I watched... and I've got my own unique post coming...

But here's what I'm thinking now. THe media WILL say that Biden won. Just like they will say that the democrat won...in every debate.

I have not read ANY post-debate reaction yet, nor have I watched any, so the following is blind.

Here's how they said Obama won last week - "He held his own against McCain on foreign policy. And because it was a draw, it was really more beneficial for the Obama campaign because he wasn't expected to do so well."

Here's how they will say Sarah lost last night - It was a draw, but because Sarah didn't clearly show her superior competance over someone like Joe Biden, this won't help the McCain campaign."

Get that? They'll say that both were draws - but give the favor to the democrat both times. You can bet what they won't say. Go back up and look at my "Obama won" paragraph. Now replace Obama's name with Sarah's. Do you think they'll be saying anything like that? NO WAY!!!!

Also, it's ironic now that in the past two debates, Obama/Biden have attacked McCain/Palin relentlessly for siding with Bush and then when speaking of their own diplomatic policy/war strategy, they appeal to Bush as currently performing the best way.

Obama/Biden both mentioned that the current Bush approach to diplomacy was proper (i.e., talking to Iran). So you agree with Bush? I thought his policies were "abject failure". If Sarah Palin were completely on the ball, she would have mentioned Colin Powell's name last night. If you call the past eight years an abject failure, you're talking about Bush, Cheney, our Ambassadors and, ultimately Powell and Rice. The American people love Powell. He was called an abject failure last night multiple times. Biden as Powell's enemy would have played nicely.

Again, on the war strategy in Afghanistan, Biden said, "Even the Bush Administration has recognized . . ." saying that "the only one left out is John McCain." So, then again, Obama/Biden are on Bush's side while McCain is not.

Is Bush completely bad or not? Are his policies failures or not? How can you rationally adopt a person's policy that you consider failed?

Voting against something doesn't mean squat to anyone. Candidates seem to think that Americans are so stupid that we don't know that politicians vote against bills half the time because of what is attached to the bill, not what the bill is itself. Don't tell me what they voted against - tell me what junk was attached to the bill and then also give me the stated reasons why that person said they voted against it at the time. Otherwise, just stop wasting time bringing it up at debates, speeches etc - hoping that us stupid Americans will not do any homework or thinking.

Is Bush completely bad or not? Are his policies failures or not? How can you rationally adopt a person's policy that you consider failed?

Great point. That's what I was thinking too. If Obama/Biden are trying to sell agreement with Bush as a plus, whereas McCain is the "odd man out" - well, doesn't that mean McCain represents "change"?

I think they are trying to say McCain is the only one left clinging to "failed policies". But the biggest foreign policy success of the last 2 years (the Surge) is one McCain championed from the start.

I found it all pretty irritating.

"However he did not support the bill due to the timeline and urged Bush to veto, which he did."

Thanks - my better half (who is smarter than me) actually mentioned that last night. It was a typical Washington "gotcha" bill. Contained funding for the troops, but also a withdrawal timeline. So if you vote for it, we have a withdrawal timeline (and, thus, lose the war and everyone who fought and died in it fought and died in vain).

If you vote against it, they get to pull out the "He doesn't care about the troops" line.

One thing that has to stop in Washington: attachments to bills. The "bailout" is larded with pork (I wish McCain had voted against it, because he pledged not to support earmark spending bills). I hate that game. Every bill should be clean, and be about what it's about.

I listened to the debate last night on the radio while driving. I was predisposed to like Palin. I wanted her to win. And I did think she scored some points and performed ok. But I mainly found her annoying, less substantive in her answers and less likely to answer the actual question asked than Biden. Of course that has to be balanced against the facts pointed out above - that Biden may have outright lied in places, whereas Palin perhaps just stretched the truth or ignored questions to go in the direction she wanted to go and hit her talking points.

I'll still vote McCain-Palin based primarily on the pro-life issue as well as the fact that more of the republican platform lines up with my views. But my reaction to Palin in the debate wasn't as positive as I expected it to be. Maybe my reaction would've been different if I'd watched it on TV.

