Fair shake for Sarah?
Posted on October 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am by Red State EddioHow are we going to grade the performances tomorrow night? I’m wondering if we’re going to use “the measurement of Obama”.
I noticed that after the Presidential debate last Friday, there were many comments made here at PD as well as other sites, that Obama had won because he didn’t lose as badly as feared in the debate on foreign policy. The prevailing thought was that it was going to be a disaster, it didn’t turn out as bad as feared (although J-Mac did use him as a broom and sweep the stage a few times), therefore Obama “won” because he lost by less than feared. So how will the comparison with Sarah Palin be for tomorrow night?
She’s had 2 years as a governor - Biden has 36 as a US Senator.
She has little foreign policy experience - Biden has decades worth.
She’s been in the national public spotlight for all of 4 weeks - he’s run for president numerous times, and campaigned in numerous states for numerous months.
She’s stumbled in a couple of interviews - He’s…well, he’s Joe Biden. What do you expect? (OK, no advantage there)
By all accounts, he’s sharpening the “Thanksgiving Carver” and getting ready for a feast.
My point is, on the surface, this looks like a disaster in the making. So what if she “loses” by only a little? Or even a good bit? Is she the “winner” because she actually showed up and held her own in certain parts, while possibly losing in others? Using Democrat Logic, she stands a great chance of winning as long as she doesn’t lose too badly. That’s the measurement of Obama.
25 Comments
Leave a comment
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I like it… so according to this logic, if McCain is not blown out in the election, does he win?
look, i am one of those who felt that obama ‘won’ the debate because he held his own the same way reagan held his own against carter in 1980 and kennedy held his own against nixon in 1960 and clinton held his own against bush in 1992. every time you have an election with a newcomer that a lot of voters are queasy about, the debate is their biggest test. in these debates, it doesn’t matter who wins; it’s all about crossing the threshold of credibility to reassure voters, not necessarily win them over. i agree that mccain probably did win the debate, but obama benefited more politically, as polls show, because he proved himself to be credible on foreign policy. and yes, the same standard applies for palin. if she is able to hold her own against biden, it will be a huge victory for her regardless of who ‘wins’ the debate. if she can hold her own against biden, most of the qualms voters have about her readiness will evaporate in an instant.
If only the MSM was as objective as you. Unfortunately, I imagine the headlines on Friday being something more along the lines of a guillotine execution.
That’s why I bring it up now. So we all can see the extreme imbalance of liberals and their newsboys the MSM.
Well written…it really is silly how Democrats play both sides of issues and campaigns constantly:
1. 40% of House Democrats voted no to the bailout, many for political shelter, and the House GOP is blamed for not giving enough NAYS
2. Raising expectations for their opponents so they can claim victory in defeat, even for Palin
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122281636354892281.html
3. Blaming tax breaks to oil companies for high prices when their environmental litigation and drilling bans caused the problems
4. And the WORST is Barack Obama. Exhibit A: his claim he will lower taxes for 95% of Americans. This holds zero ground with all his other promises but he gets away with it day in, day out.
To adress the question: yes, she will be judged by the same measures Obama was. Expect that the barr will be even much below his ones as expectations are so low.
When McCain and Obama debated last week I was astonished about the widespread reaction that both showed to know their stuff. The truth ist that both didn’t say anything unexpected but predominantly the things they use in their stump speeches anyway. Knowledge really shows off when candidates have to react to unexpected questions (which were none) and/or have to react to attacks by their opponents (which they rarely did).
The same will apply to tommorows debate. If there would be an open discussion Biden would have her for lunch (as David liked to put it). If the format is rather closed, like the one we have already seen, Palin can easily work through her tutorial cards and will face a glorious victory. Unless she doesn’t tell something really really stupid or stumbles that even a foreigner like me recognizes that the grammar is not correct she wins, even if her overall performance is worse than Biden’s.
That said, for many of you Palin would win even if she behaved like Miss Piggy. You may like to pick one or more of the following reasons for my assumption:
a) the moderator was biased (even if the questions were balanced)
b) Biden looked so condescending.
c) She might have been really really bad, but there was a little tittle she said I agree on.
d) She might have been really really bad, but she shares my culture.
e) She might have been really really bad, but, hey, who wants an elitist as president. I prefer an average American.
