VP Debate, who won?
 

Several news outlets are reporting Biden won but Palin exceeded expectations. CNN has it at "Overall, 51 percent of the debate watchers said that Biden did the best job in the debate, while 36 percent gave the nod to Palin

Analysis: Palin gets back on track, but Biden wins debate - CNN.com

I was out and didn't watch any of it but the last 20 min. or so. From what little I did see I thought Palin did fairly well, holding her own for the most part. But it didn't seem like she was answering questions, just repeating memorized talking points. I saw some clips this morning and was taken aback at some of her responses. At one point she said "No, I'm not answering that question." Then went on to talk about what "mavericks" McCain and her are.

So who do you think won and why?

And do you think this will have an effect on the election?

I thought Biden had a solid victory overall. He actually answered the questions, he gave specifics without seeming overly wonky, and did a decent job of connecting emotionally. Palin didn't make any big gaffes, but frequently just didn't answer the question, and seemed nervous and overly folksy (would someone PLEASE tell her to stop winking. It makes her look like she has a tic.) There were a couple of her answers where I just winced. She thinks that Cheney wasn't a powerful enough VP? I've always thought that their claim that Obama/Biden are waving the 'white flag of surrender' is overstated. Same with the bit about Michelle Obama not loving her country. At the end of it all, I doubt it changed anything, doubt that it convinced anybody who's still unconvinced to go either way.

the extent to which palin and biden were so differently framed as to almost not be in the same event from the points of view particular to the nitwits who populate the 24/7 cable news universe--you know, the people who perform that vital service of chewing your food before you get to it so as to save you the time of chewing for yourself---is kinda amazing. biden was positioned as being in the debate-event and so it is relevant how he did certain debate-related things, like answer questions. palin is positioned as being in some separate space, locked into a boxing match with her own image. so the consensus is that in the Epic Battle which pitched sarah palin against "sarah palin" sarah palin did reasonably well. that way, the trainwreck that was palin's dissociative interactions with biden are factored out.

so i guess that it's possible for folk who allow themselves to be hoovered into the system of pre-chewing can watch what to us vulgar beings appears to be a single event and see in it numerous parallel events which have, being parallel, no particular contact with each other.



and no, it makes no difference to me. it's just strange.

Biden won the debate.. and he probably connected more on a personal level than did than mrs hockey mom.

Palin continually ducked questions and wanted to go back to energy policy when really she doesn't have a fucking clue in that area either. Granted she did was she was supposed to do and not hurt the base.. but she didn't do anything to sway independents. I don't think Biden did much to sway independents either, but people can look at him and feel more comfortable.

All this being said.. it was quite a boring debate and I was actually the most disappointed in Gwen Ifill. She sucked at moderating.

When cornered, Palin does in fact become increasingly adorable.

Joe Biden's 3rd person comments were hilarious, from a casual observation. His little choke-up moment was questionable.

The gay marriage topic was ridiculous.

I felt like Biden seriously kicked ass in the debate. I found Palin's responses to mean nothing to me, but Biden was tough, passionate and direct. I rolled my eyes whenever Palin tried to be sassy or folksy. I don't want an act. I want a debate!

I'm not sure why his choke up would be questionable. He lost his wife and 1 year old daughter in a car accident. His two boys were critically injured and he didn't know if they would make it. They did make it and he raised them alone. What was bad was Sarah Palin's response "We need change and John and I are both Mavericks". She didn't even acknowledge his loss and came off as a cold hearted bitch.

My memory fades between clips of last night and the part of the debate I actually saw. But yes the VP statement floored me, just floored me. I think she claimed the Constitution gives a whole bunch of powers to the VP and she plans to use those powers. Either I suck at Constitutional law (which is of course completely possible) or she does. Difference, in my mind, being I'm not running for VP. I was also stunned when she said McCain "would build an embassy in the divided city of Jerusalem." Oh yeah the Middle East isn't in enough turmoil, let's build an embassy in the one spot to almost certainly make things worse. Seems like an obvious ploy to get Jewish voters

IMO, some of her answers (when she gave answers) were really just strange.

I don't see how this debate changes anything in the race. But how many VP debate have?

Her VP duties answer was just so completely wrong. She has no clue what a VP actually does or even what branch it serves in. Hell even the republicans who were interviewed after the debate didn't understand her position on that.

