Female Mccain''s VP pick

[vespergirl]

Sorry, I forgot to quote the below in my last post:

Date: 9/11/2008 6:00:54 PM
Author: luckystar112
For those who can''t wait...here''s a teaser.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1

Well, at least she sounds smarter than Bush

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:24:27 PM
Author: vespergirl
Well, at least she sounds smarter than Bush

Well that''s not saying much is it? LOL.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/12/2008 2:09:10 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/12/2008 1:41:58 PM
Author: zhuzhu


The issue is not that her keeps a baby with Dawn syndrome, the issue is that she did not have the sound judgment to decide against ''getting pregnant'' (does she not believe in birth control? are we going to have a pregnant VP in the next few years if she got elected? scary though) when she already has a large family.

George Washington had 5 kids
John Adams: 5
Thomas Jefferson: 5
John Quincy Adams: 4
Martin Van Buren: 4
William Henry Harrison: 10
John Tyler: 15
Zachary Taylor: 6
Andrew Johnson: 5
Rutherford B. Hayes: 6
James Garfield: 7
Grover Cleveland: 6
Teddy Roosevelt: 6
Franklin Roosevelt: 6
Gerald Ford: 4
James Carter: 4
Ronald Reagan: 4
George H.W. Bush: 6

Do I need to look up VPs?

OMG, I feel really bad for John Tyler''s wife!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:22:49 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/12/2008 3:06:46 PM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/12/2008 3:03:29 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 2:58:55 PM

Author: decodelighted

I''m intrigued by Cajun Boy''s Sept 10th post ... which includes links to his sources BTW ... but due to language can''t be linked directly to Pricescope.


Here''s just one of his particularly chilling facts:


Sarah Palin, woman, pseudo-feminist, made rape victims in her town pay for their own forensic exams when she was mayor of Wasilla, which is situated in a state that has the highest per capita rates of rape and incest in the country. Think about that for a moment. Imagine that someone in your family was murdered and then you received a bill for the cost of the investigation weeks after their death. That''s essentially what Sarah Palin did. Her''s was the only town in Alaska to do so. Why? Because she said they couldn''t afford it.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!??! Please tell me this is inaccurate. Alaska got TONS of cash from the feds (trillionare posted a link)...this can not be real. If so...well....

I couldn''t find that post.......does it mention the sources for that? That would be pretty sad if that is factual.

It''s true and very very sad.

Here''s two articles I found online about that. I''m sure there are more. I was just going to post about this and you all beat me to it:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Unbelievable!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:25:01 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/12/2008 3:23:31 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/12/2008 2:59:49 PM

Author: luckystar112

I don''t want my power to go out! I''m having so much fun talking to all of you!

Even those who don''t share the same views. I don''t care what people say about these threads...they are fun. And I feel like we''ve gotten to the point where we ''get'' eachother and aren''t taking offense as easily anymore. Did I just jinx us?



okay, end sentimental threadjack!

I agree luckystar!

I may not agree with everyone''s politics, but I certainly like y''all (threw that in because you''re in texas

)!

Me too! I hope everyone stays safe and far away from Ike. Sounds awful!

ditto! Ike looks like a mean mf.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:25:30 PM
Author: luckystar112
I agree, it's sad. I'm actually speechless.
And apparently, common, not just in Wasilla.

Yeah...quite sad & far too common throughout the US (including Illinois)...link

Another link called Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits.

 

[zhuzhu]

For those of you who might have been offended by my inference on Palin''s judgment based on her pregnancy, I would like to perhaps clarify my point of view.

I am looking at it from the benefit of baby when I think about the choice as a "less than sound judgement". While I fully support women''s right to chose (either to become a mother or not), it is well known that the risk of Down''s jumped from <1 per 1,000 births before the of 35 to 14 per 1,000 at age 45 years or over. Given that the court of law often jail women for smoking and drinking during preganancy (because of the increased risk for baby''s health), how is it different that a women at the high risk age should not think twice before getting preganant?