So, unless there will be an open discussion all the cards are in Palin’s hand. I still see the race as very open.
I agree with G.O.
(that hasn’t happened much before, has it?)
Gary, I did not think, that tis could happen. I’m so moved, I could cry. Also, I appreciate that we share a sense of sarcasm.
She also does have some advantages. Her recent poor performances have set the bar so low, baring any major gaffe or gap of knowledge, she can easily exceed expectations. Biden must watch out for anything that can be perceived as sexism or condescending behavior.
The logic behind the Obama won the debate is not that just by being even, but showing a real grasp of the issues. You may disagree with everything he says, but if you are open minded, there is no doubt he knew the issues a great deal. I can’t Palin showing the same command on the issues due to her gaps of knowledge.
I can’t see Palin showing the same command on the issues due to her gaps of knowledge, I meant to say, my computer is being screwy.
fantastic! Two years as Governor, little foreign policy experience, 4 weeks in the national spotlight…
Your own words highlight why she is such a terrible for choice for VP, especially alongside an aging President who has had serious health problems.
Who cares about the debate, how good they would be at the job is far more important.
36 years in the senate, decades of foreign policy experience and years on the campaign trail.
Nah, lets go for the novice because she looked great in that picture of her holding a gun.
Yeah… serious health problems… is that why his doctors said he’s in great shape?
The no experience arguement again, what’s Obama’s experience again? Oh yeah, community organizer where he gaved money to and trained members of Acorn, 8 years in the Illinois Senate where he voted ‘present’ half the time, and 4 years in the US Senate where he’s spent the last 2 campaigning for President. Yep. That’s the kind of experience our future President should have.
Chris: Glad you asked…
1) 2 years of Governor vs. 101 days actually in the Senate?
2) Executive Budgetary Processes vs. _____________________?(unless you count balancing a personal checkbook or letting underlings run campaign $$).
3) Commanding a state’s Natl Guard vs. commading ______________________?
So by your own comparisons, if Palin is not qualified, how much less is the Oba-wan? Hmmmm….
I do not expect a reply from you because there is none. That’s the bald truth staring you right in the face.
Chris,
According to your logic, the ultimate candidate would be Robert “K.K.K.” Byrd, right?
Certainly wouldn’t be Nobama, would it?
Well for a start. I said HAD major health problems. These of the type that God willing wont come back but sadly might.
Moving on…I was talking about Governor Palin but first, I like Senator Obama, I like his policies, I like his intelligence and I like his grasp of a great many issues. I like that he opposed Iraq. I have some idea of what he stands for, at least enough to hold an opinion from across the sea.
I used to like Senator McCain and his promise to put the nation first. That’s good. I just think he broke that promise in choosing Governor Palin.
Now I ask you, seriously; what is it you like about Governor Palin? It can’t be her policies as she doesn’t have any and clearly doesn’t know what Senator McCain’s are. It can’t be her experience as she doesn’t have any. It can’t be allignment with traditional Republican views because she doesn’t know what they are. It can’t be her radical ideas, her foreign policy experience, her record on terrorism issues, her understanding of the economy, her position on big government or federalism. It can’t even be her commitment to the Union, unless you want one fewer state in it.
What exactly is it?
It could be her social outlook, that she represents a good solid family with traditional values. But so does my mother.
One day she might be worthy of a national candidacy, I may even like her one day, but can you honest and truthfully tell me with all the talent your great country and your historic party possesses, right now, today, this year, this time, she is the best person available, she is the person you would like to be Vice President and potentially President of your United States?
Of course its policies.
Why do you think that liberals despise her so much?
I still don’t understand why people are comparing the candidate for VP on one ticket to the candidate for President on the other. Two different offices. And seriously, I love how everyone is predicting McCain to die w/in the first year. Pathetic.
And yes, we like Sarah for her policies. Let’s see…..stands up to lobbyists, balances a budget, favors oil drilling, is pro-life; sounds good to me.
