NationStates Jolt Archive

Apart from the conversation in the larger election thread, I thought it would be good to have a separate thread to chew over the ways that the campaigns & the media are setting the stage for tomorrow's Palin/Biden debate.

First, the media talking about the candidates and its most favorite subject: itself.

The NYT has some OK overview articles today on each candidate's debating style. (I believe registration is required but come on, it's free, and I've never gotten advertising mail from them.)

NYT on Biden (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/us/politics/01biden.html): One danger for Mr. Biden on Thursday is that his habit of speaking authoritatively, of saying he possesses the truth, will come across as overbearing or condescending, particularly toward someone like Ms. Palin, who lacks his credentials. To try to guard against sounding sexist, he is sparring in practice sessions with Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, who is playing the role of Ms. Palin.

NYT on Palin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/us/politics/01palin.html): ...a review of a handful of her debate performances in the race for governor in 2006 shows a somewhat different persona from the one that has emerged since Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, named Ms. Palin as the vice-presidential nominee a month ago....

Her debating style was rarely confrontational, and she appeared confident. In contrast to today, when she seems unversed on several important issues, she demonstrated fluency on certain subjects, particularly oil and gas development.

As for the media on the media, today's kerfuffle comes from Michelle Malkin, who says moderator Gwen Ifill is too pro-Obama to be fair (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDFhMWUxZTZmMmE5MzkzYWVhMTU5NDYyNWRhNTQyM2M=). The Chicago Tribune's Frank James blogs (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/gwen_ifill_hit_for_obama_book.html) that this is claptrap. I'm inclined to agree, but again, I'm horribly biased -- I have mad, mad love for Ifill, who does a great job anchoring Washington Week (a PBS forum for journalists who cover DC to analyze/poke fun at their subject,) and I think Malkin has less credibility than my shoes. I'm curious to know what y'all think.

So, how do y'all think the campaigns have done in setting the stage for tomorrow's debate? Who has more to lose? (I'd say Biden -- he's been low on the radar for the past few weeks, the public may have forgotten how gaffe-prone he is.) Does Palin win just by showing up at the right time, or has she dug herself a hole with the Couric interviews?

I'm sure it will be entertaining. :)

I predict that Biden will kick ass, and half of all USAmericans will vote for Palin anyway.

I'm sure it will be entertaining. :)

That indeed. I'll be loaded up in the TV room with popcorn and soda. (I'd rather have beer, but it'll be Friday morning here, on a work day. http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/sad.gif)

I predict that Biden will kick ass, and half of all USAmericans will vote for Palin anyway.

Yup.


Unfortunate.

That indeed. I'll be loaded up in the TV room with popcorn and soda. (I'd rather have beer, but it'll be Friday morning here, on a work day. http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/sad.gif)

Can't you just drink beer and pop a breath mint?

Or are you one of those people who don't think alcohol should be served with breakfast? I always pictured you as one with a bit of the distilled devil in his morning coffee.

somehow this is going to end up being some sort of Moral Kombat debate, ending with the words "Finish her" as Biden deals his death blow to her.

I do think that they have effectively lowered the bar for Palin that all she has to do is speak in full sentences at least half the time to come out well. Binden is trapped, if he is nice he will be patronizing and if he's not he'll be a big meany. Not to mention his own ability to go off the rails. After watching the Couric interview I had stated elsewhere that this debate should be moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle. It's going to be ridiculous. But I think that they have successfully lowered the bar for her so much all she has to do is not drag her feet to get past.

Can't you just drink beer and pop a breath mint?

Or are you one of those people who don't think alcohol should be served with breakfast? I always pictured you as one with a bit of the distilled devil in his morning coffee.

Heh.
I'm pretty much a "sun over the yard arm" drinker. And never before work.

Or Palin will completely get destroyed, and the Republicans will still call it a victory.

Or perhaps a strategic non-win.

I do think that they have effectively lowered the bar for Palin that all she has to do is speak in full sentences at least half the time to come out well. Binden is trapped, if he is nice he will be patronizing and if he's not he'll be a big meany. Not to mention his own ability to go off the rails. After watching the Couric interview I had stated elsewhere that this debate should be moderated by a juggling bear on a unicycle. It's going to be ridiculous. But I think that they have successfully lowered the bar for her so much all she has to do is not drag her feet to get past.

You've got it pretty much.

The bit I was laughing at on CNNj this morning was where she couldn't name one single newspaper or magazine she read to keep informed.

On a gut level, which is where many voters vote from, she's come across to me as the airhead Prom Queen.

Or Palin will completely get destroyed, and the Republicans will still call it a victory.

Or perhaps a strategic non-win.
Well, no matter what they'll call it a win. Perhaps they'll have the decency to wait until it's over this time...

The bit I was laughing at on CNNj this morning was where she couldn't name one single newspaper or magazine she read to keep informed.

What does Palin need to be informed about ? She is supposed to be a token woman to show McCain is progressive and to appeal to female voters (possibly horny males as well).

Her opinions and knowledge are not needed - she just needs to do as McCain says like a good little lapdog.

Biden is going to fucking mop the floor with her (hopefully).

What does Palin need to be informed about ? She is supposed to be a token woman to show McCain is progressive and to appeal to female voters (possibly horny makes as well).

Her opinions and knowledge are not needed - she just needs to do as McCain says like a good little lapdog.

We'll most likely see the results, should Mc Cain/Palin be elected. I fully expect the actuarial tables for 72 year old multiple carcenoma patients to hold true....

Also of note: the debate format limits initial answers to 90 seconds, followed by two minutes for follow-up and response. Ifill can ask pretty much whatever she wants. The Post-Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/60479BA073BF4BFA862574D5000EE1FE?OpenDocument) thinks that the time limits theoretically help both candidates -- Biden won't have room to stick his foot in his mouth, and Palin can stick to generalities without getting bogged down in details.

I'm not sure it's going to work that way. For one thing, Ifill's going to be hard-pressed to actually enforce those time limits, and Biden, at least, only needs seconds to screw up. ("FDR going on TV after the '29 crash" seemed to spill out in no time. I imagine his staff hearing that and feeling like they were caught in the slo-mo shot of some action movie -- yelling "Nnnnoooooo...." and frantically waving their hands to try and stop the inevitable.)

I liked this article from Salon.com about the Sarah Palin pity party already in full swing: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/index.html

True and depressing. If many people feel like the columnists described in the article she can only win. Bah.

I always find it funny when the Left speaks down to those simplistic little Republicans. So very elite.

And then, of course, comes the ass kicking and you see the Left look around in shock which inevitiably turns into "Americans are stupid". You would think Bush would have taught you that you don't judge a book by its cover. That man is supposedly the dumbest person alive and he still whups Democrat ass on a regular basis.

Shows what you know. See you at the debate!

I always find it funny when the Left speaks down to those simplistic little Republicans. So very elite.
You mean, the people you claim voted against the Economic "Bail out" bill because their feelings got hurt by the mean ol' speaker?

I can see why you would call them "simplistic little Republicans", since you think of them as cry babies.

