2008 U.S. Presidential Election: Vice-Presidential Debate

[namkcuR]

Discuss.

Depending on the outcome, perhaps future historians will refer to it as 'The Slaughter At St. Louis'.

 

[financeguy]

Politics as bloodsport is never pleasant.

Palin at this stage I would see as victim in the whole thing. Just another victim of forces she never understood, forces bigger than her, bigger than anyone. The winds of political change, without wanting to be corny about it.

The task of destroying Palin's career falls to Biden. Biden doesn't strike me a political hatchet man. He probably won't enjoy the task. Hillary probably would. She's nasty like that. But neither Biden nor Palin are particularly to blame for the state America finds itself in. Doesn't seem very fair, does it?

That evil c*** Cheney should be made to stand again, and (verbally) lacerated for hours on end.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

That evil c*** Cheney should be made to stand again, and (verbally) lacerated for hours on end.

That would be awesome. We should have a fantasy debate matchup thread. I’d go with Cheney v Clinton (either of them), or Bush v Clinton (either of them), or Bush v Obama as my Top 3. Wait! Clinton v Clinton could be pretty good too.

As for this one, don’t forget that it’s a completely different format to the Presidential debate and there will be virtually no interest or focus in the hardcore details of anything either of them say (unless it’s wildly stupid). The McCain team have made sure it’s very narrow, barely a debate, more a Q&A. Check out some of the video out there of Palin in various past Alaskan debates. She’ll be good in this format. The format doesn’t allow for much of a challenge to anything she says, she’ll be essentially just given a topic and 2 minutes to say whatever she wants. If she’s calm and cool, she’ll just spend each allotted 2 minutes spitting out base Republican talking points (not necessarily related to the question at all) mixed with some cutesy Hockey Mum shit and cruise through it.

All she has to do is not say something spectacularly stupid or just ramble nonsense as per her interviews. She will say nothing of interest. Give no indication of any understanding of anything. Give no detailed answers directly related to any remotely specific questions. That will be Biden, not her. That, sadly, doesn’t matter. She’ll knock it out of the park if she simply doesn’t f*ck up and plays it up to that moronic Republican base well. If she does that and Biden attacks her in the process, or f*cks up himself, she’ll absolutely kill it.

Be warned. You will spend the whole night doing this: but that doesn't matter. Remember the Bush/Gore debates? That x 100.

 

[financeguy]

That would be awesome. We should have a fantasy debate matchup thread.

I edited my post. It occurs to me that it isn't right to jest about anyone, even Cheney, being tortured. I pat myself on the back for having a moral conscience.

That's the new standard the neo-cons have given the world. If you don't openly approve of torture, you're a great human being (except you might be a bit suspect on the combating terra thing.) And, if you do, then, well, you're still a great human being, and what's more, you're right on board with the combating terra thing.

 

[deep]

Discuss.

Depending on the outcome, perhaps future historians will refer to it as 'The Slaughter At St. Louis'.

it may be referred to as:

"Breakthrough: The Age of Obama” debate.

 

[Utoo]

it may be referred to as:

"Breakthrough: The Age of Obama” debate.

The Gotcha Moderation Debate

Especially if she gets a question about substance!




Actually, it'll be more entertaining if it's the

Miss South Carolina Teen USA v. Joe Biden Debate

YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

 

[Utoo]

Prediction:

Palin is a dufus at the debate to those viewers with brains, but gets by for the rest of America on spewing useless, abstract gobbledygook. McCain gets a bump of 2-3 points.

 

[anitram]

YouTube - Sarah Palin can't name one Supreme Court case

Grim.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Especially if she gets a question about substance!

That's my point, it doesn't matter.

The debate isn’t constructed in a way that will force her to give any answers of substance, nor will she receive any challenges to meaningless waffle. In her favour is that no-one will care anyway, the whole thing will be about personality contrasts and half the country just waiting for her to f*ck it all up. She likely won’t simply because detail and challenge will be almost completely ruled out from the get go. She’ll get asked a detailed question about the financial crisis that should require a thoughtful, detailed response, and she'll start talking about understanding how tough it is to be a working mum for 2 minutes and that will be it for pretty much the whole time.

