Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 3, 2008 - 9:37am
BluEyes wrote:
The McCain/Palin platform appears, to me, to be based on a presumption of fear (of the economy, of terrorists, etc.) and a need for a warrior to "change" the course we are on.
The Obama/Biden seems, to me, to be based more on a call for reason and diplomacy to also "change" the status quo.
In retrospect, we elected Bush from a mostly fear-based mindset and I think that many people have regrets that may well be taken into account in the upcoming election. I think that a warrior stance should be our last resort instead of our presumed response and this is probably the key factor shaping my vote this fall even in light of the current financial mess.
I thought that Palin sounded like a vastly more articulate individual than the one we've been seeing in recent interview snippets.
I thought that Biden gave more substantive answers but did not always articulate as well as he probably wanted to.
Both of them probably overstated some of the factual stuff but that probably won't be a big deal in the long run.
I do think that Biden missed a golden opportunity when Palin was speaking about (enemies of) Israel, and also Iran, and I think it was South Korea (she referred to the rulers) to ask her if she and McCain planned on attacking every country that they perceived as unstable and just how many battles did they think we needed to be fighting. Her stance really did make me nervous to think what the future might hold if McCain wins the election. Biden should have emphasized that point.
I thought that Biden came across as more professional. He also appeared to have more genuine emotion than Palin did. I was somewhat put off by her trying to be cutesy or folksy to appeal to mainstream America. It felt insincere and made me feel like she was trying to sell me a used car. I wasn't buying what she was selling.
Over all, neither one was an embarrassment to his or her running mate and neither one completely ran away it successfully. Generally speaking:
The McCain/Palin platform appears, to me, to be based on a presumption of fear (of the economy, of terrorists, etc.) and a need for a warrior to "change" the course we are on.
The Obama/Biden seems, to me, to be based more on a call for reason and diplomacy to also "change" the status quo.
In retrospect, we elected Bush from a mostly fear-based mindset and I think that many people have regrets that may well be taken into account in the upcoming election. I think that a warrior stance should be our last resort instead of our presumed response and this is probably the key factor shaping my vote this fall even in light of the current financial mess.
The main thing you should ponder, I surmise, is that when I look at SP's eyes I am reminded of a line from the short story, "The Duel" by Joseph Conrad where one character says of another, "It is said that the enemies of reason have a certain strange cast to their eyes, I believe the Lieutenant has just that look to him."
I'm envisioning a person who will never admit that she is wrong if it means not getting what she wants. Her high-handed behavior concerning her ex-brother-in-law is case in point.
I think that's too generous. She'd never admit she was wrong because . . . because, like Bush (and McCain?) the very concept escapes her.
The Governor went back to Alaska and made a speech at her son's military parade prior to leaving for Iraq. It was televised and became a bit of a political event. Everything seems to be a political event for her. I can see having the husband-prop on the stage last night, but I had trouble with the baby-prop being there. This a formal debate, not a campaign whistle-stop.
The tactics were very clever, use the debate as a campaign event to present yourself to the American people. Don't answer the questions that Gwen Ifill asked, answer the questions that you wanted her to ask. "Yeah, you're talking about xyz but I want to talk about my executive experience as mayor of Wasilla. Oh, and did I tell you I'm a hockey mom, by golly?"
Oh, no no. Not "talking." Not even "talkin'." No, we're talkin' "tawkun," here. Not that I've anything against relaxed vernacular speech, even if it is Minnesotan. But here? In a televised formal debate? It's a worse and more offensive affectation than "newkyaler," which she, like Bush, surely actually knows how to pronounce.
She was very patronizing and condescending on a number of occasions, by golly. She was also overly effusive when she was praising Biden, about his record and the fact that his son was serving in the military. It was that kind of overly stated praise that sometimes means exactly the opposite.
There was some criticism of Biden in here last night about his moment of emotionality. He never made a point of this himself, but he left that debate to go to see his son off to Iraq.
The main thing you should ponder, I surmise, is that when I look at SP's eyes I am reminded of a line from the short story, "The Duel" by Joseph Conrad where one character says of another, "It is said that the enemies of reason have a certain strange cast to their eyes, I believe the Lieutenant has just that look to him."
I'm envisioning a person who will never admit that she is wrong if it means not getting what she wants. Her high-handed behavior concerning her ex-brother-in-law is case in point.
You would expect that from somebody who wasn't using their child's military position to grandstand. You might also think that drawing attention to an individual solder would be bad for that solder and their unit. ( ie Prince Harry syndrome )
I think Biden's a classy guy.
