Video: Day 1 & 2 of ABC’s Interview with Palin (Update)

ABC was the first to secure the rights to a nationally televised interview with Sarah Palin on her vice president nomination. They aired the two of the three interviews on Thursday, September 11.

Below are excerpts from Charlie Gibson’s interview with Gov. Palin. More to come later.

Question on viability as President:

Question on Iraq and Holy War:

The media was hot to jump on these interviews, including ABC’s own Russell Goldman who reviewed Palin’s answers from the first two interview on September 11, 2008. There are probably much more dissections and interpretations to follow The most recent and exhaustive comes from the Associated Press, September 12, 2008:

McCain has defended her qualifications, citing her command of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska’s proximity to Russia.

Asked whether those were sufficient credentials, Palin said: “It is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.” She said she brings expertise in making the country energy independent as a former chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

She acknowledged that national security encompasses more than energy but said: “I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security.”

Palin said other than a trip to visit soldiers in Kuwait and Germany last year – “a trip of a lifetime” that “changed my life” – her only other foreign travel was to Mexico and Canada. She also said she had never met a head of state and added: “If you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.”

Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

Foreign policy questions dominated the first of three interviews Palin was giving Gibson over two days.

In the interview Thursday, Palin:

_Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine – essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.

Asked whether she agreed with that, Palin said: “In what respect, Charlie?” Gibson pressed her for an interpretation of it. She said: “His world view.” That prompted Gibson to say “no, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war” and describe it to her.

“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,” Palin said, though added “there have been mistakes made.”

Pressed repeatedly on whether the United States could attack terrorist hideouts in Pakistan without the country’s permission, she said: “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.”

_Said nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands are dangerous, and said “we’ve got to put the pressure on Iran.” Asked three times what her position would be if Israel felt threatened enough to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Palin repeatedly said the United States shouldn’t “second guess” Israel’s steps to secure itself.

_Called for Georgia and the Ukraine to be included in NATO, a treaty that requires the U.S. to defend them militarily. She also said Russia’s attack into Georgia last month was “unprovoked.” Asked to clarify that she’d support going to war over Georgia, she said: “Perhaps so.”

“I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” she said.

_Said she “didn’t hesitate” when McCain asked her to be his running mate. “I answered him ‘yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

_Contradicted an assertion she made at her former church that “our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Asked whether she thought the United States was fighting a holy war, she said she meant to convey that she agreed with Abraham Lincoln’s quote that “I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.”

Later, in the second interview, Palin said she broke from McCain on climate change and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. McCain has said humans have caused climate change and the federal government shouldn’t permit drilling in the federally protected wildlife reserve.

Palin, however, said: “I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. … Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet – the warming and the cooling trends – regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it.”

On ANWR, she said: “We’ll agree to disagree but I’m gonna keep pushing that and I think eventually we’re all gonna come together on that one.”

We’ll try to have the entire video of the first day up soon.

Update by Nate

The first interview excerpt was aired in two parts on Thursday night’s World News Tonight. The above videos were also excerpts from ABC News. I did manage to find the entire first part, which is actually 10 minutes long, in it’s entirety:

Here is the entire second part which aired Thursday on World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson:

Clearly there were numerous edits to fit some juicy questions into the 30 minute broadcast. The entire thing is supposed to air tonight (Friday) at 10pm eastern on 20/20. We’ll have the complete video from tonight once it airs.

Update by Nate (Day 2)

Another clip from Friday’s World News Tonight on abortion and other issues:

Next part:

Still waiting for the entire hour long interview on 20/20 at 10pm eastern on ABC. I will have the entire hour uploaded once it airs for your examination.

  • Babs

    So far, I don’t have any problems or see any major red flags here, but I’ll wait until I see the whole interview before making any further judgements. 😉

  • Stalin

    I thought she did just fine. Gibson obviously tried to get her to stumble. I don’t know how this guy is on TV, he is so dour. Here is a totally unbiased report from the AP…yeah right.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-mjfuE-Dz5hpM2uDBVt3Kw6le4AD935372OB

  • Babs

    You know, Stalin, I really agreed with Michael Steele about this interview. Where was this line of questioning when Obama stepped on the scene? I think – from what I’ve seen so far – that she handled those questions as well if not better than Obama could have. The AP accuses her of “side stepping” questions. He’s been “side stepping” those same questions for 2 years now.

  • Stalin

    Babs,

    Well we all know that the media, save Fox News, is in the tank for Obama. It really is a sad state that I can’t even get a level assessment from the AP. People wonder why AM radio is a popular place for conservatives…because we can’t stand to listen to the biased crap on TV and in print.

