And about those coming debates…
Implicit in the repetitive and inane “but someone else wrote her speech for her!” observations about Palin’s performance last night is the idea that once she departs from a prepared text she’ll be a bumbler. After all, we’ve got the example of that great orator Barack Obama himself, hemming and hawing and making myriad errors when he has to think on his feet.
What’s more, Palin will be facing that silver-haired and supposedly silver-tongued debater Joseph Biden.
But so far, underestimating Palin hasn’t seemed to help the Democrats much. I wouldn’t recommend they continue to do so, based on this:
Palin, however, made her name in politics by her performance in gubernatorial debates in Alaska in 2006. She was a newcomer with little following in the Republican party and no strategists or handlers to give her guidance. Nonetheless, she knocked off a sitting governor. So Biden may have his hands full.
[ADDENDUM: I heard a statement Biden made today on the subject that indicates he may not be making the mistake of thinking the debates will be easy sailing. I can’t find a written text, but he was gracious and complimentary in his remarks about her.]
In no way did Palin make a name for herself in the debates for governor. Andrew Halcro and Tony Knowles ran rhetorical circles around her. If Alaska’s governorship was determined by a debating contest, Halcro would have won. Instead it is determined by whoever has an R next to their name.
Halcro has a blog, by the way. He’s been a bit of a gadfly for Palin ever since she beat him, actually. If you want level-headed commentary and solid facts on Troopergate and Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere claims I would very much recommend it.
http://www.andrewhalcro.com/
Take it up with Fred Barnes, Peter. I hadn’t watched the debates yet; I was quoting him (take a look at the link).
I certainly wouldn’t expect you to think she was good, but a lot of commenters here seemed to think she acquitted herself well, as do others who’ve watched.
I just took a brief look at video of the debates, and from my preliminary look she seemed articulate, poised, and logical. I don’t see anyone running rhetorical circles around anyone. I’ve always noticed that, for most debates (and barring a truly inarticulate candidate), people tend to consider that the person whose opinions they agree with just happens to have won the debate. Funny how that works.
The point is that I’ve read many comments saying Palin will fall flat on her face in a debate with Biden. There’s no evidence for that whatsoever.
Biden can certainly beat Palin in dropping names, but if she’s smart she can nail him on some very questionable postions he has taken based on all that knowledge and experience (dividing Iraq, for instance).
Well, I watched all of those debates and I thought she did pretty well, what I did notice was that the two men running were kind of ignoring her in an arrogant manner and made the same arguments about her experience as we are hearing today, I thought, that’s it! It is so easy to dismiss her as some sort of annoyance but she wins, go figure.
Just goes to show, even when you have an 80% approval rating, there is still 20% that are royally pissed off, right now the press is trying to round every one of them up. I swung through CNN this morning and the lady up on location in Alaska was telling of the people there not appreciating the press coverage, they are digging a hole. First rule of holes, stop digging.
I think that if she wins it with mccain, that she may be able to be the first woman president in a future election.
The point is that I’ve read many comments saying Palin will fall flat on her face in a debate with Biden. There’s no evidence for that whatsoever.
i have read how biden can play real dirty, asking questions that create doubt in publics minds, and that he doesnte even know the answer to, but devistates his opponent. i have no doubt that if a debate went on just merit she would wup a**. but depending on the format, biden can play his dirty pool games.
forgot to add, that with things like this
Obama Endorses Kwame Kilpatrick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNvC_-RW2Q
combined with this
In a courtroom this morning, Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstructing justice by committing perjury.
the mayor agreed to a no-contest plea to one count of felonious assault for shoving a sheriff’s deputy in July who had tried to serve a subpoena on Kilpatrick’s friend.
Kilpatrick to turn over his state pension to the City of Detroit
is just one more problem for obama and his associations and endorsements. for a guy with 170 odd days of service, he sure has floated around some bad choices.
Palin is not the only big problem looming over obama. (how do you convince the public that biden isnt a freind like ayers, wright,kwame, etc?)
should be interesting.
Has anyone considered that Palin could bring in the popular vote for McCain but he may still lose the electoral vote?
