Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
The VP debate: a win on points for Biden
October 3, 2008
Curiouser and curiouser. This was the Palin of earlier in the campaign - if not quite the Palin of the convention speech, at least the adequate though unspectacular Palin of the Gibson interview.
Weirdly, she seems to do better under pressure. From the vast heights of St Paul, she sank to the subterranean lows of the Couric interviews of recent days. Facing soft questions in an unintimidating setting, her performance in those clips was not just poor but pitiful. She looked terrified; she was faking it, and in a painfully obvious way. I literally cringed to listen to her talk about her foreign policy experience (Russia is just next door), her views on the Supreme Court (none that she knew of), and much else besides. Not merely unprepared for the vice-presidency, she seemed unprepared for conversation with anyone who picks up a newspaper now and then.
Tuning in this evening, every Republican I know was dismayed, and every Democrat jubilant, thinking the election would be as good as decided by 10.30 EST. But no. Back in the pressure cooker, with tens of millions watching, she again seemed relaxed and confident. She lost, by the way - Biden gave better answers, I thought - but she was not crushed by any means. It almost felt like victory, and McCain-Palin lives to fight on.
I long to read the inside story of preparing Palin for prime-time. What on earth did the campaign do to her between St Paul and Couric, to drain her confidence so and leave her looking like a gibbering idiot? Somebody must have decided that she had to turn herself into Biden within the space of a few days - a tall order, even supposing that the campaign needed a Biden rather than an anti-Biden, which she was ready, out of the box, to be.
She needed to cram, of course, but not in order to spew it out by rote in answer to any random question. The main thing - and perhaps, by tonight, this lesson had been learned - was not to pretend to be something she isn’t, and not to claim knowledge or experience she plainly does not have. Living near an international border is not a grounding in geopolitics. Imperfectly memorising the names of a few foreign leaders does not cut it. The crucial thing was to seem steady, a quick learner, modest about her current breadth of knowledge, but of sound judgment and firm on certain basic principles. In striving to do well in the pop-quiz style of interview so beloved of the US media - any winner of Jeopardy, by this standard, would make a fine president - she surrendered her greatest advantage: authenticity. She had to refuse to play by those rules.
Whatever the reason - her sense of occasion, a change of coaching staff, who knows? - she did well enough tonight to lift the campaign’s head back above water. She defaulted frequently to rehearsed talking points, and to topics she feels most comfortable with - notably energy. But what mattered most was that she never really floundered, and above all she never looked scared. She was herself. Some, certainly not all, of the damage of the past week is erased.
No light whatever was shed on policy issues. There were the obligatory pointless tussles about what Obama and McCain have or have not said about taxes, funding troops, and so forth. Biden pressed the linkage between Bush and McCain, and quite effectively, challenging Palin to point to differences. But her main riposte - this election must look forward not back, enough with the finger-pointing - will have struck many viewers as fair.
There was one real breakthrough. Did you notice? Asked which of their campaign promises might need to be delayed because of the financial crisis - a question put three times to Obama and McCain in their debate, without effect - Biden came up with an answer: “Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We’ll probably have to slow that down.” There’s brave! That laughing you could hear was me.
Could Biden have been more effective? Maybe. I’m sure many Democrats will criticise him for failing to go for the kill. But I think he judged it just right. He was friendly and courteous, laughed at himself once or twice, and displayed a superior mastery of the issues without ever seeming overbearing. He was much more critical of McCain than of her. Altogether he seemed as likeable as Palin, and much more qualified. Perhaps he could have destroyed her by being more aggressive, but it would have been a risk. Palin in this confident mood would be no pushover. More aggression might have backfired, and could have aroused sympathy for his opponent. A clear win on points was all he needed, and that is what he got. Settling for this was wise. Obama and McCain go into the last round with the Democrat comfortably ahead.
Clive, excellent insights — again. Too bad my interest in this blog will greatly diminish after this campaign is over. I hope you might expand your punditry to a more globalised coverage.
I agree it was smart of the Obama/Biden campaign to play it safe. This was probably a decision taken in advance, before they knew how Palin would perform. But her performance does not matter for that decision. They had to avoid re-igniting the culture wars. Secondly, if you are winning, why gamble? Biden probably also took his cue from Obama’s calm and steady manner, which over time is proving so successful.
