The VP-Debate

[Durandal]

Biden played it perfectly, in my opinion. He wasn't an attack dog, but he wasn't a pussy either. He made her look like an ignorant fool without having to say, "Governor, you're a moron." Determining that she was an idiot was left as an exercise to the viewer. Biden laid out his views, why he held those views and the facts that supported his case.

Palin performed in the debate like I'd expect a job candidate who'd lied on her resumé to perform in an interview. She bullshitted and constantly tried to divert the line of questioning back to more familiar territory, refusing to go outside of her comfort zone. And when she couldn't get away with it, she reverted to talking points and vague generalities. "We need to shake up Wall Street." "We need to create jobs." It's like a sales guy saying "We need to make money!" Well gee, no shit, Sherlock. But how the fuck are you going to do it? By winking at people?

Palin is clearly out of her league in this game, this debate demonstrated that. She did a good job fellating the right-wing base, but that's about it. Independents probably saw her as a vapid beauty queen, reminiscent of Miss South Carolina talking about kids who didn't have maps in school. Hardly the image of a vice president of the United States.

[ray245]

I have no idea how a person like Sarah Palin can even develop an interest in political issues in the first place. I mean she looks and sounds like a person who don't even understand the basic principle of political issues, and thinks she is good enough to lead the United States.

I seriously doubt she has any real interest in political issues, other than wanting to have power as the VP.

[Darth Wong]

I couldn't believe the way she kept saying that they needed to get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street. Getting rid of greed on Wall Street is like getting rid of stink on shit. It's impossible, and it goes against the very concept of the entity in question. The only solution is to regulate their powers.

I really wish somebody would make the case for big government in America. Palin and McCain and countless talking heads keep getting away with spouting the same lines about shrinking government, getting out of the way of the private sector, etc. And people buy it, because they've been conditioned to buy it through 30 years of the same rhetoric, replayed over and over and over. On both sides of the aisle, it is mutually agreed that "big government" is a bad thing.

Honestly, would it really be that hard for a Democrat to come out and finally say something like this?

It's not a question of how big the government is: it's a question of whose interests it's looking out for. I'd much rather have a big government that looks out for the middle class than a small one that looks out for the interests of the wealthy. We're all living through a gigantic social experiment, designed to test the theory of trickle-down economics. We were told that if the government lets corporations and rich people keep more of their money, they will invest it in the economy and we will all reap the benefits. Well, as it turns out, if government gets out of their way, they invest it all right: they invest it in China. India. Mexico. Anywhere but domestic industry, because there's more profit to be made that way. Even when new, profitable domestic industries appear, as they did in the 1990s with the tech boom, they're chomping at the bit to send that overseas too. And frankly, if that's what they do when government gets out of their way, then it's time for government to get in their way again.

How much punishment must the middle class take before we accept that when government "gets out of the way of the private sector", the private sector misbehaves? That's not to say that government should replace the private sector, as it does in a communist society, but government's job is to regulate the private sector. That is not communism or even socialism; that is part of the concept of capitalism, which conservatives seem to have forgotten. Capitalism isn't anarchy; it is a regulated environment designed to foster fair competition.

It's easy to see why people like John McCain prefer smaller government: the rich and powerful don't really need government. They never did. The people who need government are not the rich and powerful; they are the weak and powerless. If a corporation defrauds you, where do you turn? The government. If a criminal robs you, where do you turn? The government. If you lose your job and you need unemployment benefits to put food in your kids' mouths until you get back on your feet, where do you turn? The government. If a hurricane wipes out your city, where do you turn? The government. And if it fails at any of these tasks, the solution is to improve it, to refocus on its primary mission of ensuring fair competition in the economy and defending the weak and powerless. Not to drown it in a bathtub and assume that the free markets will suddenly decide to start helping people out of the goodness of their hearts. We gave that theory thirty years to work, and they haven't done it yet.

It's not about how big government is: it's about who it's for. We've tried government for the rich, and it hasn't worked out. Let's go back to government for everyone else.

Is this "wealth redistribution"? You can call it that if you want. It's another political buzzword. But over the last 30 years, we've seen a huge redistribution of wealth away from the middle class toward the rich. We just want to reverse that redistribution back to the way it was. Call it what you want, but wealth redistribution is happening right now, and it's happening for the benefit of the rich. What are you going to do about it? Smile and pretend that this is a good thing?