Birth control comes in many different forms, the pill is not the most effective method and if that''s why she had an "accident" , oh well then perhaps her knowledge of birth control should be questioned.

It is the decision process for this particular pregnancy of hers that worries me. When I mentioned "she already has a big family" I was not implying that politicians should not have a big family as there is no logic to that at all. I am also not saying that women after the age of 40 should be "banned" from becoming pregnant -in fact for many people who could not become a mother at a younger age, it is understandable that they are willing to take the risk to achieve their dream. However in Palin''s case she is not "lacking" children.

I want to emphasize that pregnancy is a choice, and may be a perfectly sound choice for women to get pregnant after the age of 40 given their circumstances, but it does not seem clear to me that she thought carefully enough about this one.

 

[goobear78]

Interesting ABC's fact check on some on the things mentioned in Palin's interview.
ETA: Sorry link doesn't work.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:38:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For those of you who might have been offended by my inference on Palin''s judgment based on her pregnancy, I would like to perhaps clarify my point of view.

I am looking at it from the benefit of baby when I think about the choice as a ''less than sound judgement''. While I fully support women''s right to chose (either to become a mother or not), it is well known that the risk of Down''s jumped from <1 per 1,000 births before the of 35 to 14 per 1,000 at age 45 years or over. Given that the court of law often jail women for smoking and drinking during preganancy (because of the increased risk for baby''s health), how is it different that a women at the high risk age should not think twice before getting preganant?

Birth control comes in many different forms, the pill is not the most effective method and if that''s why she had an ''accident'' , oh well then perhaps her knowledge of birth control should be questioned.

It is the decision process for this particular pregnancy of hers that worries me. When I mentioned ''she already has a big family'' I was not implying that politicians should not have a big family as there is no logic to that at all. I am also not saying that women after the age of 40 should be ''banned'' from becoming pregnant -in fact for many people who could not become a mother at a younger age, it is understandable that they are willing to take the risk to achieve their dream. However in Palin''s case she is not ''lacking'' children.

I want to emphasize that pregnancy is a choice, and may be a perfectly sound choice for women to get pregnant after the age of 40 given their circumstances, but it does not seem clear to me that she thought carefully enough about this one.

Are you serious?! To me, that comes across as "shame on everyone for taking birth control pills - you should know better."

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:38:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For those of you who might have been offended by my inference on Palin's judgment based on her pregnancy, I would like to perhaps clarify my point of view.

I am looking at it from the benefit of baby when I think about the choice as a 'less than sound judgement'. While I fully support women's right to chose (either to become a mother or not), it is well known that the risk of Down's jumped from <1 per 1,000 births before the of 35 to 14 per 1,000 at age 45 years or over. Given that the court of law often jail women for smoking and drinking during preganancy (because of the increased risk for baby's health), how is it different that a women at the high risk age should not think twice before getting preganant?

Birth control comes in many different forms, the pill is not the most effective method and if that's why she had an 'accident' , oh well then perhaps her knowledge of birth control should be questioned.

It is the decision process for this particular pregnancy of hers that worries me. When I mentioned 'she already has a big family' I was not implying that politicians should not have a big family as there is no logic to that at all. I am also not saying that women after the age of 40 should be 'banned' from becoming pregnant -in fact for many people who could not become a mother at a younger age, it is understandable that they are willing to take the risk to achieve their dream. However in Palin's case she is not 'lacking' children.

I want to emphasize that pregnancy is a choice, and may be a perfectly sound choice for women to get pregnant after the age of 40 given their circumstances, but it does not seem clear to me that she thought carefully enough about this one.

Perhaps she *did* think about it "carefully enough." Maybe she wanted five children; maybe the baby was an accident (refer to the pregnant on BC thread to question her knowledge of BC if this was the case). A 1 in 100 chance (same as the chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime) of having a baby with Downs Syndrome isn't enough for some women not to try having the child; and in Palin's case she knew the baby would have Downs and had it anyway, so I doubt it mattered to her. IMHO judging women who become pregnant over 40 who already have children vs. not judging those who do not is ridiculous. ALso, comparing pregnancy in women over 40 to spoiled food is offensive IMHO & I don't even have any children nor am I over 40.