Your wise words for Palin — to be her own self — are always true: for anyone, in any situation.
Posted by: RCS | October 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am | Report this comment“She had to refuse to play by those rules.”
You miss the point, Clive. She did refuse to play by those rules. She did not try to bluff her way through the conventional Couric test of what is acceptable political discourse. She just didn’t bother to ask the gotcha questions.
Which were edited, by the way, to make her seem positively incoherent.
Posted by: Peter | October 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 am | Report this comment…answer the gotcha questions.
Posted by: Peter | October 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 am | Report this commentAs for the issue at the front of most minds in the US–responsible governance of the US economy and taxpayers’ purse, Sarah Palin struck the note that the large mass of voters there sought to hear. She understands nothing in terms of policy, but those who once convinced they did are in profound disrepute with the this nation of Consumers. Fortunately, many are now looking up the word “citizen” in Wikipedia, and Palin spoke as one–a naïve one, but little more was expected.
Do not misunderstand me. Palin leadership offers little promise for the US. Neither does Biden’s. It is unclear if Obama’s rhetorical formulas reflect a commitment to engaging the dwindling class of best-and-brightest in the US who could be enticed to enter public policy and service.
Posted by: wcm | October 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am | Report this commentsarh palin: dumb as a rock but sexy.
Posted by: david russial | October 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am | Report this commentClive Crook’s is understandably critical of the failure of Biden/Palin, following Obama/McCain, to identify campaign promises that might need to be delayed because of the financial crisis. I, too, was disappointed by Biden’s exclusive reference to foreign assistance.
To guess what might happen, one should look at whom is advising the two sides.
It may be relevant to look at reasons invoked by Bill Clinton for supporting Obama. In a recent speech in Florida, he praised three things that Obama did when faced by the sudden worsening of the crisis.
First, he had called together his team of economic advisers. And Clinton noted that they were the people who had advised him.
Second, Obama had asked them to explain to him what was happening.
Third, Obama had asked the economic experts to tell him what was best for the economy, without taking politics into account.
So, to know what the candidates would do, one can ask who their advisors are and what those advisors are saying today.
If Obama were to win, he might say that he needs his team to give him a full evaluation of the situation as its stands. After that, he could claim that the evaluation showed that the mess left by the previous administration is even worse than expected, and that certain election promises will therefore have to be postponed.
Posted by: Edward S | October 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Report this comment“Tuning in this evening, every Republican I know was dismayed, and every Democrat jubilant”
Mr. Crook: you are hanging around with too many professional politicians and those who live off politics.
I thought Governor’s performance was exactly what was to be expected, while Biden’s was better.
The setting for the “debate” was simply the execution of repeated rehearsals: the questions were completely predictable and no doubt Governor Palin’s preparation was limited to endless repeating the same slogans prepared for the expected questions. Exactly comparable to training for a performance of a play by an actor.
The “real” Governor Palin was on view in her interaction with Ms. Couric - ignorant about anything and everything of substance and trying to “fake it” while she simply could have said she did not know.
To say that a normal person of any political belief cringes at listening and seeing her in her interactions with Ms. Couric is understatement. It is too painfully embarrassing to watch or hear. Forget the quality of knowledge and thinking that one expects from any person in a position of responsibility anywhere, e.g. as a manager in a company at any level or professional of any sort: teacher, lawyer, physician, enginer, much less as the Vice-President of the USA.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Report this commentI fully agree with Wendell Murray. This was not the real Palin, but pure theater. The real Palin is an incompetent (Couric interview), machivellian opportunist (her Alaska political record).
Posted by: Harry | October 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentTo add to my earlier point, it is also possible that both sides will increasingly focus their campaigns on initially implementing promises that don’t require much federal funding.
For Obama that could be bankruptcy protection for distressed homeowners, labour relations reform, equal pay for equal work, environmental protection (CO2 tax, etc), improved financial regulation, and so on.
Posted by: Edward S | October 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentThe bar to qualify for the highest political office in the U.S. seems to have been lowered the same point as for qualifying for a mortgage on an over priced house just before that bubble burst. The equivalent of a “liar’s loan”!
Posted by: Joe Buhler | October 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm | Report this commentDr. Condoleeza Rice: attractive, well dressed, intelligent, charismatic deliverer of well- rehearsed dogmatic talking points - a dissembler par excellence. Remind you of anyone?
