CBS Post Debate Poll: Biden Won 2:1, Moved More Uncommitted

Post-debate poll of uncommitted voters by CBS:

Forty-six percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed say Democrat Joe Biden won the debate, compared to 21 percent for Republican Sarah Palin. Thirty-three percent said it was a tie.

Eighteen percent of previously uncommitted percent say they are now committed to the Obama-Biden ticket. Ten percent say they are now committed to McCain-Palin. Seventy-one percent are still uncommitted.

As to whether Palin is qualified to take over as President if need be:

44 percent say the Alaska governor could be an effective president. Ninety-one percent said Biden could be effective as president, up from 66 percent before the debate.

< CNN Post Debate Poll: 53% Still Believe Palin Unqualified to Take Over as President | Alaska Judge Rules Legislative TrooperGate Probe May Proceed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank God... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    Thank God the uncommitted voters are smart enough to see through this 'character' she's playing and judge the candidates based on the issues and reality.  Palin with her hands on the nuclear codes is a pretty frightening proposition.  She says 'nuclear' exactly the way Bush does, by the way.

    and Carter (none / 0) (#2)
    by dws3665 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    It's not just the pronunciation. It's the (dare I say it?) judgment and temperament.

    Dare I say? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    OMG! Her lack of education, intelligence, vocabulary, insight, and ability to tell the truth? Or her unwillingness to answer a question? That, too?

    Or are the Republicans so dumbed down that all that matters to them is money? Money in their own hands? To spend on lavish parties? Have 2 or 3 vacation homes, all over the world. So they can wear Dior? Is this what life is all about for Republicans?

    Main Street? WTF is Main Street? Republicans own Main Street. Democrats live on the side streets.


    Main street is a long way from where I live (none / 0) (#25)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    but I like that this class framing has entered the discourse to some extent.

    I kinda like this class framing too. (none / 0) (#30)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:16:23 AM EST
    But once again, the Republicans got it wrong. Where the middle class lives.

    The current president is a Harvard MBA (none / 0) (#93)
    by esmense on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    Dummies come with all kinds of credentials. Can we stop insisting that only the nation's elite have the right to screw things up?

    Again (none / 0) (#103)
    by eric on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    nobody is suggesting that a degree means that you are intelligent or educated, indeed Bush proves that isn't true.  The criticism is of the way that she talks and acts.  Whether she had a degree from Oxford or Idaho, it is still a valid criticism of her.

    Talking about how she "talks and acts" (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by esmense on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    is talking class. Most important, it is criticizing someone because her manner says "wrong" class or does not say elite class.

    That's not a good position for people who claim to support the "demos" to take.

    It lends power to Republican charges that those on the Left are hypocrites.


    good lord (none / 0) (#113)
    by eric on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    what I mean is that what she says and how she says it make is clear that she is neither intelligent nor educated.  Jeez.

    I am just saying that if you aren't going to look at someone's resume, all you have left is, you know, actually listening to them...


    Her ideas are exactly the same as, if not a (none / 0) (#133)
    by esmense on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    litle less insane than, Bill Kristol, Grover Norquist and Alan Keyes. Yet, no one EVER suggests the first two (Harvard educated) are stupid (which, quite frankly, their ideas are). Keyes (also Ivy educated, but black) does get personally mocked. Could it be that people perceived as outsiders -- because of race, gender, class, etc. -- are more likely to get publicly mocked than those seen as meritocratic insiders?

    Her views are the same views held by her running mate and endorsed by her party. Even Chuck Hagel, beloved by the left, agrees with her on most economic issues. Attack the views, not the person.

    Even Phil Gramm and Ralph Reed -- both who hold even more absurd economic and social views than Palin -- have been at different times darlings of the talk show circuit and the media without being publicly mocked as hicks for their regionalism or having their non-Ivy education denigrated (University of Georgia in both cases). Could it be their gender and their race that makes them a little less mockable?

    All of the people above, with the exception of Keyes, have been incredibly influential in terms of "ideas" that have influenced government policy over the last quarter of a century -- despite the fact that their ideas have always been, while self-serving and beneficial to some, ultimately destructive for the nation as a whole.


    But don't attack Palin personally -- because of how she looks, acts and talks -- that is, on the basis of class (and, to a certain extent, gender).

    We are, still, a representative democracy -- not yet a Mandarin/meritocratic society run by "experts." (When you look at some of the people "meritocracy" promotes, like Kristol and Norquist, you have to believe that's a very good thing.) We need to hear, understand and consider the perspective and best interests of as wide a number of people as possible to make good policy and create good governance. We should never forget that while the professor knows a lot the janitor doesn't know, the janitor knows many things the professor doesn't know; the janitor has a perspective and personal and economic interests that, in his role as voter and citizen, the professor has some obligation to understand and contend with. (When you think of professors like Gramm and Gingrich, how can you believe education makes better, smarter citizens?)

