* Biden frequently addressed the moderator, while Palin stared steadily at the TV audience. This worked well with Palin's repeated assertion that she and John McCain want to put government back on the side of the people; she appeared to be talking to us while Biden talked at us.
* Despite pre-debate controversy, I didn't sense any unfairness from the moderator.
* Palin will probably be criticized for saying "nucular" just as Bush was.
* Palin may do better with TV audiences than with radio audiences. Not much was gained by watching rather than just hearing Biden, but Palin communicated a fair amount through facial expressions and body language, particularly when talking about energy.
* Biden sounded like a politician, was sometimes confusing, and tended to put the listener to sleep. Palin spoke more quickly than Biden, which made her sound more alert and more intelligent, and was very easy to understand.
* Palin brought up Biden's past - good move. She did her homework.
* My two-year-old daughter watched the debate with me. When Biden discussed Obama and Ahmadinejad, she giggled, copied his hand motions, and chanted "Sit down with friends! Sit down with friends!" I thought that summed it up well...
Did her homework? Yes, I would agree with that. She also read everything directly from her notes. She was unable to answer many questions, so she changed the topic to a different one that she could discuss. How many times did she talk about energy? And she had no reaction to Biden talking about his family, making her seem callous. Gov. Palin definitely did her homework and stayed on message. She showed she is a good politician in that she can dodge questions with the best of them.
Sarah Palin is a walking, talking joke. The winks? Hilarious, but not very Presidential.
She was a train wreck. Her prepared answers lacked substance and were woefully off-subject time and again. When she was on subject, all she could come up with was 'maverick', 'all of the above' and 'also.' I wonder if she can memorize even a 90 second sound byte, which makes me question her intellectual capacity.
Joe Biden wiped the floor with her. His answers were relatively clear, coherent and contained facts. Compared side by side to Gov. Palin, the Senator showed composure and grace while the Governor was scatter brained and had a certain moose-in-headlights glare when looking into the camera.
Sarah Palin was clearly unprepared. Other than regurgitating words like maverick, mom, main street and the disgustingly stupid use of the word 'also' over and over again, she had NOTHING substantial to offer. What she proved is that she's a lightweight when it comes to policy, and that's just not going to salve the fears that she's woefully lacking experience and temperament for high office.
You can say that the expectations were low for her and she clearly met or exceeded the point spread, but that's just an intellectually dishonest position. She was downright awful compared to Senator Biden.
Kelly,
"She showed she is a good politician in that she can dodge questions with the best of them."
If by "the best of them" you're including Biden and Obama, then I would agree. But then, this can hardly be a cause for exclusive criticism of Palin.
revenantive,
If the polls are any indicator, you're definitely in the (very small) minority opinion, but I'll leave you to it.
Palin carried herself very well, there's no doubt. And her mannerisms added a certain charm. I agree that the term "Maverick" is extremely overused, but at the same time she did an excellent job of showing that she really is a champion of reform who isn't afraid to take on her own party (and actually get things done, instead of merely talking about it).
As I said in a previous comment, I was troubled by her obvious dodging of important questions. And I agree with you, revenantive, that Biden certainly had a command of the facts. But the real clincher for me was when Palin forced Biden to admit his major disagreements with Obama. She managed to do this twice, and both times he could do nothing but admit it and move on.
The priceless moment: when she commended Biden for criticizing Obama for playing politics with the war.
" . . . Sit down with friends! Sit down with friends!"
After 9-11 Biden had on more than one occassion proposed that the US send Iran $20 million as a "gesture of good will - no questions asked."
That may not have gone over well at the VP debate. If I recall, Biden also said, talk, talk, talk!" Palin missed her chance to respond:
"Golly, with the exception of Dalfur, that seems to be your only solution. Speaking of Dalfur, Joe, why were the people of Iraq any less deserving of a humanitarian rescue? And why in '07 were you willing to abandon the Iraqis, when the future of that fledgling democracy hung in the balance?"
