Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Palin also does not appear to be as prepared to diffuse national issues. Her performance with Katie Couric showed some holes in the armor. Katie's Supreme Court question could easily have been diffused, instead Palin just scored a big goose-egg.

Palin needs to be sharper tonight or she'll be eaten alive ... much like Quayle was by Bensen (although Bush/Quayle did recover from that).

 

This is interesting. Word is, tonight's strategy is for Palin to go on offense all night with Biden, Polish Cavalry-style. It would be surprising, but when you consider the reason she's so popular on the far right - her "unblinking" confidence as a substitute for temperance and competence - it seems like they're betting the farm on her only real strength. It may well work, too. We'll see.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14220.html

 

Yeah, it's too bad Palin is not debating Hill. It would be a sight to see.

 

Please don't get me wrong, Susi, I myself do try to listen and take into account stats when they are presented. I'm just pointing out that many people don't trust statistics because it IS quite easy to skew, massage and otherwise play with data so that the same study can be used by polar opposite sides of a debate. And believe me, that's not just a trick of the right wing -- how many people have you heard say something like "well, you got those stats from Fox News. If you got your data from a reliable source and used THESE statistics you'd be an educated person." Then they don't even address the stats that were presented.

Hell, I have done the same myself, because if the source of stats is something that NO ONE even remotely credible in the debate takes seriously, I'm not going to bother engaging with that sort of thing.

As for Palin, I would reckon that she has a firm grasp of statistics that support her positions. But the average joe doesn't want that. He wants leadership and higher order principles. Why do you think Barack is doing so well? I've not seen him spouting tons of statistics. He talks about hope, and courage, and change, and Helping the Little Guy. He focuses on the big picture and the core values. People find what he says believable and that's why he stands a good chance of taking the election. Palin also speaks to that big picture, though a lot of people are having a tougher time finding the picture she paints as being believable.

 

Tell that to the "average Joe" who just lost 10-15 percent in his/her 401K account - in four days; or who just lost his/her job because of the ecnonmy; or that his house just dropped 25 percent in value this year; or the average joe who was just hospitalized with a major illness and may have to file bankruptcy because he was handed a bill for $25,000.00 as he was leaving the hospital; or the average Joe in the Southeast who just waited an hour in line to get gas for which he paid almost $4.00 a gallon. Yeah, there are some numbers you just can't hide from, especially when there is an American family attached to the other side of those "numbers."

 

Eh, in general politicians on both sides tend to use statistics as an illustration to prove their point or makes for a neat soundbite. Obama has done it every now and then, and I suppose so has McCain. When you are in Colorado and say that 20% of the people there lost their jobs in the last 4 years (supposedly), the audience can actually care about it.

 

IMO, the Biden/Palin debate was a fairly dull affair. Palin appeared a bit phony to me, and, of course well-scripted. I thought she did pretty well though and she exceeded the expectations that everyone had for her. I'm astounded that she wants to expand the power of the Vice president to suit her own political ambitions. She obviously never looked at the Constitution.

I thought Biden did pretty well also, but he was a bit dull. He obviously did not want to appear that he was attacking Palin in any way. So, he let a few of her taunting, school-girl like comments just go past him. Good strategy on his part. I give the edge to Biden on substance, but Palin did not make the major screw-up that everyone was waiting for....

 

No big surprise, but I disagree with Chandos. I thought the debate was one of the best debates I have ever seen. I was impressed with both candidates.

Biden surprised me. His reputation as a bore may be overrated. I found him engaging and I thought he said a lot of intelligent things. I wasn't impressed with his "scripted things" such as over and over blaming Exxon for making money. I know a cornerstone of the Obama/Biden strategy is "We're not Bush", but after the 10th time it got a little tedious. His smile was also kind of unnerving when he wasn't answering questions. My biggest complaint with Biden was I thought his conclusion was terrible. The one piece that should have been scripted and practiced a million times and it came off as very weak to me. I was actually stunned when he finished for I was waiting for a big finale.

I was happy and disappointed with Palin's performance. As has been so cleverly posted in this thread "She didn't rape the dog". I thought she also spent way to much time blaming "Wall Street" for everything. She didn't really have a response to Biden about Bush except to tell him to "move on already". That would work with her supporters, but I'm not convinced it would get her any points with the independents that she needs. Her hair being in her glasses was causing me pain. I'm convinced they instructed her that under no circumstances is she to touch her hair or glasses. Her conclusion was without a doubt much better than Biden's. Probably my favorite line was when she said how much she enjoyed being able to speak directly to the American people. After the savaging she received at the hands of Katie Couric, it almost makes me wonder if the McCain campaign can sue for the raw footage of the interviews. Considering how well she did at the the debate and how poorly she did in the edited interviews it makes you wonder. Of course, I will be blamed for bringing up the "liberal media" again.

