Biden v. Palin Debate Oct 2.

Great Debates
101

I think the idea is that Couric’s question was pre-loaded to prevent Palin from providing the best example; saying “Can you give me examples of McCain doing X, without using the best and most significant example of X” is a mildly unfair question. It’s akin to me asking you “Can you name some really large cities in Canada, except for Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.”

Palin’s attempted response - “well, actually, that example IS the best example” is a reasonable retort.

Now, Palin STILL looked positively ridiculous, don’t get me wrong.

102

All things considered, she’s positively brilliant in this interview!

103

Couric didn’t do that. She didn’t say “except for…” She just said name anything and Palin came up empty. Her attempted example was not an example.

104

Never mind, upon reviewing the transcript, I ccan see that Couric did say, “Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago…” but I still don’t think the question is unfair because it represented an exception for McCain rather tha arule. Since he now wants to be the king of government regulation after spending his whole career railing against it, I think it’s only fair to ask for more than one example.

105

Of course it is unfair. Imagine the cameras are on you, and you are asked that “Except for situation x, and situation y, when did the guy you just got to know a couple of weeks ago do action z”?

Now, the cameras are on you, and any body language, eye movement, or breathing will be analyzed by your enemies to take jabs at you. If you blurt out things that he did, your enemies will say that you were too “coached”. Whatever you do, you can’t win. That’s why it is an unfair question.

I’m not convinced that Sarah Palin is ready to be President, but you can’t ask a question like that to ANYONE and expect them to come up with a satisfactory answer…

106

I disagree. Palin pointed to 26 years of pushing for more regulation, but she was only aware of the one answer on which she had been coached. If she didn’t know more than one example, she shouldn’t have made the claim.

107

She didn’t say “X and Y,” there was only an X. Palin was trying to argue that McCain had a track record. It takes more than one example to make a track record.

As for the cameras, every other candidate is under the same pressure, so that’s no excuse.

108

Wah, wah, wah. Like you don’t routinely attack a Democrat simply for being in the room and opening his mouth and saying words, or like McCain is incapable of conceding that some of what Obama says makes a little sense from time to time. By your standard, simply participating in political discussion is inherently unfair. Candidates get picked on, and their adversaries are often ungracious. Grow a pair, would you?

But specifically it is very much to Palin’s advantage to give a thorough, detail-oriented, relevant response that will then be criticized for being coached. it’s absurd to equate her moose-in-the-headlights responses to a brilliant, articulate response she might* give and complain, “Either way, you guys would pick on her.” Sure we would, but we’d have much less substance if all we were complaining about was how thorough and articulate she was.

  • in your dreams
109

No, I agree. Please don’t get me wrong; Palin’s answer was terrible. And that wasn’t even the worst part of the interview; she was just awful. I was just trying to get at what the other poster meant by a “Katie Couric.” It’s clearly a well-loaded question to tell someone to give you an example but they can’t use the best example.

Now, Palin COULD have answered the question intelligently, if she knew the issues. She didn’t answer it intelligently because she didn’t know the issues. Shit, she didn’t even NEED any other examples. Imagine if she’d come back with this:

“Well, Katie, to be honest, the example of what John said about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae really is the best example I could give you. It’s true that Senator McCain has mostly supported deregulation, and rightfully so. The industry was overregulated for a long time. But every position has a limit, and when deregulation got to the point that fraud was taking place, it was time to hold back. That’s what Senator McCain said and that’s why I support him. He doesn’t just take one line on the issues, he stakes out a position that’s best for America. When it was time for deregulation he was for it, and when it was time to rein deregulation in, he stood up for that too. He’s not limited to a party line.”

You might not agree with this and it doesn’t even cite any examples, but it’s sure as hell a better response, and one most high school debate team members could conjure up at a moment’s notice.