    The next Democratic president is going to need people making family incomes of less than $150,000 a year with non-elite educations living well outside the New York/DC corridor to actually support his policies. Why do his supporters want to make his job harder by constantly making it clear that their party personally disrespects those people?

    Kristol gets a NYTimes column. Palin gets disrespected and mocked. But they both hold exactly the same ideas -- and one is much more dangerous than the other.


    Not Necessarily (none / 0) (#125)
    by daring grace on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    In fact I think one of the real insults to the non elite classes is how there are plenty of Republican 'elites' who talk/act the folksy routine to woo their base, but are career Washington insiders living privileged lives very removed from 'Main Street'.

    I'm not suggesting Governor Palin's accent is invented or that she doesn't come from a middle class background and a lifestyle that embraces certain values and pastimes (hunting and fishing and hockey mom-ism, for example). But it can be argued she embellishes that persona for effect and that the embellishment comes across as insincere and at odds with reality sometimes.

    I find one of the really cynical and offensive class elements of her candidacy is the idea that 'ordinary folks' will support someone like her who obviously lacks depth and breadth to handle the demands of VP or POTUS but does talk and act like them, and holds similar religious beliefs or recreational pursuits. Thankfully, the polls are showing that is not playing out for the McCain campaign as they hoped. Surprise, surprise, to the Republicans: Main St folks are not stupid, provincial hicks easily won over by a candidate who is 90% image and 10% relevant experience.


    too true (none / 0) (#99)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    Palin - suggesting an equivalency of sorts?

    Really now. That's an insult. To Dubya.

    (ouch ... my head hurts)


    Sarah Palin's rejection notice (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Realist on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    oops. try again (none / 0) (#127)
    by The Realist on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    Wow! Talk about elitism! (none / 0) (#128)
    by rennies on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    "OMG! Her lack of education, intelligence, vocabulary, insight, and ability to tell the truth?"

    And, of course, she clings to her guns, religion, and bigotry.


    This is the CBS pool of uncommitted (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    However what was heartening was that Biden's talking points on Iraq were baically popular.

    So that means the Population has grown tired of Iraq and has grown tired of free market propaganda.

    There's a sliver of a chance the Democrats will actually use this election as a mandate to pass UHC and stop teh US from being an Imperialist nation...just a skinny sliver of a sliver.


    UHC...oh, nevermind (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:45:42 PM EST
    Universal Health Care.  Yeah.  Wouldn't that be something?

    I have a friend who had dual citizenship in the US and Canada.  He moved back to Canada after many, many years here.  One of the first things he wrote us about was how easy it was for him to get free health care, get a physical, etc.  He feels so settled now, and so supported.  If McCain wins, I'm going to Canada.  I can't stand being the laughing stock of the world anymore - and, of course, the most hated.  It has to change.


    Democrats won the debate on Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:39:27 PM EST
    in 2006.

    If I were McCain or Palin... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:45:24 PM EST
    ...i'd use the argument that Obama and Biden intend to stay in Iraq and keep huge bases there anyway. o what's the big effing deal about opposing the war if you support the resulting occupation  anyway?

    It's not an argument they seem to be willing to risk making though.  Thank god.  


    They won't ever do that though (none / 0) (#15)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    because they are consumed with declaring victory.

    They missed it...GWB already did that in 2003 (Mission Accomplished - tune in to KO to get the exact count of days since they declared Mission Accomplished)


    They didn't actually say... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:53:51 PM EST
    ...Iraq is a success story. Not even once.   Which surprised me no end.

    All she needed to do was say Obama got it wrong about Iraq in the long run and that the invasion has been vindicated by recent events. US domination of the ME--that Obama and Biden will happily but quietly benefit from that if they are luckey enough to win--etc.  

    Policing Iraq right now is not that much more bloody than the British Empire's occupation in the 1920-30s and 40s.

    But there you go. McCain is determined to repeat the shop worn phrases of Bush, without adding a novel twist.


    Car bombs and ethnic cleansing (none / 0) (#58)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:54:26 AM EST
    are "success?"  Remember John McCain saying Petraus went out in an unarmored Humvee?

    well it is an argument that (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    they should be making.  It's at least an argument.

    What is UHC? (none / 0) (#7)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:40:55 PM EST
    What is UHC?

    Universal Health Care (none / 0) (#11)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:43:46 PM EST
    I want to keep you up! (none / 0) (#39)
    by bison on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:37:42 AM EST
    Bush is brighter!

    Again, I was watching the lines on CNN. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM EST
    On the Iraq war, people are clearly over it even if the polling shows it to be low on the radar right now. Health care didn't get as big of a jump on the lines as I wanted, but did favor Biden over McCain/Palin.

