Palin vs Biden the last VP debate

[eleventhma]

Palin seems in over her head

I have to agree with Wayne on this. Much of her debate performance seems to be recitation of hastily memorized talking points, and attempts to shoehorn those points into whatever question was being thrown her way. At times she seemed almost incoherent, as if she didn't really understand what the question was, because what she was saying seemed to have little to do with what Ifill was asking.

 

[the_leander]

Tbh when I watched it I couldn't help but think "this feels like a nu labia drone talking" only worse, because she had possibly the most annoyingly nazal voice I've ever come across in a politician.

And I stand by the fact she really scares the crap out of me.

As Wayne said - an anti intellectual.

Biden... Meh, just another politician, lacking in the gravitas I would expect of someone with his experience. Put him up against someone like... I don't know, Michael Heseltine and watch as your boy is utterly destroyed...

Not that I like Heseltine.

 

[ltstanfo]

I don't think anyone here is debating whether or not she's a good person. I don't think anyone here truly knows her past the speeches she has been forced to regurgitate. My opinion is that even she doesn't swallow half of what she's saying.

I'm simply making the point that -- much like the sheriff from Fargo in the movie -- she both creeps me out and annoys me.

What you see is "at least it's not Obama". What I see is "gun toting, Jesus freak redneck wannabe who would probably consistently lose to Bush in a game of go fish." Try as the Republican party might, they need to just give up and understand that no amount of lipstick is going to EVER turn Palin into "Mary Ann" (from Gilligan's Island).

There's nothing wrong with either view. I'm just sitting here thinking about the whole process and find myself amazed at the paradigm shift in my own thought processes.

When Obama was first announced, I was very much anti-Obama on the grounds that you had stated (who is he / lack of experience, etc). Then slowly, when Grampa Munster was announced, I was thinking "this is a crap choice, I guess I'm voting none of the above again this year".

A short while later, after hearing McSame spout Bush policies (and we'll be in Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes), I found myself thinking of Obama as "the lesser of two evils". Followed by actually listening to both candidates and what they espouse. Thus begat finding myself sitting in Obama's corner saying "well, he may not be experienced, but at least he's not another George Bush".

Hence cometh the two debates, and I've gone even further beyond my initial thoughts to honestly believing that Obama is not only the lesser of the two evils, but the better man for the job..

Why or how this change came about, I guess I'll never know. Whether I'm right or wrong, I guess only time will tell, but I'm just of the frame of mind that Bush pretty much destroyed America in the 8 years he had, and right or wrong, I just can't stand the idea of four more of the same failed policies and politics, which is all that McCain represents to me.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Wayne

Fair is fair and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and your choice / vote. I have no issue with that. As you say, I see "at least it's not Obama" (among other things for the reasons you previously stated).

You see is "gun toting, Jesus freak redneck wannabe who would probably consistently lose to Bush in a game of go fish." Curiously I don't have an issue with your description of her because not only is it accurate but I find it to be part of her appeal... what you see is what you get and not some slick image that is played for whatever crowd you are speaking to (Obama or Biden).

Well, we'll find out in a few weeks which of us will be moaning over the decline of America. At this point I honestly don't know who will win (in spite of what the news would have us believe) as I think it is still either candidate's election to lose.

Have a good weekend,
Ltstanfo

 

[Wayne]

Well, we'll find out in a few weeks which of us will be moaning over the decline of America

Both -- if not all -- of us I'm afraid. Regardless of the results, the presidential election will have absolutely no immediate (and I'm afraid to say, lasting) impact on the failed economy brought about by eight years of Bush's abysmally failed economic, foreign, and pretty much all of the others policies.

I just find certain things funny about both the situation, and our respective stances. I've also learned a few things about each of us from this conversation. Thanks very much for the indulgence.

Wayne

 

[faethor]

Palen certainly held up better than most of the mainstream pundits were prognosticating and I have to admit that Biden for once in his life didn't commit his famous "gaffs" in public so he gave a good show as well.

I agree neither one appeared to have commited the foibles they are both known for. Well, except for Palin's answering of questions which weren't asked of her. I think part of the reason for this was the debate format itself. It was heavily moderated with limited to no chance for rebuttle or sparing with the other person.

Biden, while more experienced with the beltway insiders has no more direct experience to be president then Palen (IMO) so... draw.

