This is quite an election. The repubs think Biden is so bad that they are afraid he will drop out and Hillary will come in to save the day.
Meanwhile, dems are now speculating about Palin dropping out.
If either one dropped out, it would guarantee a win for the other side.
Meanwhile, I still see Palin as the strongest part of the McCain ticket. But it is not that McCain is gonna win. Rather, it is Obama that will lose. And handily. Nothing has happened to shake me from that position I took a couple of weeks before the convention and almost everything that has happened since has wanted me to double up on the bets I made - if only any of those I wagered with would do it. They won't.
Case in point: "I'll have to get back to you" is a weak response. "That answer is above my paygrade" is an abysmal response.
Whenever I rate the quality of a candidate, it is always in the context of who they are running against. McCain is no Reagan, but then, Obama is no FDR. Palin is no Thatcher, but then, Biden IS a J. P. Patches...
Now after watching this or any of the rest of the Couric debate, you can still with a straight face tell me that she's ready to be VP? I mean, anyone on this board could've answered these questions better. With this question, she could've barked like a dog and made more sense than she did with her answer.
Roy, I remeber you citing this as her foriegn policy experience a couple of weeks ago and I asked if you had any more detail on that. It looks like this is another lie from her. That she's never actually had any dealings with Russia at all.
Also, does her and her friends benefitting directly from her being mayor still make her a maverick?
Case in point: "I'll have to get back to you" is a weak response. "That answer is above my paygrade" is an abysmal response.
Both "i'll get back to you" and the paygrade comment are weak.
[/quote]
I'm going on record that "I'll have to get back to you" is the weaker response. Let's evaluate what each response means.
"I'll have to get back to you" - Despite citing numerous times McCain's record as a deregulator, when asked the obvious follow-up of naming one example, she could not. I'll get back to you is the response someone gives when they simply do not know what they are talking about, and they desperately want the discussion to move on to something they are not embarrassingly uninformed about.
"That answer is above my pay grade" - This is the response to a question where the respondent undoubtedly differs with the only answer the interviewer and almost all of the crowd will accept. In other words, this answer was a dodge. That said, his answer was actually exactly what the crowd in that auditorium actually believed - there is a God out there who has declared all things regarding abortion and no politician should ever try to challenge that.
So what's worse: dodging a charged question in front of a potentially hostile crowd or displaying complete incompetence? I'll call a dodge weak, but Palin's entire interview with Couric (Couric!) was a disaster.
2) He also should either get John McCain's first name correct (I heard him call McCain Tom and Jim, he might have made other mistakes).
Sorry to dredge this up from Friday, but I wanted to make a comment.
First, my assessment of the 1/2 of the interview I saw (who the hell schedules these things for a Friday night?) was that neither of them did really well. In terms of their words, there was no clear winner. They both dodged questions way too much, even after pointed re-asking from Lehrer. I thought both had a pretty good command of policy, even if they were off base at times (Georgia v. Russia, notably). Both of them fell back on talking points WAY too much.
A draw seems like a fair rating here, which is really a win for Obama - Kerry got bowled over in the '04 policy debate.
Where I thought Obama did win was in the personality side. McCain seemed entirely disinterested in what Obama was saying - as noted by the MSM, he never really looked at Obama, and it seemed like he had other things on his mind during the off time. This is not what I'd expect of a "maverick" who will cross party lines to get things done - and considering the Dems will probably hold 56-60 senate seats and a healthy majority in the House, he will have to work the Dems a lot. I agree with RCC that Obama did interrupt a few too many times, though often it seemed like McCain was traveling the road of absurdity and Obama wanted to derail it. To Obama's credit, he spent most of his 'off' time looking at McCain and (I think) jotting notes - good debate technique. When talking, he addressed the camera (i.e. the millions of people watching) and Jim Lehrer.
The reason I quoted RCC was to clarify - he did say Jim several times, but it was seemingly directed at Jim Lehrer, not McCain. I don't recall him saying Tom. I did notice that when both of them were talking, the mics seemed to mute each other out quite a bit.
If I had to score them (again, based on about half the debate), I'd give them both a C. Pretty unimpressive, really.
Thursday should be fun(ny). As long as Biden can keep only one of his feet in his mouth at any time, it should be pretty lopsided.
This is quite an election. The repubs think Biden is so bad that they are afraid he will drop out and Hillary will come in to save the day.
Meanwhile, dems are now speculating about Palin dropping out.
If either one dropped out, it would guarantee a win for the other side.
Meanwhile, I still see Palin as the strongest part of the McCain ticket. But it is not that McCain is gonna win. Rather, it is Obama that will lose. And handily. Nothing has happened to shake me from that position I took a couple of weeks before the convention and almost everything that has happened since has wanted me to double up on the bets I made - if only any of those I wagered with would do it. They won't.
