From Ace: the McCain camp is pointing out fourteen lies Biden told in the debate. Or maybe they were mistakes; I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
It was Palin vs. Palin
From an astute commenter at Hot Air:
We all know this was not the Palin/Biden debate. This was the Palin/Palin debate. Everybody who tuned into this thing, whether liberal, moderate or conservative were tuned in to see which candidate Sarah Palin handed the live hand grenade to, Obama or McCain. As usual nobody gived a rats a** what nonsense spewed from Biden’s cakehole. Nobody will remember a thing he said. All that will be remembered is Palin pulled this off dazzlingly. She left practically zero room for MSM critisism. The incompetence theme is going to be difficult for them to pursue after that performance she just gave. Just a quick dance around the internet I see an attempt to push a theme about her being an “attacker”. Uh huh. So the little girl was picking on poor experienced big Joe Biden. Ooookay, we’ll see how that theme turns out for you. She honestly left them nothing to work with.
Oh, but they’ll do their best.
First impressions of the Vice Presidential debate
No doubt Karl Rove was whispering in Palin’s ear, because she did just fine.
This was the Palin of the convention and not of the ill-fated Gibson and Couric interviews. And she gets extra points for courage, because this was like the final game of the World Series—a must-win for Palin in the sense that she could not falter, and had to project competence while under unbelievable pressure.
A few notes I took while it was happening:
Palin’s folksy way of speaking—“heck,” dropping her g’s, “nucular”—are gonna drive the chattering classes nuts.
“Your plan is a white flag of surrender.” The first real solid hit from Palin. And it sounded like an ad lib, even though it may have been prepared.
Biden’s basic decency shows when he says that McCain didn’t vote for funding the troops, but honestly adds that it was because of the inclusion of the timeline.
She certainly seems no fool.
All this first name business is driving me nuts.
“Say it ain’t so Joe!” from Palin. Nice.
“It is my executive experience…” Yes, she’s the only one who has any.
Oh, so Biden’s a neocon about Pakistan. Who knew?
Great way to make both Biden and Obama look bad for their continual attacks on Bush—to say they were looking back instead of forward.
For her summation she puts on her game face. She is serious and slows down for emphasis, which is an excellent idea.
And now I’m watching a Fox News group of Undecideds, most of whom thought Palin won the debate. All say she was better than expected.
[ADDENDUM: Saw Giuliani speaking on Fox and his smile was broad and relaxed. That says a lot. A bit of hyperbole from him—he said Palin gave one of the best debate performances he’s ever seen. I would say instead it was a good performance, and maybe one of the gutsiest ever.
Karl Rove points out that Biden was incorrect over and over about McCain’s Senate votes. Don’t sit on a hot stove till the MSM takes a look at this, though.
And now for the oleaginous Dick Morris, who said the equivalent of “when Biden was speaking, I kept wishing it was Palin.” I think he’s in love.
Joe Lieberman looks happy, too. “She was brilliant tonight.”]
The “objective” press: it’s bigger than Ifill
By now you probably know that Gwen Ifill, moderator of tonight’s VP debate, has a book coming out right after the election entitled “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” This means she stands to profit monetarily from an Obama victory—not to mention the fact that she, like so many other journalists, is apparently simpatico with his politics anyway.
Ifill sniffs derisively at the idea that this could in any way compromise her integrity and cool objectivity:
I’ve got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I’m not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation,” Ifill told the Associated Press. “The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job.”
Hey, that’s me; Ms. Blog Chatter herself. But I’m actually not out to destroy Ms. Ifill’s reputation, which I assume is just fine. I would like, however, to give her and her colleagues a few words of advice and counsel.
There is something called judgment and disclosure. At some point before the news came out about this book, Ms. Ifill should have had the judgment to tell whatever person or persons chose her for this gig that she was writing such a work. If she didn’t volunteer the information herself, she should have been asked about possible conflicts of this sort. If she wasn’t, there was poor judgment on the part of the vetters as well.
But it doesn’t surprise me at all. Most members of the press hold to a self-serving fiction about themselves: that they are able to be coldly objective in giving us the news, no matter how partisan their views and no matter how badly they may want candidate X or Y or Z to be elected.
Some say that it’s really okay because Ms. Ifill will now bend over backwards to show she’s not biased against Ms. Palin. That’s not a solution, because it runs the risk of an overcorrection. And Ms. Ifill’s blithe suggestion that we just watch and see doesn’t help either, for two reasons: by the time we could make this judgment the damage would be done, and most observers are not necessarily aware of the subtle forms such bias can take.
Absolute objectivity is a myth, and not just for the press. It is (or should be) a goal, however. For example, I try very hard to look at the facts with a cold eye, putting aside my wishes and hopes, and trying to judge as though I had no stake in the matter. But I also know that I’m only human, and that such a goal can never quite be reached. I must acknowledge that despite my best efforts I can be biased in ways of which I’m not even aware. Those in the press who think they can be truly objective are guilty of self-deception, or of deceiving the public if they know they cannot and pretend otherwise.
But there is a remedy. Everyone who reads this blog can judge me—or any other blogger—as to my objectivity and my logic, and make their own judgments about whether my arguments are persuasive. That is because I am upfront about my political point of view.