Nothing she said in her foreign policy answers proved she knew anything so her remark about an embassy was no surprise.. and it was no surprise she kept saying "I'll do what McCain says" (roughly speaking) ..

I have yet to see any maverick qualities from either one claiming to be one.

I especially liked when Biden pretty much dismissed the Maverick notions.. saying he's known McCain for years and he's no maverick on any important issue. That had to resonate with independents.

I saw her repeat the line of "when he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong he was talking about people and the US workers."

Does any one actually believe that? I sure as hell know I don't.

I've heard the word "maverick" so many times recently that I have almost forgotten what it actually means. What is this, Top Gun? Why the hell does being a "maverick" somehow mean that you are fit to run the United States of America?

they are using this line to try and distance themselves from Bush policy. They say they are different and will stop the partisan bullshit yada yada yada..

it's not working.

Well, it's not only not working, but it's not true... and worst of all, it's FUCKING ANNOYING. :)

This was particularly frightening:

A plan for having Iraq take over their own military and security is a white flag of surrender?

What exactly is McCain's plan?! From what she said, it's either contradictory or vague (or both).

Palin tossed out logical fallacies in place of direct answers.

That's frightening. It implies that her team is either hiding something or is incompetent.

I think Biden handled himself well in light of this. It could have turned into a circus if he was after blood.

I think Palin is a robot.

Do you guys know how difficult it is to program convincing AI?

I think Biden did exactly what he needed to do, just ignore Palin and go after his buddy McCain which he knows much much better than Palin does and he proved it. Sure there were some distorted facts in his thrashing of McCain but at least he provided facts, Palin just read her cards and still got some of it wrong. I will say she did better than I thought she would but I think that's what the McCain camp wanted, so they could declare victory cause she didn't have any "Tina Fey" moments..

After the dust settles all this did was keep the base republicans and some of those leaning McCain in his court since Palin didn't make any major flubs. I doubt many drifted over from Obama to McCain cause she smiled, winked, and said "you betcha!!". Although the 3rd grade class she gave a "shout-out" to may vote for her if they have a in-classroom vote.

The next Presidental debate is Tuesday here in Nashville and should be a good one.

I think the question of who won is relative to which party you are in. However, the end result is that it was a net loss for the McCain campaign.

Palin showed that she can act tough. She didn't stumble at all and she said the things that a hard right-winger wants to hear. If your concerns were that she cracks under pressure then you should be relieved.

What she didn't do was answer the questions and show the world that she has substantial understanding of the issues. If there was a question that she didn't like, she started talking about energy and taxes.

As for Biden, I think he demonstrated that he has an exceptional understanding of the issues. However, this should come as no surprise to anyone. He seemed imprersonal at first and started to say things that could connect him to voters towards the end.

All in all, both sides appealed to their base but neither side did much (if anything) to appeal to an undecided voter. If this was a close race, that would be fine for both parties but McCain is quickly losing the race. Voting has begun (I got my early ballot yesterday) and they need big wins to move things back their way.

Or both?

dont' you find it odd that one can consider answering questions (biden) and not answering questions (palin) as equivalent in a *debate* as "ways to appeal to the base"?

Palin is a moron. She couldn't beat a freshman on the debate team. Of course she lost, anyone saying otherwise has succumb to partisan fever. Which is incurable.

Biden could have done a lot better. I, personally, would not have given Palin any quarter. I would have called her out every single time she clearly didn't know what she was talking about or didn't actually answer a question. Biden decided to try and treat her like his equal. Dumb.

Biden: B-
Palin: what's lower than F?

Biden clearly won. He answered questions directly, with a clear grounding in facts, whereas Palin avoided questions or redirected them, and pulled the answers she did have out of her ass. It was difficult at times to make heads or tails out of what she was saying, even with closed captioning on.

Well, John says that G would be lower than F and his record speaks for that G (see next card), I mean I know energy policy I live in Alaska for gosh sakes!! *wink*

Expulsion.

Winnar

Awesome find, I now have new wallpaper for my work PC..

Roger Ebert (my self-proclaimed butt buddy) is an excellent writer and covers many topics of the world despite them having nothing to do with movies. He wrote an article about the VP debate that is definitely worth reading:

You didn't ask me about the debate, but... - Roger Ebert's Journal

"There's something wrong with the world today; I don't know what it is..."

