VP Debate Discussion

[Pangloss]

Use for discussion on tonight's Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

 

What did you all think of the debate?

 

Just to sorta kick things off, what did you all think of Gwen Ifill? It hasn't aired yet as I write this, but one thing that I'll be watching for is any sign of bias. Conservatives have suggested before the debate that she's biased because she has a book about Obama coming out early next year. I don't know about that, it's a biography, not an endoresment, but I guess an argument could be made for profit motive. What do you all think? (Here's an article on that.)

Edited October 3, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Just to sorta kick things off, what did you all think of Gwen Ifill? It hasn't aired yet as I write this, but one thing that I'll be watching for is any sign of bias.

And it was when you said the above that I decided these waters weren't safe for the sharing of honest opinions.

 

 

"It hasn't started yet, but Gwen Ifill is likely to be biased. I'll be watching."

 

 

We're here to watch the candidates, not the commentators.

[ecoli]

watching out for bias isn't the same thing as EXPECTING it.

 

I think the fact that the moderator of a debate has an obvious interest in a particular candidate is a cause for concern.

 

I also find it interesting, iNow, that you're accusing pangloss of bias, and used that to say that this thread isn't a place where honest opinions can be shared.

 

First of all, it's perfectly fine that pangloss is wary of bias from the commentator. It's not some evil display of partisanship. You're jumping to conclusions, and that makes me concerned about your ability to think rationally. ie- seeing republican conspiracies in perfectly legit threads.

 

Commentator neutrality should be an important issue. Because it affects the content and inflection of the questions being asked and who they are addressed to. Therefore, it affects how viewers perceive and process the debate. You may be above such things, but you can be sure that most voters aren't.

[bascule]

Senator O'Biden? Heh

 

Her response on climate change is sickening. First she advocates a hypothesis which goes against an overwhelming amount of evidence, then she says she just doesn't care what the cause is.

 

I'm glad Biden didn't let her get away from it. "How can we solve the problem if we don't understand the cause?" Excellent, Biden.

 

Live stream here, by the way:

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1

[Sisyphus]

Seriously, what is the deal with mispronouncing "nuclear?" What is the rationale? It has to be intentional, right? I mean, Bush does the same thing, and at this point it must be intentional, so why, goddamnit, why?

[bascule]

Seriously, what is the deal with mispronouncing "nuclear?"

 

I decided to stop playing the VP debate drinking game when Palin said "nukulur" 3 times in the span of 30 seconds

[Pangloss]

watching out for bias isn't the same thing as EXPECTING it.

 

Right, thank you.

 

But I was still at school when I wrote that a little while ago, and I really did not represent my opinion very well. I'm actually a Gwen Ifill fan, mostly from watching Jim Lehrer, and I happen to think she's one of the best interviewers on the planet. I think she has a way of listening and paying attention to her interviewees that's nothing short of amazing. I've seen her pick up on things that just blew right past me. The woman is just plain sharp.

 

And let's face it -- even if she IS biased, that doesn't mean she can't moderate a debate. I believe that as well. You may have a point there about "commentator neutrality", but if she's observing the rules of the debate then it's pretty hard to cross the line too severely.

 

But even so, I'll be watching for bias. I don't personally put a lot of stock into that bit about her book coming out (even though I brought it up here, I don't mean to bait-and-switch you guys but that's just how I see it). IMO she'll sell that book whether Obama wins or loses -- if he loses he may even be a BIGGER hero to the far left, for example.

 

Seriously, what is the deal with mispronouncing "nuclear?" What is the rationale? It has to be intentional, right? I mean, Bush does the same thing, and at this point it must be intentional, so why, goddamnit, why?

 

Um, you guys know who started all that, right?

 

It was Jimmy Carter.

 

Who, ironically enough, actually majored in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech (though I don't think he finished that degree).

 

---

line[/hr]

I haven't watched this yet, btw, but the unofficial score from my wife is "she's kickin' his butt". (lol)

[bascule]

Well, my take is Biden owned Palin pretty frequently.

 

Palin had a hilarious soundbyte in there about how the pundits will scrutinize the debate for disagreements and point out the obvious falsehoods. I foresee pundits playing that soundbyte tomorrow shortly before they point out all the obvious falsehoods she stated when she contradicted Biden.

 

The fact check on this one will be fun.

