VP Debate
Well, Palin didn't barf on herself, and didn't babble quite as incoherently as she has done in the past--so in that respect it probably counts as a kind of victory.
I tend to be fairly pessimistic and alarmist about such things, but even given that, I think Biden won. As I've made clear in the past, I am no good at predicting the effects of rhetoric, especially on normal people, so I could be entirely wrong...but if I absolutely had to bet, my money would be pretty firmly on Biden.
The format of the debate was horrendously bad, and favored Palin, who could spit out pre-programmed sound bites. It'd have gone a lot differently if the format had been like the first Obama-McCain debate.
Evaluating this rationally rather than rhetorically, it is, of course, clear that Biden was a lot better than Palin--his points were clearer and more reasonable, his command of the detail was far greater, and he had the advantage of defending better policies.
Palin babbled, evaded, and hammed it up almost nonstop. The stupid grin, the winking, and that faux folksiness were close to making me physically ill less than a half an hour into the thing. You'd have to be pretty dense, it seems to me, to think that any of that stuff was for real. She really does have a large number of nauseating tricks in her rhetorical toolbox.
And if I have to hear the word 'maverick' ever again I really might hurl.
But, of course, she didn't flat-out humiliate herself as she has in the past, however, so those of us who were hoping for that have to be a bit disappointed.
[Oops--almost forgot some obvious and important stuff:
Palin dodged so many questions that I finally got inured to it. Ifill didn't follow the questions up, so she--in some sense anyway--got away with it.
And: General McClellan? I thought I was just more ignorant about Afghanistan than I had thought...but, no, she apparently meant McKiernan. To my embarrassment, I couldn't come up with his name either, though.
But, then, I'm not running for Vice President.
Finally: somebody needs to call McPalin clearly and concisely on this BS about "not looking to the past." Biden did a pretty darn good job tonight, but it could be done better.]
Well, Palin didn't barf on herself, and didn't babble quite as incoherently as she has done in the past--so in that respect it probably counts as a kind of victory.
I tend to be fairly pessimistic and alarmist about such things, but even given that, I think Biden won. As I've made clear in the past, I am no good at predicting the effects of rhetoric, especially on normal people, so I could be entirely wrong...but if I absolutely had to bet, my money would be pretty firmly on Biden.
The format of the debate was horrendously bad, and favored Palin, who could spit out pre-programmed sound bites. It'd have gone a lot differently if the format had been like the first Obama-McCain debate.
Evaluating this rationally rather than rhetorically, it is, of course, clear that Biden was a lot better than Palin--his points were clearer and more reasonable, his command of the detail was far greater, and he had the advantage of defending better policies.
Palin babbled, evaded, and hammed it up almost nonstop. The stupid grin, the winking, and that faux folksiness were close to making me physically ill less than a half an hour into the thing. You'd have to be pretty dense, it seems to me, to think that any of that stuff was for real. She really does have a large number of nauseating tricks in her rhetorical toolbox.
And if I have to hear the word 'maverick' ever again I really might hurl.
But, of course, she didn't flat-out humiliate herself as she has in the past, however, so those of us who were hoping for that have to be a bit disappointed.
[Oops--almost forgot some obvious and important stuff:
Palin dodged so many questions that I finally got inured to it. Ifill didn't follow the questions up, so she--in some sense anyway--got away with it.
And: General McClellan? I thought I was just more ignorant about Afghanistan than I had thought...but, no, she apparently meant McKiernan. To my embarrassment, I couldn't come up with his name either, though.
But, then, I'm not running for Vice President.
Finally: somebody needs to call McPalin clearly and concisely on this BS about "not looking to the past." Biden did a pretty darn good job tonight, but it could be done better.]
posted by Winston Smith at
10:34 PM
9 Comments:
You should run for VP, though, because then you could straddle the Executive and Legislative branches on the mutant power of the Vice Presidency.
The fact that Palin endorses a Cheney-esque "flexibility" for the VP makes her lack of qualification even more dangerous. That line, BTW, also sits uncomfortably with the Republican insistence that they rightfully put their less experienced candidate at the bottom of the ticket. Forcing more powers out of the Constitution makes the VP seem less like the "bottom" and more like a second top of the ticket.
And the "not looking to the past" thing reminded me of one of my freshman students who told me how much she hated history class because none of that stuff mattered anymore.
