These veep candidates are weak! Spouting their sound bites to attack the other side, avoiding the questions, no flow to the conversation. This is just awful. The moderator isn't helping this either. I had a sense this wasn't going to go well when Ifill couldn't even ask her first question correctly.

Ugh.

gsloth Wrote:These veep candidates are weak! Spouting their sound bites to attack the other side, avoiding the questions, no flow to the conversation. This is just awful. The moderator isn't helping this either. I had a sense this wasn't going to go well when Ifill couldn't even ask her first question correctly.

Ugh.

Yeah. I tuned out quite awhile ago.

Save yourself, gsloth -- change the channel! There's got to be some cartoons on somewhere.

I think...meh. Palin had almost no way to win--she'd have needed to gain moderates. And she didn't do that.

stompclapwhoosh Wrote:I think...meh. Palin had almost no way to win--she'd have needed to gain moderates. And she didn't do that.

Palin did pretty good... I'm still counting the Biden gaffes..

1. Hamas is on the West Bank (they are actually in Gaza)
2. Pakistan has nuclear delivery systems that can hit Israel (no they don't).
3. US Commander in Afghanistan said we don't need more troops there (Biden said he did earlier)
4. Its harder to file Bankruptcy (no it isn't there is just a means test to get into Chapter 7).
5. NATO should go into Darfur.

Palin pronounced "nuclear" like George W.

Over and over again!

'Nuff said.

erice Wrote:Palin pronounced "nuclear" like George W.

"Noo-kyoo-lar. It's pronounced noo-kyoo-lar."

:homer:

Really the VP debate went a lot like the 1st presidential debate went. I thought both were pretty much draws - this one might have to go to Palin since her expectations were much lower. But Biden did exactly what he was supposed to do - attack McCain and push his guy Obama.

WMD might have found a few gaffes but there are very few people in this country who would know they were gaffes. At the same time, Biden probably brought up 100 times more specific issues than Palin, who clearly was going over speaking points she had been practicing for a couple of weeks. I'm not criticizing her because she did a good job of reciting those speaking points - but it's clearly a fact that her answers were much less specific. It's tough to make too many gaffes when you only brought up 5-10 specific points.

I think the more interesting after-effects of both debates is public opinion. Obama won the 1st debate generally because McCain's body language rubbed people the wrong way. Now it appears Biden is winning the public sentiment on this debate because apparently Palin's persona isn't as exciting to people as it was when they first saw her.

Really it means two things. Either the democrats are more active on the internet and skewing the polls or else McCain is in trouble because he's behind by about 8-10 points on the national front. The bottom line is McCain is going to have to win some people back. Palin can't do it by herself. He's probably going to have to show a more human side (less angry side) and can a 72-year-old change his ways this late in the game.

And also, they're going to have scare people about Obama which they haven't been able to do in the first two debates.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:And also, they're going to have scare people about Obama which they haven't been able to do in the first two debates.

Yeah, it's hard to get people scared about rising taxes when 47% of them don't pay any, and 75% of the rest don't pay very much. Plus, if most of the people believe that, as they are told, someone else will pay, who cares? But raising or lowering taxes has an effect on the whole economy, not just on the people who have their taxes raised or lowered.

If a business pays an extra X dollars in taxes, it has only a few choices in how it can respond. It can lay off workers, it can close plants, it can raise prices, it can move to another country, it can cancel new projects or expansion, it can close, etc. Not all responses are always available to specific businesses, sometimes none are, but the last choice in every case is to just eat the extra cost. (Publicly held companies have to think of earnings/share and dividends, closely held companies are owned by people who see the extra cost coming directly out of their skin.) The people who want to raise taxes always seem to ignore all these probable responses, they seem to think the only change is that some fat cat will just get used to sitting on a thinner wallet without responding in any other way. Fantasy world.

If 95% of taxpayers are getting relief, then the entire cost of all of Obama's programs and the bailout will be borne by the other 5%. At the same time, these 5% who account for most of the capital investment in our country, are expected to maintain or increase their levels of investment with less capital available, right? Does not compute.