    What surprised me the most, and probably shouldn't have, is how many of those people agreed with both Biden and Palin on no gay marriage. We have a long way to go. A gay man that I worked with for a long time, adopted two little mixed race kids. You couldn't find better parents anywhere. They have been their parents for ten years now and those kids are so happy and confident and just plain normal. I don't understand the hang up so many people have.

    I agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by liminal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:57:48 PM EST
    I was so heartened by Biden's passionate defense of equality initially - and then, ugh.  The let-down.

    yeah, it was a punch to the gut (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    but I got the sense that he was trying to split hairs and say there should be no difference between gay couples and straight ones, and at the same time say that people could still define marriage the way they always have.  The important point is this: Obama-Biden would not be trying to pass constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage.

    A step forward is a step forward (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Realleft on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:35:16 AM EST
    It's frustrating, but look how far the rejection of UHC in the 90s set that initiative back.  IMO, better to have one step forward that is accepted by the majority than trying to go three steps forward and having the backlash set it back a decade +.

    I know I'm basically an incrementalist, and I don't feel pride in that and a part of me feels cowardly for not demanding full equality for all, but another part of me says go for direction first and momentum second.


    Listen to him again. As I understood it, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:55:03 AM EST
    he was making a distinction with which I agree that marriage is a religious thing, but what he was looking at was the things the state does, civil rights, which shoud be equal. His explanation was not clear but when I heard the religious civil rights distinction, I think at least I understood him right. I would have said it this way: there are two parts of marriage, the civil part, all the rights the state gives, and the religious part. The one which must be equal is the one the state gives, and which you get by being married by the county clerk or a judge. Those should be equal.  Church and religious rights and what additional, if anything, are conferred by them,  are up to churches. I could be wrong - it was not one of his clearer verbalizations, like the Cheney thing was clear.

    yes, after I got past the "No" part (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:59:33 AM EST
    and heard the civil/religious distinction, I started wondering if this wasn't actually a deft answer to a politically risky question.  Even if it didn't match the framing we'd prefer.

    Deft (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 06:22:40 AM EST
    The "deftness" to which you refer is uncomfortably reminiscent of the "debate" about whether to grant equal rights to black people.
    Or whether white and black people should be allowed to marry.

    Deftness is b.s.

    You believe in equality under the law, or you do not.
    Everything else is weaseling around - and wrecking some people's lives in the process.


    Ahhhhhh, you want Obama/Biden elected, (none / 0) (#69)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    don't you??  Biden gave the best answer, IMHO.  There are great expanses in this country who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.  

    I really dislike this sort of (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    extortion when it comes to discussing voting and issues of equality.  I doubt many gays aren't going to vote for Obama but we can all still admit that neither candidate represents them wholeheartedly.  There is nothing wrong with telling the truth.

    Also... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    talking about appealing to the beliefs of "great expanses" doesn't cut it for me. We have constitutional protections - or so we thought - to protect us from the "great expanses".

    I also think that if Obama and Biden, or the democrats as a whole, gave a damn about the wishes of the "great expanses", they would have worked their tails off to get us the hell out of Iraq. That's what they were elected to do. Instead we got a comatose duo of Reid and Pelosi, and a democratic majority that cared nothing for the will of the "great expanses".

    And suddenly, we're supposed to believe that they care about what we think?


    Girls and Gays (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    We are just flat out getting tired of being told to shut up and vote.  That's how the issues surrounding those of us seeking and needing equality get lost, muddied, muddled, and begin to lose their definition and boundaries among the great expanses.  I'm only part of the great expanse but I am part of the great expanse, and here is what I have to deal with and need addressed within the great expanse.

    Well, this is one gay (none / 0) (#129)
    by rennies on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    who isn't voting for Obama (Cynthia McKinney for me). And you might want to check out Obama's problems with supporting gays:

    We disagree (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    I don't think Biden gave the best answer.
    I think he gave the same answer as Palin.

    I don't think Biden gave the right answer (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:23:54 AM EST
    And I cringed at it too.  That being said, he did state unequivically that he supports all legal rights for gay couples.  Palin said that she has some gay friends...

    They were not the same answer.  But I agree that Biden's follow-up was painful and I wish he had just let it go unsaid.


    Sounded to me like Biden and (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    Palin agreed on non-discrimination, equal benefits, but no marriage, even a civil ceremony.

    Which leads me to this question.  Which state, other than California, has "marriage" issue on the Nov. ballot?  


    He's a world class act at that stuff. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:59:43 PM EST
    Go back to your constituencies and prepare to tell them that gay marriage and UHC can wait...er.

    Heh. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by liminal on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    Heh.  I didn't need Biden to tell me UHC can wait!  I have Obama's stupid healthcare ad running on my teevee telling me that single-payer healthcare of some sort is CRAZY EXTREME while his non-plan plan is right in the happy middle.

    I'm having trouble figuring out which healthcare ad I hate more: that ad, which constantly reminds me that UHC is off the table for the next eight years, and maybe forever, essentially, or the really horrible ad the US Chamber of Commerce is running on healthcare on behalf of Mitch McConnell.  

