CANADIEN

Sarah Palin is eminently qualified to step in the job of President of the United States at a moment office because of her executive experience? Sorry, but while state governorship may be a good teaching round, you need more than two years to earn your readiness diploma. And the issues facing mayors do not compare to those facing a Chief of State.

Obama got a surge from the Democrat Convention. McCain got a surge from the Republican Convention. It tends to happen at each election campaign. The full measure of the Palin factor will be seen in the days and weeks to come, not right after the conventions.

Whether or not the President of the United States would feel Israel was justified to do such a thing IS pertinent, as it would influence his/her position. The position of a candidate to the Presidency of the United States on the death penalty is relevant. But the question asked to Dukakis was a cheap shot, designed with one thing in mind, make him look bad. Say you'd support the death penalty in this case, after opposing it, and you'll be portrayed as an hypocrite. Say you won't support it in this case, and some will say "you cannot even count on him to protect his wife". Refuse to answer yes or no, and you're denounced as indecisive.

A bit uncomfortable, perhaps. Fear, not quite.

I take that as meaning "Israel can do whatever they want". A bit simplistic, but that's a position.

I think Obama is a bit naive on some foreign affairs issues. But when he hears the words "Bush Doctrine", he most probably knows right away the question is about foreign policy.

The issue is not understanding or interpreting or quoting the Bush doctrine. It is knowing that people who mention these two words together are talking about foreign policy. That she didn't seem to know that shows that she is not quite ready to face the press or to enter a debate.

As ffar as I am concerned, it is entirely justifiable in Canada to have provincial laws or municipal by-laws that state that English/French must appear on commercial signs (amd big enough to be read of course). I don't care one bit about what other languages are on there after that.

Bush was well prepared enough to win the election. It's the actual doing of the job that's his undoing.

It would be dumb, or more exactly wishful thinking, if Layton said that he thinks he will become PM. But almost everyone knows the BQ does not want to become the next government of Canada.

I don't think I have seen the end of her. But she's better getting more prepared, and fast.

She appears to say "uh?". And Gibson flubs the follow up as if saying "you don't know what I am talking about?" But hey, feel free to portray her as the target of a vicious left-wing attack in the form of... a question that has been asked to other people at both end of the spectrum before. I do not think Palin is a fool, but either she is in over her head, or the campaign staff didn't prepare her that well.

Less we forget. Staring is poise,and meaningless statements are metaphor.

So... the best you can come with is pointing out to my typos :lol: And either way, it's enough to show how unprepared Palin is to discuss some of the major issues of the campaign. I thought the Palin-Biden debate would be fun... If she is not better prepared than that, it will be as boring as a Red Wings-Maple Leafs game.

Being able to see one of the most remote area of Russia from the extreme west Alaska coast gives Palin an insight into Russian actions? Frankly...

Staring blankly is not poise. It is... staring blankly.

The degree of non-sense people will came with when defending their candidate... "There is no document titled Bush doctrine". "Therefore there may be many definitions of what it is." "As a result, the question was a trap, and Palin was right to stay away from it." Yeah right. There is a difference between saying "there was no Bush doctrine" or "there are so many way you can define what it is, people don't agree on that the term means", and STARING BLANKLY. Ask the same question to John McCain, and he won't stare, because he'll know that he's being asked about US foreign policy, whether or not he thinks there is anything that could be described as a doctrine. Same with Obama, same with Biden. Ask the same question to Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul, Romney or Thompson, Clinton or Kuninich. Ask it to Rice, Powell, Albright or Kissinger. Ask it to Limbaugh, Coulter or Maher. Ask it to political analysts, commentators, journalists covering US and international issues. Ask it to members of the US Congress. Ask it to Chirac, Blair, Putin or Ahmadinejad. Many of these people may think there is no such thing as a Bush Doctrine, but almost all of them will know the question is about US foreign policy. They will not state blankly, like if not knowing if the journalist is talking about foreign policy or other aspects of Bush 's policies or something else. Mind you, I'll admit that Gibson was not the most clear or even convincing in his reaction to Palin's response, but most journalist would have been taken aback by her answer...

Correct me if I am wrong, but Charlie Gibson is not running for VP of the United States. Sarah Palin is. the term "Bush doctrine" has been used often and should be known well enough by at least the Republican campaign handlers briefing her on issues that she should have at least managed something more than a bland stare. As for the "she wasn't running one month ago" argument.. the Democratic VP candidate wasn't either.

I don't hate him. He's not worth it.

This from the man who thinks slavery is an idea worth considering.

Cherry... people love clowns.

You mean it perfectly describes how profoundly clueless you are. You finally recognize it... and you contradict yourself a few lines later. As usual... Nope. French policies exist in France, not in Canada. There are no corrupt language policies in Ontario, so could I see anything wrong with something that does not exist? They are entitled to their opinion. And they are wrong. Of course, if they had taken the opposite position, you'd be denoucing them as traitors, corrupt and whatever your bigoted mind would come with. You just use hateful, uniformed and false arguments that fan the fire. Very easy. It's because of people like you.

Delete

As you said yourself, Pliny was questioning whether or not I should criticize her, in a way that sounded like "if you had all the facts, you would not be critizing her" but without providing the facts I am supposed to miss. Which by the way I found and still find funny. You obviously do not know me if you think I felt targetted, or insulted, or smeared or attacked by what he said. And I am sure that if your parents/business partner/spouse etc. told you something like "you know what, this thing you want us to buy together is too expensive, you won't get my money", you would said "you know what, I can't buy it by myself, so forget about it". I also think you wouldn't say later "he/she/they wanted to waste his/her/their money and mine on that thing and I said no". But that's what Sarah Palin did, and that's what have many local Democrats AND Republican fuming.

The CBC should rid itself of people who write (or say, for that matter) hate-filled, ignorant opinion peaces? When is that idiot Don Cherry leaving?