I'd have to disagree in some aspects. Biden led the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. He actually has met and worked with foreign ministers.

You see is "gun toting, Jesus freak redneck wannabe who would probably consistently lose to Bush in a game of go fish." Curiously I don't have an issue with your description of her because not only is it accurate but I find it to be part of her appeal...

This is definitely part of her problem. The average joe might relate to her but this isn't a characteristic of leadership, one of charisma, but not necessary something that makes a good leader.

 

[the_leander]

You see is "gun toting, Jesus freak redneck wannabe who would probably consistently lose to Bush in a game of go fish." Curiously I don't have an issue with your description of her because not only is it accurate but I find it to be part of her appeal...

This is definitely part of her problem. The average joe might relate to her but this isn't a characteristic of leadership, one of charisma, but not necessary something that makes a good leader.

Agreed. Many of the most viscous leaders in history were very very charismatic.

Quite honestly, should the repubs get in and McCain croak, duck and cover.

 

[faethor]

Appears more McCain media slipped out. Palin won cited by Famous Person.

 

[metalman]

Palen certainly held up better than most of the mainstream pundits were prognosticating and I have to admit that Biden for once in his life didn't commit his famous "gaffs" in public so he gave a good show as well.

I agree neither one appeared to have commited the foibles they are both known for. Well, except for Palin's answering of questions which weren't asked of her. I think part of the reason for this was the debate format itself. It was heavily moderated with limited to no chance for rebuttle or sparing with the other person.

In this format a candidate ignoring a moderators questions they consider irrelevant or unimportant and steering discussion to what they consider relevant tells voters what each candidates priorities are.

The questions selected by Ifills reflect the moderators bias. Ifill asked no questions on gun control, (Barack Obama and Biden disagreed during the primary), only the most tangential question about energy (climate change), which Palin answered by discussing the broader energy policy she and McCain promote. Ifill never asked a question about earmarks, ( Biden requested $50+ million of earmarks in 2009).

Of course she’s was “in the tank” for "The One", at the end of the debate Ifiills congratulated Biden on his performance, and told Joe she thought he won the debate, unaware that the mic picked the exchange.

 

[redrumloa]

(and we'll be in Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes)

FWIW that is taken out of context. We have "been in" Japan for 60+ years so far and counting. That didn't turn out so bad, no?

 

[redrumloa]

I agree neither one appeared to have commited the foibles they are both known for. Well, except for Palin's answering of questions which weren't asked of her.

That was indeed painful and saying outright she wasn't going to answer the moderator's question. But then again all politicans dodge questions, they just don't admit they are dodging questions.

 

[faethor]

The questions selected by Ifills reflect the moderators bias. Ifill asked no questions on gun control, (Barack Obama and Biden disagreed during the primary), only the most tangential question about energy (climate change), which Palin answered by discussing the broader energy policy she and McCain promote. Ifill never asked a question about earmarks, ( Biden requested $50+ million of earmarks in 2009).

The question here is did Ifill choose each question herself or was she able to reject any question for any reason? It'd be good to find out exactly how Ifill could have influenced the debate. Compared to Jim Lehrer who did a debate in the same format the week before Ifill did a better job.

Your examples are mostly good except earmarks. That one not being asked was likely in Palin's favor. In a state where resident's don't pay income tax and receive ~$1,500+ per year from oil revenue she asked for earmarks. As Mayor she formed a lobbiest commission to gain earmarks for her town. The earmarked bridge to no where she was for, until she was against. The project was cancelled, as in not built. The funds still went into the state and she used them for other projects. It didn't get reallocated for Katrina as McCain requested. This year her Gov. office requested over $250 Million in earmarks for over 30 projects. 5x the amount you cited for Biden. Clearly not asking this question was in Palin's favor.

 

[redrumloa]

The questions selected by Ifills reflect the moderators bias. Ifill asked no questions on gun control, (Barack Obama and Biden disagreed during the primary), only the most tangential question about energy (climate change), which Palin answered by discussing the broader energy policy she and McCain promote. Ifill never asked a question about earmarks, ( Biden requested $50+ million of earmarks in 2009).

Of course she’s was “in the tank” for "The One", at the end of the debate Ifiills congratulated Biden on his performance, and told Joe she thought he won the debate, unaware that the mic picked the exchange.

Yes, that all was obvious.