Posted by: claudia | October 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentA very good analysis of the debate. For the first time in my life I agreed with Pat Buchanan (on MSNBC) that Republicans everywhere were undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief.
Posted by: Ralph Hitchens | October 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentI think we hear what we want to hear. I listen to the Obama and question whether we really want as a president a professor/lawyer who speaks well, but seems to have little connection with everyday people. He mentions his mother as a code for his points of reference for everyday people, “single mother” or “food stamps.” I look at the circle of people he has chosen as advisers and the life that he and his wife live in a large, expensive house bought with the assistance of a wealthy friend, who has made questionable choices in his own life.
Joe Biden is admirable in a lifetime of service and committed family man. Somehow Biden has made peace with carrying the second chair to Obama, who I think Biden criticized vigorously and accurately in the primary.
John McCain is the first Republican presidential candidate I’ve considered voting for. I admire his lifetime of service, first in the military and later to serving in Congress by going door to door asking people for their votes when he probably could have gotten money from his in-laws and ran a highly financed campaign that didn’t put him on the front line. And now he has served in the Senate for a number of years, not quite as long as Biden, but long enough to have seen the good and the bad, to have been tempted and then had to work for redemption. This is a pragmatic candidate that I can support.
Sarah Palin appeals to me, a pro-choice feminist, because she has made her choice to try to have it all, something a lot of us conceded a long time ago probably was not possible. She is not as experienced as Biden, but given the time between now and Inauguration Day to learn the job and the requirements she will do very well I think. I admire that she tells us very clearly where she stands on issues that I may differ with personally, but at least she doesn’t pretend that her beliefs are different than they are.
People, especially women I think, may not like her friendly, casual style, but it’s who she is and should not keep her from doing what she needs to do or learn what she needs to learn. I look at her and think of the ‘dress for success’ style that so many of us thought we had to emulate to succeed. She has succeeded looking and sounding as she really is. Bill Clinton used folksy phrasing and it didn’t raise hackles the way her folksy phrasing seems to. Interesting.
I also admire that she doesn’t quickly cave to views that are commonly held as the only truths. She has changed her statements that humans are responsible for an acceleration of global warming, but if you read a book such as “The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization” you can accept her contention that global warming seems to be cyclical and even before the industrial age the earth warmed enough to affect all life.
Given the choice between the two tickets I’ll take the one with experience and a life of service at the top of the ticket and a vice president who is a quick study to fill the second chair.
Posted by: annetta | October 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Report this commentBiden gave the “better answers” only because he’s perfected the art of lying.
Posted by: buster1 | October 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentClive,
“gibbering idiot” sounds a bit harsh when compared to someone who thinks that FDR was President in 1929, and was on TV (or the guy at the top of the ticket who thought there were 57 states).
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Report this commentAnnetta and Mr. Crook: Thank you for your post above and your writing. I agree with your comments, Annetta, and appreciate your not being obviously biased, Mr. Crook, as elsewhere in the FT today. We have leaned Democrat for generations but cannot help seeing Governor Palin as a jewel. We dislike slick talking career politicians of both parties. She is not old money, old crowd, old country club, old political machine, old activist. She does not make us wonder in our guts how much we are being conned. Agreeing with Annetta, she is a quick study and accomplished woman a lot of people can admire and want to believe in. She is the only candidate with business and executive experience. Her running mate is the only candidate with military experience. Whether one likes them or not, they have done more than just talk. Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: SH | October 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Report this commentIt’s pretty scary to think that the American public want someone they can relate to instead of someone qualified for the job.
All these delegates came from humble background…but maybe the public forget that. Isn’t it the American dream to rise above the circumstances of life thru hard work etc and achieve a better life?? How come this is now viewed as a liability for Obama / Biden?
How “down to earth” is Palin really?? Isn’t the trooper gate investigation a sign that things may be a little more complicated than on the surface?
Why is not one pointing out to her that any success she had as Alaska’s governor is probably due to the massive Fed funding for that state and it’s oil riches?? What has she done so special that no one else would have done in her position?
I have not heared Palin answer 1 question straight up during the whole debate.
Is going around in circles now considered intelligence?? Why aren’t American’s asking her point blank questions…but rather get mesmerized with her “personality”/”presence”??
