Biden vs. Palin VP Debate, Contest of Contests Options

[Hellfighter]

Damnnnnn

Ok, Robert - I love to hate to say this about you,
but you did it again - another prophetic call on your part. She did very well.

Who was THIS Palin?

Steady as a rock she was.....
From the War in Iraq session on she was visibly looking to go at it no holds barred with Biden.
Kudos to Palin's prep team.
A couple of slip ups on her part on foreign policy and a couple of domestic issues but she was very poised and solid. Mission accomplished for her in my opinion.

Biden was 'Johnny on the spot' to edge out Palin utilizing the full extent of his experience. I'm not sure Hillary could've topped her. Palin even threw Biden off his game visibly at one point regarding counterattacking Biden's point about the US general in Afghanistan saying the Surge wasn't applicable there.
It looked like he got an uppercut out of nowhere as he recolied for 2 seconds and looked down thinking; 'what the hell did she just do to me!'.
One thing I was fearing was she'd blow it so badly she'd be traumatized by it all her life. I think she can now go back to her room and woot woot all night and do victory somersaults on her bed - she can be proud she didn't fail those who counted on her tonight.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 10/02/08 9:47pm

[Robert]

Copied from my post in the palin thread
-----------------------------------------------


The debate is only 75% over. Based on just the VP an P debates, I've been more impressed with Biden/Palin than McCain/Obama.
Both of them tonight have done a much better job than the last guys. I also think the MOD did a much better job. The only thing that pisses me off is the MOD let both of them refuse to directly answer how the financial crisis would effect their tax an spending plans.
Both of them bypassed the question, same as McCain an Obama did last week.
Out of all the questions in the debate, to me this is the most important one an neither party has been up front or honest with the answer.
I'm sure the Obama fans will have their own complains, the one which stands out for me is Biden making the false McCain gave tax breaks to big oil. This has nothing to do with Big Oil it's actually based on general reduction in corp taxes, which is something I believe in. Obama/Biden call it a oil tax cut because it's a hot-button keyword. I think it's pretty bad Biden fell back on this same point when all the fact check stories called it wrong or misleading when Obama did the same thing last time. Just as misleading as throwing out the gross income of Oil companies in stead if net profits, which would me the more honest number to focus on.

I wish fox would have had the real time audience indicator like the last debate, I found watching it during the answers very enlightening.

For the Obama fans, even though we have major disagreements, I'm very curious to hear how you think Palin did. Also would you agree they both did better than the other guys last week?

[Robert]

More in direct response to Hell's post.
I was fairly confident in how she would do after watching all of her Alaskan debates.
In every prior debate she was the obvious old man out because she was not only arguing against the Democrat candidate but also the incumbent Republican. In a few of the governor debates they finished with clear personal attack on her, which she successfully turned into her favor each time.

I was actually impressed with biden, he did much better tonight than the previous Democrat debates.
Of course with the current lead Obama has, I don't think it matters how well Biden did. Palin was the only one under the gun tonight. Just like at the RNC, she delivered when needed. I still believe if McCain/Palin lose, you will she Palin become a player in the Party.

[Hellfighter]

..............
For the Obama fans, even though we have major disagreements, I'm very curious to hear how you think Palin did. Also would you agree they both did better than the other guys last week?

Biden didn't screw up - he was calm and brief to the point. He edged a win in my view in the fact that he had more substansive answers in the areas Palin was not as strong in.

Palin was like in the clips I saw of her in the Keith Olbermann show moments before the debate which showed her as crisp and to the point.
She never faltered and wasn't playing defensive - she barraduca'd the whole way -all 90 minutes.
As I said above she got the only real stunner of the night - small one; where she counter argued Biden's surge reference as he said was stated by a commander in Afghanistan.
She still didn't get into specifics of the questions posed to her but she tactfully ducked into related issues- but this time she did it without looking to Bs-y. With what she needed to do to avoid the worst case scenario of being destroyed and ending the campaign, she succeeded - if she can learn how to get into specifics instead of all the time saying 'how things will change' by stating 'what exactly will change' - and if she learns more about the mechanics of how Washignto works, she'll pick up some swing voters.... in fact it looks like McCain is now the deadweight in his campaign.

