No question Palin helped herself tonight, but that's only because she had so far to climb. If you're grading on anything other than a massive curve, Biden wins hands down.
The beauty of Biden is that he can go blow for blow with Palin on ordinary Joe-ness, then actually know what he's talking about when he answers questions. Palin talks about the mean streets of Wasilla, Biden talks about the mean streets of Scranton. Palin talks about her son in Iraq, Biden talks about his son in Iraq. Palin talks about being the mother of a child with special needs, Biden talks about being a widower with two badly injured boys. Every time you thought she might claim an emotional advantage, Biden evened the emotional score.
...
My completely impressionistic take on Palin's performance tonight is that it mirrorred her campaign performance so far (if not quite as dramatically): When Palin started off, you thought, "Wow, she seems so fresh--so human and easy to relate to. How can we compete with that?" Then, as the debate wore on, you thought, "Hmm, okay, she still seems human, but not quite what I'm looking for in a vice president." And, by the end, as the vacuous answers piled up, it was more like, "Good God, keep this woman away from the Oval Office." Which is the story of the last month, too.
Palin just isn't a candidate who wears well over any extended period of time, whether it's a 90-minute debate or a 60-day campaign. The reason is that she only has one mode: human and relateable. That's fine when the topic is middle-class pain. But there are whole classes of issues--foreign policy chief among them--where human and relateable aren't what you're looking for, even if you're an uninformed voter.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Scheiber's Reaction to the VP Debate
Noam Scheiber has a great analysis of the VP debate in this New Republic article.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Transcript of 2008 VP Debate
Michelle Obama Discovers Her Family Tree in America
This article from the Washington Post details how "Michelle Obama's great-great-grandfather, Jim Robinson, worked as a slave on the Friendfield Plantation in Georgetown, S.C. Many of the slave quarters on the plantation still stand untouched and alone on the property."
What a momentous time in history this has the potential to be. Shailagh Murray writes, "While Barack Obama's provenance -- his black Kenyan father, white Kansas-born mother and Hawaiian childhood -- has been celebrated as a uniquely American example of multicultural identity, Michelle Obama's family history -- from slavery to Reconstruction to the Great Migration north -- connects her to the essence of the African American experience."
What a momentous time in history this has the potential to be. Shailagh Murray writes, "While Barack Obama's provenance -- his black Kenyan father, white Kansas-born mother and Hawaiian childhood -- has been celebrated as a uniquely American example of multicultural identity, Michelle Obama's family history -- from slavery to Reconstruction to the Great Migration north -- connects her to the essence of the African American experience."
Biden Wins Debate, Palin Exceeds Expectations
According to a survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, viewers of tonight's VP debate believe that Biden did the better job in the debate but found Palin to be more likable.
Yes, I agree she exceeded expectations; in fact, the bar was set so low for her after the Couric interviews that it would have been very difficult for her not to exceed expectations. It's clear, however, that although Palin is a very polished public speaker and has a gift for connecting with her audience, she still does not have fluency or grasp over the issues at stake and she does not really understand McCain's (or the Bush administration's) positions on many issues. I was not impressed with her lack of response especially in the second half of the debate; it was obvious that she had not considered many of those issues before and was not able to offer an intelligent answer about policy on Israel, economic issues, and questions regarding McCain's voting record and the plans of the Bush administration. She frequently talked at length about her own voting record in Alaska as filler for her answers regarding those topics.
Biden, on the other hand, demonstrated an obvious fluency on all the topics, but especially on foreign policy issues, and proved himself to be a clear and experienced thinker who understands the issues Americans are concerned with, and also understands, and is ready to address, the economic and international issues that the next president will face. I was very impressed with his depth of understanding - not only of the underlying issues and what the Obama/Biden position is on these issues, but also of the voting records and the reasons for Obama and McCain's votes.
Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Biden did the best job in Thursday night's debate, while 36 percent thought Palin did the best job.