Case in point: "I'll have to get back to you" is a weak response. "That answer is above my paygrade" is an abysmal response.
I'm a bit confused.
I haven't heard anyone on either side speculating about Biden dropping out. I suppose some conservatives would want him to, in the hopes Obama picks Clinton. It'd be easy to rally all the Clinton haters and their money that way.
As for Palin, most of the calls for a different VP have come from conservatives, as well. I don't see her dropping out at this juncture.
The one area you're right about would be that the VP dropping out would all but end either campaign. It'd be much easier to manipulate a replacement for Palin, but McCain would have to find another Evangelical woman to replace her on short notice, and hope the media doesn't have time to dig. Then again, maybe that's the plan - use Palin as political fodder and throw the real pick up there a week before the election.
2) He also should either get John McCain's first name correct (I heard him call McCain Tom and Jim, he might have made other mistakes).
The reason I quoted RCC was to clarify - he did say Jim several times, but it was seemingly directed at Jim Lehrer, not McCain. I don't recall him saying Tom. I did notice that when both of them were talking, the mics seemed to mute each other out quite a bit.
That's an interesting take. Here's what I think must have happened. I distinctly heard "Tom" once, with him correcting himself. And I distinctly heard one "Jim McCain" as a full quote. So, it's likely a combination of what you said. He was probably thinking Jim Lehrer and John McCain simultaneously, and combined them. From what I've seen, nobody in the media has picked up on it though, so it really doesn't matter one lick.
Agree that Thursday's debate will be interesting. I think we can be certain one or both of the Biden/Palin duo will say some pretty retarded things.
Is Couric condescending when she asks the difficult questions like "can you name a newspaper you read before being selected?" Robroy?
I don't even know how to process this. Does she not know the names of any newspapers? Or has she only read the Wasilla Weekly and is trying to lie to bolster her qualifications? Maybe she only reads an online paper and doesn't know how to answer the question...or is she just flustered by the question?
Is Couric condescending when she asks the difficult questions like "can you name a newspaper you read before being selected?" Robroy?
I don't even know how to process this. Does she not know the names of any newspapers? Or has she only read the Wasilla Weekly and is trying to lie to bolster her qualifications? Maybe she only reads an online paper and doesn't know how to answer the question...or is she just flustered by the question?
We've passed the point where I'm even happy about this stuff as a boost for Obama. This is just jaw-dropping.
We've passed the point where I'm even happy about this stuff as a boost for Obama. This is just jaw-dropping.
I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I've never really been "happy" about her style of gaffes (lies and incompetence - vs - just saying something stupid (like Biden)). I'd much rather see four extremely competent candidates and have my candidate lose than such total incompetence with the possibility that such an *unqualified candidate might win.
Is Couric condescending when she asks the difficult questions like "can you name a newspaper you read before being selected?" Robroy?
I don't even know how to process this. Does she not know the names of any newspapers? Or has she only read the Wasilla Weekly and is trying to lie to bolster her qualifications? Maybe she only reads an online paper and doesn't know how to answer the question...or is she just flustered by the question?
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | C+
McCain C- | A-
Biden B | B+
Sarah B- | C
Speech Skills | Interview/Debate Skills
Obama A | F
McCain C | B
Biden B- | D
Sarah A | B+
For what it's worth, I've never seen anyone outside of local politics flub interviews as badly as Obama does. He is in a league by himself (when not being graded by True Believers). It is why I went on record even before the conventions that this would be a rout by McCain.
Do you still think nobody flubs interviews as badly as Obama? Not even precocious Palin?
This is a little premature (better to revisit after Thursday perhaps), but I realized I had to admit I was completely wrong about Palin's interview/debate skills. A 'C' (default grade until we see more) was far, far too generous. A 'D' would be generous...is there a D- or F+ choice possible? Also, McCain/Obama seem to be pretty close on debating. McCain might have a little more passion, but Obama has a better grasp of the facts. So anyone who gave them vastly differing scores probably needs to revise. Yes, that includes me.
Here's my new updated scores, based on recent realities (speeches are unedited as I still feel they are reasonable):
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | B- (still not a strength)
McCain C- | B (weaker than I thought)
Biden B | N/A (wait for Thursday)
Sarah B- | D-/F+ (Ugh!)
This is a little premature (better to revisit after Thursday perhaps), but I realized I had to admit I was completely wrong about Palin's interview/debate skills. A 'C' (default grade until we see more) was far, far too generous. A 'D' would be generous...is there a D- or F+ choice possible? Also, McCain/Obama seem to be pretty close on debating. McCain might have a little more passion, but Obama has a better grasp of the facts. So anyone who gave them vastly differing scores probably needs to revise. Yes, that includes me.
