metal dawn on 3/10/2008 at 04:55
Biden is awesome. I think I have a guy-crush on him IRL.
Rogue Keeper on 3/10/2008 at 08:58
I expected that Biden is going to intellectually fuck her down to the carpet.
He's good but again, why Obama didn't choose Hillary for vice? I wasn't watching it back then. Because she was blaming him too much? Dirty primaries. Barrack-Hillary tandem could just smile at cameras and they would ruin nearly any competition. Election marketeer's dream product.
Gambit on 3/10/2008 at 10:14
Because Obama wants to work with an ally.
An Obama-Hillary tandem would involve huge conflict of interests.
jay pettitt on 3/10/2008 at 12:13
Biden was very good in this debate, I'm quite impressed. For the most part he made being knowledgeable and showing clarity look comfortably easy, Palin struggles with either. He made Palin look inadequate, not through aggression, but simply by being reassuringly better.
He was refrained in his attacks on Palin, responding to occasions where she was unforgivably awful and his attacks were careful and precisely targeted on policy rather than scrappy attacks on her character. On (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrL8UiCEdAc) climate change Palin repeated verbatim, word for identical word the answer she gave to Gibson, but this time she was visibly shaky and fluffed it badly. Regardless, at the best of times it's a terrible answer that embraces ignorance and weakness at the time when strong leadership is needed most. The contrast with Biden's position could hardly have been clearer and he chose to make it forcefully. I'm sure the blogs will argue that Palin was technically correct - climate does change naturally, and try to suggest that Biden was wrong to to discount natural factors so certainly, but the whole point of the modern global warming theory is that natural variability is rendered irrelevant background noise against the anthropogenic signal. When it comes to policy making, fretting about natural variability is a red herring: Biden gets it, Palin doesn't. Palin's attacks seemed, on the whole, far less carefully chosen, asserting for example that Biden was generally arguing from the past as though discounting knowledge of previous events might be some kind of noble virtue for someone seeking high office.
Biden was gracious when Palin attacked, sometimes laughing, but in a good humored way as though to recognise a gutsy performance before giving assured responses. Palin responded to Biden's attacks on McCain by stumbling and getting flustered; it's very clear now, I think, that Palin is out of her depth and unable to function at this level outside the narrow narrative of well rehearsed party lines.
He was strong on Iraq. Obama had struggled to be convincing against McCain, but Biden had no such problems here: showing the weaknesses in the McCain/Palin position, sticking to them and not giving an inch back. I think that may prove significant.
He's been criticised for placing too much emphasis on facts and figures; perhaps I'm not representative, but like Fett and LittleFlower I think he got it spot on. When dealing with the candidates voting record on issues like increasing funding for Iraq it is significant, for example, to note detail such as that Obama voted for increased funding with what he saw as appropriate strings attached while McCain voted against funding when he saw the strings as inappropriate. McCain/Palin's black and white charge that Obama was against troops where as McCain/Palin are for troops was shown to be fluff. Palin had no such arguments to use against Biden, giving him the free run of the debate.
There may not have been a K.O. - Biden wasn't fighting that kind of fight, it was however a commanding, assured and ultimately untroubled points victory. I think the McCain camp will be worried that Palin was so unable to score points here.
Starrfall on 3/10/2008 at 14:14
Quote Posted by BR796164
He's good but again, why Obama didn't choose Hillary for vice? I wasn't watching it back then. Because she was blaming him too much? Dirty primaries. Barrack-Hillary tandem could just smile at cameras and they would ruin nearly any competition. Election marketeer's dream product.
Whatever his reasons, the Clinton's story is that she didn't want it and would have said no if asked. I can believe it, VP
isn't where the action is and given that Ted Kennedy is failing, she's going to have a chance to really step up her leadership role in the senate.