    Because, did you know that Mitch is "fighting to make healthcare more accessible?"  


    Hillary Rosen had a very interesting comment (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    Picture a President McCain somewhere out of Washington DC and Sarah Palin in the dungeon's having to make a decision like whether to order the DOD to shoot passenger jets out of the sky.

    Did the debate give you confidence that Sarah Palin could be that person?  Nope

    he'd shoot it down of course. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:48:55 PM EST
    And what's your point here?

    I'm pretty sure that's the SOP these days.


    I don't believe one refers to such an event (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM EST
    as "shooting down a passenger plane."  Isn't the correct term "scrambling"?  

    "Scrambling" just means (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:18:34 AM EST
    a military plane going into the air on business.  Nothing implied about what they actually end up doing.  Just FYI.

    The only situation in which I've (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:52:22 AM EST
    heard/read the term is regarding terrorist or possible terrorist attack and the meaning was pretty clear.

    It really does just mean (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    putting fighters in the air.  Our brother in law flies F-16's along the East coast right now.  They have fighters on standby to address all sorts of perceived and real violations of our air space.  We always have, goes all the way back to the cold war and probably beyond that.  When those pilots on emergency standby are called to immediately get in that plane and get in the air that is scrambling them.  Orders going farther than that aren't usually given until they have made visual contact with the object in question.

    That's it then. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    Nope, you're adding (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:59:23 AM EST
    meaning to it that the term doesn't have.  It way predates terrorism.  Pilots "scramble" to get the plane in the air in as little time as possible.

    Go rent "Top Gun." :-)


    I defer to larry nyc (or (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:18:28 AM EST
    is it steve m) on whether I am inferring something here:



    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    that it is Larry who is the expert on proper usage of imply/infer.

    I'm not aware that either of us is an expert on fighter planes, although my dad was in the Air Force.


    But I've seen Top Gun! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    Wait -- no I haven't.

    I just caught something I missed the first time (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Iris on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    I think Palin sent a subtle message to the religious right: she said we should move our embassy to Jerusalem.  Anyone else think that would be a stupendous mistake?  Am I right that it was a nod to fundies? It belies her attempt to appear moderate the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:22:00 AM EST
    it is moreso a nod to the right-wing Israel hawks than to the fundies per se.  The GOP has really been trying hard to overcome the instinctive revulsion Jews feel towards evangelicals by stressing the point that Palin is the biggest fan of Israel EVAH.

    Here's something most people don't know: it is actually US law, passed by Congress a decade ago, that our embassy must be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem now now now - unless the President certifies that it's not safe just yet.  And if I'm not mistaken, every 6 months like clockwork, Clinton and now Bush have certified that yeah, we'll wait just a little while longer to move that embassy.

    On one level, by the way, it's noteworthy that every country other than Israel gets to have the sovereign right to determine where its capital is.  But I trust everyone here understands the practicalities and the reasons why it would be needlessly provocative to move our embassy to Jerusalem at this point in time.


    You're exact ly right (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:01:03 AM EST
    This has been a touchy issue in considerable dispute for a long time.

    Interesting fact about the law (none / 0) (#55)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:06:14 AM EST
    and even more interesting that Bush has kept deferring it.  What I meant by "fundamentalists" (clumsy terminology on my part) was extreme Christian zionists, people who believe in accelerating the end times by our actions in the Middle East.  It would be very much in line with Palin's church and its politics.

    That is amazing when you think about it though; Palin is more extreme than Bush on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  Yet she hides it very well by emphasizing the two-state solution.


    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 07:29:14 AM EST
    I should note in fairness that Bush also promised during his campaign that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem.  He just didn't do it.

    It would be a very serious (none / 0) (#27)
    by TomStewart on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    mistake. We really need to stop treating the middle east as one big sandboxes full of castles we get to knock down at will. Moving the capitol will make the religious right dance, but will be a disaster politically. But then, the religious right is all about themselves and their vision of making the second coming of Jesus happen while they are still around to enjoy it. Think of all the time they'll spend telling people how right they were.

    Question to the embassy site issue folk. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:59:46 AM EST
    What would you think if the two states arose and, as is still on the table, each got a part of Jerusalem and each put its own capital in its part?

    The underlying problem of Jerusalem is Mount Zion, which is the former site of the Second Temple and simultaneously  and has for thirteen hundred years been the third most important religious site to Islam. Neither side can afford to surrender literally one and the same piece of real estate, measured in square meters. Nor can it be internationalized by either, since each wants control over its own special highly religious site.


    In terms of what the status quo is now (none / 0) (#57)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:12:53 AM EST
    moving the U.S.'s embassy to Israel to Jerusalem would be a clear signal that we're on the side of Israel, and screw the Palestinians.  It's one more step away from what is (IMO) the best approach, and the one Clinton took: a neutral peace broker.  Instead of resolving disputes, it creates a new one, that's why her statement caught my attention.

