Palin's debating technique illustrated

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As an aside, I really cannot abide the left. Being a UK citizen, I watched useless left wing pieces of flesh, otherwise known as the Labour Party, run the country into the ground. That is enough to send anyone screaming to the right.

Labour in the 70's ran Britain into the ground. The Tories ran Britain into the ground in the late 80's - mid 90's. New Labour is running the country into the ground now - but they aren't the Trade Union party of the 70's (i.e. the leftists).

"New Labour" is center right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The debate was extremely superficial - it wasn't a "debate" at all in fact. Both Biden and Palin just trapped off pre-rehearsed talking points. A lot of the time they didn't even answer the questions asked in a direct way (though I noticed Biden was trying to work the question into his spiel - that made it obvious for me)

Palin came across as confident - but I wasn't impressed by what she said. The most glaring things for me were that she ignored the first two questions which were basically asking her about the Washington Establishment (which would logically be a spring board for talk of reform). McCain introduced her into his campaign as an outsider who would shake-up Washington. That being the case - why would she ignore a question which gives her a golden ticket to talk about that issue? That seemed odd.

Then she fluffed the foreign policy question about Darfur - laughing at Bidens answer and saying how "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate". What does that even mean? The question was about Darfur, but she leaps straight in slamming Biden for Iraq.

The Maverick thing was odd too. I'm often suspicious of people who self-advertise with grandiose labels - but surely a Maverick is something you demonstrate with... I dunno... maverick ideas? Just because you call yourself Maverick, doesn't make you one..

[Cassie 8]

The debate was extremely superficial - it wasn't a "debate" at all in fact. Both Biden and Palin just trapped off pre-rehearsed talking points. A lot of the time they didn't even answer the questions asked in a direct way (though I noticed Biden was trying to work the question into his spiel - that made it obvious for me)

Palin came across as confident - but I wasn't impressed by what she said. The most glaring things for me were that she ignored the first two questions which were basically asking her about the Washington Establishment (which would logically be a spring board for talk of reform). McCain introduced her into his campaign as an outsider who would shake-up Washington. That being the case - why would she ignore a question which gives her a golden ticket to talk about that issue? That seemed odd.

Then she fluffed the foreign policy question about Darfur - laughing at Bidens answer and saying how "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate". What does that even mean? The question was about Darfur, but she leaps straight in slamming Biden for Iraq.

The Maverick thing was odd too. I'm often suspicious of people who self-advertise with grandiose labels - but surely a Maverick is something you demonstrate with... I dunno... maverick ideas? Just because you call yourself Maverick, doesn't make you one..

To me, the real proof is one actually reads the debate transcripts. Biden's answers, for the most part, actually are complete sentences and make sense. As for Palin's? Well, um, yeah.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

and because you say it, it is so?

one could say the same about obama supporters.

It's so.

And maybe Obama supporters are, but they're not really arguing with me either.

this is a golden moment - nothing like watching you slam people with venomous rhetoric. i'm sure you have zero credentials to make that broad brush assessment. you really need to find a therapist.

I get slammed for voting third party and criticizing anyone who needs to be, so it's a game of equal proportions -- give and take. I'm not on your side or Democrats side, I'm on my side.

your statement above might have meaning if you put biden supporters on the same level playing field as palin supporters

[HAL 9000 96]

The debate was extremely superficial - it wasn't a "debate" at all in fact. Both Biden and Palin just trapped off pre-rehearsed talking points. A lot of the time they didn't even answer the questions asked in a direct way (though I noticed Biden was trying to work the question into his spiel - that made it obvious for me)

Palin came across as confident - but I wasn't impressed by what she said. The most glaring things for me were that she ignored the first two questions which were basically asking her about the Washington Establishment (which would logically be a spring board for talk of reform). McCain introduced her into his campaign as an outsider who would shake-up Washington. That being the case - why would she ignore a question which gives her a golden ticket to talk about that issue? That seemed odd.

Then she fluffed the foreign policy question about Darfur - laughing at Bidens answer and saying how "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate". What does that even mean? The question was about Darfur, but she leaps straight in slamming Biden for Iraq.

The Maverick thing was odd too. I'm often suspicious of people who self-advertise with grandiose labels - but surely a Maverick is something you demonstrate with... I dunno... maverick ideas? Just because you call yourself Maverick, doesn't make you one..

To me, the real proof is one actually reads the debate transcripts. Biden's answers, for the most part, actually are complete sentences and make sense. As for Palin's? Well, um, yeah.

Perhaps posting the transcripts would help those 'on the fence' with intact reading comp skills the ability to dissociate facial expressions and gimmicky remarks canned for reproduction from the actual messages stated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The debate was extremely superficial - it wasn't a "debate" at all in fact. Both Biden and Palin just trapped off pre-rehearsed talking points. A lot of the time they didn't even answer the questions asked in a direct way (though I noticed Biden was trying to work the question into his spiel - that made it obvious for me)

Palin came across as confident - but I wasn't impressed by what she said. The most glaring things for me were that she ignored the first two questions which were basically asking her about the Washington Establishment (which would logically be a spring board for talk of reform). McCain introduced her into his campaign as an outsider who would shake-up Washington. That being the case - why would she ignore a question which gives her a golden ticket to talk about that issue? That seemed odd.

Then she fluffed the foreign policy question about Darfur - laughing at Bidens answer and saying how "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate". What does that even mean? The question was about Darfur, but she leaps straight in slamming Biden for Iraq.