 

That said, I almost feel like Palin did better than Bush did in his first debate with Kerry...

[iNow]

But I was still at school when I wrote that a little while ago, and I really did not represent my opinion very well. I'm actually a Gwen Ifill fan, mostly from watching Jim Lehrer, and I happen to think she's one of the best interviewers on the planet. I think she has a way of listening and paying attention to her interviewees that's nothing short of amazing. I've seen her pick up on things that just blew right past me. The woman is just plain sharp.

I feel the same way. She's one of my favorites, and I think that it bothered me when you pre-emptively implied that there was some increased likelihood of her being biased. If that was not the case, then mea culpa. I may have been a bit harsh with you, but my intentions were in the right place.

 

It's one thing if you watched the debate and saw bias, then commented on it here.

It's quite another to say you hadn't yet seen the debate and that you were already worried about bias from the moderator.

 

It sounds to me like your mind has been primed by whatever information sources to which you've been paying attention recently. It's classic psychological leverage. Prime the audiences mind in a specific way and they will perceive the events much differently than a non-primed (or, differently primed) audience. (like when they play creepy music in scary movies, stuff like that also happens with commentary and rhetoric which impacts our gut reactions to tone and content).

 

 

As an aside, my girlfriend is getting damn good at doing Palin impersonations. It's rather scary, really. She can even do it through txt msg... Don'tcha know.

[john5746]

Palin came through with flying colors. Her style was better, except for the heavy accent and "average" verbage, but that was for her audience. I think Biden did well also, he fought off the attacks on Obama very well. Palin was not able to defend McCain as well, but she was really there to defend herself. Biden was the obvious winner to me, but she will be the obvious winner to her crowd and did enough for the right wing intelligencia, I think.

 

Gwen Ifill did cut Palin off for time early in the debate and gave Biden the last closing remarks, but I saw no obvious bias.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, Biden won, hands down. He was so much more interesting to listen to, and has obvious depth in every subject. He's the only one out of the four that doesn't irritate me with lethargic conversational momentum (not sure if that makes sense...). He spits out what he has to say without so much lag searching his thoughts to put it together.

 

Anyway, Sarah didn't tank like I thought she would and she came out good on a couple of things, in my opinion, but Biden had me rewinding my DVR to catch what he said.

[iNow]

IMO, she actually looked like she was reading from note cards on a few responses.

 

Way way way too vacuous and much more like a handily done theater performance than a talk about reality given to the populace by a leading statesperson.

 

 

 

Parapharasing Palin: "That's an interesting question, Gwen, but I'd like to for a moment return to these other points on which I'm more prepared to offer talking points instead."

 

 

I like Joe. I don't like Palin. I was biased going into this. Good thing I wasn't the moderator.

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

You're jumping to conclusions, and that makes me concerned about your ability to think rationally.

 

You seem to be blatantly ignoring both context and history, but okay. Clearly I was completely off base by suggesting that Pangloss is far too often too quick to imply ideological bias where none may exist. Clearly, I just wasn't thinking rationally, and you're right to imply that my thoughts are irrational for even suggesting such a thing...

Edited October 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ecoli]

From the little I hear, I thought Palin was talking for soundbytes and not answering questions. I lost some respect for her for that.

 

Biden actually seemed able and interested in the questions (esp. foreign policy).

 

From the debate, I conclude that Palin doesn't bring anything tangible to the ticket, but a pretty face and a celebrity politician through and through. Biden is pretty much the exact opposite.

 

When you put both tickets together, though, it comes out to a similar thing, with OBama perhaps slightly ahead. (since both the economic policies of both are rather appalling).

[bascule]

From the little I hear, I thought Palin was talking for soundbytes and not answering questions. I lost some respect for her for that.

 

She was changing the subject a lot and talking about something totally irrelevant

 

I'm actually a Gwen Ifill fan, mostly from watching Jim Lehrer, and I happen to think she's one of the best interviewers on the planet. I think she has a way of listening and paying attention to her interviewees that's nothing short of amazing.

 

That said, I'm not sure she was the greatest debate moderator. I thought there were quite a few times Palin was noticibly dodging the question when she didn't step in and try to steer her back on subject.

 

Biden seemed to talk right over her...

