I realize Sarah Palin is the darling of the far right wing of the G.O.P., but she "won" nothing last night. She performed light leagues better than expected, which isn't saying much, given her disastrous outing the only two times she has been allowed out of her cloistered quarters, been required to stand on her feet, and answer questions put to her. What she didn't do was literally crap her pants last night, and as I predicted, some will count this as a resounding "victory." She utilized her folksy mask very well last night. She mouthed the talking points expected of her, though I'd vouch that were she actually asked to perform an exegesis of any of the points she parroted, she'd be as lost as she's been on the two interviews she's granted previously. She refused to answer questions put to her, and though she didn't go deer in the headlights as she has consistently done in the past (the coaching team worked very hard here, as well, obviously), she simply didn't say much of substantive import, unless she was simply lying - as in saying the Obama ticket will raise taxes on working families. It is obvious to me this is a student who crammed for a test, and, as such a method is apt to do, she neither knew anything about what she was saying (how's that Gen. Mclellan doing, this morning, anyway, Guv?), and won't remember anything, either. Against her platitudes, her snide, high-school asides, her propagandic appeals, Biden acquitted himself admirably well - so much so, that Pat Buchanan called it the debate performance of his life. He successfully did what his difficult charge was to do - to debate Palin, make her irrelevant, without stepping on his tongue, and not appearing to hurt her feelings (as she is apparently as fragile as a spring rose, if the McCain ticket's alligator tears are to be believed). He did so exceedingly well - he continually turned the debate into an indictment of John McCain's policies and record, and, vis-a-vis Palin's pablum in reply, Biden spoke from his heart, intelligence, and experience. I gained a tremendous amount of respect for Biden last night, and it couldn't be any clearer the difference in ability between the two. In terms of "winning," not sure where anyone would get the idea she "won" the debate as every poll I've seen shows Biden decidedly "won," though it won't matter. As I said, when expectations were so abominably low for Palin going in, as long as she didn't take a dump before Gwen Ifill, and run from the stage in a nifty show-choir dance number, she'd be resurrected in the eyes of those predisposed to see in her the very voice of the right wing of the G.O.P. I'm sure the "base" is re-energized, as it doesn't take much. I'd have to believe the rest of the nation isn't buying any of it. Sample polling, CNN: Only 26 percent of those surveyed said that Palin was more intelligent in the debate compared to the 57 percent who chose Biden; 51 percent of the debate watchers said that Biden did the best job in the debate, while 36 percent gave the nod to Palin; 84 percent of the debate watchers said she did better than expected; Fifty-three percent of debate watchers said that Biden seemed more likely to bring change than the 42 percent who chose Palin; only 46 percent of the debate watchers said she was qualified to be president, compared to the 87 percent who picked Biden after the debate. I don't know. Maybe I'm just tired of her winking at me. I'd have liked her to do more, last night, than spout platitudes and pop eye candy parlor tricks. I can't wait to see what Tina Fey will do with this - in theater parlance, her playing to the camera is called "stealing focus." You saw it here - an SNL spoof showing the two side by side in camera shots, as last night, with the actor playing Biden speaking and Fey all but stripping to "steal focus." It would be funny. If it weren't a campaign for the vice presidency. Meanwhile, back to Obama and McCain. His campaign has hemorrhaged close to 120 electoral points to Obama in just under 2 weeks, if Real Clear's data is to be accepted. Obama has now topped his highwater mark, and rides +97 over McCain - with the "battleground states" looking increasingly grim for the elder Senator. McCain infamously "suspended his campaign" (in name only) to "save the bailout deal." If this thing falls through, I believe the impulsive Senator will have finally killed his presidential bid. Even Charles Krauthammer has openly said as much, much to his chagrin - his disdain for Obama in the article below was expected; what I didn't expect was his conceding his candidate will likely lose: He concludes:
I really don't care what the hell you say I always will vote Democrat my family always has I always will also there is really no-point in voting rebulican they always destroy our country even more anyways.. Yea and also for those who said I was part of the problem I am not voting for McCain so I am not part of the problem... -Chris ^^^^ ehh? Ha yea I just had to laugh at some of the wierd a** things in my Rep when I post in this section...
hahahaha, I had to lol at some of the replies in here, either you both just see what you want to see or you have no idea what you are talking about, which is it? To say Palin owned him and won the debate is laughable, they both did well at times and they both sucked at times, neither really won or lost, she did do better then expected but that's it, if you wanna put 2 and 2 together and turn that into 8 then so be it, but anyone with half a brain could see what I quoted is nonsense. - Oh and I am neither for Obama or McCain, i think they will both be bad presidents, especially at this point of time. Biden seemed a bit held back though, if he had been more aggresive I think he would of easily come out on top. Makes me laugh you try and talk down about 'Liberals' but you are so predictable it is laughable as well. Palin probably gained more from the debate as she did better then expected, but not much else was achieved, as I said they both did well and both sucked at different points.
