So I just got back home and I was listening to part of the debate on the radio on my way home.
Just a few of my thoughts really quickly
-Palin's doing better than I thought she would. Definitely not perfect. I feel like she's kind of dodging certain questions and attacks that Biden have addressed her with (esp. plans for Iraq).
- Biden speaks in 3rd person. and outlines his thoughts (number one...number two...lastly). ooh and he also likes to address Gwen a lot.
- There seems to be a lot of a mix up between what Obama and McCain have voted for/supported in terms of foreign policy. I'm sure there's voting records out there so someone must have their facts wrong...
Okay so anyways I need to get back to watching it or catching it on youtube so feel free to blurt out and rant. Thanks for the idea Douglas!
Thursday Night Open Thread
4 hours ago
9 comments:
I totally agree with Sarah about Palin. She did remakably well in the debate. I am very open in my dilike of her on the whole but if i make myself take a step back and really think about exactly what she has done, it is admirable. For her to be shoved in the spot light like she has been, and to do as well as she is doing (i'm talking just about tonight, not Katie Couric), i think you have to admire her a little bit. She has great energy, she is sounding realativly intelligent, and she has managed to corner Biden a couple times, which can't be easy to do. Bringing up Biden's campaign for president and how he was against a lot of Obama's policies, is very devious of her. what can he say about that, its true, when he can be directly quoted bashing Obama. I think it was also pretty clever of her to call him out on his frequent citations of past decisions by Republicans when the tag line of change that Democrats are espousing implies that they should be looking to the future. So today, I reluctantly admire Palin for her efforts tonight, I'll be back to bashing her tomorrow. .... is it just me, or does Biden have a really great smile?? Sorry, just a thought.
i think she definitely started out well but as the debate neared the end i feel like her performance went way down... As in previous interviews i noticed that she seemed to be dancing around many of the questions, avoiding having to directly answer them. She also seemed to talk a lot more about McCain than herself. I also noted that she seemed somewhat limited in her ideas near the end. Whenever she evaded some of the questions and even in many questions she did answer I swear I kept hearing her say the same things over and over again. She mentioned so many times some subjects like her family, experience, partisanship, the way McCain crossed party lines, etc. I feel like it was slowly becoming more and more predictable as she kept saying the same/similar things over and over.
As for Biden, I think he did a pretty good job. In the analysis afterwards, the commentators noted that Palin had gotten wrong the name of the commander in Afghanistan but Biden didn't correct her. I felt like Biden seemed like he was sort of holding back in the debate so that he wouldn't fall for the trap of being called sexist or whatever after the debate.
Overall, i think both candidates did better than i expected and managed to avoid many of the traps that people had predicted they'd fall into. Well, back to watching the after-debate-analysis...
See, the whole idea that talking about the past means Obama/Biden aren't about change is quite frankly absurd. I for one find it hard to make changes for the future without somehow changing the past. And if the past happens to include John McCain voting 90% with Bush's policies, then i find the past particularly hard to ignore...
Just a few random thoughts immediately following the debate
1) Education- Palin went off on a tangent about education and how many teachers were in her family even though education was not part of the question and only mentioned in passing by Biden. With so many teachers in your family how can you not understand that little thing called subject verb agreement? It made me wonder is palin does truly not understand grammar or if it was a strategy used to make her seem more homely and average.
2) Nuclear- Maybe its just my opinion but the last time we elected a legislator who pronounced nuclear nucular it did not turn out so well.
3) While watching the debate and hearing the word maverick so many times i thought about that drinking game Mr. Silton mentioned in class. If you tried to play tonight you probably would have ended up with alcohol poisoning. Who knew you could tie almost anything back to being a "maverick"
4) Though politicians rarely seem to directly answer the questions in these debates and though Biden did not directly answer every question Palin seemed to just completely sidestep many questions and not even deflect them. her response to the Achilles heel question was not actually an answer but just another tangent.
5) Did Palin have prepared note cards for the issues because it appeared that way.
Overall though i would have to say that Palin did surprisingly well compared to the Couric interview and Biden came off as someone who really does genuinely care about what he is talking about.
Oh, and was I the only one who came this close to crying when Biden choked up about his wife and daughter passing away? I gained a lot of respect for him because of his willingness to show what a lot of people consider to be a sign of weakness in men.
I think that Sarah Palin exceeded the expectations I had of her performance in this debate. That said, I thought, based on this week's media interviews, that she would flop. She was obviously well-rehearsed and proved that she could speak in cohesive paragraphs. I think she skated around many issues and kept reverting back to that old standby, "Well, in Alaska, I dealt with energy and corruption." Yeah, we know.
To me, Biden was the clear winner of this debate. His eloquence, experience, and yes, Garrett, his willingness to show his personal side was very compelling. He was well versed on this issues, as was Palin, but his experience pushed him over the edge. I also thought Palin looked scared the whole time, which was a turn-off.
Palin did step it up in the beginning but seems like she ran out of things to say at the end and needed up repeating herself over and over again and not getting anywhere. She kept saying that if Biden keeps talking about the past it will not get anywhere, but if they don't talk about the past how can they change anything in the future? She kept bashing on how Biden keeps referring to Bush-since mccain believes in him 90% of the time-how could there be change with Mccain and a better future that Palin said of?
