How interesting that ABC's Charles Gibson, as noted in this Associated Press dispatch, focused on Sarah Palin's foreign-policy bona fides when he interviewed her (a transcript is here). Also note the biased AP evaluation (bolds are mine):
John McCain running mate Sarah Palin sought Thursday to defend her qualifications but struggled with foreign policy ..... acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state.
..... 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."
Indeed. Palin's contention gains more support if you look at the prior experience of at least a couple of presidents and vice-presidents during the past few decades:
- As Georgia's governor, Jimmy Carter had little, if any, foreign experience when he ran and won in 1976, though to be fair he had some military background.
- Dan Quayle was criticized for many reasons in 1988, but I don't recall the press harping on his relatively light foreign policy credentials. Maybe it was because there was already a great deal of it at the top of the ticket. (Wait a minute -- Isn't the McCain-Palin experience mix analogous? Hmm.)
- Spiro Agnew in 1968? There's no need to elaborate, and the same argument made with Quayle applies.
But for the moment, let's focus on the election of 1992.
As Bill Clinton was challenging GOP incumbent George Bush, media presidential readiness standards in foreign policy were quite different -- conveniently so, given the fact that the Democratic nominee was the clear lightweight.
Here's how the New York Times's Tom Friedman opened an October 4, 1992 analysis of the foreign policy ideas promulgated by Arkansas governor Clinton (bold is mine):
Under the pressure of a Presidential campaign, Gov. Bill Clinton has been trying to outline his own unique foreign policy, while at the same time fending off criticism from the Bush White House that he is a closet dove masquerading as a hawk and that his experience in world affairs is limited to breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.
Ha ha. Friedman never attempted to refute the criticism of Clinton's lack of experience, because he couldn't. In fact, he reinforced points made by the Arkansas governor's critics (bold is mine):
As a man who has spent his entire career in state government in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton has no foreign policy record to run on or be judged against. Therefore, critics say, he has had the luxury of defining himself purely through a series of speeches. None of his ideas have had to meet the test of the real world.
..... His foreign policy travels as Governor consisted of three trade missions to Japan, Taiwan and other East Asian nations, two to Western Europe and one to the Soviet Union.
It is highly unlikely that Mr. Clinton met a foreign head of state during those generously-named "foreign policy" travels.
Friedman also never referred to Clinton's vice-presidential running mate, Al Gore, in an attempt to buck up Mr. Clinton's obvious inexperience. Vice-presidential credibility on foreign policy apparently wasn't that important 16 years ago, even with a known neophyte at the top of the ticket.
Friedman, in his mind, explained away the Democratic nominee's problem by:
- Citing how Clinton had "laid out his internationalist vision in four speeches over the last year." Do you think the critics would be impressed if Palin gave a few speeches?
- Noting his reliance on "elder statesmen" -- "Clinton has embraced so many advisers that ..... no single adviser stands out as first among equals." Has anyone questioned John McCain's foreign policy team?
- Incredibly, allowing Clinton to frame the domestic economy as a foreign policy issue -- not just one of many, but, in a preview of the eight years of convoluted logic we all had to endure, the single most important:
"In this new era our first foreign priority and our domestic priority are one and the same: reviving our economy," he said in a recent speech in Los Angeles. "This has been the Administration's most glaring foreign policy failure. An anemic, debt-laden economy undermines our diplomacy, makes it harder for us to secure favorable trade agreements and compromises our ability to finance essential military actions.
Clinton's criticism of the "anemic" and supposedly foreign policy-driving economy was made during a year in which economic growth was over 4%.
In his Palin interview, as Gibson went after her foreign policy experience, the Alaska governor struck back adroitly:
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."
Note to AP: That assertion is better than a "try." Palin's concrete tie-in of a specific economic policy issue to national security is much stronger than Clinton's squishy and falsely premised 1992 generality, and indicates a much firmer grip on reality.
Comparing John McCain's vice-presidential selection to the Dems' 1992 presidential nominee, the clear conclusion is: Advantage Palin -- even before we get into how Clinton left us vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
X
September 12, 2008 - 18:01 ET by serfer62Its getting very difficult to read Big Media at all. Sooo
I read the comments section instead
"...even before we get into
September 12, 2008 - 18:16 ET by robert108"...even before we get into how Clinton left us vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks."
A clear understatement. Clinton's many weak responses enabled the 9/11 attacks.
Unfortunately, the lack of foreign policy experience(and knowledge) of the '92 ticket is a warning, I think.
I'm glad you brought these examples up Tom
September 12, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Dee Bunkbecause ABC disingenuously "fact checked" her this morning and called her statement false because the last few VP's had met with heads of state. That hardly makes her statement false because I'm sure there were many that didn't. In addition the sentiment was as it was required for President so Presidential candidates should have been included in their "fact check" also.