The claim that Biden lied is in fact a lie. Biden was very clear in explaining that McCain voted against the funding because it contained a timeline to get out, etc. Most of the American people clearly disagree with McCain on this. So does Malaki. It's an honest policy disagreement but not a lie.

Regarding "clean bills", etc. Congress doesn't and can't work that way. The number one responsibility of a Senator or Congressman is to bring back money to the home folks. To require each of those expenditures to be a separate, clean bill is logistically impossible. Their isn't enough time to do it. McCain is basically running against the Republican Party as it is that party, which allowed earmarks and all spending to get out of control.

But here's what I'm thinking now. THe media WILL say that Biden won. Just like they will say that the democrat won...in every debate.

I have not read ANY post-debate reaction yet, nor have I watched any, so the following is blind.

Here's how they said Obama won last week - "He held his own against McCain on foreign policy. And because it was a draw, it was really more beneficial for the Obama campaign because he wasn't expected to do so well."

I Haven't watched the debate yet and have NO opinion but I just wanted to point out that usually who "won" is based on polling directly after the debate. With the exception of Drudge, Obama overwhelmingly beat McCain in polls asking "Who won the debate?" Granted, I imagine the polls are quite unscientific, but I don't think that's media spin. Some of the more liberal magazines I read called it a draw (The New Republic, for instance), but the victory/loss stuff is generally based on polls, not this or that reporter's opinion (though they often share it).

That said, I was hoping Palin would do well last night, and it looks like she did, so good for her. I'll have to watch the debate later, because I don't have a TV.

If Obama/Biden are trying to sell agreement with Bush as a plus, whereas McCain is the "odd man out" - well, doesn't that mean McCain represents "change"?

Well, they could always contend that even Bush is realizing his mistakes and converging with their plans, and McCain is still out arguing for the failures of the previous 7 years. Doesn't make it true, but that's what they could say. I seem to remember posting something a few months back about the Bush administration's pivot in foreign policy regarding Iran, North Korea, withdrawal from Iraq, etc. and how it looked more like Obama's plans than McCain's. They could just argue, "Well, he's so out of touch that he still holds onto policies that everybody else has rejected, and everybody is starting to agree with us." Again, I'm not arguing that point, I'm just saying how they could spin it. It isn't a very damaging accusation.

The claim that Biden lied is in fact a lie.

They have all lied to some degree at some point, and that is a fact. To say they haven't lied is a lie. I was raised to say that stretching the truth is still lying.

crossbow,

I never said that "they haven't lied." I agree that they all lie. I just said that in this one particular case, Biden didn't lie.

Andrew, you're certainly right about the Bush administration on NK and Iran; Iraq's really a different issue, more about changing realities on the ground than anything else (since obviously the mission changes as the Iraqi government strengthens).

Quaid, at this point, I have little faith that the McCain campaign will make the arguments that are available to them that actually matter. The fact that he persists in bashing "Wall Street greed" for the financial crisis rather than putting the blame squarely on the culture of corruption in DC--even when he'd already been going after precisely that on general principles--is just the most egregious symptom of his campaign's tone-deafness and poor aim. (I suppose it's possible that he'll put the blame on Dodd, Frank, et al. if the House passes the Senate's modified Paulson plan, once they can't retaliate by voting it down; but I'm not holding my breath.) I think at this point that the election is pretty much in the bag for Obama, not because there isn't time for McCain to win it, but because he's shown no sign of taking an approach that would enable him to do so.

Tim, I'd have to say you missed 3): laying out exactly how we got to the financial crisis and exactly how Obama's implicated up to his ears in it. Throw in Tony Rezko and Larry Walsh to drive home the point that Obama's typical response to corrupt political systems has been not to try to reform them but instead to become part of them.

I'm sorry but memorizing lines and talking points( even looking confident) does not make up for a lack of true knowledge or understanding of the issues. The polls I've seen say Biden "won" the debate. But it doesn't really matter because those who already support one candidate or the other strongly aren't going to be swayed. But I do think its unfair to say Biden lied when they both clearly stretched the truth quite a bit.

