US Presidential Election: Debate Thread

Sarah Palin had a tough draw last night, and she was a big underdog. Her job was to go a full and credible 12 rounds with Joe Biden, not knock him out. I felt she did her job and did it well.

It would have been a mistake for her to try and sound like the foreign policy expert that Biden is. No one would have bought that. She had to be herself, and make points on the issues she has excellent command of. I felt she did that for most of the debate.

Joe Biden had to keep from sticking his foot in his mouth and just get out of there without doing any harm. I felt he did that, though I think he was on his heels somewhat early on.

Purp mentioned earlier that Biden began to settle in when Pakistan came up, and I agree. There was just no way Palin was going to match him there. Few could have. So I thought Palin's safe approach on those topics was right for her, while Biden was smart to score easy points there.

Was it a draw? I don't think so. Joe Biden was expected to win last night and I thought he did. Not that he was right on the issues, because I disagree with much of what he said, but I felt he was more effective in pushing his parties' agenda.

However...Sarah Palin won last night, more than any poll will show. She proved she could stand toe-to-toe with a Washington insider and help deliver the right sort of change we need in Washington, which is to challenge and change the status quo on both sides of the aisle. I would have liked to have seen her spend some time specifically on her work as governor cleaning up corruption and waste in government.

She did her job last night. She went the full 12 with Biden. It is up to John McCain now to knock out Barack Obama if he is to win the election.

I think Biden did a pretty good job as painting McCain as more of George Bush. I would say he edged Palin on the debate and I agree with you Pensieve that he knew much more about foreign policy,which was to be expected.

She still was able to hold her own though. I thought it was going to be an embarassment but it wasn't. One thing she does have going for her is she can speak to the average American whether you agree with her policies or not.

It would have been a mistake for her to try and sound like the foreign policy expert that Biden is. No one would have bought that. She had to be herself, and make points on the issues she has excellent command of. I felt she did that for most of the debate.
She's wants to be VP, and that means command of all the issues that we will face. And that includes foreign policy.

Other than espousing the idea that they (McCain / Palin) are going to clean up Washington, I have yet to hear an example of how they will do it. Obama did a good job last week of showing how hollow a promise getting rid of earmarks truly is, since it is a very small portion of the budget.

They won't have a line-item veto, so bills will have some pork in them. But one man's pork is another man's community center or road (to somewhere). Not all spending is bad, since infrastructure is an investment for the future. Community centers keep kids off the street. That's an important long-term investment in the next generation. It only sounds like pork when you ignore the desirable outcome.

If McCain vetoes every appropriation's bill that has pork in it, they'll have gridlock, and the Congress will not feel like cooperating with Mr. Congeniality if he gores too many of their oxen. The problem in Washington isn't spending, it's a lack of focus or vision. It's a lack of commitment and purpose. That's how you fix Washington. You lead and inspire them. All I hear from McCain / Palin, and that includes what was said in tonight's debate, is how they are going to attack and reform. But I don't hear how they think that will work. There are 535 members of Congress, each with their own priorities, and slash-and-burn tactics will not win them over.

I think Biden did a pretty good job as painting McCain as more of George Bush. I would say he edged Palin on the debate and I agree with you Pensieve that he knew much more about foreign policy,which was to be expected.

She still was able to hold her own though. I thought it was going to be an embarassment but it wasn't. One thing she does have going for her is she can speak to the average American whether you agree with her policies or not.

It has been an effective tactic for the Dems to associate McCain with Bush, no question. Santa Claus could be running on the GOP ticket and he'd get the same treatment. McCain's maverick reputation has helped him combat that false perception, IMO.

As for Palin and her ability to speak to the average American, I agree. She has that advantage and I thought she used it well last night.

She's wants to be VP, and that means command of all the issues that we will face. And that includes foreign policy.


Barack Obama hardly has command of foreign policy, which is why he needs 300 advisors and picked Biden as his VP candidate. Yet this doesn't seem to disturb liberals. He is the weakest presidential candidate I have ever seen in this regard.

Other than espousing the idea that they (McCain / Palin) are going to clean up Washington, I have yet to hear an example of how they will do it.

Then you haven't been listening. This link will help: Straight Talk Express (www.johnmccain.com)

McCain's maverick reputation has helped him combat that false perception, IMO.
McCain is considered a maverick because he is uncooperative and unpredictable. He admitted he wasn't Mr. Congeniality. You see, you can be a maverick and still be likable. However, in McCain's case, it seems to be his title because he is a contrarian, but not because he's an independently-minded consensus builder. I can count on one hand the number of times he has worked on bipartisan legislation.

I thought that Biden did a good job tonight of shooting holes in that maverick myth.

I thought that Biden did a good job tonight of shooting holes in that maverick myth.

Not really. Joe Biden mis-represented John McCain's record on several points, such as funding for the troops, healthcare, and taxes (re: factcheck.org). I found it hypocritical that Biden was willing to take the wood to Obama in the primaries...quite accurately...but now has amnesia about what he said when pressed by Gwen Ifill last night.

McCain didn't fund armor for the troops. He didn't want to fund veteran's education benefits since he thought that would discourage them from re-enlisting. And Joe was spot-on about McCain's healthcare. In fact, he didn't paint as bleak a picture as he could have about the effects of shifting the cost of insurance onto the workers. Joe said that insurance policies cost $12,000 annually and they do (I know mind did). A $5,000 credit doesn't cover that. Nor do credits help at all if you don't have enough taxable income. It actually wouldn't drive down costs because large businesses do a better job of negotiating in bulk with insurance companies than can individuals, who won't even know how to read past the medical doublespeak to understand what is or isn't covered in the policies.

McCain didn't fund armor for the troops. He didn't want to fund veteran's education benefits since he thought that would discourage them from re-enlisting. And Joe was spot on about McCain's healthcare. In fact, he didn't paint as bleak a picture as he could have about the effects of shifting the cost of insurance onto the workers. Joe said that insurance policies cost $12,000 annually and they do (I know mind did). A $5,000 credit doesn't cover that. Nor do credits help at all if you don't have enough taxable income. It actually wouldn't drive down costs because large businesses do a better job of negotiating in bulk with insurance companies than can individuals, who won't even know how to read past the medical doublespeak to understand what is or isn't covered in the policies.

According to factcheck.org, McCain and Obama were on opposite sides of the troop funding bill, not the same.

Biden's claim that the $5000 healthcare credit would go to the insurance companies was not given in the proper context, which is that families would use that credit to help buy insurance from...insurance companies! McCain doesn't advocate universal healthcare.

Not really. Joe Biden mis-represented John McCain's record on several points, such as funding for the troops, healthcare, and taxes (re: factcheck.org). I found it hypocritical that Biden was willing to take the wood to Obama in the primaries...quite accurately...but now has amnesia about what he said when pressed by Gwen Ifill last night.

I don't think Joe misrepresented McCain. McCain has repeatedly misrepresented Barack, but Joe was spot-on last night in puncturing that Maverick garbage. I've been posting for over a year that McCain gets loads of good press for reacting negatively to something his party proposes, but the press seems never to be around when he folds and tots the party line. He is no maverick and never has been. He is contrarian, as Judy noted, and hardly a facilitator of the kind of change that is so desperately needed.

I don't think Joe misrepresented McCain. McCain has repeatedly misrepresented Barack, but Joe was spot-on last night in puncturing that Maverick garbage. I've been posting for over a year that McCain gets loads of good press for reacting negatively to something his party proposes, but the press seems never to be around when he folds and tots the party line. He is no maverick and never has been. He is contrarian, as Judy noted, and hardly a facilitator of the kind of change that is so desperately needed.

It seems that factcheck.org disagrees with your assertion.

Look, both men have taken liberties with the truth. That's what ALL politicians do, including Barack Obama.

It seems that factcheck.org disagrees with your assertion.

Give us a link, please?

My understanding is that McCain voted against the bill because it contained a timeline for withdrawal. Obama voted against it when the timeline was removed.

So, in essence, McCain was voting for more war and Obama an exit to a war.

Give us a link, please?

As I mentioned twice before, the source factcheck.org...but here's the link for your convenience: Biden-Palin Debate (www.factcheck.org/)

As you and I have debated and disagreed on this point many times in the past...so I really don't want to do this again in a multiple post string...McCain is not for "more war". He is for exiting Iraq in a responsible manner that ensures lasting stability with honor for our troops. IMO, Obama wants out at all costs.

One thing that bothered me was the way she mugged and winked and poured on, what seemed to me, cloying cuteness. In the past, women would fall back on being cute to get their way. They were expected to mug and simper to accomplish anything. It reflected the way men treated them like children, so they had to act cutesy as an expected part of their role.

I can't recall any other modern successful women in positions of power behaving like that. For instance, imagine either Secretary of State Rice or former Secretary of State Albright mugging like that while addressing the United Nations. It would be humiliating. How long would Hillary Clinton have lasted during the primaries if she had acted so coquettishly? No one would have taken her seriously.

I so agree with you CBW. The second she winked at the camera, professional women took a giant step backward. She didn't do us any favors last night. I was embarrassed.

As I mentioned twice before, the source factcheck.org...but here's the link for your convenience: Biden-Palin Debate

Okay, from FactCheck.org:

As we've pointed out before (www.factcheck.org/), the squabble refers to a pair of 2007 votes on war funding. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Biden is simply wrong to say that McCain voted against that bill; he was absent and didn’t vote at all. McCain did oppose the bill, and he urged President Bush to veto it. Bush did. [U]Obama then voted against the same bill without withdrawal language. He had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote.

Emphasis mine.

So the issue was not that Obama voted "against funding for the troops." He voted against the bill when the timetable was withdrawn. McCain, on the other hand, didn't bother to show up for the vote.


As you and I have debated and disagreed on this point many times in the past...so I really don't want to do this again in a multiple post string...McCain is not for "more war". He is for exiting Iraq in a responsible manner that ensures lasting stability with honor for our troops. IMO, Obama wants out at all costs.

And he has yet to articulate what he means by that.

So the issue was not that Obama voted "against funding for the troops." He voted against the bill when the timetable was withdrawn. McCain, on the other hand, didn't bother to show up for the vote.

And he has yet to articulate what he means by that.

Biden said McCain voted against funding for the troops. He didn't, and the bill didn't need his support to go fwd.

As for better understanding what Senator McCain means, perhaps this link will help: Strategy for Victory in Iraq (www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm)

Lolz!

eCunBErZZJE

I so agree with you CBW. The second she winked at the camera, professional women took a giant step backward. She didn't do us any favors last night. I was embarrassed.

How does that do anything to professional women at all? What exactly does her winking do to anyone? I fear this is yet another overblown reaction to a simple fairly everyday expression or gesture. Please explain how this is such an important and embarrassing action on Palin's part.

Lolz!

eCunBErZZJE

If that is the best people can throw on youtube, how can anyone complain about Palin? That this stuff that seems to bother some people or the exagerated effects of some things just astounds me, truly. I think it is pretty good natured, the video included.

Right, keep the focus on the debate itself :).

Compare and contrast with the first debate is fine (my written rules may have seemed a bit restrictive here), but as always, keep the focus on the VP debate.

If that is the best people can throw on youtube, how can anyone complain about Palin? That this stuff that seems to bother some people or the exagerated effects of some things just astounds me, truly. I think it is pretty good natured, the video included.

I think this speaks volumes about Palin -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pC1W1_sTgFE

Biden tells a very personal and tragic story, Palin goes right into talk of Mccain being a Maverick yet again.

Joe avoided going all aggressive (and the pity party bump she might have garnered) and instead took issue with McCain. Which is just as well since he couldn't compare his experiences or records with someone who hadn't any. (or it might have been his normal arrogance kicking in. Debating with Palin might have been embarrassing to him. At one point in time I may not have understood that)

The bar was set low for Palin. That she hadn't embarrassed herself scored her points. But exceeding low expectations isn't a win.

Assessment on Pailin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
A more conventional vice-presidential candidate could have used the platform of the debate on Thursday to go after Mr. Obama and turn this night into a referendum on Mr. Obama. And Ms. Palin certainly tried, attacking Mr. Obama repeatedly for his views on national security, and taxes, prompting equally passionate rebuttals from Mr. Biden.
But she had become such an outsized figure since her explosive introduction to the country by Mr. McCain that the story of this debate was always going to be about Ms. Palin, and not Mr. Obama. It seems fair to say that Americans who tuned in to this debate watched to get their impression of Ms. Palin, and not to hear what she had to say about Mr. Obama.

Hockey Mom on Thin Ice (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/palin_just_isnt_presidential.html)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27001026/ I liked reading this link along with fact check.org. I enjoy reading the facts.

I think this speaks volumes about Palin -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pC1W1_sTgFE

Biden tells a very personal and tragic story, Palin goes right into talk of Mccain being a Maverick yet again.


I shed a couple tears when he choked up. One of the only real emotional moments from the debate I saw.

O.K., the debate. Palin did establish a few key points pretty effectively in my opinion. First, she established that it is the commanders in the field and not a time table that would dictate exit from Iraq. Point of disagreement, reasonably specific answer in quick debate format and showed the difference from the Obama/Biden idea. By saying that a timetable was a white flag of surrender, she hits at the reason for disagreement and the way timetable withdraw can be seen by enemies and foriegn leaders.

Second, she did make an attempt to show that McCain/Palin won't be more of Bush by admitting there were mistakes by the Administration, mentioning instances of contention between McCain and Bush and alluding to agreements between Biden and McCain. Also in what is a memorable line, "Say it ain't so Joe", she made a pretty impressive point of accusing the Democrats of being too focused on the past and questioned how that is forward looking.

Third, she made a strong argument for her own executive experience and distanced her ticket from oil companies effectively by rehighlighting her having fought to rein them in as a Gov. and even had Biden nodding and smiling during that portion of her response and I believe complimenting her on that.

Fourth, she used some of Biden's own comments and assessments against him and Obama. Biden was trying to walk the line and was a little off balance when confronted with his own earlier statements, many of which she echoed for the McCain ticket. Also Biden was forced to argue against himself in a few instances.

Finally and most importantly, Palin stayed on message, took control of the debate and showed some of the confidence and authority that makes her appealing when addressing the people. She was in control and actually imposed her will on the procedings pretty solidly. Those disposed to criticize her will call it avoiding the question, but in general effect, she showed that leadership trait of taking charge. For all the "cutsie" accusations, she was deliberate and in control of not only herself, Biden's achievement, but the debate in general. She moved things her way, got to stay on points she wanted to stay on and was forcing Biden to go that way with her as the moderator stood aside for her.

How does that do anything to professional women at all? What exactly does her winking do to anyone? I fear this is yet another overblown reaction to a simple fairly everyday expression or gesture. Please explain how this is such an important and embarrassing action on Palin's part.


I'm surprised I have to explain this, but here it goes.

Women in America had, and still do, a very difficult time climbing the ladder of success, having to field accusations of who we've slept with to get in the positions we hold. Please google "sexual harassment lawsuit" for more detailed information about how this notion is abused in the workforce.

Winking is seen in many cultures, including the US, as a sexual advance. So, regardless of your intention when winking, you just don't do it. Any respectable business woman knows this. The gesture has no place in the professional world.

As for better understanding what Senator McCain means, perhaps this link will help: Strategy for Victory in Iraq (www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm)

Those are talking points.

I'm surprised I have to explain this, but here it goes.

Women in America had, and still do, a very difficult time climbing the ladder of success, having to field accusations of who we've slept with to get in the positions we hold. Please google "sexual harassment lawsuit" for more detailed information about how this notion is abused in the workforce.

Winking is seen in many cultures, including the US, as a sexual advance. So, regardless of your intention when winking, you just don't do it. Any respectable business woman knows this. The gesture has no place in the professional world.

O.K., winking isn't always seen as a sexual advance in U.S. culture, in fact it requires a specific context to be taken that way usually. On the contrary, it is often an endearing gesture among family and friends and is typically lampooned as something a used car salesman might do to endear himself. Maybe in your neck of the woods it is solely a sexual advance, but in a lot of places it is simply a friendly gesture. "A nod and a wink" doesn't have any sexual aspect to it, but is pretty common place. Winking while saying "you bet ya'" is almost expected and is also a non-sexual gesture almost everywhere.

To assert that Palin has no buisness winking, because it is a sexual advance is pretty off base, IMO. As for that gesture having no place in the professional world, that may be very different from place to place and community to community. I can see it being interpretted that way in a one-to-one meeting or during a private exchange in a more isolated environment, but come on. This universal attitude toward this simple gesture seems a bit narrow and might be why it needs some explaining. I am pretty sure that most people didn't infer a sexual context to her winking at the camera while delivering some more "common folk" lines.

Those are talking points.

Hello, pot. This is Kettle....

We really aren't getting upset about the use of talking points are we?

Both candidates had their marching orders and talking points before the debate and anyone who watched knows many of them pretty well by now, I would think.

I am pretty sure that most people didn't infer a sexual context to her winking at the camera while delivering some more "common folk" lines.

I'll repeat - Regardless of your intention when winking, you just don't do it. Any respectable business woman knows this. The gesture has no place in the professional world.

