Despite my poking fun yesterday, the only Vice Presidential debate of 2008 produced no major disasters. For that, both Biden and Palin succeeded. Beyond meeting the pitiful threshold of “don’t screw up,” both candidates also scored some political points and gave us a more energetic discussion than Obama and McCain gave us. Because of his dominance in knowledge and experience, I believe Biden “won” the debate, though I strongly suspect that anyone who already liked Palin will believe that she “held her own” (alas, the soft bigotry of low expectations…).
Palin did her job in speaking to her base and re-energizing them after the absolute embarrassment of her recent interviews. The format suited her very well by not allowing a follow-up question to any of her talking points. For example, she said “There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration.” Obvious follow-up: “Like what?” Or how about following up her statement “Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures” with “What reform measures?” I also assume that several of Palin’s one-liners played very well to her fans, regardless of whether what she said mattered or even made sense. For example, she said at one point “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.” I’m sure that thrilled anyone who thinks Gwen Ifill is the liberal media and Joe Biden is a blowhard. But it’s disingenuous, because how is refusing to answer the question talking straight to the American people?! Her only low blow of the evening was “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq.” How Biden didn’t explode at that is beyond me. Aside from the affront to Biden as a father of a soldier in Iraq, the biggest problem with that statement is, again, the facts. Obama’s plan is endorsed by the President of Iraq and is being nearly completely adopted.
What Palin did well, though, was stick to her talking points and talk passionately about and in favor of John McCain. In political terms, she was very effective in her last half hour of making a long point at least twice about contrasting her “ticket” with the opposing party’s.
Biden had the clear advantage on substance, but I’m not sure it was politically effective. When Palin claimed that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes, Biden (since he was there) is able to rebut that misleading statement by pointing out that by Palin’s standards, McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. Or when Palin talked about Obama’s vote on funding for the war, Biden was able to point out how her comment was deceitful, but in my opinion the political advantage goes to the one talking first in that situation. Biden let himself get cornered too often in explaining any difference between himself and Obama. It seems to me that it would have sufficient (and more honest) to simply say “we disagree on that issue but that doesn’t matter because he will be the President, not me.”
The most amazing exchange of the night is one that will largely go unnoticed, in my opinion. Palin said that she agreed with Dick Cheney that the Vice President is a member of Congress and, in her words, there is “more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it.” Biden immediately shot that down with “Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch…The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.” If you care at all about the expansion of Executive Power in the last 8 years, this exchange is VERY enlightening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The main feeling I had throughout the night was concern that Gov. Palin could someday be President of the United States of America.
I don't disagree that she "held her own," and she didn't necessarily hurt McCain in the debate. But this event, in combination with recent interviews, convinced me that she is not ready to run this country.
And it's my opinion that a vote for McCain is an affirmation that Palin can effectively lead the nation. I think she's cute, sassy, and likeable: three qualities absent from my personal criteria for President.
I recorded the debate in case I got bored with it and wanted to fast forward. But, in fact, I watched the whole thing. I found it pretty interesting. I would rate both candidates quite well. Actually, I like the VP candidates better than either of the Presidential candidates. I keep hearing folks declare that people don’t vote for Vice President; but for President; meaning that VPs don’t impact the election that much. Perhaps that is true in the past, but I think they may have a bigger impact this time. The viewership of this debate compared to the last Presidential debate lends to my opinion with a 45.0 rating for the VP debate compared to 31.6 for the debate last Friday. I haven’t done an exhaustive analysis, but it does seem that the only folks I hear down playing the VP’s impact are almost always on the Democratic side. If I’m right, why would that be? Are they compensating for a weak VP candidate on their own ticket? I doubt it. Or are they trying to diminish the strength of Palin’s role for the Republican ticket.
But as the resident “republican” commenting on your blog, I think that Palin did more than simply “hold her own.” I think she did very well, “soft bigotry” aside. What does that mean anyway?
You made mention of Palin’s misleading statements, so, strictly out of fairness, let me point out the “misleading comments” that Biden made. Biden said that Obama was the one to raise the red flag two years ago warning about the sub-prime mortgage crisis. What? Show me! I find that VERY hard to believe. He’s in the pocket of Freddie and Fannie, with Obama being the second highest recipient of contributions from the groups. And his campaign has connections to 2 of Fannie’s CEOs. Plus, Biden said that Obama never said that he would sit down with leaders of rogue nations without pre-conditions. But Obama did say that exact thing in the CNN/You Tube debate back in July 2007.