[Eframepilot]

You're absolutely right about the case for big government, Mike, but unfortunately the term "big government" has become completely tarnished over the past three decades thanks to Reagan and his legacy. It's the same as how the word "liberal" is now a pejorative that means "Hippie Commie traitor". "Liberal" is now so tarnished that American leftists have largely abandoned it for the term "progressive".

The only way to redeem big government is to advocate it and then put it into successful practice without actually using the term "big government", which is what Obama and Biden are trying to do. When (not if) Obama is elected and fixes the country, he'll be able to point to his achievements so that when the next Republican accuses him of increasing the size of the government he can say, "Yeah? So what? It works." Or at least, that's my foolishly optimistic thinking.

[Covenant]

It's not impossible to sell people on a big confusing thing, it just takes the ability of someone like Bill Clinton, who really knows how to take a complicated issue like the economy and put it into simple terms that people can understand. Playing upon the "this makes sense to me" motivation of an electorate hurts democrats so often because they seem to have some kind of innate aversion to simplifying things the fuck down to a level that someone's Mom would understand. And that's what they need to do. Republicans make shit up, but it's shit they can understand.

For a laugh though, head to http://elections.foxnews.com/ and vote for Joe winning the debate. Currently the poll is tallying 151350 votes (I'm number 151350!) and 62 percent say Joe won. 62 percent. On the fox news page. Sometimes you just can't make this shit up. Vote early and vote often--that's the Chicago way!

[Johonebesus]

Also: Brungardt, is there a way to get a streaming of Olbermann? Or, lacking cable, am I going to have to wait until someone stick's him up on youtube?

Most of the program is available here. You still have to sit through commercials, but there aren't many.

The fox news poll seems to have been disabled. It's there, but there is no way to select a name, for they are links that just add a number sign to the page's url.

[ExarKun]

There is obviously something wrong with you anti-Palin brigade. Are you trying to tell me she hasn't connected with you on a person level?!

[Duckie]

While obviously satirical, the comment scares me. For this reason: Why the fuck would I want someone like myself in power? I guess most Americans don't think like that.

[ray245]

While obviously satirical, the comment scares me. For this reason: Why the fuck would I want someone like myself in power? I guess most Americans don't think like that.

While, they have been brainwashed to a certain extend. Democracy to them, is bascially a common's man country, where a commoner has the chance to lead the country simply because he or she choose to.

Other than that, the small town or small people values did not help things as well. Forx example, they are stuck with the belief that for someone to truly understand a poor person, that person must be poor as well.

[Zablorg]

I bet the conservetard's response to the outcome of the debate would be that Biden was forced in no time at all to go on the defensive, while Palin calmly rode her way through the debate.

Much in the same way as when a police officer demands me to step out of the car and I respond quite calmly and orderly that I like fruitloops.

[Ender]

FactCheck analysis is up

[RedImperator]

WHAT WARS Sarah? What Wars has John McCain WON?
This night will be remeber as the night Joe Biden pissed away a golden chance to create a sound-byte that would be played non-stop. All he had to do was break in and ask her that single question, What Wars has John McCain won? I'm interested to know Sarah.

She had no answer to that, I know she had no goddamn response to that and the bumbling, stumbling non-answer she would have given would have destroyed her, but no... ol' Joe did not ask, and the chance was missed.

What? Are you kidding? No. That would have gotten this response: "He's won in Iraq, Senator. He supported the surge, and now we're winning. If you and Senator Obama had gotten your way, we would have cut and run and lost." You don't think she had a ready-made soundbite if Biden took that bait?

Then you respond with the ready made response sound-bit and you get angry

Won? We've Won in Iraq? That's why two dozen people died in a sucide car bombing this week? We won? Is that what you call victory? When week after week year after year Americans Die, Iraqi's die, the violence goes on and on and on, you call that victory? People in Iraq are without critical basic supplies like clean drinking water and most residents are lucky to get an hour of eletricity a day, you call that victory?

Madam Governor if you think that's victory I hope to never see what you call defeat, Governor Palin I know I am speaking out of turn here but for the love of God, have you learned nothing from the past five years in Iraq? We've spent more time fighting to secure Iraq than it took to fight the second world war. And American's still die every week in Iraq five years later and you call that victory?