Here's my new updated scores, based on recent realities (speeches are unedited as I still feel they are reasonable):
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | B- (still not a strength)
McCain C- | B (weaker than I thought)
Biden B | N/A (wait for Thursday)
Sarah B- | D-/F+ (Ugh!)
What if this whole thing was a set-up for the debate. I mean, every politician plays the "lower expectations game" before the debate, she is just really good at it. As long as she doesn't literally take a crap onstage, it will be deemed a success.
What if this whole thing was a set-up for the debate. I mean, every politician plays the "lower expectations game" before the debate, she is just really good at it. As long as she doesn't literally take a crap onstage, it will be deemed a success.
I'm starting to hear that hypothesis a lot actually. I just don't buy it. You downplay expectations by saying things like "she really hasn't done these kind of debates", "this will be a learning experience", etc. You don't downplay expectations by going into interviews and mumbling phrases that do not resemble sentences.
However, from what I've read (and a few videos I've seen), she has debate issues as well. This is based on her debates in Alaska. I can't find the link now, but the gist of her problems are a) she deals in platitudes rather than specifics b) she speaks in incomplete thoughts, and c) she repeats herself (perhaps attempting to use buzzwords).
These are essentially the same problems she had in the awful interviews...with lack of knowledge thrown in. What she does well, is when she is emotionally attached to an issue, she is able to connect on that and she has strong body language (sits up straight, looks at the camera, etc). The net effect seems to be something along these lines. When seen in person or on TV, she does well so long as she isn't surprised by anything. On the radio, she loses the body language strengths (much like Obama does) and the lack of clarity in her thoughts becomes an issue. In print, she is a total mess; her statements sound like they were written by crazy people.
the gist of her problems are a) she deals in platitudes rather than specifics b) she speaks in incomplete thoughts, and c) she repeats herself (perhaps attempting to use buzzwords).
Sounds like she'd make a great real estate agent circa 2005.
Though, in fairness, that's not the easiest question to be asked. I probably would have gaffed and said I disagreed with the court's tacitly agreeing that habeas corpus doesn't apply to enemy combatants. Of course, that law was ruled unconstitutional later on.
Though, in fairness, that's not the easiest question to be asked. I probably would have gaffed and said I disagreed with the court's tacitly agreeing that habeas corpus doesn't apply to enemy combatants. Of course, that law was ruled unconstitutional later on.
I'm sure that you would. Or that I probably would. But isn't that the point? Shouldn't the person who is trying for the 2nd most powerful position in the country NOT be stumped by questions like that?
I think this debate was better than the presidential debate. Both participants came out on target and on topic. Who "wins" is going to likely come down to very partisan separations, but I think there are some things we can say about each candidate that are not partisan.
1) Physical presence: Both candidates did fine in this dimension, but Palin did better. She has good posture, smiles while she's talking, and did a very good job of speaking to the camera (the viewers). Biden facial expression was generally more serious, which is less appealing, and at times he was speaking to the moderator instead of the viewers.
2) Vocal presence: Again, both candidates did fine. Biden spoke is smooth, easy to understand bytes with appropriate emotion. Palin was clear, but often rushed. Especially when she seemed to be on the verge of losing her talking point, she would poor on the words...occasionally I felt like I was drowning under a downpour of verbage.
3) Content: Very different, and most will interpret this via their party tinted glasses. Palin was at her best when speaking of regular people; this was to be expected. Surprisingly, Biden was also quite compelling about the plight of regular Americans. When forced to answer actual questions, each candidate quickly shifted to their talking points. This format helped Palin the most in that regard, as she was able to stick to what was versed. That said, Biden produced more "facts" or at least details than Palin. If you like concrete answers, Biden had better content as Palin stuck to platitudes and generalities per usual. It's difficult during a debate to tell the veracity of an argument, so I'll be waiting for the fact-checkers to come along tomorrow. I know some of what they said was false, as a few of the exchanges midway through the debate involved each participant telling their opponent that they were confused...it's just a question of who was accurate.
4) Wildcards: These would be the things that might not be big, but could steer peoples opinions. When talking about raising his two children, Biden chocked up momentarily, which gave the impression of being overcome by emotion. If this gets picked up on and goes around YouTube, it could be a powerful moment of "feeling the middle class' pain". Palin attempted to use some humor (specifically when she "didn't know what the VP does"). I didn't find her jokes funny, but some might. Perhaps some people might just like the fact she tried. That could help her. Unclear to me, but with the public you never know.
5) Palin wasn't awful but she wasn't awesome either: This deserves its own mention, because we've seen so many cringe inducing clips by her lately. Some commentators have suggested that just by being mediocre, she would surpass expectations and thus "win" the debate. I'm not convinced. The problem she had, is that Biden never gave her an opportunity for people to feel sorry for her. He called out McCain on several occasions, but almost never referenced her except to respond to her previous statements. The combination of these factors I think might actually be a reset on the Palin pity party. If she keeps it together the rest of the way, she won't be pitied but people will sort of remember how bad it was (on YouTube of course). If she struggles, she'll need to rebuild that outcry of sympathy.
