if s/he knew the country was going to be attacked and did nothing about it.

Topical grade: 3.5 RedEyes out of 4.

7. Entering Pakistan without Pakistani government approval.

The situation: Gibson asked Palin if she felt the U.S. had the right to enter Pakistan from Afghanistan even without the approval of the Pakistani government. Palin replied that the U.S. should try to forge good relationships with these countries first, implying that having these good relationships would make this hypothetical situation moot. Gibson then insisted for an answer to his hypothetical situation: do we have the right to go in without their government’s approval? Palin then said this:

In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

Gibson then says he “got lost in a blizzard of words there” and asked the question all over again, demanding a simple yes or no answer. Palin responds with the same answer: “America has to exercise all options” and “We have got to have all options out there on the table.”

My analysis: “Blizzard of words”? I counted 43 words, just 15 words more than Gibson’s own question that preceded her alleged “blizzard of words”. Gee, Gibson isn’t condescending, now is he? Is this an interview or an argument between angry spouses?

The truth is that Palin answered Gibson clearly the first time: whatever it takes…same as having all options on the table. Palin is absolutely correct that you can’t just answer a simple yes or no. Every situation is different, and without further details, it’d be highly naive and simplistic to just say “Yes, we’ll invade without approval” or “No, we won’t”. The mark of a wise leader is one who analyzes each scenario separately, with all the facts in hand, with all options on the table to do whatever it takes to ensure America’s safety. Bravo. And extra points for not choking Gibson.

Topical grade: 4 RedEyes out of 4.

8. The task from God.

The situaton: Gibson says that Palin once said in a church that “our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” A YouTube clip of Palin’s comment is then played, with Gibson asking afterward, “Are we fighting a holy war?” Palin responds that she was echoing Abraham Lincoln’s words, which were not for us to pray that God is our side but that we are on God’s side. Gibson then asked about her use of the phrase “it is God’s plan”, to which Palin replies that she believes the plan for this world is for good and for every country to live and be protected within inalienable rights. Gibson follows up by asking if she is sending her son on a task from God. She responds that she doesn’t know but that her son made a decision and that she’s proud of him for choosing to serve something greater than self and not choosing the easy path of staying comfortable at home.

My analysis: Palin’s responses to these questions are average. Her answers kinda explain things but definitely doesn’t slam the door on it for the future. I can’t say what would be better answers but I just am not feelin’ these answers.

Topical grade: 2 RedEyes out of 4.

I’ll address the rest of her interview with Gibson at another time. But to close out this post, here are a few additional thoughts:

1) Gibson lost my respect.

I thought Gibson, being the chief anchor of ABC’s World News Tonight, was a man of on-screen neutrality and fairness. But clearly after watching this interview, he was against Palin the entire time with his words (”blizzard of words” and interrupting Palin mid-sentence to ask “Doesn’t that take some hubris (to not even consider saying I’m not ready to be vice-president)?”) and his mannerisms (closed eyes at the end of questions, facial expressions,  etc). I think his questions were all tough and also all fair. Unfortunately, his side commentaries and body language were highly unprofessional. No, the mainstream media isn’t liberal….

2) What’s with the abrupt editing?

Many of Palin’s responses were abruptly cut. It makes you wonder what was cut out.

3) Has Gibson asked tough questions of Obama?

Just asking.