ETA: Before I get the comments about the link I posted about being run by a conservative organization, I just wanted to acknowledge that I know that, but that the article cited its (arguably) non-partisan sources.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:49:46 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 3:38:13 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For those of you who might have been offended by my inference on Palin''s judgment based on her pregnancy, I would like to perhaps clarify my point of view.

I am looking at it from the benefit of baby when I think about the choice as a ''less than sound judgement''. While I fully support women''s right to chose (either to become a mother or not), it is well known that the risk of Down''s jumped from <1 per 1,000 births before the of 35 to 14 per 1,000 at age 45 years or over. Given that the court of law often jail women for smoking and drinking during preganancy (because of the increased risk for baby''s health), how is it different that a women at the high risk age should not think twice before getting preganant?

Birth control comes in many different forms, the pill is not the most effective method and if that''s why she had an ''accident'' , oh well then perhaps her knowledge of birth control should be questioned.

It is the decision process for this particular pregnancy of hers that worries me. When I mentioned ''she already has a big family'' I was not implying that politicians should not have a big family as there is no logic to that at all. I am also not saying that women after the age of 40 should be ''banned'' from becoming pregnant -in fact for many people who could not become a mother at a younger age, it is understandable that they are willing to take the risk to achieve their dream. However in Palin''s case she is not ''lacking'' children.

I want to emphasize that pregnancy is a choice, and may be a perfectly sound choice for women to get pregnant after the age of 40 given their circumstances, but it does not seem clear to me that she thought carefully enough about this one.

Perhaps she *did* think about it ''carefully enough.'' Maybe she wanted five children; maybe the baby was an accident (refer to the pregnant on BC thread to question her knowledge of BC if this was the case). A 1 in 100 chance (same as the chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime) of having a baby with Downs Syndrome isn''t enough for some women not to try having the child; and in Palin''s case she knew the baby would have Downs and had it anyway, so I doubt it mattered to her. IMHO judging women who become pregnant over 40 who already have children vs. not judging those who do not is ridiculous. ALso, comparing pregnancy in women over 40 to spoiled food is offensive IMHO & I don''t even have any children nor am I over 40.

I have to say I agree 100%. And I can honestly say that this is the first time I''ve ever been personally offended on Pricescope (and I''ve been on here everyday since 2005).

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:37:04 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 3:25:30 PM
Author: luckystar112
I agree, it's sad. I'm actually speechless.
And apparently, common, not just in Wasilla.

Yeah...quite sad & far too common throughout the US (including Illinois)...link

Another link called Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits.

Thanks for those links, Indy. I do hope that people will read them. Not to deflect from Palin, but this problem seems to be a lot bigger than Wasilla!
Point 1 about Illinois: Apparently Obama was the one who wrote up the legislation in 2001 and got it passed. I tip my hat (or curtsie) to him. It's unfortunate that victims are STILL being charged in Illinois, however. Apparently Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee (and so on) are also guilty.

I think we can ALL agree that victims should NOT under any circumstances be forced to pay for their own rape kits.
With that being said the argument appears to be......who should?

The state? County? City? Law enforcement? Insurance?

 

[joflier]

Date: 9/12/2008 4:03:17 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/12/2008 3:37:04 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/12/2008 3:25:30 PM
Author: luckystar112
I agree, it''s sad. I''m actually speechless.
And apparently, common, not just in Wasilla.

Yeah...quite sad & far too common throughout the US (including Illinois)...link

Another link called Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla''s Policy on Rape Kits.

Thanks for those links, Indy. I do hope that people will read them. Not to deflect from Palin, but this problem seems to be a lot bigger than Wasilla!
Point 1 about Illinois: Apparently Obama was the one who wrote up the legislation in 2001 and got it passed. I tip my hat (or curtsie) to him. It''s unfortunate that victims are STILL being charged in Illinois, however. Apparently Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee (and so on) are also guilty.