McCain's initial 'spoken' fear about the debate hostess -was a total flop.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 10/02/08 10:00pm

[Robert]

.in fact it looks like McCain is now the deadweight in his campaign.

I know a few people are going to roll their eyes at this because
She's inexperienced.
She's this or that.

But I would be just as happy voting if she was on top of the ticket.

[Hellfighter]

.in fact it looks like McCain is now the deadweight in his campaign.

I know a few people are going to roll their eyes at this because
She's inexperienced.
She's this or that.

But I would be just as happy voting if she was on top of the ticket.

I was always curious why Romney dropped out of the race so suddenly - in doing that he took the wind out of the sails of the real Conservatives imo..... Him and Palin would be quite the team -or perhaps they'd be at each others throats.

Palin's problem is learning how to spew out facts like Biden has a talent to do.
In fact she NEEDS to start really learning them.
One blatant inaccuracy she made was regarding the war in Afghanistan and her saying that the civilan casualties due to erroneous American air attacks was "a lie". In fact these misdirected attacks are very much shaking up the alliance between the Afghans and the Coalition force there in a major way. The only problem in Afghanistan is not sealing the porous border line with Pakistan - Biden should have stressed that rather than vaguely say more troops was the answer.
This is one weakness Obama/Biden have in not giving strategical details regarding Iraq/Afghanistan issues which would trump McCain merely saying endlessly he knows how to win wars when in fact he has no bearing at all in the decision making of the general's strategies. He 'only' supported the surge's continuation at its slumping stage more vigorously than anyone else. Palin did make that distinction in the debate - being careful to say Obama did not support funding for the troops in Iraq while many other Dems DID -even though it was unpopular with the Dem voters/supporters.
It's a bit funny to see on TV now some Dem pundits/Obama campaignists visibly upset Palin did not curl up and die in the debate. Of course they make valid points about Palin being evasive and she did make 'details' errors, but they kind of looked stunned at the moment with her face-saving performance




This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 10/02/08 10:46pm

[Robert]

Don't get me wrong, out of the people who ran I think McCain was by far the best pick. The others would have played better to the far right then McCain but that's not what's going to win an it's not best for America.
For overall good person, I would pick Huck without a second though but not the same for his policies.
The Opposite could be said about the 2004 election, While I didn't agree with a lot of Wesley Clark policies. I believed overall he could have been a good leader an would have voted for him if he won the 2004 nomination.
Unfortunately it came down to Bush/kerry an everybody lost.

I'm 100% with you on the poor handling of complains about the MOD. Although in all fairness, I would have expected the other side to do much the same thing if the situation had been reversed.
It still really pisses me of that both MOD let the candidates tap dance around question without really answering how the current financial crisis effects their tax/spending platform.
I can only hope Tom Brokaw makes these people answer the question.

[HammaTime]

Wow, you guys missed a lot of significant errors.

She got the commander's name in Afghanistan wrong and she got his response to an Iraq-type surge wrong, the reason Biden was looking down during that exchange was he couldn't believe what she was saying. “The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ’surge,’ ” General McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan said yesterday.

The surge in Iraq was a battle tactic. It was effective as it was timed with the Anbar Awakening. McKiernan was clear that Afghanistan can use more troops (a deployment, not a tactic) but a "surge" would not work with the tribal system in that country.

As a middle of the roader, I was unmoved by her performance, and I certainly do not share your enthusiasm, Robert, that she is someone who should ever be near the Oval office.

Moments after the debate, Senator Kit Bond, although praising her performance, clearly stated that she was dead wrong if she thought the vice's powers could be expanded over the Senate. The only power in that body is the ability to settle a tie vote.

I predict, this issue will get a fair amount of play.