And now we ask you seriously; what is it about Obama you like? It can’t be his policies as he doesn’t have any. It can’t be his experience as he doesn’t have any. It can’t be alignment with traditional Democratic views because he doesn’t know what they are. It can’t be his radical ideas, his foreign policy experience, his record on terrorism issues, his understanding of the economy, his position on big government or federalism. It can’t even be his commitment to the Union.
Chris - You derided Palin as a bad choice for Mac. The grounds for your argument was that she was inexperienced.
I compared the Oba-wan’s to hers and noticed that she had as much, if not more, than him in exectuive leadeship circles.
You have yet to refute the argument. It still stands as true and real.
Instead, your new ground becomes that you like the Oba-wan for what he believes. That’s fine, but it does not remove the obstacle of experience that obstructs your personal opinion from becoming a one that holds any weight for the rest of us.
Whatever he believes, he’s unqualified if we use experience as the litmus test. Don’t switch your argument grounds just because you are losing it.
If you battle with the experience argument, you will lose. If we agreed on a minimum standard of experience for office, then BOTH Palin and the Oba-wan could be disqualified, thus losing the race for your man. You are left with Joe Biden vs. John McCain, who would sweep the floor with JB. So you should either shut up with the experience argument or accept your candidate’s withdrawal from the race. Can’t have it both ways.
I like Palin for the same reasons you like Obama. I like her policies and positions on issues. They are in oppposition to yours, but they are still valid. But this is a different argument than experience.
Now, as for policies, I like Palin because she is pro-family, pro-life, pro-energy, pro-restraint and fiscal spending, pro-liberty and personal freedom, pro-strength when it comes to security, and pro-America. She knows what she believes, and who she is. She knows Reagan’s policies better than you think she does.
And regardless of this race, if she survives it intact, she will be a force to be reckoned with in 2012, which is why so many liberals like yourself are snidely trying to eliminate her now. It is because she represents a TRUE conservative, not some country-club version like we’ve seen with the Bushes. It’s because she is an ideological conservative that she is getting the kind of vitriol from the likes of you.
It almost seems like a political version of the Sarah Chronicles–eliminate the mom before the savior of the human race can be born through her. She could straight up crush the Oba-wan in 4 years if he wins, and I believe it would be the showdown of the century.
I derided her as a choice for way more than her lack of experience, i just dont know what she stands for. You all seem to know what her policies are, but i am not convinced that she knows what they are. True she is desperately trying to memorise the Senator McCain policy book, but that doesn’t mean she is ready to be President.
Your point on Senator Obama’s experience is well made, but not the basis of my argument. He has been vetted and tested on issues for the last 18 months. I have an idea what he stands for. I don’t get Governor Palin at all. Listen to her, she just hasn’t been engaged enough to have a stance on many issues.
I am pro life, but its not a political issue. You make it illegal; you push it underground. I’ve always found it ludicrous as a political issue. Its a social issue.
Pro family. This is also ridiculous. Is Senator Obama not pro family? Was Mark Foley?
Pro-energy? We all want energy. Fine. I would like to pass on a health earth to the next generation and not convinced we are going to do it.
Pro strength, pro American. This is what you think you are, you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Governor Palin is. Plus its academic now anyway, guess what, we are losing the war on terror. Yeah, we taimed Saddam but at the cost of an untouchable Iran. Yeah, there hasn’t been another 9/11, thank God, but the Taliban are strong and Pakistan unable to cope with them. Russia, a superpower again. China, India. I’d love to think the US/UK will continue to dominate. Just dont see how
Pro personal freedom? How can you be pro-life and pro personal freedom? Gay marriage, yeah, there we go again, you dont like that either, gay people are not free to marry in your eyes. Or serve in the army. If you believe in personal freedom, leave gay people the hell alone.
I wonder if her daughter has been free to make her own mind up. I pray she has been.
Look at my post again, I agree she might surive the campaign and be a force in the future and may gain the necessary experience. I hope so. I even said I might like her. But come on, you think, you hope she represents you. Its guess work
Finally, let me leave you with this. You’ve had two terms. Before that you controlled congress, before that you had two terms and since President Trumen, there have only been three Democratic Presidents.
