Sarah Palin, already a lightning rod for media coverage in this election, was the subject of thousands of blogs across the internet again yesterday as a result of her appearance on NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams on October 22nd, 2008. In the interview, the following exchange occurs between Williams and the vice-presidential nominee:
WILLIAMS: Governor Palin, yesterday you tied this notion of an early test to the new president. Would this notion of precondition --
PALIN: Right.
WILLIAMS: -- that you both have been hammering the Obama campaign on. What — first of all, what in your mind is a precondition?
PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a- a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that -- that's -- that's some ill-preparedness right there.
Whether you believe this quote was taken out of context or that Palin simply stumbled over her words, I think you can agree Palin’s explanation struggles to relate to what the rest of us consider a pre-condition to be. As Ilan Goldenburg stated in the liberal blog Democracy Arsenal:
“What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiations until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. In the case of Iran, McCain insists that the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment program before we can even begin to negotiate. Obama opposes this precondition. The basic argument against preconditions is that you can't ask your adversary to give up a big negotiating point in exchange for absolutely nothing and expect them to actually sit down at the table.”
While the media and bloggers often tend to over-react to a single quote, I think a trend can be seen with Palin and her gaffs concerning the U.S. and Foreign Policy. Pre-Conditions are not a trivial matter; McCain and Obama have a fundamental disagreement on this issue that could have severe affects on how the U.S. sits down with powerful leaders around the globe. My hope is that this quote doesn’t reflect the extent of Sarah Palin’s knowledge on foreign policy. But I’m not convinced it doesn’t.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Dave, you are on the money with your analysis. The only point that I would like to add is that even if Palin was supposed to be discussing preparation, she is still advocating an undiplomatic America. These countries don’t care about America some even hate us. Why would they ever give up one the few things they can use as leverage against arguably most powerful country in the world, just so they can sit and “talk”. These countries all about action!! They don’t want to talk!! If we try to force them to yield to our wishes then there is no way that they will ever attempt to negotiate with us.
First of all, the purpose of negotiations is not to just "talk". I feel like you are oversimplifying the situation here. The negotiations that might be had would be to possibly set up a less hostile relationship between the two countries. Both approaches are valid. If preconditions are imposed and the other side simply doesn't care to meet them, then no progress will ever be made, but if preconditions are not made, then it can lead to either Iran or North Korea believing that they can do whatever they want and still improve diplomatic relations. But, sadly this is not the point of this discussion because Palin apparently is not aware of what she is talking about. She is confused and while she has only been in her position now for a couple months, this is no excuse. The president of the United States doesn't get an excuse. When a decision must be made quickly, the president can't simply change his mind once he figures out that he was using bad information. Palin simply is unable to intellectually meet the standards of a high-ranking political figure, even on such a an easy point that has been a major focus for her campaign. So that -- that's -- that's some ill-preparedness right there.
In recent weeks, almost every major news station took a shot at Palin. She is not the best public speaker/interviewee, and this makes it easier to criticize her. When we view messages that use clips of Palin's voice, we have to consider them with some degree of skepticism. There are millions of people who could benefit from attacks on Sarah Palin. Although some of the attacks on Sarah Palin may be comical, (ex. the Matt Damon clip) we have to search for the facts, just like in any other argument. I, like David, find myself unconvinced of Sarah Palin's incompetence.
I agree with epanicc. While there is debate over whether preconditions are effective or not, the important point is that Palin just doesn't know what she is talking about. Given, it is not essential for the vice president to have extensive knowledge about every possible subject, it is important for Palin to be able to discuss diplomatic relations eloquently if she wants to be taken seriously as the Vice President of the United States of America. Imagine, for example, if this discussion took place not with a TV host, but with the president of another country. The other country's leaders would not only be confused, but also may not take her seriously, or the country she is representing (how did a country elect this person to represent them as a people? they must not be too bright...) All I'm saying is that, while it's not essential that Palin be knowledgeable in every last subject in order for her to do her job effectively, I would like someone who is more well versed to represent me.
Loved the first sentence, "lightning rod." Unfortunately, I'm not sure you using a few lines of quote from Palin convinces me that she has the wrong idea about foreign policy. Nor does it convince me that you surpassed being objective and quoted a liberally biased blog.