I think I have a clue: nobody won the debate.
Neither one of them and not us.
If you can't give a straight answer to a reasoned question, you shouldn't be on the ticket.

Overall, however, I think Biden did a better job of it.

Sarah Palin was prepped well and maybe her bumpkin (sorry, 'folksie') way will gain her votes. As a woman, I am sick of the winking at the camera and saying dog gone it. And of all things, to do this during a debate?
I find it amazing that with such low expectations of Sarah Palin, anything she does that somewhat intelligent (albeit rehearsed and memorized) wins her a big gold star with the public. And she could be our president. I think I just puked a bit in my mouth. gotta go.

He knew that if he put her feet to the fire it would get spun as "Mean Entrenched Senator Picks on Cute Alaskan Hockey Mom" by the press. He was 100% right in focusing his attacks on McCain and playing nice with Palin

I agree completely with this. In some ideal world where being "elite" is a good thing when selecting the leader of the country, you'd absolutely want to rip her up. But that's not what is going to win the PR campaign. She would've gotten a lot of sympathy if he'd done that and he would've garnered a lot of ill will.

Not for any good reason. But people are silly like that.

I'm with Derwood. If Biden actually went off on Palin, while entirely entertaining and worthwhile, I think it would have hurt the Obama/Biden campaign. FoxNews would have ran with that one so hard claiming he was attacking her because she's a woman and all. I think Biden played his debate cards just right. Gave solid, straightforward answers most of the time, and kept his composure.

Sure, Palin did better then expected, but expectation were so low. When she kept winking at me I was pretty convinced she wanted me to buy her a beer after the show. Being a fellow winker I got a kick out of telling my girlfriend Palin wants to have a threesome with us, but outside of that the winking combined with the "you betcha, dontcha know, and golly gee" comments did absolutely nothing for me.

After reading some of the comments above, I am surprised we were watching the same debate. Given that there is no objective means to determine who won, other than polls where the participants respond based on their gut feelings, I look at it in terms of the most important issues to me. regardless about how you feel Palin answered or avoided certain questions - she had major themes that she wanted to communicate and she more clearly got her points on the table. Bidden's main theme was that McCain is Bush III and McCain is no maverick. As Palin pointed out this was looking backward and I agree. Also, Bidden failed to address the issue of Obama being in lock-step with his party 96% while stating the he and Obama would be able to work "across the isle" and are mavericks themselves. In my view, I have not seen Obama take a stand against his party on any issue, nor have I seen Bidden do it. Both McCain and Palin have. McCain is one of the Senators with the highest rate of voting against his party.

Then Palin raised a few important points that Bidden left dangling. He never addressed the consequences of failure in Iraq if we withdraw prior to victory. And, He failed to reconcile his problems with Obama during the primary given his current position of being in complete support of Obama.

In my view of debates, making lots and lots of small points while leaving the biggest points unaddressed indicates a poor debate performance.

I still think he could have been harder on her. Quite frankly anyone that thinks the vp only deals with puppies and flowers all day (a.k.a. people that think asking Palin questions that she can't answer is "sexist") isn't going to be convinced by a debate. It's the independents and undecideds he should be concentrating on. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that seeing Palin fail miserably isn't going to win her any votes.

Not only that, but there are a lot of brilliant, wonderful woman leaders in this country that I want to be able to vote for some day. I want them to be hit just as hard as the men, and pulling punches with Palin simply demonstrates the double standard. I may not have supported Senator Clinton's candidacy for POTUS, but at least I respected her intelligence and ability. I know she'd make a decent president, never stumped on current events, political theory, or softball questions. Governor Palin's candidacy for VP is really setting women back, and I find it depressing. Hitting Palin hard sends a message:
"women, we want you to run for president and vice president, and we're going to treat you with the same respect as the men".

How is this looking backward? Last time I looked, Bush was still president. And you misspelled Biden throughout your post.