Ok. Here's the difference on the lying thing. Anything that Palin said that people are refering to as a "lie" is a debatable issue.
Biden just flat out lied. Multiple times. A. Lot. I was sitting in my living room FURIOUS and yelling at the TV (this helps, in case you didn't know, they can hear you through the wires) because Palin didn't call him on it. This would be, imo, why she didn't technically win.
Then he'd say she was lying on things that were clearly true. Like someone said earlier, we've seen it with our OWN EYES.
I'm so tired of the Democrats thinking EVERYONE in America is STUPID just because so many in America are stupid.
And I'm sick and tired of the free pass Obama gets on all these issues that so clearly make him a man with little integrity. I don't even care that I disagree with his stance on things near so much as I'm just scared of him.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that America's in danger when he wins.
And McCain is just playing too nice to win, so I agree, Obama's got it, hands down.

Yes, but making an assertion with which you disagree isn't "purposely misrepresenting the facts." Saying that Obama never said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions when he has in fact said that more than once is.

Gina, please view this:

U.S. general urges troop surge in Afghanistan

Oops, don't know what happened in my last post. I was trying to link to the Washington Post article in the first part.

Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100100789.html?hpid=sec-world

Pat Caddell (former Democratic pollster) just said, on Hannity and Colms, that after Biden said McCain voted against funding the troops, Palin should have looked in the camera and asked "does anyone in America believe that John McCain has ever wanted to cut funding to the troops?"

The misrepresentation on strategy in Afghanistan is WaPo's, not Palin's. Remember, the MSM aren't a neutral source.

Also, Obama wasn't voting for funding, he was voting for withdrawal; McCain was voting for funding without a withdrawal timeline.

Finally, when people start talking about "shading" the truth--usually, in my experience, what they're really complaining about is, "You didn't make that look the way I wanted you to make it look." It's not about lying, only about point of view and emphasis.

Mark Steyn on another funny part of the Biden debate of delusion:

When Regular Joe Six-Pack Bluecollar Biden tried to match her on the Main Street cred, it rang slightly wacky. “Look,” he said, “All you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me, where I spend a lot of time.” Why? Is he moonlighting as a checkout clerk on the evening shift? Or is he stalking that nice lady in Lighting Fixtures? As for Katie’s Restaurant, ah, I’m sure it was grand but apparently it closed in 1990. In the Diner of the Mind, the refills are endless and Senator Joe is sitting shootin’ the breeze over a cuppa joe with a couple other regular joes on adjoining stools while Betty-Jo, the sassy waitress who’s tough as nails but with a heart of gold, says Ol’ Joe, the short-order cook who’s doing his Sloppy Joes just the way the Senator likes ‘em, really appreciates the way that, despite 78 years in Washington, Joe Biden is still just the same regular Joe Six-Pack he was when he and Norman Rockwell first came in for a sarsaparilla all those years ago. But, alas, while he was jetting off for one-to-one talks with the Deputy Tourism Minister of Waziristan, the old neighborhood changed.

Sorry, but what gets me is when people are quick to characterize politicians they don't like as liars when they say something that is not 100% truthful and letter and spirit. But, when their candidates say something that isn't completely true, a justification is always made for why that is different. Neither side has the monopoly on this. Both sides do it.

crossbow,

No need to lecture me on politics. I've been a confirmed independent since the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I also have a Poli Sci minor from UC San Diego. I'm also strongly pro-life although I think that Palin's views on abortion after rape and incest are cruel and unconscionable. I would not vote for Obama under any circumstances. But I also have not imbibed from conservative/Christian/Republican kool-aid for 40 years and probably will not start now. I do not trust McCain or Palin but will probably hold my nose and vote for them in hopes that we can get another conservative SCJ or two from them. It may already too late to forestall the judgment of God on us but we must do what we can while we can.

Gina,

I find the political season pretty distasteful on both sides. I know what you're saying and agree with you in principle. That being said, Biden appears to be (and I think there's plenty of evidence for this) someone who just makes stuff up. I think there's a difference between making stuff up and spinning. They are both bad, but making stuff up is the worse.