6) My soapbox: I just have to bring this up because it is (in my mind) one of the most important issues of this election, and it's something the democrats need to harp on. Bush/Cheney have systematically destroyed the constitution, and Palin today said she thought the VP had more power than anyone in that position currently was exercising. Biden's response was exactly correct, and hers was absolutely wrong, and if there are any statements which link the failures of Bush/Cheney with likely failures of McCain/Palin it was this one. Maybe I'm exaggerating or belaboring this point too much, but it's disregard and misunderstanding of our constitution, like that statement, that has eroded civil liberties the last eight years.
I agree almost completely with you rose. The debate didn't end up being the gaffe-fest that it was touted to be.
Your point about the VP being part of the exec branch was spot on. That she says the bush answer, he just goes right to the constitution. Much much better. However, most people don't know or understand all of Cheney's legal wrangling, so I think that question will likely not make a big difference.
I thought they both did well. Biden of course did better on foreign policy, especially on everything about Israel. I think she did a better job of connecting with people, which was also expected.
The best earmark of who won the debate I think is in the polls and studies from undecided voters, so I'll be interested to see how those polls went.
I will say though, the most interesting part of this story in particular is this quote:
"Both candidates exceeded expectations — 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.
But on the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified."
That's an enormous gap. It's possible that the damage done from her interviews in the last couple of weeks may be irrepairable.
I'm having a tough time scoring it because my expectations were so low. Biden mostly kept his foot out of his mouth, didn't patronize Palin, and didn't get too professorial. Palin did a great job reconnecting with her fan base (rural conservatives?), and her presence was excellent. She didn't have a "did she just say that?" moment like she did with Katie Couric (repeatedly).
Few adders:
First, a couple times early on I found myself thinking "Joe, stop talking..." The early question about the bailout bill, he answered the question in about 45 seconds (referencing Obama's 4 points) but rambled on for another 30 seconds or so. Palin rambles on fairly often without adding any substance, and Biden probably could have scored some efficiency points.
Second, I thought both of them showed horrible debate ethic. Obama and McCain danced around questions, but a couple times both Biden and Palin flat out ignored the question and went back to the previous question. Gwen Ifill did a great job humoring them and letting them get their punches in. This probably doesn't mean much to the average voter, but it somewhat irritated me.
Third, it was painfully clear that Palin has a poor grasp on how government works. In a race with 3 senators, she showed her "outsider" nature. I don't know that this hurts her (probably helps her in some eyes), but Biden got a few shots in when Palin used a talking point that is only useful if the listener doesn't understand how government works.
Oddity - neither one of them can pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both were "Ack"ing it and dropping a syllable - Palin said "Ack-mah-nee-jad" and Biden said "Ack-maad-nee-jad".
Point of irritation: Palin's answer about gay rights/marriage sorta pissed me off. Biden and Ifill let her get away with it, too. My impression is that Palin pretty clearly opposes gay rights of any sort, but she avoided saying that by pulling out the 'marriage is one man and one woman' card; then when pressed about allowing full rights to gay civil unions, she basically said she was open minded but that marriage would always be one man one woman.
Palin exceeded expectations only because she had managed to lower them to the floor in the preceding two weeks. As long as she could form coherent sentences, this was going to be a net positive for her.
Overall, I felt Biden destroyed her in substance, and was pretty personable (for once, a politician's tears actually seemed real). Palin's only saving grace was that the moderator and Biden let her get away with redirecting the questions. It wasn't even a smooth transition of, "You asked me this, but here is how it relates to this," but instead she would just flat out say, "You know, I'm going to talk about taxes here" while acknowledging it had nothing to do with the question.
I really think the whole "Moderator is writing a book about Obama" thing tied the moderator's hands, so she just let Palin run with whatever Palin wanted. The layout of the debate was already going to let Palin say things relatively unopposed, and a scared moderator just gave Palin more free reign to read of her cue cards without fear of a followup question that would actually demonstrate knowledge rather than memory.
That's an enormous gap. It's possible that the damage done from her interviews in the last couple of weeks may be irrepairable.
I think the last two weeks have permanently damaged her on the national stage. Imagine buying a new car, and two weeks after you get it home the battery dies and it develops a massive oil leak. It's still under warranty, so maybe the fix is free, but you now know that car is a lemon. You won't ever quite trust it the same way again. Here's the latest favorability numbers on Palin.
Opinions of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin are now evenly divided, with her unfavorable rating (33 percent) now slightly higher than her favorable rating (32 percent). Last week, Palin had an eight point net positive rating. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden's favorable rating stands at 34 percent and his unfavorable rating at 19 percent.
