In contrast, I thought Biden was fine, especially in going over John McCain's record of not being a "maverick" - supporting Bush, tax-breaks for the wealthy, the war in Iraq, and the policies that have brought our country to where it is today.
About Palin's gibberish: look at transcripts or video clips of her answers on global warming, and on nuclear proliferation. Can you get completely what she is saying?
For example, on global warming:
I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
Or, on nuclear proliferation:
Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.
Well, I guess that sentence did get somewhat comprehensible by the end.
And when Palin was completely comprehensible, she came out with some strange statements - including John McCain "knows how to win a war". What war would that be? Vietnam? Iraq? And she was 100% clear in her intentions when she flat out refused to answer some of the questions Gwen Ifill put to her.
But Palin did come across as personable - unlike McCain.
As did Joe Biden. Indeed, Joe Biden had the most emotionally connecting moment of the debate, when he talked about it was like to be a single parent, with your children in danger. He politically was clear and factual, explaining the chasm of differences between Barack Obama and McCain.
So I give the debate to Joe Biden.
And hats off, too, to Gwen Ifell - who could have been a little tougher in her questions and follow-ups, but was completely nonpartisan and professional in her moderation, showing that all the Republican whining today, as per usual, was unfounded.
11 comments:
found you via Widget Politics Channel - great summary and very well written
Thanks - welcome to Infinite Regress.
Gwen Ifill did do an excellant job, I hope she is commended for it. And I am glad to see that Somebody in the McCain camp finally took the gloves off.
I found the debate interesting, I feel she is trying to hard to seem like an average american and I find it annoying. She seemed to skirt alot of the issues and not answer direct. You know as she said she's only been doing this 5 weeks haha
Astute analysis, Dawn.
Well Dawn, thats her gimmick. They all have one. McCain's is "The War Hero," Obama's is "The Agent of Change," Biden's is "Joe Blue-Collar." They're just like you know whats, they all got em, and they stink.
Not quite all the same, Frank.
McCain's being a war hero has nothing to do with his capacity (or not) to be President.
Obama's being an agent of change speaks directly to what he could do as President.
I was not arguing for against any or them, just pointing out that they all have gimmicks and such.
In my opinion, Biden is not getting enough recognition for a masterful, genuine performance. There were TWO crucial goals for him and he achieved both:
1) Link McCain policies to the Bush administration. Debunk the maverick image. There can be little doubt at this point that Bush is going down as one of the worst presidents in US history. It is just as certain that McCain does not differ enough from Bush to be a reformer in a meaningful sense. Biden was right, and devastatingly effective, in making that connection repeatedly.
2) Always attack McCain, never Palin. He kept his eyes on the real target and hammered away all night. On the one hand, this subtly demonstrated his realization that Palin was only a puppet on strings. On the other hand, he never failed to be courteous to her. This was something that women in particular picked up on, and appreciate. Overall, he was forceful, assertive, yet gentlemanly. It is no surprise that his level of approval with female voters is in the stratosphere. This may prove crucial when November comes around.
Paul: I watched the debate and I was startled by the MSM spin by both political parties and so-called pundits after the debate. I was dumbfounded by the across the board high marks they gave Sarah Palin. I saw a completely different 90-minute suppossed "debate" than the experts in the spin rooms. I think the disconnect lies with the measuring stick. The debate was between the 2 VP's -- i understood the main thrust of the evening was to answer a fundamental question: are Biden and Palin credible to perhaps be President someday? Can they step in on Day 1+ and lead this nation if called upon? A very serious concern but especially on the Repub side given McCain's age and his health history. It would be totally irresponsible, even unpatriotic to not consider the gravity and importance of the VP choice. For the McCain camp, the goal was to fast-forward thru the "debate" and get past it -- in that regard I guess Palin won. To the MSM the question was about survival -- after a few bad interview performances with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, uppermost to the pundits was whether Sarah Palin survived the 90-minutes of softball so-called "debate" format. Talk about setting low, way-low expectations. The MSM post-debate analysis was graded on a big curve. To use Sunday NFL football parlance: she beat the spread. Sarah Palin was suppossed to lose by three touchdowns and she only got smoked by two TDs.
I thought Joe Biden came across as a strong Presidential figure. He had command of the facts and was even able to play on Palin's home turf. That was masterful how Biden turned the tables on Palin who was delivering her standard "Heartland of America" stump speech when Joe spoke about being a single parent, after his wife and child died. Joe Biden tugged at the heartstrings in a very real emotional moment when he responded: “I know what it is like to raise two kids alone. I know what it is like to sit around that kitchen table.” Also, Biden articulated a big-picture contrast between Obama and McCain on the economy and on foreign policy with gusto and intensity. Joe had been unfairly hamstrung in the runup to the debate and was counseled to be very careful in his demeanor and approach against a female opponent. Let's face it -- it was structured to be a "lose, lose" situation for Biden unless he hit a home run. It was not a level playing field for Biden last Thursday night but he nailed it nevertheless. Joe Biden did a superlative job given the unfair position he was placed in.
What did I think of the Sarah Palin performance? She came prepared with limited scripted, memorized talking points and delivered them adequately if not awkwardly. In order to shoehorn in her assigned talking points, Palin decided (or was instructed) to just say fuck-it I'm not going to answer Ifill's questions or even offer a rebuttal to Joe Biden's answers -- here goes some pure stream of consciousness gibberish: "I'm going to talk directly to the American people... I'm an outsider. McCain is a maverick and I'm a hockey mom. You betcha. We're going to Washington and Wall St and do some fixins -- god darnit... No white-flag of surrender in Iraq and a gosh-darnit No to an Iranian nukyular program... Let me throw that lame-duck Bush guy under the bus -- yes, the Bushies screwed up royally at home and abroad as administrations are wont to do. Blunders were made but we'll learn from them. But Joe Biden -- no looking back and linking us to Bush. No fair. Let's look to the future. Did I mention that John is a maverick and I reformed Alaska.... yada, yada, yada" This Palin drone makes George W. sound like an Orator.
It was very telling at the beginning of the "debate" when Palin asked Biden if she could call him "Joe." That was a mere prop for Palin's rehearsed 'Joe' attack lines that she delivered on cue later on. Very calculated veneer. I didn't buy the folksy Palin style -- excessive winking, shoutouts, and you betcha's. We've seen this movie before -- George W. worked very hard to develop a faux cowboy persona and how did that work out for America? "Change" means no more made-for-TV folksiness to try to saddle up to the common American. It was revealing when Palin veered off the talking points. The question about the expanding role of VP in the context of the Constitution. Sarah had no frickin clue -- it was a real "moose in the headlights" moment. Obviously Palin had not been been coached on the fine points of the Cheney Doctrine. It was a telling moment for Palin -- it revealed a lack of being able to wade around in a new area that may require true thinking and deliberation and not mere parroting of other people's inner thoughts and aspirations.
So what did we learn from the VP debate? Biden could be President if need be. Palin can recite rehearsed talking points. Well let's face it we can get a parrot to do that and do it better. Can Sarah Palin be a credible Vice President, a heartbeat away from the Presidency? I think a serious VP candidate needs to be able to speak beyond the carefully prepared talking points.
/jimy_max
Paul: FYI ... Mo Dowd had a very insightful and witty commentary on Sister Sarah in yesterday's NY Times
("Sarah’s Pompom Palaver",
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05dowd.html )
/jimy_max
Post a Comment