For an example of something Palin said recently that I thought was bunk, for the most part: She asserted in a Fox interview that the reason she did badly in the Couric and Gibson interviews was because she was "irritated with the line of questioning". I think she has a deep aversion to showing weakness (and possibly for good reason - the sharks are circling after all), and thus can't admit that she just wasn't really ready for the interviews. I'm ok with that - she was thrust on the national scene and subjected to the most ridiculous and heinous press coverage of any political candidate in recent memory, and then was subjected to silly questions that represent a high school government class pop-quiz versus a discussion of her background and beliefs. But, bottom line, she should have done better and should just admit she wasn't at her best and move on from there.

Bill: that's also something Biden just invented out of whole cloth.

As for your characterization of Palin's comments, I don't think it's fair. One, the comment which you mention wasn't in reference to the Gibson interview at all; and two, I don't think it's an accurate summation of what she actually said. Her comments to Cameron were, for one, far more nuanced than that, and for another, far more self-critical. I think your fellow Houstonian Beldar has done a good job evaluating what she had to say about that (which on my read, anyway, amounts to a confession of weakness rather than an attempt to avoid admitting weakness).

Gina,

I was recently asked why I don't like Biden - and all I could think of was 20 years of the kind of behavior he exhibited at the debate. He had to drop out of the 1988 presidential race because of plagiarism. He may be a pathological liar. If nothing else, he's a blowhard.

I don't have any respect for people who lie. I just don't.

I understand that you may not think Palin is qualified to be President. But she is qualified to be Vice President. I understand there's a risk - McCain could keel over in January. But the chances are small, and she will grow into the job. I'd much rather have someone who is basically honest than someone who says ridiculous things that are easily shown to be falsehoods. And I am still amazed that very few people seem worried about Obama's resume. What has he done? What has he accomplished? Biden claims Obama stood athwart history and yelled "NATO!" when "we and the French kicked Hezbollah out of Lebannon. . . " Cite the case? I need someone to cite anything he's done. **

In the Gibson interview - he accused her of saying that the Iraq war was God's will. He based that off a cleverly (well, not so cleverly) edited tape of her talk at the church. What she really said was that we needed to pray it was God's will, i.e., be aligned with His will. I thought that was a cynical move on Gibson's part and I haven't heard a correction or apology from him. He clearly misquoted her. So I guess I can hand her a little grace regarding her answer.

I don't think she did very well in either the Gibson or Couric interviews, btw. But I don't recall Biden-level untruths. I think the biggest complaint people have is that she didn't answer the questions.

** Anything he's done besides working to kill the Born Alive Infant Protection act.

The thing is that she prides herself on being a reformer. I just hope that if she gets to Washington she really does try to change Washington instead of letting Washington change her.

Moot point :-) - Obama will win in November.

How's that risk feel? :-)

Thanks Andrew,

I didn't comment on your list (all, you can find it here) - I think that was "Why Not" who commented. I read them - I get confused by "co-sponsored bills" - because a bill can have tens of co-sponsors.

But, bottom line, he does have some accomplishments. I was engaging in some poor hyperbole when I said "what has he done?" - Obviously, he has some accomplishments. Thin resume, but of course, there's something there. The real question is whether it's the kind of resume a viable presidential candidate has.

I honestly think that some of what you've mentioned about Palin is explainable just by the fact that she's human. The "pre-surge troop levels" is a McCain campaign talking point. I've heard the explanation for it and don't think it's very strong, and, sounds like the assertion is wrong. She may be wrong for continuing to say it, but it's coming from the campaign (again, they have an explanation I read somewhere - not sure how strong it is). On the Bridge to Nowhere, as I've stated elsewhere, her assertion that she killed it is factually true. Of course, there is plenty of context there and I don't think it's near as exciting when you hear the context than it was the first time we heard she had killed it.

On the energy output - I dealt with this at your place and I do believe that it was a human mistake, based on a misapplication of past stats. But it depends on whether you're inclined to give her a benefit of the doubt.