Personality won’t get the economy back in shape, and winking won’t get you anywhere when dealing on the international stage
Am I the only one who found her wiknking and shout out completely inappropriate??
Posted by: IC Cheng | October 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentThis is a VP debate - not a high school class president debate.
As an Obamaniac. I have to agree that Sarah Palin did much better at the debate than anyone expected, especially after her atrocious interview performances. If she had shown the slightest knowledge of the issues facing America last night she would have done even better still.
On the few issues that she was up to focusing on briefly, such as same sex relationships, oil company windfall profits, and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington, her main appeal was that she sounded exactly like a Democrat.
Biden, on the other hand, whose background and upbringing was no less working class than Palin’s, actually knew and talked about the issues. I suppose that, according to SH’s logic, that makes him an “old money, slick talking politician”.
Unfortunately, American presidential elections are rarely decided on the issues. Instead, they are decided on the basis of voter prejudices (also known as “gut feelings”) and media manufactured illusions about “personalities” (as in “who do you want to have a beer with?”) instead of the candidates actual records.
Now, because of the economic crisis (which Palin doesn’t have a clue about - if she were in Congress, would she have voted with her running mate for the bailout, or with her radical right wing buddies against it? - Too bad no one asked her that question), this election may, for once, be decided on the issues, commentators like SH notwithstanding.
Now THAT would be change we can believe in.
Posted by: algasema | October 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Report this commentThat the McCain campaign was able to turn her from a gibbering idiot to a non-gibbering vapid ignoramus is not surprising given the format of the show last night. And their achievement is clearly enough to calm many of my fellow citizens who may recognize gibbering but appear unable to recognize either vapidity or ignorance as long as it coincides with their own.
Posted by: Dr G. | October 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentOh. And God blessum.
Posted by: Dr G. | October 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentMr. Crook,
Though we write for the same paper, I’ve often found myself at odds over your views. I agree, however, with your basic view of the debate. But I disagree with your conclusion about Biden. I hope your belief that Biden hit just the right tone proves correct. I fear that as the failure of the Gore and Kerry campaigns testify, allowing a weak opponent to stand his ground without being attacked for the lack of substance are critical opportunities missed. To see what happens when the electorate votes for the candidate that seems most like themselves, one need only to review the fate of America over the past 8 years.
Eric Uhlfelder
Posted by: Eric Uhlfelder | October 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this commentNew York, New York
“to calm many of my fellow citizens”
I do not know which USA voters are calmed by Governor Palin’s successful insertion of slogans into her laughable commentary during the “debate”. The slogan insertion was at least close to grammatically correct and not the jumble of non-sequitors in her responses in the Couric interview.
Reassurance that Governor Palin did not make a complete fool of herself as she did in the Couric interview was of value to the so-called “base” of right-wing, Christian fundamentalists. To anyone else of no use. Embarrassment, rather than reassurance, to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about policy issues and facts.
Governor Palin is a good and appealing performer, just as President Reagan was. He had professional training. She is a natural. She learns her lines, then recites them with conviction, no matter that the substance consists of slanderous lies and misrepresentations. Of course she has no clue what she is talking about.
Any positive spin from the right-wing apologists is simply laughable.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm | Report this commentThe whole debate was a joke - like the idea that McBama and O’Cain are somehow on opposite poles. When is comes to the (credit) crunch, they both react exactly the same way. Neither of the candidates - or their VP picks - are remotely in touch with the average American, and neither had the guts to oppose this obscene, highly unpopular and unconstitutional bailout.
I’d just as soon see Axl Rose in the White House, with a drink-sodden Slash as his VP.
Posted by: Shevvers | October 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentLet us hope that Palin, the “talented amateur” does not end up getting the role of Emma Peel. Remember, the folks doing the casting brought the world eight years of Bush and Cheney.
One can only hope that new voters will make the difference this time.
Posted by: Dr G. | October 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Report this commentWould Sarah Palin even be considered for this role if she were not female and pretty?
Posted by: Peter Burns | October 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm | Report this commentI would like to give a hand to the coaches and the strategists of both Biden and Palin.
