The Biden/Palin Debate Thread...get ready!- Page 2

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:46pm

Wouldn't it be expected that Palin would be called out on non-answers? Either by Ifill or Biden (not sure how much interaction is allowed between the candidates themselves with tonight's f ormat)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:47pm

Apparently, they're only supposed to talk to the moderator. Who, as a Vagina-American, is obviously going to be biased in favor of Palin.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:50pm

"Will Biden slam her and McCain on global warming?"

This should be interesting because the debate is brought to you by the fine people at "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity."

Clean coal = GLOBAL WARMING, I wish the Salon article would have mentioned that fact.

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:55pm

Well, if she doesn't answer a question, steps around it or says something nonsensical, I hope Ifill won't let her get away with it. Asking for clarity is the moderator's job. It's not the same thing as attacking or picking on someone.

[xxnewgirlxx]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 1:05pm

One of the local daily papers here in Chicago had some pointers for both candidates. The point, and then my brief synopsis...

For Palin:

1) Attack Obama through Biden: Focus on how Obama/Biden disagreed in the past ie funding the war.

2) Keep it short: avoid her well-known rambling, confusing answers.

3) Because it's all about her: Biden will mostly be an afterthought; people are watching the debates to see her.

4) No more talking about seeing Russia from Alaska: It's not working. "Small-scale Sarah to go."

5) Be likable, but not perky: Palin can come off as mean-spirited. "Palin has to make sure voters like her, not simply dislike Obama."

For Biden:

1) Attack John McCain, not Palin: there are "Palinites" who see every attack on her as personal...and many undecided female voters

2) Don't lecture: i.e. Charlie Gibson, that may play into Palin's blame-the-media stand.

3) Keep it short: "Biden has a habit of using 12 words when a half-dozen will do."

4) It's not about you: this is not about Biden being qualified for VP, he is; its about making the case for Obama.

5) And Joe, please don't smile: If Palin goes on the attack, Biden has to appear to take it seriously. "A smile will suggest to some he's being patronizing".

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 1:24pm

If she does this tonight, the press/public, being so tuned into that already, will see it and call it what it is.

Her candidacy is not about convincing the press or the "public" as we liberals define The Public. This GOP doesn't care about Independents.

Her candidacy is about one thing and one thing only: bringing out 100% of the Religious Conservatives, who hate John McCain and would otherwise have sat out the election.

Without the Religious Right, the Republicans cannot win; with then, goddess help us, they can.

[javero]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 1:33pm

"Her candidacy is about one thing and one thing only: bringing out 100% of the Religious Conservatives, who hate John McCain and would otherwise have sat out the election."

Preach it PJ!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:08pm

Mike Allen at Politico.com previews how Palin will go on the attack against Biden tonight.

If she turns the debate into an attack and he can't figure out a way to attack back, she can "win" it.
Palin’s new plan: Go after Biden

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:26pm

I want him to attack her. I want blood and hairpins and rimless frames on the snow, dammit!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:46pm

Just for you, blueroses:



Blood in the Snow.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:47pm

Per Pal Joey's point:

Pitbull mode has its dangers, particularly in the context of her poor showing in the anchor interviews. So many more people now recognize her as an unaccomplished mediocrity, her words are no longer flowing from the confident package that stood and read so expertly in front of the convention. All that bravado, we now know, flowed from a well rehearsed, well read performance. And on the national stage, the definitive tabula rasa.

Now, the listening and watching audience knows far more. Has see her ridiculed unmercifully on SNL -- at least once using her own rambling discourse, not a "comedy" script.

So it may now be a question of "those who can, have done so; those who cannot, go on the attack." Her shallowness and lack of real achievement will make an entire evening of trying-to-criticize all the more mean-spirited and perhaps ultimately empty.

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:54pm

Thanks, PJ.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:57pm

I'm anxiously awaiting someone to call her out for the "Bridge to Nowhere" on national television.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:02pm

I'm excited to see the debate.
I'm even MORE excited to see SNL this weekend AFTER the debate.

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:03pm

mejust, hasn't she been asked about that gaffe already?

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:12pm

This will be fun! Even if she does well she can't erase Obama's lead. She'll get a few points for a good job, zero for a tie, and points for Obama if she's sarcastic and uninformed. I'm looking forward to the polls they get right after the debates. Go Biden!

[NGD2225]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:29pm

Biden V. Palin on Thursday Night Debate Y'all.

