Biden v. Palin: St. Louis Ribbing?

So who won? (Wait 'til [i]after[/i] the debate to vote, please.)

  • Biden

    Votes: 21 51.2%

  • Palin

    Votes: 10 24.4%

  • Neither

    Votes: 8 19.5%

  • Other (?!)

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
superstring01 said:
I can reset the votes to zero, if you like, but I do believe it would prevent said individuals from voting again.

You like?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that anyone who votes on who won the debate before the debate even occured doesn't deserve to have their vote counted since their vote reflects nothing but their own bias.
 
madanthonywayne said:
Seems to me that anyone who votes on who won the debate before the debate even occured doesn't deserve to have their vote counted since their vote reflects nothing but their own bias.
Click to expand...

now come on with the expectations of Palin being so low how could she lose. It is next to impossible for her not to meet expectations.
 
madanthonywayne said:
Seems to me that anyone who votes on who won the debate before the debate even occured doesn't deserve to have their vote counted since their vote reflects nothing but their own bias.
Click to expand...

I'd reset it and make it public.
 
Pre-event chatter

Spidergoat said:

A St. Louis Ribbing? Is that anything like a Cleveland Steamer?
Click to expand...

Nay.

It's just a play on words. You eat pork?
 
Mod Note: Votes Reset.

Warning: If you vote before the debate, your votes will be deleted and you will not be able to vote again.
 
Before I render my verdict, I want to say a few things.

Sarah Palin:
  • I was actually impressed with her smoothness. She did well, and "well" is light years ahead of where I expected. I was totally expecting her to fumble through the debate. I'm actually stunned at her grasp of some areas of politics that I expected to elude her totally.
  • I was annoyed that she dodged questions on the economy. Most Americans, sadly, would not catch these dodges.
  • I can't agree with a number of things she said, but I just like her. She's fracking cuddly.
Joe Biden:
  • He was smooth and polished.
  • You have to agree, the guy actually has charisma. He spoke with genuine emotion and well very controlled.
  • His knowledge was -- and is -- unparalleled. He was fluid on all topics and that did him well.

My public verdict: Mixed.

In the Obama/McCain debate I voted Obama because he was the underdog in the debate. Just standing toe-to-toe with McCain, he wins.

Sarah Palin, by standing toe to toe with Biden, she "wins."

My personal vote (on the poll): Biden.

The reason is that I wanted substance, and he delivered. I was impressed.

~String
 
I did not watch the debate but since Biden's head did not explode, I'll assume Palin managed to out do the lowered expectations for her, thus win: Palin.
 
Palin did pretty good, although I wish they would stop using the term "maverick" so much, it's getting kinda old. For some reason
she comes off a more trustworthy than Biden.

Biden had a lot of charisma. His tactic of going after McCain on some issues was effective on throwing off Palin once or twice, but how can she know everything McCain's done the last 20+ years ?
 
Biden had a lot of charisma. His tactic of going after McCain on some issues was effective on throwing off Palin once or twice, but how can she know everything McCain's done the last 20+ years ?
Click to expand...

Ermm maybe because she is his running mate for the highest seat in the country.

Having watched it. I think Biden did better. Especially on matters of foreign diplomacy, where Palin said it would be dangerous to sit down with the leaders of Iran, for example.. referring to it as poor judgment..

PALIN: No and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also. But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.

No, diplomacy is very important. First and foremost, that is what we would engage in. But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.

BIDEN: The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one.

Number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down.

Now, John and Governor Palin now say they're all for -- they have a passion, I think the phrase was, a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.

Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, "Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk." Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans.

And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn't sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don't have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?

And look what President Bush did. After five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement.

Our allies are on that same page. And if we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?

The last point I'll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html
Click to expand...

I think it's clear to say that he won that point easily.

I also think he won the point about what the exact role of a VP is and should be.

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: 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.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Was an interesting debate though. Both were polished, but he more so. I guess that would be explained by his experience and her lack of it in that regard.


As for her constant use of the term "maverick". It got old really fast. Especially when one is reminded of the fact that McCain did vote with Bush on so many occasions.

PALIN: People aren't looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years.

He's taken shots left and right from the other party and from within his own party, because he's had to take on his own party when the time was right, when he recognized it was time to put partisanship aside and just do what was right for the American people.

That's what I've done as governor, also, take on my own party, when I had to, and work with both sides of the aisle, in my cabinet, appointing those who would serve regardless of party, Democrats, independents, Republicans, whatever it took to get the job done.

Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. Look at Lieberman, and Giuliani, and Romney, and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of -- of policy and of partisanship, all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to leave -- lead in these next four years, because these are tumultuous times.

We have got to win the wars. We have got to get our economy back on track. We have got to not allow the greed and corruption on Wall Street anymore.

And we have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington, D.C., no matter who's been in charge. When the Republicans were in charge, I didn't see a lot of progress there, either. When the Democrats, either, though, this last go- around for the last two years.

Change is coming. And John McCain is the leader of that reform.

IFILL: Senator...

BIDEN: I'll be very brief. Can I respond to that?

Look, the maverick -- let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the -- heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing she's hoping the country will forget that she appointed her close friends from school into major positions in Alaska, be it when she was appointed Mayor and Governor.

She tried to press the "I'm a hockey mum" thing too much. It came off as insincere and fake and it, like the "maverick" line, got old really fast.
 
So far from what I have read, it seems Palin is playing the MILF card. Honestly, her diatribe fluff. I mean: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for... bla bla bla bla ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top