(wink)
As I said in a previous comment, I was troubled by her obvious dodging of important questions.
This was more than troubling. The decision to avoid and dodge the important questions shows contempt for the debate format. Instead of showing grit and knowledge, what was accomplished by Governor? Folksiness? Please. Maybe if we weren't in a financial crisis and two shooting wars among other potential foreign catastrophes in waiting, Sarah Palin's folk approach would be considered cute and beneficial. We need people in office who show a grasp of the issues, not a glossing over.
But the real clincher for me was when Palin forced Biden to admit his major disagreements with Obama.
If you want a yes-man backing up your President, by all means vote McCain/Palin. Other than ANWR, McCain/Palin agree on every substantial issue. You, as a republican retard, probably think that's just fine. The entire republican establishment is filled with yes-men, so really this is no surprise. Personally, I'd rather a President fill his cabinet and executive branch with people who have an understanding of what they are doing regardless of policy. The more disagreement the better because ultimately that's how you find common ground and put forth policies that make sense for majority of Americans. The last thing we need during a time of war and crisis is a moo-cow herd approach to policy. We need people in office who deal with facts. We don't need idealogues with paper thin understanding of what's going on around them.
Ms. Palin did an excellent job at the debates. She was very well prepared and presented herself well. I can see where she could appeal to many voter as she comes across like an average person and not a political insider.
Nevertheless, the substance of what she said and well rehearsed rhetoric was just wrong. All Obama/Biden have to do is keep asking how McCain/Palin will be different from Bush/Cheney.
Palin did enormously well with people who feel that facts are annoying and should best be ignored.
Also with people who are charmed with folksy asides being used to dodge questions.
And finally,
she did enormously well for people who don't have a clue what the word 'maverick' means.
The problem with the facts Biden commanded is that they weren't true. He was wrong on the Iraq/Afghanistan expense ratio by a whopping 2000 per cent, Pakistan's longest range nuclear missile's range ends at 1000 miles, only halfway to to Israel and the Mediterranean, Article 1 of the Constitution describes the Vice Representative's legislative role, its office within the executive branch is established in Article 2, the drawn out Iraqi war Biden predicted and the short, decisive victory he chided McCain for predicting, related to the drive to oust Hussein and his Baathist regime, not to the occupation and insurgency that followed. Biden's prophecy, that he now tries to resurrect as visionary prudence, went down in flames with Baghdad Bob. Nearly every statistic offered and every quote attributed ran aground on the brute facts. Even Katie's, where he reported hearing plain people talk in an effort to appear in touch with main street, closed its doors on Union Street in Wilmington Delaware twenty five years too early to apply to this debate's topics.
Biden's offered as his deepest regret and painfully learned lesson was that Judges should be opposed for ideological reasons, while disregarding Judicial temperament, competence, and faithfulness in restricting the application of law to what the law itself says and not one's desired outcomes. Hardly reassuring.
==All Obama/Biden have to do is keep asking how McCain/Palin will be different from Bush/Cheney.==
And all Rezkobama and Obiden have to do is reject and ignore every answer McCain and Palin give to explain how they are different.
==She also read everything directly from her notes.==
No, she didn't. She was looking at the camera while she talked. She referred to her notes from time to time, just as Obiden referred to his notes from time to time. Nothing unusual in that.
== She was unable to answer many questions, so she changed the topic to a different one that she could discuss.==
In other words, you wanted the moderatorette to control what she said. Well, she was wise to that.
== How many times did she talk about energy?==
I don't care. It's an important issue.
== And she had no reaction to Biden talking about his family, making her seem callous.==
Except that she said his wife has her reward in Heaven. What more do you want her to say? She had a limited amount of time, and she knew that she should not, on her time, legitimize Biden's appeal to emotion. You indicate that you wanted her to waste her time.
==She showed she is a good politician in that she can dodge questions with the best of them.==
Excdept that she didn't dodge anything. She took control from the moderatorette who wanted to control her.