In the case of journalists, the problem is far more serious. They reach a much wider audience in a far more influential way. But what is even more dangerous is that their pretense of objectivity—and their belief that they actually attain it (which may in some cases be a true belief and in others a cynical pose)—is deeply misleading.
I would much prefer a journalism that takes into account and openly acknowledges pre-existing biases. Newspapers should state upfront whether they are liberal or conservative, and not leave it to the naive reader to figure it out, which many never do. Same for journalists, if the paper or magazine for which they work has a mix of writers from both sides. Same for TV stations, same for all the news—and the same for the moderators of debates.
Actually, since no one is truly objective, perhaps there should be two moderators for each debate who alternate asking the questions. Of course, each moderator should nevertheless attempt to be as objective as possible. But with a questioner from each side, there would be an upfront acknowledgment and disclosure of the problems inherent in the entire enterprise. The viewer would be informed, and we all would not have to rely so heavily on the impossible-to-achieve “objectivity” of a single Gwen Ifill—or any other journalist, Left or Right.
Pre-debate musings on the bloodsport of dissecting Palin performances
It’s open season on Palin.
Of course, it always has been. From the moment she first stepped into the national spotlight, those who want Obama to win were out for her hide. Before she’d done much more than make a couple of fairly effective speeches they’d pronounced her unqualified, incompetent, dumb, and much worse. They then proceeded to set up a large industry to process every element of her life and to lie rather successfully about most of them.
These lies, in the famous words of Winston Churchill, got halfway round the world before the truth had a chance to get its boots on. Continue reading →
Capitalism: the worst system except for all the others
Most of us are knowledgeable about the sort of financial information we need to get along in life okay. For example, how to balance a checkbook. We know what Social Security benefits we might be receiving someday, as well as the basics of the stock market and investments. We know we’re supposed to plan for our retirement because pensions are rare these days, and that we can use credit cards to put ourselves in hock up to a point but that if we get too deeply in debt we may have to declare bankruptcy.
Sometimes even prudent people run into trouble. Continue reading →
Oh oh
Stocks tumble, Congress dickers. Vote-switching might be occurring (I’m watching CNBC), and the whole thing might be amended again.
It’s always fun to watch sausage being made.
My question: I thought there was an announcement last night that most were on board. What gives? As the talking head says, “Everyone is in shock.” And I can’t see how this won’t be seen as the fault of Republicans.
Fasten your seat belts, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
And although I suppose it’s not all that important at the moment, I wonder what Congress’s approval rating is right now?
[ADDENDUM: Now the news is that the market’s reaction may cause some vote-switching, and that the bill isn’t really dead in the water.]
[MORE: Barney Frank says Republicans are at fault. Republicans say Pelosi poisoned the well by an incendiary and partisan speech, and say they are working on passing a bill and solving the crisis. It seems to me that just because Pelosi set the bait, did they have to spring at it? I would love to see Pelosi resign as Speaker, she’s been a train wreck. And I would say this if I were still a Democrat.
By the way, a lot of Democrats voted against the bill, too. For different reasons, no doubt.]
For want of a nail: around the world in the financial markets
I’ve been thinking lately of this old nursery rhyme, and its idea that there can be complex and far-reaching negative repercussions from lack of timely remedies that would really have been quite simple:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
It’s seems axiomatic that lending money to lots of people who can’t repay, doing this on a huge scale, and spreading the risk around to every financial institution so that all are affected by the inevitable default, is a terrible idea. I’m no economics wiz, but even I can see that. The whole thing was predicated on the idea that housing would always rise. But had no one involved ever heard old adages such as “what goes up must come down?” Continue reading →
The financial crisis: why the hush-up about the Democrat role?
I was awakened today as usual by my clock radio, which happened to be set on a talk show. Blah, blah, blah about the financial crisis, with some sort of Wall Street “expert” saying that this happened because of a lack of regulation, and that it is historically the Republicans who are against regulation and in favor of unfettered free markets.
That certainly woke me up in a hurry Continue reading →
Post-debate: who are those undecideds, anyway?
There’s a general rule of political debates: people tend to think their preferred candidate won. A debater has to be really dreadful for his/her own supporters to concede he/she made a bad showing.
When you think about it, this should be no surprise at all. We filter our perceptions through our preconceived notions, and objectivity is a difficult although worthwhile goal. Continue reading →
RIP Paul Newman
What a guy.
The news that actor Paul Newman has died at 83 was not unexpected, since his cancer had been announced a while back. But it’s an occasion—especially for us females of a certain age—to sigh and remember just how incredibly sexy he was. Continue reading →
That reminds me…boy, if life were only like this!
Remember that moment in the movie “Annie Hall” when Woody Allen gets Marshall McLuhan to come out and reprimand a blowhard Allen overhears in a movie line? Here it is (it’s all funny, but the relevant part starts at 1:47):
There was a moment in the debate when Obama quoted Kissinger to defend Obama’s comment about talking to Iran’s leaders without preconditions, and McCain said he was certain Kissinger would agree with him and not Obama on that. Continue reading →