I’m concerned about the talk about the Vice President’s role in the Congress. What Palin said is weird. My response was “Huh?” Biden’s claim that Cheney was a “dangerous” VP is extreme. I haven’t heard of this before. What examples are there of Cheney abusing his power in the congress. This was a strange exchange here that I don’t fully understand.
And, DVD, on the Iraq war, you say that “Obama’s plan is endorsed by the President of Iraq”. This makes it sound like Obama created the plan, the first to announce the strategy, and now leaders are jumping on and “endorsing” the plan. Is that right? Did Obama really come up with it first? Is he the originator? Or is it that he simply agrees with a plan already being discussed. Could you clear it up for me?
And responding to Brian. Not only is Palin “cute, sassy and likeable;” she is also smart, savvy, and an independent thinker.
Under what standard is Sarah Palin smart, savvy and independent? By mere virtue of being elected governor of a state with half the population of the St. Louis area? By the circumstance of being John McCain's "hail mary" pass to win the election? I suppose to some extent you have to be smart and savvy to be elected to office, but I have also seen some not very smart and savvy people elected. Did you not read Palin's Q&A I put up yesterday? Is that smart or savvy? Name any smart, savvy thing Palin has said or done that is relevant to being Vice President?
Her appeal highlights for me how desperate the population is for more common sense in our governments. We are so desperate that many people are willing to hide their eyes to Palin's glaring inadequacies. She seems "normal" so many people are willing to ignore the fact that she has never said or done anything relevant to American politics and many are willing to ignore that she cannot talk about basic issues beyond a Power Point presentation level.
In the last month, I've watched parts of the Cheney-Edwards, Cheney-Lieberman and Bush-Ferraro VP debates. I didn't agree with all of them and no one was perfect, but they at least knew what they were talking about! They had all been places and done things that mattered to the job.
Sarah Palin has not demonstrated to me the basic qualifications for the job. It's a travesty of history that so many are willing to overlook these obvious holes in the desperate hope that she is a "normal" person.
I don't FEEL desperate. Mmmmm. I suppose I'm in denial. Pray for me, will you? You make it sound as if those you don't agree with you should be put away or declared incompetent. Won't you consider that perhaps, just perhaps, half the country might just have another VALID opinion that differs from your own. We aren't desperate to believe in our candidates. And I take offense.
Yes, I did read your Q&A of Palin. You pulled out examples of her "less than shining moments". You're points are skewed and one sided. I've seen enough of her doing well to forgive her slip ups. We all make them. Even democrats, though you fail to point them out.
I don't think Obama has any more experience than she does and I've heard plenty of interviews where he didn't sound "smart" with about a million and one "Uhhh"s. But I can still see the man is smart.
And didn't you see the debate last night? Wasn't she smart and savvy then?
Obviously, we have very different views. I can agree to disagree, but Gee, could you please give me some credit?
I found the debate somewhat less than exciting, at least from what I was expecting. However, it was a decent debate. I was disappointed that neither side screwed up royally. I think Biden won the debate from the standpoint that he sounded presidential in his answers. However, Palin won the pr side of the debate and exceeding expectations. Granted Biden exceeded expectations by not being "ready to gaffe" as Senator McCain had indicated earlier in the day.
Both sides embellished (I think that is spin for lied) and told half truths. Unfortunately that is to be expected in these debates. Palin knew her stuff generally (and to be fair in 90 seconds you can't give a detailed answer), but still somehow she came out sounding more cue cardish and bulletpointish than Biden. Although it was not like her speech at the RNC where it sounded like she was reading from Wikipedia.
I did not appreciate that she would latch onto a topic that Biden mentioned in an answer and then discuss that in her rebuttal instead of the question. This was irritating to me, and somewhat disrespectful in my opinion. I was often left wondering, "why is she talking about energy or education or taxes, that had nothing to do with the question." Again, I'm not saying Biden answered every question straight up. You would have to be a goofball or not have watched any political debates to think that the actual question would be answered. However, I did feel that he did at least answer the topic of the question before moving off topic, and on certain occasions did in fact answer the question that was asked.