  • The only thing I didn’t like about these initial clips is that clearly they aren’t playing her entire answers.

    We’ll have the full hour-long interview up once it airs tonight at 10pm on ABC.

  • Babs

    Thanks, Nate.

    Stalin, you got it. And after hearing that Chris Matthews and Oberman got bumped, I flipped over to MSNBC last night to see their replacement, and what do you know. Hardball with Chris Matthews sitting at the desk running Obama commericals. It never changes.

  • Stalin

    Unfortunately Matthews and Olberman were only bumped from live campaign events, but they still have their shows that 7 people from San Francisco watch.

  • IndiMinded

    MSNBC is certainly the liberal equivalent of fox news, but the Associated press? As Jon Stewart once put it, have you ever considered that the facts might just have sort of a liberal slant to them?

  • Babs

    When I first flipped over, I was shocked to see what looked like an Obama commerical running, since both candidates agreed to not run ads yesterday. Then after the commercial it cut to Matthews. Guess he didn’t have to agree to that. *LOL* So 7 people from SF saw an Obama ad yesterday.

    This morning on Fox (I’m watching their hurricane coverage) they announced that Obama would be making a statement on Ike, and they streamed the podium where he was speaking in NH today waiting for him to make it. When he got to the podium, they went live to him, and he began his speech, saying nothing about Ike, and after about 5 minutes they cut away a little disgusted at getting conned, I think. The funny part was, that Obama immediately began to slam McCain/Bush, more of the same, yada, yada. After every jab he hestitated for applause, but there was nothing but silence from the crowd. They didn’t respond AT ALL to the digs. I told you it’s getting old, and you could see the confusion and frustration on Obama’s face. I really enjoyed that.

  • Stalin

    Indy

    I completely disagree. Fox News has commentators that lean right, but MSNBC has journalists who present the news that lean left. Big difference.

  • Babs

    Oh!! Stalin, what’s the big programming announcement that supposed to be made during Hannity and Colmes tonight, have you heard? I caught the show last night and Hannity said not to miss tonight, that a “major” programming announcement would be made. Do you think they might actually get rid of Alan Colmes? You know, I think he secretly wears lipstick and high heels at home. 😉

  • Where was this line of questioning when Obama stepped on the scene?

    Actually Babs, you might be surprised to know, that when he wanted a YES / NO answer out of her about striking Pakistan it was directly related to this line of questioning.

    Check it out…

    Interesting how behind he was in the polls from Hilary back then as well.

  • Stalin

    Bab,

    Yeah I wish they were getting rid of Colmes…even if it were for another liberal, anything is better than that guy.

    You must be referring to the Palin interview they secured:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/next-up-for-palin-sean-hannity/

    Can’t wait!

  • Babs

    Good work, Eric! That’s ironic now, isn’t it? Do you think the interview was biased? I’ve heard yeses and nos on this, and I still have seen the whole interview, so I’m asking.

    That must be it, Stalin. It’s great he gets to interview her, but I was sure hoping Colmes was outta here. *L* I don’t mind a liberal either, but Colmes is just…..

    schiz·o·phren·ic – 1. Psychiatry. Also called dementia praecox. a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.

  • IndiMinded

    I don’t really care to get into a discussion comparing the networks, Stalin. Frankly I think they’re all pretty terrible, mostly infotainment at this point, and figuring out which stinks the least isn’t something that appeals to me. I guess these interviews are helpful to the american public to help get to know the candidates, but god I wish there were real news anchors to conduct them, instead of the circus clowns we’ve got on tv.

    Seriously, start looking at what sorts of suits they’re wearing and you’ll wonder how you ever took them seriously. C-span’s both the only decent political coverage around, and host to the first and best reality shows on television

  • I found the entire segments aired on Thursday, the post has been updated with the new videos.

  • Babs

    Thanks, Nate. I do notice editing, and a chopping off, if you will, of some of her answers. Since he asked her the same question three times and got the same answer three times, you would have thought their editors could have done a better job of editing for time considerations, wouldn’t you?

    My instincts tell me the man ticked her off before the camera ever started rolling. Kudos to her – she looked him straight in the eye and was not bullied.