[Phi for All]

Both did very well, and I have to say that Palin had some really shining moments, but they were all emotional, theatrical ones (which has gotten people elected, no doubt). I thought Palin had the upper hand for the first quarter of the debate but Biden dominated the other three-quarters. Palin let two major Biden salvos go unanswered and she paused during two segues to either collect her thoughts or emphasize her displeasure, but either way it came off as indecisive. She had her head down looking at her notes and looked a tad rattled (she should have shook her head, like, "I can't believe what I'm hearing!").

 

I wonder why Biden didn't jump on Palin's naming General McClellan (twice, so no lip-slip) as the top general in Afghanistan (I think General McClellan spoke at McCain's high school graduation, to steal a bit from Stephen Colbert). It might have made some hawks question whether she's prepared to assist (or be) the Commander-in-Chief. But then, Biden did a very good job of underscoring that McCain considers Afghanistan and Pakistan to be unimportant compared to Iraq.

 

MUCH more interesting than the Obama / McCain debate. I hope this raises the bar for the top candidates.

[bascule]

I thought Palin had the upper hand for the first quarter of the debate but Biden dominated the other three-quarters.

 

You aren't talking about when they were discussing climate change and gay marriage, are you? That was the most absurdly one-sided part of the debate I saw.

[Phi for All]

You aren't talking about when they were discussing climate change and gay marriage, are you? That was the most absurdly one-sided part of the debate I saw.

No, that's where she started to lose it, at least with global warming, since they all oppose gay marriage (or at least redefining marriage to include same-sex couples). But from the opening when she walked out and said, "It's so good to meet you, can I call you Joe?", I was afraid she would have the audience eating out of her hand. I actually liked her at that point, and I think Sarah Palin is the least elite person I can think of to run our country, front seat or back seat.

[Pangloss]

As an aside, my girlfriend is getting damn good at doing Palin impersonations. It's rather scary, really. She can even do it through txt msg... Don'tcha know.

 

Rofl!

 

 

I thought Palin did a whole heaping lot better than she's been doing in those interviews lately -- clearly she's been doing her homework. But let's face it, she's just not playing in the same league. Biden could write a dissertation on just about anything they discussed tonight. I often disagree with the man on basic ideologies, but he's smart and he knows his subjects. And I'd trust him if he had to run the country.

 

Ifill seemed fine to me as well, but Bascule, you may be right; I wonder if she was avoiding that kind of follow-up because of those accusations earlier in the week.

 

You guys caught Biden's "bridge to nowhere" quote, right? (chuckle) I think Palin even got a little dig in there as well, though it was pretty congenial overall.

 

Phi, on that pronunciation thing, I'm betting that was a deliberate holding-back on Biden's part, so as not to appear patronizing.

[Phi for All]

Phi, on that pronunciation thing, I'm betting that was a deliberate holding-back on Biden's part, so as not to appear patronizing.

You're probably right, my friend, and if so, it was a classy move on Joe's part. Jumping all over it, even bringing it up tactfully, could have really blown up in his face. I guess they both showed some remarkable restraint when you think about it.

[ParanoiA]

That said, I'm not sure she was the greatest debate moderator. I thought there were quite a few times Palin was noticibly dodging the question when she didn't step in and try to steer her back on subject.

 

I wonder if this is because of the suspicion of bias brought up before the debate. I'm betting she didn't want to appear unfair, even though it would have been perfectly fair to steer her back on subject.

 

Seriously, what is the deal with mispronouncing "nuclear?" What is the rationale? It has to be intentional, right? I mean, Bush does the same thing, and at this point it must be intentional, so why, goddamnit, why?

 

They don't even notice, and now it's habit. I grew up pronouncing it that way too - I guess it's fair to make fun of small town southerners in this regard. But it's certainly hilarious to hear it from a presidential candidate. Biden should have enunciated the word with emphasis to score the point without directly coming out and disparaging her with it. I think that would have been a cool way to capitalize off of it.

 

You're jumping to conclusions' date=' and that makes [i']me[/i'] concerned about your ability to think rationally.

 

You seem to be blatantly ignoring both context and history, but okay. Clearly I was completely off base by suggesting that Pangloss is far too often too quick to imply ideological bias where none may exist. Clearly, I just wasn't thinking rationally, and you're right to imply that my thoughts are irrational for even suggesting such a thing...