    It just reinforced what has been said before: Obama really does have better foreign policy judgment.


    Announcing that as president (none / 0) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST
    you will move the capital to Jerusalem? Let's just say it won't enhance our diplomatic efforts in the region.

    Of course, that may be why she said it.


    Moving our embassy (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:29:24 AM EST
    to Jerusalem has to be one of the more off the wall idiocies I've heard in some time.

    The capital is in Tel Aviv.  Are our embassy people expected to establish some sort of rapid shuttle so they can do their jobs? Putting the US Embassy  in Jerusalem would really jerk off the Jordanians.

    I wouldn't follow these people through Sears on a Saturday afternoon.


    It's not new (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM EST
    Now it's pretty much accepted that it would be a bad idea, but that wasn't the case some years ago.

    hm (none / 0) (#41)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:46:59 AM EST
    Maybe she meant to say, "move our capital to jerusalem". That might make sense in light of McCain's policies.

    Very Pentocostal-y (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    in parts. It's not what she said but how she said it.

    I was trying to figure out what it was about her cadence and I remember being dragged to Pentocostal churches when I was a kid and that's what I recall of the manner of speaking.


    Biden was great, IMO. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by liminal on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:03:37 AM EST
    He was better than Obama was last week on the economy.  I don't think that the debate will move people, but I think it will help solidify Obama's gains in the polls over the last week.  Obviously, the financial crisis helped Obama, but my sense is that some of that support has been soft because of Obama's, er, lack of leadership on with re: the financial crisis.    I think Bidan did more good here than can really be measured via the blunt instrument of polling.

    Biden did a great job; the kind of (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:08:32 AM EST
    debate performance I wished Obama would give.  Maybe he will this time?  He should be watching the video of Biden at least once a day with no distractions.  

    The kind of performance that Obama knows (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Realleft on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:29:51 AM EST
    Biden can give from seeing him on the trail so many times.  People focused on Biden complementing Obama in terms of experience, but I think Obama also knew that he needed some heart to go with his head.

    Was Gwen Ifill (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:37:11 AM EST
    worked by the refs?

    She really moderated nothing.  She allowed Palin to skip answering question after question.

    The reason Palin looked so bad in the Couric interviews is because she was pressed to give an answer.  If that had been the case here Palin would have folded.

    Let's move Ifill off the list for any future debates. She gave Palin a lifeline and that ain't right.

    ya (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:48:34 AM EST
    Yeah, she had no command of the debate.  Palin just ran an informercial.

    I must be in the minority. (4.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    I liked how Gwen Ifill moderated. As my husband put it: "She keeps it moving but doesn't get in the way." She did challenge both Palin and Biden to give a definite answer on a couple occasions (the gay marriage question for one), but letting Palin get away with doing her usual "word fog" didn't help Palin, in my opinion.

    The consensus around the water cooler is that Palin was delibertely not answering the questions, and that didn't inspire confidence (and her "folksiness" was gratingly over the top), but then I don't think she was chosen as the Veep candidate because she would appeal to East Coast liberal democrats and economic indies and repubicans. I think she's trying to appeal to social conservative heartlanders and evangelicals.  


    Ifill is terrible (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:03:04 AM EST
    and always has bene terrible.

    Ifill... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    allowed Palin to dig her own grave. I think the "hands-off" no follow-up approach worked well.

    Biden tended to attack McCain rather than Palin. However, he did pick up her points defending McCain and attacked those. The "maverick" moment and the explanation of the health care tax credit are the most salient examples. Very effective.

    He didn't attack her directly, but was also effective in showing himself as someone who was empathetic and one of (in background at least) the middle and working class regular folks she was targeting her appeal to.

    All this without coming off as a bully or know-it-all. I think this was one of the most brilliant debate performances I've ever seen.

    Truly masterful. Hats off to Biden.

    Now someone, quick, send him to those really close swing states to make the pitch to undecided voters.


    PR Flack (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:43:37 AM EST
    It crystallized for me watching Palin recite her energy talking points.  She's a PR flack for the oil industry.  

    It's the key to her whole act.  Be presentable, always smile and look like you're having a good time, and keep flacking.  You don't actually have to know what you are talking about.  That's not part of the PR flack's job.  

    On the other hand, I thought part of the PR flack's job was to speak in complete sentences, and to at least sound polished.  Maybe I was wrong ...

    she told her church (none / 0) (#56)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:08:48 AM EST
    to pray for a natural gas pipeline!

    One little whopper (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 06:14:45 AM EST
    One little whopper was offered by Joe Biden.
    On the Iraq war, he offered the Clinton defense: he voted for the authorization because he thought Bush would only use it as a diplomatic tool. Yeah, right.

    OK - let's move on.