    The Bush Doctrine question was meant to rattle her, I’m glad it didn’t. A guest on a news show last night said that he had interviewed George Bush himself and asked HIM about the “Bush Doctrine” and Bush said he wasn’t sure what it was supposed to be. The journalist then rattled off three different definitions of the term. So that was a definite gotcha question, and he didn’t. 😉

  • Mike A

    That was a disturbing display of ignorance on Palin’s part. To conservatives, who somehow claim they are from the best party regarding national security, you cannot honestly feel good about that interview. The lengths you will go to lie to yourself are tragic. For you. Mccain did nothing to compliment his ticket with this choice. All he did was create the wrong kind of distracting stir that has already harmed this country for the sake of votes. We spent two weeks focused on this nonsense as actually important issues fall off the table. You honestly believe in Sarah Palin? Why on earth do you? You should be scared that your candidate, Mr. Experienced Veteran Maverick, actually found her suitable to be his partner in governing our nation. Based on this interview, what could they possibly talk about? I say all this with sincere concern. I will also add that I find Palin likeable, charismatic, and doing her best to rise to the occasion. Obama picked Biden as a compliment based on issues and his experience critics. If he wanted a running mate purely for gain and for votes, he would taken Clinton. That’s sound judgment based on what’s best for the nation, not best for winning. Picking Palin: why?

  • Dreadsen

    “I completely disagree. Fox News has commentators that lean right, but MSNBC has journalists who present the news that lean left. Big difference. ”

    Fox actually misrepresents truths and has all out made up lies.
    I can post actual videos of them making up lies or grossly misrepresenting a fact in order to persuade you into thinking something other than the truth.

    Both present news that leans in their direction but only one presents facts almost every time. I watch both Fox and Msnbc. And if you all dislike weak little Alan Colmes but praise Hannity? You must be so devoted to the right it’s ridiculous. I can’ understand not liking Keith Olberman but sliming Alan Colmes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAAhZwM2Uk

    Look at how Hannity totally disrespects this guy calling him names and yelling. When he was only presenting a simple opinion based on his observation. He wasn’t bomb throwing.

    Now look at how Alan Colmes handled Guiliani

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQMOL7Jwqc

    He very mildly presented his argument and debunked him.
    Hannity is just reckless loud and disrespectful many times with guests who are invited on there. I really can’t understand how anyone can have a problem with Alan Colmes but not Hannity unless they are just Right wing devotees.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, the difference he’s talking about is between commentators and journalists, it is a big difference. Commentators are allowed to be biased, journalists aren’t.

    Several people have had something to say over the “Bush Doctrine” thing. Seems it was actually a catch phrase made up by a commentator and he says:

    “The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

    “There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.””

    Richard Starr, of the Weekly Standard adds: “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

  • Wow babs. You really believe Fox news is unbiased?

  • Babs

    Not their commentators, no. 🙂

  • Mike A

    It does not matter that the Bush Doctrine has gone through several definitions based on the time it was referenced. Palin didn’t seem to have the slightest clue to what any versions were at any time. Had she known about that phrase and its various implications, she would have sought clarification from Gibson based on knowing the intricacies. She didn’t know.

    I do not want to see someone falter in public, but she is going to over and over again when asked about the issues, away from prepared remarks. If I were given a 3-week tutorial on foreign policy, I could have done better, and that’s not saying much. It was abundantly clear to me that she had not spent much time thinking about world affairs as most people I know.

    I want to make something clear: I do not expect to say anything radically different from the GOP agenda. It’s the knowledge she possesses, how she demonstrates it, what she thinks about, and how long she has been thinking about it. In my opinion(obviously), she is the most poorly qualified person to occupy a ticket on either side of the aisle in our lifetime. I’m 31 years old. Anyone who tossed their hats in the ring this last year, right or left, would be better. I think of Huckabee, Romney, Paul, even blowhard Thompson. I think of the dozen or so other possible choices who didn’t run for pres. George W Bush was an uninformed moron who gained power and run this country into the ground. He is so easily lampooned as a person, it became a regular part of our culture. Isn’t the GOP tired of choosing leaders who fail to display any intelligence?

  • Colmes needs to go. The man presents himself as a stooge, more than a equal partner in the political gambit.

  • Ro

    She was classy; sidestepped some landmines; comported herself well.

  • Stalin, I’m so excited that Hannity is going to sit down with Sarah next week! I bet his wife tells him to keep his hands off! hahaha

    As for Fox News, first let me start by saying Hallelujah there’s a news channel I can stand. Who cares if there are some “commentators” that show their bias, that’s why they’re commentators! Is there really anything to bitch about here people, the liberals have all the alphabet channels and Republicans have one, let us just have one.

  • Mike A

    I don’t begrudge FOX for spinning to the point of propaganda. It’s the claim of fairness, balance, you decide, no spin, etc. Come out and say you’re a conservative network. I’d respect it much more. I’ve even consult it for counterpoints. As it stands, manipulation is the only word that can explain a claim to fairness while taking a side. People deserve better, especially those who can’t see it for what it is.

