46. "I am compelled to vote for Obama based on the facts that he knows law, understands its lingo and will not need anyone to twist his arm or tell him false interpretations on what any legislation truly states."

******************

Richard Nixon had a law degree and understood the lingo.

bob at 11:15AM on Sep 13th 2008

47. Palin obviously did not know what the Bush Doctrine was and she didn't even B.S. her way through it well.

Amatullah at 11:17AM on Sep 13th 2008

48. >>>I am compelled to vote for Obama based on the facts that he knows law, understands its lingo and will not need anyone to twist his arm or tell him false interpretations on what any legislation truly states.


goddess1prevail at 11:02AM on Sep 13th 2008>>>

goddess, the art of interpreting law isn't a necessary credential for being president.

You somewhat contradict yourself by saying:

>>>Even if Obama and Palin didn't understand what the Bush Doctrine is or what problems ail the economy there are plenty of advisors that supply them with this information. As they have military advisors to guide them>>>

these advisors/aides/think tank specialists all put it out in laymen terms so as to not confuse or misrepresent the actual substance of the issue. They clarify what the "lingo" confuses.

Obama's degree is impressive, but has 'nada' to do with the carrying out of legislation. I've never heard of a sitting president using "I didn't understand it" as an excuse for support/non support of important matters.

Don't be consumed by the eloquence, be consumed by the substance.... Your choice

Bobby at 11:46AM on Sep 13th 2008

49. Actually, there are FOUR Bush doctrines. . .not just one. So, if Charlie wanted to really trip her up, he should have bushed up on it himself so he knew what he was asking. I'm actually not sure if many in the media KNOW that there are four doctrines. . .

Holly at 11:42AM on Sep 13th 2008

50. Obama's degree is impressive, but has 'nada' to do with the carrying out of legislation. I've never heard of a sitting president using "I didn't understand it" as an excuse for support/non support of important matters.
---------
Really? Look at Bushs' use of signing statements. He'll sign a bill into law, and immediately circumvent it with a signing statement.

Here's a couple articles for you to peruse.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp

While you are partially correct, he isn't saying "I don't understand," The laws passed by Congress are ALL to be filtered through his "executive priveledge." Taking two words as an authority to negate laws as written, while trying to take credit for the law being passed should be criminal. Most damning of all, is this list.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

ex-christian at 12:28PM on Sep 13th 2008

51. Hey you guys with all your brains. What is the Clinton doctrine, Reagan doctrine no one knows and know one cares. She doesn't know the Bush doctrine because their isn't one, it is made up. You didn't know it before her question so don't think your all that brilliant or she is so dumb.

ben at 12:50PM on Sep 13th 2008

52. President Bush has "doctrines" in many important areas. This was a "gotcha" question asked to show how smart the reporter is. After explaining which doctrine he had in mind, Governor Palin provided an informed opinion. People in Washington have lots of buzz words. The fact that Palin asked for an explanation does not decrease her capabilities in my opinion.

Jerold Morgan at 1:14PM on Sep 13th 2008

53. She didn't have an answer because there is no such thing as "the Bush doctrine". Nobody could have answered that trick question from the liberal Gibson trying to trip her up intentionally. Also he misquoted her and when she pointed out that the quote was not accurate, he insisted that it was. Typical East Coast elitist liberal crap. That's OK though, the more these fools attack her, the more votes they get. Keep it up idiots!!

BARACKS PURPLE LIPS at 1:27PM on Sep 13th 2008

54. As someone above said, ther are no less than 4 Bush Dcotrines. She was absolutely correct in asking which one. Charlie Gibson tried to slip one on her there anyway. Any of you people that form an opinion of her based on this answer as a negative, you are wrong. The person who wrote the above blog, Ana somebody whoever, is just trying to make Sarah look bad as a llftie will do. "Not qualified"? Bull, The person who did the blog video was not qualified to do the blog! But, like I keep saying every day, keep making those deep cuts on Sarah. Every cut is a 1000 votes for McCain. You left wing bloggers just don't get it do you? You have pissed the American people off. The only appreciative audiance you have is the small group like yourselves. You are just making everyone else mad. Like I said every cut on Sarah is a 1000 votes for McCain. SOOO, keep it up, we republicans love it.
This is Richard in SC, Sayin', Bye and Have A Nice Day.