She apparently did no real harm, but I found her "folksy charm" to be downright grating by the end of the debate. Her lack of a passionate response to Biden's emotional reference to the tragedy that befell her family spoke volumes about her lack of ability to think on her feet.

Biden was slow out of the blocks, but overall incredibly solid. They both exceeded expectations.

So, we have a debate that may have given some energy to people like Robert, but it did nothing for independents. You can't win in states like Michigan if you can't pull in more Independents. Interesting to see the McCain campaign is giving up on Michigan. One would think they would have waited until after the debate.

If I was a McCain supporter, the move from Michigan would really trouble me. They must have internal polling that looks a lot worse than what we are seeing publicly. If this extends to other toss-up states, I'd say McCain is in dire need of some more stunts.

[Hellfighter]

Wow, you guys missed a lot of significant errors.
........................

The surge in Iraq was a battle tactic. It was effective as it was timed with the Anbar Awakening. McKiernan was clear that Afghanistan can use more troops (a deployment, not a tactic) but a "surge" would not work with the tribal system in that country.

......................
Biden was slow out of the blocks, but overall incredibly solid. They both exceeded expectations.
......................

As I mentioned I noted she did make quite a few errors...........
Who they are significant for were not what counted during the debate itself since Palin never visibly tripped herself up which is what most people were expecting to see.
Of course, the 'after action reports' in the media/ analyzers will pick out those significant errors which were a few as you noted.
So in terms of a rock-steady looking Palin she needed to show herself as, that's what counted in the eyes of the masses who judged her 'performance'.

About the Afghan 'surge' episode in the debate, Biden clearly had a moment of self doubt when Palin counter attacked him on his emphatic point- I'm not saying she was right in her guest-imation, but Biden went visibly withdrawn as if he feared he got something wrong in the point..... have a look at it again.

Regarding the Iraqi Surge it was a Strategical operation. It should've failed like the others before it -and indeed it was expected to end in July/August 2007 and judged if it should be funded to contnue from then according to benchmarks being met running alongside Iraqi government coalition formations primarily. These goals were not fully successful in being met- yet despite that the Dem powers that be decided to continue funding for it.
The Awakening Councils movement was in fact started in Nov.2005 -well before the start of the latest Surge -which began in March 2007 if I remember correctly. The Surge got it's final gasp of successful breath in conjunction with the growing successful activities of the Awakening Councils. McCain to his discredit fails to mention their factor into the equation about why the Surge strategy really succeeded - much like some Brit.nationalists say only the British won the battle of Waterloo -ie, 24,000 men out of the rest of the allied army of Wellington and the Prussian army that accounted for the rest of the 90,000 men in total that beat Napoleon -> The number of members in the now largely/recently disbanded Awakening Councils was 54,000 - these Sunnis now feel a bit ripped off that the Iraqi Security forces have moved into Anbar now to replace their former US allies! Time does strange things.....

Biden was very good- if he'd gone over the top on attack and Palin held out, she would've been seen as the victor of sorts , imo.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 10/03/08 7:46am

[Genocide Junkie]

I personally thought she was terrible. And I really wanted her to do well. She flat out refused to answer 75% of the questions and kept going back to the energy crisis and being mayor of Podunk AK... it also amazes me how they don't even bother to listen to the questions. Yet alone answer them. Like when the moderator asked something to the effect of "under what conditions would you say use of nuclear weapons would be justified" that's not how it was said but that's what they were asking... Well I think that the surge in Iraq would work great in Afgan... or I want to go back to the energy crisis... well we didn't ask you about the energy crisis.. it would be nice if the mod actually held them to task on something.... both kept falling back to blah blah blah blah I was a senator/gov/soccer mom... at least they were more respectful than Obama who wouldn't let McCain answer a question without trying to butt in... I vote for none of the above....

[Hellfighter]

....it would be nice if the mod actually held them to task on something.... both kept falling back to blah blah blah blah I was a senator/gov/soccer mom... at least they were more respectful than Obama who wouldn't let McCain answer a question without trying to butt in...