I think we can ALL agree that victims should NOT under any circumstances be forced to pay for their own rape kits.
With that being said the argument appears to be......who should?

The state? County? City? Law enforcement? Insurance?

It is sad, not refelcting to either Palin or Obama, but just all around. But thank goodness the law goes in effect in a few months that no state or city can do that any longer!

 

[diamondfan]

Zhu Zhu, in fact the pill is 96-99 percent effective when taken properly. I think it is the most effective aside from surgical methods. If someone misses pills, takes them at the wrong time, that is not the fault of the pill. NO form of birth control is 100% I know someone who had a tubal and a couple where the man had a vasectomy and they now have one more child each.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 4:03:17 PM
Author: luckystar112

Thanks for those links, Indy. I do hope that people will read them. Not to deflect from Palin, but this problem seems to be a lot bigger than Wasilla!
Point 1 about Illinois: Apparently Obama was the one who wrote up the legislation in 2001 and got it passed. I tip my hat (or curtsie) to him. It''s unfortunate that victims are STILL being charged in Illinois, however. Apparently Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee (and so on) are also guilty.

I think we can ALL agree that victims should NOT under any circumstances be forced to pay for their own rape kits.
With that being said the argument appears to be......who should?

The state? County? City? Law enforcement? Insurance?

No problem! I looked at that second article more for the links it provided than for the article itself, although I think it did a nice job of summarizing main points. I would agree to government aka taxpayers footing the bill (directly or through law enforcement funding). Enough of our money goes towards much more innocuous causes than this. I''m also glad that a federal law will be passed regarding this issue, although I''m sure federalism arguments can be found there & the problem will be enforcement (as it is now currently in various states).

I also applaud any of Obama''s efforts to end this practice.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/12/2008 3:30:14 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 3:22:49 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/12/2008 3:06:46 PM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/12/2008 3:03:29 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 2:58:55 PM

Author: decodelighted

I''m intrigued by Cajun Boy''s Sept 10th post ... which includes links to his sources BTW ... but due to language can''t be linked directly to Pricescope.


Here''s just one of his particularly chilling facts:


Sarah Palin, woman, pseudo-feminist, made rape victims in her town pay for their own forensic exams when she was mayor of Wasilla, which is situated in a state that has the highest per capita rates of rape and incest in the country. Think about that for a moment. Imagine that someone in your family was murdered and then you received a bill for the cost of the investigation weeks after their death. That''s essentially what Sarah Palin did. Her''s was the only town in Alaska to do so. Why? Because she said they couldn''t afford it.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!??! Please tell me this is inaccurate. Alaska got TONS of cash from the feds (trillionare posted a link)...this can not be real. If so...well....

I couldn''t find that post.......does it mention the sources for that? That would be pretty sad if that is factual.

It''s true and very very sad.

Here''s two articles I found online about that. I''m sure there are more. I was just going to post about this and you all beat me to it:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118416&srvc=2008campaign&position=9
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Unbelievable!

Huffington Post

http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/11/the_palin_rape_kit_myth

The latest myth touted on liberal blogs that’s bubbled its way into mainstream news headlines is the one where Sarah Palin ordered rape victims to pay for their own rape kits.

“Palin’s Town Used to Bill Victims for Rape Kits” was headline on a Thursday USA Today news story. Reporters Ken Dilanian and Matt Kelley used a 2000 quote from former Wasilla Police Chief to blame Palin for an outdated, now illegal policy she never supported.

“In the past, we’ve charged the cost of exams to victim’s insurance companies when possible,” former chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman in 2000 as then-Democratic Governor Tony Knowles was signing legislation to make local police branches cover the costs of the kits.

“I just don’t want to see any more burden on the taxpayer,” Fannon said at the time, which was reprinted in the USA Today.