Second, I thought both of them showed horrible debate ethic. Obama and McCain danced around questions, but a couple times both Biden and Palin flat out ignored the question and went back to the previous question. Gwen Ifill did a great job humoring them and letting them get their punches in. This probably doesn't mean much to the average voter, but it somewhat irritated me.
Agree...to an extent. The typical Palin answer was something like "I don't want to talk about that, how about this instead". The typical Biden answer was "Let me spend 45 seconds on what Palin said and 45 seconds on the actual question asked".
About the gay marriage/rights issue...can we as a nation just get past this? I'm as old fashioned as the next guy, in that the idea of sending out a Christmas card to Mr and Mr Smith or Mrs and Mrs Jones is uncomfortable for me, but have we seriously wasted this much public discourse on the issue? I feel like the amount of time we've spent fighting over the issue of gay marriage far outweighs either sides benefits for "winning".
...uh...$6M for "Kid's Wooden Arrows"??? WTF!?!?! Also, did McCain say he voted for this bill because it puts us on the brink of financial disaster? I know the 24/7 news cycle is tough on candidates, and probably doubly so this year with all the "crisis", but McCain's statements seem like they are getting more and more suspect. In one interview, he attacks his own positions, then refuses to defend them and then shifts into talking about something else. I don't always agree with every position of Obama (he also voted for the bill), but if he were the one on interview, he would have at least told it like he saw it (unhappy with the bill but feels the alternative to not passing it is even more reckless).
Explaining how she felt when John McCain offered her the Vice-Presidential spot, my Vice-Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, said something very profound: "I answered him 'Yes' because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate."
Isn't that so true? I know that many times, in my life, while living it, someone would come up and, because of I had good readiness, in terms of how I was wired, when they asked that—whatever they asked—I would just not blink, because, knowing that, if I did blink, or even wink, that is weakness, therefore you can't, you just don't. You could, but no—you aren't.
That is just how I am.
Do you know the difference between me and a Hockey Mom who has forgot her lipstick?
A dog collar.
Do you know the difference between me and a dog collar smeared with lipstick?
Not a damn thing.
We are essentially wired identical.
So, when Barack Obama says he will put some lipstick on my pig, I am, like, Are you calling me a pig? If so, thanks! Pigs are the most non-Élite of all barnyard animals. And also, if you put lipstick on my pig, do you know what the difference will be between that pig and a pit bull? I'll tell you: a pit bull can easily kill a pig. And, as the pig dies, guess what the Hockey Mom is doing? Going to her car, putting on more lipstick, so that, upon returning, finding that pig dead, she once again looks identical to that pit bull, which, staying on mission, the two of them step over the dead pig, looking exactly like twins, except the pit bull is scratching his lower ass with one frantic leg, whereas the Hockey Mom is carrying an extra hockey stick in case Todd breaks his again. But both are going, like, Ha ha, where's that dumb pig now? Dead, that's who, and also: not a smidge of lipstick.
A lose-lose for the pig.
There's a lesson in that, I think.
Who does that pig represent, and that collar, and that Hockey Mom, and that pit bull?
Comments
This is what's abysmal Roy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc
Now after watching this or any of the rest of the Couric debate, you can still with a straight face tell me that she's ready to be VP? I mean, anyone on this board could've answered these questions better. With this question, she could've barked like a dog and made more sense than she did with her answer.
Roy, I remeber you citing this as her foriegn policy experience a couple of weeks ago and I asked if you had any more detail on that. It looks like this is another lie from her. That she's never actually had any dealings with Russia at all.
Also, does her and her friends benefitting directly from her being mayor still make her a maverick?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijvc ... AD93FQIA81
[/quote]
I'm going on record that "I'll have to get back to you" is the weaker response. Let's evaluate what each response means.
"I'll have to get back to you" - Despite citing numerous times McCain's record as a deregulator, when asked the obvious follow-up of naming one example, she could not. I'll get back to you is the response someone gives when they simply do not know what they are talking about, and they desperately want the discussion to move on to something they are not embarrassingly uninformed about.
"That answer is above my pay grade" - This is the response to a question where the respondent undoubtedly differs with the only answer the interviewer and almost all of the crowd will accept. In other words, this answer was a dodge. That said, his answer was actually exactly what the crowd in that auditorium actually believed - there is a God out there who has declared all things regarding abortion and no politician should ever try to challenge that.
So what's worse: dodging a charged question in front of a potentially hostile crowd or displaying complete incompetence? I'll call a dodge weak, but Palin's entire interview with Couric (Couric!) was a disaster.
Sorry to dredge this up from Friday, but I wanted to make a comment.