Looking at this…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
it just makes me think the electoral vote is still out of reach. Obama only needs 42 of the 115 toss up votes for a win if the election fell out this way.
If I were a betting man I’d put money on Obama winning the electoral vote and McCain (or Palin?) winning the popular vote.
I think the remarkably vitriolic response from the left arises from an inchoate appreciation of the near- and long-term situation.
Near-term the Messiah is in trouble. The bitter primary battle made him peak too soon, and he now has to worry about Obama fatigue. Once the luster is off, and voters begin looking at him more dispassionately, the air will leak from the balloon.
Long-term Dems realize that Palin could be a force for the next 25 years, a distaff Reagan who could keep them out of power for a long time.
That’s why they’ve got to Bork her immediately, before she develops enough of a following to resist such attacks. They may be too late already.
(I’m not happy about Palin’s creationism and such, but then I’m even less happy about Ayers and Wright, whom I take to reflect Obama’s real views. It’s hard to imagine hanging around either of them for a week, much less years, unless one does not fundamentally disagree with them.)
kungfu, looking on the bright side, if that were to happen, it would at least shut up the left about what they have portrayed as the iniquities of the Electoral College.
But the fact that Obama supporters are now considering such scenarios in and of itself speaks volumes.
Has anyone considered that Palin could bring in the popular vote for McCain but he may still lose the electoral vote?
Were this to occur, it would be from McCain/Palin winning by big margins in small states- which in the West would be feasible- and Obama/Biden winning by small margins in some big states- California, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. That is definitely a possibility.
And yes it would be funny to see the lefties THEN defend the Electoral College, which 8 years ago they were attacking. Regardless of who wins, the Electoral College setup should not be changed, IMHO. Try recounting all 50 states!
Presidents are often confronted with situations for which they are not prepared. They have to be able to learn quickly from the briefings of the experts they can consult about each particular situation, and make decisions. So, if Palin is not so versed in various policy areas, but is able to get up to speed within the next few weeks, and show her knowledge and judgment during the debate and in interviews, that will show a lot about her ability to function as president.
kungfu, looking on the bright side, if that were to happen, it would at least shut up the left about what they have portrayed as the iniquities of the Electoral College.
Exploiting and invaliding the votes of the people with delegates and appointed aristocrats is the bread and butter of Obama’s campaign. That’s how he was “acclaimed” as the nominee. The delegates didn’t vote. The people’s votes weren’t counted.
They don’t give a damn about the Electoral College one way or the other. They just lie about it, like they do with everything else.
That criticism of Palin that “she read a speech written by someone else” also implies that Obama writes all of his speeches. He doesn’t. He has a speechwriter and his name is Jon Favreau http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756
And Neo-neocon is right, once Obama gets away from his teleprompter he’s full of “um” and “ah”.
A few words about Biden. I don’t live in DE, but I shop there (no sales tax). He loves to run his mouth and he’s more than a little pleased with himself. He has something of the common touch, but nothing like Sarah’s. She has to make him look pompous and/or goofy. Actually, just let him–he’s pretty good at both.
Biden is a blowhard who likes to bully. If Palin is good, this will work in her favor. The swing voters and PUMAs won’t want to watch a woman being bullied, and she has an opportunity to call him on his BS on areas like energy policy, where she has real first hand knowledge.
Based upon Biden’s remarks, he’s treading real soft with Sarah, so it would seem he’s real aware of his tendencies and is trying to keep himself in check, almost to a fault. This can aslo backfire.
Biden has to walk a thin line. Palin won’t be intimidated, and she will bring a lot of first hand knowledge to the table. A tie is in effect a win for Palin, since she’s the newcomer the left claims “isn’t ready for prime time”.
On the other hand, Obama doesn’t seem to be able to talk without a teleprompter, and he can’t handle hard questions. McCain will be in his element in the debates.
I’ll worry about that after things flesh out a bit more. We still need to see the effects of the convention and the debates.
She should make her answers short and sweet. Give as much time to Joe Blow as possible. The more he talks and he will talk, the dumber he becomes.
I expect Obama to win in Electoral votes by sweeping states 51-57 since McCain has no plans to campaign there…….