Now answer me this. Do you really think that things could be any worse right now?
You are hated internationally. For the first time, non-Americans no longer aspire to American culture.
The economny is shot. Even if your bailout works, $700bn still represents only 7% of your national debt. 7%!!! How much of this is owned by the Chinese?
Superpower - not anymore, you blew that play in Iraq. You cant take Iran, its going nuclear. So is North Korea. Neither worried about American milaitary intervention any more as you blew that play.
What’s left. Leaders of the free world? Are you finally getting the message that you can’t remould the world in your image. You hold free and fair elections and they chose Hamas. Need we remind you that Hitler himself was democratically elected.
Could things get any worse? What are you scared of with a Democractic leadership.
And before you think I am being disrespectful, remember this. We have bound ourselves to you. If you go down, so do we.
With all due respect, do you belive that good conservative policies have served America and the UK well?
then Governor Reagan asked of the people during the debate with President Carter…”are you better off than you were 4 years ago”
Are you better off today that you were under President Clinton? Is America?
Chris, though I would not sign every single line you wrote, I think this is a very good posting. It sums up a good part of how the US is seen outside the US.
Just let me add a few points, that further shapes the picture of the US as seen from outsiders.
- The US claim to be the frontrunner of democracy - in present times and historically. But then, with that great historical accomplishment in mind, what was that ting of Bush’s election in 2000 all about? Doubts about correct elections in 2004 are also not diminished.
- Foreigners just shake their head over candidates like Bush or Palin, who would not have even considered as poltical leaders in other western countries. This dangerous combination of incompetence and ignorance, which not only admits the lack of knowledge, but not even sees the need to acquire some.
- The symbol’s policies and cynism that is displayed by candidates like the mentioned and the Rovian 51%-strategy. And stunning enough it worked twice and they try it again.
- I know, in a way it is polemic, but still contains a grain of truth, after 9/11 the US did not know for three days who attacked them. So many were in the run. The arrogance of American foreign policies which just took its right to influence governments around the globe, support dictators of every kind, support Israel unquestioned etc. just ridicules the notion of freedom and democracy.
- The world was shocked and mourned when 2700 people where murdered in those towers on 9/11. How many people did the US kill in revenge? Is there any proportion of equality? The US army lost 4000 young men in Iraq and every single one has to be cryed for. But in turn, did anyone mention the number of killed Iraqis? Killed for pretty unclear reasons? They sum up to more than 100.000. No word about them in the all so biased liberal media.
- In any case on is disgusted by the aggressive attitude, the culture of military-dominance. When watching the conventions of both partys they again and again gave credit to their soldiers in Iraq. And of course they are all heros. Americans are always heros. No questions, what they did over there. No doubts about it. No mention of Abu Ghureib for instance. It’s just the overall attitude that the US may take what ever they want and that the Military has to be honored for it. Mc Cain is unquestioned honored for his “service” in Vietnam. So far I did nobody hear asking what the hell he was doing there. How many cicilians did he kill as a bomb-pilot in that war, which he served in obviously with out any reflection. And after 5 years in that rat hole he just started to love the US??? I think that story could be told (and applauded to) only in the US.
- The US take teir right to waste 25% of the energy ressources, even not signing Kyoto. And when it comes down that oil-prices go up they don’t even think about saving some but seek for new oportunities to drill.
- I think overall the most irritating point is, that they still have no doubts. Every politician still has to claim, how great this country is, how much he loves it, that it is no. one in the world and all that crap. Being unpatriotic is a poltical death-sentence. Still I’m waiting for some causes. I guess that arrogance and blindness will finally push them from the fringe.
The current attitude outside the US is worry about the economic crises in the first place. But there also sometimes some kind of malicious joy finds its way as well. I am not too sure, if I wanted Russia or China to be world leaders, but I do know that something with the current one goes desperrately wrong. I met a lot of Americans and I liked most of them on a personal level as I presumably would like most of the contributers on this blog, but I can’t see any form of moral authority any more in their politics.
Bill Clinton once claimed, the US always had to act as if they were
not no. one any more one day. They actually clearly fail to do so.