They especially should have included Obama! He never met with heads of state until a month ago when he went on his photo op tour. He didn't conduct any business with them. If that is people's big problem she can easily schedule a boondoggle press trip like he did.
I wonder if all the top anchors would follow her if she did it. They probably would actually. She should do it. No coverage of Obama during her week long trip! She could also visit her son.
I dont care if she met with any, I trust her to do what is right
September 12, 2008 - 19:13 ET by general companyWho doubts that she wont catch up , like right now. I trust this woman with any Heads of State before I would trust any Dem from the last 20 yrs or so. She is sharp as a tack, and knows what is good for this country and it's people. She also did not lie or fudge about her qualifications here, anyone think Obama wont? She knows how to deal with people, that is why she is a success
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Keyword - LIVING!
September 12, 2008 - 20:19 ET by GregEI saw that this morning too. Did you notice how they declared it false? Their line mentioned that they checked with every "living vice president" going back the last 32 years.
Did Palin mention living? Did she mention only 32 years? No she did not. They slipped that in there in order to put one past the viewers (probably succeeded with most) and added "living" in order to check off the "false" column. Very disingenuious and deceitful reporting.
Early reviews in on Sarah Palin Interview Part 2
September 12, 2008 - 18:52 ET by smartestmaninamericaWord is she rocked it hard core. From what I saw she was amazing.
Gee Tom. So much for the "great post" comment.
September 12, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Gary HallGee Tom. So much for the ole "great post" comment.
Simply put - brilliant analysis, and context. (;~> gary
And what about the fact we are currently involved in two wars?
September 12, 2008 - 19:03 ET by NewHavenLook, have people forgotten we are currently embroiled in not one, but two wars in the Middle East? This is what has frustrated me with talking to fellow Republicans as of late. Understanding foreign issues isn't optional and it's ridiculous to compare our situation to when Clinton was first elected to office. The Clintons make me groan, but I remember the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." One of the main reasons the first Bush lost was because our economy was
struggling at the time and people felt he was focused too much on foreign affair - hence, Clinton winning.
Come on, we need to have a better discussion
than this.
Two wars sound great.... NH
September 12, 2008 - 19:18 ET by Gary HallTwo wars sound great.... NH
Just imagine - had we responded during the mid to late 90's to the horrific overrun of Afghanistan by the radical Islamic Taliban, instead of looking the other way, ole Bin Laden and crew might have had a bit more difficult time establishing his training camps, and in organizing and planning the 9//11 attacks. Bin Laden, who returned to Afghanistan in 1996, and promplty declared war against the United States, would have been drawn into fighting against the US in Afghanistan, then and there - on thier soil. Perhaps, he would not have even survived. But of course, during the 90's we were not nearly so concerned about human suffering as after. These two wars may not have been needed.
Invading Afghanistan
September 12, 2008 - 20:31 ET by NewHavenAre you actually suggesting that we should have attacked Afghanistan in the mid-90's? Even if we followed this absurd train of thought, we already know what "ole Bin Laden" would do...That would be to flee and hang out in Pakistan.
"Are you actually
September 13, 2008 - 01:36 ET by ckc1227"Are you actually suggesting that we should have attacked Afghanistan in the mid-90's Even if we followed this absurd train of thought, we already know what
"ole Bin Laden" would do...That would be to flee and hang out in
Pakistan.?"
I would have settled for just taking Osama when he was offered to us, or taken him out when we had the chance instead of worrying about world opinion and poll ratings.
NewHaven_actually yes...
September 14, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Gary HallWell, if you follow my history a bit better, my yes answer is a bit more comprehensive. The US had, starting with Jimmy Carter then additionally and more with Ronald Reagan, supported the freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the imperialist invasion of the Soviets. It is unfortunate that between the Democratic Congress, Reagan and Bush #1, the UN and free Europe, that following the defeat of the Soviets, Afghanistan was basically forgotten and allowed to slip into a deep dark void. It was in this void that the Taliban took over - violently and with much human rights violations.
Yes - I do indeed believe, and more so than Kosovo (which was about energy - the Caspian field), that the US, as the country's biggest hypocrite, Sen. Byrd, always said during the 90's..
..The US should have led and international effort to prevent the Taliban from conquering Afghanistan, and lacking the will of the world to be responsible, we should have led on it ourselves. This, if you follow the dates, preceeded Bin Laden's setting up camp in Afghanistan. Gary
Gary
September 14, 2008 - 20:50 ET by NewHavenThanks for the follow up...I see your point, but admittedly can't
begin to imagine what a hornets nest would have erupted had we struck
more forcefully than our ineffective missile strikes at Afghanistan.
