Open thread on the debate
The mic on CSpan caught Sarah Palin asking, “Can I call you Joe?”
October 2nd, 2008 by Glenden Brown 
Glenden Brown
October 2nd, 2008 by Glenden Brown Glenden Brown
The mic on CSpan caught Sarah Palin asking, “Can I call you Joe?”
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Imagine if Hilary had been the dem vp pick!
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
on cnn they have this cool tracker on the bottom of the screen - it’s fun watching it go up and down as they speak. On the last answer, the men and women diverged wildly on how they responded to Palin - women were significantly lower.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
We’re only 20 some odd minutes into the debate and Palin is noticeably checking her notes. Biden is checking his notes too but not so obviously.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
With Palin’s “Drill baby drill” comment, the tracker on Cnn plumeted - both men and women equally disliked it. As she talked on about the drilling, the lines diverged again - women below men on her consistently.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Biden forces Palin to agree with him on civil unions and benefits. Nice job!
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Hey! John McCain can’t pronounce the name of Iran’s president but Sarah Palin can. Cool.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Also cool is how she gets to say the “Castro Brothers” on a question concerning Pakistan and Iran.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I noticed that! Kind of creepy actually.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
JB; Past is prologue. How is john mccain’s policy going to be different than George Bush’s? I haven’t heard how his policy is going to be different than George bush’s.
Great line.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I have detected at least three or four pronunciations during the debate by Palin of the word “nuclear.” She ought to just pick one and run with it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I thought it was just me mishearing! But yeah, she should pick on pronunciation and run with it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
During Biden’s rant about taking leadership and interventionism (Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur) the line on CNN shot way up. His line, “I don’t have the stomach for genocide in Darfur” the line peaked.
The minute Palin started talking it dropped off. It went up a little as she talked about ending the genocide then dropped off again when she started talking about Alaska.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
WTF??? Did Tina Fay just slip in?? “Ah dogonit say it ain’t so Joe ….”
I wonder how many times Palin practiced that line.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
We’ll see that on SNL this week!
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“There ya go again, Joe,” I predict will be the winning sound bite even though she stole it from Reagan. But I hope they keep it in context, which is: Biden calling attention to the 100 percent congruence between McCain and Bush. Palin contending that the Bush administration is in the past and not to be talked about– but I doubt if many voters agree. Bush is the President right now, and for the next four months.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I’m an American studies nerd so the part about the role of the VP is interesting to me. Palin completely missed the point of the question about Cheney’s view of the VP as being not wholly an executive position but also a legislative position.
. . . . and Biden got it and knocked it out of the park by describing Cheney as the most dangerous VP in history.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
. . . and apparently Sarah Palin doesn’t know what the term “Achilles heel” means.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Biden is schooling Palin about what a “maverick” is not. Excellent!
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Final Question: Can you think of a single issue, a policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long held view in response to changed circumstances?
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“Up there in Alaska” - another Tina Fey moment.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Clearly (to me) memorized answers. Didn’t answer the questions asked, made up her own questions. She used cute facial expressions and folksy phrases. Her voice inflections give me the feeling she was reading a story to children, alternating with her Judy Tenuta inflections. But the expectations were so low, her supporters are now going wild as if she really performed well. Joe was smart and articulate, and presidential. Could anyone say she was presidential?
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It felt to me as if Palin was simply reiterating her talking points, checking them off in her head and making sure she checked all of them off.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Chris Matthews pointed out the very strange suggestion she made that the Vice President’s office should be given more power.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
. . . and did you notice she completely missed the whole point of the question which was Cheney’s assertion that the VP office is a “fourth” branch of government.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Gov. Sarah Palin made mince meat out of the old tired smirky Biden. She not only outdid him in style but substance as well. Mark my words polls are going to run high for Palin and the press has some explaining to do. They tried to portray Pain as a ditsy backwater hick but she blew that caricature out of the water tonight. Palin is the real deal and this will give McCain a much needed boost and Make Obama wish he picked Hillary. Anyway you measure it, Gov. Palin won the debate tonight. Hands down!
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
CNN just released their poll #s: 51% said Biden did the best; 36% said Palin - sorry I had a typo it was 36 not 39 for Palin.
CBS: 46% for Biden, 21% for Palin.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
At the risk of nit-picking, Palin asserted that troops in Iraq were down to the pre-surge level (wrong- 147,000 now versus 130,000 pre-surge) and that NATO was in Iraq (wrong). She repeatedly referred to Afghanistan commander General David McKiernan as “McClellan” (he was in the American Civil War).
Palin made repeated references to “victory” and “winning” in Iraq while also praising “the Great” General Petraeus, even though he’s specifically disavowed those two terms. She also said that the plan that Obama, Maliki, and President Bush currently support is “a white flag of surrender.”