While she may not have the experience with foreign policy that doesn't mean her ideas about foreign policy can't work. If that is the case, is Obama really qualified? I mean I'd be more worried about a potential president not being experienced in foreign affairs than a potential vice president.
On the subject of preconditions why not have them? I'm all for diplomacy, but there needs to be some rules. If we want to sit down with a country that "hates" us without preconditions I feel we may endanger ourselves recognizing them as a formal adversary in a way. You must look at this from both sides.
There seem to be two issues raised in David's blog post. The first issue is that of the competence of Sarah Palin. The second issue is the discussion of whether it is wise for the United States to sit down and talk with rogue dictators without preconditions.
In regards to the question of Sarah Palin's competence, I would first have to say that Nico, I believe it is not Palin's lack of public speaking ability that makes her easy to criticize, it is her lack of intelligence that becomes apparent whenever she speaks that makes her easy to criticize. No, I do not think Sarah Palin is anywhere near competent enough to be president. She consistently shows that she lacks knowledge of numerous key areas from foreign policy to domestic policy. As Peter said, she lacks the communication skills necessary to even talk to world leaders. I do not have a problem with her short tenure as governor of Alaska. What bothers me is that she appears to know almost nothing about the world outside of Alaska. What little she does it appears she has learned in the past two months.
Lest I digress and go on a rant about Palin, I will turn to the second issue, that of preconditions in talks with our enemies. I feel that no real harm occurs from talking with our enemies and hearing their thoughts and what they have to say. If anything it gives us greater insight into their motives and possible future actions. Talking is talking, it does not mean we are going to make any concessions or be unable to tell Ahmadinejad to go to hell if he makes a any demand we don't like. It puts us in a position of power, keeping our enemies close to us, knowing their moves. Foreign policy is a diplomatic chess and you can't win if you do not even sit down at the table to play the game.
After reading what Palin said in discussing preparation and negotiations, I found myself thinking she too was ill-prepared in that interview. Nevertheless, I believe it was only a slip of words, and perhaps nerves, that got the better of her as she created her response. I believe actions, not words, define an individual. Therefore I defend Palin in her mistake, which was regarded more grievously than needed.
On the topic of preconditions, I believe some conditions should be met. Yet I also believe that if two countries were to meet, it would be nearly impossible to meet all the standards McCain and Palin have in their preconditions that having negotiations with America would be almost nil. Obama's stance on preconditions is ideal: there should be some, but not so extreme or many that it prevents a chance to negotiate for peace.
I agree with Jake in that Sarah Palin is not nearly competent enough to be the potential President of the United States. She has become such an easy media target because of the lack of knowledge that she portrays to the public in almost all of her media appearances. She does continually speak about her relations with oil in Alaska, which is a commendable accomplishment, but is it enough to help her lead a country in the end? Additionally, since viewers have been so accustomed to seeing Palin in a negative light, i would be interested to see the topic of foreign policy presented to the public in favor of Palin from a news source that tends to be more conservative.
In terms of experience, like we spoke about in class the other day, can Obama and Palin's experience be considered comparable? It is hard to say because of the two very different jobs that each candidate is about to fill.
It seems to me that the consensus among our class is that Palin is not ready for the White House. I would have to agree with that.In fact, I am still in disbelief that McCain picked her for his VP. His strongest edge over Obama originally was his experience and knowledge of foreign policy. All he had to do was pick a VP that is strong on the economy, and he would have been safe. Instead he took a risk in order to "energize his conservative base," and gain the female vote. That risk has backfired, and now McCain has an uphill battle to win the White House.
Sarah Palin may not be the most intelligent VP candidate out there, and he knowledge may not be as broad as some of the other potential VP's; however, i believe that she is doing her very best to do her best. What i like about her is that she is a genuine person who is willing to learn and listen to become better at what she does. i am not saying that Biden is not this way, but i do feel like he has somewhat of a chip on his shoulder and an air of an "i know better than you" attitude. she is an intelligent woman, a little ill informed on certain issues, but she will do her job very well, with America's best interests if we give her a chance.
I agree with Dave's analysis of Palin's comment on "precondition". The extent of Palin's verbal incompetence is a worry-some issue in itself. For her to misdefine a term as significant and crucial as "precondition", shows how truly unready she is to accept a position of great diplomatic responsibility. As Desmond commented also, even if she was referring to "preparation" I believe that her undiplomatic methods would not serve this country well during such a globally sensitive time.
Post a Comment