As to the moderator, I give her an A. She did an excellent job and kept her personal politics out of the debate.

As to a winner, I have to go with Palin. Not because she was a shining superstar and kicked Biden's heinie (she didn't), but considering how bad the Obama supporters were saying she was going to be she easily was within the margin of error of winning the debate. To me that means she won.

 

She was folksy and quick with her answers which was impressive at first. But after a while she started running out of talking points and was spinning her wheels. She laid on the folksy charm just a wee bit too thick, to the point where it sounded contrived after a while. I won't comment on her many flat-out lies and inaccuracies because in a format like this, they don't matter - it's all about delivery and not making a major gaffe. She managed to pull that off, I will hand it to her.

Having said that, this debate won't change the race much. Biden's not the best speaker in the world and he is known for gaffes, but he clearly proved which of the two of them knew what they were talking about. She came off like what she was - an under-prepared coed cramming for the big oral exam. After a while her answers were all over the place. Biden came off like the voice of experience and temperance. She no doubt pleased the GOP viewers tonight with her "there ya go agin', donchaknow shucks!" schtick and partisan nonsense, but I don't see how her performance was persuasive to much of anyone else. She did well in the first half, but Biden cleaned up by the end. Especially when he got choked up when talking about his family...that brought the house down.

Pretty much a wash imo. They both could've done better, and they certainly could have done worse, especially Palin. They both did fine, so in that sense, it's probably fair to say she won on style. But on substance, Biden owned her. She was using note cards, for god's sake.

EDIT: One last thing before bed...

If she can't stand up to Katie Couric, how can she stand up to the terrorists?

Note to self: definition of "Savaging" in the dictionary is wrong. Must remember, "asking straightforward questions and insisting on a straight answer" is now "savaging." Got it.

 

As a salesperson, there are two approaches one can take:

1. Tell the customer directly only what YOU want to tell them, and what you want them to hear.

2. The other is to ask questions and let them tell you what they want - and then listen.

Politics seems kinda the same.

 

Biden fumbled once, when he mixed up Syria with Hezbollah.

Palin did better than expected, reasonably well that is. That impression is in part due to the low expectations. That is to say, she didn't make a joke of herself and about held her ground. In the words of Matthew Dowd, who worked for George Bush's communications team while in the White House:

If that's enthusiasm or a compliment, ouch. The Economist titles: Palin stops the bleeding, just

The key factor were the three weeks of intensive sparring in which her trainers showed her her weaknesses. That must have been an ordeal. Obviously she greatly benefited from that training. She was intensively and professionally prepared for the chosen format. Interesting question is how much of that was not memorised and indeed original Palin. Think of a streamlined stone from a riverbed - how did it look like before it ended up in the river? The competing image in my mind is that of a trained dog that did the trick conditioned into it well, sort of. Mind, with that I do not say that she is a trained dog, or stupid. It is rather that Palin certainly is provincial, and hard working, focused, earnest - and still an amateur. She benefited from her training as much as from the chosen format. The format of duelling P or VP candidates mano a mano (or so) is easy to exploit because it has predictable options and topics. Which is probably why both parties like it that way. Or, well, not quite.

The 'making of Sarah Palin' shows up one Republican strength: The R's excel at PR; in fact, they're too good at it for their own good (as in: all sale). With Biden being a seasoned warrior, the D's could 'let him loose' without him going through the ordeal of such intense prepping, without having to fear embarassment. Sure, Biden prepares too, but for a couple of days, not for weeks. The difference is explained by experience: Biden is a pro.

The R's invested, had to invest, three weeks of professional PR support in a (IMO unsuitable) candidate to prep her for the VP debate; they basically sent her to Republican boot camp. That was an astute decision - but the necessity of which speaks volumes about the un-prepped Palin. Obviously the R's believe in marketing and product support - bug fixes included - and feel vindicated by their past experience. And it pays dividends: In the ratings this brought Palin up by four points. While the R's habitually prep their candidates in such a way (if not to such a remarkable extent), the D's do so much less. The Democrats should take the example of Palin's debate as a warning: Even if your product rocks, it doesn't sell itself. Good marketing can successfully sell inferior and mediocre products and make more profit (as in 51% profit).

Palin is a talented populist. She's a crowd puller with the Republican base. My prediction is that Palin, if McCain fails, will continue to play a role in US politics, with ... Senatorial ambitions? It's just that she isn't ready yet.

 

It depends on which Sara you are speaking of: There's the "real" Sara, the one who is governor of Alaska, and governs from the center, as you suggest; and then there is the "new" Sara, heavily marketed and scripted by the RNC. Beware and advised that what follows is formed by personal observation for the most part.

The "real" Sara is an old-style, 1970's feminist. With the exception of her pro-life stance, everything about her is old school on the feminist side, which if you think about it, makes a lot of sense. Sara has brought feminism to the Republican Party, but they are late to the game, so they are not aware that feminism has changed in the new century.