I always find it funny when the Left speaks down to those simplistic little Republicans. So very elite.

In the case of Palin even McCain speaks down to her.

I liked this article from Salon.com about the Sarah Palin pity party already in full swing: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/index.html

True and depressing. If many people feel like the columnists described in the article she can only win. Bah.

It seems that said pity party comes across as condescending, especially Judith Warner's column. (Though why I ever make the mistake of expecting more from Warner, I don't know. Gah!) I suppose it's a natural consequence of a bunch of professional navel-gazers trying to figure out the appeal of someone who doesn't speak their language.

It seems that said pity party comes across as condescending, especially Judith Warner's column. (Though why I ever make the mistake of expecting more from Warner, I don't know. Gah!) I suppose it's a natural consequence of a bunch of professional navel-gazers trying to figure out the appeal of someone who doesn't speak their language.
The commentators might be condescending but, like the article said, that's instantly made insignificant by the sympathy they express.

You mean, the people you claim voted against the Economic "Bail out" bill because their feelings got hurt by the mean ol' speaker?

I can see why you would call them "simplistic little Republicans", since you think of them as cry babies.

Whereas the 95 democrats who voted against it (and who, if they had voted for it, it would have passed) were simply voting their conscience?

Many of the Republicans expressed doubts and concerns about the bill before it went up for vote. Pelosi's lame ass speech might have swayed a few others to vote against it - but in the end, it was already doomed.

You mean, the people you claim voted against the Economic "Bail out" bill because their feelings got hurt by the mean ol' speaker?

I can see why you would call them "simplistic little Republicans", since you think of them as cry babies.

To be fair Pelosi was being an absolute bitch for no reason. Still no reason to sink the economy in a fit of pique.


Whereas the 95 democrats who voted against it (and who, if they had voted for it, it would have passed) were simply voting their conscience?

Many of the Republicans expressed doubts and concerns about the bill before it went up for vote. Pelosi's lame ass speech might have swayed a few others to vote against it - but in the end, it was already doomed.
I grow tired of explaining the glaringly obvious. The Democrats had the power to send it through unilaterally yes, to do so would of been suicide politically. It would of been spun as a another big spending Democratic bill. To have so many vote against it on the Democrats side meant in order for it to pass it had to be a bipartisan effort. The Republicans voted against it, and the bill sank.

Whereas the 95 democrats who voted against it (and who, if they had voted for it, it would have passed) were simply voting their conscience?
In the context of the post made by The Smiling Frogs here and the post he made in the 600 Billion dollar bill thread - Who the fuck cares what the motivation of the democrats was?

To be fair Pelosi was being an absolute bitch for no reason. Still no reason to sink the economy in a fit of pique.



I grow tired of explaining the glaringly obvious. The Democrats had the power to send it through unilaterally yes, to do so would of been suicide politically. It would of been spun as a another big spending Democratic bill. To have so many vote against it on the Democrats side meant in order for it to pass it had to be a bipartisan effort. The Republicans voted against it, and the bill sank.

Ah, so the Democrats play politics just as well as the Republicans, but that's okay, because they're Democrats, after all.

Neither side was innocent in this. Pelosi was far from innocent - she's not even trying to be bipartisan. Like anyone with a three-year old mentality, you either play her game or she takes her ball and goes home.

Biden is going to fucking mop the floor with her (hopefully).
I would hope, rather, that she mops the floor with herself, and Biden doesn't appear to have done anything to shove her down on the floor.

Ah, so the Democrats play politics just as well as the Republicans, but that's okay, because they're Democrats, after all.

Neither side was innocent in this. Pelosi was far from innocent - she's not even trying to be bipartisan. Like anyone with a three-year old mentality, you either play her game or she takes her ball and goes home.

Did I say that? Did I imply that? No? Go away. You're either too ignorant or willfully stupidly partisan to even bother with. Point of fact I criticized Pelosi for being a snarky bitch.

Republicans tried to play politics, Democrats saw it coming and played them back. Republicans got spanked for it, now you're whining. Grow up.

I predict that Biden will kick ass, and half of all USAmericans will vote for Palin anyway.

If he tries to kick ass, he will be regarded as a sexist. $5 says that Faux Noise will play on that over and over again.

You've got it pretty much.

The bit I was laughing at on CNNj this morning was where she couldn't name one single newspaper or magazine she read to keep informed.

On a gut level, which is where many voters vote from, she's come across to me as the airhead Prom Queen.

I found it hilarious as well, considering she graduated with a degree in journalism.

This debate is going to ruin Palin. The entire country will see that she is completely incompetant, in case they have not been watching the news lately. Meanwhile, I will be laughing so hard that you would think I was watching Comedy Central, not CNN.

Just in case the Palin Pity Party doesn't swing viewer sentiment her way, the Gwen-Ifill-is-hopelessly-partisan story seems to be more than a Michelle Malkin flail. CNN is now commenting on the commentary, which in itself is commentary on the media. Wheels within wheels.

I'll be curious to know what you non-PBS-junkies think of her moderating skills once the debate's over.

This debate is going to ruin Palin. The entire country will see that she is completely incompetant, in case they have not been watching the news lately. Meanwhile, I will be laughing so hard that you would think I was watching Comedy Central, not CNN.

Reportedly she held up very well in the Alaskan debates. She's just out of her depth here on the national stage. I wouldn't count on her being inept always.

somehow this is going to end up being some sort of Moral Kombat debate, ending with the words "Finish her" as Biden deals his death blow to her.

/thread. I can't stop giggling.

Did I say that? Did I imply that? No? Go away. You're either too ignorant or willfully stupidly partisan to even bother with. Point of fact I criticized Pelosi for being a snarky bitch.

Republicans tried to play politics, Democrats saw it coming and played them back. Republicans got spanked for it, now you're whining. Grow up.

You're forgetting that if we fail to be Lawful Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid), we must have failed to adhere to our own code of saintliness in his eyes. It's not that he's not grown up, it's that he's unable to compute Democrat and "not total political dimwit" coexisting.

To the main point, though, the thing I'm worried most about is the fact that so long as Palin doesn't Gerald-Ford into the podium, she's going to do better than expected. But with so many things going wrong, is this really the time to confuse "better than expected" with "qualified for the vice-presidency", especially given the pass we gave the last person who confused the two?

To the main point, though, the thing I'm worried most about is the fact that so long as Palin doesn't Gerald-Ford into the podium, she's going to do better than expected. But with so many things going wrong, is this really the time to confuse "better than expected" with "qualified for the vice-presidency", especially given the pass we gave the last person who confused the two?

It's not. But 'should' and 'will' sometimes don't meet.

The poisoning of the well seems to be working quite well (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/debate-moderators-objectivity-questioned/). Now it's not just Malkin, it's actually started to get a foot hold.

So now Palin can't lose-she'll exceed expectations against a giant meany like Biden and against the odds of a 'stacked' debate. Seriously, they've locked it up ahead of time, she could fucking pee herself and get away with it.