Good thing your family is Democrats instead of cannibals. Doing what your family has always done is a weak replacement for independent thought.
I thought from a debate perspective they both served their purpose and did what they needed to do. I would say that it was close in the end, but one thing that I think is undisputable is that Sarah Palin came back to the side of being someone all of us can identify with, which is why she was successful at the RNC. I think overall she helped McCain. I would consider that a victory in itself. As far as Joe Biden. He did what he should have done. Regardless of which side of the fence you have sit on, you can consider Joe Biden as a VP pick the "safe pick". He didn't do much of anything to really hurt Obama in the polls, he just doesn't help much either. Oh, I forgot to mention the moderator. I felt like she tried to lead the discussion too much. For example, After Biden would speak, she would ask Sarah Palin, "So what do you think of <insert one or two comments that Joe Biden stated>. I think instead of trying to get them to just respond to one or two things (often things that Sarah Palin didn't want to respond to, she should have just left it as "Would you like to respond?". After all the heat that Ifill took this week for her book, you would think that she would want to stand back as much as possible while just delivering the questions and ensuring both had equal time. I didn't really care for some of her questions, but I didn't consider them to be bias.
I do think she recaptured some of what made her appealing to the "base" at the RNC, and we may differ on what exactly that was. In complete honesty, all I can see that was "appealing" was mugging, posing, and one-liners learned from hard cramming, and not much more. I don't believe this will help McCain any longer, though it did a mere few weeks ago; time will tell. After last night, I don't think I can agree, PHP. Biden acquitted himself extremely well. People tend to forget Biden had his own demons going in, lowering expectation. Among them, his gift of gab, his wonkish prolixity leading to snores, as well as his gift for saying stupid things (though he's a very, very bright guy). He was restrained, statesmanly so, and touched down a number of times in a way I'd not seen before. (By the way - surprisingly, the moment when I think even he was surprised by the admission of pain surrounding his wife's and child's death, Palin returned with the same robotic, Disney glee-club stare into the camera and a canned response, and I don't think this will play well at all). I actually thought Ifill bent somewhat over backwards to dispel the notion that she'd be biased, and in doing so, might have given too much to Palin's non-responses. An example would be the uncomfortable moment when Palin appeared to be agreeing with Biden on the issue of gay civil rights (by the way - that won't play with Palin's constituency. Expect the immediate if subtle disavowal of this lie). Distinguishing between the issue of gay marriage and gay civil rights, and asked to specify whether she was in agreement with Obama and Biden on this, she non-replied to Ifill's directed question - and Ifill gave it a pass. Elsewhere, don't know if I have this wrong, of if others saw it, but it seemed to me that Ifill was giving Palin what amounted to multiple-choice questions, and Palin merely picked from among the responses given to her.
I thought that she talked plainly, if you will, throughout the debate. I did hear some of her one-liners, but Palin also did a good job of not being sucked into the classic situation of debate which is "I am smarter than you are". Instead, she took the direction that she should have taken which is, showing herself as a common person that can identify with the same situations common people face right now. As far as helping McCain, I don't see any reason why if it worked 3 weeks ago (which most Democrats were also saying it wouldn't help then either) it wouldn't help now. I gave him credit for that. He did what he needed to do. I still stand by my comment though that Biden will never impact the polls much, unless done so in a negative way (which is doubtful). He could have came into the debate and screwed up badly which would have hurt Obama, but I don't think many people expected him to. I know exactly when you're talking about. I saw him getting a little emotional about it. And hey, thats cool. But, you and I both know that if they panned back to Palin and she had tears in her eyes the media would have ripped her apart for not being strong enough and being too emotional for the position. She did give her some multiple-choice questions, of which I disliked and I think threw her off. For example, while Biden is talking, you can see Palin writing down things she would like to respond to. If you have a list of things you want to respond to, you usually start from top and go to the bottom (most of the time), and then Ifill would come back with a question that perhaps was unrelated to what she wanted to respond to. So the result was "Yes, I do disagree with him on that. But, I want to talk about..." She should have left her questions to both Palin and Biden be "Would you like to respond?" and nothing more. I'll back off and say that it didn't really show favoritism either way, it was just kind of annoying and directing the debate a little too much. You would think with the kind of criticism that she had taken over thel ast week though, she wouldn't want to direct the debate as much as she did out of fear of what the Republicans might say.