Check out the Think Progress debate live blog.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Ken:
What debate did you watch tonight?
We all watched the Biden/Palin debate.
It was great; too bad you missed it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
the live vote at MSNBC has it for Biden as well - it was 57% for Biden 37% for palin a few minutes ago.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ken, She could not have been more of a caricature than she was tonight. A Disney character. She mugged for the camera and hammed it up with folksy languague. That would be cute if this were a Judy Garland movie in the 40’s.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Palin beat expectations, but so did Joe Biden. I will sleep a lot better if Biden becomes the Vice President. If it weren’t for the last eight years, the GOP might have a better chance in this election.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 am
Richard W.,
Since everyone else here is obsessed with Palin, I am going to make a policy note. Did you hear Biden’s response about using the military against countries that support genocide and terror when talking about Darfur? Man… That sounds an awful lot like the Bush Doctrine. I’m starting to really like this Biden. Heck I may even join the Cache Valley Democrats. In fact his statement could have even been used to justify the war in Iraq… Seems like the anti-war radicals that helped nominate Obama will lose in this election regardless of who get elected.
An Obama administration seems bent on immediately putting troops into Darfur if elected. How do you feel about that Richard W.?
That is Obama/Biden… This is Bush…
Maybe Code Pink will run their own candidate four years from now just for you Richard W.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 am
Richard Okelberry correctly points out that the Obama-Biden ticket is not as dovish as some would believe. An Obama-Biden presidency may turn out to be quite centrist on foreign policy and in a number of other ways as well. That would be a welcome change as far as I’m concerned.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 am
RO:
Saddam was not engaged in genocide.
btw, when you condescend, you really come off as a jerk.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
R.O. — The sad truth about Darfur is that the Bush administration is friends with the Sudanese dictatorship the same way they were friends with the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, believing them to be an ally in the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT).
As far as I can tell nobody is suggesting sending American combat units to Darfur, for a few simple reasons:
1) There are no extra combat troops available, absent a quick withdrawal from Iraq.
2) Darfur/Sudan do not represent a threat to our national security.
3) U.S. troops would be taking sides in a civil war, never a good idea.
4) Our firepower would amp up the bloodshed, as we have seen in Iraq.
5) No exit strategy.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
I think a President Obama would represent a return to a Bush I/Clinton style of liberal internationalism - one that works through the UN and NATO, that rejects the unilateralism that Dubya has embraced.
Biden’s statement last night defending what Ifill characterized as his “interventionist” policies:
Biden is clearly calling for a return to the Bush I/Clinton model of internationalism - one that works effectively to rally the world behind good causes, with coherent plans for going in and getting out and he’s rejecting the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and unilateralism.
There are flaws and problems with that model but it’s a huge improvement over the what we have now.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
Senator Biden trusted President Bush not to attack Iraq unilaterally after granting him the authority to do so? I doubt it, and if this story is true Biden ought to apologize for his grave error.
I think the truth is, Biden was very much an advocate of war with Iraq as far back as 1998. “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” he told Scott Ritter.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
REEEEEAAALLY?
I guess that’s a matter of perspective? Nuance?
And to use one of my favorite Liberal mechanisms, “Would you think that way if it was your family gassed in Halabja?”
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It is a pity that we sold Saddam those weapons.
See this link.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Wait? Saddam was engaged in genocide with weapons we sold him?
Or Saddam wasn’t engaged in genocide with weapons we sold him?
Fascinating article, Leo. Like a good Michael Moore movie, it includes facts that support its case, but omits those that might undermine his case and creatively edits the rest. Wheee!
October 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
What’s interesting about your comment, Leo is that it really doesn’t hold water.
It assigns blame to the middle man, not the illicit end use of a product. So, even if it were true that the US sold chem weapons to Iraq (which we didn’t), we’d be responsible if Saddam used them, not Saddam.
In essence, you give him a pass for his bad actions.
Isn’t that ludicrous?
You wouldn’t blame Ferrari if an owner was reckless and dangerous and decided to drive 100 mph in a school zone, would you? You’d rightly blame the DRIVER.
It’s funny. I’ve never seen anyone blame the Soviets for all the weapons the supplied Saddam when he invaded his neighbors. Never any blame for all the AKs, BMPs, tanks and SCUDs. Doesn’t that strike you as curious?
October 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Obama does support the Bush Doctrin!
For those of you who have not read this thread, please scan up to read my prior post.