110

Maybe some of you have had this thought, but it just occurred to me:

What if McCain & Co. chose Palin to be a sort of sacrificial lamb? She gets thrown to the media “sharks” (believe me, if this were UK, she’d have been laughed off the front page and out of public life–our press is mild compared to some. Also, I don’t think the media has been hard on her at all–they’ve expressed frustration at the no access thing), but McCain still has his name up front and center. IOW, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

It’s a reach, but what else is there?
Oh, except that McCain, being astigmatic and out of touch with genuine Americans chose her out of some inner motivating impulse to what? Demonstrate his “respect” for women? The frontier? Personal stories?

(I still hold that this was HIS decision. He wasn’t persuaded or browbeaten to do this by his handlers or whatever–he saw in her the same “maverick” schtick and thought it would bolster him in the base. And so it did, but as has been said elsewhere, he doesn’t want to share the limelight and her celebrity has rankled him to no end.)
Ok, it baffles me.

111

I think this may well up being the most important VP debate ever. VP debates don’t usually count for much but there is no doubt that Palin has been a big news story and people will watch to see how she does.

It will probably depend on how interactive the debate is; the more Palin is pushed off her talking points the worse she will be. If she can get away with reciting her lines she could do all right. Expectations will be rock-bottom so that should help her. OTOH she doesn’t seem to be improving with time: the Couric interview was even worse than the Gibson interview.

For McCain the downside is considerably bigger than the upside. A strong performance by Palin will help him but not all that much. A weak performance could sink his campaign. A VP candidate doesn’t have to do much: mainly exceed the minimum threshold of competence for being a potential president. The problem with Palin is that she has clearly failed to meet that standard. If undecided voters decide she isn’t ready to be President it will effectively end the McCain campaign as a serious force.

112

That’s something we hear, but in politics there really is such a thing as bad publicity.

It just so happened that the “crisis” that occurred late in this campaign was an economic one. If the crisis had been a military/foreign policy/terrorism one, McCain’s VP might not have mattered. (My guess is now that Obama has gotten over that “able to handle it” hurdle so that even a military/foreign policy/terrorism crisis won’t save McCain’s bacon.)

113

True enough. Perhaps his new VP pick will be the October surprise? (she’ll step down for family reasons).

I know one thing: I now follow politics much more closely than I ever have. As theater, it can’t be beat!

Just thought of something else–for me, this pick proves McCain’s egotism. He really didn’t think about his health or the future, did he. Obama picked someone who could govern if he is killed (sadly, a likely scenario for him). I doubt McCain’s mortality every occurred to McCain.

114

Would that even that were true. She didn’t actually come up with that one example; Katie Couric did, then asked her if she could mention any others, which, we all know now, she couldn’t.

115

Palin was picked on good faith. The problem with picking a relatively unknown ‘outsider’ is that it’s a bit of a crapshoot.

If you do what McCain did, and watch hours of video of Palin in action in Alaska, you get the notion that she’s a competent, smart official. Her debates in Alaska were fine. She beat Frank Murkowski and Tony Knowles, who have been around the block a few times.

If you want to see a different Palin, Have a look at these videos:

Palin talking energy on Kudlow and Company

Palin interviewed by Maria Bartiromo

Here’s a long interview with her on CSPAN, from February: CSPAN Palin interview

Part 2

Part 3

The CSPAN interview is interesting because she takes questions from callers, both friendly and hostile, and has no idea what they’ll be.

Not really the airhead she’s coming across as right now. In fact, she comes across as a knowledgeable, yet plain-speaking politician with a significant amount of charisma.

I think the problem here is that Palin is obviously very well schooled on Alaska politics and the various issues in Alaska. And as the sitting governor, she probably felt very little pressure and was comfortable, but now that she’s the VP nominee, none of that holds.

Now, she’s being forced to absorb not just a ton of foreign policy and knowledge of non-Alaska issues she has to speak to, but she also has to know all the nuances of McCain’s positions and his history. She’s facing a skeptical, even hostile press which is just dying to catch her in a gaffe. In addition, she’s being heavily coached on how to present herself, how to answer questions without emitting gaffes, etc. She’s flooded, and probably nervous as hell. So she’s way out of her comfort zone. And she may be over-coached, forcing her off her own natural style and making her look indecisive and vague.