First, my assessment of the 1/2 of the interview I saw (who the hell schedules these things for a Friday night?) was that neither of them did really well. In terms of their words, there was no clear winner. They both dodged questions way too much, even after pointed re-asking from Lehrer. I thought both had a pretty good command of policy, even if they were off base at times (Georgia v. Russia, notably). Both of them fell back on talking points WAY too much.
A draw seems like a fair rating here, which is really a win for Obama - Kerry got bowled over in the '04 policy debate.
Where I thought Obama did win was in the personality side. McCain seemed entirely disinterested in what Obama was saying - as noted by the MSM, he never really looked at Obama, and it seemed like he had other things on his mind during the off time. This is not what I'd expect of a "maverick" who will cross party lines to get things done - and considering the Dems will probably hold 56-60 senate seats and a healthy majority in the House, he will have to work the Dems a lot. I agree with RCC that Obama did interrupt a few too many times, though often it seemed like McCain was traveling the road of absurdity and Obama wanted to derail it. To Obama's credit, he spent most of his 'off' time looking at McCain and (I think) jotting notes - good debate technique. When talking, he addressed the camera (i.e. the millions of people watching) and Jim Lehrer.
The reason I quoted RCC was to clarify - he did say Jim several times, but it was seemingly directed at Jim Lehrer, not McCain. I don't recall him saying Tom. I did notice that when both of them were talking, the mics seemed to mute each other out quite a bit.
If I had to score them (again, based on about half the debate), I'd give them both a C. Pretty unimpressive, really.
Thursday should be fun(ny). As long as Biden can keep only one of his feet in his mouth at any time, it should be pretty lopsided.
I'm a bit confused.
I haven't heard anyone on either side speculating about Biden dropping out. I suppose some conservatives would want him to, in the hopes Obama picks Clinton. It'd be easy to rally all the Clinton haters and their money that way.
As for Palin, most of the calls for a different VP have come from conservatives, as well. I don't see her dropping out at this juncture.
The one area you're right about would be that the VP dropping out would all but end either campaign. It'd be much easier to manipulate a replacement for Palin, but McCain would have to find another Evangelical woman to replace her on short notice, and hope the media doesn't have time to dig. Then again, maybe that's the plan - use Palin as political fodder and throw the real pick up there a week before the election.
Seems far fetched, but who knows.
That's an interesting take. Here's what I think must have happened. I distinctly heard "Tom" once, with him correcting himself. And I distinctly heard one "Jim McCain" as a full quote. So, it's likely a combination of what you said. He was probably thinking Jim Lehrer and John McCain simultaneously, and combined them. From what I've seen, nobody in the media has picked up on it though, so it really doesn't matter one lick.
Agree that Thursday's debate will be interesting. I think we can be certain one or both of the Biden/Palin duo will say some pretty retarded things.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/30/ ... ses-obama/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
Is Couric condescending when she asks the difficult questions like "can you name a newspaper you read before being selected?" Robroy?
I don't even know how to process this. Does she not know the names of any newspapers? Or has she only read the Wasilla Weekly and is trying to lie to bolster her qualifications? Maybe she only reads an online paper and doesn't know how to answer the question...or is she just flustered by the question?
By the way, here's another lie from her:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 360/615952
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 817/615479
Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving!
We've passed the point where I'm even happy about this stuff as a boost for Obama. This is just jaw-dropping.
I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I've never really been "happy" about her style of gaffes (lies and incompetence - vs - just saying something stupid (like Biden)). I'd much rather see four extremely competent candidates and have my candidate lose than such total incompetence with the possibility that such an *unqualified candidate might win.
*unqualified does not mean lack of experience.
Wow.
Do you still think nobody flubs interviews as badly as Obama? Not even precocious Palin?
This is a little premature (better to revisit after Thursday perhaps), but I realized I had to admit I was completely wrong about Palin's interview/debate skills. A 'C' (default grade until we see more) was far, far too generous. A 'D' would be generous...is there a D- or F+ choice possible? Also, McCain/Obama seem to be pretty close on debating. McCain might have a little more passion, but Obama has a better grasp of the facts. So anyone who gave them vastly differing scores probably needs to revise. Yes, that includes me.
Here's my new updated scores, based on recent realities (speeches are unedited as I still feel they are reasonable):
Speech Skills | Impromptu (Interview/Debate) Skills
Obama A | B- (still not a strength)
McCain C- | B (weaker than I thought)
Biden B | N/A (wait for Thursday)
Sarah B- | D-/F+ (Ugh!)
What if this whole thing was a set-up for the debate. I mean, every politician plays the "lower expectations game" before the debate, she is just really good at it. As long as she doesn't literally take a crap onstage, it will be deemed a success.
I'm starting to hear that hypothesis a lot actually. I just don't buy it. You downplay expectations by saying things like "she really hasn't done these kind of debates", "this will be a learning experience", etc. You don't downplay expectations by going into interviews and mumbling phrases that do not resemble sentences.