In addition, a wink has many different meanings internationally. I wonder how many people she offended at the UN last week.

She needs to get out of the habit of winking.

Pailin Sinks with Winks (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view/2008_10_03_Odds_are_stacked_against_Sarah_Palin/srvc=home&position=3) (Op-Ed Piece)

Those are talking points.

Talking points? It's a 1,400+ word explanation of John's strategy for Iraq, much more detailed than anything he could say in a speech.



She needs to get out of the habit of winking.

"Winking" is a tricky thing, especially for women. In my experience, it isn't necessarily an unprofessional gesture. It's subtle, but context is always important. Biden's "arm grab" when greeting Palin last night is probably a bit more "space invasive" and unprofessional than "winking".

Internationally, it can be a risky move. In Japan, for example, I wouldn't "wink" and you will not see Japanese women do so. In Mexico, I have seen "winks" by women in business situations many times with no unprofessional undertones.

I'll repeat - Regardless of your intention when winking, you just don't do it. Any respectable business woman knows this. The gesture has no place in the professional world.

That depends entirely on the context in which you're speaking and what your objective is. If you're giving a dissertation to the school board on the effects and implications of constructavist math on mathematical knowledge, winking and smiling probably isn't appropriate. But you're meeting with concerned parents and discussing approaches they can follow to subvert the adverse consequences of constructavist math on their children's academic careers, then you just might want to smile and even wink because your objective is to connect with and engage the parents.

In my opinion, the objective in the debate was to engage and connect with voters. Winking, smiling, laughing, telling jokes - those are all common strategies utilized by effective speakers to engage and connet with their audience.

In addition, a wink has many different meanings internationally. I wonder how many people she offended at the UN last week.

Did she wink at anyone at the UN?

Although she did come off as overly cutesy imo. I didn't even really notice her winks until I saw the youtube videos. Honestly there are things I disagree with Palin on but I am not sure she was trying to infer anything inappropriate in the debate with these winks. Perhaps I should take more looks but to me it just seems she is playing up her bubbly personality.

Personally, I don't like winking.

That depends entirely on the context in which you're speaking and what your objective is. .....
In my opinion, the objective in the debate was to engage and connect with voters. Winking, smiling, laughing, telling jokes - those are all common strategies utilized by effective speakers to engage and connet with their audience.

The objective of a debate is to educate voters and to restate positions on the issues that affect our country. It's pretty serious business. Trying to look cute and bubbly for the camera during one of the most important steps in a presidential election was out of line.

For Sarah Palin to call herself a feminist and then play little cutsy games with the camera is a contradiction at best.


Did she wink at anyone at the UN?

I certainly hope not. It seems to be a habit for her and she really needs to be careful.

I thought Gwen Ifill did a better job than Jim Lehrer as moderator.

Both candidates did a great job, much better, imo, than McCain and Obama. Biden's voice seemed to get duller as the night went on, like maybe he was tiring, but he still did a good job.

Palin appeared confident and happy. She was a joy to watch. She seemed well informed on the issues. I would definitely feel comfortable with her as VP. She won the debate last night.

Winking at the cameras is not a step back for professional women. I want to know what the heck winking has to do with sexual harrassment? She winked. Twice. She's professional.

The objective of a debate is to educate voters and to restate positions on the issues that affect our country. It's pretty serious business. Trying to look cute and bubbly for the camera during one of the most important steps in a presidential election was out of line.

Professor Binns? No thank you! Give me someone who is genuine, who talks from the heart, who knows who they are and doesn't try to hide behind big words and policy points, who just tells me what they think and how they think so that I can decide if they'll stand up for me. I want someone who can connect with voters and she did.

I barely even noticed the winks - I noticed Biden's unmovable forehead more.

For Sarah Palin to call herself a feminist and then play little cutsy games with the camera is a contradiction at best.

See, now that's where traditional feminism failed me and most of the women I know. Traditional feminists expect women to fit a mold and never deviate or depart from that mold. They demean any women who admits that her family is important to her, who acts like a woman and a mother and your next door neighbor. They scoff at women who choose to forgo career in favor of family and roll their eyes at women who don't proceed in Gloria Steinman's footsteps.

You know what being a feminist means to me? It means that I believe that women are equally capable of doing whatever they set their minds to and ought to be given the opportunity to try. It means that if a women wants to be a surgeon or a General or teacher or a mother then she should do it and her value and worth as a member of society is no better or worse because of how she chooses to spend her days. It means women should be comfortable with who they are and how they interact with others, whether they're open and friendly or quiet and contemplative, and that trying to fit their square peg personalities into a round hole is a waste of time.

Male politicians and leaders come in all shapes and sizes. Some have personality bubbling out all over the place, like Joe Biden. Others are more contemplative and less effervescent, like Joe Lieberman or Al Gore. Their personalities don't make them any more or less qualified, they're just who they are.

Why can't women also live by that same standard? Why can't women who have personality bubbling out all over the place or who are more contemplative and restrained just be who they are? Why do women have to fit a mold that some person set for them - why can't women just be themselves without being judged ? Isn't that what feminism is all about?

Complaining about the winking is taking a step back for women. It's putting Palin on a different scale than men. I thought the point of being a feminist was to make women equal to men. That means not berating them for things that men get away with. Her winking was done at appropriate times due to what she was talking about. It was not sexual in any manner and to think so is wrong. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion at the moment it was done. I thought it was cute and I liked it. It was done twice. It was not overdone. I think the complaining on it is overdone and is drawing us to something very minor that we really shouldn't be discussing because it has no effect on the debate at all.

Palin did very well last night and I got to be honest, I feel those complaining about the winking are trying to draw us away from her actual performance.

I hate winking from ANYONE, men or women. To me, it's the trick of a cheap salesperson.

I thought the debate was too rushed. I would have liked more follow up questions & more time to digest the responses. I thought Palin repeated a stock answer several times. I think it took Biden a while to find his voice. Gwen seemed peripheral - a computer could have asked the questions.

My view on the winking (which I didn't catch either) was that it wasn't intended to be anything other than an attempt to reach out to the viewers. She did far better than McCain at talking to the camera, and I think that the winking may just be part of who she is. I can see how others may interprit it differently, though.

While discussion of the winking does have to be considered on-topic, since she did it, an "agree to disagree" may be wise at some point :).

The objective of a debate is to educate voters and to restate positions on the issues that affect our country. It's pretty serious business. Trying to look cute and bubbly for the camera during one of the most important steps in a presidential election was out of line.

For Sarah Palin to call herself a feminist and then play little cutsy games with the camera is a contradiction at best.




I certainly hope not. It seems to be a habit for her and she really needs to be careful.



Cutsy? She ran that debate, controlled the flow and the content and lead it where she wanted to. This is her first national debate and no one can honestly say that she wasn't in charge and the clear tone setter. She took charge and directed the debate from early on and was able to keep it in areas where she could be solid.

To somehow see being genuine and comfortable as "cutsy" is one view, I guess, but it misses the total control she exerted without being mean or angry. She was upbeat, she was positive, she was happy to be there, no doubt, but we should make no mistake, she was in charge, aggressive and in more than one instance told Biden where to go with enough finese and simple eloquence to still seem polite and to some people appearantly, cutsy.

Biden reacted, Ifill demured and Palin took charge. Regardless of your opinion of her ideas or the McCain platform, she was the lead pit bull on that stage last night and she did it so subtlely that no one seems to have noticed that the whole debate went exactly where she decided to take it. That is brilliant diplomacy and skillful leadership, IMO and in my experience and a valuable skill in an executive. Of course she did have the advantage of having been an executive, so I suppose it is expected that she would be able to do that with a journalist and a legislator. I'd like to see her against some opponents of equal ability in that regard to see if she is a very good leader, or just the only one on the stage last night.

That she isn't somber and disillusioned when she speaks is probably her best evidence that she is an outsider in Washington and that she isn't a beat drone from inside the Beltway, trying to pander and stay employed.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. But as an HR professional who has been through the wringer and to hell and back training employees on diversity, workplace conduct and sexual harassment I can tell you that winking is a big no-no. There are 100 different ways to communicate your thoughts, so using any kind of body language that's open to interpretation is just not necessary. Remove it from the equation. It's unprofessional.

Talking points? It's a 1,400+ word explanation of John's strategy for Iraq, much more detailed than anything he could say in a speech.

Yep. Talking points. And platitudes.

Cutsy? She ran that debate, controlled the flow and the content and lead it where she wanted to. This is her first national debate and no one can honestly say that she wasn't in charge and the clear tone setter. She took charge and directed the debate from early on and was able to keep it in areas where she could be solid.

Um, Lupe, has it occurred to you that that wasn't the intent of the debate? She was supposed to be answering Ifill's questions, not delivering shout-outs to her brother's class of third-graders in Alaska.

Personally, I thought her incessant chattering rather manic and, as the debate wore on, a device used to avoid questions she absolutely couldn't answer. I think "cutesy" was a great word to describe her demeanor, and that "empty" is probably the word of choice for Palin on substance.

Here's a funny circulating around the net about Palin's strategy last night:

[Staff Edit: Removed]

You know--I had to go look at yesterday's programming, because it sounds like some of us watched a different debate than I did. :lol:

Mom: Biden's unmovable forehead???? What an odd thing to say!

My opinion? Didn't like the wink. Enough said. I think we're giving that too much power when there were so many other important issues on there.

I thought Biden was extraordinary and the "moments' for me were both his. His mastery of foreign affairs was so evident. I feel much more secure on our team now.

I have to admit, Palin did better than expected. Of course, the expectations were pretty low after her recent TV interviews. I wouldn't say she dominated, but she didn't flop and did no harm, I think, to her campaign.

I was very put off with her not answering several of the questions, often diverting to "Alaskan energy" and policy. Her "shout out" made me cringe as it made her sound like she was back at the P.T.A., and her usage of, "There you go again.." (an obvious reference to Ronald Reagan's famous debate line) sounded overly contrived and made me groan.

I do have to say I was very pleased by both candidate's warm entrance and exit. You didn't feel overt animosity between them when it was all over. They genuinely seemed to congratulate and respect each other, see each other as human beings rather than "the opponent who is to be spurned".

I commend that to each of them.

Cutsy? She ran that debate, controlled the flow and the content and lead it where she wanted to.

I actually think that is why she lost the independents. She dominated without answering questions. A power play without substance. I think Americans are tired of that. I also think she was rude to Biden with her facial moves, and I don't think that plays well to older voters (McCain's base). I didn't notice "cutsy", I noticed eyes rollling.

That said - the VP debate got 42% more ratings of the Presidential debate !
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/vice-presidential-debate_n_131671.html

I didn't notice the winking thing, but Palin did come across as acting overly cutesy. You know, like a schoolgirl. For the most part, I just ignored it since it could've been a sub-conscious thing, acting overly cutesy to make sure everyone l ikes you. You know, you do something without even realizing it. I'm sure all women are guilty of this at some point in their lives.

I'm sure all women are guilty of this at some point in their lives.

:no:

That said - the VP debate got 42% more ratings of the Presidential debate !
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/vice-presidential-debate_n_131671.htmlI'll admit it. I prefer listening to Biden and Palin talk than McCain and Obama. I think many wanted to see if Palin would falter and she didn't. Others wanted to see her succeed and she did. I think it was a good time for Biden to come out, too, since he seems to not be getting much attention at all lately.

:no:If it's subconscious, how do you know? It's nothing that I'd consciously do, but subconsciously, maybe. You know, put on the charm to make sure everyone likes you. I know some people mentioned that my voice seems to get hire in pitch when encountering new people (I didn't know this until it was pointed out, as I didn't realize it), as if trying to get them on my good side. Maybe Palin was doing something like this, or either she was just incredibly nervous.

She didn't look nervous, but then some people can play off being nervous by not looking it.

But as an HR professional who has been through the wringer and to hell and back training employees on diversity, workplace conduct and sexual harassment I can tell you that winking is a big no-no.

Ana, as an HR professional, what is your take on Biden's "arm grab" when he shook hands with Palin? (i.e., grabbing her right forearm with his left hand whilst shaking hands)



Yep. Talking points. And platitudes.


*sigh*

:no:

Ana, as an HR professional, what is your take on Biden's "arm grab" when he shook hands with Palin? (i.e., grabbing her right forearm with his left hand whilst shaking hands)

The arm "squeeze" - not grab - basically replaces a hug in todays PC world. The handshake moment is the only time "touching" is suitable in a professional relationship. It should be approriate and brief. It was both.

Now you can spin this however you want to, but you'll have to convince me on how it compares to Sarah Palin winking and smiling at the camera all night.

The arm "squeeze" - not grab - basically replaces a hug in todays PC world. The handshake moment is the only time "touching" is suitable in a professional relationship. It should be approriate and brief. It was both.

Now you can spin this however you want to, but you'll have to convince me on how it compares to Sarah Palin winking and smiling at the camera all night.

Ok, thanks for the heads up on the "squeeze". I've never seen that before in a business situation, and I'm pretty well traveled. No plans to try the "squeeze" any time soon, but am smarter about it. I think it would creep me out if someone did that to me. :scared:

As for the winking...;)...I believe it depends on the context. I've been in business situations where I was winked at with the clear suggestion of a non-professional intent (if you know what I mean). I've also seen female managers wink when making a sharp or sarcastic point and it served as an exclamation point or emphasis.

I personally saw no harm in her style and did not feel as though her professionalism was diminished in that format, though I agree with you that "winking" can be risky if the context is inappropriate.

Mom: Biden's unmovable forehead???? What an odd thing to say!

Maybe it was the HD, and it's totally irrelevant anyway, but my husband piped up and said dude's had waaaay too much botox. Then he went back to snoring.

**Edit** poorly written sentence - My husband went back to snoring, not Biden. **End Edit ***

I thought Biden was extraordinary and the "moments' for me were both his. His mastery of foreign affairs was so evident. I feel much more secure on our team now.

As long as you ignore the Article 1 v/s Article 2 (http://minx.cc/?post=274758)mix-up, the France and the US kicking Hezbolla out of Lebanon (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/mother-of-all-gaffes/)mistake, the he never said he'd meet without preconditions lie, the I never said I opposed coal plants (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/video-biden-says-no-coal-plants-in-america/) clarification, and the complete mis-characterization of his position on Iraq, and I can see how he came across as knowledgeable. Of course he was creating his own reality, but what do facts matter when you're a Constitutional scholar and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee?

I do have to admit that mentioning a restaurant in Wilmington that's struggling because of the Bush economic policies, thats been closed for 15 years (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/you-can-find-anything-you-want-except-katies-restaurant/) was a bit of a slip up.

I have to admit, Palin did better than expected. Of course, the expectations were pretty low after her recent TV interviews. I wouldn't say she dominated, but she didn't flop and did no harm, I think, to her campaign.

I thought she did great. She didn't stumble and held her own against a 25 year veteran of the national political scene who is known for his expertise at debating. She scored some points and seemed more comfortable than she's seemed lately.

I was very put off with her not answering several of the questions, often diverting to "Alaskan energy" and policy.

I think she was trying to tie her answers back to her personal experiences and accomplishments in Alaska. I did find the fact that there were no questions on energy policy, when gas prices are hovering around $4 a gallon, to be a big gaping hole.

Her "shout out" made me cringe as it made her sound like she was back at the P.T.A., and her usage of, "There you go again.." (an obvious reference to Ronald Reagan's famous debate line) sounded overly contrived and made me groan.

That is the strategy the Obama campaign seems to be hanging onto - to link McCain to Bush. Palin called Biden on it and Biden fell flat in responding to her challenges. I liked the call out to her brother's third grade class - I though it made her seem more like the neighbor next door instead of some figurehead in Washington.

I do have to say I was very pleased by both candidate's warm entrance and exit. You didn't feel overt animosity between them when it was all over. They genuinely seemed to congratulate and respect each other, see each other as human beings rather than "the opponent who is to be spurned".

I commend that to each of them.

I liked that as well. I liked that the families all seemed to enjoy being in one another's company and hung around for a while on stage after the debate. If they weren't generally opposites on policy I'd be jumping up and down for a Palin / Biden ticket!

Ok, thanks for the heads up on the "squeeze". I've never seen that before in a business situation, and I'm pretty well traveled. No plans to try the "squeeze" any time soon, but am smarter about it. I think it would creep me out if someone did that to me. :scared:

As for the winking...;)...I believe it depends on the context. I've been in business situations where I was winked at with the clear suggestion of a non-professional intent (if you know what I mean). I've also seen female managers wink when making a sharp or sarcastic point and it served as an exclamation point or emphasis.

I personally saw no harm in her style and did not feel as though her professionalism was diminished in that format, though I agree with you that "winking" can be risky if the context is inappropriate.

In my experience, the squeeze is reserved for people you know. Ya know? Although they didn't know eachother personally, they are in the same boat, so to speak. I saw the squeeze as a gesture of encouragement on Joe Biden's part. It was, as others said, good to see them get along so well.

As far as the winking, I did stand up on my little soap box for a minute, but that's only because it can be so risky and misinterpreted. Especially in international relations. I know some winkers who don't even know they do it, it almost becomes a reflex. It's a bad habit and she'll need to break herself of that.