But respondents said the folksy Palin was more likable, scoring 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent.
Both candidates exceeded expectations — 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.
But on the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of the people polled said Biden is qualified while only 42 percent said Palin is qualified.
Yes, I agree she exceeded expectations; in fact, the bar was set so low for her after the Couric interviews that it would have been very difficult for her not to exceed expectations. It's clear, however, that although Palin is a very polished public speaker and has a gift for connecting with her audience, she still does not have fluency or grasp over the issues at stake and she does not really understand McCain's (or the Bush administration's) positions on many issues. I was not impressed with her lack of response especially in the second half of the debate; it was obvious that she had not considered many of those issues before and was not able to offer an intelligent answer about policy on Israel, economic issues, and questions regarding McCain's voting record and the plans of the Bush administration. She frequently talked at length about her own voting record in Alaska as filler for her answers regarding those topics.
Biden, on the other hand, demonstrated an obvious fluency on all the topics, but especially on foreign policy issues, and proved himself to be a clear and experienced thinker who understands the issues Americans are concerned with, and also understands, and is ready to address, the economic and international issues that the next president will face. I was very impressed with his depth of understanding - not only of the underlying issues and what the Obama/Biden position is on these issues, but also of the voting records and the reasons for Obama and McCain's votes.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Palin and National Security
This is a great article by Patrick Barry of Democracy Arsenal regarding national security issues in which Palin must be able to demonstrate competency.
Below are his five points:
I would add that these 5 points are not limited to Palin but should be demonstrated by any candidate seeking to become VP or President of the United States.
Below are his five points:
1. KNOWLEDGE: Governor Palin must demonstrate the knowledge necessary to be Commander-in-Chief.
Governor Palin has repeatedly cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as a qualification for being Commander-in-Chief. This despite the fact that Russia isn’t even in the top twenty countries that trade with Alaska and that Moscow is actually closer to Maine than Alaska. Moreover, when asked about the Bush Doctrine, Palin did not recognize the argument over preemption that dominated American politics and foreign policy circles for years. She did not even obtain a passport until last year and has shown little interest in international affairs.
2. PAKISTAN: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin position on eliminating Al Qaeda’s safe-haven in Pakistan.
Pakistan is one of the most critical issues currently facing our country. Our intelligence community and the Pentagon believe that the safe haven on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border represents the most likely source of another attack on the United States. Yet incredibly, Governor Palin’s position on this issue appears to be at odds with John McCain’s. While he has criticized Barack Obama for arguing that the U.S. should take direct action against high value terrorist targets inside Northwest Pakistan, Governor Palin has made remarks suggesting she supports such measures.
3. IRAN: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin strategy for dealing with Iran.
Governor Palin has called Barack Obama’s proposal to engage in diplomacy with Iran without preconditions “dangerous” and “naïve.” Yet, it is almost the exact same position as the one taken by one of her own campaign’s advisors – Henry Kissinger. Moreover, Palin has made public statements that would implicitly give Israel a green light to attack Iran – even though such an action would have serious national security implications for the United States and the Bush administration has reportedly opposed such a move.
4. RUSSIA: Governor Palin must explain the McCain-Palin position on Russia.
Instead of carefully avoiding hypotheticals and inflammatory language, Governor Palin recklessly speculated about a possible war with Russia – the world’s second largest nuclear power. She must clarify her ticket’s positions on Georgia joining NATO and the potential for war with Russia over South Ossetia.
5. VISION: Governor Palin must articulate what her vision is for American foreign policy
Governor Palin has said little about her own foreign policy views and philosophy. In an interview with Katie Couric she seemed to take a position similar to the Neoconservatives and George Bush’s first term and early second term that we should be aggressively spreading democracy as the main goal of U.S. foreign policy and that this type of approach would help eliminate terrorism. She must expand on this view and give a fuller description of her general approach to national security.
I would add that these 5 points are not limited to Palin but should be demonstrated by any candidate seeking to become VP or President of the United States.
