I did not watch Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last week, was kind of actively trying to avoid it. But then Erik, step brother extraordinaire that he is, sent me this link today, and glutton for punishment that I am, I had to go watch the damned thing.
It's even worse than reading the quotes in the papers.
A word, though, on Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine, which he generously provides for Palin once it becomes painfully clear that she has absolutely no idea what he's talking about ("His worldview?" she inquires, nodding hopefully, wide-eyed as a deer in headlights). Gibson suggests that the Bush Doctrine revolves around the concept of the preemptive strike in the face of imminent attack. I would argue, though, that the Bush Doctrine is substantially more extreme than this, that it goes beyond preemptive to preventive. Preemptive implies that we are in immediate danger of being attacked, and so we attack first. Preventive implies that there is a chance we might at some point in the future be attacked, and so we attack now. But to think that we have the right to invade sovereign nations and overthrow foreign governments because there might be an attack seems to me an egregious form of hubris, and one that has gotten us bogged down in a preventive war in Iraq when we should have been taking out Bin Laden, who of course actually did attack us, in Afghanistan.
Enough of that, though, it's way over my head. Of course I don't have the gall to think I can run the world, either. But one thing's for sure. If I did, I would know this stuff inside out.
On another note, Alaskan Democrats (and even some Republicans and maybe a born-again Christian or two) came out in force in Anchorage this past weekend in a demonstration against Palin. My beloved Maia, of Own the Sidewalk, partook in said protests, of course, and made it into the Washington Post! (Maia, if you're reading this, tell your mother she'd for sure have my vote!)
Lastly, I don't really understand at all what's going on down there on Wall Street, or the implications of Merrill Lynch selling itself to the Bank of America, or why the federal government won't bail out Lehman Brothers the way it did Bear Stearns, or what it means that this same government is asking for $75 billion dollars to 'prop up' AIG (and what this means for my friends who have AIG retirement plans), or any of this stuff. But I do know that a picture caption on the front page of the NY Times today, "[Treasury Secretary] Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that consumers should remain confident about the soundness of the American financial system," chills me to the bone.