 

[anitram]

I think she'll come into this debate armed with one liners and zingers and sentences flowing from the proposition "As a haaaackey Mom....." This could actually be to her advantage since that's what the news like to replay at night. The two things that I think are working against her the most are the fact that you're given substantial time (90 sec +) to answer a question and she is clearly prone to inane rambling. I don't think she can control herself for an hour and a half. Second, you have to ask yourself how much she has psyched herself out now. Psychology is a huge thing and if she's been hearing that the national media thinks she's a dumbass and she's plummeting in the polls, she may have bought into it enough to affect her mentally.

 

[Utoo]

Psychology is a huge thing and if she's been hearing that the national media thinks she's a dumbass and she's plummeting in the polls, she may have bought into it enough to affect her mentally.

That would require reading a newspaper.

 

[indra]

That's my point, it doesn't matter.

The debate isn’t constructed in a way that will force her to give any answers of substance, nor will she receive any challenges to meaningless waffle. In her favour is that no-one will care anyway, the whole thing will be about personality contrasts and half the country just waiting for her to f*ck it all up. She likely won’t simply because detail and challenge will be almost completely ruled out from the get go. She’ll get asked a detailed question about the financial crisis that should require a thoughtful, detailed response, and she'll start talking about understanding how tough it is to be a working mum for 2 minutes and that will be it for pretty much the whole time.

And the people she was picked to appeal to will gobble it up and think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am hoping that everyone else will actually listen to her and think "huh. That didn't make any sense at all", but I'm not counting on it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

With a bit of luck:

 

[Utoo]

With a bit of luck:

 

[maycocksean]

I think Earnie's right.

 

[INDY500]

Bias? Naaaaaaa.

 

[dazzlingamy]

of course, that is what they always say. I don't think its bias when you are a sensible person and listen to another person saying sensible things. Not up in the air scary bullshit things like dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago and a blob of cells is a human and all life is sacred, oh except anyone who does anything bad regardless of the reesons, they are parasites and deserve to die.

 

[Irvine511]

Bias? Naaaaaaa.

firstly, find me a more impartial, tough interviewer than Gwen Ifill. i respect her tremendously. she is a straight ahead journalist. she does not write op-eds. i have no idea what her political opinions are. she's as good a journalist as anybody in Washington.

secondly, this book was announced months ago, and it's about the rise of a new class of black politicians. i know the Right thinks its impossible to write about politics in a way that isn't partisian, in this age of Hannity and North Korean-esque interviews by Hugh Hewitt, but there are some people who are intellectuals and can write interesting things about a current moment in history and it's historical importance without actually endorsing a specific candidate.

the book is also about Deval Patrick and the mayor of Newark who's name escapes me at the moment. here's how Doubleday describes it:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.

Obama's campaign can objectively be called "stunning" because he beat the most well-positioned non-incumbent nominee ever in the history of the Democratic Party. that doesn't mean you think that he's "stunningly good looking" or "stunningly smart" but that the campaign, and what it accomplished, was stunning to established political thought.

still, i understand this is important. all anyone has done to address Palin's shocking lack of knowledge is to blame mean sexist Charlie Gibson and she-devil gotcha journalist Katie Couric for asking factual questions instead of asking the appropriately deferential Hugh Hewitt, "Governor, your candidacy has ignited extreme hostility, even some hatred on the left and in some parts of the media. Are you surprised? And what do you attribute this reaction to?"

so let's make the debate about the moderator, instead of about the candidates. and let's have someone to blame if Our Sarah pulls another Roe v. Wade moment.

it's all you've got left.

 

[VintagePunk]

I really have a feeling she's going to perform adequately tonight.

Hopefully Biden will perform a little better than adequately, and the whole thing will be a wash.

 

[Utoo]

Bias? Naaaaaaa.

There's a term for this.


It's called


"Playing the Ref."

 

[yolland]

I'd kinda liked to have seen some footage of the 'mock debates' they did with their own people beforehand...I'm rather curious how they go about plotting strategies and prepping the candidates for these debates.