From my standpoint I liked the flow of the last 2 debates since it showed more than anything the characters of the candidates. They weren't tough catfighting debates, and the mods didn't preside as 'steering' referees to entice a slogfest - I guess we'll see more of that in the upcoming debates.
What I saw was McCain staying cool; Obama showing assertiveness, Biden avoiding being over-the-top, Palin looking poised.

It seems easy enough to think the debaters were just talking at each other and sometimes showing weakness in areas through evasion of an issue, but these were all aspects of a bigger scheme going on. Each of these candidates were thoroughly prepped before the debates. They had their weaknesses analyzed and their strengths by their campaigns - strategies on what to say and not to say were very carefully assessed.
The candidates knew the tactics they needed to follow to avoid their pitfulls and avoid being crucified by prepared counters of their opponents.... remember Dan Quayle getting slaughtered in his VP debate after comparing himself to JFK - his campaign warned him to NEVER bring that up -and he paid the price for it.

From what I could see about the strategy of each debater;
McCain - Don't get mad as Obama will be constantly trying to make you. Make Obama seem insignificant by not looking at him.
Obama - Keep trying to throw off McCain -interrupt him when he makes his claims. Get McCain mad and unstable looking by interruptions and constantly comparing him to Bush.
Biden - appear like a gentleman and keep to prepped short answers on expected issues brought up.
Palin - Hammer Obama to keep Biden on the defensive in protecting him - Kill / eat-up time by inserting personal likeable mom phrases. To avoid answering questions which can lead to trouble, confidently use prepped related non-answer answers /or counter attacks on Obama. Essntially she was working the debate to keep less time off her regarding her weaknesses in ignorance of specifics being exploited.

I think the campaign prep staff for Obama and Palin succeeded in their strategies in debates they were expected to both be bashed in was very well planned -best defence is a well orchestrated offence to avoid getting exploited by more experienced opponents. I'm not saying it was a case of winners/losers from my point of view, but those supporters of Obama and Palin breathed easily that their candidates held their own.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 10/03/08 10:32am

[HammaTime]

I like the fact that we all have great impressions of the debate and the race!

Seriously, the vast number of Americans are really detached to all of this. I really enjoy hearing all the diverse opinions here and it is always enjoyable to hear what you guys take away from these events.

Obviously, we all have a vested interest in finding politicians who can represent us properly on the world stage, as well as here at home.

I thought Biden missed a terrific opportunity when asked how he would react if he had to replace Obama as president. The answer I would have liked to hear is how, in a time of extreme national crisis, he would also have looked to reassure other nations that America would "stay the course."

I hate to always be bashing Palin here, but I just can't see the world being reassured by Palin once McCain bites the dust. I read something the other day regarding the late stages of McCain's skin cancer. A cancer surgeon was basically saying that he could have a very, very short time to live. He was actually implying that McCain wouldn't live out his term as President. Of course, we can't know for sure as the campaign hasn't let the press have unfettered access to his medical records, but that is another issue.

[Robert]

I hate to always be bashing Palin here, but I just can't see the world being reassured by Palin once McCain bites the dust. I read something the other day regarding the late stages of McCain's skin cancer. A cancer surgeon was basically saying that he could have a very, very short time to live. He was actually implying that McCain wouldn't live out his term as President. Of course, we can't know for sure as the campaign hasn't let the press have unfettered access to his medical records, but that is another issue.