Palin may be qualified or may not be qualified to be VP (I'm not for sure anyone is qualified to be VP or President), but I will admit that there is something more fundamental that bothers me about her. Her belief that common sense can fix anything? Have we had decades of presidents without common sense? Also, her dumbing down of complex issues? "Well heck Joe, back where I come from we just look the problem in the eye, and say, golly why don't we just do this instead." That's not gonna cut it as VP. The USA has real problems and it is time for serious people to solve those problems. Further, her common-ness is irritating to me in that I don't want common in my leaders. I'm concerned her view on problems and issues moves us closer to an Idiocracy than a Democracy.
Being desperate for common sense is not grounds for committal, nor is willingness to overlook faults crazy. I am, and I do! If you have qualifications for VP of Palin that go beyond her personality, feel free to share, but your defensiveness is not persuasive. And I also find less persuasive people that only believe one party. You came along during the Presidential election, where I happen to support Obama, so you assume I am a Democrat. My ballot is split and my issues sometimes don't match either major party.
Other than just sharing and sharpening my own thoughts, if I have any goal with topics like religion, politics or philosophy, it is to encourage someone to question their own beliefs.
To a few specifics you brought up earlier:
Obama's warning about the subprime mortgage crisis last year: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/
I wanted that follow-up question of "What reforms?" to Palin, not because I thought it wasn't true, but because I don't think she knows what those proposed reforms were.
Regarding Obama's Iraq plan, yes, it was his plan. From July 19, 2008:
In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama's 16 month timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Carrie, I really appreciated that you continue sharing your opinions and getting them out there for discussion. However, I have to disagree that you are the only Republican who comments on this blog. I have been a staunch conservative Republican, as my career shows, and still support those candidates whom I believe accurately reflect my political values.
However, in this Presidential election, I have found myself conflicted and finding fewer attributes in the Republican candidate that I can really agree with. So, please, don't put us all in - or out - of any category. That could be harmful to my reputation! ;)
On the topic of this debate, the best way I can describe my evaluation is to say that Palin "beat the spread." So, if you had been betting on the debate, she won. However, because of Biden's extensive knowledge and ability to at least appear to answer questions, I felt he was the clear winner in points. I felt like Governor Palin talked down to the American public by "commonizing" her speech. "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." We can't understand answers to complicated questions? Give US a little credit, Governor. Try us.
Well, I have to say an apology is in order. My last response was defensive and I'm sorry. I got hooked.
I hope you can forgive me. I am new to reading the blog and I admit that I assumed DVD was democrat from the recent slams of Palin. That was unfair.
Friday, the day I wrote the comment, was one of those tough days where my emotions got the better of me all day. I'm afraid I took my anger about another situation out on you bloggers. Bad form.
Hopefully, you know it is uncharacteristic of me. No loss of respect or love for you on my part and I hope on yours as well.
I am a strong believer in people disagreeing with each other without judging them, and I think I felt belittled and under estimated. Ahh, there it is...my hook. I'm sorry about that.
I promise to mind my manners in the future.
Agreed. Disagreement without judgment is definitely the way to go. No harm here!
Whew! I'm usually the only person apologizing for letting my emotions get the best of me - I'm glad to be joined by such good company!
Carrie, you and I have argued passionately, fairly and without judgement for almost 10 years now. A few defensive comments doesn't change years of positive history.
I'm glad you've joined the blog commenters, at least it makes it more interesting for me to read.
Wow, great discussion. I only saw the second half of the debate, and quite frankly, I'm glad I didn't waste my time with the first half. I won't try to dissect the talking points since DVD has already done that far more clearly than I ever could. I will elaborate on what really bugs me about Sarah Palin.
Erick said "...Palin won the pr side of the debate and exceeding expectations"... He's right, to be sure, but since when does "not being a total disaster" qualify as "holding your own" in a debate? I felt like Tina Fey could have taken her cue cards and done just as well a job!
She dodged many questions during the time I watched, and delivered such little substance, that by the end it was clear she had nothing to say of her own. It didn't help that she blatantly ignored one of Ifill's questions, and changed the subject completely. She may as well have said "Afghanistan is next in my notes. I'll talk about that instead". (The specifics may be wrong, but you get the point)
One question: did anyone else find her winking insulting? I get that she's trying to capitalize on her regular person image, but winking? Was she hitting on America? (Oh, and no, I don't want a regular person as President or Vice President. I want EXCEPTIONAL people in BOTH of those offices.)
Just for the record, it wasn't that long ago that I voted a straight Republican ticket.
Post a Comment