I am so planning on playing the Bingo game tonight. This is my first debate so it should be interesting. I hope I can get through it.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:07pm

Are we tired of hearing "Biden better be careful! Biden better not condescend!" It's so insulting to HIS career, HIS experience, his profile and proven credibility. Why must he "be careful?" Why cannot he merely excell, and lay out his case employing his intellect, education -- wisdom? And by the way -- was McCain "careful" when he kept telling Obama he didn't "understand?" I guess you can patronize a Harvard graduated black man, but better be careful with a soccer mom. ("sahkurr maaaahm" as Namo might say)

The new feminism -- molded on the new patriotism. Suddenly, Sarah's pudenda is up there with Old Glory.

[Icehouse Life]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:15pm

...And this is going on in my hometown of St. Louis at Washington University. I really like your insights Artscaillon, Augie, and xxnewgirlxx. Both candidates are already known to be loose cannons so they have to watch themselves in their eccentrencies. Biden can be boring at times (and that's another reason why Palin is McCain's running mate). I can care less about all of the superficialities involving her that act as distractions from what we as the public should be hearing. Like (many of the questions taken from The Nation's Katha Pollitt) :

What are the European Union, the African Union, Asian-Pacific Union (forgot actual name)? Do you know how they function?

Have you actually met now-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin? What and when did you two discuss if so? Do you plan to meet with President Dmitri Medvedev? How does that and more inform you in your knowledge about Russia from vantage point in "seeing Russia from your house"?

How will you cope with the rising global powers China and India? In this domestic economic crisis the US is undergoing, what are your plans in dealing them as our biggest creditors?

If Sarah didn't try to fire Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Baker over her refusal to ban certain books, why did Sarah try to fire her?

What is the function of the Federal Reserve? How will you plan to improve and check on it?

Sarah, you're a big fan of President Bush. Why didn't you make a mention of him in your acceptance speech?

Sarah, suppose your 14-year old daughter is brutally raped in her bedroom and ends up pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the American parents why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapist babies?

What do you hope to achieve in your relationships with Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean?

Balancing the Bush tax cuts, assuming McCain gets sworn in, including McCain's new ones would most likely mean cutting Medicade, Social Security, or Medicare. Which would you cut?

Imagine what the debate really be like and be far more interesting and lively if Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party), Rosa Clemente (Greens), Matt Gonzalez (Independent under Nader's campaign), Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers), Wayne Allyn Roote (Libertarian), Frank Enulty (Reform), Eugene Puryear (Socialism and Liberation), Thomas Knapp (Boston Tea Party), and Darrell Castle (Constitution) all were invited to take part in that one VP debate here in St. Louis and actually did! Ideally it'll be more democratic since we are incredibly diverse in our political affiliations, and get the public to be more educated about them and think for themselves. But that's simply a theory and a wish of mine. These need all of the media coverage and exposure they can get. Please spare a nice thought for them all tonight as you watch the sole VP debate.

PS: We the public in 30 days of hearing about Palin, we are still getting to know her and she's bombarded day after day about what she does, her habits, and her stance. I'll be at work tonight so I won't see it. Updated On: 10/2/08 at 04:15 PM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:17pm

blueroses - I haven't heard it yet. I was hoping it would be ask point-blank and I don't think it has.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:21pm

Are we tired of hearing "Biden better be careful! Biden better not condescend!"

Absolutely. It's preposterous, but it's already the bill of goods that's been sold.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:29pm

Phyllis, unlike Palin, I have watched Biden in countless hours of Congressional hearings, he is smart and knowledgeable, but I have not found him effective when he smirks which he has been known to do very often. I would tell him to ignore Palid and tell the story through answers as to why Obama should be elected.

[blueroses]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:44pm

From Salon:


A can't-lose debate strategy for Joe Biden

The Democratic V.P. candidate can put away Sarah Palin simply by prompting her to talk about energy and global warming.

By Joseph Romm

Oct. 2, 2008 | Democratic vice president candidate Joe Biden has been given a gift that I don't think any politician of either party has ever received. He gets 45 minutes of free airtime in front of a huge national audience to debate his opponent with little fear of substantive rebuttal. Sarah Palin simply lacks the knowledge to rebut any detailed factual charges, especially on clean energy and climate, two issues of great concern to swing voters.

On the overall energy issue, Palin is one bullet-point deep, constantly repeating the myth that she and McCain support an "all of the above" energy solution, when in fact the greenwasher from Arizona has an environmental record as dirty as the global warming denier from Oklahoma. Palin is certain to bring up the need for more offshore drilling. When she does, Biden should agree and repeat some version of the response that Obama used successfully in the first debate:

And that means, yes, increasing domestic production and off-shore drilling, but we only have 3 percent of the world's oil supplies and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. So we can't simply drill our way out of the problem. What we're going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology ... Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel. And so we've got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence.

