tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post973873274186089962..comments2008-10-05T13:05:58.369-04:00Anthony Palmer, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-77798434738162449742008-10-05T13:05:00.000-04:002008-10-05T13:05:00.000-04:00She didn't exceed my expectations - I've seen video of her earlier debate for Alaskan Governor, and she did the same type of thing: emptiness with a smile, covered over with lots of irrelevant anecdotes and simplifications. <BR/><BR/>To be blunt, this debate was absolutely appalling. Ifill let Palin get away with bloody murder, only once asking follow-up questions (which she asked to both of them), allowing her to outright ignore the question on most circumstances to talk about whatever she wanted, and generally letting her use the one time where she's on the spot with no way for her handlers to save her as a press conference. Can you imagine Tim Russert allowing that? Or Couric? Or even Tom Brokaw, the moderator of the next debate? It was an utter travesty, and it's a testament to the inanity of much of the Republican base that they think not-falling-apart-on-stage (which tends to be a requirement of <I>any</I> politician in the US) was a good thing.<BR/><BR/><I>Palin could have walked on water and turned city water to Evian and the libs would still say she is barely able to function. It is so funny that they demonize her for the shortcomings of NObama. She is far more qualified than he is, but the libs like Palmer have to shore up the NObama rhetoric. </I><BR/><BR/>I don't recall Obama ever saying he outright wouldn't answer the questions. I don't recall Obama ever mangling the English language to the extreme that Palin did. But then, Obama's career has involved a wide range of state and national issues, in addition to his educational background and teaching of constitutional law - whereas Palin basically went for broke on extracting more money from the oil companies in Alaska, and won because the corrupt-as-hell Alaskan governor before her completely under-estimated her.<BR/><BR/>We don't ask for a lot from politicians, but generally most of us who take an actual interest in finding out the truth and building an evidence-based view of politics ask that a politician at least know what the issues are for their campaign and be able to defend them coherently. Even McCain wasn't as completely incomprehensible as Palin was on thursday.Bretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05741738070067590221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-73703495400105168852008-10-05T03:15:00.000-04:002008-10-05T03:15:00.000-04:00Palin exceeded my expectations. She exceeded everyones. Talk about low expectations when that is the lead to every story on the debate. Talk about low standards when everyone mentions that she didn't stumble. She didn't know jack on foreign policy, nor was she prepared to defend McCain's record. She looked silly out there compared to Biden.<BR/><BR/>The McCain camp has neglected her as an opportunity to reach out to voters by shielding her from the people and by selling her as a total package when she clearly is not. Obama is weak on experience, so he picked Biden and plays that up. McCain is weak on his conservative credentials, so he picked Palin and played her up as a complete package when he should have sold her values. In defense of Palin (this is rare for me), McCain will be responsible if he loses this election, not Palin.<BR/><BR/>Btw Anthony, you are the number one listed blog right now on the new google blog search under the Palin-Biden Debate, which is the third most popular subject up right now. GratzDBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01267112937396907790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-40447460712201332522008-10-05T00:16:00.000-04:002008-10-05T00:16:00.000-04:00anonymous:<BR/><BR/>I really don't understand why people continue to delude themselves with the whole "Palin is experienced" thing. Literally, every time she or someone else lists her qualifications, I laugh out loud. There are a few things I'd like to point out pertaining to this argument.<BR/><BR/>1) Not all experience is equal.<BR/>Using a number of years spent gaining something called "executive experience" seems pretty convincing until you actually think about it. Was her experience of running a small town in Alaska anything like what making decisions as president would be? Obviously the issues, the environment, and the politics of the two are completely different.<BR/><BR/>2) Palin has no/few ties to Washington. Now I know this argument isn't a winner, as many people like the idea of an average joe/jil going and taking on the big bad establishment, but outsiders with no inside connections rarely set their own agenda, simply because they don't understand the politics of DC and politics, however dirty it may be, is how we get things done in this country.