Clearly we are going to get what we get after every election - a lot of broken promises, followed by excuses and blaming someone else.

I did stick through the whole thing, and I thought I was watching an amateur HS debating group who had memorized their debate books. I felt like I was playing Consultant Bingo, but with debating politicians, to see who was the first one to put a checkmark against all of the talking points from their study/cheat sheet. Both sides were so busy trying to score gotcha points that they didn't do a good job about telling us why their side is the right side. Really, the narrative being spun was incredibly weak. (And Ifill didn't do a good job of trying to trying to weave and draw out that structure, either.)

I know that's what the political pros say the job of the VP is to do, but to me, if he/she cannot ennunciate the core goals/value-added (yes, check off a square on your consultant bingo card) of your administration (and change and maverick don't count as a strategy), then please step aside for someone more capable. I'm not suggesting I know who that person is, but all I see right now are a bunch of amateurs (and this applies to both tickets, top and bottom) programmed and poll tested to death, yet removed of most real humanity and sense of what they'd really do.

You know, I cannot tell you what each of these tickets think we should be doing on day one. They've got a long list of promises (which they know they won't be able to keep without major tax increases), and yet I cannot tell you what their 60 or 120 day priorities are. And don't give me the BS about waiting to see what the reality is on inauguration day. You have a strategy, you execute, and when you discover something is different, you adjust and move on. That's why I liked the concept of McCain suspending his campaign to work on the financial mess we're in (though the execution of it, by not literally stopping everything else that was essentially trivial, like interviews and keynote speeches). That's what a real leader does, within limits. You start working the channels, you delegate, you keep on top of things. It becomes priority number 1, though you don't throw everything else off the shelf. But recognizing that a campaign (in reality) is fluff in a time of serious national risk is the right call (IMO).

I still think both candidates are blowing it. I don't get a sense that either are really ready or right for the job, never mind their VP selections. I had high hopes for both, but am bitterly disappointed.

First, my take on this debate is that it was like a boxing match in which both sides leave the 4th round without a mark on their face - neither one did substantial damage to the other. The difference is that Biden got a lot of shots in to the body, which in this analogy is McCain, not Palin. So, Palin can have a pyrrhic victory - she came out looking much better than most had hoped or feared - but Biden did get the kind of shots in that will solidify the Democratic base and appeal to some on the fence. I don't think that Palin accomplished much except possibly to escape her chains so that she'll be free to appeal to the Republican base.

WMD Owl Wrote:Palin did pretty good... I'm still counting the Biden gaffes..

1. Hamas is on the West Bank (they are actually in Gaza)
2. Pakistan has nuclear delivery systems that can hit Israel (no they don't).
3. US Commander in Afghanistan said we don't need more troops there (Biden said he did earlier)
4. Its harder to file Bankruptcy (no it isn't there is just a means test to get into Chapter 7).
5. NATO should go into Darfur.

1. I don't think that's what Biden said - he said the were gaining more traction in the West Bank. Technically, they've been present in both Gaza and the West Bank, but they are the dominant power in Gaza, and I think Biden said that.
3. What he said was pretty confusing and contradictory. Biden claimed the commander said that the Iraq surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan and that they needed more troops there - I think in the same or adjoining sentences. I'm still wondering what his game was, but I think he was trying to sneak something through just to plant the seed that McCain was out of touch with the commanders. I don't think it was unintentional.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:WMD might have found a few gaffes but there are very few people in this country who would know they were gaffes. At the same time, Biden probably brought up 100 times more specific issues than Palin,

I agree completely with this part of your statement.

Gosh darn, Governor Palin isn't interested in that sort of finger-pointing blame game.

I'll pass it along to Joe, though, next time I see him at Home Depot. He spends a lot of time there.

I45owl Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:Palin did pretty good... I'm still counting the Biden gaffes..

1. Hamas is on the West Bank (they are actually in Gaza)
2. Pakistan has nuclear delivery systems that can hit Israel (no they don't).
3. US Commander in Afghanistan said we don't need more troops there (Biden said he did earlier)
4. Its harder to file Bankruptcy (no it isn't there is just a means test to get into Chapter 7).
5. NATO should go into Darfur.