The best line of the whole debate:

"And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

right......

That quote is a good example of how I thought Palin did in the debate. She gets an A for effort, definitely. She knew she couldn't answer the questions as posed, so she tried to play it as down-to-earth and straight-talking instead of unqualified. And I'm betting it worked for her supporters.

However, it doesn't change the fact that she didn't live up to the expectations of the debate and couldn't really answer the questions.


However...Sarah Palin won last night, more than any poll will show. She proved she could stand toe-to-toe with a Washington insider and help deliver the right sort of change we need in Washington, which is to challenge and change the status quo on both sides of the aisle. I would have liked to have seen her spend some time specifically on her work as governor cleaning up corruption and waste in government.


She showed she has confidence, and that she could show that confidence in a major debate. That's a good thing, definitely, but it doesn't answer any questions or show qualifications.


In my opinion, the objective in the debate was to engage and connect with voters. Winking, smiling, laughing, telling jokes - those are all common strategies utilized by effective speakers to engage and connet with their audience.


Is it nice to see a personable candidate? Yes, and Palin can come across as charismatic at times. However, that's not my main concern. As a voter, I want to see which candidate has the best policy. I want to see how well they can defend those policies in a debate. Palin didn't do that for me.

And I don't really see winking as being personable or friendly in this context. I saw it as condescending. It told me she couldn't let her words speak for themselves.

Complaining about the winking is taking a step back for women. It's putting Palin on a different scale than men.

I would find it just as condescending and unprofessional if she were a man. Gender has nothing to do with it. There are times and places where winking is appropriate. There might even be situations on the campaign trail where it could be appropriate. But in a vice-presidential debate, I want to see professionalism.

Palin did very well last night and I got to be honest, I feel those complaining about the winking are trying to draw us away from her actual performance.

To be honest, I see things like the winking the and the cutesy behavior as being an attempt to bolster arguments she couldn't really support.

The problem I'm seeing is a woman running for office cannot win no matter what she does. Hillary Clinton tried to be just like a man in a man's world and was criticized for not being womanly enough. Sarah Palin is herself and that's too cutesy in this man's world. I'm not a Clinton fan by any means, but let each be how they want to be. It doesn't change how they would run the country.

As long as you ignore the Article 1 v/s Article 2 (http://minx.cc/?post=274758)mix-up, the France and the US kicking Hezbolla out of Lebanon (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/mother-of-all-gaffes/)mistake, the he never said he'd meet without preconditions lie, the I never said I opposed coal plants (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/video-biden-says-no-coal-plants-in-america/) clarification, and the complete mis-characterization of his position on Iraq, and I can see how he came across as knowledgeable. Of course he was creating his own reality, but what do facts matter when you're a Constitutional scholar and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee?

"Hot Air" is an apt name for your source. FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html) didn't cover much of that. I assume because it's inconsequential. Their take on clean coal ended up as a lie on McCain's part for using it in an ad.

I do have to admit that mentioning a restaurant in Wilmington that's struggling because of the Bush economic policies, thats been closed for 15 years (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/you-can-find-anything-you-want-except-katies-restaurant/) was a bit of a slip up.

Joe misspoke. So did the guy on the audio with your Hot Air blogger. Katie's was originally located at the corner of Sixth and Scott streets in Wilmington's Little Italy neighborhood, where Union Street also happens to be. It has gone through several changes of ownership, but it's still there - now known as Wings to Go at Katie's. Delaware Online (http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/secondhelpings/2008/10/joe-gives-delaware-shout-outs.html) even has a recent picture of the inside of the place.

Nice job, Hot Air, of demonstrating "got'cha" journalism at its worst.

ETA:

Here's another blooper from your guy at Hot Air:

Article I, Section 3 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) of the United States Constitution reads thus:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

The problem I'm seeing is a woman running for office cannot win no matter what she does. Hillary Clinton tried to be just like a man in a man's world and was criticized for not being womanly enough. Sarah Palin is herself and that's too cutesy in this man's world. I'm not a Clinton fan by any means, but let each be how they want to be. It doesn't change how they would run the country.But Palin still came across as using her charm to get people interested in her and didn't answer many of the questions. She talked around them or diverted them. I also didn't feel that Hilary "tried to be just like a man" either.

Palin did do good, no doubt, but she was overdonig it with the charm thing, but I feel that Hilary would've stuck to the issues, which is what I know I would've wanted to hear.

That aside, in the regard of how Palin seemed to portray herself, I'm in agreement with DancingMaenid.

Palin did do good, no doubt, but she was overdonig it with the charm thing, but I feel that Hilary would've stuck to the issues, which is what I know I would've wanted to hear.

That aside, in the regard of how Palin seemed to portray herself, I'm in agreement with DancingMaenid.

So am I. Palin "did do good," yes, but the bar was set so low for her that all she really had to do was not embarrass herself again. As for what she brings to the ticket, we're still in the dark.

ETA:

Watch her reading from her notes:

pZ7Fp6QH150

The problem I'm seeing is a woman running for office cannot win no matter what she does. Hillary Clinton tried to be just like a man in a man's world and was criticized for not being womanly enough. Sarah Palin is herself and that's too cutesy in this man's world. I'm not a Clinton fan by any means, but let each be how they want to be. It doesn't change how they would run the country.

Well, personally, I was never one of the people who criticized Hilary for not being "womanly" enough. Being womanly and being professional and serious are not opposite traits. You should be able to be yourself in a professional manner.

I liked the call out to her brother's third grade class - I though it made her seem more like the neighbor next door instead of some figurehead in Washington.

Quite frankly my neighbours (nice people that they are) are the last people I'd want in the White House.

It's a big job being President.

Well, personally, I was never one of the people who criticized Hilary for not being "womanly" enough. Being womanly and being professional and serious are not opposite traits. You should be able to be yourself in a professional manner.I agree completely with this. Palin wasn't coming across as professional in this regard. Too bad we won't get anymore VP debates. IMO, at this point, I feel that the VP choices are more important than the Presedential ones. We need to have more exposure to Palin, imo, to truly see what she's about. I feel that she needs another debate so that she can, hopefully, answer all of the questions this time without talking around them or diverting her answers back to something dealing with energy, even if it wasn't the subject of discussion.

Quite frankly my neighbours (nice people that they are) are the last people I'd want in the White House.

It's a big job being President.

I think it's a difficult balance. It's good for politicians to be able to relate to the common person and come across as likeable. Palin seems to have this effect, and I'll be the first to admit that she usually has a friendly persona.

However, there's a reason why your average person doesn't become President (or vice-president). As you say, it's a big job. I don't want the guy/gal next door--I want someone who seems to know what they're talking about.

I think it's good for politicians to be able to be friendly and personable, but a more casual persona is better suited for more casual events. If Palin were making a stop on the campaign trail to attend a rally, maybe her behavior would fit in just great. But I do like to see some seriousness at the debates. It tells me that the candidate is serious.

Ok. I just want to add my two cents...

I see a lot of discussion about Palin's winking during the debate.
I personally saw the winking as being inappropriate and just plain cheesy, to tell you the truth. To me, winking is an action that's done in a light and joking manner. With her winking, it just made her seem less serious about the issues she was SUPPOSED to be discussing. (Emphasis on the "supposed" because I was quite unflattered how she constantly answered one thing when being asked about another, kept bringing up the issues she wanted to talk about rather than the issues she was being asked about or was supposed to be responding to.)
One thing that really bothers me is when some people insist that Palin won the debate because she had more "personality" and "charm."
The country is in pretty bad condition right now. Is it more important to support someone who is constantly trying the be cutesy, winking, talking about "Joe Sixpack", trying to use rhyming catch-phrases ("What do you know, Joe?"), and most of all---who cannot discuss any SPECIFIC policy plans to improve the state of our country...OR someone who actually knows their facts and can discuss a plan?
I apologize, but all I saw was Palin saying in so many words was "McCain and I are about change! Obama and Biden need to stop criticizing Bush.That's pointing backward." --- I want to know some specifics about their policies. And if I'm not mistaken, Bush is still in office and is making a pretty big impact on the state of our country right now...an impact that's going to last quite a while. I'd hardly dismiss Bush as "the past" just yet. The majority of Americans want to know what is going to be done to fix what Bush has done for the past 8 years; if McCain and Palin are not willing to look at what Bush has done because he is "the past"...then what exactly are they planning to do? How can they talk about "change" if they aren't looking BACK at what needs to be changed?


And another thing, I'm sorry, but I was just outraged at Palin's comment about Biden's deceased wife. That was out of line. My mother and I were absolutely apalled. We saw Biden get emotional, and for Palin to, in my opinion, speak very lightly in saying, "God bless her soul, her award is in Heaven, right?" almost in a joking manner (that's how I percieved it, she was entirely too nonchalant)...that just rubbed me and a lot of people I know the wrong way.

Biden won the debate hands down. There is a reason that he is the percieved winner by over 50%. I don't care how low the stadards/expectations were for Palin, she didn't step up to the plate in my opinion.

I hope I haven't offended anyone too much. Hopefully I don't get any warnings for "bashing" because I am not bashing. I just needed to vent my honest opinions. :relax:

And another thing, I'm sorry, but I was just outraged at Palin's comment about Biden's deceased wife. That was out of line. My mother and I were absolutely apalled. We saw Biden get emotional, and for Palin to, in my opinion, speak very lightly in saying, "God bless her soul, her award is in Heaven, right?" almost in a joking manner (that's how I percieved it, she was entirely too nonchalant)...that just rubbed me and a lot of people I know the wrong way.
To be fair, I think she was talking about his current wife, who is alive and I believe a teacher. Perhaps a little nonchalant considering he had lost a wife before, but not as bad as if she had been speaking about his first wife.

I wasn't outraged by her comment about Biden's wife, but I thought it was clumsy & not the type of communication I would want to see with foreign leaders. Also weird with the death connotation.

Winking may be a ticket characteristic.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/41910/thumbs/s-WINKER-large.jpg

To be fair, I think she was talking about his current wife, who is alive and I believe a teacher. Perhaps a little nonchalant considering he had lost a wife before, but not as bad as if she had been speaking about his first wife.

Hmm. I apologize then. I've been looking over her remark and it does seem that she was talking about his current wife. However, it still rubs me the wrong way because afterwards, she just had to say "Her reward is in Heaven, right?" Regardless though, her comment was still inappropriate because it brings up the memory of his first wife. Now, I feel like she was saying "Your wife will be rewarded in Heaven (like your first wife was...)"
I guess that's why the comment irritates me so much; it touches on a subject that is clearly still very painful for Biden and I just thought it was inappropriate for Palin to bring it up.

Queen Latifiya (sp?) will play Gwen Ifill on SNL this weekend in their VP debate sketch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/queen-latifah-as-gwen-ifi_n_131725.html

I guess that's why the comment irritates me so much; it touches on a subject that is clearly still very painful for Biden and I just thought it was inappropriate for Palin to bring it up.

Might have been an attempt to get Joe to lose his cool.

My friend, an attorney, says Gwen DID help the Obama ticket by changing the subject right after Joe made a good point, so the point stood.

I said, "but Palin wasn't listening to her, even if she had tried to do the same for Palin, she didn't let Gwen change the subject".

He also said that Gwen moved on once for Palin, but Joe brought the subject back to respond, whereas Palin "went solo" of the moderator. He said that it showed Joe had more experience than Palin. He wants to vote for Biden for President now.

I said. "you have to give credit to the Obama team, Joe has never looked so good, they did an excellent job prepping him".

My friend denied that, and said Joe had all the experience he needed.

I felt that standing beside Joe as he fought back tears, and then jumping right in with yet another "maverick" comment all but destroyed the friendly persona she worked so hard to convey during the debate. It was a touching moment for much of the audience, I bet, and she was not moved by it. How strange!

I definitely think she was trying to divert audience attention from Joe's moving demonstration of emotional pain.

Leno on Palin: "Did you see all that winking? For a moment I thought McCain had been captured again & was trying to send a message."

Well, personally, I was never one of the people who criticized Hilary for not being "womanly" enough. Being womanly and being professional and serious are not opposite traits. You should be able to be yourself in a professional manner.I'm glad. The media did a good job of making fun of her for crying and not crying, wearing pant suits... Palin doesn't do any of that stuff so she's now picked on for being too much of a woman.

Palin is a very professional woman and I think all this talk of her not being professional is to sidetrack us from the fact that she did really well at the debate no matter where the bar was set.

No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and)

I'm glad. The media did a good job of making fun of her for crying and not crying, wearing pant suits... Palin doesn't do any of that stuff so she's now picked on for being too much of a woman.

Palin is a very professional woman and I think all this talk of her not being professional is to sidetrack us from the fact that she did really well at the debate no matter where the bar was set.

I really don't see much criticism about Palin being "too womanly." The criticism I see about her mainly focuses on how she just doesn't seem like she knows what she is talking about and her inability to answer questions that she's asked.
Being a woman doesn't have to mean being overly emotional. But being Human requires having some emotion...and her complete lack of emotion when someone is standing directly across from her discussing something that's painful, I'm sorry but that just shows lack of humanity.
It may be pretty obvious that I'm no fan of Palin, but if I was somewhere with her and she was emotional about a loss she'd experienced, I would feel sympathetic towards her, no matter if she was an opponent or not. That's a natural human response, not a "womanly" one. The way she handled it was just tacky.

Palin doesn't do any of that stuff so she's now picked on for being too much of a woman.
No. She's being picked on for poor interviews, and responses that ramble on...and on...and are not saying anything.

Yeah, we understand she has children. Check. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/zwinker.gif
She was in the PTA. Check. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/zwinker.gif
Soccer mom...ok. Check. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/zwinker.gif
Child with Down's Syndrome. Got that. Check. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/zwinker.gif

Well golly gee...do we have to such regurgitation every time she speaks? She has become a punch line. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/zwinker.gif
We all get the idea she's a woman. Now she needs to show that she's a woman who is prepared to be VP. Because only those who are already voting for McCain will opt to see that.

She is certainly not doing her party any favors.

I really don't see much criticism about Palin being "too womanly." The criticism I see about her mainly focuses on how she just doesn't seem like she knows what she is talking about and her inability to answer questions that she's asked.

It's all over this thread that she acted too "cutesy", according to Obama supporters. Palin gets more criticism than everyone else. Is it because she's new to the media? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's running against the liberal media's favored ticket?

Two things:
1. Let's ease off the tension a bit - i can feel it building...; and
2. Remember to make sure to phrase things as your own opinion, rather than fact.

Monday morning we'll start focusing on the next Pres debate, which is coming up Tuesday.

It's all over this thread that she acted too "cutesy", according to Obama supporters. Palin gets more criticism than everyone else. Is it because she's new to the media? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's running against the liberal media's favored ticket?

No, it's not because she's a new to the media.
No, it's not because she's a woman.
Does she act cutesy? Yes.
Is that a problem? Yes...(in my opinion) only because she's trying to use being "cutesy" to distract from how she doesn't know what she's talking about and can't answer the questions she's asked.

All in my opinion, of course. ;)

I'm glad. The media did a good job of making fun of her for crying and not crying, wearing pant suits... Palin doesn't do any of that stuff so she's now picked on for being too much of a woman.

I do believe that there are some people who will never feel satisfied with a woman in power. There can be a double-standard sometimes, and I think you're right that a woman can't win sometimes.

If people are motivated to dislike Palin because she seems feminine to them, then I personally feel that's wrong. But I'm not convinced that's the case.

I think there are two issues at the heart of this: 1) What constitutes "womanly" behavior and 2) What is appropriate debate conduct. I don't agree that Palin's debate persona was necessarily womanly by nature or wholly appropriate.

Her conduct actually reminded me of Bush a bit, so it wasn't a matter of her being a woman. I remember when I watched the 2004 debates, particularly the town hall one, I was really turned off by Bush's attempts to come across as disarming. Instead of seeming disarming, they came off as condescending and overly-cute to me. Just like Sarah Palin's behavior came off to me on Thursday. The impression I got Thursday was the same impression that I got in the 2004 Bush-Kerry debate: that the candidate in question was underestimating the American public by trying to dumb things down.

How did her conduct remind you of Bush?

How did her conduct remind you of Bush?

She stated her argument pretty clearly in the last paragraph of her post.

For something that might help illustrate it more vividly try reading this 1999 feature on George Bush: "All Hat, No Cattle: We warned you! Look back at our 1999, pre-primary assessment of George W. Bush (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6482734/all_hat_no_cattle)." Palin seems to be channeling Bush an awful lot these days.

Rolling Stone is very liberal, so much that it makes me sick. Anyway, it's just an opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. I don't see how you can say she's like Bush. Well, I can see how you can say it, but I don't see how you can believe it.

Alright, let's tie this back into the debate - strict comparisons of Bush to Palin aren't exactly on-topic.