  • Eddie

    Thank you, Mike A. At least someone else out there can see how poorly Palin performed in that interview. (I wanted to get sick while watching it.) She looked like she had been thrown into a job interview with no idea what she was actually interviewing for, but doing her best to display confidence. She is extremely well composed and has done an excellent job at stepping up, but she simply lacks the knowledge and understanding of what she’s being called to do.

    And for those of you fighting about which network is best, I’m amazed that you can’t come to the conclusion that they are all biased. They are doing everything they can to get people to keep watching. This election was their goldmine! Look at the polling. Do any of you really believe the race is this close? CNN admitted online that there polling had been conducted by attempting to poll those that were “most likely to vote” in November. Which increased the polling for evangelical-white Americans. But guess what? Now you can’t find that statement on CNN.com. It was up for about a half-hour, as I’ve noticed they do quite often. This polling nonsense is out of hand and blatantly avoiding any scientific survey methods. You want to know what the country thinks, poll randomly… a lot.

    For my news, I watch a few different networks, then I turn to the Daily Show. No, it now NEWS News, but if you watch other stuff, then watch them rip both parties apart, you get a real interesting view of who is just straight up lying. Plus, it adds a bit of laugh factor in after watching a days worth of depressing junk. Does it lean left? Definitely. But it doesn’t pull punches on the Democrats mistakes, either. It does make it very obvious how John McCain thinks that America is stupid enough to fall in line, just as they did with Bush. A shame really, because I respected his political gusto until these last 6 years or so.

    So give it a try, just for a day, with an OPEN mind. At worst, there’s a little comedy to finish your day with.

  • I thought the interview was kinda dull and ordinary. I think Charlie Gibson wanted to go hard at her but held off because he doesn’t want to seem mean or a bully. And Sarah Palin’s answers were from the John McCain’s advisors book of things to say.

    Can’t wait for when Hannity interviews her WHOOOO-OOOOOO! how unbiased will that be? I’ll book myself in for an allover body wax when it’s on, the pain will be more tolerable.

  • Todd

    After reading the post you guys put up, which go after Palin and Bush with such personal comments it’s amazing to me that any of you have the guts to call any Republican stupid or to say they are easily portrayed as morons. You seem to be helping the democrats portray a pretty unpleasant image yourselves.

    Babs-Stalin I like Colmes—he is not as soft on his radio show and actually sounds like the typical venom filled democrat. Kinda like some of the guys on this site.

    It continues to amaze me that the liberals and one or two Ron Paul supporters on this site seem to think their thoughts are the thoughts Republicans are living by. McCain picked Palin to attract the conservative women’s vote–there are such things you know. The move was brilliant b/c not only did it bring a newer face to the election it solidified the conservative vote for him which McCain was struggling to secure. It also attracted some independent voters and has obviously exposed the Democrats to an unexpected hypocrisy. Who would ever have thought the man AT THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET, who has only 2 years as a U.S. senator, and who described himself as UNQUALIFIED for the presidency in 2004 would be calling a Vice Presidential candidate inexperienced, using quotes she made and calling a press conference to talk about a Hurricane? By the way why would he talk about a Hurricane ? it’s not like he can call out the national guard or anything.

  • “It continues to amaze me that the liberals and one or two Ron Paul supporters on this site seem to think their thoughts are the thoughts Republicans are living by.”

    Please explain.

  • Dreadsen

    “It also attracted some independent voters and has obviously exposed the Democrats to an unexpected hypocrisy. Who would ever have thought the man AT THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET, who has only 2 years as a U.S. senator, and who described himself as UNQUALIFIED for the presidency in 2004 would be calling a Vice Presidential candidate inexperienced, using quotes she made and calling a press conference to talk about a Hurricane? By the way why would he talk about a Hurricane ? it’s not like he can call out the national guard or anything.”

    Oh is it possible that he felt that in 2004 but what he learned in 3 years makes him feel confident that he is ready? I mean it was 4 years ago it’s not like he said this a month ago. True he can not call out the national guard. But is this a hit at him because Palin can call out the national guard? Because if i’m not mistaken there is no hurricane in alaska. And McCain has also talked about the hurricane as well. He would have about just as much power as Obama would.