Leo,
I’m with you, it is consoling to know that Obama is willing to back down on some of his early statements against the war and that he is showing a willingness to engage evil around the world. I think most will find that Obama/Biden statements about a Timeline to leave Iraq are also nothing more than election year promises. There is no way that Obama as president will pull troops out of Iraq, regardless of any timeline if it appears such a pullout will cause large scale death and violence. In essence, Obama will do just what McCain or Bush are saying and keep troops in Iraq until the country is stable. If he does take troops out early under some artificial timeline and Iraq collapses, he will certainly have an uphill fight toward re-election 4 years from now.
JFarmer,
Sorry, if I sound condescending. As far as your statement about Saddam not being involved in Genocide, you really must have had your head in the sand over the last 20 years. I invite you to go to Amnesty International’s web site and review their various annual reports. Unfortunately, they only go back to 1995 so I’ll give you some quotes from About.com: Civil Liberties, “The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein;
It should also be noted that when Saddam drained these marsh lands, which were considered the world larges, it was considered by many environmentalist groups as the worst man made ecological disaster in history.
Richard W.
Are you arguing that when Biden said we should begin by sending helicopter to help move African troops around in Africa that he was simply lying? Let’s be honest, Richard W. Obama has lied to you and now all of those anti-war activists that supported him over Hillary are stuck with a candidate that has basically adopted the Bush Doctrin. Also, it should be noted that the reason our deficit dropped under Clinton was because of two things; his systematic dismantling of our military and covert intelligence operations and excess tax revenue by an economy fueled by the Dot Com boom.
Gendel,
You left out that Bosnia was a NATO, not an international operation and that the majority of those countries involved in the Bosnian conflict also sent troops to Iraq. It is pure propaganda to say the U.S. went into Iraq unilaterally. If it is true then Biden’s war in Bosnia was just as unilateral.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Leo,
I’m with you, it is consoling to know that Obama is willing to back down on some of his early statements against the war and that he is showing a willingness to engage evil around the world. I think most will find that Obama/Biden statements about a Timeline to leave Iraq are also nothing more than election year promises. There is no way that Obama as president will pull troops out of Iraq, regardless of any timeline if it appears such a pullout will cause large scale death and violence. In essence, Obama will do just what McCain or Bush are saying and keep troops in Iraq until the country is stable. If he does take troops out early under some artificial timeline and Iraq collapses, he will certainly have an uphill fight toward re-election 4 years from now.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
JFarmer,
Sorry, if I sound condescending. As far as your statement about Saddam not being involved in Genocide, you really must have had your head in the sand over the last 20 years. I invite you to go to Amnesty International’s web site and review their various annual reports. Unfortunately, they only go back to 1995 so I’ll give you some quotes from About.com: Civil Liberties, “The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein; (Link Below)
It should also be noted that when Saddam drained these marsh lands, which were considered the world larges, it was considered by many environmentalist groups as the worst man made ecological disaster in history.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Richard W.
Are you arguing that when Biden said we should begin by sending helicopter to help move African troops around in Africa that he was simply lying? Let’s be honest, Richard W. Obama has lied to you and now all of those anti-war activists that supported him over Hillary are stuck with a candidate that has basically adopted the Bush Doctrine. Also, it should be noted that the reason our deficit dropped under Clinton was because of two things; his systematic dismantling of our military and covert intelligence operations and excess tax revenue by an economy fueled by the Dot Com boom.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Gendel,
You left out that Bosnia was a NATO, not an international operation and that the majority of those countries involved in the Bosnian conflict also sent troops to Iraq. It is pure propaganda to say the U.S. went into Iraq unilaterally. If it is true then Biden’s war in Bosnia was just as unilateral.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
RO:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html
October 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
R.O. — I wouldn’t trust Joe Biden on anything to do with the military or foreign policy. He’s been wrong a lot– not as much as Bush/McCain, but too much.
It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration tries to pull the U.S. international relations out of the ditch. I doubt if the Bush Doctrine of “preventive war” (euphemism for war of aggression) will play any role.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
JFarmer,
Be careful, which bits of hope you grab hold of to vindicate your buddy Saddam. The vast majority of the World knows that Saddam not only used chemical weapons against his own people but it has also been well documented that Saddam himself was responsible for giving eradication orders against varying parts of his population. The Marsh land incident alone is evidence enough of Genocide, regardless. Did you even go to the Amnesty International site where the atrocities go on and on and on? Are you going to tell us now that the Holocaust also never happened and Hitler was just misunderstood? I can point to several neo-Nazi sites that can make a convincing argument to support that claim if you need it JFarmer.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Richard W.,
I can understand your frustration and your hope against all that Obama will be a peace loving President, but his and Biden’s own statements are contrary. Do you honestly believe that if as President he was presented with strong evidence that a terrorist group inside Pakistan was planning an attack against the U.S., Obama would not act preemptively even without permission from Pakistan to eliminate the threat? If you believe that then you must also believe that Obama and Biden are lying simply to gain votes.