First, the UN/International Community was not going to do anything about the
Taliban except continue to provide aid when possible. And the
US public would have never stood for it. At the time there was an
incredible push against Nation Building after Kosovo and the public had
zero confidence in Clinton's motivations.
Second, I lack confidence that we still would have gotten Osama. I honestly thought he
would be dead by now given our commitment to the region, but he
continues to evade us. And again, there are just too many other
countries in that region that he could flee too. Sure, there's the
obvious Pakistan, but he could always head back to Sudan.
Bush was right to go into Afghanistan with the International support after
911, but I just can't help but feel that to do so any earlier would
have made things only worse. We've learned all to often by now to
beware of when we provide arms and support for one regime in the Middle East; after all they are often worse than those they overthrow.
Tom... Talk about timing.
September 12, 2008 - 19:02 ET by Clear thinkerTom...
Talk about timing. I just posted this comment on my site... “Matt Damon should run for president - he has more “foreign policy” experience than Ms. Palin - he’s filmed in so many countries!!!”
- Posted by L.J.B.
The lefties are gonna hate me. Given the choice, I want Sarah Palin staring in the eyes of world leaders, not some dolt!
Hating Sarah Palin - Hollywood Style
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
No time for amateurs
September 12, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistBlumer's analysis is fair enough, but with one glaring omission. When the previous candidates he names ran for president or VP, America still commanded considerable trust and respect in the world. After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the necessary repair work will be immense. No time for amateurs---especially one so green that she innocently throws out the kind of naive, barely informed stuff that Palin did last night (e.g., possible war with Russia).
Now that is a lie
September 12, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Rebelwe were hated long before they ever came along and the Dems and the Media want us to believe that.sorry but I would rather have McCain/Palin run this great Country of our instead of Obama/Biden who has less experience then Palin.Obama/Biden is like Prime Minster Chamberlain and the Germans.
Never vote for Byrd
especially one so green
September 12, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Free Stinkerespecially one so green
You mean Obama? The guy running for President?
Sarah. Palin. Is. Not. Running. For. President. Do you understand that simple concept?
You are wasting your
September 12, 2008 - 21:59 ET by GregEYou are wasting your breath....uh, keystrokes.
"No time for
September 12, 2008 - 22:03 ET by GregE"No time for amateurs"......"especially one so green"
Then to follow your thoughts, Palin and Obama should step aside and we'll go to the polls with McCain as Republican candidate (no alteration there) and Biden as Democrat candidate (must bump him up to the Pres slot).
This is such a hoot ....
September 12, 2008 - 22:29 ET by Tom BlumerWe have lost so much trust and respect that:
- France has moved rightward.
- Germany has moved rightward.
- Bush's "good friend" Berlusconi has returned to power.
- Bush was greeted as a hero on his Africa tour because he is the first president to have done something coherent about AIDS, after Bill Clinton only postured.
- Bibi Netanyahu is on the comeback trail in Israel.
These are the quick examples off the top of my head. The world that so mistrusts and disrespects us somehow is moving rightward, becoming more like that which they supposedly mistrust and disrespect. How can that be?
No time for amateurs
September 12, 2008 - 22:49 ET by Prez RudyBlumer's analysis is fair enough, but with one glaring omission. When the previous candidates he names ran for president or VP, America still commanded considerable trust and respect in the world. After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the necessary repair work will be immense. No time for amateurs--especially one so green that HE innocently throws out the kind of naive, barely informed stuff that OBAMA has been doing this entire campaign. Yeah, I suppose that can work both ways..
"...white folk's greed runs a world in need." Barack Obama
"When the previous
September 13, 2008 - 01:28 ET by ckc1227"When the previous candidates he names ran for president or VP, America
still commanded considerable trust and respect in the world."
I'm guessing you're the kind of guy who thinks the cheerleader in high school let you do her homework for her because she really trusted and respected you, lol.
"No time for amateurs"
We agree. This is no time for someone as inexperienced and naive as Obama to be president. He doesn't even know how many states there are. Hell, he doesn't even know which state he's IN half the time.
Anyway, keep running against our VP candidate. The November 5th liberal meltdown will be sweet indeed. Honestly, that's what I'm looking forward to the most.
MSM has their own version of history
September 13, 2008 - 12:20 ET by JJ OKCThe MSM today only remember what they said before not actual history. Anything they said before is old history and does not matter today, even if it shows them as outright lying or being the DEMS attack machine. They have their own little world and want us to belive what ever they say because it was them that said it. Actual facts do not intrest them only what they want you to think.
Those who have long enjoyed such privleges as we enjoy forget over time that men died to win them -- FDR