Everything you need to know about the Palin/Biden debate
October 3, 2008 6 Comments
Look, Wonkette found a flow chart that makes it painless:
and there is a transcript from CNN that makes every answer seem so much worse than it did during the live debate.
TPM has an interesting insight about why Palin seemed to do so much better in the debate than in her unscripted interviews with Couric and Gibson:
No follow ups. It’s not a criticism of Gwen Ifill. It wasn’t the format she was supposed to work with. But if you look at Palin’s interview trainwrecks things always got bad on the follow up — when the interviewer (Gibson or Couric) pressed her on the nebulous answer for some specifics, which she couldn’t provide. That’s the difference.
On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it: on global warming, an Iraq exit strategy, Iran and Pakistan, Iranian diplomacy, Israel-Palestine (and a follow-up), the nuclear trigger, interventionism, Cheney’s vice presidency and her own greatest weakness.
There is also video and factchecking via TPM:
The claim from this debate that is still sitting with me is this: Gov. Palin said that Sen. Biden supported McCain’s Iraq policies “pretty adamantly until this race.” Well, that’s complete nonsense. At least since 2004 they’ve been on completely different sides of this question. That was one of her biggest attack lines through the debate. And it’s completely false.
One of my general reactions is about the mocking and belittling tone adopted by Palin during the debate. That haha I-laugh-at-you, you-are-ridiculous-and-contemptible attitude, suggesting that the ignorance of their opponent is so profound, that all anyone could be expected to do is laugh because serious discussion simply is not possible. I think Palin’s attempt to use ridicule as a debate tactic shows a lack of confidence about having a serious discussion on the issues facing our nation, and that it was disrespectful to the debate process. Without a serious answer to offer, ridicule is a handy tactic in an overall strategy of dodging a serious discussion.
and here is a clip of Palin talking about nuclear weapons:
with the transcript from CNN:
IFILL: Governor, on another issue, interventionism, nuclear weapons. What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?
PALIN: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.
Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that’s a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.
But for those countries — North Korea, also, under Kim Jong Il — we have got to make sure that we’re putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.
Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick, also, though?
Um, how about answering the question first?