==Sarah Palin is a walking, talking joke. The winks? Hilarious, but not very Presidential.==
You mean to say that it's not very political. She's not a usual politician. She is genuinely neighborly. Libs are afraid of her. For a long time, we've been looking for somebody to take office who is more like us, and there she is.
==...she had NOTHING substantial to offer.==
Translation: "I don't like what she said, and, so, that means she said nothing substantial."
==She was downright awful compared to Senator Biden.==
Translation: "I'm a Lib, and I reject anything Republicans say unless they agree with me, and that means that there's nothing Palin can say worth my time and effort."
==McCain/Palin agree on every substantial issue. ==
Sooo, you want them to be in disagreement so you can accuse them of not being on the same page, is that it?
==The more disagreement the better because ultimately that's how you find common ground and put forth policies that make sense for majority of Americans.==
The last two years, the president and the Congress have been in disagreement, and look what's happened. The benefit of disagreement is not that things get done, rather that stupid things do not get done.
However, it's also important that the right things get done. What we need, then, is a Republican president and a Republican Congress.
Are you Mr. Incredible, because you're incredibly wrong? I'm not saying that the Democrats have right answers, but the past eight years sure haven't been great to this country and Republicans and Democrats have had their turn in charge of the Congress.
One of the things I desire most in the next administration is an ability to regain some of the respect America has lost in the world. Bush's folksy and friendly demeanor got him elected, but what did that bring to the country?
As Ucfengr said in another thread - People who think this way view the President of the United States as a sort of global student body president, in which popularity is the primary currency.
There are some few of us who understand that defending our global interests is the only way to earn any sort of respect from the despots of the world. That is who you mean when you say we've lost respect in the world right, because countries that are enlightened respect us any way since that is what adults do, right?
smmtheory - "There are some few of us who understand that defending our global interests is the only way to earn..."
Your argument for defending our global interests is a strong one - it makes sense. If that was what this administration was doing in all countries, I would agree with your argument. The President has reversed his initial policy of not negotiating with North Korea and I heartily applaud that choice. But I must ask, what is our global interest in Iraq? Kicking awful people out of power is of great moral interest, but not particularly a global interest for the country. I'm unsure of what America is defending by invading places like Iraq.
"Libs are afraid of her. For a long time, we've been looking for somebody to take office who is more like us, and there she is."
I am certainly not afraid of Sarah Palin. In a month, she will be a historical footnote, finished on the national stage as fast as you can field dress a moose. Remember Geraldine Ferraro?
I don't want a leader who is "like us." I want a leader who is smarter than we are and has better judgement than we do. What a change that would be!
==Are you Mr. Incredible, because you're incredibly wrong?==
Not at all.
== I'm not saying that the Democrats have right answers, but the past eight years sure haven't been great to this country and Republicans and Democrats have had their turn in charge of the Congress.==
So what? A lot has happened to this country in the first four of this Admin, and, with no help from Libs, that translated into more problems in the second four.
==One of the things I desire most in the next administration is an ability to regain some of the respect America has lost in the world.==
At what cost?
I, for one, don't care what others think, if I have to compromise what I know to be right and correct.
== Bush's folksy and friendly demeanor got him elected, but what did that bring to the country?==
Honesty of heart.
==I am certainly not afraid of Sarah Palin.==
In other words, you're whistlin' past the graveyard.
== In a month, she will be a historical footnote, finished on the national stage...==
History shows that, when Libs say that they are as confident as you say you are, they don't feel a need to vote. That inspires Conservatives, a la '94, to vote.
==I don't want a leader who is "like us."==
Then, you're not like most of the rest of us.
== I want a leader who is smarter than we are and has better judgement than we do.==
Translation: "If a leader thinks like me, he's smarter than I, and, if he doesn't think like me, he's not as smart as I."
==One of the things I desire most in the next administration is an ability to regain some of the respect America has lost in the world. ==
So, you're into popularity. You believe that the measure of rightness/correctness is what others think of what you think and do. You want others to tell you what to think and do. You need validation more than integrity and decisiveness. Thank God that that's not the way things are done on the international scene.