The bit I was laughing at on CNNj this morning was where she couldn't name one single newspaper or magazine she read to keep informed.

hey, she was just giving an honest answer

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/2902659751_ff130d3ab5_o.jpg

Biden is going to fucking mop the floor with her (hopefully).

But if she is the women shouldn't she be mopping the floor?

*flees*

I grow tired of explaining the glaringly obvious. The Democrats had the power to send it through unilaterally yes, to do so would of been suicide politically. It would of been spun as a another big spending Democratic bill. To have so many vote against it on the Democrats side meant in order for it to pass it had to be a bipartisan effort. The Republicans voted against it, and the bill sank.

Aren't you doing your own spinning though?

Aren't you doing your own spinning though?

Not intentionally. Simply the way I perceive the situation. Seemed pretty clear cut to me. Republicans going into an election year didn't want any part of a massively unpopular spending bill. Let the Democrats take it on the chin.

Not intentionally. Simply the way I perceive the situation. Seemed pretty clear cut to me. Republicans going into an election year didn't want any part of a massively unpopular spending bill. Let the Democrats take it on the chin.

The Democrats could've easily passed the Bill, they had the numbers. If they've unanimously voted for it, then they could've come out and say "See, the Republican don't want to save the middle class!"

Instead, what you have here is a clusterfuck of the Democrats and Republicans messing things up. Personally I'm glad the spending bill was defeated. I mean $700 billion?! Who do you think is going to pay that, the taxpayers. I'm sorry but I have no incentives to bail out failed business or people who brought mortgages that they knew they couldn't afford when they signed it.

People need to know that if you do bad business practices, and if you sign loans that you know you can't pay, then there's going to be consequences.

As The Merovingian says "You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect."

I'm sorry but I have no incentives to bail out failed business or people who brought mortgages that they knew they couldn't afford when they signed it.

Yes, you do. I really wish people could get this through their thick heads. This isn't something that is limited to Wall Street. This will affect virtually anyone. If you have any sort of retirement vehicle, you were negatively impacted by the bill not passing, and you will continue to be negatively affected. Understand that, please.

Yes, you do. I really wish people could get this through their thick heads. This isn't something that is limited to Wall Street. This will affect virtually anyone. If you have any sort of retirement vehicle, you were negatively impacted by the bill not passing, and you will continue to be negatively affected. Understand that, please.

and yet, if the bill passes, then we'd be back here in say, another 5, 10, 15, or 20 years.

I'm sorry, but failure is a part of life, people need to learn it.

and yet, if the bill passes, then we'd be back here in say, another 5, 10, 15, or 20 years.

I'm sorry, but failure is a part of life, people need to learn it.

We will be back here in another 5-10 years regardless oof what happens, the question is do you want the economy and country to be up shit creek the entire time or do you want it to be slowed and fixed over a much shorter period of time?

As for the Dems, not wanting to take it all on the chin well that is just as childish as any republicans who may have voted against it after Peloisi's speech. There are times where you just have to do something because it is the right thing to do even if it will hurt you.

We will be back here in another 5-10 years regardless oof what happens, the question is do you want the economy and country to be up shit creek the entire time or do you want it to be slowed and fixed over a much shorter period of time?

As for the Dems, not wanting to take it all on the chin well that is just as childish as any republicans who may have voted against it after Peloisi's speech. There are times where you just have to do something because it is the right thing to do even if it will hurt you.

How do we even know they voted against it because of Peloisi? Maybe they voted against it because it was unpopular, or maybe they too thought the price tag was too high....I mean unless the Republican Party is a hive mind, neither you, me or anyone can give a definitive, clear reason as to why they voted against it.

The Democrats could've easily passed the Bill, they had the numbers.

the point was to have a strong showing of bipartisan agreement as a way of reassuring the market. that's why they didn't wind up proposing something that looked at all appealing to the left, in the standard spirit of democratic compromise. and then they allegedly had a deal, until lucy pulled the football away.

but hey, i'd rather sweden up the joint anyways (given that the revolution isn't at hand, at least)

How do we even know they voted against it because of Peloisi? Maybe they voted against it because it was unpopular, or maybe they too thought the price tag was too high....I mean unless the Republican Party is a hive mind, neither you, me or anyone can give a definitive, clear reason as to why they voted against it.

Because several of them are quoted as saying that they were going to vote for the bailout until Pelosi gave her speech.

Either way, this is off topic.

the point was to have a strong showing of bipartisan agreement as a way of reassuring the market. that's why they didn't wind up proposing something that looked at all appealing to the left, in the standard spirit of democratic compromise. and then they allegedly had a deal, until lucy pulled the football away.

but hey, i'd rather sweden up the joint anyways (given that the revolution isn't at hand, at least)

Wow....so the Democrats didn't pass it because they wanted to show a gesture of Bipartisanship, the Republican didn't pass it because they wanted to strike back at the speaker.....

So how many plates are we spinning?

Wow....so the Democrats didn't pass it because they wanted to show a gesture of Bipartisanship, the Republican didn't pass it because they wanted to strike back at the speaker.....

So how many plates are we spinning?

no, it didn't pass because the compromise was made that sacrificed votes on the left for the promise of bipartisan support (and to have political cover during the election). the repubs then reneged on the deal, reaching out for anything that sounded even vaguely like a semi-coherent reason.

How do we even know they voted against it because of Peloisi? Maybe they voted against it because it was unpopular, or maybe they too thought the price tag was too high....I mean unless the Republican Party is a hive mind, neither you, me or anyone can give a definitive, clear reason as to why they voted against it.

Well we don't I was just using the same assumption that other people had used for the reason of the failur, why the Dems couldn't have 14 less people vote against it I don't know. If it was because they wanted the republicans to do something as well which some already had voted, but didn't weant to seem like the bad guys well then that is just as childish.

I will be watching it live, as I conveniently have the day off on Friday, and it is live late Friday morning here. I look forward to it much more than the Presidential debate.

It'll be like a circus, with Biden the old performer, a lion on a ball juggling flaming chainsaws blindfolded and getting tased by a one legged midget clown, and Palin the overly made-up, supposedly pretty noob acrobat walking the tightrope for the first time with no net under her: If Biden does well, it'll be expected, if Palin does well it'll be the biggest success in American history.

In the words of Russel Peters, somebody gonna get-a hurt REAL bad.

no, it didn't pass because the compromise was made that sacrificed votes on the left for the promise of bipartisan support (and to have political cover during the election). the repubs then reneged on the deal, reaching out for anything that sounded even vaguely like a semi-coherent reason.

It's Barack Obama's fault!

It's Barack Obama's fault!

No, no the whole crisis is Bush's fault :rolleyes:

Does anyone know what time this will be on Australian Eastern Standard Time?

Does anyone know what time this will be on Australian Eastern Standard Time?

Check your local guide for details ;)

Check your local guide for details ;)

I have tried. They don't have it listed online, and we don't keep the paper copies.

I have tried. They don't have it listed online, and we don't keep the paper copies.

Aha! I am useful! It will be on at 11am Australian Eastern time. SBS and ABC are showing it.