Fannon went on to say that he believed the criminal should be held responsible for the costs, which run from $5,000-$14,000 per year for all assault cases. USA Today did not reprint those quotes from the interview, though. “The forensic exam is just one part of the equation,” Fannon said at the time “I’d like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things.”

Liberal blogs like HuffingtonPost, DailyKos and Salon.com are using this interview the Frontier conducted with Fannon to accuse Palin, who was mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002, of supporting making rape victims pay for their rape kits-- a charge vehemently denied by her aides.

“It would appear that Sarah Palin has a problem with Rape,” blogger Steven R wrote on the DailyKos. “In addition to not supporting the availability of Abortion for victims of Rape, Mayor Sarah Palin, Maverick, Fiscal Conservative, also had citizens of Wasilla pick up the bill for their own forensics tests.”

Palin spokeswoman Maria Cornella told USA Today that Palin, “does not believe, nor has ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”

“Gov. Palin’s position could not be more clear,” Cornella said. “To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice.”

 

[luckystar112]

Very enlightening, SS, thank you.

Just for fun:
The Ultimate Guide to Sarah Palin Conspiracy Theories (Doesn''t address rape kits).

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/12/2008 5:15:59 PM
Author: luckystar112
Very enlightening, SS, thank you.


Just for fun:

The Ultimate Guide to Sarah Palin Conspiracy Theories (Doesn''t address rape kits).

Very interesting!

 

[miraclesrule]

stone_seeker. That looks a little like a spin article. It doesn''t appear to address the matter in it''s full context.

However, it will be easy enough to fact check that, with full newspaper articles and city meeting minutes from when the matter was actually being addressed by the town, assuming a town that size kept minutes on record of their meetings in 2000.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/12/2008 6:43:45 PM
Author: miraclesrule
stone_seeker. That looks a little like a spin article. It doesn't appear to address the matter in it's full context.

However, it will be easy enough to fact check that, with full newspaper articles and city meeting minutes from when the matter was actually being addressed by the town, assuming a town that size kept minutes on record of their meetings in 2000.

Miraclesrule : you can see the records online here: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

Although, it seems like a lot to wade through...lol.

"Despite denials by the Palin campaign, new evidence proves that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin had a direct hand in imposing fees to pay for post-sexual assault medical exams conducted by the city to gather evidence. Palin's role is now confirmed by Wasilla City budget documents available online."

 

[miraclesrule]

goobear: Thanks!! Now I don''t have to search for it. I used to wade through massive amounts of documents in our City. It''s amazing what it going on behind the scenes that "the people" don''t know anything about. I can''t even imagine how painstaking it is on a Federal level.

I did a brief astrological scan on Palin.

She has the most powerful magnetic aspect in her chart. Mars conjunct Neptune.

You don''t want to know what that means. But it''s poise, charm, power over people, - and a determination to get ahead in the world that rarely fails to succeed. I''ll tell you more when I get back from Vegas.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 9/12/2008 1:15:30 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 1:10:18 PM

Author: goobear78

I''m sorry, but a VP candidate should know the Bush Doctrine especially since it was used in part to go to war with Iraq. And she didn''t. She flat out didn''t know it. That''s what happened, they can''t spin it, it''s on video but I''m sure going forward she will make sure she does know it. Does that make it any better? In my opinion no, but I''m still looking forward to hearing the rest of her interview and watching it in its entirety tonight.

I concur. FI hasn''t seen the interview yet but I was filling him in and he immediate said ''How is she a Governor of a state without knowing what the Bush Doctrine is?'' He knew straight off the bat what Gibson was talking about without me filing in those details. So if he knows, an average (er history and politics obsessed sure but not an elected official) citizen knows, how does she not?