However, from what I've read (and a few videos I've seen), she has debate issues as well. This is based on her debates in Alaska. I can't find the link now, but the gist of her problems are a) she deals in platitudes rather than specifics b) she speaks in incomplete thoughts, and c) she repeats herself (perhaps attempting to use buzzwords).
These are essentially the same problems she had in the awful interviews...with lack of knowledge thrown in. What she does well, is when she is emotionally attached to an issue, she is able to connect on that and she has strong body language (sits up straight, looks at the camera, etc). The net effect seems to be something along these lines. When seen in person or on TV, she does well so long as she isn't surprised by anything. On the radio, she loses the body language strengths (much like Obama does) and the lack of clarity in her thoughts becomes an issue. In print, she is a total mess; her statements sound like they were written by crazy people.
Sounds like she'd make a great real estate agent circa 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/0 ... 30752.html
Never actually seen russia. Even though that's her foriegn policy experience. You can't write this kind of comedy!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4493093n
She is a good dancer. Or avoider. Or skirter.
Though, in fairness, that's not the easiest question to be asked. I probably would have gaffed and said I disagreed with the court's tacitly agreeing that habeas corpus doesn't apply to enemy combatants. Of course, that law was ruled unconstitutional later on.
I'm sure that you would. Or that I probably would. But isn't that the point? Shouldn't the person who is trying for the 2nd most powerful position in the country NOT be stumped by questions like that?
I think this debate was better than the presidential debate. Both participants came out on target and on topic. Who "wins" is going to likely come down to very partisan separations, but I think there are some things we can say about each candidate that are not partisan.
1) Physical presence: Both candidates did fine in this dimension, but Palin did better. She has good posture, smiles while she's talking, and did a very good job of speaking to the camera (the viewers). Biden facial expression was generally more serious, which is less appealing, and at times he was speaking to the moderator instead of the viewers.
2) Vocal presence: Again, both candidates did fine. Biden spoke is smooth, easy to understand bytes with appropriate emotion. Palin was clear, but often rushed. Especially when she seemed to be on the verge of losing her talking point, she would poor on the words...occasionally I felt like I was drowning under a downpour of verbage.
3) Content: Very different, and most will interpret this via their party tinted glasses. Palin was at her best when speaking of regular people; this was to be expected. Surprisingly, Biden was also quite compelling about the plight of regular Americans. When forced to answer actual questions, each candidate quickly shifted to their talking points. This format helped Palin the most in that regard, as she was able to stick to what was versed. That said, Biden produced more "facts" or at least details than Palin. If you like concrete answers, Biden had better content as Palin stuck to platitudes and generalities per usual. It's difficult during a debate to tell the veracity of an argument, so I'll be waiting for the fact-checkers to come along tomorrow. I know some of what they said was false, as a few of the exchanges midway through the debate involved each participant telling their opponent that they were confused...it's just a question of who was accurate.
4) Wildcards: These would be the things that might not be big, but could steer peoples opinions. When talking about raising his two children, Biden chocked up momentarily, which gave the impression of being overcome by emotion. If this gets picked up on and goes around YouTube, it could be a powerful moment of "feeling the middle class' pain". Palin attempted to use some humor (specifically when she "didn't know what the VP does"). I didn't find her jokes funny, but some might. Perhaps some people might just like the fact she tried. That could help her. Unclear to me, but with the public you never know.
5) Palin wasn't awful but she wasn't awesome either: This deserves its own mention, because we've seen so many cringe inducing clips by her lately. Some commentators have suggested that just by being mediocre, she would surpass expectations and thus "win" the debate. I'm not convinced. The problem she had, is that Biden never gave her an opportunity for people to feel sorry for her. He called out McCain on several occasions, but almost never referenced her except to respond to her previous statements. The combination of these factors I think might actually be a reset on the Palin pity party. If she keeps it together the rest of the way, she won't be pitied but people will sort of remember how bad it was (on YouTube of course). If she struggles, she'll need to rebuild that outcry of sympathy.
6) My soapbox: I just have to bring this up because it is (in my mind) one of the most important issues of this election, and it's something the democrats need to harp on. Bush/Cheney have systematically destroyed the constitution, and Palin today said she thought the VP had more power than anyone in that position currently was exercising. Biden's response was exactly correct, and hers was absolutely wrong, and if there are any statements which link the failures of Bush/Cheney with likely failures of McCain/Palin it was this one. Maybe I'm exaggerating or belaboring this point too much, but it's disregard and misunderstanding of our constitution, like that statement, that has eroded civil liberties the last eight years.
Your point about the VP being part of the exec branch was spot on. That she says the bush answer, he just goes right to the constitution. Much much better. However, most people don't know or understand all of Cheney's legal wrangling, so I think that question will likely not make a big difference.