I prefer SBS, but that's coz I still feel loyal to Li Ling Ching. She was so cool...

I have tried. They don't have it listed online, and we don't keep the paper copies.

All the debates are 9pm EST.

http://www.world-time-zones.org/cgi-bin/util/time-difference.cgi?phase=6&continent1ID=2&country1ID=93&state1ID=16&city1ID=0&continent2ID=5&country2ID=181&countryID=181&continent3ID=0&country3ID=0&state3ID=0&city3ID=0&stateID=0&cityID=6415

So, if I'm reading that right, that would be 11am your time.

I have tried. They don't have it listed online, and we don't keep the paper copies.

Oh ok, if you have Foxtel or something similar, then checking the guide on the box will be your best bet.

But it appears that Sdaeriji has already told you and they are going on now, so 11am tomorrow morning.

All the debates are 9pm EST.

http://www.world-time-zones.org/cgi-bin/util/time-difference.cgi?phase=6&continent1ID=2&country1ID=93&state1ID=16&city1ID=0&continent2ID=5&country2ID=181&countryID=181&continent3ID=0&country3ID=0&state3ID=0&city3ID=0&stateID=0&cityID=6415

So, if I'm reading that right, that would be 11am your time.

S'right. Remember, SBS or ABC.

I always find it funny when the Left speaks down to those simplistic little Republicans. So very elite.

Whose saying the Republicans are simplistic? The Republicans are a well oiled, fine tuned political machine that every party everywhere should be taking notes from, because the are the Mike Tyson of political parties (including the crazy, ear bitting bit). Then this year happened, and they suddenly seemed to have become schizophrenic.

Palin is simplistic. Palin is an idiot. McCain wouldnt be simplistic if he wasnt senile.

And then, of course, comes the ass kicking and you see the Left look around in shock which inevitiably turns into "Americans are stupid".

Ive always maintained that Americans are stupid. It has nothing to do with who wins or loses a debate.

no, it didn't pass because the compromise was made that sacrificed votes on the left for the promise of bipartisan support (and to have political cover during the election). the repubs then reneged on the deal, reaching out for anything that sounded even vaguely like a semi-coherent reason.

Why do you hate freedom?

S'right. Remember, SBS or ABC.

Which one is it? But surely CNN, FOX, SkyNews will be showing them as well.

To be fair Pelosi was being an absolute bitch for no reason. Still no reason to sink the economy in a fit of pique.



I grow tired of explaining the glaringly obvious. The Democrats had the power to send it through unilaterally yes, to do so would of been suicide politically. It would of been spun as a another big spending Democratic bill. To have so many vote against it on the Democrats side meant in order for it to pass it had to be a bipartisan effort. The Republicans voted against it, and the bill sank.

You do know that was done intentionally by both sides, right? They all knew it needed to pass, but they also knew that the American public would react emotionally about it and get pissed off, so they have frantic negotiations, a speech from Pelosi(to cover the whole ordeal) and then have set people vote against it in enough quantities so that the economy takes a punch and the public calms down.

It was an obvious manipulation of the situation. The bill that currently passed the Senate was the one intended all along.

S'right. Remember, SBS or ABC.

Thanks, But I'm going to be WORKING at that time!!! Goddamnit!

Which one is it? But surely CNN, FOX, SkyNews will be showing them as well.

Both. And yeah, I'm sure those others will too, if you're wealthy enough to have Foxtel.

Let it be known that the Democrats are giving Biden the exact same advice I "gave" (and those of you who read it know what Im talking about):

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10611982?source=most_viewed

"If a male patronizes another male that's seen as just part of the game,'' said Flammang, who studies gender politics. But, she said, the reaction is generally much more negative if a man seems condescending to a woman in such a setting.

The best advice for Biden, said Shanto Iyengar, professor of communications and political science at Stanford University, "just let her express herself."

ABC, CBS, and CNN all should stream it on their websites. I'm sure NBC and FOX do too, but their websites were too convoluted for me to try to figure out during the last debate, so I stuck with CBS.

PBS will also have it.

Both. And yeah, I'm sure those others will too, if you're wealthy enough to have Foxtel.

Ok cool, if I'm home at the time I may just switch it over. I don't want to get into anything here but Foxtel isn't that expensive.

Ok cool, if I'm home at the time I may just switch it over. I don't want to get into anything here but Foxtel isn't that expensive.

Horses for courses. By my family's standards, it is. But we're single income lower middle class, so that's expected.

As for the topic at hand, is there any REASONABLE suggestion of moderator bias, or is it all conservative broo-ha-ha? And do you think Sarah Palin can actually LOSE, given how low the bar has been set? How do you lot see it happening? Looking for predictions and such here.

Horses for courses. By my family's standards, it is. But we're single income lower middle class, so that's expected.

As for the topic at hand, is there any REASONABLE suggestion of moderator bias, or is it all conservative broo-ha-ha? And do you think Sarah Palin can actually LOSE, given how low the bar has been set? How do you lot see it happening? Looking for predictions and such here.

She has a book coming out about the achievements of black politicians in the last 50+ years, and Obama is naturally a big focus of that. The book isn't out so it's hard to say how pro-Obama it is. There was also a minor controversy during the 2004 VP debate, which Ifill moderated, after Edwards attacked Cheney's ties to Halliburton.

CHENEY: "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

IFILL: "Well, that's all you've got."



As far as expectations go, given how they've been lowered straight to the floor for Palin, I find it difficult to see how she couldn't exceed them. Frankly, it seems like all she has to do is show up on time and she'll be exceeding expectations.

Horses for courses. By my family's standards, it is. But we're single income lower middle class, so that's expected.

Sorry as I said I didn't mean anything by it, as a student I am in the lower level incomes and really it is up to taste, in order for me to have it I have to give up a few things like food. /threadjack

You've got it pretty much.

The bit I was laughing at on CNNj this morning was where she couldn't name one single newspaper or magazine she read to keep informed.

On a gut level, which is where many voters vote from, she's come across to me as the airhead Prom Queen.

Sure it's been said a dozen times, but seriously, she couldn't name one fucking supreme court case other than Roe v. Wade. I'm a lit major and I could probably name 10 off the top of my head.

I always find it funny when the Left speaks down to those simplistic little Republicans. So very elite.

And then, of course, comes the ass kicking and you see the Left look around in shock which inevitiably turns into "Americans are stupid". You would think Bush would have taught you that you don't judge a book by its cover. That man is supposedly the dumbest person alive and he still whups Democrat ass on a regular basis.

Shows what you know. See you at the debate!

My used Honda Accord isn't the best car on the block, but it can still take out small children at sufficient speeds. They should make me Secretary of Transportation.

Sure it's been said a dozen times, but seriously, she couldn't name one fucking supreme court case other than Roe v. Wade. I'm a lit major and I could probably name 10 off the top of my head.

She wasn't just asked to name another case, though. It wasn't a trivia question. She was asked to name a Supreme Court case besides Roe that she disagreed with. It may demonstrate that her political views of the judicial branch do not extend beyond "ABORTION BAD", but it's not really an example of her being a bumbling baffoon.

edit: A lot more damning, IMO, is this exchange.

COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

COURIC: The cornerstone of Roe v Wade.

PALIN: I do. And I believe that --individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

Sure it's been said a dozen times, but seriously, she couldn't name one fucking supreme court case other than Roe v. Wade. I'm a lit major and I could probably name 10 off the top of my head.

Roe v Wade
Tinker v Des Moines
Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
Loving v Virginia
Hustler v Falwell
Miranda v Arizona
Scott v Sandford
Marbury v Madison
Falvo v Owasso SD

I was lucky to get 10 off the top of my head. I'm done there. Former music major.

She wasn't just asked to name another case, though. It wasn't a trivia question. She was asked to name a Supreme Court case besides Roe that she disagreed with. It may demonstrate that her political views of the judicial branch do not extend beyond "ABORTION BAD", but it's not really an example of her being a bumbling baffoon.

I disagree, mildly. Someone one step below the President should be one hell of a lot more worldly than Palin. We've done the President-without-passport thing for eight years. Please, not again.

I disagree, mildly. Someone one step below the President should be one hell of a lot more worldly than Palin. We've done the President-without-passport thing for eight years. Please, not again.

Right, that's what I said. It demonstrates that her political views of the judiciary are remarkably thin. But it's not an example of her being a dolt. I'm sure she could have named Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education if the question was just, "Name another Supreme Court case," but she probably agrees with the rulings in those cases (I hope). But she was asked to name another one she disagrees with besides Roe, and she couldn't. This shows that she hasn't given any thought to the Supreme Court besides, "ABORTION BAD!" People are trying to spin this as, "OMG look at the moron who can't even name two Supreme Court cases," and that's just not accurate.

Roe v Wade
Tinker v Des Moines
Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
Loving v Virginia
Hustler v Falwell
Miranda v Arizona
Scott v Sandford
Marbury v Madison
Falvo v Owasso SD

I was lucky to get 10 off the top of my head. I'm done there. Former music major.

Heh, you named most of the ones I would have. See, the public school system works a LITTLE. We know we have the right to wear armbands and remain silent.

Let it be known that the Democrats are giving Biden the exact same advice I "gave" (and those of you who read it know what Im talking about):

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10611982?source=most_viewed

This, to me, sounds condescending-
The best advice for Biden, said Shanto Iyengar, professor of communications and political science at Stanford University, "just let her express herself."
It makes me think of the Simpsons episode where they split the school into boys and girls schools and the girls are asked "How does a right angle feel..."

Like Biden has to give traditional answers and Palin will be allowed to do interpretive dance or finger paints.

I liked this response- (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122289677839095667.html)
Sen. Biden recently said reporters are in a "time warp" if they think he will prepare any differently to debate a woman than a man. He cited debating Sens. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Olympia Snowe of Maine and other women in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Biden debated Sen. Clinton 12 times during the Democratic primaries.

"It seems like the only people in the room that think that debating a woman is going to be fundamentally different are people who don't hang around with smart women," Sen. Biden said aboard his campaign plane.

Which is not to say that they aren't prepping him-
Barack Obama's campaign has assembled a team of top advisers, including several prominent female debaters, to help prepare the Delaware senator, known for his tough attacks and candor, to debate the Republicans' first female vice-presidential nominee. Since Sunday, the team has been hunkered down at the Sheraton Suites hotel in Wilmington, Del.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has been playing the role of Gov. Palin. "I want to beat him up a little, so he does well," Gov. Granholm told reporters. One Biden aide said Gov. Granholm was chosen to portray Gov. Palin in the preparations because she ran as an outsider and reformer in Michigan in 2002 and 2006.

Sen. Biden also has received advice from Democratic primary opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and a number of top campaign aides.

Aides say Sen. Biden will emphasize issues rather than attacks, and debate preparations have centered on making the case for Sen. Obama rather than tearing down Gov. Palin. "I think this will come down to bigger questions than who can throw a sharp elbow. This is a much bigger election" than that, says Patti Solis Doyle, Sen. Biden's campaign chief of staff.
Except, you know, that elbow he just threw calling her stupid-but it was elegantly done. I'll quote it again-
"It seems like the only people in the room that think that debating a woman is going to be fundamentally different are people who don't hang around with smart women," Sen. Biden said aboard his campaign plane.

Still, though, I think that this debate has been so successfully pre-spun that they could have cut outs of the candidates stand in.

Right, that's what I said. It demonstrates that her political views of the judiciary are remarkably thin. But it's not an example of her being a dolt. I'm sure she could have named Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education if the question was just, "Name another Supreme Court case," but she probably agrees with the rulings in those cases (I hope). But she was asked to name another one she disagrees with besides Roe, and she couldn't. This shows that she hasn't given any thought to the Supreme Court besides, "ABORTION BAD!" People are trying to spin this as, "OMG look at the moron who can't even name two Supreme Court cases," and that's just not accurate.

Okay, that does change my view. Clearly the piece I saw was truncated (what, media manipulation? no way).

Considering that, though, you'd think she might bring up Tinker v. Des Moines, or United States v. Virginia, Brandenburg v. Ohio...

Hell, while I'm at it, how about the Dover school board? She obviously believes we should be teaching ID in our schools.

Ah, so the Democrats play politics just as well as the Republicans, but that's okay, because they're Democrats, after all.

Neither side was innocent in this. Pelosi was far from innocent - she's not even trying to be bipartisan. Like anyone with a three-year old mentality, you either play her game or she takes her ball and goes home.

Do you mean McCain saying "we don't need to fix the blame" and then blaming Obama and Pelosi? Watching the interview when he joined Palin was great. Couric took her own words and asked her a question. McCain jumped in with what amounts to a "not fair." They don't trust Palin to hold her own. I can see why as I've called her a horrible choice right from the start. She couldn't even name a newspaper she read to keep informed. Not 1. I can name three I read in print and about 20 I read online in a pinch. I read more than that, but those are what I could rattle off right quick.

Reportedly she held up very well in the Alaskan debates. She's just out of her depth here on the national stage. I wouldn't count on her being inept always.

She's only good at bullshitting. She talks in circles and makes you wonder what question you asked. You see that in her answers now. She just babbles.

She couldn't even name a newspaper she read to keep informed. Not 1. I can name three I read in print and about 20 I read online in a pinch. I read more than that, but those are what I could rattle off right quick.

Chris Matthews had an interesting (well, less-than-obvious) take on her answer -- that it wasn't that she doesn't read any newspapers, but that she thought it was a "gotcha" question and didn't want to be categorized by the news sources she used.

Which, I dunno, it would seem to me to be perfectly acceptable for the Governor of Alaska to say "I read the local press and I rely on my staff to keep me up to date on national stories" or something like that. Governors are busy, nobody expects her to spend her day perusing the IHT or whatever.

Chris Matthews had an interesting (well, less-than-obvious) take on her answer -- that it wasn't that she doesn't read any newspapers, but that she thought it was a "gotcha" question and didn't want to be categorized by the news sources she used.