Joe Biden is 65. If Obama is elected to two terms and doesn't die during them, I don't see Biden ever being president - in 2016 he'd be older than McCain is now. If Hillary spends this time in the senate, she does two things: she avoids inextricably linking herself to the presidency and gives herself years to add accomplishments to her resume. Whether its 2012 or 2016, I don't have any doubts at this point that she's thinking of another run.
metal dawn on 3/10/2008 at 19:32
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Not that this will cost her any political points, but when Palin attributed "City on a Hill" to Ronald Reagan I did a double take.
Apparently Reagan was the Wandering Jew. He assumed the identity of Thomas Aquinus in the medieval times then later assumed the persona of a bad actor in the modern era by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan who then happened to become president.
heretic on 3/10/2008 at 19:42
Well Biden had his own gaffe confusing Constitutional Articles 1 & 2 (regarding legislative VS. executive power).
Neither of the two had any major gaffes and the gaffes they did have were easily forgivable. Biden clearly had knowledge of the articles but misspoke, and Reagan has been associated with Winthrop's City on the Hill for 30-odd years.
Making mountains out of molehills really only serves to detract from worthy discussion such as Palin is hot and Biden has great chompers and an amazing forehead for example.
Starrfall on 3/10/2008 at 21:18
Actually article 1 says almost as much about the VP as article 2 does (neither says much). Art. 1 § 3 cl. 4 is what makes the VP the president of the senate and in charge of breaking ties.
If it was law school he'd still miss points for not also mentioning article 2 though.
(And if he was an A+ student he also would have pointed out that the 13th amendment deals with the VP too)
Ko0K on 4/10/2008 at 02:08
Quote Posted by heretic
If Ifill actually manages to pull it off then more power to her, but her apparent impartiality
should be in question. In fact, impartiality should be in question for any potential moderator.
Ideally before the decision is made..In this case suspicion isn't exactly far-fetched since Ifill (or the producers) failed to fully disclose her book supporting Obama which releases the same day as the debates. Not to mention that she has allready drawn widespread complaints due to her (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAtp_Q) obvious and unhinged reactions after Palin's initial speech (while serving as a reporter mind you, not an editorialist).
Ifill was a poor choice by any measure, and for obvious reasons
both camps would have benefited from a less questionable moderator.
Also, the first debate drew lackluster ratings. This debate is expected to do even worse. A lot of people are becoming somewhat burned out from this particularly long campaign.
A moderator's impartiality being questioned itself isn't the problem. What I was getting at was that they were hoping to pass a retard off as a qualified candidate by trying to blame any shortcomings on facing unfair questions.
Anyway, I missed the debate, but heard that I'd have been disappointed to see that there wasn't any trainwreck. Apparently she did acceptable job at reading off of Cliff notes, thanks to her intense cramming session.
And I disagree about the ratings. I looked it up really quick, and it says the debate drew 70 million viewers.
heretic on 4/10/2008 at 17:28
Quote Posted by Ko0K
And I disagree about the ratings. I looked it up really quick, and it says the debate drew 70 million viewers.
You were right about the ratings for the VP debate as it was much higher than expected...15% higher than the Mccain/Obama debate in fact. Initially, since the Mccain/Obama rated lower than Bush/Kerry I expected the VP debate to follow suit. Obviously, I was wrong. -And for the record Ifill did a fine job moderating the debates IMO, so more power to her.
In contrast regarding the Palin issue-
I think she did quite well mainly because she was allowed to be more natural and forego much of the mentoring since that along with low retention is what got her laughed out of the interviews. Both VPCs read off of notes at times BTW, this should be expected of anyone who debates at such a level of event.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Actually article 1 says almost as much about the VP as article 2 does (neither says much). Art. 1 § 3 cl. 4 is what makes the VP the president of the senate and in charge of breaking ties.
Yeah I know, but Biden's gaffe was in confusing which article covered executive power and which covered legislative power. Basically, Biden got the two articles mixed up when stating that the executive branch was covered under Article 1, rather than Article 2.