Richard at 1:45PM on Sep 13th 2008

55. You somewhat contradict yourself by saying:

>>>Even if Obama and Palin didn't understand what the Bush Doctrine is or what problems ail the economy there are plenty of advisors that supply them with this information. As they have military advisors to guide them>>>

these advisors/aides/think tank specialists all put it out in laymen terms so as to not confuse or misrepresent the actual substance of the issue. They clarify what the "lingo" confuses. -Bobby


Hi Bobby,

Should we accept that? The president should be able to read through interpretations of laymen's terms, and understand them better than your average layman. I added Obama's name next to Palin in case he too forgot what the Bush Doctrine entails. Though the major difference would be that he himself would be able to read and understand these policies without interpretation while Palin would need much aides and advisors to define and explain these policies.
In most cases aides/ advisor/s and think tanks do not remain unbiased when interpreting policies and add their ideas in their interpretations.


Obama's degree is impressive, but has 'nada' to do with the carrying out of legislation. I've never heard of a sitting president using "I didn't understand it" as an excuse for support/non support of important matters. –Bobby

And you never will. But believe me when I tell you it happens frequently behind closed doors in private meetings. His degrees may not be a requirement for the presidency but it should be a standard. Obama's degree in political science and studies on econometics and his law degree make him a better candidate than his oppositions degrees and level of education combined.


Don't be consumed by the eloquence, be consumed by the substance.... Your choice- Bobby


I see much people confusing intelligence with elitism and eloquence. There not the same. The substance is his education that makes him qualified.

goddess1prevail at 1:47PM on Sep 13th 2008

56. There not the same.

oopps...
they're not the same......

goddess1prevail at 2:28PM on Sep 13th 2008

57. You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America.
Just my two cents

Aaron at 2:40PM on Sep 13th 2008

58. THIS GUY IS A MORON PLEASE STOP THE BULLSHIT THE BUSH DOCTRINE HAS BEEN DEFINED FOUR DIFFERNT WAYS AND ITS NOT WRIITEN IN STONE ANYWHERE TO STUDY THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE HANDLED WHEN THEC HEN TH CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE AND WE KNOW THE FACTS CHARLIE GIBSON DIDNT ASK THE COMMUNITY AGITATOR ANY THING LIKE THAT OR JOHN THE DUECTHBAG EDWARDS WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR VICE PRES ON THE KERRY TICKET SO SARAH GO AND KICK ASS AND LEAVE ALLTHESE PUSSY LIBS IN YOUR WAKE

PAUL at 3:11PM on Sep 13th 2008

59. Cenk-
This is the part of the Gibson-Palin interview that you stumble around with. This is also on your favorite source, youtube. You are the only one having trouble with your lines. You need a teleprompter to follow your script. You did not play youtube because it did not fit ypour script.

See for your self, the written interview, word for word, that Cenk will not show.

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

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

Palin: His worldview.

Gibson: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent 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: 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 other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Palin: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that, and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

Gibson: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike against another country if we feel that country might strike us?

Palin: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Gibson’s primary sin is trying to play gotcha by asking about a policy by its title, not by defining the elements of it (and referencing a policy “enunciated in September 2002″ is not defining it). Once he defined it (narrowing down the possible answers from 7 to 1) as preemptive strikes, she stated her agreement with the policy. The other sin is his arrogance and condescension playing smart ass and thinking that there was but one Bush Doctrine, that he knew what it was, and that this rube from Alaska didn’t.

Keep feeding the backlash Charlie, we’d like to win Massachusetts too.

Robert OKane at 3:04PM on Sep 13th 2008

60.

You have a choice to make in this election: You can vote for two eastern elitist lawyers (Obama, Biden),
or you can vote for two normal people who aren't lawyers and who aren't from the east coast, and who aren't elitists. Which two do you think have the best chance of changing the corruption of Washington D.C. politics?

BARACKS PURPLE LIPS at 3:18PM on Sep 13th 2008