Which, I dunno, it would seem to me to be perfectly acceptable for the Governor of Alaska to say "I read the local press and I rely on my staff to keep me up to date on national stories" or something like that. Governors are busy, nobody expects her to spend her day perusing the IHT or whatever.
yeah, if she actually reads the news she probably has some kind of a clip service that takes articles from a variety of sources.

all she had to say was that she takes the anchorage paper, the wasilla paper and googles the rest. after all she is a governor AND the mother of 5. she doesnt have time to read all the papers that she would have to read to be up on everything.

Roe v Wade
Tinker v Des Moines
Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
Loving v Virginia
Hustler v Falwell
Miranda v Arizona
Scott v Sandford
Marbury v Madison
Falvo v Owasso SD

I was lucky to get 10 off the top of my head. I'm done there. Former music major.

wait..you disagree with Tinker, Brown, Miranda and Loving? I think those are some of the most important cases in history...She was asked to name ones she disagreed with, so simply naming 10 isn't exactly the point.

But to point, off the top of my head, those that I disagree with:

Plessy v. Ferguson
Korimatzu v. United States
Bowers v. Hardwick
Dred Scott
Lochner v. New York
TLO v. New Jersey
Slaughterhouse Cases (although I agree to some extent with the outcome, I disagree with how they got there)

What the hell is a "gotcha" question?

What the hell is a "gotcha" question?
a question designed to make you look stupid no matter how you answer it.

Roe v Wade
Tinker v Des Moines
Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
Loving v Virginia
Hustler v Falwell
Miranda v Arizona
Scott v Sandford
Marbury v Madison
Falvo v Owasso SD

I was lucky to get 10 off the top of my head. I'm done there. Former music major.

I wouldn't have thought of Falvo v Owasso or Hustler v Falwell, and I would have thought of Bush v. Gore, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, and Gideon v. Wainwright. Apparently, recent music majors are 20% better educated about Supreme Court cases? :p

I was really hoping she'd say she disagreed with Marbury v. Madison, just because I'd want to see the reaction.

What the hell is a "gotcha" question?

Any question that requires someone to think.

Right, that's what I said. It demonstrates that her political views of the judiciary are remarkably thin. But it's not an example of her being a dolt. I'm sure she could have named Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education if the question was just, "Name another Supreme Court case," but she probably agrees with the rulings in those cases (I hope). But she was asked to name another one she disagrees with besides Roe, and she couldn't. This shows that she hasn't given any thought to the Supreme Court besides, "ABORTION BAD!" People are trying to spin this as, "OMG look at the moron who can't even name two Supreme Court cases," and that's just not accurate.

Oops, I missed that.

However, at least I didn't say that I hoped she agreed with Plessy v. Ferguson. ;)

Right, that's what I said. It demonstrates that her political views of the judiciary are remarkably thin. But it's not an example of her being a dolt. I'm sure she could have named Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education if the question was just, "Name another Supreme Court case," but she probably agrees with the rulings in those cases (I hope). But she was asked to name another one she disagrees with besides Roe, and she couldn't. This shows that she hasn't given any thought to the Supreme Court besides, "ABORTION BAD!" People are trying to spin this as, "OMG look at the moron who can't even name two Supreme Court cases," and that's just not accurate.

I hope to hell she does not agree with Plessy v. Freguson.

I hope to hell she does not agree with Plessy v. Freguson.

Considering her stances though, it wouldnt shock me if she agreed.

Considering her stances though, it wouldnt shock me if she agreed.

wouldn't be surprised if she bought into the whole "one drop of Negro blood" bit.

wouldn't be surprised if she bought into the whole "one drop of Negro blood" bit.

I wonder if she would consider THAT a valid reason for abortion.

Right, that's what I said. It demonstrates that her political views of the judiciary are remarkably thin. But it's not an example of her being a dolt. I'm sure she could have named Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education if the question was just, "Name another Supreme Court case," but she probably agrees with the rulings in those cases (I hope). But she was asked to name another one she disagrees with besides Roe, and she couldn't. This shows that she hasn't given any thought to the Supreme Court besides, "ABORTION BAD!" People are trying to spin this as, "OMG look at the moron who can't even name two Supreme Court cases," and that's just not accurate.

You would think she could have at least named Kelo, given that her running mate rails about it consistently in stump speeches.

Or there was the recent decision to lower damage awards in the Exxon Valdez matter -- remember that disaster which happened IN Alaska? When the decision was handed down, Alaska Governor Palin stated publicly that she was disappointed with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

But the part of her answer that really struck me as stupid was this: She's asked what other SC decisions she disagrees with. She draws a blank. She DOES NOT answer: "You know, I can't think of any others I disagree with."

That is the answer someone who is not a dumbass would have given because it is both politically safe/flexible and true.

You would think she could have at least named Kelo, given that her running mate rails about it consistently in stump speeches.

Honestly, no I wouldn't. From the very beginning of all this, I was left with the very distinct impression that, like most politicans left and right, the thought she had invested in judicial matters did not extend beyond the political hot-button issue of abortion. I am very much not surprised that she was unable to name another Supreme Court case she disagreed with because when Republicans do all their belly-aching about "legislating from the bench", all they're really talking about is Roe. That she hasn't spent the time to formulate an opinion on anything other than Roe doesn't shock me because, as governor of Alaska, she probably didn't need to harp on any other cases besides Roe to rally voters.

wait..you disagree with Tinker, Brown, Miranda and Loving? I think those are some of the most important cases in history...She was asked to name ones she disagreed with, so simply naming 10 isn't exactly the point.

But to point, off the top of my head, those that I disagree with:

Plessy v. Ferguson
Korimatzu v. United States
Bowers v. Hardwick
Dred Scott
Lochner v. New York
TLO v. New Jersey
Slaughterhouse Cases (although I agree to some extent with the outcome, I disagree with how they got there)

Gee-golly Neo, I was just naming 10 off the top of my head, kinda like I typed in my post. Where did I say I disagreed with them? The post I quoted was talking about how they could name 10 court cases, period, without being a politician of any kind.

I always appreciate your shark-like acumen, NA, but may I please have my ass back?

I wouldn't have thought of Falvo v Owasso or Hustler v Falwell, and I would have thought of Bush v. Gore, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, and Gideon v. Wainwright. Apparently, recent music majors are 20% better educated about Supreme Court cases? :p

Well, I'm a Renaissance man in a world that no longer needs them. I chose music because I love it, but I've always loved learning, so I keep trying to do just that. I could never have been a lawyer, and would never want to be a politician, but I did consider doctor, cartographer, surveyor, chemist and a few others before music bit me.

Or there was the recent decision to lower damage awards in the Exxon Valdez matter -- remember that disaster which happened IN Alaska? When the decision was handed down, Alaska Governor Palin stated publicly that she was disappointed with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

But the part of her answer that really struck me as stupid was this: She's asked what other SC decisions she disagrees with. She draws a blank. She DOES NOT answer: "You know, I can't think of any others I disagree with."