Super. Now you've gone and generated sympathy for Sarah Palin.

Look, these debates aren't really debates. They're something halfway between theater and games. You think Joe Biden couldn't have humiliated Palin if he wanted to? But he didn't do that, on purpose, because what does he gain? People already know he knows the issues, and Palin, left to her own devices, would let people know she doesn't. So in exchange for reinforcing what the electorate already knows, Biden looks like a jerk on national television. The McCain campaign was probably praying he would do something like that, and give Palin a nice big sympathy kick to her favorables.

When was the last time humiliating a folksy everyman (or woman) got the Democrats anywhere? Gore snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by coming off as a condescending jerk to George Bush. If this had been some arrogant rich jackoff like Mitt Romney, Biden could have safely shredded him, but it wasn't. Genuine or not, Palin can get undecided voters to like her. Biden's task was to expose her weakness--her lack of policy knowledge--while not playing to her strengths. If the snap polls are any indication, he did that superbly.

[CmdrWilkens]

Reinforcing a bit of what Red said, this is not about who is correct but rather who was best able to present their case to undecided or swayable voters. All of these debates are NOT important in an of themselves. Much as with the "surge" the measure isn't whether it reduces violence but rather if the overall goals are met the debates shoudl be judged not by who "won" but rather by how the debates affect the race for the Preisdency.

We can sit here and decry the stupidity or vacousness of a goodly portion of the American electorate but that won't change the fact that these are the folks you need to convince to vote for you. The American public does want smart and effective government but HOW they judge that is significantly different from how we do here. It would have been almsot child's play for biden to spend the whole debate trashing palin and her thoughtless talking poiints repetition but would that have done anything? The fundamental truth of this election is that the more time we spend talking about John Mccain the worse he does. Did Palin need to get taken down? Absolutetly but the media is, finally, starting to do their damn job and interviews like the gibson and Couric fiascos along with her continued evasion of press conferences and Q&A sessions means that they aren't about to let up. This means that attacking her excessively in the debate would be seen as overkill.

Let me put this another way, we have a culture here that doesn't mind flaming, sometimes even intense flaming but I do ask is there a point at which it becomes a dogpile and not a valuable addition? Without a doubt it happens because there are folks here, and I've been guilty myself, of jst piling on the scorn long after someone has been buried under it. Now the idea under discussion might be deserving of scorn but to an outside observer there comes a point when continuingto harp on this becomes vindictive and spiteful. So ask yourself this question, would a reasonable person want to elect someone who demonstrates extreme spite and vindictiveness in attacking their opponents? that's the portion of the electorate Biden stood to lose. Palin had to be taken down a notch but now that it has been done (her fav/unfav are negative nationally) jumping on top of that woudlbe seen as spiteful and it would not help Biden one bit. He did exactly what he needed to do which is avoid making a gaffe and keep the debate focused on McCain's policies which would hurt most of the US.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Senator Biden said something like this

When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

When did Hezbollah ever get kicked out of Lebanon?

[Stargate Nerd]

Senator Biden said something like this

When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

When did Hezbollah ever get kicked out of Lebanon?

Maybe he meant Syria?

[Coyote]

Senator Biden said something like this

When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

When did Hezbollah ever get kicked out of Lebanon?

Maybe he meant Syria?

He may have actually meant to say the PLO, which did get removed from Lebanon and set up headquarters in Tunisia for awhile. Hezbollah was still something of a fledgeling at that time, but as far as I can remember has never even come close to being dislodged from Lebanon, since it is native to that country.

[Gerald Tarrant]

He may have actually meant to say the PLO, which did get removed from Lebanon and set up headquarters in Tunisia for awhile. Hezbollah was still something of a fledgeling at that time, but as far as I can remember has never even come close to being dislodged from Lebanon, since it is native to that country.

Pretty sure he didn't mean the PLO as he references Senator Obama's statements. I'm not even sure that Senator Obama had entered politics when the PLO left Lebanon. The timeline would better fit with the Cedar Revolution

When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

Maybe he meant Syria?