 

Well roll your eyes at me as well then because I'm starting to see why you petulanty decry religion so much, since you seem to have that tendency in yourself. Damn dude, all they're saying is that they're watching for bias since there's a legitimate reason to suspect it. Just like you're watching for lies coming from McCain. Just like I'm watching for anything different at all to come from Obama.

 

But, just like the religiously indoctrinated, you feel your side is impervious to criticism and you're apparently ultra sensitive to the most mild inquiry. Well, I looked for bias too, and I didn't see any. I don't guess Pangloss did either, nor ecoli. So maybe you should repeat that statement, only drop the rolling eyes since it's spot on.

 

You're probably right, my friend, and if so, it was a classy move on Joe's part. Jumping all over it, even bringing it up tactfully, could have really blown up in his face. I guess they both showed some remarkable restraint when you think about it.

 

You know, I was expecting a more dirty fight. I don't know why. They're both professionals, but I really thought Biden would be rougher with her and really take her to task on her "proximity" based foreign relations experience, the inability to name a recent supreme court decision, what paper she reads...you know, how she's basically a blank slate ready for programming.

 

I still like her on a personal level. She strikes me as quite down to earth and I'll bet she could be interesting to hang out with on the deck, cooking steaks on the grill while the kids play in the yard. I'll bet she can even run the country pretty decent, but "pretty decent" is not what we're paying for - in my mind she isn't appropriate for the job.

 

And if I hear her say "Maverick", "Bipartisan", "ruffled feathers" one more time, I'm going to puke.

[waitforufo]

I agree with those that think these debates, for both president and vice president, are watched much like people watch NASCAR. The contest is interesting but what people really want to see is a spectacular crash. Viewed from that perspective no big crashes and only minor gaffs.

 

I do find it interesting how regional pronunciations of words like nuclear draw such interest, but Joe Biden claiming that Article I of the constitution defines the executive branch of government draws little attention. This is but a minor gaff but in the context it was given he should have been correct.

 

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." - Joe Biden

 

Article 1 establishes the legislative branch and the vice presidents roll within it.

[Pangloss]

You know, I was expecting a more dirty fight. I don't know why. They're both professionals, but I really thought Biden would be rougher with her ...

 

I noticed that as well, and I wondered if it's related to the outrage expressed by the people towards government over the previous week (and in general lately). I also got a bit of a "Hey, I can play the big-smile game too" vibe from Biden.

[ParanoiA]

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States' date=' that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." - Joe Biden

 

Article 1 establishes the legislative branch and the vice presidents roll within it.[/quote']

 

Thanks. I was trying to remember exactly how he said it last night. Clearly Article one defines the legislative powers, as opposed to the executive, but I wasn't sure exactly how he was referencing Article one.

[john5746]

 

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." - Joe Biden

 

Article 1 establishes the legislative branch and the vice presidents roll within it.

 

During the debate, I took it to mean that it defines his role in the legislative and then for emphasis, he said that the VP is of the Executive Branch. I'll have to watch it again. That being said, it says that the VP is the President of the senate, with the vote being the most important power. So, I think Biden was wrong on that one, but mentioning Cheney made him right.

[Pangloss]

Not to rehash what seems to me to be a closed issue, but I am a bit surprised at all the articles about Gwen Ifill today. The questions over her integrity regarding her book were pretty light before the debate, but after the debate ended the issue suddenly heated up, even though all the mainstream accounts I've read gave her pretty high marks for fairness. Neither party has anything to complain about, so why all the rhetoric? Is it possible there was so much ammunition prepped for auto-launch that the operators just didn't get a chance to shut it all down after things went surprisingly well? (lol)

 

Here's an odd bit from the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine that I normally find pretty interesting:

 

I thought Gwen Ifill's most biased question last night was this one:

Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Gov. Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor...

Translation: "Sen. Biden, why are you so fiercely standing up to those fat cats? Gov. Palin, why are you heartlessly stomping on the poor?"

 

Talk about looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses! I mean I guess you could say that her question kinda baited both candidates, but it's really kind of a softball -- those red-letter phrases are really easy for interviewees to dismiss.

 

Some of the hoopla today is the left firing at the right for attacking Ifill in the first place. But I think this is either a case of unchecked automatic weapons fire or perhaps some degree of racism and race-baiting run amok in our present over-charged partisan atmosphere.