That is the answer someone who is not a dumbass would have given because it is both politically safe/flexible and true.

Excellent point. You'd think she'd have been able to vocally disagree with SCOTUS on the reduction of the Valdez damages. I guess she wasn't as disappointed as her YouTubed reaction appears. Might that be because the oil company involved really liked not having to pay as much and that made them happy with Palin? Not sure how those two would be linked with regard to the Valdez mess, but it did cross my tiny little mind.

Gee-golly Neo, I was just naming 10 off the top of my head, kinda like I typed in my post. Where did I say I disagreed with them? The post I quoted was talking about how they could name 10 court cases, period, without being a politician of any kind.

Hah, I was less being snide and more surprised. I read it as you named 10 court cases off the top of your head to answer the question Palin was asked, so I thought you were saying you disagreed with them.

Which, given some of the cases you picked, left me...a bit surprised.

edit: A lot more damning, IMO, is this exchange...

That's the part that struck me as well. I could let go the fact that she can't name another case that she disagrees with. She stumbled her way through trying to B.S. as though she knew some, which was silly, but whatever. It's the fact that she doesn't see the contradiction in disagreeing with Roe v. Wade and supporting a right to privacy. It would appear her only understanding of Roe v. Wade is that it maintains the right to choose, or as you were saying, "ABORTION BAD!!!!" But that's it, that's the depth of her understanding, and she contradicts herself here big time.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but can you call yourself a Federalist (as Palin did) and disagree with Roe v. Wade? To be fair, though, I think she just called herself a Federalist because McCain likes to call himself a Federalist as well, which he isn't...and she knows better than to disagree with Big Daddy (or else he'll recant your own statement for you!). Those two deserve each other.

I hope to hell she does not agree with Plessy v. Freguson.

Yeah, I suppose I didn't phrase that all too well.

Hah, I was less being snide and more surprised. I read it as you named 10 court cases off the top of your head to answer the question Palin was asked, so I thought you were saying you disagreed with them.

Which, given some of the cases you picked, left me...a bit surprised.

Understood.

Of the ten I named, I'm torn on Falvo, against Plessy and either meh or for the rest.

That's the part that struck me as well. I could let go the fact that she can't name another case that she disagrees with. She stumbled her way through trying to B.S. as though she knew some, which was silly, but whatever. It's the fact that she doesn't see the contradiction in disagreeing with Roe v. Wade and supporting a right to privacy. It would appear her only understanding of Roe v. Wade is that it maintains the right to choose, or as you were saying, "ABORTION BAD!!!!" But that's it, that's the depth of her understanding, and she contradicts herself here big time.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but can you call yourself a Federalist (as Palin did) and disagree with Roe v. Wade? To be fair, though, I think she called herself that because McCain likes to call himself a Federalist as well, which he isn't. Those two deserve each other.

Yeah, I don't know how Federalist you can be when you're always saying that the states should decide everything...until it doesn't suit you....

Yeah, I don't know how Federalist you can be when you're always saying that the states should decide everything...until it doesn't suit you....

It seems contradictory, but the term "federalist" is used to describe someone who thinks there should be more control at more local levels - essentially someone who wants the government to be more of a republic and less nationally uniform.

That's the part that struck me as well. I could let go the fact that she can't name another case that she disagrees with. She stumbled her way through trying to B.S. as though she knew some, which was silly, but whatever. It's the fact that she doesn't see the contradiction in disagreeing with Roe v. Wade and supporting a right to privacy. It would appear her only understanding of Roe v. Wade is that it maintains the right to choose, or as you were saying, "ABORTION BAD!!!!" But that's it, that's the depth of her understanding, and she contradicts herself here big time.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but can you call yourself a Federalist (as Palin did) and disagree with Roe v. Wade? To be fair, though, I think she just called herself a Federalist because McCain likes to call himself a Federalist as well, which he isn't...and she knows better than to disagree with Big Daddy (or else he'll recant your own statement for you!). Those two deserve each other.
john mccain is a TEDDY ROOSEVELT republican, dammit. he said it 3 times on this week with george stephanopolis.


not that i have any idea what that is supposed to mean...

john mccain is a TEDDY ROOSEVELT republican, dammit. he said it 3 times on this week with george stephanopolis.


not that i have any idea what that is supposed to mean...

That certainly explains his reluctance to meet with the prime minister of Spain.

That certainly explains his reluctance to meet with the prime minister of Spain.
oh is THAT what he meant.

i was pretty sure he isnt intending on creating new national parks.

It seems contradictory, but the term "federalist" is used to describe someone who thinks there should be more control at more local levels - essentially someone who wants the government to be more of a republic and less nationally uniform.

That is correct.

Although with the way St. Palin uses terms (for example, "feminist"), who knows what she means by "federalist." :wink:

somehow this is going to end up being some sort of Moral Kombat debate, ending with the words "Finish her" as Biden deals his death blow to her.

I just got a link to the Kung-Fu Election (http://www.atom.com/spotlights/kung_fu_election/) flash game in my email. Thanks, Comedy Central!

(I had to launch it in IE - it doesn't seem to like Firefox)

That certainly explains his reluctance to meet with the prime minister of Spain.
He still Remembers the Maine! He lost friends on that ship...

It seems contradictory, but the term "federalist" is used to describe someone who thinks there should be more control at more local levels - essentially someone who wants the government to be more of a republic and less nationally uniform.

Wow. Did that term ever get reversed in my crystalline memory. Thanks for the reminder.

That certainly explains his reluctance to meet with the prime minister of Spain.

Well-played, sir. Well-played. (http://api.ning.com/files/FZqvaRjUR5GKiD5DhZb*ayv8N1kNHkobmC9rEUAZBUY_/ferrellaslipton.jpg)

Ugh. Did she actually answer ANY of the questions?

Question: Do you think X?
Palin: Well, let me go back to energy for a minute...

Ugh. Did she actually answer ANY of the questions?

Question: Do you think X?
Palin: Well, let me go back to energy for a minute...

Yeah, seriously. "I'm not going to tell you what you want. I'm going to tell you what I want to tell you, and you can deal with it!"

What an asshole.

Yeah, seriously. "I'm not going to tell you what you want. I'm going to tell you what I want to tell you, and you can deal with it!"

What an asshole.

Or, what a savvy debater capable of controlling her message.

Or, what a savvy debater capable of controlling her message.
Perhaps.

I'd say the quality of that message was seriously lacking, however.

Perhaps.

I'd say the quality of that message was seriously lacking, however.

Does that matter to the average voter? The voter who imagines for a SECOND that Palin's not off her hut when she says that she's like them?

Does that matter to the average voter? The voter who imagines for a SECOND that Palin's not off her hut when she says that she's like them?

I honestly don't know.

I can tell you this though: Palin did not win that debate, not even on style. She was consistently shown to avoid the questions, to go in circles saying the same pandering little thing time and again.

The only reason Biden didn't eat her alive is that he did a lot of the same thing. He could've handled that debate a lot better than he did.

McCain = Deader than Mc Hammers Career


Obama could and I think will win not only the election but every state. Possible after the shitty campaign McCain is running and Palin sucking ass.