You mean Syria for the first use of Hezbollah, and Hezbollah for the second use of Hezbollah? That's still odd though.
1) The Cedar Revolution was the impetus for kicking Syria out, Biden neglects the Lebanese part in this affair.
2) Hezbollah has always had a disproportionate influence on the politics of Lebanon, they're well armed and more numerous than the Lebanese army, and I'm pretty sure that was the was the way things were at the time Syria left. As a matter of fact Israel's own failures in southern Lebanon make it look like a very good thing that we didn't send NATO troops in there.

[Crown]

Okay, funky new look to the board ....

As to the thread; what the hell is with the 'I love Israel' mantra that they were both talking about for 7mins or so? Is this Florida coming into play or something? Honestly I must have not been paying attention to US Politics this much before where a key point in selling your Foreign Policy 'cred' was about saying 'I love Israel more than you!'.

Anyway, apart from that Biden was on auto control during this debate. He did enough to wreck the McCain/Palin ticket without allowing Palin to play the 'victim' card. Nicely played on his part.

Oh, and I would sooooooo bone Palin.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, funky new look to the board ....

As to the thread; what the hell is with the 'I love Israel' mantra that they were both talking about for 7mins or so? Is this Florida coming into play or something? Honestly I must have not been paying attention to US Politics this much before where a key point in selling your Foreign Policy 'cred' was about saying 'I love Israel more than you!'.

That's American politics. It's political suicide in America to do anything other than worshipping Israel as the fountain of all that is good in the Big Bad World Outside.

Anyway, apart from that Biden was on auto control during this debate. He did enough to wreck the McCain/Palin ticket without allowing Palin to play the 'victim' card. Nicely played on his part.

Oh, and I would sooooooo bone Palin.

Personally, I found that the longer she spoke, the more I hated the sound of her voice. There's a whiny, nasal quality to it which is like nails on chalkboard.

[General Zod]

Personally, I found that the longer she spoke, the more I hated the sound of her voice. There's a whiny, nasal quality to it which is like nails on chalkboard.

I think when she said "Say it ain't so Joe" was the height of her whininess. Although I think I finally figured out who she reminds me of. If McSame is Eric Cartman, Sara Palin is Mrs. Lovejoy.

[General Zod]

Personally, I found that the longer she spoke, the more I hated the sound of her voice. There's a whiny, nasal quality to it which is like nails on chalkboard.

I think when she said "Say it ain't so Joe" was the height of her whininess. Although I think I finally figured out who she reminds me of. If McSame is Eric Cartman, Sara Palin is Mrs. Lovejoy.

Ghetto edit: Flanders. Not Lovejoy. That's what I get for not watching the Simpson's for years.

[Crown]

Oh, and I would sooooooo bone Palin.

Personally, I found that the longer she spoke, the more I hated the sound of her voice. There's a whiny, nasal quality to it which is like nails on chalkboard.

Yes, but it would sound nice 'oohing' and 'aahing' and moaning. You're too much of a gentleman if you think I would want to hold a conversation with her, which is strange, because I've seen your porn collection!



P.S. You realise you just made it super easy for Einy to do his multicolour posts now, right?

[Stargate Nerd]

Oh, and I would sooooooo bone Palin.

Personally, I found that the longer she spoke, the more I hated the sound of her voice. There's a whiny, nasal quality to it which is like nails on chalkboard.[/quote]
Not to mention her pressing her lips together everytime she made a point. Ugh.

[Coyote]

Biden could not under any circumstances be seen roughing her up, even a bit, no matter how much she may have deserved it. They were waiting to pounce on the opportunity to play up Biden as a mean ol' bully picking on a poor girl.

That, I suspect, is also why the moderator didn't smack her a few times, too, for not really answering a single question in a relevent manner. McCain's pitbulls were also ready to get on her by claiming that the moderator was pro-Obama: it would inflate Palin's "victory" by not only standing up to Biden, but doing so "with the deck stacked against her" (ie, a mean ol' pro-Obama mod actually making her stay on track and answer questions).

This debate and the last one were both done according to McCain campaign rules-- he wanted a free-flow debate against Obama because he thought that would be better for him; he wanted a non-confrontational debate with Palin because he thought that would protect her. The so-called "liberal" media bent over backwards to be accomodating and the Obama campaign raised no fuss about the "pro-McCain" set-up of the debates, and Quickdraw & Barbie still got beat.

[Lord Poe]