I expect Palin to go on the offensive as much as possible given the format, and I don't think Biden should back down if she does.

 

[INDY500]

firstly, find me a more impartial, tough interviewer than Gwen Ifill. i respect her tremendously. she is a straight ahead journalist. she does not write op-eds. i have no idea what her political opinions are. she's as good a journalist as anybody in Washington.

That may all be true but she clearly has a financial interest in the outcome of the race as her book is scheduled to be released on JANUARY 20TH, 2009 --INAUGURATION DAY.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, on Ifill: "I think she is a first class journalist, but there is a problem here. ... If Obama is inaugurated she has hit the lottery. If McCain is inaugurated she is just published, 'Dewey beats Truman' at book length. Now, she has a stake in this, unconscious or conscious or not, it's a financial stake, it's a professional stake in the success of the book, and it's going to hinge on who wins. Now, I'm not arguing that it will bias her in her questioning, but I would think that if you have someone who has that kind of obvious issue and conflict, you might want to have a moderator like Jim Lehrer, who did well in the last debate and who could do all of these debates. I don't see why we have to have a variety in moderators every time" ("Special Report," FNC, 10/2).

 

[Irvine511]

That may all be true but she clearly has a financial interest in the outcome of the race as her book is scheduled to be released on JANUARY 20TH, 2009 --INAUGURATION DAY.

so you're assuming she can't do her job?

if anything, there's going to be pressure on her to be far tougher on Biden than on Palin.

 

[Irvine511]

I'd kinda liked to have seen some footage of the 'mock debates' they did with their own people beforehand....

interesting tidbit: Michael Steele of MD was McCain's mock debate partner.

we can all speculate as to why he was selected out of everyone else in the GOP.

 

[Utoo]

That may all be true but she clearly has a financial interest in the outcome of the race as her book is scheduled to be released on JANUARY 20TH, 2009 --INAUGURATION DAY.

Bullshit.

As Paul Begala pointed out to Bay Buchanan last night---Begala has a book out about McCain. Do you think he wants McCain to win?

Wrap your head around an full-fledged concept instead of a lame-ass talking point: The "Age of Obama" will exist whether he wins the Presidency or not. Obama's become the first black major party candidate for the Presidency; he's challenged America to think that a black man can actually hold the highest office in a land that denied blacks the right to vote half a century ago, that faced race-related riots less than a decade ago, one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Obama's winning of the WH will add a hint of "umph" to the concept, but like it or not, the "Age of Obama" is in full bloom right now.

 

[bonoman]

I like Keith Olbermann, even though some think he's to partisan, he's entertaining to me the same way O'Riely can be entertaining to me. I think he says it all in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WLvGm5iHuA

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I like Keith Olbermann, even though some think he's to partisan, he's entertaining to me the same way O'Riely can be entertaining to me. I think he says it all in this clip:

YouTube - Fox News crying foul over Gwen Ifill's new book. Gwen Ifill will be moderator of VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin

Damn, I can see now why Keith Olbermann does so bad in the ratings.

 

[yolland]

I'm not singling anyone out here because these threads get so snippy that lots of people start doing it, but it really doesn't help the tone of discussion when people preface their responses with a dismissive "bullshit," "what a load of crap," etc. Simply laying out why you think the person you're responding to is misguided is plenty sufficient.

interesting tidbit: Michael Steele of MD was McCain's mock debate partner.

we can all speculate as to why he was selected out of everyone else in the GOP.

Well, Jennifer Granholm was Biden's mock debate partner, and I doubt that was coincidence either. I can understand the logic behind it; I don't think it's necessarily a cringeworthy strategy. I think it's probably more about the mock partner's value as a sounding board than about the candidate's need to be psychologically prepared to debate a woman/black man per se.

 

[Utoo]

noted. will let ridiculous statements speak for themselves.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Letterman's Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

10 "Let's practice your bewildered silence"
9 "Can you try saying 'Yes' instead of 'You betcha'?"
8 "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"
7 "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or health care"
6 "We're screwed!"
5 "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"
4 "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30"
3 "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"
2 "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in his van"
1 "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"