I think people with this view miss the point. If a candidate goes into a debate they go into the debate with an objective. The candidate's objective may not be the same as the moderator. A good debtor recognizes this conflict and manages it. Palin was far more aggressive in terms of accomplishing her objectives. In the first half of the debate I was not sure Bidden had an objective - he seemed to be going with the flow. Palin is a winner and focused on what she needed to do, had a strategy, and executed it. Bidden did not appear to have a strategy. Given a lack of strategy I don't know how to measure his execution, he was bureaucratic. I think Palin demonstrated the difference between executive level experience and bureaucratic level experience. I will take executive level in executive office any day over a bureaucrat.

Would someone for the love of God tell her it's not pronounced nucular? Please.

Apart from that, Biden won clearly. He gave straight answers and I agree with other posters that it was a good idea to go after McCain and not Palin. Doing so would probably make people think he was a bully and turn some undecided voters away. Palin just repeated the same boring "answers" over and over again and kept avoiding to answer a bunch of questions.

Why would anyone disagree about failure in Iraq?? There is no disagreement there.. the disagreement lies in the fact that one party wants to let the Iraqi government take control and the other wants to continue a pointless war. To say that Palin had any correct stance on foreign policy is bullshit and it's simply a matter of sticking with party lines at that point. She never once had any factual basis or theory on how to resolve the situation in Iraq other than "John McCain is a war hero blah blah blah"

Biden is not exactly known for laying down to anyone in the senate. He will stand up to anyone regardless of party affiliation. However, we have McCain who only stands up to his party on issues that frankly, nobody cares about. When it comes to the war and the economy.. he always votes with his party and it's proven to be a stupid stance in all areas.

How the hell can anyone say she clearly put her points on the table?? She kept going back to energy and the fact she was a Governor of an energy state. Big fucking deal. Obama's plan is clearly a better plan, regardless of spending in that area.

She tried to put taxes on the table and did a piss poor job of outlining anything. She just kept saying that Obama has an $800 million spending package he wants to employ... how is that involved in taxes? Ok.. I get it, higher spending = higher taxes right? WRONG. Put energy programs and education programs out there and..oh my god! there are new jobs!

what a load of shit.

McCain is not Bush.
Palin is not Chaney.
Bush is a lame duck.
The Iraq war is winding down.
The economic circumstances we face today are not the same as when Bush took office.
McCain has his agenda for the future, which includes some new stuff.
The world is going into an economic recession.
Democrats now control Congress compared Bush's first 6 years.
Many Republicans don't even like McCain and felt he backed into the nomination.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

I have never been a god spellir.

Palin does = Cheney when she stands there and says that she thinks his view on how the VP position is used is the same as hers.. face it, she doesn't have a clue.

The economic situation is different now than when Bush stepped into office because Bush fucked it up.

Iraq is winding down? Then what's the problem with a withdrawl??

Biden's plan was to attack McCain and ignore Palin, which was safe and smart. No one (should be) is voting for Vice-President they are there to represent the top of their tickets. Palin repeated "talking points' given to her and decided to have her own "debate" by ignoring the moderator and the debate format that was agreed to my McCain months ago.

Isn't there a difference between wanting to finish a war with victory compared to "continuing a pointless war?"

Obama/Biden seem to think you can dictate the terms of a war in a way that the enemy won't respond. If the enemy is fighting in Iraq what is the point of being in Afganistan. The McCain approach is to use a surge strategy to control territory and hold it. We take away Iraq from the enemy, control it, stabilize it, and eliminate the need to go back. What is the Obama approach? Can you articulate it?



I fault the debate format. Give people more than 2 minutes to address an issue if we want more details.

It seems that you simply disagree with her points, not that she did not make them. It is funny how you can give a sumation of her points, can you do the same for Biden?

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.....
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 03 : 53 : 11-----
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.


We can sit there and control Iraq for 100 years but if we don't force them to take some responsibility and learn how to control it themselves then they never will.......

That is what Obama wants to do. Start transferring control to them a little at a time so that they will learn how to do it themselves.

That suggests that there are people who do. When I look back over the past 8 years with Chaney, it seems to me that he took Democratic party leaders by surprise, even though he wrote the book on executive power. Chaney pretty much did what he wanted, concentrated more power in the WH, gave Congress a big "FU", and got away with it.

So, when he leaves all will be o.k. Bush was the reason Congress voted to go to war. Bush was the reason Congress authorized the spending that lead to deficits. Bush wrote the legislation that let Fannie and Freddie go under. Etc.Etc.Etc.