    Then, however, he said that when it became apparent that Bush was moving full steam ahead toward war, he, Biden, went around warning that it would take a long time. He implied, by omission, that once the war plans were clear, that he was opposing them. This was a lie.

    I well remember him at that time. I was looking for a politician with sanity. BIden did indeed say that the war would take a long time, but when asked if he opposed the invasion, he said no. He was for it. He just felt that the American people should be told that it will be a long war. So, that was of absolutely no help.

    It was a deliberate lie by Biden to portray his position as being against the invasion when in fact he was for it.

    From a PEW report, pre-debate (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by wasabi on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 07:22:40 AM EST
    I was just reading a report from the PEW Research Center for the People and the Press.  

    "In general, voters who say they are certain to vote for McCain see Palin in a positive light. It is notable, however, that a solid majority of those who say they are certain to vote for McCain say they think of Biden as well-informed (63%), compared with 79% who say the same about Palin."

    "Swing voters, like voters generally, are much more likely to view Biden as well-informed (70% vs. 45% for Palin).  While nearly identical percentages of all voters see both candidates as honest, more swing voters say this trait describes Palin (67%) than say it applies to Biden (53%)."

    Let's hope that after Biden's hammering of McCain in the debate, that pool of people who view the "honesty" associated with the McCain/Palin ticket will be lessened.

    The Problem with the Poll (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by AlkalineDave on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:14:29 AM EST
    Is it's not a representative sample.  37% were Dems, 31% reps, and 31% independent.  That's not a clear stratification of the country. I could bring in the Fox Poll that said Palin won by 80 something precent, but we'd laugh it off.  The results of that poll are unfotunately inconclusive to me.

    mccain campaign has Miscalculated badly (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by pluege on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    with paling. People are NOT looking for the usual 'aw-shucks" candidates this year. Most people know by now that the country is in deep sh*t and that real leadership is essential. Palin's performance (and mccain's) has been pathetic from that vantage, which is why her golly gee-whiz, no specifics, no plan performance in the debate is not going to help. And its why Biden and Obama focusing on the middle class and giving the impression that they have solutions is winning the day so far this time.

    Palin is a sociopath (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    Her eyes have no feeling. Her delivery is robotic, Stepford, hyper-cutesey and frenetic. Her answers are either lies or irrelevant and are so wandering you are left wondering what the hell she's saying. That takes attention away from her curiously inhuman quality.... but that's there underneath it all, and it's very disturbing. Something is profoundly wrong with her.

    Re: expectations - a poster on Salon about this thought Palin didn't deserve kudos just for not vomiting on her suit in the debate....hope it's not bad to mention this without identifying, I can go back and find the person if it's the correct comment-thread-ethics.


    Not appropriate.... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by marian evans on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    to use that kind of terminology. Clinical terms are best kept for clinical contexts, and for those who know best how to use them.

    Thrown around as a pejorative, it's a cheap shot - both morally and even politically unnecessary. Sarah Palin has more than enough political weak points to focus on - ad hominem attacks are pointless as well as unfair.


    The number-one sign of a sociopath (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    from my experience with a few, is projection.

    They call other people sociopaths.

    Think about it.


    The other sign (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    as I recall from the threads here a few months ago, is having the audacity to run against the Divine Mrs C in a primary.

    No doubt... (none / 0) (#4)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM EST
    I just don't get how this race can be close at all.  I wouldn't have a huge problem giving her some other kind of job, like...um...well, well, you know what I mean.  But not THIS job.  Jesus!

    Me too! (none / 0) (#40)
    by bison on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:38:47 AM EST
    I don't get it either!

    Duh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by supertroopers on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 07:24:36 AM EST
    It's because the Dems have a weak candidate. Hillary would be up by 20 points on a bad week.

    Governor of Alaska sounds like a good fit!! n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by Iris on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 03:56:25 AM EST
    How are Alaskans feeling? (none / 0) (#5)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    I know her ratings have gone down to around 60% and there was another poll asking Alaska residents if they felt she was being truthful on the TrooperGate thing...80% thought she was lying.  But what must Alaskan's be feeling right now, knowing that they elected her and what a laugh she has become.  I bet there's a lot of blinkin' goin' on up there.

    missed during the debate (none / 0) (#9)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    Judge upholds subpoena's issued by legislature

    I think this issue just gnaws at her credibility...especially her statement to Alaskan's in August to 'hold her accountable'


    Iraq Embassy (none / 0) (#36)
    by stevea66 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:35:35 AM EST
    Why don't we just pick up the one we built in Iraq and move it there?

    Because it's bigger than Vatican City.  It's the world's largest embassy.  And, according to Cheney and gang, 'it'll be quick and temporary.'  Right, so build an embassy.

    Worst the second time (none / 0) (#37)
    by bison on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    If you listen to the replay, she gets worst!