The Governor went back to Alaska and made a speech at her son's military parade prior to leaving for Iraq. It was televised and became a bit of a political event. Everything seems to be a political event for her. I can see having the husband-prop on the stage last night, but I had trouble with the baby-prop being there. This a formal debate, not a campaign whistle-stop.
The tactics were very clever, use the debate as a campaign event to present yourself to the American people. Don't answer the questions that Gwen Ifill asked, answer the questions that you wanted her to ask. "Yeah, you're talking about xyz but I want to talk about my executive experience as mayor of Wasilla. Oh, and did I tell you I'm a hockey mom, by golly?"
She was very patronizing and condescending on a number of occasions, by golly. She was also overly effusive when she was praising Biden, about his record and the fact that his son was serving in the military. It was that kind of overly stated praise that sometimes means exactly the opposite.
There was some criticism of Biden in here last night about his moment of emotionality. He never made a point of this himself, but he left that debate to go to see his son off to Iraq.
You would expect that from somebody who wasn't using their child's military position to grandstand. You might also think that drawing attention to an individual solder would be bad for that solder and their unit. ( ie Prince Harry syndrome )
You missed it? Well here's my summary. Good evening for both, Palin didn't drool all over herself and Biden didn't stuff his foot in his mouth. Palin was seen as being light and folksy, while Biden was seen to be boring because he liked to cite facts and figures and laws and boring stuff like that.
Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution.
I thought this little part was annoying, the way she said it.
She was very patronizing and condescending on a number of occasions, by golly. She was also overly effusive when she was praising Biden, about his record and the fact that his son was serving in the military. It was that kind of overly stated praise that sometimes means exactly the opposite.
There was some criticism of Biden in here last night about his moment of emotionality. He never made a point of this himself, but he left that debate to go to see his son off to Iraq.
I think Gwen let them roam too much. She even answered yes each time one of them (mostly her) asked if he or she could say something on a topic unrelated to the question. She easily could have politely said no to those requests.
But, that said, it is a losing battle to keep pointing out that the candidate is not answering the question. That is why reporters covering the President do not do that except in the most extreme situations. You can ask follow-up questions, but to point out the obvious really won't accomplish anything. It's just sort of nature of the beast. No moderator is going to continually point it out because that is all they would be doing (On the very first question, she did state that neither had answered her question, and they both laughed). The candidates in a poltiical debate will stray. The key is to ask follow-up questions, and I don't think she was very effective on that; could have been stronger. She tended to just stick to her script of questions.
It's one thing to have someone say, "Will you please answer the question I've just asked?" and having a different reporter say, "Will you please answer the question HE just asked?" and refusing to let the politician off the hook until he/she finally answers the question with a semblance of clarity.
I'm not advocating brow-beating a politician, but when they are asked "Do you advocate gay marriage?" or any other hot-button question there should be some sort of clarity about the politician's core stance, not because the politician's stance is absolutely important, but there's the question of transparency, a politician needs to be able to say 'This is me' with personal pride and when it comes to things which are controversial they need to say, "that's my story and I'm stickin' to it." But they don't seem to be able to anymore. It's just a slick way of furthering blind ambition without moral compass. I could say, "You are defined by how you treat the truth." I believe that not answering a question honestly is a lie whether it can be call one in court or no.
I think that the reporters these days are not holding a measuring rod up to our public-office seekers. By failing to do so and not allowing, or even in some ways teaching, the public the ability to think critically about the candidates, the reporters fail the public and fail in doing their jobs. In some ways reporters work not for the publishers but for the truth.
Um, the debate - check the thread title. And you must not read the threads much - there's quite a strong (and vocal, eh L8?) contingency for additional parties.
Which is why I listen to the BBC occasionally. Their reporters often do say, "Yes, fine, whatever, but now will you answer the question?" It seldom works, but the effort is heartening. . . .
IFILL: Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I'm going to come back to that...
This has ALWAYS been a pet peeve of mine, the way politicians ignore the question that has just been asked, and go off on some platform pontification, and reporters let them GET AWAY WITH IT.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Which is why I listen to the BBC occasionally. Their reporters often do say, "Yes, fine, whatever, but now will you answer the question?" It seldom works, but the effort is heartening. . . .
She was very patronizing and condescending on a number of occasions, by golly. She was also overly effusive when she was praising Biden, about his record and the fact that his son was serving in the military. It was that kind of overly stated praise that sometimes means exactly the opposite.