Rolling Stone is very liberal, so much that it makes me sick. Anyway, it's just an opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. I don't see how you can say she's like Bush. Well, I can see how you can say it, but I don't see how you can believe it.
I can see it (yes, this will be tied back into the wider debate):

- Palin is a governor who is running as a person who can work with the opposing party (as she did in Alaska and Bush did in Texas), but has been sharply partisan since her advent on the national stage

- Palin is anti-environment and from a territorially large oil-rich state

- She is running as a "maverick reformer"; Bush ran as a "reformer with results"

- She's fighting the election more on a culture war than on plaform - attacking the press, making "small-town values" and identity the centerpiece of her campaign, and scorning education and familiarity with the issues as 'elitist'. In short, she is treating a lack of qualifications as a qualification in itself. Bush fought both of his elections substantially on culture wars.

- She does not merely lack knowledge, but has shown no sign of desiring to become more informed on complex issues like Iraq and economic policy, preferring the mantras that the Democrats want "surrender" and that taxes will kill jobs. (Really? The Bush tax cuts haven't created them; they certainly haven't improved on the pre-tax-cut Clinton administration.) She's repeating Bush's talking points.

- Since being picked as VP, she's shown the same antipathy for any sort of transparency (in the Troopergate scandal) or openness with the public that has been characteristic (IMO) of the Bush Administration. She has not held a single press conference, while the other candidates have held many - or, if she wants to get around the 'media filter', even a single televised, unscripted town hall meeting.

- She's playing up the "frontier" imagery like Bush with his cowboy style; if you listen to her in the Alaska debates, she didn't have the accent she's putting on now for show.

- If you check her latest statements on Obama, she's taken to Swiftboat and character-attack politics with zeal.

Let me be clear. My problem is not a lack of "experience". A two-year governor could theoretically be a good VP; it's not like Huckabee had massive amounts of foreign policy experience. My problem is lack of interest and lack of knowledge. She had never displayed interest in foreign policy prior to her selection as VP, or interest in the policy aspects of big domestic issues like health or education. In the Couric interviews, she showed less comprehension of things like the war in Afghanistan, or the credit crisis, than I have - and I'm no expert.

My other problem is that she's been shamelessly dishonest on things like opposing the bridge to nowhere, even after her statements were shown to be untrue.

I can see it (yes, this will be tied back into the wider debate):

- Palin is a governor who is running as a person who can work with the opposing party (as she did in Alaska and Bush did in Texas), but has been sharply partisan since her advent on the national stage

- Palin is anti-environment and from a territorially large oil-rich state

- She is running as a "maverick reformer"; Bush ran as a "reformer with results"

- She's fighting the election more on a culture war than on plaform - attacking the press, making "small-town values" and identity the centerpiece of her campaign, and scorning education and familiarity with the issues as 'elitist'. In short, she is treating a lack of qualifications as a qualification in itself. Bush fought both of his elections substantially on culture wars.

- She does not merely lack knowledge, but has shown no sign of desiring to become more informed on complex issues like Iraq and economic policy, preferring the mantras that the Democrats want "surrender" and that taxes will kill jobs. (Really? The Bush tax cuts haven't created them; they certainly haven't improved on the pre-tax-cut Clinton administration.) She's repeating Bush's talking points.

- Since being picked as VP, she's shown the same antipathy for any sort of transparency (in the Troopergate scandal) or openness with the public that has been characteristic (IMO) of the Bush Administration. She has not held a single press conference, while the other candidates have held many - or, if she wants to get around the 'media filter', even a single televised, unscripted town hall meeting.

- She's playing up the "frontier" imagery like Bush with his cowboy style; if you listen to her in the Alaska debates, she didn't have the accent she's putting on now for show.

- If you check her latest statements on Obama, she's taken to Swiftboat and character-attack politics with zeal.

Let me be clear. My problem is not a lack of "experience". A two-year governor could theoretically be a good VP; it's not like Huckabee had massive amounts of foreign policy experience. My problem is lack of interest and lack of knowledge. She had never displayed interest in foreign policy prior to her selection as VP, or interest in the policy aspects of big domestic issues like health or education. In the Couric interviews, she showed less comprehension of things like the war in Afghanistan, or the credit crisis, than I have - and I'm no expert.

My other problem is that she's been shamelessly dishonest on things like opposing the bridge to nowhere, even after her statements were shown to be untrue.

:tu: Well said.

Rolling Stone is very liberal, so much that it makes me sick. Anyway, it's just an opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. I don't see how you can say she's like Bush. Well, I can see how you can say it, but I don't see how you can believe it.

Though WarriorEowyn brought up political similarities, my main point was in how her personality came across and how the things that annoyed me about her were similar to things that annoyed me about Bush during the '04 debates, showing that, for me at least, it has nothing to do with gender.

In the town hall debate of '04, Bush and Kerry were talking about the logging industry. At one point, Bush chuckled and said something like, "Ha, would anyone here like to buy some wood?" cracking a joke while defending himself against one of Kerry's allegations. It bothered me because I felt he was making light of the topic.

I got a similar vibe from Palin in the debate. She seemed to be trying to make up for her lack of knowledge by creating a good, hometown girl persona, and I think it's something people either loved or hated. Personally, I hated it because I want to see candidates who will take the issues seriously and address them in a way that answers the questions.


Let me be clear. My problem is not a lack of "experience". A two-year governor could theoretically be a good VP; it's not like Huckabee had massive amounts of foreign policy experience. My problem is lack of interest and lack of knowledge. She had never displayed interest in foreign policy prior to her selection as VP, or interest in the policy aspects of big domestic issues like health or education. In the Couric interviews, she showed less comprehension of things like the war in Afghanistan, or the credit crisis, than I have - and I'm no expert.


I think that sums it up well. For me, experience itself has never been super important. That's why I'm willing to support Obama. What's important to me is that someone demonstrates knowledge, intelligence, and good sense. I haven't seen that from Palin so far and the debate did little to help.

- She's fighting the election more on a culture war than on plaform - attacking the press, making "small-town values" and identity the centerpiece of her campaign, and scorning education and familiarity with the issues as 'elitist'. In short, she is treating a lack of qualifications as a qualification in itself. Bush fought both of his elections substantially on culture wars.

That's the bit that sours me most on her, just as it soured me on Bush four years and eight years ago. For that matter, I think McCain is pretty shallow in terms of knowledge. The Washington Post ran a story this morning that quoted a senior McCain adviser making this unfortunate statement:

"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days. We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."

Get that? They want to "turn the page" on the nation's worst financial crisis since the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression that followed it.

What's more, the "turning the page" line seems awfully flip. Why entrust McCain to steer our economy out trouble if his own top adviser admits that McCain and company don't want to talk about solving the crisis and are hoping to merely "turn the page" on it?

Per ABC news, one thing Palin said in the debate, that she was FOR the divestment from Darfur of the Alaska Heritage Fund is completely false. Apparently her office opposed the bill.

When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur.
... In January 2008, a bill known as HB 287 was introduced into the Alaska House of Representatives restricting investments in companies that do business with Sudan. During a committee hearing in February, a Palin administration representative, deputy revenue commissioner Brian Andrews, testified against the legislation on the grounds that it would do nothing to help “the afflicted in Sudan,” and would add to the fund’s administrative costs.

http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/palin-was-against-darfur-divestment-before-she-was-for-it/
“I do appreciate that they listened and ultimately changed their position, but it was too late for the bill to pass,” Mr. Gara said. “It’s perfectly black and white that they killed the bill in the House.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/?ref=politics

My sister called me from Canada to say that the SNL skit of the debate is a must watch.

It's all over this thread that she acted too "cutesy", according to Obama supporters. Palin gets more criticism than everyone else. Is it because she's new to the media? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's running against the liberal media's favored ticket?If a man had behaved as she had, he would not have been taken seriously. She is campaigning to be a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72-year-old man who has had four cancers. The likelihood of her becoming President is greater than most VPs. However, she acted like she was still in the run for Miss Congeniality in a beauty contest. I cannot remember any female head of state who's bubbly and perky. It just isn't appropriate for the potential leader of the most powerful country in the world. It doesn't convey the right level of seriousness.

And that isn't sexism. It's just an acknowledgment of reality.

I don't care if she's bubbly, perky & folksy, if she ALSO knows some basic things like Supreme Court cases, bankruptcy laws, national issues etc. But perky, bubbly & folksy WITHOUT fundamental knowledge & wisdom makes my hair stand on end. It's just a distraction.

My issue was that her cutesy behavior was her way to deflect her inability to answer the questions or demonstrate any depth.

My issue was that her cutesy behavior was her way to deflect her inability to answer the questions or demonstrate any depth.

I agree. I think she realized she would have trouble with the questions, so she tried to spin it as being this nice, hometown gal who's somehow too good for the questions. I'm sure she's a great woman, but that isn't what I look for in a major government figure.

Here's video of Ifill discussing the debate with Tom Brokaw this morning on "Meet the Press." They touch on the Saturday Night Live skit, too.

dL5NoAPDY2s

Here's video of Ifill discussing the debate with Tom Brokaw this morning on "Meet the Press." They touch on the Saturday Night Live skit, too.
I really do understand her position, there is only so much she could do as a moderator. But she didn't have another job. Anyone can just read the questions. I know that Biden didn't necessarily do what she was looking for, but he stayed on the topic of the question at least and talked about the opposition ticket, if not the person debating him. And I'm sure that was a tactical decision, to let her sink or swim on her own merits and not appear aggressive or condescending about it. But she changed the topic and was very blunt about doing so. She didn't even pretend to transition gracefully, she just completely changed topics a number of times during the debate. And I feel like a lot of people would have just felt like they got lost during the debate, that perhaps it was over their heads, and what she was talking about related somehow they just didn't see. And it bothers me that a lot of people watch these debates to attempt to be informed and they end up getting lost in the processes and feeling like it takes a lot of work and effort just to understand what's going on. I'm not even saying I fill had to fact check her or point out when either candidate wasn't telling the complete truth, but to have at least attempted to push her to answer the questions would have been nice.

And my opinion of Palin's performance was very similar to David Gregory's in the piece. She didn't lose any voters during the debate, and that's what she needed to do.

:agree:

I think the right's bully pulpit paved the way for Palin to give a stump speech, rather than reply to questions in a debate, by setting Ifill up for trouble before the debate even began.

In your opinion they did :P

**************************

We're close enough now to Tuesday's Presidential debate that we can move on to talking about expectations for it. It's Town Hall style, which is rumored to be better for McCain than other formats.

So, back to the original thread rules:


Prior to the start of the debate, members can ask questions and give answers regarding the candidate stances on issues. For instance, if you wish to know Obama's stance on embryonic stem cell research or McCain's stance on gun control, you may ask and then whomever knows the answer can give it.
After the start of the debate, posting should focus on the debate and the performance of each candidate. Members can discuss the answers put forth by the candidates, but please stick close to what was actually brought up in the debate itself.
Based on member feedback, we will moderate this thread quite strictly. Off-topic and bashing comments will be removed at my discretion.

I watched a repeat of the debate today, and actually my opinion of Palin's performance improved. The first time through her not answering the questions, repeating herself, winking & folksy mannerisms really lost me.

Gwen Ifill was really peripheral. A machine could have spewed similar questions.

This time I heard more of the key words Palin was dropping and I can see why the right was satisfied with her performance, she did what she was sent out to do. I still found her manner with Joe Biden irritated me, and I hope it irritated the center & older voters too, but actually my impression of her debate performance has improved.

Re Town Halls

I have to rely on the moderators to weed out the ringers. I wouldn't mind if Obama had to answer a few of the questions about being Muslim, or Chicago Machine Politics, or the flag on his plane, or other crazy stuff like I do on the phone lines. I think Obama will do fine in this forum. I watched him in the primary do a wonderful job.

Rush Limbaugh's impression of the VP debate.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcoltop11.35513.ImageFile.jpg

I think the town hall style of debate is more interesting to watch, imo. I'm not saying this because McCain favors it. I'm saying it because I actually do find it more interesting.

I can see it (yes, this will be tied back into the wider debate):

- Palin is a governor who is running as a person who can work with the opposing party (as she did in Alaska and Bush did in Texas), but has been sharply partisan since her advent on the national stage

She's not running on her record of being bipartisan, she running on her record of reforming government - with her efforts to reform Alaskan government as a credential. The role of the VP is to give voice to the bulk of the attacks against the opposition.

- Palin is anti-environment and from a territorially large oil-rich state

How is she anti-environment? She believes that global warming is happening and cited a number of instances where Alaska has had to deal with the issue head on. She just disputes the extent to which it may or may not be the result of human activity. She also said that whether man has or has not caused global warming isn't as important as determining whether it can be reversed and what we can do to reverse it.

- She is running as a "maverick reformer"; Bush ran as a "reformer with results"

She is a reformer. It would be rather difficult for her to run as wanting to maintain the status quo when she has a reputation for turning the status quo on it's ear.

- She's fighting the election more on a culture war than on platform - attacking the press, making "small-town values" and identity the centerpiece of her campaign, and scorning education and familiarity with the issues as 'elitist'. In short, she is treating a lack of qualifications as a qualification in itself. Bush fought both of his elections substantially on culture wars.

The press deserves to be attacked. Their behavior and their integrity in this election has been frightening.

As to the culture-wars and small town values, what is it about commitment to faith and family that's so frightening or concerning? People in small towns and large cities have those same commitments. Why is wearing those values on your sleeve so concerning?

As for scorning education, please show me where she's done that. From what I've seen it's the liberal establishment that's attacked her because she lacks a pedigree and a degree from a Ivy League college. We've had Ivy League leaders for many years now and look where it's gotten us. Perhaps a little common sense would do us good.

- She does not merely lack knowledge, but has shown no sign of desiring to become more informed on complex issues like Iraq and economic policy, preferring the mantras that the Democrats want "surrender" and that taxes will kill jobs. (Really? The Bush tax cuts haven't created them; they certainly haven't improved on the pre-tax-cut Clinton administration.) She's repeating Bush's talking points.

As before, you'll need to present some evidence of her lack of intellectual curiosity. From what I've seen and heard she's well versed and knowledgeable on a multitude of topics and issues. Her knowledge of Iraq is certainly deep and much more acceptable, in my opinion, that the three state solution espoused by Senator Biden. Her grasp of economic issues is equally impressive. Guess what - jobs don't trickle up the economic ladder, they trickle down. Raising taxes does cut jobs. Had the Bush tax-cuts not been initiated many believe that the recession that followed September 11th would have been much longer and much deeper.

- Since being picked as VP, she's shown the same antipathy for any sort of transparency (in the Troopergate scandal) or openness with the public that has been characteristic (IMO) of the Bush Administration. She has not held a single press conference, while the other candidates have held many - or, if she wants to get around the 'media filter', even a single televised, unscripted town hall meeting.

Antipathy for transparency or unwillingness to be railroaded? You do have to wonder how transparent the investigation will be when the lead investigator was seen coming out of meetings with Obama operatives in Alaska and shortly thereafter announced that the investigation would amount to an October surprise (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gTYYuC2toh9wp8aiBtJYGPnS74IA). This, before he'd called or interviewed a single witness.

- She's playing up the "frontier" imagery like Bush with his cowboy style; if you listen to her in the Alaska debates, she didn't have the accent she's putting on now for show.

Depends on what she's saying. When she's responding in a more conversational tone the accent's there but it goes away when she discusses policy or agenda items.

- If you check her latest statements on Obama, she's taken to Swiftboat and character-attack politics with zeal.

The use of the phrase swift-boat implies that what she's conveyed is inaccurate. But her "attacks" of Obama have been spot on. He did have and does have a relationship with Ayres and Dohrn which has not been fully vetted by the press. Same with Tony Rezko. And there are lots of Fannie and Freddie and CRA skeletons in his closet that have yet to be noted by the press. The press, in it's zell to get Obama elected (in my opinion), has turned a blind eye toward Obama and some of the questionable judgments he's made. As long as the press continues to turn that blind eye, the burden of exposing these questionable judgments will fall to the McCain campaign.

She had never displayed interest in foreign policy prior to her selection as VP, or interest in the policy aspects of big domestic issues like health or education.

Where is the evidence of her lack of interest in these subjects. As a Governor she had to deal with the feet on the ground implications of programs like No Child Left Behind and SCHIP. She's experienced these programs first hand and had to develop and oversee programs implementing them. I'd say that gives her a unique perspective into the practical implications of legislation which a member of Congress fathom.

My other problem is that she's been shamelessly dishonest on things like opposing the bridge to nowhere, even after her statements were shown to be untrue.

That all depends on perspective. She did oppose the Bridge to Nowhere, and it was her opposition to it which finally killed in in Federal legislation. She did initially support it, and she willingly admits that. But after public opposition to the Bridge grew (both within and outside Alaska) she changed her mind. But funding for the bridge was still included in federal legislation and it was only removed when stood against the bridge.

Mom, is this all opinion or do you have links to support what you've said here? I'm not being catty in asking; I just want to know your sources. From everything I've read on Palin, Eowyn is spot on with what she posted.