I have seen a lot of comments today that the ''average person'' does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Since when are we in the business of electing average people? If you are going to be the VP, you better know a HELL of a lot of stuff that I don''t. Further, others may dismiss her interview performance and say that Gibson was arrogant, or she did as well as can be expected, but she made some very aggressive statements about foreign policy, and I have a hard time believing that what she said was not being closely listened to by foreign heads of state that may be dealing with her. That is NOT something to take lightly, and she did NOT know what she was talking about, she avoided a number of questions, tried to redirect attention to what she felt comfortable with, and was postured VERY aggressively throughout the interview. (leaning forward, hunched over, winking at Gibson)

And I think it''s fantastic that people like her personality, or things that she represents. This is not a personality job, and she is not knowledgeable about foreign policy. Maybe she should run in 8 years, now that she is a nationally known politician. If she sat across from a PM Putin, a Kim Jung Il or any other foreign head of state and has the caliber of responses that she did last night, I am terrified for our country. Truly terrified. (and no, I was not invoking Matt Damon

) She knows nothing of diplomacy... but she has time to learn over the next several years.

 

[MoonWater]

Guess who was tougher: Sara Palin or Charles Gibson

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/12/2008 9:50:33 PM
Author: MoonWater
Guess who was tougher: Sara Palin or Charles Gibson

Moon..it''s Sarah w/ an H. No offense..but as a Sarah I speak from personal experience..that drives me INSANE.

 

[Anna0499]

With all due respect, I would not compare her performance with Charles Gibson to how she would act around foreign heads of state...very different objectives, strategies, contexts, etc. Furthermore, you are given an agenda everytime you meet with a head of state and everyone is prepped by experts before doing so.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/12/2008 9:55:44 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/12/2008 9:50:33 PM

Author: MoonWater

Guess who was tougher: Sara Palin or Charles Gibson

Moon..it's Sarah w/ an H. No offense..but as a Sarah I speak from personal experience..that drives me INSANE.

It was just a typo. I hate that people constantly refer to HiLLary Clinton as HiLary Clinton and well, it's not even my name and, well, I don't even like her. For a while people nearly had me convinced that *I* was spelling her name wrong lol.

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:14:19 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 9:55:44 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Date: 9/12/2008 9:50:33 PM


Author: MoonWater


Guess who was tougher: Sara Palin or Charles Gibson

Moon..it''s Sarah w/ an H. No offense..but as a Sarah I speak from personal experience..that drives me INSANE.

It was just a typo. I hate that people constantly refer to HiLLary Clinton as HiLary Clinton and well, it''s not even my name and, well, I don''t even like her. For a while people nearly had me convinced that *I* was spelling her name wrong lol.

Sorry for getting snarky, haha! I was so confused about that for forever as well..I didn''t know how to spell it until she actually ran for President. Lol. So anyway, again..sorry for being snarky. I am a bit on edge.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:09:20 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
With all due respect, I would not compare her performance with Charles Gibson to how she would act around foreign heads of state...very different objectives, strategies, contexts, etc. Furthermore, you are given an agenda everytime you meet with a head of state and everyone is prepped by experts before doing so.

Yeah, and we''ve seen how effective THAT is in keeping Presidents (or VP''s) from putting their feet in their mouths

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:14:19 PM
Author: MoonWater


It was just a typo. I hate that people constantly refer to HiLLary Clinton as HiLary Clinton and well, it''s not even my name and, well, I don''t even like her. For a while people nearly had me convinced that *I* was spelling her name wrong lol.

GUILTY!!!! Don''t know how long I did it for but I only recently started correcting myself.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/12/2008 10:37:39 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 9/12/2008 10:09:20 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
With all due respect, I would not compare her performance with Charles Gibson to how she would act around foreign heads of state...very different objectives, strategies, contexts, etc. Furthermore, you are given an agenda everytime you meet with a head of state and everyone is prepped by experts before doing so.

Yeah, and we've seen how effective THAT is in keeping Presidents (or VP's) from putting their feet in their mouths

Haha not saying the preparation works!

I just don't think an election interview with "Charlie" Gibson compares to meetings with heads of state.

ETA: article about mistakes Obama should avoid, but also about why there might be a perceived media bias against Palin (i.e. examining her expense statements but not those of the three Senators, which would be very open for criticism considering the amount of campaigning done during their terms).