If that story was even remotely true, MSNBC would be running it as their lead story every night for the next 30 days. Even MSNBC finally had to break down an quit running running a bogus ad saying something like that which the other stations wouldn't even touch.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ad
A ad put out by none other than the brother of the head of the Democrat party.
A few facts about skin cancer since the Democrats are so desperate to make in an issue.
Less than 10% chance of cancer coming back
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=90781894
The reason his cancer is considered the worse is because it is more likely to go untreated an unnoticed.
He goes to a specialist every 3 months to get checked. So I think it's unlikely there will be a recurrence which isn't caught early. It's been over 5 years since the last case of skin cancer. 5 years is important because it's commonly the point when someone is considered cured.
But just for you, lets go worse case scenario an say he gets re-diagnosed with skin cancer on Nov 5th.
Do you know what the 5 year survival rate of localized melanoma is? Which is what he had.
99%
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/PRO/SkinCancer.pdf
So lets review...
It's been over 5 years since his last case of skin cancer which when means he's considered cured from that instance.
Doctors think there is only a 10% chance of a new case of skin cancer. If that 1 in 10 chance does happen, he's got a 99% chance of surviving for 5 years.
If you add the 2 together, he's got a .1% chance of dying from skin cancer while in office.
Of all the legitimate thing someone could attack McCain over, this would have to be the dumbest an most desperate.

[HammaTime]

A few facts about skin cancer since the Democrats are so desperate to make in an issue.
Less than 10% chance of cancer coming back

And yet, McCain's melanoma cancer has come back THREE times!

According to reporting done by the Associated Press, he has only a ONE in FOUR chance of completing his second term in office!

More troubling is a report in the New York Times which quoted pathologists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. They actually examined the melanoma specimen removed from McCain's temple in 2000 and suggested that McCain's doctors had not fully reported the extent of the cancer.

This was no left wing attack machine, this was a report from two respected cancer specialists:

Two pathologists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the melanoma specimen from Mr. McCain's left temple in 2000 suggested that there were two melanomas on his temple, not one, as his doctors had said publicly at the time. Specifically, the Armed Forces Institute pathology report said that details about the lesion were ''highly suggestive of a metastasis of malignant melanoma and may represent a satellite metastasis,'' with satellite meaning one melanoma had spread to create another.

The Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale said it ''cannot comment'' on another institution's medical opinion, and stood by its diagnosis and treatment of Mr. McCain's melanoma. Mr. McCain's melanoma is classified as Stage IIA, his campaign has said.

But two experts in the field who reviewed the pathology report released on Friday said it was unclear whether the melanoma on Mr. McCain's temple had metastasized from another, or whether there was one new primary melanoma.

If the spread was through the nearby melanoma, that could suggest a greater risk, said Dr. Lynn M. Schuchter, a melanoma expert at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, director of the Melanoma Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

- edited to add link to NYTimes article that cites the Armed Forces Institute's study of his melanoma.

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 10/03/08 3:09pm

[Robert]

You misread my post.
After 5 years, he's considered cured from that instance of cancer. That doesn't mean he can't have a new occurrence, which is possible with his type of skin cancer. As I already said, Doctors give him a 10% chance of having a new occurrence. If he does, it would likely be the same type which has a 5 year survival rate of 99%. So over all, he has a .1% chance of dying from skin cancer during his 1st term.
If you think my math is wrong, feel free to correct me.

Your 1st post was specially about skin cancer which I proved to be completely unfounded.
Your reply then goes into he's likely to die during a second term but that has zero to do with his skin cancer. It's strictly based on normal mortally rates. That 1/4 chance is strickly based on age. From the same article when you factor in his present health
"The firm estimates that McCain has a health expectancy of 8.4 years, while Obama can expect another 21.9 years of good health. The calculations are from January 2009, covering two terms in office for either candidate"
He hasn't been elected to his 1st term but you're already busy worrying about the small chance he would die before finishing his 2nd term.
Did you notice the differecne in expected life span?
McCain 80
Obama 69

This whole idea that Palin being a heartbeat way from the presidency was never based in fact, it was always a fear tactic. Which is why most articles only go into enough detail to claim "He a multi-time cancer survivor" while purposefully steering clear of what exactly that means an the likely-hood it would cause him to die during his term as president. Why? because it a .1% chance.
Which do you think sounds worse
"He a multi-time cancer survivor"
"Only a .1% his previous bouts with skin cancer will result in him dying before finishing his term as president"


I can't reply to your AFIP link because it only points to the site not any specific page.