The ending of the anaylsis about Biden saying/bashing on Mccain what 84 times compared to Palin only saying Obamas name 18 times, is pretty darn funny to me. So what happens when Mccain gets cancer for the 584648 time and cannot fight it off? I say were still pretty darn screwed beaucse that Palin wont have time to prepare to be president and it will be just like the Katie Couric interview.
Osama for Obama...ha
So, I jotted some things as the debate ensued:
Palin's constant avoidance of questions irked me. For instance, she did not once address the issue of deregulation in the beginning. If she supports it as ardently as she does, she should know its basic arguments and then make them rather than saying, "No, Gwen; I'd rather to talk about . . . "
McCain's healthcare plan="ultimate bridge to nowhere": well said!
I almost regurgitated my afternoon snack when Palin suggested we should "Bless their hearts"–that is, the hearts of rich oil execs. I think I will not.
I was dumbfounded by Palin's continuous insistence that Obama/Biden are apparently saying "no to all domestic options" for energy. What exactly does she call renewable energy? And for her to continue insulting us with cries for drilling offshore with "environmentally friendly" oil platforms annoys me even more.
On the topic of energy, I must disagree with both candidates. Nuclear and clean coal are NOT answers but rather backwards measures. Nuclear power is heavily subsidized, because it is not economically viable on its own. It is far too dangerous in both risk of meltdown (which, I must admit, is very low but still existent) and mostly with regard to storage of spent fuel rods (for which we still have not figured out a safe disposal site in the decades we've been producing them). It also is heavily polluting: There are generally coal plants located next to nuclear plants to power them (kinda ironic?), plus nuclear plants put out such intense thermal pollution that nearby water ecosystems are devastated.
Clean coal–it must be noted–does not yet exist. It essentially is defined as capturing the carbon emissions from coal plants before they go into the atmosphere. The problem is where to sequester that carbon. Pumping it all in the ocean is expensive and risky, as it could alter the biological makeup of it. Putting it underground is a potential option, but it would have to be so safe that it could never ever leak. Why not? Such a concentrated release of carbon would be highly toxic and would negate all the sequestering that will have taken place. Essentially, clean coal requires years of and billions of dollars in research. We should put that money and time into clean renewables, not in coal just to keep the coal folks happy.
I was offended when Palin said (and has said before) that homosexuals "choose" their lifestyles. It is a euphemism for ostracizing gays and lesbians, and it is contrary to her rhetoric that she does not "judge" anyone.
I would hardly call the Obama/Biden plan in Iraq a "white flag of surrender." Even so, a white flag of surrender is better than absolutely no plan at all (which McCain/Palin have) when it could result in saved lives and peace. Pride is not everything in international relations–she and McCain do not realize this.
When Gwen Ifill read a litany of Secretaries of State who think diplomatic relations should be attempted with foreign adversaries, I could not help but laugh. Again with the pride thing: McCain and Palin's approach to diplomacy is frightening.
On that note: the country of Iran does not want to wipe Israel off the map, as Palin suggests. Ahmaninejad and some of his peers want to wipe Israel off the map. Most of Iran's people (and even many in its government) are not as extreme as their president). Does this mean they are not a threat? No, but the Republicans are engaging in fear mongering, which is uncalled for.
A negative about Biden: I thought he was condescending when he kept repeating his Iraq/Afghanistan points to "make himself clear." We got it the first time.
I found it humorous that in her concluding statements, Palin could distill the McCain/Palin campaign to one point alone: lower taxes=job creation. Nothing else? Clearly, she/McCain have no intelligent plans on any of the other issues. Sadly, the one she chose to espouse so much has pretty much been rebuffed in its own right. Oh well.
Lastly, Palin slipped in the end and said that she and McCain need to "leave . . . lead." First instinct=correct!
So, I finally managed to watch most of the debate (I still have a bit of the tape left to go), but here are my impressions:
I was generally impressed that Palin seemed to have some idea of basic economics. Having not seen the Couric interview but the SNL parody of it, I had been quite shocked when I found out her nonsensical statement was taken directly from her lips. But, nonetheless, I don't think she had good response in regards to it.
I think Biden clearly won. He was more intelligent, more articulate, more well-mannered (he didn't wink at the camera). I though Palin came across as a bit odd ("Youuu betcha!!) in her "colloquialisms" and sounded too rehearsed. I also thought she insulted viewers by refusing to answer questions (for example on Israel and Palestine, she started saying why she (sorry, was), a maverick.
While she sounded intelligent on some issues, she mostly just either took Biden's lead (like on Sudan), or just stated simple statements. Biden, on the other hand, had a solid command of facts and figures (he must have done very well on any AP test that required memorization). Furthermore, he used these figures to not just lay out specific plans to change America and the world, but to refute Palin. Palin was unable to do that. This is why Obama/Biden is the best ticket for America and why I would be genuinely concerned for the health of America if McCain/Palin won in November (thankfully, it is looking less and less like that could happen).
Post a Comment