Mom, as far as Ayers, Rezko and Wright--those have been discussed ad infinitum. This is why I do not believe they will hold much sway. All of these were around during the Primary and since. Under the current crisis of economics and confidence, the public appears to view these old stories as not very important. I understand they may be brought up tomorrow for the debate, so will post this link to the CNN fact-checker on Ayers (Verdict: Palin's recent accusations are false). I personally think it's another campaign mistake to believe any of these previous associations will find a foothold with independent and uncommitted voters. They basically seem to be worth anything to the base of voters that are already committed to McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

Another link about the how the public may or may not consider Ayers very important right now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100501816.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I'll leave that there only in preparation for tomorrow's debate and McCain's insinuations that he may be hitting these points tomorrow at the debate.

I, like many others, would much rather discuss the economy. That's definitely affecting us and it seems sure to affect us all.

I'm very interested in the plans to put more investment into alternative energies. As I've spoken of before, we life in a town where the largest windmill farm (GE and several minor companies) are operating and manufacturing electricity generating windmills. We have three major industries here: Cement plant (limestone mining and manufacturing), a Prison (lots of guards live here!) on the far side, then the Windmill farms (followed by all the minor, small businesses one would see in a small town).

I can say with quite a bit of certainty that investment into production of windmill energy and refinement of this industry to make it more effective for more people, would help OUR ECONOMY in this town to no end. If GE could enlarge their operations for new orders, we could have a lot of people taken off unemployment and commerce, housing and everything else doing well.

If you add to that the invaluable service of getting off foreign oil (which will also keep us safer and our economy more stable), I really hope to hear a lot more about alternatives (not just windmills, but solar, nuclear, natural gas, developing clean coal, new cars are retooling that industry, etc.).

Mom, as far as Ayers, Rezko and Wright--those have been discussed ad infinitum. This is why I do not believe they will hold much sway. All of these were around during the Primary and since. Under the current crisis of economics and confidence, the public appears to view these old stories as not very important. I understand they may be brought up tomorrow for the debate, so will post this link to the CNN fact-checker on Ayers (Verdict: Palin's recent accusations are false). I personally think it's another campaign mistake to believe any of these previous associations will find a foothold with independent and uncommitted voters. They basically seem to be worth anything to the base of voters that are already committed to McCain.

First of all, CNN's totally in the tank for Obama so I'd put about as much reliance on their fact checker as you would on Fox's. Palin's comment was true - Obama is friendly with Ayres and Ayres is a terrorist. (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-63886) He's not even a reformed terrorist and he's yet to apologize for the bombs he set and claims to this day that he didn't do enough. Heck - the guy was pictured on the cover of a magazine article about him standing on a crumpled American flag in a alley. Even if he's not actively setting bombs anymore, it's rather difficult to claim that he has any sort of respect for this country. (http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/bill_ayers_the_weather_underground_and_the_democra tic_party)

Second of all, Obama admits that he has a relationship with Ayres. Mayor Daley called the relationship friendly. (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/06/obamas-pals/
) Obama's political career was kicked off in Ayres' home. After just a few years as a community organizer Obama served as Chairman of a board Ayres established and the records from that board demonstrating the extent of their work together have been removed from public view.

Rezko is a big hole in Obama's life (http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article). Rezko was a slum lord who gave generously to Obama's various political campaigns. And Rezko isn't the only shady character with whom Obama associated.

Ken Smith was a former Obama fundraiser from his run for the state house. Obama steered a $100,000 grant to Smith to build botanical gardens in Chicago. Too bad those gardens haven't been built and Smith is now under investigation by the Ill. Attorney General. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/news/politics/illinois_eyes_bam__for_shady_garden_130758.htm)

Then there's Penny Pritzker, Obama campaign finance chair (http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/oct/06/penny-pritzker-another-friend-of-barry-we-sh/). Pritzker's family owns Superior Bank FSB, where she served as head of the Board from 1991-1994 and is still a director of the bank's holding company, Coast to Coast Financial Corp. The bank, unfortunately went belly up in 2001 for shoddy accounting and bookkeeping practices and sub-prime lending. And that woman is his national finance chair? No wonder the campaign has so many questionable contributions. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122324885800205919.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

It'd easy to blow off one of two questionable associations. But the list just goes on and on (http://archive.redstate.com/stories/archived/googling_obamas_character) and I can't help but wonder where it ends.

I, like many others, would much rather discuss the economy. That's definitely affecting us and it seems sure to affect us all.

OOO, I so hope we get to discuss the economy and the role CRA (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0), lawsuits against banks for failing to maintain a sufficient percentage of high risk mortgages to sub-prime borrowers (http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/), and protection of Fannie and Freddie (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html) played in this crisis.

Again, some may say that all of that is in the past a irrelevant. But I disagree. I think a Presidential candidates support for the practices that encouraged or forced financial institutions to make high risk loans and then encouraged taxpayer backed enterprises to buy and manage those loans is hugely relevant. Especially if the candidate is running largely on his judgement and it's his judgement that lead him to befriend and become financially involved with shady individuals (see above) and lead him to push for lawsuits against back because they didn't make enough high risk loans.

Let's move the parts of the discussion (that don't violate Morgoth's Mandate) not focused on the debate tomorrow night to the Obama or McCain thread. For now, I'd rather focus on expectations tomorrow night. I'm fine with saying "I think Obama will bring up Keating" or "I think McCain will bring up Ayers or Rezko", but kilometer posts about Keating, Ayers, Rezko, how the Red Sox are going to win the World Series, or life on Mars should all go elsewhere.

I think all town hall meetings have only ringers in the audience: I just hope there are some Ron Paul, Bob Barr, & even Nader people in there.

First of all, CNN's totally in the tank for Obama so I'd put about as much reliance on their fact checker as you would on Fox's.
Frankly, I haven't liked watching CNN lately because they have become too conservative. I think that MSNBC, except for Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, is in the tank for Obama.

However, it's known that Tom Brokaw, who will be moderating the town hall, is a McCain supporter.

Well, Mom--you just can't talk about modern economics without also discussing the contributions of Phil Gramm or Rick Davis, deregulation, Enron and the Keating five (previous Savings & Loan meltdown--a predicessor event). You might see those associations brought up in the debate, as well. Many voters are very nervous about McCain's associations with these people and events and trust isn't all that solid with many Americans concerning the Republican side at this point, relating to many of those issues.

I won't dwell further on this thread, at the moderator's request.

I do know that, if they speak of the future of energy, alternative energy, future utilities--that they also discuss the proper handling of these industries and proper regulation to avoid future issues as we had with Enron in California a few years ago.

McCain must attack tonight. He must clearly articulate his position on the issues, and why his plans are better than Obama's. People are fleeing to the Dems, not necessarily because they have a better plan IMO, but because it is the "other" party.

McCain must remind the voters that they have TWO CHOICES in this race, and neither is named George W. Bush.

And, unfortunately, he must remind voters why he believes Obama is unfit to be President. As much as the Dems want to continue to hide it, Obama is dragging some very nasty baggage behind him.

In the interest of not running afoul of Morgoth's mandate, I will refrain from posting provocative links and video here. For more info, tune in to your favorite MSM source.

Of course, I expect Mr. Obama to sling his own mud in response.

Keeping things focused on the debate, here are two topics which I'm guessing will come up tonight:

Ten bucks says McCain brings this up in tonight's debate. Take the time to note the logo in the bottom left corner - it's from CNN.

dvROBLortBQ

As for the Keating 5, I'm quite sure Obama will attempt to raise it, and I hope he does. The issue is a valid one to discuss. As John McCain has openly admitted, he made a mistake and that period in his life was one of the worst. He was fully exonerated by the Senate and spent the rest of his political career working to reform Washington.

So I do hope Obama brings that up. Ignoring the issue of scale, the S&L debacle in the 80's was nowhere near the almost $1.3 trillion the sub-prime lending mess has cost us thus far. There's also the fact that clearly, involvement in the Keating 5 isn't a disqualifier for Obama as John Glenn, who was also involved in the Keating 5 scandal, was on the stump for Obama yesterday. And the lessons of the Keating 5 about money and influence weren't lessons Obama took to heart as he was the second largest recipient of funds from Fannie and Freddie in just the three years he's served in office.

So I really hope all of that comes up in tonight's debate, because all of those points are valid in discussing judgement, integrity, and trustworthiness. Traits which I believe are vital for any person to be an effective leader.

However, it's known that Tom Brokaw, who will be moderating the town hall, is a McCain supporter.

Brokaw is a McCain supporter because he told NBC executives that Olberman and Matthews, two MSNBC anchors, were allowing their bias in favor of Obama to taint their reporting and that those two individuals were not appropriate as anchors of election night coverage but rather as commentators? Brokaw is a McCain supporter because he reassured the McCain campaign that he, a news anchor with what perhaps is the most biased liberal network, would provide unbiased moderating of the debate? Brokaw is a McCain supporter because he accurately reported the results of a poll which reflected poorly on Obama?

Well if that's all an anchor has to do to be a supporter of someone then what the heck are all of those other folks on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC? Because that list of actions that qualifies Brokaw as a McCain supporter has been repeated ten fold by anchors, commentators and news people at every network throughout this campaign in the favorable coverage they've provided about Obama. Even sports coverage where Olberman couldn't help but slam Palin in his football coverage this weekend.

Have we transferred the media bias discussion over here?

In the interest of being open and up-front before the debate, here's the rules in this thread regarding attacking the candidates via their associations, if it gets brought up tonight:
I will only allow "I agree with McCain's attack", "I disagree with McCain's attack", "I agree with Obama's attack", or "I disagree with Obama's attack". This applies to Keating, Ayers, Rezko, or any other attack that falls under the "you'll be a terrible president because you know ___". I don't want to see this thread get sidetracked into "your friends are worse than my friends".

I'm putting this up front now so that it doesn't appear that I am hampering one side or the other :lol:. After all, the debate hasn't happened yet.

Have we transferred the media bias discussion over here?

I understand your point, but Brokaw is moderating the debate tonight, just as Ifill moderated the VP debate last week. Is discussion of Brokaw's possible bias in favor of McCain appropriate here or should we move that to the media thread?

:hmm: Media thread's closed.

Brokaw is on-topic, rest of media not. Just like it was with Ifill. Good point. I do have faith that Brokaw will do well tonight and not display bias, so hopefully it's moot afterwards.

I do have faith that Brokaw will do well tonight and not display bias, so hopefully it's moot afterwards.

Me, too...and for the same reasons I felt the same about Ifill. They're professionals, and won't risk damaging their reputations by acting improperly.

Me, too...and for the same reasons I felt the same about Ifill. They're professionals, and won't risk damaging their reputations by acting improperly.

I hope so. I thought Ifill did a good job becoming invisible, much like Lehrer did previously. I wish she'd blown off the time requirements and let the candidates delve into topics in a bit more detail, and was disappointed that she didn't ask anything about energy, but she did a good job. If memory serves the town hall style debates don't require too much of the moderator. The questions were already selected by Gallup so all Brokaw has to do is point to the next questioner. All Brokaw has to do is make sure each candidate gets an opportunity to speak and stay out of the way.

Media thread's closed.

See, this is what happens when I only read the top few titles and don't look further down the page. Thanks for clarifying!

Two posts with little or nothing to do about the upcoming debate have vanished into the ether.

I'm keen to see how the candidates interact with voters and with each other. I have no idea what questions will be asked, but I anticipate an informative debate (though not necessarily because of the issues).

Notwithstanding whatever the layout of the set is, I want to see how McCain behaves around Obama in a setting where there may not be an invisible wall dividing them. I know McCain seems to convey himself well to people in intimate settings (well, that's what I've heard), but I think it's very important to note how he interacts with his adversary, since doing that well is a skill that I think a president must have in spades.

I also wonder if Obama will stay far away from the pitfalls of Gore and Kerry, especially when he speaks face-to-face with voters. I am vaguely aware of his oratorical skills, but can he relate to people when he has to make eye contact and speak to an audience of one? As someone who seems to have the opposite set of skills, I imagine it's not a slam dunk to cross over. Those who know Obama personally can probably attest to his personality, but voters are not the same as friends and colleagues.

Ultimately I think I'll be underwhelmed, but I can't wait to see what the broader America feels about it.

Obama is very warm and personable in town hall meetings. McCain's town hall meetings have been screened for partisans all along. He's used to getting softball questions from friendly crowds. McCain may do better in that kind of setting, but he won't get softball questions from partisans, and Obama will do just as well or better. And I think that the visceral dislike that McCain seems to have (based on his attitude in the last debate) for Obama will also show.

6:02 I will run naked in the street if I hear the word "paramedic"

Red & blue ties, appropriate.

First question. Obama has won.

Debate's over. More civil than I thought it would be.

Remember: Only stuff brought up in the debate is on-topic. Brokaw, especially since he was more interventionist than the previous two moderators, is still on topic.

Yeah, I'll delete or edit as needed, in accordance with all the rules I layed out.

All of those "associations" are now off-topic, too, since it wasn't brought up.

Obama won so handily. IMHO. McCain looks like he is unraveling.

For fun and as a change of pace, I decided to keep a score of things that don't really matter. I tracked seven different phenomena during the debate, and they are: Verbal errors, Platitudes, Zingers, Fallacies, Bad Jokes, "Did not answer", and Moderator interventions. These are based on imperfect observation and drinking game-style tallying. Don't take this seriously!

Verbal errors
Obama: 15
McCain: 17

Platitudes
Obama: 12
McCain: 18

Zingers
Obama: 5
McCain: 3

Fallacies
Obama: 10
McCain: 11

Bad Jokes
Obama: 1
McCain: 6

"Did not answer"
Obama: 6
McCain: 5

Moderator Intervention
10

Overall I think they were pretty even, so the undecided nitpicker probably hasn't made any decisions based on this debate.

[off topic i'm allowed] that's really impressive research there :yuhup:[/off topic]

My own quick thoughts: close to a draw, which in the big picture favors Obama. He seems well-prepared for each debate, and that seems to be all he needs to be doing now.

How many "my friends" ? I don't drink but some days I think I should.

Also, McCain referring to Obama as "that one" is front page of Huff Post.
It got a lot of mention on Indecision2008 site. I think it will have cost McCain the middle.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/that-one-mccain-calls-oba_n_132802.html

MS-NBC had their own focus group - interesting.

I think this debate was the most boring so far. Both candidates pretty much just rehashed what they did from their first debate. I am undecided and this debate did not have the desired effect I was personally hoping for.

Canis, you amaze me, dude! :lol:

I think Obama won this one hands-down. I was watching the graph thingy on the bottom of the screen a couple of times and he sent women off the chart on several occasions... while McCain's responses sort of flat-lined.

That said, I noted some good points for both.

McCain was at least looking at Obama.


Obama's riff on the Republican fiscal profligacy was important. It's vital not to let voters forget the Republican responsibility for our fiscal mess.


I liked McCain on entitlement reform, but his refusal to prioritize among healthcare, energy and entitlement reform and insist we can do everything at once didn't work for me.


I gave McCain marks for bringing up earmarks, but Obama had to make the point that earmarks are trivial in the greater context of the federal budget. They're just an empty Republican talking point. This mess we're in is largely the fault of policy - a Republican president's policies - and there aren't many ways to sugarcoat that fact.


Obama hit his response on the question of sacrifice of citizens out of the park. He was able to ask for sacrifice without seeming like a scold or a doom-sayger. That's tough. And his insistence that he too favors off-shore drilling, reveres military service, and stating that he wants others to shoulder some of the burden now born by the military was pitch perfect. At this point in the debate (around 9:30 PM EDT), I was sure this debate was overwhelmingly in Barack's favor, that was was winning on substance, crispness and authority.


I wondered quite a few times why McCain kept walking around on stage while Obama was speaking. Made him look like he had ADD or something.


McCain: "Obama will find you." What the heck? He was treating Barack like the boogeyman. McCain came off looking paranoid. Barack's response about his mother was very powerful.


It could have been a strong moment for McCain when he cited "no on the job training" in the White House - until you recall that he picked Sarah Palin! She can't even hold a press conference and he thinks she can be trusted with national security at a moment's notice. It makes no more sense now than it did when he announced her as his pick.


When is the last time you heard a Democratic candidate say something like: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda?"


:sigh: On Israel and Iran, McCain's invocation of a "league of democracies" as the answer was bizarre. Obama's answer was very political and very persuasive. I just don't believe we can stop Iran, although Obama's answer on gasoline imports was both specific and smart.


Finally, I think this debate was a mauling: a devastating and possibly fatal electoral mauling for McCain. I realize McCain's partisans won't agree with that take, but in terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this debate was not just been an Obama victory. It was a wipe-out. Maybe as big a wipe-out as I can remember seeing in a presidential debate. I don't really see how McCain can survive this one.

This was supposed to be McCain's night. He is best in town hall meetings, it is said, but the format didn't work for him tonight. The candidates can ignore the moderator if they choose, but it really isn't possible to blow off a voter asking a question. And these voters weren't the carefully screened ringers McCain is used to confronting in his town halls. What this meant for McCain in real terms is that he couldn't easily pivot to attacking Barack Obama.

McCain had to continually explain his plans and proposals, which left him with only the substance of his answers, and McCain's fundamental problem in this election is that the specifics of his policy agenda are simply not responsive to the urgency of the moment.

Not surprising that the Obama supporters on this site think Obama won.

