winme noob! pm me on irc! or ingame me in 1062!

Debates went KRAP when they went on television.  No listens, just watches.

Anyways, I think this debate displays Palin's inexperience, but also shows just how much potential she actually has.  The way she presents her information was, relatively, smooth and not so full of long pauses, even if she dodged particular questions.  If she had a whole year to prepare, she would've been able to take on Obama (with his full year of debate experience).

"She did well not to fall into questions she was not happy with.  Biden did the same, but less so.  Biden stayed more on topic.  Edge Biden....again, not so significant.  In a debate, you want to avoid direct answers to areas you are not comfortable with."

Actually in a debate, one of the most important things is to respond to difficult questions and the points your opponents make. I used to debate. I used to judge debates. It looks really, really bad when you ignore the points being made against your side. And Palin ignored and ignored and ignored. She even ignored questions when the same question was being asked to both sides. If she doesn't think people see through that...she's an idiot. Avoiding answering is never the solution.

Biden was upfront, he answered the question, he responded to most of the criticisms. He even did it well. It made him seem more honest, knowledgeable and competent.

Naturally, he also seemed more knowledgeable about almost all the issues I saw (save for energy). He gets a bonus point for actually knowing the general's name in Afghanistan. He also seemed more charismatic by far, although Palin improved near the end of the debate.

As my roommate said, "You're looking at Santa Claus right there. Look at his eyes. They twinkle. All he needs is a long white beard." And it's true. Biden looked really really good. I was expecting a stuffy old codger. Instead I saw a trustworthy grandfather figure.

Palin's real problem was that she didn't cater to the moderates. Especially the social moderates whom she may have alienated with her line about how giving homosexual couples rights (property, visitation etc.) could be a slippery slope to allowing gay marriage. That was a huge gaffe for anyone watching who was concerned the McPalin social agenda (I mean hell, even most of the loyal republicans on this board advocate similar rights being given to homosexuals, just not gay marriage). Biden did a much better job of toeing the line on that question (not advocating gay marriage, but not advocating no rights). Actually with regards to virtually every social issue, Biden came out looking better, although I suppose that's just a function of him running for the Democrats.

Regardless, it was well worth the watch. It was quite amusing at times.

Random debate thought:

Buff Roommate: Joe '6-Pack'? She can't be referring to the fat Americans?
Me: Maybe she means a 6-Pack of beer.

Theo.....when have you ever heard a question answered directly in American Politics.

You dont answer what you are not comforable with.....Period.

This isnt debate class 101 in some socialist university.....discussing global warming, or National health Care.....
This is Presidential Politics....

You look as good as you can, with out saying to much.

Well worth the watch? You weren't watching the same smut on TV as me, or you're on crack.

This isn't a multiple choice examination with 1 correct answer. The bottom line is yes, you look better when you answer the question and don't dance around it. I thought it was downright embarassing the way Palin totally ignored questions and launched into word-for-word repetition of earlier answers. Sure not answering what you're not comfortable with can be a good strategy. But you can't forget that people will notice and take note that you weren't comfortable. For a national election, the firest question is WHY NOT!? If you want to run the country, you really ought to be prepared to do something as simple as answer questions stating and clarifying your own positions.

Black Wing mentioned that they wanted to look good without saying too much. That's one of the reasons I hate listening to polititions promise everything to everyone as they campaign. Even the debates are monological, as the candidates aren't intelligent enough nor good enough public speakers to actually engage their opponents in debate. At no point did either VP candidate even suggest their opponent move their discussion of any topic more abstract or more concrete (as in, be more specific about how they intended to keep broad promises or be more abstract in connecting how certain of their proposed actions fit in with their theoretical views of how things ought to be done).

As for judging honesty, knowledge, and competence, I think we would all do a lot better (and vote smarter) to consider that there's a lot of statements and facts to evaluate before deciding these things about a debate. Regardless of public speaking and delivery, there's a lot to the honesty and openness of the candidates that isn't immediately evident from their delivery. Often their delivery just tells you who's a better liar; who's more comfortable deliberately misleading you. Neither candidate spoke very openly or specificly regarding economic or energy policy (save Palin on energy), which leads to my concluding statement:

I don't like either presidential ticket. They're assholes.

How? Isn't he against vouchers? He's supported by teachers' unions. He's going to give you more of the same. Got that? MORE. In some districts teachers are paid to sit in rooms and have no contact with students because, though they're too dangerous, for various psychological reasons, to have contact with students, their union has so much power they cannot be fired. Obama and his trillion dollar spending increase will openly admit they want to pay more for education (like everything else) (which is primarily locally funded, as it should be). You're right. He'll do "something for the education system;" namely, he'll give them even larger amounts of money to squander as we ignore the fact that our children are held to lower and lower standards as Obama and his socialist friends continue to cator to the masses (in speech, that is) in this theraputic culture. They're against anything and everything that will actually increase the quality of education K-12. And have no doubt, Amerika is falling behind the rest of the world K-12, while our higher education is still top notch. How long can we expect our colleges and universities to lead the world when, across the country, we're lowering our standards?