The new and old feminism ARE both populist, but the new embraces gay marriage and full abortion rights. The flip-side of the new feminism is that there is a strong desire to "motherhood" in its most strict, almost a purist sense. An example of this is how Sara luges her baby around with her, even to the debate, at 11:00PM last night. This is straight 1970's style feminism: "see I'm doing it all; being a mom and an accomplished career woman at the same time." Of course, the baby could be a prop by the RNC, which is even more cynical than even I care to imagine (my cnyicism does have its limits).

Yet, that's a big negative with women who consider themselves to be new feminists - or maybe Regusa would say "neo-feminists." Sara's first concern should be for the baby's welfare, (in their minds) regardless of career. Having accomplished parenting skills is large part of the new feminism, while at the same time having an accomplished career. That's a large part of the reason why a lot of new feminists support abortion rights - what happens to the child after being born is the real issue at stake for some of them. Of course, different women have different reasons, and I'm not trying to genrealize, but point out where a lot of career women are finding themselves these days.

Palin gives off that "Hockey Mom" vibe that she's so fond of pointing out in herself. But the image of a hockey mom feeding her kids a McDonald's meal in the back the family SUV between hockey practice and cheerleading practice is still a big turn-off for new feminists, who value good parenting skills as well as a strong career. If this sounds odd, which it does on the surface, seek one out and talk about how important parenting skills are to her.

Of course, the more traditional, non-feminist approach among the "family values" group, is that a woman needs to focus on family and parenting, which means a reduced role in career. Since it's a monumental task to do both, especially for a family as large as the Palin's.

In these comments, I'm speaking mostly about "mainstream feminism," not the marxist/lesbian radical type. That's a whole other picture....

 

I've had a night to digest the results of last night's debate and I must admit I've changed my opinion a bit. On many of the big questions, Palin gave nonsensical or rambling answers and Biden just came back and trounced her. "Let's talk about the kind of 'Maverick' John McCain is. And I love the guy, but..." was just brutal, and brutal because it was true. Biden also spent much of the night doing what a VP candidate is supposed to do: going after the top of the other ticket, John McCain.

In sheer terms of preparation, knowledge and readiness, there was simply no contest. I'll say again: one of them relied heavily on note cards, one didn't need them at all. They're running to be second chair to the most powerful office on earth. That tells you all you need to know right there, and any serious person can admit that. Does anyone honestly believe that Sarah Palin will be allowed to make a single decision on her own, without being told what to do or say as Vice President? How about if something happens to John McCain and she's forced to step in? Given how the McCain campaign have coddled her, force-fed her talking points and shielded her from the press, it's obvious I've just answered my own question. She makes W look competent.

Incredibly scary, that is.

 

I think with the hype Biden had everything to lose and Palin had everything to win.

Biden was expected to hit a home run here and he didn't. I thought he did very well, I was impressed by him. He did the right thing in attacking McCain and not Palin and he tried to make the case of McCain equals more Bush. He showed his human side and his tough side (in the same moment). I think he connected more with people than was expected -- he was obviously well coached for this debate.

Palin was expected to fall flat and she didn't. She was informed and engaging. She was very successful at the 'pivot' technique of debating. She also attacked Obama -- and she attacked Bush. I think her claiming many of Bush's policies were failures was absolutely necessary. She also got the sound bite of the night ... "say it ain't so Joe..." (a nice pull from the Black Sox scandal).

Substance: Advantage Biden
Meeting/Exceeding Expectations: Advantage Palin
Connecting with the Audience: Slight Advantage Palin

Palin may not have won the debate, but she didn't lose it either. I think both candidates helped their cause, with Palin making more ground.

One negative on Biden -- there were rumblings on the news this morning of inaccuracies in his comments (such as how he represented McCain's voting record). If true, those could shift the results of the debate more to Palin's favor. But then again, the majority of people don't care about accuracy, only about appearance -- it may not make any difference at all.

 

The same rumblings were heard about Palin's comments on Obama's record.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27001026/

 

Awesome. If you click one debate-related link this year, let it be this one (no videos, nothing bad). Clicky.

 

Here's a fact-check article that appears to give both candidates a slap on the wrist.

Yes, she got the General's name wrong -- but Biden didn't appear to know it either. His restraint of not saying a name was better IMO, but to the average person it may have appeared he was more out of touch with who was in charge. After all, Palin knew a name, Biden didn't; to be honest most people don't check facts like that.

 

Even if he was a Civil War general.

 

I would think you, Chandos, of all people, would appreciate her knowing the name of a civil war general and give her some credit.

The press is stating she "mispronounced" the name -- McClellan ... McKeirnan ... po-tay-toh ... po-tah-toh ... p-o-t-a-t-o-e.