I think McCain did the best job of answering the questions while Obama seemed on the defense, trying to defend himself against what McCain said. Brokaw actually had to get Obama to stop so they could move on to the next question. McCain seemed more in touch with the people and more like he was talking to the people. Obama seemed more like he was talking to the moderator and the camera.

To turn that around, I'd expect most McCain supporters thought he won. In the absence of a wipeout, it's just the nature of the beast. Myself, I thought a draw, which functions as an Obama win.

CNN "Snap Poll:"

Who did the best job in the debate?

McCain (R) 30
Obama (D) 54

Opinion of Barack Obama (before debate)

Favorable: 64 (60)
Unfavorable: 34 (38)

Opinion of John McCain (before debate)

Favorable: 51 (51)
Unfavorable: 46 (46)

Who expressed his views more clearly in the debate?

Obama 60
McCain 30

Who spent more time attacking his opponent?

Obama 17
McCain 63

Who seemed to be the stronger leader?

Obama 54
McCain 43

Who was most likeable?

Obama 65
McCain 28

These are voters speaking here, not TV talking heads.

CBS "Snap Poll:"

Who won?

McCain (R) 27
Obama (D) 39
Draw 35

Will Obama will make the right decisions on the economy?

Before debate: 54
After debate: 68

Will McCain will make the right decisions on the economy?

Before debate: 41
After debate: 49

Here's video of "that one."

ed-k1xOCsMs

This was a good moment for Obama:

zAR8K2KCiGc

Obama's riff on the Republican fiscal profligacy was important. It's vital not to let voters forget the Republican responsibility for our fiscal mess. It's important not to let the voters forget that the economy didn't take such a drastic fall until after Pelosi and the Democrats took hold of Congress. Remember that.

I liked McCain on entitlement reform, but his refusal to prioritize among healthcare, energy and entitlement reform and insist we can do everything at once didn't work for me. Why doesn't it work for you? I think it's a good answer. We can work on all three at once. I think saying we can't is a way of say that you don't want to.


I gave McCain marks for bringing up earmarks, but Obama had to make the point that earmarks are trivial in the greater context of the federal budget. They're just an empty Republican talking point. This mess we're in is largely the fault of policy - a Republican president's policies - and there aren't many ways to sugarcoat that fact. Obama may have said earmarks are trivial, but that doesn't make it true. Getting rid of earmarks will definitely help and right now we need all the help we can get. Don't blame this on the Republican president when Congress has been controlled by the DEMOCRATS for the last two years.

I wondered quite a few times why McCain kept walking around on stage while Obama was speaking. Made him look like he had ADD or something. I did not see McCain walk around a lot while Obama spoke. Please don't attack one of the candidates simply because you do not support him.


McCain: "Obama will find you." What the heck? He was treating Barack like the boogeyman. McCain came off looking paranoid. Barack's response about his mother was very powerful. No, he was no treating Barack like the boogeyman and no he did not come off looking paranoid. You need to stop with the false accusations, please.


It could have been a strong moment for McCain when he cited "no on the job training" in the White House - until you recall that he picked Sarah Palin! She can't even hold a press conference and he thinks she can be trusted with national security at a moment's notice. It makes no more sense now than it did when he announced her as his pick. I'll point out that if McCain wins it will no on the job training in the WHITE HOUSE. Does the VP live in the White House? No.


Finally, I think this debate was a mauling: a devastating and possibly fatal electoral mauling for McCain. I realize McCain's partisans won't agree with that take, but in terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this debate was not just been an Obama victory. It was a wipe-out. Maybe as big a wipe-out as I can remember seeing in a presidential debate. I don't really see how McCain can survive this one. Everything that is being said about this debate disagrees with you. It was not a knockout for either candidate, but McCain did a great job. He was personable. He spoke to the people. This debate was not an Obama victory and this is the only place where I have seen anyone say that. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. :sigh:

This was supposed to be McCain's night. He is best in town hall meetings, it is said, but the format didn't work for him tonight. The candidates can ignore the moderator if they choose, but it really isn't possible to blow off a voter asking a question. And these voters weren't the carefully screened ringers McCain is used to confronting in his town halls. What this meant for McCain in real terms is that he couldn't easily pivot to attacking Barack Obama. McCain did a great job. I wish you could let go of your dislike of him for one second and see what he's truly doing.

What I find Obama does is he says what needs to be done but he doesn't say how he's going to do it. It's great the he recognizes the problems, but it doesn't matter if he doesn't have a solution.

You can post all the "snap polls" you want to, purple, but you must remember that those two you've posted, CNN and CBS are very liberal and the majority of their viewers and the participants in the polls will be liberal so the results will be skewed. You can't base anything off them, honestly. Fox News doesn't have a poll up, but their forum (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/debate1_1007/) for discussion shows that the opinions are pretty even and that the two candidates basically came out tied. We can't tell anything from any of this since none of this is scientific.

It's important not to let the voters forget that the economy didn't take such a drastic fall until after Pelosi and the Democrats took hold of Congress. Remember that.

The Baghdad surge didn't start until after then too. You going to give them credit for that?

The Baghdad surge didn't start until after then too. You going to give them credit for that?

I would, but they don't seem to want to take credit for that. Oh well, their loss.

Please don't attack one of the candidates simply because you do not support him.Thanks for that advice, but I'll follow what the mods want. And I was under the impression that we can discuss the opposing candidate.

Obama may have said earmarks are trivial, but that doesn't make it true. Getting rid of earmarks will definitely help and right now we need all the help we can get. Don't blame this on the Republican president when Congress has been controlled by the DEMOCRATS for the last two years.


The biggest problem with earmarks may be that they are used to bribe legislators to vote for bills that they really do not support. If bills were held to one subject (or subject area in the case of budget omnibus bills), and legislators had to justify their votes to constiutents on merits instead of pork, we should get better bills.

I did not see McCain walk around a lot while Obama spoke. I did see him pacing around. And at one point I saw him wave his hand dismissively while Obama was speaking. He almost seemed to be stalking Obama at one point.

Thanks for that advice, but I'll follow what the mods want. And I was under the impression that we can discuss the opposing candidate.

My response was to purple saying that McCain looked like he had ADD.

When was McCain "prancing around"? I didn't see him "stalking" Obama like you said you thought he looked like. Is this important?

The biggest problem with earmarks may be that they are used to bribe legislators to vote for bills that they really do not support. If bills were held to one subject (or subject area in the case of budget omnibus bills), and legislators had to justify their votes to constiutents on merits instead of pork, we should get better bills.Exactly.

Since we can't line item veto you either have to vote the earmarks through if you want the bill to pass or you have to vote against the bill if you don't want to vote the earmarks through. It's not good.

I wish you could let go of your dislike of him for one second and see what he's truly doing.I was under the impression that we can like or dislike candidates. And we're always supposed to discuss the posts, not the posters. I'll leave the rest of this to the mods since thread logistics are their responsibility.

My response was to purple saying that McCain looked like he had ADD.Ok, but I felt like responding. I thought he looked like he had ADHD (my daughter had ADHD and could never sit still or stand in one place).

I thought there was a lot of repetition from the first debate, but in some ways I blame McCain (surprise!) because he seems to be repeating his talking points vs coming up with new material or answering the questions.

In the beginning at least I thought Obama was answering the questions, then I agree Obama went back to his "greatest hits" from first debate.

I wasn't impressed with McCain saying "he knows" how to do stuff. I would like him to communicate his plan & vision. Also, I really didn't understand him saying he would solve the crisis by buying up bad mortgages.

First, isn't that what the bail out plan was all about last week ?
Second, is that enough? We still have problems.

It seems to me that McCain finally figured out what last week's bailout was all about, but now is suggesting it as a new idea. It didn't make sense to me.

I have to say I also didn't like McCain refusing to state his priorities. To me "all of the above" is becoming "everything for everyone" and not a statement of vision or purpose. I thought Obama answered that one better.

Ooh, look, it's The Mods!!!

Bickering stops now. I won't edit or delete anything said up til now. However, check your tempers at the door, because I or another moderator will delete or edit things after this. You've all had your say regarding bias and you can or cannot say things, now time to get back to the issues, which shockingly the candidates largely stuck to.

Ok, but I felt like responding. I thought he looked like he had ADHD (my daughter had ADHD and could never sit still or stand in one place).
1. No, it didn't look like he had ADD.
2. [continued bickering removed by staff]

I thought there was a lot of repetition from the first debate, but in some ways I blame McCain (surprise!) because he seems to be repeating his talking points vs coming up with new material or answering the questions. Don't blame the moderator who chose the questions. It isn't McCain or Obama's fault that there was a lot of repitition. We just had repititious questions and they had to answer them. We didn't get the true town hall type of questions.

3. My impression was that he was very restless and tense. It was off-putting. It may not jibe with other views, but it's mine and, like everyone else, I am permitted to express it.

I thought he (McCain) looked like he had ADHD (my daughter had ADHD and could never sit still or stand in one place).

What really struck me was McCain's almost obliviousness to the camera. He regularly got in Obama's shot, or in front of Brokaw at the end. It seems a strange mistake for an experienced politician.

Given how courteous Joe Biden was with McCain during his debate, I thought McCain's "hair plug" reference was odd, as was John McCain's reference to gold plated health insurance plans. Who has such a great plan? Answer: members of Congress or rich people (both of whom are McCain). Very few others have the "luxury" of gold plated health insurance plans, and few use them to get rich. It's an odd notion that they should be taxed like money received, when they are not a benefit so much as to prevent calamity.

My impression is that he wasn't. He wasn't tense or restless. He seemed very comfortable. Both candidates seemed very comfortable. I think they both like the format of not having to stand behind a podium for an hour and a half.

BTW, at the end BOTH candidates got in the way of Brokaw.

Oh, Obama's a member of Congress, so he's gets what McCain gets from being a member of congress like "gold plated health insurance plans."

OK, people, you'll note I've deleted some posts. Let's quit arguing about pork, and earmarks, and how Congress works, and get back to discussing the debate.

I was struck by something I just saw on CNN. At the end of the debate, when Obama offered to shake McCain's hand, McCain ignored it.

Also, Obama stayed after the debate for quite some time and mingled with the crowd, but McCain left rather rapidly after shaking a few hands.

The candidates spoke within a few feet of each other, pacing on the floor at the center of a semi-circle of undecided voters. The two were mostly polite, but the strain of the campaign showed. At one point, McCain referred to Obama as "that one."

The two men criticized one another repeatedly as the topics turned to energy, spending, taxes, health care and foreign policy.

In one pointed confrontation on foreign policy, Obama bluntly challenged McCain's steadiness.

"This is a guy who sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' who called for the annihilation of North Korea -- that I don't think is an example of speaking softly."

That came after McCain accused him of foolishly threatening to invade Pakistan and said, "I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did."

What is weird about this, is that McCain's campaign announced their retreat from Michigan, and also their intention to go negative. Two big policy announcements, that many, even on GOP side, questioned the wisdom of. Whereas Obama's campaign keeps their mouths shut. This was like Bizarro world.

Some of the right-wingers have spoken:

We have a disaster here — which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case [...]

Great. Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.

If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.

With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I'm dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. "]What am I missing (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmFkOTk5MTNhZjVjMmYzYzhlY2RiYmQzN2Y3ZGZjMTg=)?

Nothing tonight on abortion, on corruption, on "associates." [...]

This was not a great night for our team (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmNkZmI4OTZhN2Q5MTE0MGM0NmQ3MDA2YWMyNzc3YjE=). It's up to the 527's now I think. I don't know how else to get the negatives about Obama out there.

That Was Very Nicely Done
I thought McCain's close was about as good as he gets. Honorable. Decent. Serious. Manly.

There's more at NRO online. Mark Steyn said he got an email from a member who pulled up the McCain-Palin sign in his yard.

ETA:

I was struck by something I just saw on CNN. At the end of the debate, when Obama offered to shake McCain's hand, McCain ignored it.

Also, Obama stayed after the debate for quite some time and mingled with the crowd, but McCain left rather rapidly after shaking a few hands.

He wouldn't shake Barack's hand? You know, this kind of rudeness undercuts his claim to being a consensus-builder - which he isn't, on the merits - but still...

I was struck by something I just saw on CNN. At the end of the debate, when Obama offered to shake McCain's hand, McCain ignored it.

Also, Obama stayed after the debate for quite some time and mingled with the crowd, but McCain left rather rapidly after shaking a few hands.

Others noticed this too. Frankly, I would have needed to go to the bathroom.

Some of the right-wingers have spoken:

We have a disaster here — which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case [...]

Great. Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.

If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.

With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I'm dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. "]What am I missing (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmFkOTk5MTNhZjVjMmYzYzhlY2RiYmQzN2Y3ZGZjMTg=)?

Purplehawk, the terrorist argument is a loser. That the right thinks this is the way to win just proves, to me, how out of touch they are with the mainstream. They are just listening to their own echo chamber. I think McCain made the right call in treating Obama with (relative) respect. I think McCain had the better judgment on this.

Well, I'm not going to say that McCain looked like he had ADHD, but he was wandering around while Obama was talking and I didn't think that was appropiate. Obama didn't walk around while McCain was talking...but anyway...

I think Obama conducted himself better during this debate. He did a better job explaining (and defending) his stances. I do think McCain did a better job during this debate than the first one. However, if he had conducted himself better, perhaps he would have helped his image some. Instead, he just seemed grumpy, attacking Obama, disrespecting Obama (calling him, "this guy"...are you serious, McCain? What was that?), and of course his catch phrase ("Obama doesn't understand...blah, blah), and even talking down to the audience. I thought it was a bit disrespectful to assume that that guy had never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Not to say Obama didn't get a little fiery himself and reacting to some of the things McCain said (and trying in vain to respond to McCain's comments while the moderater kept cutting him off). And there was repetition on both sides.
But overall, it was a victory for Obama.

I think Obama conducted himself better during this debate. He did a better job explaining (and defending) his stances. I do think McCain did a better job during this debate than the first one. However, if he had conducted himself better, perhaps he would have helped his image some. Instead, he just seemed grumpy, attacking Obama, disrespecting Obama (calling him, "this guy"...are you serious, McCain? What was that?)...

I think McCain did better in this debate, but I agree, Obama ALSO did better, so there was no change in result. Obama's town hall connection to the audience was the best I've ever seen him. Obama's talking to the individual voter was the best I've seen this season.

McCain's "Obama is afraid to town hall me" meme is so dead. McCain looked elderly & Obama vigorous.

I think Obama nearly lost his temper in there toward the end, but saved himself.

McCain Needed a Knockout (http://www.slate.com/id/2201762/) and he didn't get it.


After their second debate, both Barack Obama and John McCain shook hands with the Nashville audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Both were well-received. But Obama stayed longer, and with McCain out of the room, the affection from the swing voters increased. He was mobbed, patted, beamed at, embraced. One woman wiggled up next to him. At one point, about 15 voters posed for a group picture like it was the last day of camp. The "Nashville '08 Debate" T-shirts are in the mail.

These uncommitted voters wanted to be next to Barack Obama, and the adulation from the audience helps explain why he won the debate. In the post-debate polls on CNN and CBS, he was the clear winner, and he also won Fox's focus group.

Obama's likeability is good for him and bad for McCain, of course, but it also undercuts McCain's credibility. It exposes the picture McCain has been painting of Obama in the last few days as a caricature. Since McCain's slide in the polls, he has started personal attacks questioning Obama's character and values. "Who is the real Barack Obama?" McCain asks on the stump and in his ads. Sarah Palin says Obama isn't from "regular" America. He's out of the mainstream, aides regularly say.

That cartoon version of Obama didn't show up for the 90-minute debate Tuesday. If it had, those audience members would have been waving garlic as they fled from the room rather than sticking around so they could tell their neighbors about it.

Instead, what they saw was a Democrat saying, "We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida." He said he thought America was a force for good. Obama also got to repeat those elements of his biography—his mother's death from cancer and his modest upbringing—that contradict the image of him as a spooky alien.

-------------------------------------------------------------


The biggest Ow! of the debate came when McCain got finished misquoting (slightly) Teddy Roosevelt (as opposed to Reagan, his hero two minutes earlier) and saying that Obama talks too much stuff about other countries to be effective at negotiating our foreign policy.
Then McCain's wearing this grin in the background as Obama rattles off awful McCain line after awful McCain line like a machine gun (bomb bomb iran, next stop baghdad, etc). McCain's face literally melts.

Interestingly enough the Fox panel more or less said McCain came across as a petulant child, making snide remarks, refusing to look Obama in the eye and then when he made the "that one" comment some of them actually flinched and looked offended. Substance? Both just said much of the same things they said in the last debate. Personality wise? Whew! McCain is coming across as a major negative. (Makes me wonder how much of the Rollingstone hit piece was just plain accurate journalism now)

I watched it again, and I have to say that the second time through, the mannerisms seem less intense. So I can see McCain was adequate. But Obama was even better the second time through. There was a lot of substance in what Obama said, a lot of explaining things in a way that made you go "ahah!", but a lot of repetition with McCain and a lot of "I know, you have to just trust me".

I noticed McCain's apparent restelessness, as well.

Both men made strong arguments, but I thought Obama did better for the most part. I do try to give McCain a fair chance, but he didn't come across as personable or reasonable to me.