    Ifill (none / 0) (#45)
    by stevea66 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:56:00 AM EST
    Ifill was probably worried about appearing to favor Biden/Obama with the book she has written and all.  But it would have been nice to see her ask that at least some questions be answered.

    Ifill's questions were pretty good (none / 0) (#49)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:01:56 AM EST
    questions, in their own way very specific, and Biden answered most of them, getting sidetracked by the hotness of some of the non-answers Palin gave when she got to go first.

    The questions were good; (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by seeker on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:31:08 AM EST
    but why could she not tell Palin to answer the current quiestion rather than the previous one or the one before. . . .

    Ground rules forbidding followups, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    Undecide voters - Palin is now knowledgable? (none / 0) (#68)
    by wasabi on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:18:29 AM EST
    Her numbers rose considerably with the debate.

    66% see Palin as knowledgeable about important issues - up from 43%.

    55% say Palin is prepared for the job, up from 39% before the debate.

    44% say Palin would be an effective President, up from 35%.

    At least a majority of the undecideds question whether she would be effective as President.  I question how her numbers for "knowledgable about important issues" could rise 23% due to her performance last night.

    well (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    Thats just one polls but low expectations coupled with the fact that many people probably didnt notice that she wasnt involved in a debate.  She posed her own questions and answered them.   A self-conducted interview.

    How many times did she turn a question into an energy question?  


    Knowledgable about issues... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by wasabi on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    The fact that she decided that she didn't need to actually answer the questions that were posed to her ("I may not answer the questions the way you or the moderator want to hear, I'm talking directly to the American people.") is the reason I question that 66% of the respondents thought she was knowledgable about the issues.

    I heard that if you watched it on C-SPAN where the question was visible at the bottom of the screen during the candidates responses, it became more apparent.


    biden (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dws3665 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    in the same poll, iirc, moved from 79% to 98% on "knowledgeable."

    guess what? (none / 0) (#72)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    if, after all the primaries, you're still too stupid to know who you're going to vote for in nov., you shouldn't be allowed to vote, period.

    what "undecided" tells me, at this point, is that you're a friggin' idiot, who's too stupid to know to come out of the rain, much less be allowed to participate in a presidential election.

    So I guess I'm a frigging idiot (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    I'm still looking for a reason to vote the top of the ticket.  I'm distressed by both options.  

    I was hoping to find that reason in the last Obama/McCain debate but that was a little unrealistic in my part.  That debate was centered on foreign policy and it is domestic policy that will (or will not) pull me in.

    Or maybe I'll just take your advice and not participate.  



    THE VP NATIONAL DEBATE - A DAMP SQUIB (none / 0) (#74)
    by intensiveks on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    The so-called "debate" seen on all TV Channels in the USA was a damp squib after all the hype and hoopla.
    Was there a word,a sentence or atleast a gaffe that one remembers in the debate? None. It was just meandering like the previous run-ups at their National Party Conventions.
    Sarah Palin had fired up the imaginations of the electorate by her "pit-bull with a lipstick" statement. Sorry to say none such incendiary was there in this debate.
    One expected more fiery speeches and thrusts and parry,but don't worry there were none to connect with. Just the usual,stated positions and rhetorics.
    There were more smiles and winks than were exchange of jabs and shoots.
    Joe Biden did not actually come out like a "smokin' Joe",he seemed out of ammo in front of the charmin' Sarah. We expected Joe to be a foe and a sorry Sarah,but there was a reversal of roles.
    No theatricals,no screeches or deskthumpings to drive a point.
    Just a lot of thanks and compliments.
    One was left with the impression whether it was a debate or a friendly chat....????

    Er...I remember that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by mg7505 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    John McCain is not a maverick. I also remember that Biden had a pretty compelling personal story to tell. I remember that Biden is really knowledgeable and well-spoken. And I remember that Palin couldn't answer questions straight. So there are definitely some memorable things.

    But overall, the perception of the debate is still, well, debated. Some folks like David Brooks just don't understand what actually happened; not that they ever really did in the first place.


    ha (none / 0) (#86)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    Brooks, like many McCain voters, was absolutely terrified they were going to lose everything.  That she didnt collapse has them over-spinning her speech. (it wasnt a debate).

    Memories (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by pluege on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    • mccain's health plan is a bridge to nowhere, (reminds me that palin was for the bridge to nowhere)

    • palin is cheney in that she wants to rewrite the Constitution so she can rule over the Senate

    • the mccain/palin administration will be a "team of mavericks", which is an oxymoron.

    • palin is going to cut taxes, but also rebuild the infrastructure and spend more on schools and teachers, i.e., palin is using democratic words without a policy, plan, or funding to backup the words.

    • palin is going to solve global warming by burning more oil and BTW, it doesn't matter what caused global warming its till solved by burning oil.

    • mccain and palin are sloganeering against Wall St and Washington corruption without identifying any specific means of addressing corruption

    • palin thinks 3rd graders should stay up to 10:30 PM at night to watch her spew practiced lines disconnected from the topic of discussion.