The Maverick thing was odd too. I'm often suspicious of people who self-advertise with grandiose labels - but surely a Maverick is something you demonstrate with... I dunno... maverick ideas? Just because you call yourself Maverick, doesn't make you one..

To me, the real proof is one actually reads the debate transcripts. Biden's answers, for the most part, actually are complete sentences and make sense. As for Palin's? Well, um, yeah.

Well what gets my goat is that it wasn't really a debate - they basically just memorized a bunch of general campaign talking points and rattled them off almost verbatim. Biden had the edge of being more familiar with facts and figures - but not much more than that. They didn't really "engage" as it were.

As I say - I think if people were really enthused by the potential of Sarah Palin that performance (outside of her confident manner) should be quite disappointing (esp. the way she didn't take the hook to talk about Washington Reform).

[IAMX 3,055]

and because you say it, it is so?

one could say the same about obama supporters.

It's so.

And maybe Obama supporters are, but they're not really arguing with me either.

this is a golden moment - nothing like watching you slam people with venomous rhetoric. i'm sure you have zero credentials to make that broad brush assessment. you really need to find a therapist.

I get slammed for voting third party and criticizing anyone who needs to be, so it's a game of equal proportions -- give and take. I'm not on your side or Democrats side, I'm on my side.

your statement above might have meaning if you put biden supporters on the same level playing field as palin supporters

I don't really have much to say about Biden. He's a pretty consistent hack and not very interesting to criticize because not many are praising him, so he's not as contentious on things that would strike a divide between Democrat or Republican. He's pretty strongly pro-war, I'd say is sort of idealistic to Dianne Feinstein, and I have no idea why she's even a Democrat, and why she gets re-elected. She's strongly give-up-your-rights-in-exchange-for-security, plus her and her husband have interests in "defense", i.e. the things that are used to bomb and kill others. Biden is relatively the same way.

These are amongst the Democrats who get voted in what people call "liberal" areas because they check off the "Democrat" ticket without much care, just like Republicans.

Edited October 5, 2008 by SRVT

[britty 1]

As an aside, I really cannot abide the left. Being a UK citizen, I watched useless left wing pieces of flesh, otherwise known as the Labour Party, run the country into the ground. That is enough to send anyone screaming to the right.

Labour in the 70's ran Britain into the ground. The Tories ran Britain into the ground in the late 80's - mid 90's. New Labour is running the country into the ground now - but they aren't the Trade Union party of the 70's (i.e. the leftists).

"New Labour" is center right.

Oh come on Mr Magic Man, do you actually believe that "New Labour" are leaning toward the right? Oh on a separate point, how do you think UK elections will pan out this time around? (just curious).

[rebeccajo 14]

Well what gets my goat is that it wasn't really a debate - they basically just memorized a bunch of general campaign talking points and rattled them off almost verbatim. Biden had the edge of being more familiar with facts and figures - but not much more than that. They didn't really "engage" as it were.

As I say - I think if people were really enthused by the potential of Sarah Palin that performance (outside of her confident manner) should be quite disappointing (esp. the way she didn't take the hook to talk about Washington Reform).

Everytime Ifill tried to get any sort of a debate going, Palin would ask if she could 'go back' to a different topic.

It would have been nice if the moderator had been given the power to make the participants stay on point. But we all know this 'debate' had its own special rules.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As an aside, I really cannot abide the left. Being a UK citizen, I watched useless left wing pieces of flesh, otherwise known as the Labour Party, run the country into the ground. That is enough to send anyone screaming to the right.

Labour in the 70's ran Britain into the ground. The Tories ran Britain into the ground in the late 80's - mid 90's. New Labour is running the country into the ground now - but they aren't the Trade Union party of the 70's (i.e. the leftists).

"New Labour" is center right.

Oh come on Mr Magic Man, do you actually believe that "New Labour" are leaning toward the right? Oh on a separate point, how do you think UK elections will pan out this time around? (just curious).

Well they are... When Tony Blair reorganized the party he severed the links with the old trade unions that used to dictate Labour's agenda. New Labour basically took the political ground that the Conservatives used to occupy (minus the in-fighting over Europe and the ineffectual leadership after Thatcher was deposed). Gordon Brown is left-wing of course.

Labour will win again - unless the Tories have found a way to appeal to the mainstream. They've had some downright ridiculous leaders over the past few years - William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. Does David Cameron appear credible? I have to say I was a bit suspicious after he tried to redefine the party with an ecological agenda.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think it's great that you libs continually make pointless fun of Sarah Palin. It illustrates how you feel the need to divert us from Barry's frailities and follies, and Joe's gaffes and lies. It's clear you fear her, or tearing her down wouldn't be so important to you.

I'm also glad I'm not one of you. You are easily amused, look very silly, and are consistantly immature in how you express your political views.

With that picture in your signature? I'm glad someone takes these things so seriously

Just playing to the Obama crowd, Paul. As this thread "illustrates", his supporters appreciate simplistic cartoons, and it's easy to see why.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for one it WAS a joke thread. For another - it isn't exactly inaccurate either.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well for one it WAS a joke thread. For another - it isn't exactly inaccurate either.

Neither is my siggy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for one it WAS a joke thread. For another - it isn't exactly inaccurate either.

Neither is my siggy.

Just not as incisive.

Anyone can call someone dumb. More difficult to explain in context of the person's character

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well for one it WAS a joke thread. For another - it isn't exactly inaccurate either.

Neither is my siggy.

Just not as incisive.

Anyone can call someone dumb. More difficult to explain in context of the person's character

What was incisive about the OP? What context did it give to character? You must be joking, but not as incisively.