Biden should keep repeating the line, "Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy." Palin can't rebut indisputable facts. In fact, Biden should simply prompt her to talk about energy, because the more she does, the more she is likely to make a mistake, as we've seen again and again. She mistakenly thinks this is one subject area she understands, and because she is supposed to be the country's leading expert on energy, according to McCain, her mistakes on energy are far more damaging to her and the Republican ticket.

In the first debate, Obama won this important issue in the minds of undecided voters because he forcefully stated his plan for energy independence. During the debate, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ran a dial group of 45 undecided voters in St. Louis. "These voters had an unmistakably Republican tilt, voting for President Bush by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004 and self-identifying as 33 percent Republican and 27 percent Democrat."

What did Greenberg see?

On one of the most important issues to these voters -- who will do a better job achieving energy independence -- Obama ... more than doubl[ed] an already impressive 20-point lead on the issue to 44 points. Obama scored some of his highest marks on our dials when talking about the need to make America energy independent. Even those who felt [Obama lost] the debate agreed in our follow-up focus groups that Obama was the more persuasive candidate on energy independence.

Independent voters also care a great deal about the environment. And Biden has a free shot at Palin on the biggest environmental issue of the day: global warming. Palin is going to be nervous saying anything about global warming because she might contradict McCain, who believes humans do cause global warming. Palin disagrees with her boss and can't seem to get her talking points straight.


When Palin was first picked, a print interview revealed that she had placed herself in the camp of those who deny that humans are causing global warming. Yes, she said, she saw evidence of climate change in Alaska, adding: "I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."

Her assertion contradicts the planet's top climate scientists. In a major 2007 synthesis report, they concluded: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [>90 percent change] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG concentrations." The wording of this conclusion was agreed to by every member government in the world, including Saudi Arabia, China and the Bush administration.

The McCain campaign has clearly been trying to give Palin new talking points, which she clearly hasn't mastered. Her interview with CBS' Katie Couric makes this painfully clear.

Couric: What's your position on global warming? Do you believe it's man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And ...

Couric: Is it man-made, though, in your view?

Palin: You know there are -- there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, with these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.

It's true: She said "contributed" when I assume she meant "attributed," although her sentence would still be a meaningless generalization. Still befuddled, she said she is not going to solely blame man's activity on climate change. Presumably she meant she wouldn't solely blame climate change on man's activity.


But here is the real jaw-dropper. Palin commented that it doesn't matter whether climate change is cyclical or caused by humans. That betrays a stunning lack of understanding about climate change and even about what she has been told to say. If recent warming and climate change are merely part of naturally cyclical weather, then why do "we need to do something about it." If it's just part of a cycle, then the weather will sooner or later just go back to normal if we do nothing. For that matter, why has McCain devised an elaborate global warming bill to reduce human emissions?

It is because global warming is primarily due to sharply increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases that we know that continuing unconstrained emissions will make climate change worse. It is because humans are causing climate change that humans can prevent climate change.

Onstage with Palin, Biden should accuse McCain of not being serious about global warming. He should state that McCain never once mentioned global warming in his acceptance speech. Biden should look into the camera and say that McCain has picked somebody to succeed him who doesn't accept the scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change.

If Palin ignores him, Biden will score a powerful blow to McCain's undeserved image as an environmentalist. If Palin responds, she will no doubt say something as absurd as she did to Couric.

The bottom line is that Biden can highlight Obama's energy policies with little fear that they can be rebutted. He can hammer away at McCain and watch, along with the nation, Palin defend her running mate at grave risk to the Republican ticket. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that Biden must not screw up.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/10/02/biden_palin_debate/index.html?source=rss&aim=/env/feature

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:45pm

Why must he "be careful?" Why cannot he merely excel,

Because, Auggie, Republicans do not win general elections by "excelling." Republicans win by connecting with voters.

When Democrats excel, the can win Democratic voters, but they can only win over non-Democrats, whom they need to win, when they connect.

Biden is smart, but so were Gore and Kerry and Dukakis. That wins primaries but not elections.

He can be smarter than she is, but if he's smarter than the viewers and they feel condescended to, he will lose and she will win.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 5:00pm

Bush couldn't name world leaders and made numerous blunders during his debate, and Al Gore SIGHED in frustration. Bush won.