Posted by: John Schaffer | October 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Report this commentSarah Palin after exhibiting her weaknesses in the interviews was a challenge. With the obvious flaw that she could not handle anything extemporaneous, she was given the talking points and sound bites to use no matter what. This she did well
Biden or his coaches must have foreseen this because he exploited the free ride that it gave him to challenge all of the themes of McCain and tie McCain/Palin to the Bush administration. And he was easily able to promote and defend Obama. Palin was unable and (wisely or following instructions) did not even try to respond except with worn out clichés and inaccurate proverbs.
Palin may have done well by not losing, but McCain took a beating. Palin’s coaches were starting from behind and fell short. Still, a good effort, yet Biden wins and McCain lost the debate.
Given the mess the supersmart have got this world in, isn’t it time to give the plain folks a chance.
Posted by: Sumant Rawat | October 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentHaving watched the debate I was disappointed the moderator did not rein in the answers a bit. I found that Governor Palin had a tendency to answer the question she wished had been asked rather than the one that was asked - and that seemed acceptable. This moved the forum from that of a debate to simply a campaign stump and attack, using the tried-and-true “wedge” issues in an attempt to divide and conquer. Although I must say the GOP, having run up the largest government debts and deficits in history has been superlative in their efforts to paint the Democrats as the “tax and spend” party. I suppose to a degree this is true, the GOP simply tends to spend and leave the repayment to someone in the future.
I have spent the past 8 years with a governor-come-president that, similar to my perception of Palin, puts a higher value on loyalty than on competence. I for one would rather err on the side of having someone competent . . .
Posted by: Gary Beach | October 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Report this commentMr. Crook I’m suprised you did not point out some of the egregious misstatements by the “winner on points.” Here are 3 I came up with. I know there are others.
1. “We’ve spent more in 3 weeks in Iraq than we’ve spent in 7 years in Afghanistan.” Repeated for emphasis but no less laughable said the second time than the first. I’m sorry I don’t know the rules of debate scoring, but do you score a point if your assertion is demonstrably false but your opponent fails to point it out to you during the event? This is worse than saying FDR was on TV after Black Monday.
2. “Barack never said he’d meet with Ahmadinijad without pre-conditions.” Mr. Biden not only was it said, you were, I believe, a participant in the very debate when he said it. In fact you attacked him on it, as did Hillary Clinton. You are reaching John Edwards levels of sincerity on this issue.
3. “Under our plan the wealthy will pay less than they did under Reagan.” Except that Reagan got through Congress the 1986 TRA to lower the top marginal rate to 28% and your top marginal rate will by just under 40%. And you know that. You were in the Senate in 1986 and the Tax Reform Act was the most important piece of tax legislation since the adoption of the income tax. Another lie. Another point for Biden?
Joe Biden has mastered the art of making authoritative pronouncements that are utter poppycock. After you discount these cock and bull stories Mr. Biden was not the winner on points. He’s just John Edwards with hairplugs and a safer Senate seat.
Nice writing though, as always.
Posted by: Ted | October 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am | Report this commentThere is no question that Palin won the debate. The other issue is the numerous mistatements by Biden. You and other media are so unfair. Your european bias is showing. Not much was expected and she flat knocked the socks off of Biden. He was at a loss. She was articulate and animated. Clive, you must have watched a different debate. CNBC who is not too conservative had it 86% Palin 12% Biden and 2% a tie.
Posted by: Alex | October 4th, 2008 at 4:13 am | Report this commentFirst, why is experience in and of itself a positive? Regardless of one’s political bent, I am sure that some of your least favorite politicians have been quite experienced.
Secondly, I’d take character over experience any day. When one is very experienced and intelligent, yet lacks character, that just means they’ll accomplish more evil.
Posted by: Joe Smith | October 4th, 2008 at 5:01 am | Report this commentBiden gave ‘better’ answers, it’s just too bad so many were contra-factual. I very much like Mrs Palin, but to be fair, I would concede that Biden’s predictability probably facilitated her preparation. She came in ready for him. From about a third of the way in, until late in the event, Biden appeared progressively louder and more defensive. He rallied at the end like the pro he is, but she definitely pinked him a few times, and without breaking a nail. My own favorite was when she said, in effect, that being an outsider, she doesn’t understand Washington ways, like how you’re against all the stuff you voted for. ouch!
