Will Palin mention that Alaska is very close to Russia in defending her security credentials?

Whoo-hoo! Cindy McCain for Preznit!
Keep that moron thing going...

To make that kind of claim just because Alaska is very close to Russia seems to be an over-generalization. If that kind of claim is made, then anyone living in Alaska can say they are in the front line of national defense against Russian aggression.

Exactly.
I live near a few banks, does that give me financial credentials?
Well, no.
A few restaurants, WOW I'm a cordon bleu chef...

I guess that would make Alaska "Ramboland". ;)
And Destry and other Floridians (bless their heart), are the ONLY Americans on the front lines of what remains of the old Communist Empire.

@dee - Sweet, can you make me dinner? I'm hungry :)

So...the hundred-million-plus people living in the following border states can all claim national security credentials good enough to let them be president? California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. I've lived in five of those states, so I'm quintuply qualified! Oh, wait: I now live in south Florida less than 200 miles from a Communist country...that's far closer than Failin' "I Can't Keep My Own Daughter Under Control But I'm Confident I Can Head The Greatest Military In The World" Palin lives to Russia...so I'm even *more* qualified!!!

absolutely sqlman!
you are on the front line of a 'real' communist regime! OH NO!

@sqlman. she has a daughter who is by law and social norms a child still, and is about to have a child of her own, and she feels she is able to keep a country under control? and she still is anti abortion? I wouldnt even trust her to babysit!

@ jenni, if you wanna cross the border for OK spaghetti or curried shrimp...my pleasure :)
Luckily, Someone Else around here can cook..

I can see what base she might appeal to.
"In her speech to the Wasilla Assembly of God in June, Ms. Palin said it was “God’s will” that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/03wed1.html?ref=opinion
And it ain't very big.

I disagree with this settlement. Palins answer was to Gibson's question about the "proximity of this state to Russia" A elementary school student would tell you the two are close. Her answer was to his proximity question Not in defense of her foreign policy credentials.

Erik has a point

ditto at what erik and colkraft said. i'm sure the transcipt can be easily found. can anybody show where she said i'm gov of alaska and that makes me credible on foregin policy?

from faisal's link above..Questions about Palin's knowledge of foreign policy dominated the interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. Palin repeated her earlier assertions that she's ready to be president if called upon, yet sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief.

McCain has defended his running mate's qualifications, citing her command of the Alaska National Guard and Alaska's proximity to Russia.

somebody "claims" mccain said it, but not palin herself.

I watched the interview and witnessed her saying it. I also watched McCain on Face the Nation and he said the exact same thing. There is no "claims" I actually heard them say it.

all do respect i disagree.

1:31 - 2:20 gibson says mccain said russia gave her cred. i never heard palin say it. HD'ers can watch and decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNPGnZurs1k&feature=iv

By listening further to the 3:45 mark she begins to mention the proximity of Alaska and Russia. If you still feel this question was settled incorrectly, you can escalate it to the getsatisfaction boards, or email your concerns directly to me and I will pass them up the ladder.

It's very subjective but she did mention that Russia is Alaska's next door neighbor's, that you can actually see Russian land from a certain place in Alaska and that with this perspective the world is a very small place and we must be committed to working together with our allies... (my paraphrasing from memory)

Per the question: Will Palin mention that Alaska is very close to Russia in defending her security credentials? it appears this question was settled correctly and I lost... I wagered NO.

If the question had been worded this way:
Will Palin mention that Alaska is very close to Russia to defend her security credentials? then I would be fired up and hotly contesting this, since Gibson said it first and she repeated it (equivalent to mentioning it) and added the small-world-commitment-allies perspective.

Sarah is more gracious than I am... I would have said, "I agree with Cindy on a lot of things but have to disagree with her on that point... my security credentials are:..."

She managed to save face for Cindy and express her commitment/ability to work with our allies all the while keeping her cool across from Gibson as he leaned way back in his chair staring at her down his nose.

@fingers: yeah, the ratings spike made it look good for Charlie, but we know they were tuning in to see Sarah :-)

i have no money in the market. i know how to pass things "up the ladder" if need be. imho she didn't do what the question asked. i'll keep these standards in mind when other questions are settled in the future.

@ f-o-f whats the differnce between Will Palin mention that Alaska is very close to Russia in defending her security credentials?

and...Will Palin mention that Alaska is very close to Russia to defend her security credentials?

"in" just means the comment was included in her defense, but not necessarily her defense

"to" would mean the close proximity IS the defense, IOW "to defend"

So rather than agree with Cindy that one of her credentials is geographical distance she instead expanded on the "very close to Russia" comment to highlight how small the world is and her commitment to working with our allies.

Cindy's comment put her in a difficult situation. To avoid calling Cindy's statement silly (which it was) she instead paraphrased it to give Cindy the benefit of doubt that Cindy really meant to say: "Sarah Palin's security credentials include her understanding of and commitment to working with our allies to make the world a better place."

Now, Cindy can say, "yeah, that's what I meant, when I said that." Cindy's face saved.

It would have been so much easier for Palin to respond: "I didn't say that," and after a moment of silence Gibson would add/ask: "then what are your security credentials?" But the more difficult path let Cindy keep her dignity.

so it depends on the what meaning of "in" is and the meaning of "to" is. :O) thanks for making your view more clear.