I took some notes while watching the debate...

*McCain's wants to do mortgage buy outs? That may not play well with his base, plus I believe the dems have already mentioned something like this and it is not a new idea.

*Warren Buffet as treasurer? Both men mentioned him. It surprised me.

*Barack was really cooking and did exceedingly well on two major topics: Energy program and Health Care. I thought he supplied some well presented thoughts and outlines. McCain looked a bit scattered--hitting points here and there, not really tying them together as nicely.

*McCain brought up the across the board *spending freeze* again. This just sounds like so much overkill --I have to agree with Barack on this point. It's going after the budget with a hatchet when a scalpel might be better. According to the "dial up responses", McCain was very, very flat while he was talking about it, so I guess others felt the same way.

*Did I hear correctly? Did McCain flip flop on tax breaks to the wealthy now? I'll have to watch that again--but I thought he said that.

*"Lost a wheel off the straight talk bus" (Obama) :rotfl:

*McCain didn't sell drilling for oil very well. As I stated before, I tend to agree with Obama's stand. The "dials" were very flat for McCain on increasing drilling. Guess there were no "Drill baby, drill" fans there tonight.

*I thought McCain had a frantic sound about him tonight...and yes, his pacing and wandering about behind Barack was a bit distracting if not rude.

*"That one" (McCain) GEEZ, that just came off as a "cringe" moment. Didn't look good.

*Barack lost a bit of focus during the Russia discussion, but seemed to quickly recover.

*"My friends" --please, make it stop :scared:

*Barack returning fire on McCain over McCain's comments that Barack should talk about the possibility of going into Pakistan being on the table. POWERFUL comeback for Obama, McCain looked livid.

*McCain's preoccupation with "without precondition" sounded small and petty, he's hit it so much it's starting to sound like an old man who grumbles about the kids on his lawn every 15 minutes.

Forum: Didn't like it...it was awkward and cumbersome with it's time limits. It's hard for either candidate to really explain and get into any policy in detail in such a short span. Brokaw's frequent reprimands were detracting from the actual debate.

Several people have mentioned tonight that McCain pulled his hand away and turned away from Barack when Barack offered to shake hands with him after the debate. McCain's leaving early is also a topic being discussed on other boards, and most of that was negative (although one woman noted that at McCain's age, he might have had to run to the bathroom after an hour and a half on the stage! :lol:)

I saw video, and I'm not sure if McCain reached behind to tap someone's shoulder or touch Michelle Obama first. It may not be that clear cut. Cindy & Obama's handshake was nice. Here's the video. I think Cindy kept her hands behind her back because she's still tender from the previous handshake injury. Cindy's body language is nice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/blitzer-apparent-mccain-h_n_132830.html

After the 500 point loss on the Dow, the Asian markets are tumbling. The Nikkei is off 10%. I predict a bad day tomorrow. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_bi_ge/world_markets

---> using advanced word technology & a debate transcript: McCain used 'my friends' 19 times.

Anyone playing the drinking game will have a headache tomorrow !
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_second_presidential_debate.html

eBay (of Meg Whitman fame) cutting 10% of it's workforce or 1600 employees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/ebay-cuts-1600-jobs-10-pe_n_132444.html

I sell on eBay and I have to say that the place went downhill after she left.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r64/Shera2316/Picture1.jpg

I honestly think people like to nit pick McCain for the fun of it. I see that Redhart made a few key points above but on most boards and blogs just want to nit pick words and phrases to somehow make McCain look mean and/or petty. The my friends thing....I mean really....So he's not the worlds most eloquent or elegant speaker. Big deal. We've had worse. The "that one" comment is being blown out of poportion. If you can defend "lipstick on a pig" then why jump on a common turn a phrase like that. Doesn't make much sense to me.

That being said...oy...I had to shut it off. Maybe it's because I'm pretty well versed with their plans but it seemed repetitive to me. Every talking point seemed all to lead back to the same thing with McCain---usually energy. And Obama certainly hasn't dropped the "change" mantra with very little in the way of showing people how his policies would help the average citizen. It wasn't a "debate" so much as it was talking points---buzzed into one minute sound bites. A debate would be letting the candidates ask each other the questions and let them roll with a moderater (like here :D) This wasn't even close to a debate.

The thing of it is...with each candidate they assume you know why and how their plans would work---I mean I've heard so many times "Republicans believe X" and "Democrats believe X" as if people even have basic understanding of economics or foriegn politics or energy. We have global views on such things but very little intricate knowledge needed to form and revise bills and laws. We know how we would like things done but we have no idea of the little things, the politics involved, the other countries friend or foe and their economies...and by "we" I mean the populace in general. No doubt there are some very learned people on these subjects (see this board) but more people than not don't have a clue.

Tell me why something will work. Prove to me that a theory does work and I'd be more ready to believe it. At this rate I might just write in Hillary on my ballot.....

That being said...oy...I had to shut it off. Maybe it's because I'm pretty well versed with their plans but it seemed repetitive to me. Every talking point seemed all to lead back to the same thing with McCain---usually energy. And Obama certainly hasn't dropped the "change" mantra with very little in the way of showing people how his policies would help the average citizen. It wasn't a "debate" so much as it was talking points---buzzed into one minute sound bites. A debate would be letting the candidates ask each other the questions and let them roll with a moderater (like here :D) This wasn't even close to a debate.



I agree. I was really dissapointed because it seemed like the same things I have heard over and over and over. I think Obama did better as far as style goes. He appeared more confident and comfortable but when it came to the issues neither candidate imo came across with anything new. The only thing I did hear new was McCain's plan out of nowhere to have the treasury department buy up bad mortgages. I am not sure this is going to help him or not, particularly with his own party. It seemed like a last ditch effort to win votes.

I agree. I was really dissapointed because it seemed like the same things I have heard over and over and over. I think Obama did better as far as style goes. He appeared more confident and comfortable but when it came to the issues neither candidate imo came across with anything new. The only thing I did hear new was McCain's plan out of nowhere to have the treasury department buy up bad mortgages. I am not sure this is going to help him or not, particularly with his own party. It seemed like a last ditch effort to win votes.

For folks like me, who've already made up their minds, these presidential debates aren't helpful. I watched maybe 10 minutes last night, so I can't really speak about how the respective candidates did.

I did read the "my friends" comments above, and I would hope there is more for us to talk about than that.

For undecideds, or leaners, these debates are somewhat helpful in understanding the relative positions on issues. The VP debate was helpful to me in gaining a better understanding of how Palin and Biden stand on things, since they are not the stars of the show.

Most of the folks posting on these political threads are well-versed in the candidates' positions. The debates aren't aimed at partisans or political junkies. They're aimed at the undecided who want to take the measure of each man, as well as people who haven't been paying close attention to the candidates' positions and probably only have a tolerance for an overview of the details anyway.

Mostly, the debates are job interviews, and demeanor and presence are very important. The superficial things like how they looked and how they behaved become highly significant. Small things like Al Gore sighing or George H. W. Bush looking at his watch take on exaggerated importance.

People want to develop a comfort level with the man who would be the next President, so that's why so much focus is placed on how the candidates came across.

Most of the folks posting on these political threads are well-versed in the candidates positions. The debates aren't aimed at partisans or political junkies. They're aimed at the undecided who want to take the measure of each man, as well as people who haven't been paying close attention to the candidates' positions and probably only have a tolerance for an overview of the details anyway.

Mostly, the debates are job interviews, and demeanor and presence are very important. The superficial things like how they looked and how they behaved become highly significant. Small things like Al Gore sighing or George H. W. Bush looking at his watch take on exaggerated importance.

People want to develop a comfort level with the man who would be the next President, so that's why so much focus is placed on how the candidates came across.

Yes, I agree. I am an independent undecided so I guess I will watch the October 15 debate before I totally make up my mind.

For folks like me, who've already made up their minds, these presidential debates aren't helpful. I watched maybe 10 minutes last night, so I can't really speak about how the respective candidates did.

I did read the "my friends" comments above, and I would hope there is more for us to talk about than that.

For undecideds, or leaners, these debates are somewhat helpful in understanding the relative positions on issues. The VP debate was helpful to me in gaining a better understanding of how Palin and Biden stand on things, since they are not the stars of the show.

I watched most of the debate last night and was underwhelmed. But that's actually what debates are supposed to be, point by point comparisons and analysis of facts and policy positions as opposed to 2 minute dissertations of talking points and attacks. I don't think either candidate won or lost - they both pretty much stayed on message and contrasted their styles.

I do think McCain missed an opportunity to change the tide in the discussion of the economic situation when Obama went on his rant about deregulation and how it caused when the credit crisis when the problem wasn't caused by deregulation (IMO) but too much government intervention in forcing banks to make a higher percentage of high risk loans than they typically would by backing those efforts with taxpayer funds through Fannie and Freddie. I'd like to have heard McCain challenge Obama's assertion and further challenge Congress who is holding hearing on the matter now and refuses to engage in discussions about the role Fannie and Freddie's played in causing the collapse.

They're aimed at the undecided who want to take the measure of each man, as well as people who haven't been paying close attention to the candidates' positions and probably only have a tolerance for an overview of the details anyway.

I just don't agree with this. If you haven't got the measure of the men up til now--what will it take to convince you? I would be scared and frightened if people voted against McCain simply because he said "my friends" alot, or "that one". (and by "you" I mean the general populace) It would not be out of the realm of possibility to talk about why Republicans believe "x" and Democrats believe "x". Talk about how lowering taxes on corporations will create jobs, for instance. The undecided may not agree with that theory, but at least they'll have more to go on than simply "lower taxes, create jobs" You don't have to nitpick every small detail but a certain overview of economics shouldn't be out of the question, imo. You don't have to get into the particulars of the plan but explain at least why the plan ought to work.


Mostly, the debates are job interviews, and demeanor and presence are very important. The superficial things like how they looked and how they behaved become highly significant. Small things like Al Gore sighing or George H. W. Bush looking at his watch take on exaggerated importance.

Exagerrated being the key word. Because again, if there was any substance behind their words the little things wouldn't mean as much. I'd hate to vote on that premise alone...yikes. The job interview idea is interesting...here because no one was really interviewing. Questions were being asked, yes, but the answers were merely a regurgitation of their party lines. If questions were followed up on it would be more like a real interview.

For instance, Obama said that he wrote a letter to Bernanke about the subprime crisis that went unanswered. According to WTKK talk radio with Michael Graham this was only done in 2007 after several banks had failed and it was on the front page of the Globe. I have no idea if this is true or not but then, I have no idea if what Obama is saying is true--that he saw the crisis coming. It would at least be prudent to see his response in this matter since ---Even a simple "a copy of this letter is up on my website" would be a good response. (For all I know it is.) Those type of questions and his responses to them give you the measure of a man, more so than seeing if he looked stately enough.

On McCain's side it is more than appropriate for Obama to point out that McCain's plan calls for huge tax cuts for big oil. There was no real follow up by McCain himself other than the talking point of tax cuts for corporations creat jobs. Brokaw didn't follow it up by asking what McCain meant by that, and consequently McCain didn't point out that it wasn't just big oil that is getting cuts it's other corporations as well. (Which again, you might not agree with "trickle down effect" but at least you'll see that McCain isn't in the pocket of big oil.)

In other words there was no give or take. I preferred the first debate actually.

In other words there was no give or take.


There was one point during the debate that I just thought "scrap the rules, just let them go at it for a while here". At that one point (it was towards the middle) the town hall format really stopped them from getting some good stuff out there, I think. They never really got back to that energy they had in that little segment, too.

ETA: Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html)'s analysis. Grab coffee first, it'll take you a while to wade through.

I just don't agree with this. If you haven't got the measure of the men up til now--what will it take to convince you? I would be scared and frightened if people voted against McCain simply because he said "my friends" alot, or "that one". (and by "you" I mean the general populace) But that's how it is. Just look at what was important from other debates in the past. It wasn't substance, but rather style or odd moments that won the debate and influenced the election. Ideally it shouldn't be that way, but that's not the reality of the situation. People are sizing up the candidates, and they seem to focus on demeanor and insignificant details when they make up their minds.

They can't go into details because the time is so constrained. Also, the general public doesn't have a lot of attention span for details, especially economic ones.

Even a simple "a copy of this letter is up on my website" would be a good response. (For all I know it is.) But he was simply answering a question, not trying to ensure that all people doubting his word would be satisfied. He would have sounded rather defensive if he'd ended every one of his answers with insisting they look on his website for proof. He wasn't giving testimony in court where every assertion has to have proof placed in evidence first.

Generally fact checkers research these details later on.Those type of questions and his responses to them give you the measure of a man, more so than seeing if he looked stately enough.
People really are trying to decide who looks more presidential or who's in better command of the facts based on what they see. They want to hear policies, but they don't want a long tedious complicated answers. That's why they were afraid Joe Biden would talk too long in his debate. People tend to zone out with long complicated answers. Besides the format doesn't support it, and Tom Brokaw was unwilling to let it flex a little.

I'm not saying this format was good or that people should be influenced by silly details. But the way people use and respond to the debates is a fact of life, despite how quixotic and shallow it might seem.

Editorial Roundup courtesy of Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/08/editorial-roundup-newspapers-weigh-second-presidential-debate/)

Ultimately this debate went to Obama.

For those who asked, here is Senator Obama's letter:

March 22, 2007

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes.

And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.


How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.


How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.


How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.


How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.


How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short- term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.

I agree. I was really dissapointed because it seemed like the same things I have heard over and over and over. I think Obama did better as far as style goes. He appeared more confident and comfortable but when it came to the issues neither candidate imo came across with anything new. The only thing I did hear new was McCain's plan out of nowhere to have the treasury department buy up bad mortgages. I am not sure this is going to help him or not, particularly with his own party. It seemed like a last ditch effort to win votes.IMO, the cause of this wasn't because of McCain or Obama, it's the fact that the questions asked weren't any different than the questions asked of them at the last debate, so of course it'll come across as repetitive.

IMO, the cause of this wasn't because of McCain or Obama, it's the fact that the questions asked weren't any different than the questions asked of them at the last debate.


Yeah that could be part of it. A lot of people have been saying they didn't understand why Brokaw didn't pick a variety of different topics.

But that's how it is. Just look at what was important from other debates in the past. It wasn't substance, but rather style or odd moments that won the debate and influenced the election. Ideally it shouldn't be that way, but that's not the reality of the situation. People are sizing up the candidates, and they seem to focus on demeanor and insignificant details when they make up their minds.

It is shallow. And it also proves my point. When people who don't have an understanding of your policies they make up their minds based on inane things. If your platform doesn't communicate the candidates position effectively, then little annoyance are blown up.


They can't go into details because the time is so constrained. Also, the general public doesn't have a lot of attention span for details, especially economic ones.

If I said details I misspoke. What I meant was overviews. There is a difference to explaining why, for instance, Republicans think that the trickle down effect works and the details that make it work. I heard McCain say several times that tax cuts create jobs. He never explained why that is. No one cares about the little details like which companies, which taxes, time limits, term limits, credits etc etc etc about the plan but I'm sure if you explained how it would allow companies to make payroll easier people would start to listen. But a simple answer like cutting taxes creates jobs gets no one anywhere.

The time limits on answers really reigned in the candidate and kept them from exhibiting the strong points of their campaigns. The lack of substantial questions even more so.

But he was simply answering a question, not trying to ensure that all people doubting his word would be satisfied. He would have sounded rather defensive if he'd ended every one of his answers with insisting they look on his website for prooof. He wasn't giving testimony in court where every assertion has to have proof placed in evidence first.

I understand that. And that's all fine, well and dandy to an extent. I don't expect Obama to have to defend everybit of legislation or bring reams of paperwork to each debate. My only point was that there were no follow up questions of any kind, especially on issues that the candidates brought up themselves. But my point was that you have to engage. We were talking about people who don't want the minutest detail. A simple "check my site" sends the message that you have nothing to hide. Even if those voters don't go to the site they come away with the feeling that Obama is honest. Otherwise he wouldn't be urging them to go on to his website. But for these kinds of questions not to even be brought up is the kind of thing that nags me about these debates. Brokaw engaged neither candidate.


I'm not saying this format was good or that people should be influenced by silly details. But the way people use and respond to the debates is a fact of life, despite how quixotic and shallow it might seem.


If that is the way it is, what's the point of a debate?

Look I'm not ragging on Obama (it was the first example that popped into my head that's all) I just think that the debates as they are are pretty much useless. Unless they can find a format that has substance behind it I see no purpose to them at all.

Purp, thanks for the post of the letter. I had a feeling it was up there. My point wasn't that Obama had to defend everything. I was just using that as an example of lack of follow up questioning. Really I had to vent my overall dissappointment with both candidates, and Brokaw in particular whom I actually like very much.

IMO, I wish Brian Williams from NBC Nightly News could moderate the debates or either have him run Meet the Press. He's calm, cool, collected, and objective.

That aside, how come we rarely see Independents doing much where this is concerned? IMO, I feel that an Independent would be perfect to moderate a debate. I have a feeling that an Independent would actually do more follow-ups compared to a Democratic moderate or a Republican one.