Nothing. But it seems you don't get the point. We will withdraw with victory, on our terms, when we want based on conditions. Artificial timeframes fail to recognize the complexities of war.

it's easy to give a sumation of her points because she didn't have any points. She would simply go back to an issue that was on her cards and try to say something but there was NO substance there.

I was talking with a staunch republican today who is voting for McCain who didn't really understand what she was doing. He even admitted that she had nothing of substance in her "points" or entire debate.

Biden however, when faced with a question or in his rebuttal, simply threw out the facts and outlined exactly how the plan would work.

now about Iraq. I see victory as leaving the country and letting the Iraqi government control their issues. They have the capabilites and the what.. 400,000 thousand troops and police that we trained?? To say that withdrawl is failure is simply old hat vietnam thinking.

Obama's approach is that. We have been over there, we have freed the world of the "bad guy" and we have trained the people there to handle their own government and issues. Why would we continue to send our sons and daughters over there, when they aren't needed any longer?? McCain's strategy is nothing more than a war general strategy who simply loves war and never thinks a war is over. In this new world that's a dangerous line to take.

Now talking about dictating a war in a way the enemy won't respond.. how is it that McCain and Bush/Cheney were all for this war, thinking it would take a few months and yet we are still there? How is it they think that two groups of people would get along when they clearly don't?? That is dictating a war in a way that enemies don't respond.

So, your approach would be like - o.k. son you are 16 months old - I am going to throw you in the water - swim or die?
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 03 : 58 : 25-----
What???

and this makes it ok?? That is dangerous. The VP is not there for legislative power except in the event of a tie vote.. he clearly did not understand this role and neither does your psuedo-little miss maverick.



It's no secret to anyone that Bush economic policies have led us down the wrong path. Will it be fixed the day he leaves? Hardy har har.. of course not.. however, since afaik, Obama is using a lot of Clinton's economic advisers and that.. is a good thing to get us on the right track.



so basically.. it's our country now. Fuck the Iraqi people and their government.. wait.. I thought we were over there to "free" and give them independence and democracy?? So.. now we have them trained and a government set up.. but let's just fuck them in the ass some more.. yeah that makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:

Obama has set a time frame for withdrawl.. however, I'm quite positive that if a situation did arise, the time frame could be restructured. It's not a hard concept to grasp.. unless your Sarah Palin or John McCain.

I love it when the left underestimates people on the right. Calling Republicans morons, how has that been working for you? Don't answer now, answer in 8 years.

ok.. fine.. let's go this route.. tell me in detail what her "points" were and how she clearly defined them and how she wants to resolve issues.

and the whole.. "I follow McCain's thinking" doesn't count. She's a maverick.. she should be able to tell me what magazine's she reads and what her specific plan is for the future.. because based on the odds.. McCain doesn't have much longer to live.

There is the way things are and there is the way things should be. I deal with the way things are and pass judgments later.

Well...it is a secrete to me. What economic policies are you talking about - we can start a new thread if that would help?

Remember Dot Com bubble, remember Enron, World Com. the seeds of Fannie and Freddie started under Clinton.

I read your posts..and I wonder if Glenn Beck is a member here.

I cannot continue with this any longer.. the mere fact that you state 'there is the way things are and there is the way things should be" really doesn't make me want to engage in anything of this nature with you, especially when it comes down to the second in command and what the role is and the clear abuse. That's absurd.

Her objective was to communicate to me, not you. That was her job. I am a conservative who did not support McCain, I don't like McCain, I had no enthusiasm for McCain and could have easily voted for Bob Barr.

Me trying to tell you her points would be pointless. In fact my wife was getting pissed off when Palin was winking at me...I am like - come on Sarah, be more discreet.:)

I don't follow any party affiliation.. and there is no way I could view her as any sort of qualified for this position.

You don't get the point, and I think that is part of the problem. If I were in Congress dealing with Chaney I would have put him in check. The Democrats did not do it, they did not understand who Chaney was, they underestimated Chaney and Bush and they let things go. And you are upset with me, gee.:confused::confused::confused:
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 18 : 11-----
...government of the people, for the people, by the people. Our system of government is designed to be run by regular people. Your attitude regarding "qualifications" seems to be elitists in my view.

maybe I did misread your point.. I do that quite often..and probably should have asked you for clarification.