Whatever. I don't think they more than touched on education in the VP debates. Obama doesn't propose anything that will actually improve our education system.

and do you have no problem that Palin lied about her ending earmarks, being a maverick, always being against the bridge to nowhere, "saying no thanks to the money", lying about obama and his vote for tax increase which were actually part of a budget and wouldn't really raise taxes anyways,

and did you not hear biden, the first time clearly say, mccain voted against a troop fund just because it had a timetable, and mccain's on record saying that, i think he presented a quote, if he didnt in the debate he had before, i remember hearing him

and you as well as me, know that both tickets have lied MANY MANY MANY TIMES, can we give it up?
can we give up trying to say, our tickets are perfect little creatures of God?

both have lied, they are politicians
you can't vote for every little thing, but every bill is part of a biger package, that have little parts of it, that sometimes you just have to agree with, or disagree with to get or not get the bigger deal in that package
and i'm sorry to point out but, mccain has called obama on his votes much more, when the truth is mccain has had as many bad votes as obama in the past, but that makes niether a BAD person, because they both vote for that bigger package in each bill
but obama has mostly played his counters on mccain advisors, campaign and mccain quotes(for the most part atleast)

niether are perfect, so please... now if you wanna talk about who will do good POLITICALY, i'm up for it, it's what i want to talk about
cuz i think we're preety clear on our policy positions now, and preety clear is also that we both think the other party lies more and have equally impressive proofs to proove it arguing about these things is just simply a waste of time..but talking about every policy, and every move, and news and how it will impact the election-- that's what we should be talking about, that's what we should be arguing about, now if you wanna talk just policy lets keep candidates out of it..

oh yes, and mccain/palin are creatures God created in heaven, bathed them with holy water, had them scented with roses, wrapped them in a pink/blue soft donald duck towel, and made them perfect little angels that would never say one bad word

you wanna call the bi-partisan [KRAP] from mccain, BOGUS too while you're at it yell?
cuz i didn't hear a bi-partisan WORD in his speech, and i heard lots of finger pointing right after saying "time of crisis" "no finger pointing"
i'm not guna phone in...well mr.john mccain, that's exactly what you did, difference is you did it in washington, cuz you thought you could get political points, and obama did it in ohio before and after talking with voters--who's the smarter man?

yell give it up, it's POLITICS, DEAL WITH IT, STOP BITCHING X(
i'm sick of it, and i'm more sick of my self being a part of it (just above)

and who would you be talking about there vkemp?

well Golk
this is how i see it, most people could care less who gains "respect" they're concerned about the "crisis"
and i think obama can ride this wave to the election, i really do
unless there is an "october surprise" - i doubt that though

the next 2 debated shouldn't matter either, unless there is a major gaff, and both are guna be soooo carefull that they'll play really safe
however mccain has a little flexibillity cuz he needs to win it, he needs the momentum back, he's guna try everything in the next few weeks, cuz if they don't they're toast

lol indeed.

As most channels claim, McCain is going to turn the agressive mode on, which makes sense.

In my opinion, they need a "flip flop" effect on Obama, in the sense of pushing so strong a bad image that it could turn voters. My guess would be to hammer the doubt about his personality with a catch phrase like "Beyond the empty words, would you really TRUST this man?" based on proclaimed dubious acquaintances and voting record.

After all, Obama is the only one who has no defense against attacks ad hominem (no baby with down syndrom / life drama / VC prison), so why should the McCain campaign avoid it since it proved effective?

As I see it Obama would try as long as possible to play the good guy "This is not a basketball court" kind of "I'm classy" thing, defending "real issues", but it could prove difficult not to react, or indeed to counter the smear.

yell
we can argue on and on and on and on
truth is, they are BOTH politicians... i'm just speaking the truth now
we have opposite views, and we have aregued each view over and over again, no point continuing that, i just find it boring and a waste..you can go ahead and call obama a liar, i won't respond with equally destructive lies from mccain, cuz i've said them all before(not in this thread) so i just find it a waste to repeat my words

and Golk
you're right, mccain is guna come out swinging he has to
but like last time, i think obama can play the this has happened everytime, they're guna scare you into voting for them, i think that can work really effectively
and obama obviously is guna have to defend, but he cant go defensive, like mccain is right now...this is why i'm sorta worried
cuz anything beyond next week, and you can't work it out of the press, obama campaign needs to keep hamering, keep mccain on the defensive
it's tough business.... economic story is going out of fashion, but it can still be riden into election day
all the cards just gotta be in line for obama