I also wish that the candidates could actually debate. They don't seem to engage in one. They're talking to the moderator and the people, but not to each other, seemingly. I used to be in my high school's debate/forensics, and there seemed to be more of a debate feel through that. I'm not getting that with any of the debates that's been out so far.

Forgive me for jumping into the thread (I have been following it, albeit not meticulously), as I know almost nothing about American politics, but I have a question about sen. McCain. When he says that "American workers are the best in the world", can he provide any proof or at least substantial evidence to back this assertion?

Is there a possibility that this is a tool - like striking the patriotic string in Americans and thus make what he is saying more attractive? I am asking because I really don't know. It seemed this way to me, and I see it all the time in politicians where I live, so I was interested to see it play out on the world's most popular political stage as well - if indeed it was a tool.

Is there a possibility that this is a tool - like striking the patriotic string in Americans and thus make what he is saying more attractive? I am asking because I really don't know. It seemed this way to me, and I see it all the time in politicians where I live, so I was interested to see it play out on the world's most popular political stage as well - if indeed it was a tool.

It's a patriotic view. It conveys the necessary confidence leaders have in the economy and the people that spin its wheels. As you allude to, every leader espouses to the greater strengths of the people they represent. It's only natural to say that. McCain & Obama genuinely believe that. It's true that the work ethic of Americans is one to admire greatly but I don't think it's meant to demean the values of workers anywhere else.

The thing that is irritating about the worker reference, is that American workers REALLY increased their productivity during the last 8 years, and not only did they NOT see their wages go up, or even stay the same, but they went down in real terms, while prices rose.

Biden on the campaign trail today said "it's hard to be a maverick when your whole life you've been a sidekick".

I raise that on the debate thread, because it seems that the "hair plugs" reference last night by Biden's "dear friend" McCain may have stung.

Re the Debates.

They are definitely geared to the Independents / Undecideds.

I should say that my mom (as a reflection of other older voters) tuned out during the primaries, but is glued to the debates, watching very attentively. So it is not repetitive to her (although to the addicts of the 24 hour news cycle, it may be).

The ratings 50 million plus, also bear out that these things are VIP for the mainstream.

Forgive me for jumping into the thread (I have been following it, albeit not meticulously), as I know almost nothing about American politics, but I have a question about sen. McCain. When he says that "American workers are the best in the world", can he provide any proof or at least substantial evidence to back this assertion?

Americans like the idea that "America is number one", even if their life span, literacy, educational standards, infant mortality, etc don't measure up to most other industrialized countries. They call this "American exceptionalism". Be patient with us...

You don't cure that during an election cycle.

During an American election, the safest stance (that doesn't offend any American voter) is to bash foreigners. Examples:
- Where would you cut? Biden: foreign aid
- Problem with economy? Iraq has a surplus, we have a deficit.

Things have gotten so screwy that the American worker is being spun as a "fundamental of the economy (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/mccain-fundamental-workers/)."

---> using advanced word technology & a debate transcript: McCain used 'my friends' 19 times.

including "my friend" it was 23 times.

Chris Matthews is about to state it on Hardball as his big number of the day, so I hope I'm right !

Chris Matthews said 22 times. I used the find & replace feature to count, so maybe someone else said it once.

The debate was watched by 63 million people.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1518410.aspx

Things have gotten so screwy that the American worker is being spun as a "fundamental of the economy (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/mccain-fundamental-workers/)."

American's and their ingenuity are the foundation upon which this country and our economy depends. Our economy could continue without credit, without healthcare, without educational institutions, even without cash of the federal government. But it could not survive one moment without workers. American workers are the most basic fundamental underlying our economy.

Same could be said of any country or hunter/gatherer tribe.

It's the ultimate victory of Thatcher/Reaganism that people can be reduced by some to being mere economic units stripped of all human dignity.

Forgive me for jumping into the thread (I have been following it, albeit not meticulously), as I know almost nothing about American politics, but I have a question about sen. McCain. When he says that "American workers are the best in the world", can he provide any proof or at least substantial evidence to back this assertion?

Is there a possibility that this is a tool - like striking the patriotic string in Americans and thus make what he is saying more attractive? I am asking because I really don't know. It seemed this way to me, and I see it all the time in politicians where I live, so I was interested to see it play out on the world's most popular political stage as well - if indeed it was a tool.

The U.S. has long taken particular pride in high production and strong work ethic. It is said in many places that most people work to live while Americans live to work, and there is some truth to that. As this is a source of pride for so many, it is almost expected that candidates will have and express the opinion that our workers are the greatest.

I would expect that there are many places where the pride and sentiments are similar and candidates say similar things because of it. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like it is a slight though, I don't doubt both men respect hard working people from all over the world, they just have a rooting interest in our workers, you know? I usually attribute the word "best" to the rooting interests of the person saying it, not just in politics either Patriots and Yankee fans! (Sorry I had to)

Same could be said of any country or hunter/gatherer tribe.

It's the ultimate victory of Thatcher/Reaganism that people can be reduced by some to being mere economic units stripped of all human dignity.

It has seemed to me that such accusation could be better laid at the feet of the left, particularly those of Marxist adherence, such as those who support 'card check' (perhaps that is exclusively an American issue - it is an attempt to deny American workers the opportunity for a secret ballot on unionization so that they can be forced into unions regardless of their honest beliefs). The right has always seen people as more than just their economic roles. I would love to seee 'card check' come up in the third debate - it shows the essentially coercive attitudes of Obama and his allies.

American's and their ingenuity are the foundation upon which this country and our economy depends. Our economy could continue without credit, without healthcare, without educational institutions, even without cash of the federal government. But it could not survive one moment without workers. American workers are the most basic fundamental underlying our economy.
And yet, if millions of those "fundamentals" have no where to work, it doesn't matter...not immediately, anyway. If they aren't working, they aren't paying taxes or buying from the ones who still do have their jobs.

Ingenuity will help build the future, but doesn't help immediately (but, it is a good thing and something our country excels at!)

This is one of the reasons I believe in bottom up economic systems more rather than top down (or trickle-down, as it's been labeled).

And yet, if millions of those "fundamentals" have no where to work, it doesn't matter...not immediately, anyway. If they aren't working, they aren't paying taxes or buying from the ones who still do have their jobs.

This is one of the reasons I believe in bottom up economic systems more rather than top down (or trickle-down, as it's been labeled).

Where do the jobs come from in the bottom up economics plan? We already pay unemployment insurance, if we are going to put more money "at the bottom", when does this person go back to work? Also, why would this person go back to work? If they are subsisted as well without a job as they would be with one, what is their motive to work hard and do more?

The American worker has been beaten half to death by this economy. 159,000 jobs lost in the period ending September 5, 2008. That was a week before the stock market began tanking, thus I doubt the job loss will be staunched when the next report is issued.

Question for the mods: Why is it okay for the left to be painted here as Marxists, but not okay for the right to be painted as... as what's out there on the far right of the political spectrum?

Where do the jobs come from in the bottom up economics plan? We already pay unemployment insurance, if we are going to put more money "at the bottom", when does this person go back to work? Also, why would this person go back to work? If they are subsisted as well without a job as they would be with one, what is their motive to work hard and do more?

That's right. We've been down this road before, and it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

It worked just fine when FDR was cleaning up Hoover's mess.

AIG was just saved by the federal government - and promptly took their management staff off on a $400,000 retreat to a luxury hotel.

It worked just fine when FDR was cleaning up Hoover's mess.

The welfare society? Is that what America needs to become again?

There is an awful lot of corporate welfare going on as we bicker, Pensieve. It's been a growing problem since 1980. Gutting the middle class has got to stop.

Question for the mods: Why is it okay for the left to be painted here as Marxists, but not okay for the right to be painted as... as what's out there on the far right of the political spectrum?


If you are referring to my 'Marxist' reference, I worded it to quite specifically differentiate 'all leftists' from 'those with Marxist adherence'. There are lefties that are not Marxists. The way I worded it is no more a blanket statement about ALL lefties than a reference to neoconservatives is a statement about all right-wingers.

There is an awful lot of corporate welfare going on as we bicker, Pensieve. It's been a growing problem since 1980. Gutting the middle class has got to stop.


It's a lot older than that, Purp, and your last sentence is quite the nonsequitur.

Question for the mods: Why is it okay for the left to be painted here as Marxists, but not okay for the right to be painted as... as what's out there on the far right of the political spectrum?

Right, as you all might remember, we do not talk about thread logistics in here. We have owls for that.

Nevertheless I do not want to see generalisations about the left and right of the political spectrum if one of those sides might see people as more then just worker ants or pod-people.

Where do the jobs come from in the bottom up economics plan? We already pay unemployment insurance, if we are going to put more money "at the bottom", when does this person go back to work? Also, why would this person go back to work? If they are subsisted as well without a job as they would be with one, what is their motive to work hard and do more?

The jobs come from "demand"...when a need is issued, someone will figure out a way to feed it (and that good old ingenuity comes into play, here)....especially if there is a paycheck or money to be made at it.

When the top end is churning out supply to shelves that no one can buy off of, because they haven't the money or wages to purchase them, then supply will drop off and companies close.

Manufacturing or providing services that there is no demand for is a no win situation. This, in my belief, is one of the reasons that credit has been used as a bad gap measure to fill the difference between the steeply diving purchasing power of the lower and middle classes and the increasing monetary wealth of the top 1%.

What is all that production worth if no one can buy it? Continuing to supply the lower incomes with easy credit and more of it just to be able to buy what's being produced and try to keep production up, is part of the problem as I see it.

At first, credit was a good tool for personal use. But when people are using it because their wages and work status can't keep them up with even rent and heat, then we have a big problem.

This is associated with the same issues on the top levels with credit, as well.

When would they go back to work? We may have to rebuild from the bottom up. Personally, that is what we are doing. We have been running a part time small business (as well as three part time jobs--you don't get benefits with those like health care). When a large corporation laid off hubby a few weeks ago, we're attempting to build our small business from the ground up--cash basis, avoiding credit traps if we can. It's very low overhead and we are filling a current need...responding to a demand in our local market.

We are not starting a business producing a good or service that we have to convince someone they need or have to borrow to afford.

In other words, we have a demand driven business based on actual needs already existing.

Others who wish to survive an economy like this might want to think about industries such as this....cash based, small and demand driven.

I do not think it's out of the question for the US to help in these endeavors and both candidates have outlined various plans to do something along that line, as well.

It's called American ingenuity, demand driven (rather than supply) and less credit driven industry. Who's talking about being on the dole? Why would you assume that this is what people want? Most Americans from all spheres of economic levels, just want a fair break and a chance to help themselves.

At the same time, it's also much better to help those who are foundering and can't do so and help them rebuild--those people will be taxpayers again. It's a philosophy of helping people up, rather than "every man for himself", as well.

Our little business involves our family and another family who also was hit by the same layoff...filling the need. We're hoping we collect others like a snowball rolling down hill and "help each other up".

I encourage government programs (as well as private ones, faith-based, etc.) that offer tools to those who need just a hand to rejoin the workforce.

There will always be those who are too ill, injured, senior, too young to fend for themselves totally. My personal ethics believe that a country that helps also care for those who "can't" do it alone is a country I want to be a part of. If we are doing well, I'll glady pay the extra taxes to help pull others up as well. Together we're stronger than on our own, together our country is stronger, as well.

It's a lot older than that, Purp, and your last sentence is quite the nonsequitur.

If you say so. The gutting of the American middle class, and the transfer of wealth to the top, began in the 1980's. It eased a bit in the 90's and tanked steadily from 2000 on.

And BTW, I don't consider union supporters to be marxist.

That's all I'm going to say about it. We're all wacko off-topic.

Where do the jobs come from in the bottom up economics plan? We already pay unemployment insurance, if we are going to put more money "at the bottom", when does this person go back to work? Also, why would this person go back to work? If they are subsisted as well without a job as they would be with one, what is their motive to work hard and do more?

Good question! There have to be business willing and able to hire people who want jobs, and in the US that comes largely from small businesses. IMO, small businesses will be destroyed by Obama and the Democrats new taxes and fines and fees and regulations and there go those jobs. And redistributing wages from higher wage earners to lower wage earners will do nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs. It will, however, create an even larger pool of people who are fully dependent on the federal government.

I thought the Obama small business health care fine was a false accusation by McCain? Though, neither McCain nor Obama specify what a small business is. Then again, factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html).org wasn't impressed with either candidate during the Health care portion of the debate. Other taxes, however, gotta dig back up what the specific proposals are.

ETA: My favorite one on the list was the age of the computer one :lol:.

I thought the Obama small business health care fine was a false accusation by McCain?

It is (http://mediamatters.org/items/200810080009).

Good question! There have to be business willing and able to hire people who want jobs, and in the US that comes largely from small businesses. IMO, small businesses will be destroyed by Obama and the Democrats new taxes and fines and fees and regulations and there go those jobs. And redistributing wages from higher wage earners to lower wage earners will do nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs. It will, however, create an even larger pool of people who are fully dependent on the federal government.
Don't poor people spend more of their money than rich people do (well I know some rich people, and they always seem to save more of their money than I do)? I don't know, it seems like if I were a small business owner I'd rather see the people who live near me and walk or drive by all day have more money in their pockets than know that the guy in the penthouse uptown can afford a helicopter taxi.

Where does the dependence on the government come in? Why in this scenario is it assumed that people will stop working?

Small business (the engine of the economy) gets their money from small people.

During FDR;s time wasn't a huge Tennessee Dam built, and interstate highways ?

I know in Toronto the maple leaf hockey stadium was built.

The point is work & jobs for publically oriented projects that benefit us all for many years.

This is true, and Barack's plans for investing in new energies can be the next large, new engine. Through research and development, grants and well placed incentives, those jobs and a new industry can truly help the economy.

The SNL sketch on the debate was priceless tonight.

Don't poor people spend more of their money than rich people do (well I know some rich people, and they always seem to save more of their money than I do)? I don't know, it seems like if I were a small business owner I'd rather see the people who live near me and walk or drive by all day have more money in their pockets than know that the guy in the penthouse uptown can afford a helicopter taxi.

Where does the dependence on the government come in? Why in this scenario is it assumed that people will stop working?

Well, I do have more money than my siblings and that is because I have saved my money all my life and my brother and sister like to spend their paychecks the moment they hit their bank accounts, so giving them more money means they will spend more money. That's true. But, I wouldn't just give them money because they haven't earned it and they know that (of course, if they were hardup and can't afford to put food on the table I would help them out because they are my siblings, but that's different). That's the problem I have with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The rich earned it. The poor didn't. Is it the job of the rich to make sure the poor can have housing, clothing, and food? Sure, we need to help out our fellow Americans, but it seems wrong that the harder you work the more will be taken away from you. It makes me want to not work so much. It makes me not want to try as hard, because I won't get the same results. I earned the money, I want to be able to keep the money, because I earned it, not the guy down the street.

I advocate giving to charity, but giving to charity is a choice not a requirement.

You know, it isn't just the rich that help out the poor. It's also the middle class and what determines the middle class but a number? I'm a member of the middle class and we're struggling, too. Having to give more of our hard earned money will just see us fall farther until there is no more middle class.

ETA: I'm sure many of you are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford to pay more taxes. The economy's not doing so well right now (that's an understatement). We do need to help our fellow man, but how do we do that if we can't help ourselves?

The rich earned it. The poor didn't.

Wow. I won't give my true opinion of a statement like this because I would probably get banned.

Instead I'll ask a question as this implies the rich are more deserving. How is Paris Hilton more deserving than a widowed mother trying to raise four kids on a crummy insurance pay-out?

The line between rich and poor is more often less hard work than bad luck and that's a very thin line. Unless you've scrabbled around from pay to pay and still not quite made it it's hard to understand. (And I don't mean a temporary shortfall, I mean years of hardscrabble.)

It's a problem when the mentality of meritocracy is so ingrained that poverty is seen as a flaw of character.

You're giving an extreme example. I can give you plenty of examples of people who have earned their money, like Bill Gates or many people on this list (http://www.therichestpeopleinamerica.com/default.asp?x=1&n1=8). I cannot speak for any of them, but I would bet most of them give to charity. It seems to me Bill Gates loves to give away his money. The people on the list are hardworking people that earned their money. Most likely, I'll never be a rich person, but when I make money I will earn it. What I mean when I say "The rich earned it. The poor didn't." is that when I go to work I earned the money that I get paid. The guy down the street didn't work for me so he didn't earn that money, I did. When you go to work, you earn your money, I didn't. I don't deserve your money, because I didn't earn it. If you want to give me your money, that's your choice, but you give it because you want to, not because the government tells you you have to.

Alright, we'll open back up early next week for the final debate of the 2008 elections season.

We're back for the final debate with questions regarding candidate positions and expectaions for the final debate being on-topic. Rules haven't changed :).

Is it tonight? I'd forgotten. That aside, what do you all feel will be the key subject debated on? I'm betting it'll definitely be the economy, personally.

It is tomorrow night, and probably the economy 1st. Both Candidates have made additions to their economic plans. I fully expect each to do their best to highlight their additions.