I don't think anyone..and this includes conservatives understood or still understand who Cheney is. He's dangerous. However, at least the democratic side now acknowledges this.. and Palin did not. Because she did not understand the question or the position, she merely took the easy road and agreed that he was correct in his stance. It's eerily similar to the whole "bush doctrine" question.

It's "Cheney."

I wonder how this strategy would work on the Republican front. Especially considering they have long been saying that Obama isn't qualified.

How about this. Palin is not a Washington insider. She has a full-time job as governor. She is a mother and a wife. To suggest that she has to know everything about Washington inside politics is a bit extreme. Again, focus on the future, not the past.

lol can you read? I said they would give them an increasing amount of responsibility. A baby doesn't learn to walk in a day. At the same time a baby will never learn to walk if the parents never put them on the ground.

I remember Clinton saying that. I remember Biden saying that. I remember the 3 a.m. ad by Clinton. I don't remember anything like that coming from McCain or Republicans other than Hannity and Limbaugh.

I find it abhorrent that we're still in Iraq after their government has politely and not so politely asked us to kindly wipe our feet on the way out. At some point it crosses the line from helping them rebuild to overstaying our welcome and forcing ourselves on them.

The point is - the artificial time frame. What if the child needs 17 months...12 months...19 months. I support assessing the situation and responding to conditions.

The Iraqis themselves have been demanding a timeframe for the last soldier out the door for months now.

She may not be a Washington insider but she is definitely a dishonest corrupt political insider who tends to walk over others to get what she wants. Look at her history in Alaska and you will see a history of her getting close to someone under the guise of friendship and then stabbing them in the back and taking their spot. The worst part is she has no problem abusing her power to enact revenge on others. This is why she is being investigated in Alaska (an investigation that started long before her VP prospectives). And just a few days ago an insurance company testified that they were forced to deny the troopers health benefits by Palin under the thread that they would lose their contract.
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 32 : 55-----

No the point is that you need to start making progress twoard them taking control and we haven't been doing that. People perform their best when they are under pressure. I'm a phd student and I know first hand that if there aren't paper deadlines the papers don't get written. As soon as there is a submission deadline the papers magically start to appear.

What Rekna says can't be overstated enough. I don't know why MORE people aren't jumping on that. If it had been Obama doing this you guys would be -all- over him. And I wouldn't be defending him, either.

Do you have any teenage or pre-teen children? They always think they are ready before they really are, sometimes the adult has to be the adult. We have invested too much in Iraq, to turn the country over before they can really handle it. Yes, that is "unfair", but I am the adult.:shakehead:
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 39 : 13-----
We are making progress. And my original question was regarding Obama's position on the consequences of failure? If 16 months come and they need more help, what is he going to do?

...

They're not a baby. Or a teenager.

They're a sovereign COUNTRY. Filled with ADULTS.

If they say out, we get out.

As for your answer, no, I'm 20. I do not have children. But I don't view Iraq as America's child. I view it as a potential ally that we rescued from a cruel dictator, and that is kindly telling us it can stand on its own two feet now.

Ace a person will never learn to swim if they don't first get in the water.

There are consequences to failure. It is more complicated than them saying get out and then we leave. If we leave and need to go back later, then our efforts failed.

Doesn't matter. They're a sovereign nation. If we're going to invade and conquer it, fine. If we're going to leave, fine. But be honest about our intentions, whatever the scenario.

Here is another analogy. How many parents out there have had teenagers who refused to grow up and get a job. They ended up being 24, no job, living at home with their parents. At some point the parent needs to kick the kid out and make them stand on their own.

You can cry about artificial timelines all you want but there is something to be said about pressuring them to do more than they are.

True. Put them in the water, teach them, work with them, give them tools to learn, be supportive...but you don't let them fail. The cost of failure is too high. I just want someone on the left to address that issue regarding Iraq.

This is a flawed logic. There is no way to predict the future. To say that we need to remain there 'just in case' is simply doing neither party any good and simply undermines any original ideal that may or may not have been in place to begin with.

Our efforts are not to make them perfect.. our efforts are supposedly to make them a democratic state.. we've accomplished that. We should be out.

Whatever our original intentions are, we're in someone else's house and they've asked us to leave.