P.S.: Chris, just for the sake of historical accuracy, as a German of course I have to claim, that Hitler never had more than roughly a third of the votes in free elections. It was only a few years after his putsch, that he gained the support of the vast majority. Bad enough.
Wow. Look at the Anti-Americanism here. I’m not going to take the time to argue each of these points because they would fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately you are getting fed by the liberal left and America-hating press….it’s sad really.
I love my country, as I’m sure every contributor on this site does. Yes, we have our problems….and sadly we are more scrutinized than every other country combined. Many of these problems are 10, 20, even 30 years in the making (or more); so please, let’s not blame Mr Bush. I’m sure if we looked at any other nation across the globe, we would find corruption and dishonor infiltrated in all levels. Those of us who have an undying love for this particular land understand the principles for which it was fought and founded and are committed to keeping those principles in tact. Unfortunately these principles are lost to many who loathe us.
Just let me point out, that I am not an anti-Americanist as such or as a principle. I still have not forgotten, that your fathers and grandfathers helped us and brought sacrifice in our darkest hours.
But indeed there is quite a lot of points to critisize. And just believe me, my thoughts are not the ones of a mad individual, but shared by the vast majority outside the US.
I well can understand that you don’t bother the time for a more detailed reply. Anyway your cast of anti-americanism, America-hating-press, biased media are just killer-phrases, plain none-arguments, which prevents you from thinking about the points Chris and me listed. With the same right I could diminish your views as brainwashed, right-media- and church-biased arguments. These are non-starters.
The basic problem with the US is, that the decisions taken over there usually affect the rest of the world.
I didn’t necessarily think of you as anti-American; just this particular conversation.
I didn’t take the time to refute any of these ‘arguments’ because a) I lack the time (many things on my plate), and b) some of these assertions fit with the typical far left they’re almost insane. Sure, go ahead and call me brain-washed. I’m an independent thinker who reads a variety of sources…..then sorts through the muck to draw conclusions. Studies have actually been done proving the left-leaning bias that exists in the majority of the media today.
I find it irritating that so many outsiders think they understand this country so well. Granted some do; but the majority don’t. They don’t understand our Constitution nor how it works (or is supposed to work). They don’t know our history. And many have never stepped foot here. Don’t get me wrong, I think you have a very good grasp of our country.
One claim I would like to take the time to refute is the question: ‘do you belive that good conservative policies have served America and the UK well?’ First of all, if anyone thinks Bush is conservative they are fooling themselves. The same goes for the majority of those who have been in Congress the last 8 years (yes, including many Republicans). The problems with our country stem from the fact that we have gone too liberal. We need to get back to the Reagan-type politics that existed in the 80s.
I absolutely understand that our decisions affect the rest of the world. But our decisions affect us….those who actually live in this country. Perhaps if leaders in other countries actually stepped up and did the right thing, there wouldn’t be so many problems.
Kristen, thanks for your reply. I guess neither you nor I would have the time to write long essays. And I think, this is not the right formum to do so.
The basic point about our discussion as it appears to me is, that indeed we do not even discuss about the constitution or issues in that sense. Of course we could do so. For instance you could say markets should be free under any conditions, and I would say, no they should not. You could state, that gouvernment should not be engaged with caring about social issues, welfare, health care etc. And I would point out some reasons, why I believe it indeed should do. You could state, that there should be freedom of speech and I would answer “are you crazy, of course”. These kind of discussions are just fine with me. The thing is, we don’t even land at this point. There is to many layers around that, which outsiders indeed may critizise, the crude concept of patriotism, the aggressivenes, the not-caring about the world, the perversion of politics, the perversion of so called American values and much more. It is about, that calling one a world-citizen is an insult, beeing not religious is an obstacle to play a role in politics and that it is impossible to say that to kill 100.000 Iraqis with out a good reason is a crime. All this is far away of constitutional issues or ideology. And indeed it has nothing to do with biased media - outside the US they don’t even play a major role.
Kinda nice that AMERICANS are the only ones who get to vote for the AMERICAN president, aint it?
Though I wouldn’t mind it too much if the Aussies and the Israelis were allowed a voice - they seem to pick some pretty good leaders, too.