McCain = Deader than Mc Hammers Career


Obama could and I think will win not only the election but every state. Possible after the shitty campaign McCain is running and Palin sucking ass.

Wow, that's a pretty tall order. Willing to put a wager on this?

Wow, that's a pretty tall order. Willing to put a wager on this?


Sure, why not. What ya got?

Wow, that's a pretty tall order. Willing to put a wager on this?

I'll bet eleventy billion dollars that Obama will win every single vote. If I lose, how do you intend on collecting?

Sure, why not. What ya got?

Ok, here are the terms. If Obama does win every state, I will dedicate a thread to you and your awesomness, and I pay you meh $500,000 However if he doesn't win every state, you have to dedicate a thread to my awesomness, and pay me $500,000.

Oh, just so we're clear, he has to win the Electoral college of the state.

I'll bet eleventy billion dollars that Obama will win every single vote. If I lose, how do you intend on collecting?

I have connections... *clasps his hands in front of him and nods*

Ok, here are the terms. If Obama does win every state, I will dedicate a thread to you and your awesomness, and I pay you meh $500,000 However if he doesn't win every state, you have to dedicate a thread to my awesomness, and pay me $500,000.

Oh, just so we're clear, he has to win the Electoral college of the state.



I have connections... *clasps his hands in front of him and nods*

you sure you want to commit a federal offense there Wilgrove? Might make collecting REAL hard.

you sure you want to commit a federal offense there Wilgrove? Might make collecting REAL hard.

Offshore accounts FTW?

*sigh* Fine, take out the money, but the post dedicated to awesomness still stands.

Ok, here are the terms. If Obama does win every state, I will dedicate a thread to you and your awesomness, and I pay you meh $500,000 However if he doesn't win every state, you have to dedicate a thread to my awesomness, and pay me $500,000.

Oh, just so we're clear, he has to win the Electoral college of the state.



You're on!

You're on!

Excellent.

Anyone else want in on this action?

Excellent.

Anyone else want in on this action?



Greedy. You just want mo money.

Republican: Conservative bourgeois
Democrat: Liberal bourgeois

How is it any different? Real social and economic change only comes through a change in the ruling class.

Then get changing. You're not fomenting armed rebellion sitting at your mom and dad's computer posting about it.

I honestly don't know.

I can tell you this though: Palin did not win that debate, not even on style. She was consistently shown to avoid the questions, to go in circles saying the same pandering little thing time and again.

The only reason Biden didn't eat her alive is that he did a lot of the same thing. He could've handled that debate a lot better than he did.

She won by not losing. The bar was set low for her, and she cleared it on personality and poise alone, regardless of her dodges and deflections. It sucks to say it, but it's true.

Republican: Conservative bourgeois
Democrat: Liberal bourgeois

How is it any different? Real social and economic change only comes through a change in the ruling class.

Andaras?

Republican: Conservative bourgeois
Democrat: Liberal bourgeois

How is it any different? Real social and economic change only comes through a change in the ruling class.

...

Andaras? Is that you?

She won by not losing. The bar was set low for her, and she cleared it on personality and poise alone, regardless of her dodges and deflections. It sucks to say it, but it's true.




No, she didn't.

Already all of the polling is showing that Biden won the debate 2:1.

Now, did this change much of anything? No. But she did not win the debate.

...

Andaras? Is that you?

Nah, AP was much more eloquent...

Nah, AP was much more eloquent...

One of his horcruxes, perhaps.

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.

MODEDIT: Do they wish it so much you had to post the same thing in three threads? Don't. That's spam.
__________________
A Crazy Cuban American and Proud of it Too.

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.

I hereby propose Alaskan independence.

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.

MODEDIT: Do they wish it so much you had to post the same thing in three threads? Don't. That's spam.
__________________
A Crazy Cuban American and Proud of it Too.

I happen to know a lady from Alaska. She and her family think Sarah Palin is abhorrent and would rather see her anywhere BUT the White House. So the hell what?

I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love their Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.
omg, John McCain is posting on NS!

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.
.

Aww, but it'd be really mean of us to take her away from them. It'd be much nicer if they could have her all to themselves!

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.

A Crazy Cuban American and Proud of it Too.

Now I know the cold up there has messed with some brains.

Either that, or you're a part of the propaganda machine?

Nah, AP was much more eloquent...

Not enough capoypasta *nods*

McCain = Deader than Mc Hammers Career


Obama could and I think will win not only the election but every state. Possible after the shitty campaign McCain is running and Palin sucking ass.

John McHammer just got promoted, thank you very much. It just took that long for there to be an opening above his pay grade.

She won by not losing. The bar was set low for her, and she cleared it on personality and poise alone, regardless of her dodges and deflections. It sucks to say it, but it's true.

It's hard to not clear the bar when the bar is "doesn't trip all over the stage like Chevy Chase impersonating Gerald Ford on Saturday Night Live".

This post can fit the debate threads as well. I happen to know a lady who has family in Alaska. Her family in Alaska is part of that 80 plus percent % who support and love thier Governor Sarah Palin. The highest approval rating of any governor in the USA. They wish to see Sarah become the Vice President of the USA and eventually President of the USA.

Are you sure they aren't just trying to get rid of her?

Obama could and I think will win not only the election but every state. Possible after the shitty campaign McCain is running and Palin sucking ass.
I read your post and had a vision of Palin sucking on McCain's ass.
Not pleasant imagery. Not at all.
Thank you for ruining my day.

I watched the entire McCain/obama debate, and about an hour of the Palin/biden one... I only remember two things from the palin/biden debate
1. Biden totally mucked talking about that vote for troop funding...correct me if I'm wrong, but he said that McCain voted against it because it had a timeline...but he never explained why obama voted against it...politics? he doesn't want a timeline? last time I checked he did....though in the last debate obama said he would start taking troops out in 16 months,....so maybe he's flip-flopping ;)
2. This has stood out more than anything, when asked the question, what of the programs you want to add, are you going to cut because of economic stress.
in the first debate obama blundered around the question, in the second Biden seemed to say he would do it by cutting foreign aid...and taxing the rich...gee...thats gonna do a bunch of good...especially when he says later he supports intervention in darfur with on fly zones and all...and of course where gonna be able to do that without spending at all :rolleyes:
Palin's reply was much simpler. We aren't adding new spending, where cutting government spending.
those two are the only things I remember, and though biden seemed more polished (well duh, Palins been a governor for the last 2 years, probably not as used to politics as he is) I think they both met their expectations...so biden comes out ahead...but if anyone was astute enough to notice the last two points I just put up...they'll realize somethings a bit fuzzy (add in blinking and I'm a little scared)

the good news?? I don't care too much how the election turns out.
if McCain wins I'm happy (duh)
if obama wins he'll either do good schtuff (yeah!)
or fail miserably and we will learn a lesson about jumping on the change wagon (not all change is good change...)


thats my two cents.

Time to shut down some of these duplicate threads.

Post all future VP debate comments here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567900).

Thread closed.