If Obama and Palin faced off in a town hall debate, where both parties are properly controlled by a moderator, should Obama bring the full force of his talent to bear on her and totally crush her, or should he be gentle for fear of being seen as a bully?
She’s a stupid person. If he actually challenged her and didn’t let get get away with things she’d lose composure and lash out. So yes, yes he should.
Yes.
And then he should participate in the debate.
Biden tried to play nice and her supporters thought she cleaned his clock.
Obama should whup on her until even her supporters can’t deny she got her ass handed to her. It’s what they understand.
I watched a large chunk of the Biden / Palin debate (out of pure curiosity) and was struck by two things
- Just how gentle Biden was being in terms of calling her out
- How much bullshit the moderator let her get away with - in other words they weren’t debating but Palin was just repeating her talking points instead of “responding” to him.
Is there anyway to ensure it is a proper debate? (or at least as proper as the gulf in intellect would allow)
Neither party really wants a tough moderator. They both want to be able to get away with rhetorical games sometimes.
As for the OP: it would be to Obama’s advantage to argue vigorously without being smug, dismissive, or rude. Nobody would think he was a bully for responding to Palin’s arguments. If he came across as not taking her seriously or talked down to her, that would hurt him. You might remember how his offhand comment to Clinton ("You’re likable enough, Hillary) really bit him in the ass during the primaries.
This, to a certain extent is quite sad - it would be amazing to see an actual properly fought debate with knowledge and solid arguments being exchanged.
Why is it seen as such a weakness to address the direct argument of your opponent, and realize where you are strong and where you are weak? After all, isn’t EVERY policy a balance of ideology, efficacy and cost. It really shouldn’t be a weakness to admit this.
Because it might not work out in your favor. I think we’d all be better off if the debates were still run by the League of Women Voters or any third-party group instead of by the two parties themselves.
I say pull no punches in the debates.
Then, when the white knighting starts, remind them that if she can’t survive the debates, she sure as hell can’t survive being President.
If this woman is somehow elected to the Presidency, …
I can’t even bear to finish the sentence.
Her supporters will think she cleaned his clock regardless, because they have not even a nodding acquaintance with reality. I assure you, there is no circumstance under which they will ‘understand’ that her ass was handed to her.
So ignore them. Hand her her ass for the benefit of the people who are capable of seeing it.
Missed the edit.
Hell, I’d *start *the debate by pointing out that she couldn’t hack being governor of Alaska.
If he pulls his punches, it would make him look weak. Yeah, no matter what he does it’ll hurt him somehow, but going for the rhetorical jugular will hurt him a lot less than not doing so would.
Keep in mind, too, that he wouldn’t just be trying to sway the voters in the middle; he also needs to invigorate the people who are solidly in his camp, but who might or might not vote.
Substitute a Thunderdome match. If she can really field-dress a moose and shit, she should be able to put up a creditable fight.
Eh - you don’t “play play” ok…the streets of Jakarta are not exactly gentle, nor would the projects have been during his time as an organiser. He may well be nicely positioned as a street brawler.
Are we talking on the outside chance that Palin get’s the Republican nomination? A happenstance which is about as probable as Bab’s apples*, or in 30 years as some sort of traveling act – in which case, I say they take turns cleaning each other’s clocks. Keep it fresh; keep it interesting.
*Bab’s Apples
Fuck you, I like it, I’m keeping it, I’m using it as often as possible.
I find this kind of question fascinating:
If you have a lot of common ground with Obama, and you think like he does, and have the same conclusions that he does, and generally identify with his arguments and values, than it really doesn’t matter if Sarah Palin is Aristotle, Socrates, and Alber Einstein all wrapped up in one.
The same is true for Sarah Palin’s supporters as regards Obama.
If you are Yankees fan, all mets fans seem like subhuman misguided idiots. If you are a Mets fan, all Yankee fans seem to be total dipshits.
The implied axiom of the OP is that Obama is a superior rhetorician who can run circles around Palin any time he choses.
So how does one separate the dancer the dancer from the dance, and overcome observer bias? Any rationale individual understands that humans are biased, even and especially when they think they are being objective. That’s why real science is done in a double blind mode.
The fact that the op doesn’t even consider the influence of his own bias tells me that he’s not really going to be able to say anything constructive.
Obama and Palin appeal to different audiences. To me, the measure of the debating abilities of Obama will not be how much he appeals to an Obama supporter (we can assume he will do well preaching to the choir,) but how well he can appeal to Palin’s audience and steal some of her support without alienating his own.
How much and what portion of Obama’s audience can Palin appeal to in a debate withou alienating her audience?
I think Obama is the more talented debater, but he has a big problem. He has very little credibility at the moment. I think he’s over compromised trying to please everybody. He got elected on this ability. Right or wrong though, 2 years into his presidency the fact of the matter is that few are pleased with him.
Palin on the other hand has stayed pretty close to her constituency. She hasn’t said anything to win over her enemies, but she also hasn’t said anything to lose her friends.
Palin also has the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. She can criticize obama’s presidency to good effect, but Obama really can’t criticize her since she hasn’t done anything.
Obama had this advantage in '08, but now it’s his turn in the barrel.
To succeed, in his stance, I think you have to have clear message. Bush had a clear message in '04. You knew exactly what he stood for, and exactly what we wanted to do, and why.
Obama doesn’t have that anymore.
I think Obama can come off much smoother and polished, and make strong rhetorical arguments, but that can make him look like an insincere used car salesman.
It was not her fault. She had to quit, to protect her family. The press was picking on her and her kids. The function of the press is to spread the news that Palin permits them to have. No judgments, just put it out as she tells you to.
By the way, they have spent a lot of time and money on her. They don’t waste it. In the next year or so you will admire her quitting . Then you will vote for her.
Sarah Palin has both the acumen and the demeanor of your average truck stop waitress. This is not truly debatable. The woman wouldn’t know a thought if it bit her in the ass. Fortunately for her, neither would her fans. Please see post #11.
Which is exactly what he can criticize. “So, Sarah, how’s that governorship going for you right now? Oh, right, it isn’t.”.