ADN

Let me just make one thing clear...

I am actually hoping that this goes well for the Good Governor...Like I've said before, without being mean, its pretty safe to say that her past public appearances have not gone well...When someone doing a satire can go on Television and do your interview verbatim and people are laughing, that's not good...

I want her to hold her own here...It's important for this to happen...I'm not sure its possible at this point, but this to be discussion worthy, thus the thread...I have wiped the slate clean at this point...

That is a sweet sentiment, but honestly:

I expect this to be like watching a crayon eating contest at the special olympics. No drinking game needed,

The Debate is spun toward Obama just by the person asking questions, and Biden Vs. Palin is a no-brainer. She'd win if she could learn to talk with an air of integrity.

I feel the woman has a chance, but only because Biden is simply one of the worst VP candidates in all of American History, and Obama is running too Charismatically to even imply he needs a VP.

I think she did OK...She's pretty, and very likeable...An improvement over her past appearances, certainly...No follow up questions and she does great...

But you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your last sentence...McCain, political BS aside, is probably projected to need a VP more than Barak...If my opinion were reverse...And McCain was Obama and vice versa, my #1 concern would be his age and health...That in nature makes the focus on the VP, and why I think that the party has been hit the hardest...In choosing her, everyone is pretty much saying the same thing...Even McCain supporters would be hard pressed to suggest that this is not a factor...

I don't think anyone expected anything of Palin except to not give Tina Fey much more ammunition...I think its fair to say she did that...

Do you guys know any where I can watch the debate online? I missed it due to work, but I really want to see these 2 duke it out

Now to rip my own comments apart. thankfully, my worst fears were not realized. I just didn't expect this much after the first debate... which I have seen four times sober, and it STILL sucks.

raum wrote:That is a sweet sentiment, but honestly:

I expect this to be like watching a crayon eating contest at the special olympics. No drinking game needed,

This debate gets a 'C+', compared to the 'D-' of the first.. I think Gwen had some good and fresh questions, compared to Jim Lehrer who was totally unable to control the 1st pres debate. She did a good job.

Overall, my respect for all the people involved in the debate grew. There was a minimum of repetition, and few slanders, and most of the situation up to now was well summarized on both parts. Both gravitated to their home turf of talking points a bit too much, and both had a few stumbles. I think that was expected on both parts. However, honestly, Biden looked more haggard than McCain is seen to be. I wonder how the run is going on him.

The Debate is spun toward Obama just by the person asking questions, and Biden Vs. Palin is a no-brainer. She'd win if she could learn to talk with an air of integrity.

The ONLY spin I actually saw on her part was in three ways:
1. Questions chosen really heighten the most critical views of McCain/Palin.
2. Punctuating the Middle East and Africa as the ONLY foreign policy issues addressed.
3. one set of questions were about prior experience, mostly in senate of candidates.
(Palin has none, but she made no questions about experience in executive branch of govt, and congressional experience is not something that has ever been consistently indicative of a good president. governatorial experience has proven to be as good a reference, but also not consistent.)

Best question to ever ask,

"What do you like most and agree with most about the presidential rival to the candiate you support?"

another question for the candidates:
"Congressional votes by senators are often motivated by special interests tacked on the bill as it passes. How do you think that voting for or against these special provisions has effected your candidate's apparent voting stance on the issues? How would that have been clearer with a line-by-line veto at the president's discretion?"

I'd really like to see what does Biden like about McCain, and more importantly, what does Palin like about Obama. I mean no matter what the election outcome, three of these people will still be in Washington, and Palin herself was almost a Senator, until her mentor gave his endorsement to his daughter, and primed her for Governor.

I feel the woman has a chance, but only because Biden is simply one of the worst VP candidates in all of American History, and Obama is running too Charismatically to even imply he needs a VP.

I think she will get more popular opinion about this, and I feel Biden is a nice guy who really doesn't get politics, but means well. He doesn't seem like one of the worst candidates after that debate, and my words were a bit harsh... but I still resent alot of his votes on legislation of social issues.

trashtalkr wrote:Do you guys know any where I can watch the debate online? I missed it due to work, but I really want to see these 2 duke it out

Should be repeat on MSNBC or CNN I think...

Kumicho wrote:I think she did OK...She's pretty, and very likeable...An improvement over her past appearances, certainly...No follow up questions and she does great...

I think she is a better orator than interviewer. That is a good trait for the role of VP. I think she also strongly defended herself, and the two of them did well in support of their candidates and the decision is clear. This election is about government reform, taxation, and military action. Those are stances that have typically gone to Republicans.