Interesting. Seems only the replies to which republicans point out that Palin won, but not those of the liberals who proclaim otherwise. Let's see how that plays out below. Now we're getting somewhere. One of the more popular tactics I've been seeing on other forums, is for someone to proclaim "both sides suck," "neither side is great" etc., but then the author (apparently trying to portray themselves as above everyone else and not taking a side) goes on to take a side and defend only one. And the funny part is, they actually believe people won't see through it. The pattern is so obvious to everyone, but the one believing they are fooling others! "anyone with half a brain could see". Perhaps that's why you see it and others don't. Not everyone has only half a brain Hey, did you notice too, that you only took issue with the quotes showing Palin won, but then claimed to support neither, but didn't take issue with those saying Biden won? Yeah, I figured you might have noticed that as well. It tends to slip when people try to portray themselves with "both sides suck" comments, but then they go right on taking issue with just one side. Which suggests that you realize Palin won. By offering an excuse for Biden (ooops, "both sides suck," though, right?) that had he been more aggressive, he would have come out on top (translation: won). Laughable, right? Laughter is the key to happiness! Everyone has an opinion. The polls, in the coming days, will tell the story. After all, whether "she" won or lost is a matter of opinion.
lol, you really do only have half a brain, what I have read and said about you is right. YAWN I'm done with someone like you.
I disagree completely. There was nothing to give this a pass over. Palin had already answered the question and Ifill was offering a reconfirmation, for whatever reason. Perhaps to catch her with a sound clip, who knows. Her reply was straight on the first time, as well as the second.
Good, one less closet liberal trying to portray themselves as "both sides suck" down. Might want to try that tactic on some other forum where people with only half a brain might buy it.
Just because both sides do suck, just because neither knocked it out of the park does not equate to someone not being able to think one side did win. Palin won in the aspect of she did better than expected. She didn't even come close to winning on the actual 'debate' aspect. Early polls appears to conclude that as well. Wow that was mild compared to what some get away with on here.
I guess I think she mounted a tactic of "folksy," sometimes, really, really, broadly so - and I think the effect may have worn off by now. The biggest bomb in this way, to me, was when she tried to land a one-line "folksy" zinger, again intimating Obama is a traitor, by saying something akin to "well, that's a whole other kettle of fish." (paraphrased, yes - can't remember the exact quote). To me, it looked completely like an excited high schooler who had worked really, really hard to land a showstopper - and, yes, I'm being serious when I say, remember that Palin has performed as a show-choir dancer - but it really just bombed. If it was "new" a few weeks ago, I just don't see anyone beyond a very narrow demographic buying it. I could very well be wrong. O.K., agreed - very likely true. For both of them, I see very little secular effect on the campaign based on last night's performances. Agree here as well. And it would be wrong. If I guess I simply distrust Hillary Clinton, and feel her famous tear-moment during the primary might have been generated (or worked up) simply for effect, I was actually quite moved by the man's story - and not the least of which is because I honestly believe even he was surprised by the welling up of understandable grief. I'd feel the same way if Palin broke script and spoke from a similar, real place. The effect was tremendous, I'd say - a guy saying that he does understand what it is to raise kids alone, after a tragedy like this. The CNN audience response shot through the roof, as it did, quite honestly, a good part of the night. Particularly among women, Biden enjoyed a flatline highest-possible-reaction, much of last night. Fair enough.
I only caught the end of the debate. On one question concerning Cheney's declaration that the office of VP was independant of the administration she was everywhere and nowhere. At some point she said "yes". I suppose that indicated she agreed with Cheney that the office of VP does not have to follow rules and laws directed toward the administration. Biden gave a very direct answer to the question. He also described the absurdity of the Cheney claims; claims that eventually were shelved in that they were so absurd. Biden should have, IMHO ripped her on the response, ripped Cheney for making the claim, and ripped the concept that Cheney proposed, exposing it for what is was, a naked attempt by Cheney to hold himself above all laws. In any case her response was so non-responsive, so vague and meandering, with one crazy connective "yes" to the question; my question about her has to be.....who is this person? Is this the best, (or second best person for leadership in the US? Her answer on that question spooked me. Meanwhile in the news reviews I read after the debate, none of the media referenced that question. Who knows....when its impossible to determine what the candidate said in response to a question, what to decipher she was talking about....maybe the writers and commentators just decided not to touch it. Her response was bizzarre.
I have to agree with others here when they say this kind of thinking is a huge problem. That's like me saying I will only vote for people with blue eyes or brown hair. Gimmie a break. Our system is setup to allow us to vote for whoever we think is going to be the best at running our country. Just because a candidate is a Democrat (or ANY party for that matter) does not mean they are automatically going to be the best at running the country. Electing someone who is going to protect the Constitution, your freedoms, should be your goal. After all, if we don't protect that, you might not even have an option to begin with.....