 

[redrumloa]

Interestingly I have a friend who is a teacher in Alaska, who happens to be a democrat. She planned on voting for Obama. That all changed when Palin was announced as VP, she will now vote for McCain. Palin is very, very popular in Alaska.

 

[faethor]

Interestingly I have a friend who is a teacher in Alaska, who happens to be a democrat. She planned on voting for Obama. That all changed when Palin was announced as VP, she will now vote for McCain. Palin is very, very popular in Alaska.

Good case of simply selective choice. 1980, 1984, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2004 Alaska cast their 3 votes Republican. I don't see the Palin selection as changing a state that was already likely to vote Republican.

Fox News is going on about US Flag pins again. It appears that Palin's flag was bigger then Biden's. Fox, of course, neglected to mention that McCain wore no pin, Obama did.

 

[Robert]

I just wish I knew who her voice reminded me of. The principal's secretary is close, but not quite..

She reminds me of the sheriff in Fargo.

And she's kinda funny lookin'! ;-)

 

[Robert]

(and we'll be in Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes)

FWIW that is taken out of context. We have "been in" Japan for 60+ years so far and counting.

Indeed - how else can empire be maintained?

And many of the same people who see no problem with the US colonising half the planet are demanding Russia leave Georgia immediately. This is why it sounds so hypocritical, hollow and, quite frankly, silly.

 

[eleventhma]

A few points

First, there is a world of difference between spending 100 years in Iraq and 60 plus years in Japan. Yes, we have been in Japan (and Germany, and Italy) for 60 plus years, but aside from some locals on Okinawa angry about way the U.S. military has dealt with rapes of local women, the locals in those places like us, and there aren't any people there going all out to kill us. So 100 years in Iraq would not really be the equivalent of 60 plus years in Japan. A century in Iraq would be a century's worth of more American deaths, not to mention Iraqis, and I am not sure how we could rationalize that cost in lives (or tax dollars) with all of the other problems we are having. I don't want to see my nephews grow up and then have to go to Iraq.

It's also true that Palin is extremely popular in Alaska, although her approval numbers there have come down slightly in recent weeks, from a high of 82 percent to around 68 percent now. I don't know why that has happened, although I do know there are some Alaskans angry about how she misrepresented her stance on the "bridge to Nowhere". But as a previous poster pointed out, that state has gone Republican for many years and that is unlikely to change. Anecdotal evidence might be used as a way to illustrate a point, but generic anecdotal evidence as the point itself just doesn't move me. I need something a bit more substantial.

 

[redrumloa]

Indeed - how else can empire be maintained?

And many of the same people who see no problem with the US colonising half the planet are demanding Russia leave Georgia immediately. This is why it sounds so hypocritical, hollow and, quite frankly, silly.

Gee, you subscribe to the revisionist history that the US was the aggressor in WWII :?:

 

[the_leander]

Indeed - how else can empire be maintained?

And many of the same people who see no problem with the US colonising half the planet are demanding Russia leave Georgia immediately. This is why it sounds so hypocritical, hollow and, quite frankly, silly.

Gee, you subscribe to the revisionist history that the US was the aggressor in WWII :?:

Erm, where did he say or even imply that?

The US has used it's influence all over the world to promote it's interests through financial, political and on occation military means for decades. It might not be an empire in the classical sense, but it's power over other countries is there none the less.

The US goes into Kosovo to stop some seriously nasty ethnic cleansing everyone cheers. Russia does the same, US throws it's toys out of the pram.

 

[eleventhma]

Sad but fairly true, really

I agree with the_leander. Most Americans don't really think of it in terms of "Empire", but the fact of the matter is we have military bases in dozens of countries for the express purpose of being able to project our military power into other countries when we feel that it is in our national interest. I honestly thought the number of overseas bases would go down once the Cold War was over, but it really hasn't. What's particularly frightening to me is just how much people fail to appreciate what an anomaly that is. No one else in the world does that even remotely on the scale that we do. We even have bases in Great Britain for God's sake. Britain has its own nuclear arsenal, so it isn't like they really need us there to protect them or anything. My own brother in law flies a KC-135 tanker out of the American base at Mildenhall. The purpose of that base, and the tankers that are based there, is to give the United States the ability to fly military aircraft virtually anywhere in Europe, the Mediterranean or Southwest Asia on short notice without having to land to refuel. Power projection.