    It is not hypocrisy to point out that the other person is a hypocrite.
    But it is hypocrisy to use Obama’s accomplishments or lack there of as a validation for Palin to be president when the people who selected her said that Obama wasn’t qualified. Why hasn’t someone said that both of them are not qualified due to their experience? But instead of saying this they would rather spin it that she is qualified but still standing behind their argument that he isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

    Babs

    I am confused. Ok I kind of see your point about the difference between commentators and Journalist. So basically you are saying commentators are allowed to be bais and create lies to peddle to the public. Because the point i was raising is about making up lies versus giving facts against an opponent.
    But after this you say that fox’s commentators are not biased??
    I think there are a lot of people who agree that MSNBC is bias but imagine someone trying to make the case that Msnbc is balanced. This is what angers people. And i don’t know about everyone else here. But it seems like the only time an out rage happens is when people make this claim that fox is fair and balanced. OR deny the propaganda or lies they spread. I haven’t seen anger that they are a conservative network because they know there in an alternative far liberal one. But it’s the denial that they are a conservative network and that they are fair and balanced for liberals and conservatives both.

    Now if we want to have a debate about who actually peddles propaganda or lies between a liberal network and a conservative one that is a discussion i wouldn’t mind having.

  • Talitha

    Wow!! Talk about media bias. Those sure weren’t the questions Obama had. Charlie tried so hard to get her to stumble. In my view she did a awazing job. There is no doubt in my mind about her being a great vice president!!!

    McCain and Palin 2008

  • Laughing My Ass Off, no doubt when she sits down with that right wing dilly-wit Sean Hannity it’ll be fair and balanced?

    I’m waiting for Palin to go on the O’Reilly Factor and The View, they’ll be fun interviews…LOL

  • nyth

    It rather news to me that employees of privately owned companies are not _allowed_ to be unbiased. I’m pretty sure that is what being privately owned + freedom of speech equals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
    That is a wikipedia page that discusses the various allegation of bias against Fox (note that there are also pages for CNN, CBS, and BBC).

    Fox is at least as guilty of political bias (and, in my opinion, more-so) in what it reports as “facts” as other main-stream news outlets.

  • Colmes needs to go. The man presents himself as a stooge, more than a equal partner in the political gambit.

    That is Fox’s whole point. That is why he has lasted so long.

  • I am actually stunned that there is this debate about any of the news channels.

    If you really want your news to be equal.. You people know where to go!

    Come on people… seriously… JIM LEHRER is the absolute best example of a class act American. And a veteran too!
    No news channel is better for just presenting the facts. You aren’t going to get commercials even. I can’t believe the crap you people watch! Post some stuff from here up NATE… let’s get serious.

    (some of it might put you to sleep though.)

  • Babs

    “Babs

    I am confused. Ok I kind of see your point about the difference between commentators and Journalist. So basically you are saying commentators are allowed to be bais and create lies to peddle to the public. Because the point i was raising is about making up lies versus giving facts against an opponent.
    But after this you say that fox’s commentators are not biased??”

    No, you misunderstood, someone asked me if I WERE saying that Fox’s commentators weren’t biased, and I said no, I wasn’t saying that. Of course they are, they’re allowed to be. That’s the difference in a commentator – who gives their personal comments to an issue – and a Journalist, who is supposed to just report the facts. Maybe they should call commentators “opinionators”. *LOL* When you write a commentary for You Decide, you’re allowed to give your biased views on the subject, whether they’re factual in someone else’s opinion or not. That’s what a commentator does. If you disagree, you just turn it off. Like your commentary on the guy crying race in subliminal terms. That was a commentary from him, and you commented on his commentary. All opinions, no facts. Circumstancial evidence, that sort of thing. That’s why, while I didn’t agree with the theory, I complimented you on your writing. You did a good job commentating on the subject, whether I agree with the subject itself or not.

  • Jesus Babs talk about not making any sense.

    So are you saying Charlie Gibson is a journalist or a commentator? Because I’m getting the impression you think he’s a journalist…YET…Hannity is going to be doing exactly what he did by interviewing Palin but it seems Hannity would be OK to put his rightwing slant on things because he’s a commentator, but Gibson is bad because he apparently put a left slant on things.

  • Babs

    We weren’t even talking about Charlie Gibson, pudding. Geez, you used to be able to read, what happened to you?

  • Mary Chris Griffin

    It is a terrible shame that ABC or any major network is allowed such bias and disrespect as was shown against Palin, in the Charlie Gibson interview. His interview with Obama had none of the open animosity that Charlie showed to this candidate. NO matter who she is or where she’s from or Charlie’s personal politics, ABC should rise to a better standard of journalism. Shame on you!

    Charlie needs to go the way of Dan Rather.

  • Dreadsen

    nzpudding

    Okay this is what Babs is saying and on the basis of what a commentators job is vs a Journalist she is right. Or the amount of moral responsibility each one welds.
    But i thought Keith Olberman and Rachael Maddow were commentators. Fox has the highest viewers and ratings so those commentators who have the right to lie are probably being taken by a lot of people as telling the truth.