Posted by: Joseph | October 4th, 2008 at 5:15 am | Report this commentThe idea that being an outsider who doesn’t understand Washington is somehow a good thing for someone who is running for a job in Washington makes no sense. It is a seductive idea without basis. The inference is you haven’t been corrupted by power. The trouble with this argument is that the man at the top has been in Washington for 26 years. Does that mean he’s been there too long? I wonder if I would get the job of president of a university if I were to assert proudly to the interviewer(s)(and in a condescending tone) that being an outsider I do not understand academia but hire me because I’m the best qualified. Do you think I’d be offered the job?
Posted by: claudia | October 4th, 2008 at 6:11 am | Report this commentOn point after point after point, Biden talked about plain facts while Palin just repeated mindless slogans. The only question in my mind was whether Palin has enough intelligence to realize that much of what she said were plain lies, such as Obama’s wanting to increase taxes om the middle class, McCain’s being a maverick, or the Democrats waving the white flag of surrender in Iraq - pardon me, “Ai-raq”.
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this comment“on the middle class”
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am | Report this commentalgasema, at least you admit that you are an Obamaniac, but to state that Biden “talked about plain facts” is true only in an Obamaniac world.
In addition to the three untrue “facts” mentioned by Ted @ 12:00am Biden also claimed that the US and France ejected Hezbollah from Lebanon, and that Pakistan has nuclear capable missiles capable of reaching Israel.
Posted by: marsh | October 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am | Report this comment@ algasema
I think you will like this,
a colour map on “Le Monde” which gives you a day-by-day picture (as well as the updated numbers) of the voting intentions in the USA.
For you and others who read French, here’s the link.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/vi/0,47-0@2-829254,54-1100729,0.html
Posted by: J.J. | October 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am | Report this commentDisappointing to see elements of the FT so blatantly in the tank.
Posted by: Neil Jones | October 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am | Report this commentFurther to my first comment above, that since the candidates are being vague about possible financial rescue-induced revisions of their campaign promises, one should look at what their economic advisors are proposing.
One possible proxy for Barack Obama is Lawrence Summers.
Summers’ views are to be found in a recent column in the FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d9b5752-8dbf-11dd-83d5-0000779fd18c.html
Among his points:
“The idea seems to have taken hold in recent days that because of the unfortunate need to bail out the financial sector, the nation will have to scale back its aspirations in other areas such as healthcare, energy, education and tax relief. This is more wrong than right.”
After explaining why, he concludes:
“A time when confidence is lagging in the household, financial and business sectors is not a time for government to step back. Well-designed policies are essential to support the economy and given the seriousness of healthcare, energy, education and inequality issues, can make a longer-term contribution as well.”
Posted by: Edward S | October 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am | Report this commentOne more Bidenism that has received not a scintilla of attention from the press was his absurd assertion: “John has been just plain wrong about Iraq.”
Leave aside Mr. Biden’s opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and support of the 2002 war resolution, though he stated in the debate he didn’t understand it to be such.
Leave aside for a moment McCain’s support of the troop surge and Mr. Biden’s statements on every Sunday morning talk show at the time that the surge would only increase violence and that the US needed to start drawing down troops immediately.
Mr. Biden’s defining mistake was his proposal of a partition plan for Iraq which bore a striking resemblance to the Al-Zarqawi Plan. It wasn’t considered by the multi-lateralist Mr. Biden to consult our Turkish allies as to their thoughts about an autonomous Kurdish state on their border? Of course the Sunnis would oppose partition; they need a strong central government to share in oil revenues. I suppose you have to be as well versed in foreign affairs as Joe Biden to envision how the United States benefits from a rump Shia-Arab state bordering on Iran. That’s a 18 year record of being wrong every time.
Posted by: Ted | October 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentWe’ve had eight years of having a president who’s too stupid to be in that office. Its one thing if you get the advice of smart advisors. Its different if you just feel god sent you to do certain things, as Bush and Palin do. The only reason she didn’t get “crushed” as you say is because Biden was debating McCain. If he was debating her and her record and what she thinks we need to do to get the US out of its worst financial crisis in 100 years, she would have been completely crushed.
Posted by: Greg | October 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentMerci, J.J., mais, malheureusement, je ne peux pas installer le “plugin” necessaire, c’est a dire l’adobe flash player. Je vais chercher l’edition imprimee chez un kiosk.