<BR/><BR/>3) Palin has no foreign policy experience. This needs no explanation I hope, unless you really do think that proximity to a foreign state qualifies as experience. <BR/><BR/>-minimanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-47501855505639807132008-10-04T23:41:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:41:00.000-04:00Khaki,<BR/><BR/>When I mentioned "educated voters" in regards to Palin, I was referring to the idea that some of the issues she mentioned probably wouldn't raise any flags except among voters who really understand government and world affairs. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, for example, is NOT something the casual voter thinks about. But the foreign policy types might think it's a big deal.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that Sarah Palin is only accessible to "uneducated" voters but rather that only voters who are really paying attention would have been able to understand some of what she was saying. Biden is a policy wonk in general, so a lot of what he said might have gone over voters' heads.<BR/><BR/>I'll rewrite this part of my post to make it appear less condescending. It certainly wasn't intended.Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-14128245879731448682008-10-04T23:37:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:37:00.000-04:00On Biden: <I>Even on the occasions when he may have been a little loose with his facts, he came across as strong and knowledgeable.</I><BR/><BR/>On Palin: <I>Palin made several assertions that likely raised a few eyebrows among more educated voters.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, I would expect this kind of spin from somebody like, oh, say . . . me, but from you, Anthony? Biden was a little &quot;loose&quot; with the facts while Palin raised eyebrows among the educated? Come now,on virtually every topic Biden&#39;s answers swam in error or deception. You can&#39;t say that Biden answered questions directly when his answers were bogus. Here are just a few:<BR/><BR/>* The Constitution never mentions the Vice Presidency in the Legislative section, only in Article I when discussing the Executive branch (Oops, Joe, Article I actually covers the legislative branch and identifies the Veep as &quot;president&quot; of the legislative body known as the senate.)<BR/><BR/>* Obama taxes = Reagan taxes (only in a world where 20s = 30s)<BR/><BR/>* Obama&#39;s tax plan only effects folks making $250,000+ (Well, give or take $50,000 . . . and everybody who works for a small business that falls in or above that bracket)<BR/><BR/>* We couldn&#39;t get oil from new drilling for 10 years (hmmm, the current Alaskan pipeline took only a little over 2 years from ground breaking to functioning and it&#39;s 800 miles long. An ANWR pipeline would be a mere 75 miles long).<BR/><BR/>* McCain and Obama voted &quot;the exact same way&quot; on a tax vote (guess he didn&#39;t think an educated voter could look this one up)<BR/><BR/>*Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (Roll the tape)<BR/><BR/>* McCain voted against supporting the troops too (Lord, I wish Palin would have looked at the camera and said, &quot;does anybody in America believe that?&quot; McCain pushed a new bill that didn&#39;t contain the time table or a veto threat and it passed . . . no thanks to Obama).<BR/><BR/>* I support clean coal (I guess the coal miner vote suddenly matters to Obama/Biden)<BR/><BR/>* Palin&#39;s crunch on big oil was a &quot;windfall profits tax.&quot; (No, it wasn&#39;t. The oil companies were hit when Palin reformed the State tax and revenue system).<BR/><BR/>* McCain is anti-regulation (Oops, we have video of McCain calling for more regulation of Fannie &amp; Freddie. Speaking of which, we&#39;re all still waiting for that proof the Obama made a similar warning).<BR/><BR/>* The Bailout matches Obama&#39;s plan (Except that Obama&#39;s plan also called for additional emergency stimulus and global coordination with the G-20)<BR/><BR/>Of course, there were more but I trust you get the picture.Khaki Elephanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09042470098012648139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-84751499743691318602008-10-04T23:32:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:32:00.000-04:00Palin could have walked on water and turned city water to Evian and the libs would still say she is barely able to function. It is so funny that they demonize her for the shortcomings of NObama. She is far more qualified than he is, but the libs like Palmer have to shore up the NObama rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-71119291475097068712008-10-04T23:22:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:22:00.000-04:00It is time we hear from someone who not a DC freak. When this is over, and NObama wins, then she should write a book and pick up a million or two, and then eveyone can whistle, and the Palin family can live a happy life in Alaska a little above the middle class. JACK Queen at quebjb18@gmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com