Had she been picked six months ago and quietly schooled during that time, she’d probably be fine. She’s smart enough, quick enough on her feet, and has the ability to recall facts and dates on the spot well enough. But she’s just not ready for prime-time on the national stage.

How well she’ll do in the debate is still an open question. Clearly, she’s being sequestered somewhere and studying and practicing like mad. She clearly has the ability to hold her own in a debate if she knows the issues well and feels comfortable with the subject matter. The question is whether she’s a quick enough study and tough enough to be prepped and ready for that debate. I doubt it, but if I were a Democrat I wouldn’t be crowing about how Biden is going to wipe the floor with her. She has the ability to surprise.

116

I don’t really understand “good faith” in this context. What would picking someone in “bad faith” look like that separates it from a crapshoot?

117

One odd thought - could her being bubbled off even be a ploy to lower expectations for the debate when “the whole world’s watching”?

She may do surprisingly well in the debate. And he can get cocky and/or flustered and say some really idiotic things. I tend to doubt it but it is not an impossibility.

What if she does far exceed expectations? What if she wipes the floor with Biden’s ass? Will even that change the dynamic of the race? At this point I think not.

Look, if she clearly stammers and is the ill-informed idiot that many of us have her pegged for them McCain is no more screwed than he already is. Those who like her politics will likely still vote for her and blame the media … somehow. The middle is already flowing Obama-ward; maybe that process would be accelerated some, but not much. Election Day 40 to 45% would vote GOP no matter what. Obama is near an effective ceiling for his support.

A decent performance or even destroying Biden with great one-liners (and she will have a whole slew memorized and at the ready well practiced) will get the media off her back but there will be no resurgence of the Palin bump. Her novelty factor is gone.

While this debate can perhaps drive the stake in a little deeper it has little chance to be a gamechanger.

118

Palin was fading in the polls before the Couric interview. Even if we posit that a campaign would be willing to look bad now for the sake of looking better later (which I don’t think is even possible. It’s not a rational choice given the unpredictability of elections), there would be no point in continuing such a charade so long.

Given how badly the interviews went, I don’t think the campaign is upset that so many people are predicting a catastrophe in the debate, though. At this point they have nothing to lose from such predictions. Either she will be awful, which means the predictions didn’t hurt, or she will be better than awful, which means the predictions helped.

119

That’s what we have “vetting” for - to eliminate the crapshoot aspect. McCain didn’t bother with that responsible, thoughtful stuff; he went with his gut, just like your man Dubya does - and with similarly catastrophic results.

Cite that McCain did anything of the sort? :dubious: He’d only even *met *her once before, remember?

Etc. IOW, she’s unqualified. You could have just said so and avoided a rash of rationalization and hoping.

Her nonqualifiedness is not the press’s fault (though the assertion you just made is a very typical port-in-a-storm for people often caught on the wrong side of the facts). Cite that they’re not simply reporting this time?

Only to the most hopeful and loyal GOP partisan. If she can’t handle Katie Couric, her fellow Miss Congeniality, to the point where SNL can quote her verbatim and make it look like a crude satire, how does she have a hope of looking competent against Biden?

And monkeys have the ability to fly out of my butt.

120

You can’t tell me that since day one, the members of the media haven’t been tripping all over each other to interview Palin and ask her THE question that she will give a stupid answer to that will go down in history.

And, so, like Couric, they are devising complex and little known questions that need to be answered on the spot, immediately.

I mean, we all know that she is a small time Alaskan politician who may or may not be ready to be President. She has no experience in the national media. Is a determining factor of her ability to be President an immediate knowledge and recitation of obscure facts about John McCain’s voting history?

I follow politics almost daily. I couldn’t tell you what Senator voted what on which regulation. If I was running with Obama, and he said that he had a history of supporting midgets eating corn on the cob, then I would take him at his word. If a reporter asked me to cite a bill that Obama has sponsored about corn eating midgets, then I wouldn’t know, care, or have asked him. Does that make me an idiot?

How many thousands of bills has McCain voted on? Should Palin know all of them?

I know all politicians face tough questions, but Palin is in the bullseye. I’m not crying for her, but I can also understand her shying away from the media.