Mr. Incredible, your comment/writing is creepy. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable commenting at the Free Republic website. ww.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2098625/posts
I guess you'd kind of be preaching to the choir though.
Were you in a coma in the lead up to the invasion? President Bush explained it in terms that even the Democrats (and specifically President Clinton) were using prior to his being elected.
"In other words, you're whistlin' past the graveyard."
Maybe you had better check the polls, Mr. Incredibly Optimistic.
"Then, you're not like most of the rest of us."
If by "rest of us" you mean McCain/Palin supporters, I heartily agree.
"Translation: ..."
I think my words are simple enough so as to require no translation. If they require "dumbing down", please let me know, and I will be happy to oblige. I'm not sure I have much faith in your ability to convey my meaning.
==Maybe you had better check the polls, Mr. Incredibly Optimistic.==
You mean the polls, most of which survey mostly Democrats? Oh, those.
==Mr. Incredible, your comment/writing is creepy.==
Oh, gee, whatever will I do.
== Wouldn't you feel more comfortable commenting at the Free Republic website.==
No. I'm quite comfy here.
==If by "rest of us" you mean McCain/Palin supporters, I heartily agree.==
I mean the rest of the country.
=="Translation: ..."
I think my words are simple enough so as to require no translation.==
Your real meaning must be exposed.
== If they require "dumbing down"...==
They already display dumb thinking.
==I'm not sure I have much faith in your ability to convey my meaning.==
Translation: "I don't agree with you and, so, it must be YOUR ability to convey meaning, not mine, of course."
Exactly what in my comments provoked this attack?
"They already display dumb thinking."
Are you an evangelical Christian? I certainly hope not. You seem more interested in trolling than contributing substantive comments.
Exactly what in my comments provoked this attack?
"They already display dumb thinking."==
This: "I think my words are simple enough so as to require no translation. If they require "dumbing down", please let me know, and I will be happy to oblige."
You suggest that I may need the "dumbed down" version, further suggesting that I am dumb. I thought I'd return the "favor."
==Are you an evangelical Christian?==
Yes.
== I certainly hope not.==
I don't care.
== You seem more interested in trolling than contributing substantive comments.==
I've contributed substance. It's just that you don't like the substance. Don't blame ME for THAT.
"You suggest that I may need the "dumbed down" version, further suggesting that I am dumb."
Wrong. My exact words: "If they require "dumbing down", please let me know, and I will be happy to oblige."
Notice I do not indicate anywhere for whom the comment needind dumbing down. I had assumed that since you were providing translations, you thought OTHER readers here needed that service. Now I see you have a little insecurity on that front.
If your mistaken assumption that I was calling you dumb is what you mean by "dumb thinking", I'm satisfied to let you believe whatever you want.
=="You suggest that I may need the "dumbed down" version, further suggesting that I am dumb."
Wrong. My exact words: "If they require "dumbing down", please let me know, and I will be happy to oblige."
Notice I do not indicate anywhere for whom the comment needind dumbing down.==
Except that you wrote it to me, and you meant it for me, and you meant to convey a meaning, just under the radar, that I may need "dumbed down" language. You weren't specific cuz you wanted the suggestion to get through without actually saying it, only suggesting it.
== I had assumed that since you were providing translations, you thought OTHER readers here needed that service.==
You weren't addressing "OTHER" readers, rather me since it was in anwser to me.
==Now I see you have a little insecurity on that front.==
Another bad shot, WWAAAYY off the mark.
==If your mistaken assumption that I was calling you dumb is what you mean by "dumb thinking", I'm satisfied to let you believe whatever you want.==
There you go again, and, so, if you think what I said is an "attack," I am also satisfied to let you believe whatever you want.
Since you are accusing me of something I haven't had the pleasure of doing, let me remedy that by assuring you that I do indeed have a low opinion of your intelligence. So low, in fact, that I'm done with you. Your further attempts to engage me will be in vain.