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentWhile watching and listening to Palin when the debate began, I wondered if the Katie Couric interviews were a rovian strategy for lowering the bar and the audience expectations so that her debate performance would be seen as a win. Seems most of the pundits thought she would fail miserably, so if that was the strategy, it worked.
Posted by: Maggie Knowles | October 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentalgasema: Download Firefox from the Mozilla website and use that as your browser. It will automatically install any needed plugins such as Flash Player.
Good graphic in Le Monde. I am sure that the equivalent is available on any number of USA websites if you do a search.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentThank you for the advice, Wendell. I will try. My ability to use basic software is only equaled by Sarah Palin’s ability to understand the issues and distinguish fact from fiction.
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Report this comment@ algasema. Try getting to that site in 3 steps
www.lemonde.fr
Then you’ll see the words
Elections américaines
near the end of the line “International” at the top of the page, and click on that.
On the next page, approx. half way down on the right hand side, inside a square, you’ll see
the words
L’élection américaine à la carte
Click on that and you’ll get to the map.
I bet you get there before Ms Palin:-)
P.S. Madame Sarkozy is due to sing any minute now on German TV as a guest on a Saturday night show, so I’m going to watch her.
Posted by: J.J. | October 4th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentThank you both, Wendell and J.J. I have Mozilla Firefox and I have also followed J.J.’s three steps. But, just as all roads once led to Rome, all steps lead inevitably to the plugin, which I am unable for some reason to install.
This makes me realize more than ever that I am only a year younger than John McCain, who, according to the Obama campaign, cannot even send emails.
I will sort all this out as soon as possible with my PC computer geek, and in the meantime I will read the other Le Monde articles on the election, all of which look like great pieces of reporting, and none of which seem to need the plugin except for the one you mentioned.
Thank you again for referring me to Le Monde. I look forward to checking its website daily.
Meanwhile, if Sarah Palin makes it to L’election americaine a la carte before me, then congratulations to her - though I do not know if she reads French. Perhaps she can make do with a Russian translation, since she can, as we all know, see into that country from her home state, just as George W. Bush was once able to see into Putin’s soul.
Which reminds me. Alaska once used to belong to Russia. Perhaps Governor Palin could arrange to sell it back. The proceeds could come in handy for the next US bailout, and meanwhile, the citizens of Alaska might not find much of a difference (aside from the difference between having a brain and not having one) in being governed by Putin instead of Palin
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 10:38 pm | Report this comment“My ability to use basic software is only equaled by Sarah Palin’s ability to understand the issues and distinguish fact from fiction.”
Suspected as much given at least one earlier comment regarding inability to use accented vowels.
FYI on that: you can create another (or many other) keyboard layout through (assuming you have Windows XP as your OS) start->Control Panel->Date, Time, Regional Options->Language Options then click on the Languages tab, then ->Details->Add then select a language from the list (e.g. French) then ->Okay.
That gives you a French keyboard in addition to the default (English) one.
To access the French keyboard there are language abbreviations in the task bar (usually at the bottom of the screen), e.g. EN, FR, etc. Click on the abbreviation listed (usually your default: EN) then select FR from the menu that appears.
To see the keyboard on your screen so you know which keys are which: start->Control Panel->Accessibility Options->On-screen Keyboard (button in left-hand corner of window that opens). The keyboard will appear on your screen. You may have to select FR from the taskbar again to switch it from the default to French.
This is probably just confusing. On the other hand, I am sure your failure to use appropriate accents on vowels is bothering all your devoted algasemisti-readers in these weblogs, so it might be worth the effort.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 4th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this commentWendell, thank you very much. I feel very embarrassed trying to write in French without a proper keyboard, and I will try to follow your instructions, even though it will probably take me longer to figure them out than it took me to learn to read French in the first place.
But you are right. I already have enough English algasemas on my rap sheet without needing to start adding French ones. And if I can finally add the French keyboard, then I can start writing a bit of real French, which will make me completely disqualified to comment on the US election, just as knowing (and “looking”) French disqualified Kerry from becoming president, at least as far as many American voters were concerned.
But I will try to do my best to express myself correctly in French, just as Sarah Palin is so valiantly struggling to do in English.
