Palin v Biden debate

[Ddrak]

Gotta agree with Embar there. Pretty sure Palin knew Ifill was unable to stop her doing whatever she wanted without looking partisan.

Dd

[Harlowe]

A moderator can do a lot to channel the debate

Sure they can, but Palin is the only one that can be held responsible for Palin's responses. Like any adult person in this world.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Thought this was an interesting read on mistakes from Biden during the VP debate... Warning: its from "faux" news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Harder to find a Palin focused one, surprisingly...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/03 ... al-debate/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... 414&page=1
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ebate.html

[Harlowe]

How can it be harder when you posted one for Biden and it was from Fox News which is frankly as good of a resource as using Huffington to vet McCain/Palin shit.

[Ddrak]

Thought this was an interesting read on mistakes from Biden during the VP debate... Warning: its from "faux" news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

Hate to say it, but the Fox commentator (if you look at his book) is a Cheney drone, and probably bitter at the moment about his beloved free market collapsing around him. Biden got it right (except he missed the EC tie vote thing, as we noted before), and the whole concept that "the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches" is complete bullshit and something solely invented by Cheney.

Hell, he's even defending Palin's "Bush Doctrine" screwup. That's just mind boggling.

He completely fucks up Biden's statement on McCain's health care: Biden said it would cost people more money, not that it would cost them more in taxes.

Biden was correct on the "taxes during Reagan" comment, unless you want to look at the highest marginal rates (which the author probably cares most about anyway). Taxes are already way below Reagan's rates for the most part anyway.

I love the way he links to his OWN BLOG as proof of stuff. That's just stupid.

Obama didn't say he'd "simply sit down and talk". He said he'd talk if he thought it would advance national security, and would happily do that without preconditions.


His defense of Palin's more wild mistakes is even more bizzare:

McCain's health care package is not budget neutral. There's been no analysis anywhere that suggests it is, and that doesn't mean that people aren't going to be paying more money either. Lott has no concept of the difference between taxes and payments to doctors being different.

Obama didn't say that the US was only killing civilians in Afghanistan. That's a blatant and offensive lie (and should have been a clue to you on just how partisan the piece was).


Face it - John Lott is a partisan hack who's book on economics has just gone down the gurgler and he's just as wrong on his analysis of the debate.

The factcheck.org analysis is pretty decent.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Fox is outraged at Newsweek - outraged I say! Yes it's the elitist liberal rag that people should cancel their subscription to!

Why? They didn't touch up Palin's picture on the cover.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 6&src=news

Source picture
http://phuzion.mirror.waffleimages.com/ ... 574c64.jpg

[Fallakin Kuvari]

/shrug

They did pretty much give Obama a halo...



But the left one shows how it wasn't really retouched... what with the pot marks and all (also a possible shoop'd cover, I might add).

Besides, I wouldn't really call the Palin picture bad... maybe just a little extremely close, but not bad. (In fact I'm not seeing anything at all wrong with it, aesthetics wise... Shes a women in a high stress position in her mid 40s... Wrinkles come with age... whats the big deal?)

[Harlowe]

I don't see anything wrong with the Palin pic. It's just like pictures we've seen of Hillary, McCain, Obama - really ANY political figure. The raw up-close untouched photo is pretty standard fair for news magazines.

I would think a "real" picture of her would connect more with people.

[Ddrak]

Besides, I wouldn't really call the Palin picture bad... maybe just a little extremely close, but not bad. (In fact I'm not seeing anything at all wrong with it, aesthetics wise... Shes a women in a high stress position in her mid 40s... Wrinkles come with age... whats the big deal?)

Yeah - most women in their mid 40s would love to have their skin look that good with a high res up-close photo like that.

Dd

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Besides, I wouldn't really call the Palin picture bad... maybe just a little extremely close, but not bad. (In fact I'm not seeing anything at all wrong with it, aesthetics wise... Shes a women in a high stress position in her mid 40s... Wrinkles come with age... whats the big deal?)

Yeah - most women in their mid 40s would love to have their skin look that good with a high res up-close photo like that.

Dd

Cindy McCain has paid big money to not even come close to that look

I like the picture of Palin, I think the makeup industry is a scam though =D

[Harlowe]

Cindy McCain looks freakish to me. Like the transporter in The Fly morphed a little girl and an old man.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

LOL, Cindy McCain IS the crypt keeper!

[Harlowe]

Larison of The American Conservative.."On Palin's Record" Palin = a Fiscally Liberal Republican
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10 ... ns-record/

I do not understand the idea that there has been no conservative critique of her record. I have said on more than one occasion that I assumed conservatives did not approve of windfall profits taxes, net increases in spending or leaving behind enormous amounts of debt. If that has changed for the sake of this one campaign and candidate, I did not get the memo from the Central Committee that so many others seem to have received.

Palin supported tax increases on oil companies, which ultimately impose costs on consumers, so that she can give away more money in Alaska and buy her extraordinarily high levels of support. While I do not consider earmarks to be the grave evil that the McCain/Palin ticket claim them to be, Alaska under Palin remains the leading recipient of per capita federal earmark funding. She embraced the bridge boondoggle until it became politically radioactive, and now she pretends that she was its mortal foe. She left Wasilla under a mountain of debt, and also bungled the management of purchasing the land where the athletic facility was to be built so badly that it has imposed additional costs on Wasilla. Spending has skyrocketed under her administration. Now for good measure she has demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of many major national and international issues, which drives home how unprepared she is, but would anyone on the right honestly look at her record as an executive before this and say, “Yes, this is the sort of thing I want to see at the federal level”? If conservatives don’t care about this, I suppose that’s their business, but can we stop pretending that this critique is based purely on whether or not she has done well in a couple of interviews? Whether judged “superficially” or on substance, there is not much there that conservatives can find that is very encouraging.