I thought they both did well. Biden of course did better on foreign policy, especially on everything about Israel. I think she did a better job of connecting with people, which was also expected.
The best earmark of who won the debate I think is in the polls and studies from undecided voters, so I'll be interested to see how those polls went.
I will say though, the most interesting part of this story in particular is this quote:
"Both candidates exceeded expectations — 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.
But on the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified."
That's an enormous gap. It's possible that the damage done from her interviews in the last couple of weeks may be irrepairable.
I'm having a tough time scoring it because my expectations were so low. Biden mostly kept his foot out of his mouth, didn't patronize Palin, and didn't get too professorial. Palin did a great job reconnecting with her fan base (rural conservatives?), and her presence was excellent. She didn't have a "did she just say that?" moment like she did with Katie Couric (repeatedly).
Few adders:
First, a couple times early on I found myself thinking "Joe, stop talking..." The early question about the bailout bill, he answered the question in about 45 seconds (referencing Obama's 4 points) but rambled on for another 30 seconds or so. Palin rambles on fairly often without adding any substance, and Biden probably could have scored some efficiency points.
Second, I thought both of them showed horrible debate ethic. Obama and McCain danced around questions, but a couple times both Biden and Palin flat out ignored the question and went back to the previous question. Gwen Ifill did a great job humoring them and letting them get their punches in. This probably doesn't mean much to the average voter, but it somewhat irritated me.
Third, it was painfully clear that Palin has a poor grasp on how government works. In a race with 3 senators, she showed her "outsider" nature. I don't know that this hurts her (probably helps her in some eyes), but Biden got a few shots in when Palin used a talking point that is only useful if the listener doesn't understand how government works.
NY Times' fact checking write up - not surprisingly there were a fair number of outright mistruths, some misquotings, etc.
Oddity - neither one of them can pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both were "Ack"ing it and dropping a syllable - Palin said "Ack-mah-nee-jad" and Biden said "Ack-maad-nee-jad".
Point of irritation: Palin's answer about gay rights/marriage sorta pissed me off. Biden and Ifill let her get away with it, too. My impression is that Palin pretty clearly opposes gay rights of any sort, but she avoided saying that by pulling out the 'marriage is one man and one woman' card; then when pressed about allowing full rights to gay civil unions, she basically said she was open minded but that marriage would always be one man one woman.
Overall, I felt Biden destroyed her in substance, and was pretty personable (for once, a politician's tears actually seemed real). Palin's only saving grace was that the moderator and Biden let her get away with redirecting the questions. It wasn't even a smooth transition of, "You asked me this, but here is how it relates to this," but instead she would just flat out say, "You know, I'm going to talk about taxes here" while acknowledging it had nothing to do with the question.
I really think the whole "Moderator is writing a book about Obama" thing tied the moderator's hands, so she just let Palin run with whatever Palin wanted. The layout of the debate was already going to let Palin say things relatively unopposed, and a scared moderator just gave Palin more free reign to read of her cue cards without fear of a followup question that would actually demonstrate knowledge rather than memory.
I think the last two weeks have permanently damaged her on the national stage. Imagine buying a new car, and two weeks after you get it home the battery dies and it develops a massive oil leak. It's still under warranty, so maybe the fix is free, but you now know that car is a lemon. You won't ever quite trust it the same way again. Here's the latest favorability numbers on Palin.
Agree...to an extent. The typical Palin answer was something like "I don't want to talk about that, how about this instead". The typical Biden answer was "Let me spend 45 seconds on what Palin said and 45 seconds on the actual question asked".
About the gay marriage/rights issue...can we as a nation just get past this? I'm as old fashioned as the next guy, in that the idea of sending out a Christmas card to Mr and Mr Smith or Mrs and Mrs Jones is uncomfortable for me, but have we seriously wasted this much public discourse on the issue? I feel like the amount of time we've spent fighting over the issue of gay marriage far outweighs either sides benefits for "winning".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i0su1roQLI
...uh...$6M for "Kid's Wooden Arrows"??? WTF!?!?! Also, did McCain say he voted for this bill because it puts us on the brink of financial disaster? I know the 24/7 news cycle is tough on candidates, and probably doubly so this year with all the "crisis", but McCain's statements seem like they are getting more and more suspect. In one interview, he attacks his own positions, then refuses to defend them and then shifts into talking about something else. I don't always agree with every position of Obama (he also voted for the bill), but if he were the one on interview, he would have at least told it like he saw it (unhappy with the bill but feels the alternative to not passing it is even more reckless).
On another note, this is one of the funniest articles I've seen yet, lampooning Palin. This snippet from the start is my favorite part.
The latest, apparently Couric was annoying. Pesky non-Fox News media.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/0 ... 31655.html