Posted by: algasema | October 4th, 2008 at 11:28 pm | Report this commentEric Uhlfelder,
Where exactly have you been for the last 8 years? There has not been a major (or even minor) terrorist attack in the US since 9/11/2001. The economy has grown every quarter for the last seven years, despite the telco/internet bust and housing bust (2.8% growth last quarter btw). Unemployment is not great, but still is 6.1% with some massive benefit expansions increasing the numbers over the summer.
By all conventional measurement, the US has won the Iraq war, and Bagdhad is much safer for 20 year old Americans than Sen. Obama’s Chicago.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am | Report this commentWendell Murray,
Reading your complicated explanations to algasema on how to perform such basic tasks as adding French accents, I am once again happy to be reminded that, like Clive Crook, I sport a Mac.
I may be able understand why Windows, like BlackBerry, hold such a stranglehold on the corporate market, but I am at a loss to explain why the majority of posters on these blogs, who are very knowledgeable and highly intelligent, have yet to make the transition.
Posted by: RCS | October 5th, 2008 at 5:12 am | Report this commentTwo points - Sarah Palin filmed her interview with Katie Couric on 9/11/8; the day her son was deployed to Iraq. Second,it’s time for the rude and annoying Katie Couric to retire into the land of “your too old to pull off cute and it’s not our fault you made a bad career move.” As far as Sarah Palin is concerned; I never discuss politics……
Posted by: Laura C. | October 5th, 2008 at 5:25 am | Report this commentThe movie “W” will be released just 19 days before the election. It cost SD30M to make and was partly funded by Chinese money, as no Hollywood studio would touch it (acc. to the British “Sunday Times”. Will that put the final nail in McCain’s coffin (to use an English
figure of speech)?
P.S. To RCS. Re yours of 5.12am.
Posted by: J.J. | October 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am | Report this commentI’d rather be an algasemista than a nerd.
Many thanks again to J.J. and Wendell Murray for the adobe flash reader plugin advice. The installation finally worked. Quelle grande victoire! The detailed color map is very instructive and shows clearly how much trouble McPalin are really in. Obama, 3 points ahead in the North Carolina polls and only 6 points behind in Georgia?!!
If I were in the McPalin camp, the only words I would have for this would be quel horreur! But, of course, saying anything in French would be unpatriotic for them.
For Obama/Biden, this is indeed great news. Baikbaik sekali! Vizuri sana! (”Wonderful!” in Indonesian and Swahili, respectively).
The Republicans, let us not forget, have two very dangerous and powerful weapons in their arsenal to try to reverse this trend. First, of course, will be the politics of smear. Second will be vote suppression. Already, more than twenty states, all with Republican-controlled legislatures, have put into place strict voter ID requirements to deal with non-existent voter fraud that are heavily skewed against minorities, the poor and the elderly.
In addition, there is still ample room for computerized voting hanky-panky, as paper backups are still not required in many states and some of the voting machine manufacturers are big Republican contributors.
Getting all of the Obama votes to be actually tabulated may turn out to be a lot more difficult than installing millions of French keyboards, even using Macs.
Posted by: algasema | October 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Report this commentThose may not be winks but facial tics which she cannot control
Posted by: Dennis | October 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentI found in the professional world that my redneck ebonics did nothing to enchance my professinal credentials. Ya know what I’m say’in?
Too, I was facinated by the hair in her eyes that moved the entire “do” when she blinked.
Just some shallow observatios.
“The Republicans, let us not forget, have two very dangerous and powerful weapons in their arsenal to try to reverse this trend. First, of course, will be the politics of smear. Second will be vote suppression.”
True. I just read Jeffrey Toobin’s book Too Close to Call on voting in Florida for the 2000 Presidential election. Very deliberate denial of votes by the Republicans under James Baker who represented the Bush campaign. No question that Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote there and consequently the electoral vote.
The “dirty tricks” byt the Republicans are starting to show up: false polling calls to certain groups that smear Senator Obama racially and so on, intimidation of likely Democratic voters in cities such as Philadelphia that purported scofflaws (e.g. for traffic violations) will be arrested at voting stations, denial of voting to those who have been evicted under foreclosure and do not know the rules for changing registration, etc.
Senator Obama will need as large as plurality as possible to counteract the effect of all these smears which will come from all McCain operatives including Senator McCain and Governor Palin. The latter wholeheartedly reads any slanderous and overtly racist script she is given.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm | Report this comment