I'm so angry about this woman.
Oh, man, I couldn't exactly follow what she was saying about the unified executive and the powers of the VP. What I THOUGHT she said was scary and astonishing indeed. She almost certainly didn't understand what she was talking about...but that's bad enough.
I'm with ya, man.
To nominate Sarah Palin is to spit in the face of America. It's infuriating almost beyond the telling of it.
"That line, BTW, also sits uncomfortably with the Republican insistence that they rightfully put their less experienced candidate at the bottom of the ticket."
Well they did.
Nominating Obama is the real spit in America's face. What a nobody. But you don't care.
LOL...touchy, touchy...
But clever and original.
I'd have gone for "I know you are, what am I," though.
Or:
"How dare you criticize our moronic and unqualified hockey mom when you yourselves have nominated the most serious and intelligent presidential candidate of the last fifty years."
Yeah, that'd really sting...
Anon, it's the poopheads like you who care to throw an unrelated personal sling instead of actually making any coherent argument for your candidate, which, you know..may actually serve a purpose and not make you an embarrassment to yourself and whoever supports your views. Neener Neener Pumpkin eater.
Also, for all of you junkies who can't get enough reason, truth, and clarity of fact, you can check out http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20081003/Debate.Fact.Check/
to quench your thirsts.
Yes, they did put their less experienced candidate in the VP slot. But the worth of that point is directly proportioned to the low level of power possessed by the VP. If the candidate wants to increase the power of the VP, then the "bottom of the ticket" thing becomes worth much less.
But I think the experience issue is a red herring anyways, which is why I prefer to talk about Palin being "unqualified." There are numerous examples at the high school I work at of people with years and years of experience who probably aren't qualified to be in their job. I'm sure every other job has these kinds of people.
We all know people who, though they haven't ever been in office, have an understanding of and facility with political issues that surpasses those with more experience. I would say that ability is a much more important feature of a presidential candidate than experience. As best I can tell, Obama has this ability and Palin does not.
Obama talks about ideas. Palin does not. Palin's selling point is that she is the voice of "Joe Six Pack." Obama's selling point is that he has the intellectual sobriety required for the job.
And for the record, I am angry about Palin in large part because her nomination feels like a spit in my face as a Christian voter for whom abortion has been a deciding issue in past elections. I feel like McCain threw someone on the ticket to placate people like me with someone who can talk the talk but not think it. McCain has not treated me or any other Americans as adults with the nomination of Sarah Palin, whose qualifications are slim and major points of whose experience are fictional (e.g., the "Bridge to Nowhere").
But, in the interest of fairness, I suppose I should admit the possibility that my anger interferes with my ability to evaluate her rationally.
Actually, she can't even talk the talk, as is evidenced by her interviews and complete avoidance of substance at the debate.
I couldn't agree with you more, Spencer.
One can be qualified in a number of ways--experience, intelligence, knowledge, good judgment, wisdom and so on can all make someone qualified...tho the more you have of some of these, the lower your other scores can be.
Obama has a rather low experience score, but he extremely intelligent and level-headed, has tons of relevant knowledge, and copious good judgment. And he lives largely in the world of ideas to boot. The sum total is impressive indeed, even given a lowish experience score.
Palin has an even lower experience score, but none of the virtues that might offset it. In fact, the sum total may be even lower than the experience score...that is, her experience, woefully inadequate though it is, may actually be her strong suit.
There were two highlights from the debate that I thinks Dems need to focus on to support the claim that Biden won. First, Biden skillfully pitted Palin against McCain on the issue of payouts to the citizens of Alaska from the oil companies. Biden said that he, Obama and Palin all support that policy and McCain does not. Palin did not give ANY response to this point. Bam, she lost. Second, Biden pointed out that Palin's suggestion to expand the power of the VP is an unconstitutional extension of power that is following in the footsteps of the rampant misuse of the vice presidency by Dick Cheney. Her suggestion unconstitutional and looks corruptably power hungry. Even Chris Mathews picked up on this--he pointed out that it was extremely incautious and intemperate for an aspiring VP to suggest expanding the powers of the office before even getting to it. Biden won on this point and Palin also managed to give us a sense of how dangerous she is. Dems really need to focus on these points from the debate!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home