CENSORED! ABC Interview with Sarah Palin

Thanks for sharing..............

PROPAGANDA MUST BE MANIPULATED......

Oh how stupid, because no one uses the term except the media. I follow politics very closely and rarely here it except by the liberal biased media. I am thinking about asking that they be charged for the airtime since they only have one point of view like the communist and state controlled news organizations in bad countries.

No fair! I wanted to post this one!

Good job, Linda!

Thanks, all.

Umm...Cathi? I'm voting for Obama, honey. I've heard a LOT about that segment from people other than my online friends; it really did air. And I think the Republican Party is being much too protective of Palin; if she was ready when McCain announced his pick (and he said she was ready) then how did she become unready (as announced by the campaign staff as the reason behind not allowing the press full access?)

I read something the other day (novel-writing advice) that keeps coming to mind every time I see another political post:

Villians need to feel in control
Heroes need to feel honorable
Victims need to feel wounded.

Delores, hope your day gets better real soon. Here, have a nice cold lemonade.

Umm, Linda, you and I are looking at this from two different angles, your comment about "ABC, did you give in to pressure from the campaign?" makes me believe the liberals pressured ABC to drop that segment to hide Charlie's blunder. I'm delighted you posted this! So are you feeling in control? Or wounded?

Cathi, I'm feeling pretty honorable at the moment since the way I posted the question seems to have been pretty neutral, albeit unintentionally. I wrote it as meaning that I thought ABC gave in to pressure from the McCain-Palin campaign to cut that sequence because her hesitation could be interpreted as unflattering.

Someone else posted a link to The View where they showed clips of that segment and then had a body language expert interpret the message her demeanor was sending to viewers. That's the only place I could find the clip. I don't like to post links like that unless I've watched the whole thing myself at least twice.

Striving for veracity, not virago. (though I do have my moments).

Linda, I don't think you appeared viraginous at all. But as to veracity, you do realize there can be more than one truth to the same situation? Palin's ability to put thought into a response before answering is a good quality. For ABC to cut any of the interview wouldn't be fair. I thought Gov. Palin did excellent job and Charlie, though I love him to death, tried hard to garner respect in the news industry. He asked tough questions but didn't listen to her answers as he was so focused on tripping her up.

And as to body language experts, if you have been familiar with any legal proceedings where expert testimony is used, there are always other experts who don't agree with what is being interpreted, as it is an interpretation, not a science.

So while I agree you are attempting veracity, there is always more than one side to an argument.

Cathi, I don't think there is more than one truth. I think there is more than one INTERPRETATION.

Truth is that ABC did NOT post the entire un-cut interview, which 'should' have been done. The last interview link I posted (in my article about McCain's 'sexist' remarks about Palin) was from NBC, which kept one camera on John McCain's face the entire time and that is the video that was posted--a full fifteen minutes of it. ABC's 'full interview' is full of obvious cuts and key parts are missing--the most controversial being the exchange over the Bush Doctrine.

As to Palin having the ability to put thought into a response--if you have experience with jury consultants, you know full well that body language, far from being a "hoodoo voodoo" specialty does offer some pertinent observations. She pauses before answering; some are going to interpret that as 'she doesn't know the subject' and some will interpret it as 'she's giving a carefully considered response'.

Neither side has the whole ownership of the truth and the reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between.

Oral exams are given in order to determine how well a candidate (doctoral, MDs, law, engineering) knows the material and the responses are timed. Failure to answer within the alloted time period earns loss of points. For politicians, particularly those running for the highest offices in the land, their oral exams are called 'debates'. Any other interviews, speeches and television appearances are pure marketing opportunities. However many voters each candidate wins before the debates begin, I think--and hope--that America will at least make up its collective mind based on the official scorecard rather than the sound bites.

"you know full well that body language, far from being a "hoodoo voodoo" specialty does offer some pertinent observations."

Linda, I didn't claim it is a "hoodoo voodoo" (you do realize hoodoo and voodoo are two different practices?) specialty. I said it wasn't a science. It is based on interpretation. If you, yourself, are familiar with jury consultants, you know that opposing sides will have their own experts. No matter what their credentials are, it is still an interpretation, not exact.

I do agree with you on your last statement. We should all spend some time researching the candidates and watching the airplay of debates and other sources. This is truly and exciting time.

Cathi, in some circles having a degree in psychology is considered 'not a real education.'
I don't visit those circles anymore. But I've lived long enough to know that silence is the response most open to misinterpretation.

I did not mean to imply that you had made a pejorative description of the field-you didn't.
Those were my words and came from some of the dealings I have with people who insist on using interpretations rather than facts documented over a period of time. Neither did I claim that it was a science--merely that it offers pertinent observations.

I must admit, it has been refreshing to have had this conversation with you and I appreciate your restraint and ability to remain gracious while discussing a topic on which we must agree to disagree--which candidate will win the presidency.

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" with apologies to Patrick Henry for the inexactness of the quote.

My son, now a college freshman, was the first to urge me to look at both Presidential candidates as dispassionately as possible, because, in his words, "this should be a conversation not a diatribe". I did consider both; and was still somewhat on the fence until a couple of weeks ago I took an online comparisons test to discover whose platform matched my own beliefs most closely. McCain was 3 for/7 against; Obama was 9 for/1 against. Once I did my homework on the issues, the demographics of both parties ceased to matter on a personal level.

Yes, I'd love to see a woman in the White House; I really believe that women process thoughts differently than men do and would really like to see what a well-qualified woman can do in an executive position--but I don't believe that Sarah Palin is the best-qualified or experienced woman to fill either position. I do have grave concerns about McCain's health and age and the likelihood that Palin would wind up stepping into his job. None of the reasons I've cited in this paragraph were what I based my decision to vote for Obama but they are legitimate concerns that, since I am not seeing addressed anywhere, merely serve to confirm my decision.

I live in Jackson, MS, just a couple of hours from Oxford, where the first Presidential debate will be held on September 26. It was just announced on our local NBC affiliate
that James Meredith will be attending the debate. James Meredith was the first black student to attend Ole Miss and had to be escorted to class by federal marshals. There are also a couple of groups marching to Oxford to raise awareness of the need for healthcare, particularly treatment for AIDS. I didn't get all the details but if you're interested, go to www.wlbt.com and check the top stories. Should be fairly easy to find.

I've enjoyed this conversation also. Its delightful to have an actual discussion than to have to deal with name calling and accusations! I'm so tired of it! And I thank you for your information. I agree, it's not more than one true, but more than one interpretation. We bring with us life histories, cultural practices, ancestries and teachings that affect our interpretations in everything we do. Perhaps that is why there is so much divisiveness in this great big, wonderful country of ours.

I am interested in the details you list on www.wlbt.com and will check them out. I look forward to the debates. And thank you for restoring my faith that you can agree to disagree and still enjoy a conversation.

Ladies, thank you. This is the first time I have seen political posts on this site which did not degenerate into name calling, emotion dependent arguments, and outright disregard for dignity and respect. You ahve restored my faith in the ability for human beings to disagree and still remain civil.

Sorry, that is "you HAVE restored..." I really wish there was an easy way to edit comments.