I personally think Obama lied to gain the nomination and is now thinking more rationally. Just imagine how fast calls of impeachment would come if it were revealed that Obama could have used the military to stop an attack, but refused to. Imagine again how effectively the Republicans would use the name and faces of dead Americans against him. Obama is not a messiah, but a politician that has proven he will put his own political ambitions before any promises made to his base. There is no greater similarity between Obama and Bush then that.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
RO:
You also thought, and probably still do, that the WMD basis for invading Iraq was true.
So, what’s your point?
October 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
JD,
You are assuming I am giving Saddam a pass on his warmongering and slaughter of his own citizens.
When did I say that?
I supported Gulf War I.
The problem is that when he up to some of his worst deeds, we didn’t do all that much about him. We tacitly supported him during portions of the Iran-Iraq War. And when we pretty much had him in a box and he was unable to do much, we launched a pre-emptive war based on false claims.
Saddam was definitely a very bad guy. Whether invading Iraq in Gulf War II was worth the cost is a separate question, and a question I would answer in the negative.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
R.O. — Senator Obama’s foreign policy positions have not changed at all for over a year. However, during that time the Bush administration has decided to abandon their previous wrong direction and adopt Obama’s proposed approach in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. Basically, Obama and his advisers are already running U.S. foreign policy.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Leo - then why bring up the canard that the US gave him the weapons? It’s a red herring.
The first part I agree with. The second (box part) - maybe. The third, not so much. Though - I never felt the WMD charge was that important. But I’m a neo-con. [puts on flame suit]
Here’s an interesting thought, while we’re still involved in a civil discussion…
About and around 2004 when the insurgency in Iraq was ramping up and the Press was starting in on the whole “Shiites and Sunnis can’t live together” thing, a certain Senator was loudly advocating partition of Iraq. He suggested dividing the country into autonomous regions for Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.
Lots of folks raised objections to this plan. The Iranians and the Turks didn’t want a Kurdistan on their borders. The Sunnis didn’t want to lose thier oil wealth. The Saudis didn’t want an Iranian puppet state (or an Osterreich) on their border. In the end, the plan was abandoned - even by the Senator. I haven’t heard him mention it again, even though he’s running for re-election in the Senate this year.
I hear, in the debates over who’s going to be elected President, a lot of talk about how the Iraq war has helped the Iranians. Wouldn’t such a partition plan have helped them more?
October 5th, 2008 at 3:08 am
JFarmer,
Maybe you have misinterpreted my past statements on the subject of WMDs. I disagreed with the Bush administration on using WMDs as the primary justification for War in Iraq. I felt that the connection to international terrorism and the abysmal human rights record are and were justification enough. We also have to remember that the war fallowed a decade of UN sanctions and diplomacy. I have also stated that I feel while the Bush administration exaggerated reports on WMDs, they truly believed the stockpiles were there and would be found.
My point in this thread is this: For all the stink over McCain being just another Bush, it appears at least as far as the war is concerned, Obama is just another Bush also. Looks like we’re about to get another 4 years of “failed Bush” war policies regardless of who we vote for. While I have no problem with that, I have to imagine that Dems who spent so many hours making signs and organizing rallies against the war and Bush so angry and betrayed. Really, where was Obama when you all were holding your peace rallies during the Presidents last two visits to SLC. One thing is certain… It appears now that he wasn’t standing with you but merely pandering for your votes.
October 5th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Leo,
Simply because politicians in the past chose to work with this brutal dictator does not mean that he shouldn’t have been brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. It only means that maybe some of our own, Republicans and Democrats alike should also be brought to task for working with such a nation.
Also, Leo, I want to ask you, did we have Saddam or his people in that box? Are you one of those that believe if we simply impose sanctions and starve a people the brutal dictator will give in? Dictators love that stuff, because it allows them to give their people a common enemy. Of course their personal lifestyle doesn’t change, but they do get to consolidate their power. Can you think of one time in history that sanctions were successfully used by the international community to bring a nation onto compliance with international laws or UN mandates? You do realize that even the oil for food program that was supposed to help feed the Iraqi’s during the decade long sanctions only served to make Saddam and some UN diplomats rich, right?
October 5th, 2008 at 3:29 am
JD, You make a good point about the division of Iraq. I always find the, “they just can’t live together argument amusing.” We are by far the most ethnically, religously and idiologiclly diverse nation on the planet. I wonder how we do it.
Of course, it is for this very reason that true Socialism won’t work here, but that is a topic for another discussion.