...I don't see the point of argument. If we're going to say 'it's our house now', FINE. Then say it! But we're not. We're hemming and hawing all we want to stay there until they clean their house the way we want them to. But until we pull out our handgun and go 'nope, we're not leaving til this place is shipshape', we don't have any reason to still be there.

Whatever you do, be blunt about it.

Withdrawing troops does not mean we will fail and there is no evidence that if we withdraw slowly everything will go to hell over there.

Also sure we could stay there forever. But what happens if staying there causes us to go into a great depression and we have to pull out because we are broke? Iraq is killing our economy. We are paying for the war on credit and credit always catches up to people.

Our intention is to have a another friendly democratic nation in the middle east. Our long term strategic interests in the Middle East are best served by having a strong democratic Iraq. We are entangled in these issues and have been since WWII. If your generation can unwind these entanglements, you will have my support. But, Obama's approach seems a bit naive and doomed to failure in my opinion..

When asked about her foreign policy experience, Governor Sarah Palin responded that she could see Russia from her house. You know what level of intellect could muster than kind of response just as well as I do. To call her anything but an incarnation of the word moron is dishonest.

Could she win? Yes, but that should scare you just as much as it does me. Idiots shouldn't ever be elected for any reason. They should do work that doesn't need intellect.

Never said "just in case", and I agree that they don't need to be perfect. We have a difference of opinion regarding their readiness. However, when we do leave what would you do if al qaeda takes the country over, if Iran takes the country over, if Iran attacks Isreal?
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 04 : 57 : 20-----
Biden said that FDR addressed the nation on television?!? I don't call him a moron.
Obama said he visited 57 states?!? I don't call him a moron.

I think both parties have been pretty clear on their stances with both Iran and Israel.

if you want to end al qaeda, then we need to go back into Afghanistan and push them out.. and possibly even Pakistan. Pakistan right now is far more dangerous than Iran. Iran's pres (I can't spell it, not going to attempt to) has no control over the military there.

@Ace: Everyone makes mistakes. Politicians are in the public eye, therefore their slipups are recorded and are never forgiven by the opposite side.

Please, in all honesty, compare the magnitude and frequency of the gaffes of the entire Democratic ticket vs. JUST palin (not even including McCain).

FDR did go on TV to discuss the New Deal, which was his way of fixing the Great Depression. No where in his response did Biden say that FDR was speaking in 1929. Even if he did mean what conservatives insist he meant, he only said it once. Palin said what she said numerous times.
Yeah, that was a funny slip. Fortunately it was pretty clear he misspoke and he currently isn't under the impression there are 57 or 59 states. Governor Palin still believes that seeing Russia from her house (btw, you can't see Russia from continental Alaska, which makes her twice as wrong) demonstrates that she has foreign policy experience.

Frankly, the notion that the United States was founded to be run "by the people, for the people" is so impossibly wrong that I don't even know where to start. The barest examination of the Constitution and the people who made it should show without a shadow of a doubt that one of the things that the Founding Fathers feared MOST was that average people would be able to elect other average people. They were positively terrified of mob rule and catering to the masses. Every single person who signed the Constitution was an elitist, and probably a good third of them weren't too far off of being monarchists. The electoral college was created specifically and exclusively to prevent "average people" from voting an "average person" into the presidency. Granted, we've departed significantly from that starting position, but please don't try to play some game about the US being a pure democracy and being intended as a pure democracy, since neither of those are true.

I have NO idea why you don't want the best and brightest this country has running it. I have NO idea why the person who controls a weapon arsenal capable of reducing our planet to radioactive ash should be anything but the most grounded and intelligent person possible. The presidency is not an average job for an average person, nor is the vice presidency. These people are the diplomatic and military leaders of the (waning) most powerful country in the world.

If you want to have a cook out with Sarah Palin, be my guest. Please be her best friend. But look at her and what she's said, and imagine her talking to Putin. Imagine her negotiating over nuclear weapons with North Korea. Imagine her discussing Al Qaeda with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The very thought of that is enough to make me ill. It's not because she's a woman. It's not because she's from Alaska. It's because she has no idea what's going on in the world or how politics works. She is READING CARDS that other people put in front of her and told her to stick to so she didn't do what she did with Katie Couric. She makes Bush look like the platonic form of a competent politician.

