Then you should have no opinion on the subject, imho.
Not seeing it nullifies your take on the interview.

That was like me arguing about The Passion of the Christ without even seeing it. I said, how can I have an opinion without doing the homework? So I saw it and then continued my rant...
;)

On another note, I had a wonderful conversation with Mum about politics tonight. It didn't get heated and we both were very cordial to each other. She worries about Palin's readiness to lead and is concerned about McCain's temper. She wants to like Obama, but she thinks he's not as smart as JFK. She also thinks that Michelle Obama is going to be another Hillary Clinton and be a puppeteer.

I asked her if she believed the silly rumor about Obama being a Muslim. And she said at first she did but is questioning it because there is no proof. I told her that he says he's a Christian. She wanted to know how long he was a Christian. I said it didn't matter, born again Christians are brand new and embraced by other Christians, so even if he was a 'new Christian' it shouldn't matter... Christian is Christian...

The most important part was that she was actually listening to my take on Obama. It was refreshing.

She honestly is considering protest voting. Leaving it blank. Which was interesting to hear. She is a die hard Republican (although she voted for Carter twice and loves loves loves JFK).

Oh, and she thought it was rude that McCain didn't look at Obama during the debate. She said she kept yelling at the TV for him to do just that.

Hey ISM - I don't know how I changed the subject. Seriously.

I am torn here.....my initial reaction to this portion of your response is "good point, mathematically speaking Obama is probably making far less mistakes percentage wise than Palin based on the fact that he indeed is speaking far more than her"......

but, ...it's been pointed out that I am incapable of conceding a point and must dig my heels in, drink kool aid, write gibberish, etc.

What to do, what to do?

In all fairness to iSm, if I had read this post from you I'd have to wonder if my browser were somehow mixing up posts with usernames. It's not exactly typical...

Now I am torn again.....If I point out that just within my last 30 posts or so you will find me conceding on several points, it looks like I can't even agree with someone on something as mundane as ~what is typical~ but if I don't point that out than I am conceding that I rarely concede.....I am so confused;)

Obama is starting to move into landslide territory. Realclearpolitics shows him up by 158 electorals.

(psst....ISM....I suppose you may consider this a change in the subject, but since it is something that says Obama is doing well, I'm hoping you'll excuse it.)

Isn't this thing over yet ???

...Geez, you USA'uns know how to spin out elections, don't ya ??

:p

I read the Krauthammer piece, and my reaction then and now is that watching her answer, she couldn't have named any of them. Otherwise, she would have responded that his question was vague and explained why it was vague: "Well, Charlie, that's a phrase that's been thrown around a lot. Which Bush doctrine are you talking about? The one where . . ." And so on.

I certainly agree, Strangler. She isn't coming off as even a little bright. I would figure (hope?) she's smarter than she is interviewing.

My point wasn't that she would have been able to answer if it were more clear, it was Gibson's arrogance.

To be sure everyone understands what I'm saying, every politician needs to be able to deal with a hostile media, because even those that are loved one moment will be hated the next. Gotta be ready for it. She is not doing well. However, she's at a stage right now where I think the media ingeneral wants her to fail, and she isn't handling any of it well. Her fault. Her fault. Her fault. I write that three times so no one accuses me of trying to be a kool aid drinking synchophant (sp?). Once again, her fault.