    • palin sounds like a hick

    • the wingnut base is going to crap in their pants over palin being for gay rights.  

    • palin has only been at this for "5 months" (?? weeks??) which is too short to have promised to do anything in office.

    10:30 here is 6:30 there. Not to defend (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    Palin so much but to be honest about it. At least I think it's a four hour difference.

    So you're saying that palin doesn't understand (none / 0) (#108)
    by pluege on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    time zones? I know she was earlier in St Louis, but a heck of a lot of the nation's third graders are in the EST zone.

    She was talking about her brother's class (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    in Alaska.

    What! Are you saying Palin is (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    fit to be President when McCain inevitably keels over on Day One?  

    No, she's saying. . . (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    that if McCain keels over on day one before seven in the morning, it's actually day minus one in Alaska and we get to have a do-over election.

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    "palin sounds like a hick" (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    or perhaps she sounds like an Alaskan? Nice to see your openness/acceptance though . . .

    Gidget goes to Washington (none / 0) (#79)
    by noholib on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:33:03 AM EST
    I found Gov. Palin's manic energy and frozen smile really scary.  I can't help thinking "Gidget goes to Washington" ... except Gidget was perhaps cute and charming (I confess I can't really remember) and the prospect of Sarah Palin in high national office is alarming!

    Can I call you Joe? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lengyel on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    Biden's reply should have been, "That's Joe SixPack, Governor."

    We need a thread for the House vote. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    Zach Wamp, wing-nut-TN is voting for it. It's sure to pass now.

    Yet, even w/o the bailout bill, (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    Wachovia is being re-bailed out by Wells Fargo.  Confusing.

    Palin helped herself (none / 0) (#101)
    by Coral on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    by cutting off cries for pulling her off the GOP ticket from GOP insiders.

    She saved her political future, but not McCain's.

    A short shelf-life, (none / 0) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    the media discussion is already going stale.  Conclusions are in and run, in various degrees of agreement, that  Senator Biden did very well demonstrating his knowledge and the quality of his experience.  Moreover, he moved the discussion at every opportunity back to McCain or to his political precursors, Bush and Cheney.  Governor Palin did better than anticipated especially for those who underestimated her intelligence and were impressed by her ability to mentally cut and paste talking points into answers to either her own or the moderator's questions.  Governor Palin's was  a good student of the campaign's crash course in domestic and world affairs. The debate persona that incorporated the barnyard wisdom of Marjorie Maine's Ma Kettle character with the show biz acumen of Minnie Pearl may work for some, too.  Overall, watching this debate  was a little like the two-headed dog circus act, drawn to it by overwhelming curiosity, but filled with regret afterward.

    Does anyone here care about the bailout bill (none / 0) (#104)
    by joanneleon on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    that's being debated right now on the House floor?

    Astounding spinning and lying going on about how this will help homeowners in distress, and other nonsense.

    This is an outrage.  A vote changing outrage.  My Congressman has already lost my vote.  My vote for higher level offices is on the line now too.

    I blame Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#105)
    by eric on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 10:57:35 AM EST
    for my headache this morning.  I had to drink to get through that debate.

    I blame Markos n/t (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    That's always a good starting point for me (none / 0) (#122)
    by Teresa on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    too Larry. :)

    Funny, (none / 0) (#114)
    by indy in sc on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    A friend of mine had a drinking game going where you had to do a shot every time Palin said "Maverick."  He's also complaining of a headache this morning ;)

    Conservation (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    is now considered the semi-pornographic C word by the candidates. No one dares to utter it and discuss it's implications; as if some p.r firm determined that it's too much of a "downer" and too complicated for semi-adult voters who are only galvanized by misty Hallmark messages about pursuing the American Dream, The Surge is Working, people who want change etc

    Let the whole f*cking world burn down, but dont be the one to tell Americans they may have to give up their SUVs, or that there might be something a little morally ambiguous about murdering a hundred thousand people in part to sustain a little longer an ultimatly unsustainable "standard of living".


    The reason it is homphobic (none / 0) (#124)
    by dk on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    is not because gay people hook up sometimes, but that the comment talks about gay people hooking up and compares it to straight people having "sexual attractions."  It feeds into the stereotype of gay people as having uncontrollable sexual urges they always act out on, and straight people as having "sexual attraction" that, what, they have more control over?  

    So, I understand that you don't know it is homophobic, but I do know.

    Set back for women (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:08:49 AM EST
    If Hillary had delivered that performance, what would Fox news and for that matter every news outlet and blog have said about her performance.

    With a plethora of outstanding qualified women who are not patronizing and ankle deep on issues, it is a clear insult and step back to say that she performed well.

    She simply did not.  She demnostrated that if you are attractive (not my opinion), wink and smile you can be ignorant of issues of and policy and get away with it provided your name is not Hillary.