But you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your last sentence...McCain, political BS aside, is probably projected to need a VP more than Barak...If my opinion were reverse...And McCain was Obama and vice versa, my #1 concern would be his age and health...That in nature makes the focus on the VP, and why I think that the party has been hit the hardest...In choosing her, everyone is pretty much saying the same thing...Even McCain supporters would be hard pressed to suggest that this is not a factor...

I personally really don't like the idea of someone all buddy buddy with the senate presiding over them. Biden is indebted to too many people in congress for VAWA alone. Also Ty, your projection of who needs a VP more was a bit off from what was said. Palin said [paraphrased] 'when and how McCain needs me, I will be a trusted active party; those are what i am there for.' Biden said [almost verbatim] "I will be there with Obama for every big decision he has to make." Who seems like they need a VP more based on the stances of the candidates? I think the answer is simple. I am not sure either partisan candidate really demonstrates economic proficiency enough to make a decision without a board of advisors to make facts more clear... so that board becomes VERY important.

I think McCain is looking sharp, aware, passionate and dare I say *younger* in spirit, if not in flesh. His health is also very much better than most people first thought. I know people who are concerned about his health. Some were going to vote for obama, because they were afraid palin would assume office. I think it unlikely that will happen until she wins her own Oval Office... and I think she could win if she proves herself as VP and remains true to the identity she has conveyed while demonstrating the four years of experience as VP. Biden will never be president, and may not make it to the second page of the paper if obama is elected.

I don't think anyone expected anything of Palin except to not give Tina Fey much more ammunition...I think its fair to say she did that...

I think she did much better than that, but her ability to quote factoids was still painfully overused and undertested. Then again Biden said some things that simply are proven to be false particularly about McCain's voting ecord in Senate

I'll let the rest of the issues i saw go until i watch it about two more times.

I think Palin did ok, but was still unable to provide concrete answers or even a basic plan in regards to Iraq & Afghanistan. Why are the republicans still in denial that Iraq is the 'Nam clusterfuck of this era?. There are nor will be no victors. How can a man like McCain who personally got buttfucked by the VC not acknowledge they lost that war. I felt Sarah went back to the energy well one too many times & still avoided specifics in regards to the economy. I think Joe won by the remaining hairs on his head. Now it's all on Barack & Senator Senility.

Jig-A-Meister wrote:I think Palin did ok, but was still unable to provide concrete answers or even a basic plan in regards to Iraq & Afghanistan. Why are the republicans still in denial that Iraq is the 'Nam clusterfuck of this era?. There are nor will be no victors. How can a man like McCain who personally got buttfucked by the VC not acknowledge they lost that war. I felt Sarah went back to the energy well one too many times & still avoided specifics in regards to the economy. I think Joe won by the remaining hairs on his head. Now it's all on Barack & Senator Senility.

1. Vietnam was not a war. Neither is Iraq.
2. Vietnam is a solid *unofficial* ally this day, and thriving.
3. Analysts EVERYWHERE say we should not have pulled out of Vietnam.
WE WERE WINNING FINALLY.

And we did not lose. In 1972, the South and North vietnam met, resolved, and by 1973, the Paris Accords were in effect. The war was not ours to fight, and our casualities were heavy, but Nixon had promised to make them fight their own war, that didn't work so we pulled out. Obama is promising another Vietnam (pull out and make them make peace and work toward resolution), not McCain: who is basically promising another Okinawa, set up our own firmness of resove until it infuses the people of this other country. Both will work (at the expense of American tax dollars and blood - and not in that order.), unless Iran is super-weaponized. Then, McCain's plan has a clear advantage, and Obama's might backfire. Had China been sitting on ICBM tech like Iran, Vietnam would have never *worked* the way it did. And LBJ made a total wash of things - and like it or not, Nixon saw a way it could work. That page from Nixon's playbook is what Obama is betting on. WERD! [but the occupation that occured after we left Nam will likely happen if we leave Iraq. A fact Obama simply doesn't convey.]

4. The terrain and wildlife of vietnam was much more treacherous, and control of ground troops was sketchy at best. Military action in Iraq has been far smoother, and this can not be ignored.

raum wrote:Vietnam was not a war. Neither is Iraq.

Then tell your boy McCain to stop talking about them as such. You do not need to convince me.
When i called it a war in my prior post, I used that phrase very loosely. I see 'nam as nothing more or less than a Tragedy.