3. What he said was pretty confusing and contradictory. Biden claimed the commander said that the Iraq surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan and that they needed more troops there - I think in the same or adjoining sentences. I'm still wondering what his game was, but I think he was trying to sneak something through just to plant the seed that McCain was out of touch with the commanders. I don't think it was unintentional.

General McKiernan said clearly that his is not a "surge" strategy. (Exact quote: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.'") The subtlety is that "surge," as used by the general, does not mean the same thing as "more troops." Biden is correct and consistent. Obama has pushed for more troops in Afghanistan for a long time. And McKiernan wants more troops. Yeah, I know: too much subtlety for a political debate.

Palin did about as well as I expected, having watched clips of some her gubernatorial debates. I figured she'd far surpass her interview performances; she didn't get to where she is by being a fool. And the format worked for her...Ifill did very little following up. But Palin didn't convince that, in most areas, she really knows what she's talking about.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:Palin did pretty good... I'm still counting the Biden gaffes..

1. Hamas is on the West Bank (they are actually in Gaza)
2. Pakistan has nuclear delivery systems that can hit Israel (no they don't).
3. US Commander in Afghanistan said we don't need more troops there (Biden said he did earlier)
4. Its harder to file Bankruptcy (no it isn't there is just a means test to get into Chapter 7).
5. NATO should go into Darfur.

3. What he said was pretty confusing and contradictory. Biden claimed the commander said that the Iraq surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan and that they needed more troops there - I think in the same or adjoining sentences. I'm still wondering what his game was, but I think he was trying to sneak something through just to plant the seed that McCain was out of touch with the commanders. I don't think it was unintentional.

General McKiernan said clearly that his is not a "surge" strategy. (Exact quote: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.'") The subtlety is that "surge," as used by the general, does not mean the same thing as "more troops." Biden is correct and consistent. Obama has pushed for more troops in Afghanistan for a long time. And McKiernan wants more troops. Yeah, I know: too much subtlety for a political debate.

Palin did about as well as I expected, having watched clips of some her gubernatorial debates. I figured she'd far surpass her interview performances; she didn't get to where she is by being a fool. And the format worked for her...Ifill did very little following up. But Palin didn't convince that, in most areas, she really knows what she's talking about.

"Surge" may be a generic term for Counter-Insurgency methods used in Iraq to deal with the Sunni and Shia miltias and AQ terrorists. Besides increased troops it means forward bases in neighborhoods and areas where there is trouble. It also means infrastructure improvement, as well as civil affairs.

While socially Afghanistan is different from Iraq, the Surge tactics can be modified and used there.

What you really want to develop is someone to drop a dime on AQ and Taliban operations.

I thought she did about as well as she did in the Gibson interview, and it didn't surprise me. In both cases, the questions were predictable, so by preparing 15-20 1-2 minute speeches, she could deliver those for the nearest subject. Given the limited time in both cases, there was not too much opportunity for followup without crowding another subject out of the interview/debate.

FWIW, I thought that Biden also had a bunch mini-speeches prepared, but I thought he veered off of them a little more often and more sensibly (both from a policy perspective and in a Subject-Verb-Object sort of way).

S.A. Owl Wrote:General McKiernan said clearly that his is not a "surge" strategy. (Exact quote: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.'") The subtlety is that "surge," as used by the general, does not mean the same thing as "more troops." Biden is correct and consistent. Obama has pushed for more troops in Afghanistan for a long time. And McKiernan wants more troops. Yeah, I know: too much subtlety for a political debate.

You mean McLellan right? McLellan, General McLellan? . . . wait, move along, nothing to see here.

Palin was horrible, horrible . . .and most of the evil east coast media said she did just fine.

Wrong. Not once in 1.5 hours did she demonstrate real knowledge.

She exceeded only the low, low expectations created by the Couric interviews. Meet the Press? Face the Nation? Not likely. I suppose we'll get winked again at in 2012. Gag.

ausowl Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:And McKiernan wants more troops.

You mean McLellan right? McLellan, General McLellan?

Very nice reference!