Here was my analysis on that one (and sorry for the length, and also, my apologies to any Bono fans out there):

You've probably already seen this - FactCheck.org has a decent surmise as to where the 20% number came from: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

The 20% number didn't just come out of thin air, but it is a distortion (possibly innocent - although I don't expect you to buy that :-) ) - Alaska has on average produced 20% of the nations oil and gas since 1980, although that number is lower now (15%).

From http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production (1980 - 2000). Currrently, Alaska accounts for nearly 15% of U.S. production.


Politicians juggle a million stats. In the most charitable light, the "20% of production" could have morphed in Palin's mind to "20% of energy produced" and it's only a short leap from that to "20% of energy supply" - an innocent overstatement.

If it was a purposeful lie, it's a huge distortion and dumb to boot.

You see these all the time. Especially with aging statistics. A great example is Bono's famous declaration that America ranks 22nd out of the 22 riches countries in per-capita charitable giving. The actual stat was in giving as a percentage of GDP, which makes a big diff (since our GDP is ginormous). I actually posted on this once, here: http://thinklings.org/posts/quot22nd-in-givingquot

The point being: Bono didn't mean to lie, even though what he said was, technically speaking, a lie. What he had, though , was a (quite old) statistic that he then misinterpreted because the language surrounding the stat had morphed. In reality, the stat ended up meaning nothing like what he thought it meant.

This one may (again, may) be the same thing. Palin reads stats as part of her job on the energy commission or as governor that Alaska has historically produced 20% of the domestically produced gas and oil for the U.S. The main thing that sticks in her mind is "20%, U.S. Oil and Gas". This morphs into "20%, U.S., Energy". And the very real difference between production and supply also gets lost in the translation.

Plausible? You decide. Just wanted to offer that up. From what I understand, McCain and Palin are backing away from the stat as we speak.

I like what you're saying, Bill. Sometimes I think a politicians, particularly someone like Gov. Palin in her current position, has been given bad information. Her staff may have told her a wrong number because they made a mistake. That's be like the 20% output figure. There were a couple times I thought Biden's figures might be a legitimate way of presenting the facts and not outright lies, but most of the time he seemed to be exaggerating or lying.

And cheers to AM who said: "You didn't make that look the way I wanted you to make it look." It's not about lying, only about point of view and emphasis.

Bill, I haven't heard you comment on the Bill Ayers issue. I read just now an article saying Obama and Ayers didn't know each other when Ayers' group threw bombs and killed a cop, but I think the point is that Ayers is unrepentant, isn't he?

Michael Totten says, "Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about," regarding kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon. He criticizes one of Palin's answers too--equal opp.

Raindream, I'm pretty much with you when it gets down to nitpicking the "I put it on ebay" comment. At least that's grounded in the truth (she did put it on ebay). In addition, her intention was to sell the darn plane and fly regular airlines to save money. And she cut the budget to the Governor's office in many other ways. So I don't see how on earth that's anything approaching a lie.

I think people don't like Palin's swagger. Perhaps it's unbecoming, I don't know. I don't want to call sexism, but I also think that part of it is that she's a feminist who doesn't match the feminist mold.

To be clear, there is plenty of criticism to level Palin's way. But on the plane on ebay, I don't get it. It's certainly not a LIE.

What made me most frustrated about Biden's Nato in Lebannon comment is that it makes it sound like he and Barack Obama were "on it", trying to get the evil Bush administration to do the right thing.

In reality, liberals would have freaked if we tried to commit NATO resources (including, undoubtedly, American soldiers) to Lebannon, after we and the French "kicked out Hezbollah" (which never happened).

I think he was talking about Syria leaving Lebannon. And, though we backed them up, that was primarily the Lebanese doing that good work. But I'd love to see any indication that he and Obama pushed for NATO deployment in Lebannon.

Gina,

Well said, but I do think that cynicism can become overwhelming. Sarah Palin has a well-deserved reputation as a reformer in Alaska, and has reduced both her own budget and the earmarks her state receives.