General Petraeus' Comments Contradict McCain's Policy
In this article, Patrick Barry writes about how General Petraeus' comments on insurgents in Afghanistan contradicts McCain's stance that the surge which he believes was so successful in Iraq ought to be repeated in Afghanistan.
Barry concludes saying, "A key criteria for assessing both candidates' fitness for commander-in-chief is whether they have a strategy that can arrest this devolving problem. Barack Obama has committed himself time and again to a comprehensive plan for restoring a modicum of stability to Afghanistan, one that depends on a re-deployment from Iraq. General Petraeus too, in his new role as head of Central Command, appears to have quickly broadened his strategic view, and has begun to pay Afghanistan its due attention. But John McCain is stuck, insisting on looking at this national security crisis through the prism of Iraq, repeating the same fixation, the same insistence, the same failures that have marked the last eight years."
Barry's article is particularly interesting because he makes the point that even for all of McCain's experience (and it is evident that he has had more experience fighting wars than Obama), he may still not be the more qualified person to become Commander in Chief because of his insistence on a particular strategy without due attention to the unique requirements and circumstances of a new situation.
Barry concludes saying, "A key criteria for assessing both candidates' fitness for commander-in-chief is whether they have a strategy that can arrest this devolving problem. Barack Obama has committed himself time and again to a comprehensive plan for restoring a modicum of stability to Afghanistan, one that depends on a re-deployment from Iraq. General Petraeus too, in his new role as head of Central Command, appears to have quickly broadened his strategic view, and has begun to pay Afghanistan its due attention. But John McCain is stuck, insisting on looking at this national security crisis through the prism of Iraq, repeating the same fixation, the same insistence, the same failures that have marked the last eight years."
Barry's article is particularly interesting because he makes the point that even for all of McCain's experience (and it is evident that he has had more experience fighting wars than Obama), he may still not be the more qualified person to become Commander in Chief because of his insistence on a particular strategy without due attention to the unique requirements and circumstances of a new situation.
Obama's Senate Speech on the Bailout
Obama had this to say on the Senate floor about the bailout today:
I have heard critics of the bailout say that the bailout is not necessary right now and that we should let banks suffer for the poor investment decisions they made. What these people fail to realize, however, that the purpose of the bailout is not to rescue financial institutions from the consequences of their irresponsible choices. Nor is the bailout an opportunity to conveniently forget about the actions which should have been taken to prevent the current economic situation. Instead, the fact is that the activity of these financial institutions has far-reaching implications on numerous aspects of our economy and the bailout is about protecting the American public from the innumerable rippling consequences of a massive failure on Wall Street.
See the entirety of his speech here.
We're in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions across this country are afraid to lend money. And if all that meant was the failure of a few banks in New York, that would be one thing. But that's not what it means. What it means is, if we don't act, it will be harder for Americans to get a mortgage for their home or loans they need to buy a car or send their children to college. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open a new factory or make payroll for their workers. And if they can't make payroll on Friday, then workers are laid off on Monday. And if workers are laid off on Monday, then they can't pay their bills or pay back their loans to somebody else. And it will go on and on and on, rippling through the entire economy. Potentially we could see thousands of businesses close, millions of jobs could be lost, and a long and painful recession could follow. In other words, this is not just a Wall Street crisis, it's an American crisis.
I have heard critics of the bailout say that the bailout is not necessary right now and that we should let banks suffer for the poor investment decisions they made. What these people fail to realize, however, that the purpose of the bailout is not to rescue financial institutions from the consequences of their irresponsible choices. Nor is the bailout an opportunity to conveniently forget about the actions which should have been taken to prevent the current economic situation. Instead, the fact is that the activity of these financial institutions has far-reaching implications on numerous aspects of our economy and the bailout is about protecting the American public from the innumerable rippling consequences of a massive failure on Wall Street.
See the entirety of his speech here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