\

Had to laugh kinda hard at this, a paper being due isn't pressure, still laughing sorry.

It most certainly is pressure. Is it comparable to a nuclear-capable country possibly at odds with your own getting antsy? Certainly not. But people work with what they're dealt.

And that doesn't invalidate his point at all, which is quite true.

Ok you win, the pressure is intense, mommy and daddy will be so mad if I tank this paper.

...you're missing the point entirely.

Sir, I think you're beating a dead horse.

I am not missing the point, the pressure Palin has been under in her life is far superior than a phd student's paper, but I am sure not as extreme as say JFK's duing the Cuban missle crisis.

Am I concerned about her being a heartbeat away from the oval office? Sure but I still believe it is better than the alternative.
-----Added 3/10/2008 at 10 : 25 : 25-----
That's right, this board has turned into the tilted democratic rah rah forum.

And you would know this because? You've lived Palin's life and have been in a doctoral program?

Please let us be realistic, Mother, mayor, Governor the same as e=mc2.

Edit to add, one of my best friends in the world is a MD, I'll ask him next time if he thinks Palin has had more stress in her life.

Academia, esp. at a level like doctoral, are extremely stressful and you get to do it with out a staff. I was in a masters program for a brief time and decided I couldn't continue meeting one deadline, often with little or no notice, after another while working full time and raising a kid.

I was put in some stressful situations while in the service. I wouldn't discount the stress of a doctoral program after seeing what that entails.

I'll state it again, if there was a stress-o-meter of life, being realitive in life a doctorate program would be near the bottom, I would say just living in Darfur would rank above it.

Mike, I'd say you're pretty unqualified to make this kind of statement since you've never been a doctorate student nor a public servant. Unless you have some personal news to share, this is the same as me saying that an Army Ranger is tougher than a Recon Marine and that a Navy SEAL would kick both their asses at the same time?

And I'm not ex-military, just in case you forgot.

I thought Palin was chipper and so gosh darn upbeat that she came out ahead since she didn't have another Miss South Carolina moment. I thought Biden looked rather wore out at the end. It was almost like he was debating the captain of the cheerleading squad, not that there's anything wrong with that.:)

No train wreck here. I don't think either one hurt or helped the top of the ticket which is about what you'd expect.

i think the whole 'of the people, for the people, by the people' is a fancy way of saying "we don't have a king or royal family here." not "any old idiot should run the country." any old idiot has been running the country. i'd prefer not to have his yokel cousin taking over anytime soon.

Biden did better than expected, and Palin did as much as expected

So I say Biden won.

All I can say is that if I hear "maverick" or "straight-talk express" again, I might throw up. I thought Biden clearly came out on top, but I would expect him to. Palin made me want to hide from the TV. Sort of the way I felt at times during "Bad Santa" or "Meet the Parents"...when it hurts you to watch the character, but you do so anyway with a morbid type of fascination. She might be a swell lady, and she might be a ball-buster when cornered...but I don't see anything about her general level of knowledge, personality, or hubris that speaks to holding one of the highest offices in our country. Please go back to Wasilla.

And your doctor friend is going to know what Palin's level of stress has been during her life why?

You clearly believe one thing, I another.

Think it's time to simply agree to disagree.

So, Ace, you think we still need to keep troops in Iraq? Explain to me, then, just why you think the surge was successful?

Did I ever suggest that being a phd student was more stressful than running a state or a country? No! I was merely using a personal experience of paper deadlines as an example of how timelines help produce work. Also it seem to me that you have a skewed idea of what a paper really is. The papers i'm referring to are either conference, journals, or proposals which are much different than the papers you right in undergrad. Right now i'm involved in the writing of a research proposal that will hopefully bring in a million dollars to the university. If we don't get this we have to fire multiple staff and students. You dismiss this process as if it isn't stressful which is absolutely ignorant on your part.

well, the "surge" can be understood as "working" if you leave out the agreement with the mahdi army for a cease fire. but given that the ceasefire seems the more operative condition of possibility for reductions of violence than anything else, mentioning it is a problem for the few remaining supporters of the iraq war because it demonstrates that maybe diplomacy might get more and better results.

but of course such things play out in circular reasoning and this will probably be no exception.