Sorry, kids, but I'm not lumping my post into the vitriolic spewing that is currently going on. Honestly, take the words "Biden" and "Palin" and substitute with "Rockets" and "Jazz." But there is no left bias here... My thoughts? Palin did OK. She looked and sounded the part. Something she should've been taught before going on the meet and greet interview with Couric. IMO, I thought Biden and Palin came out even. And most of my friends agreed with that assessment tonight. However, I've never seen Biden come across as that likable and affable. I can honestly say that were it a Biden/Obama ticket, I could be swayed. Regardless, tonight's debate wasn't nearly as damaging to Palin as y'all expected, but IMO, this election is Obama's to lose. The debates between the two will decide it, and as I can tell, McCain is going to be down by a touchdown or two in both. That said, I know this is a Rox FAN based board. But please keep the "OWNED" etc. in check. It happened to neither tonight, and anyone with a brain knows it.
Why exactly would a set of different biases need a thread separate from other biases? So this is the 'right bias' conversation?
Why? The right wing bias is alive and well, too. (well, maybe not doing too well lately, but still). You guys here in D&D are nuts.
Fatty, as a conservative please explain how you and your friends found it acceptable for Palin to completely and openly avoid questions put to her by the moderator and Biden, while only talking about specific issues that she was comfortable?
By the way, a preponderance of liberal posters on the forum does not indicate a "liberal bias." Charges of bias would be valid if moderators went around banning right-wingers, but as the continued presence of basso and the texx brothers indicates, that's certainly not the case. It's not "liberal bias" to get called out on rehashed talking points.
I have liberal tendencies but I will say that Palin came out even tonight. If there's one thing I remember from debate in highschool it's that facts, figures and logic doesn't matter to most "lay" people. Sounding good is the most important part. Facts help you sound confident which helps you sound good, but Palin balanced that out by sounding down right connectable. As far as her breaking the "rules" of the debate by not answering the questions, 90% of the voting public wont care about that. People (not just in this country) are easily swung and led by the nose. Politicians use tatctics to get elected. Bailout is not getting public's support because of the same kind of tactics. Most people think/vote with their hearts instead of their minds. Not always a bad thing because the progression this country has made socially is remarkable. But it does have its downsides.
The only reason people believe Palin did alright tonight is because the expectations were so ridiculously low. Also, if you're only listening to her answers, she did almost okay...but personally I prefer it when somebody actually addresses the questions!
What is this nonsense about only the right having talking points? The assault on Palin has been nothing but an incarnation of someone's talking points.... That being said, I have to agree with Fatty somewhat. I think Palin did better than most of you expected. She did tend to talk about what she wanted to talk about (energy and taxes especially) rather than answer some of the questions. She came across as much more poised and confident than most of us expected. She could get better and she will. These "debates" would be much better if they did not allow them to rebut... just answer the questions. They spend so much time correcting the other side's assertions that they whole thing doesn't move forward very well. I'm so sick of the accusations that so-and-so voted not to fund the troops when in fact they voted "no" because of some tacked-on detail. I know it is an easy way to score points but it cheapens the whole process. I think the first five seconds of the "debate" were very telling; Palin says "It's nice to meet you Senator Biden. Is it okay if I call you Joe?" Obama was saying stuff like that a couple of years ago... and he's the Dem running for the top office while she's only the VP candidate.
I think the debate was a B for Biden and a B+ for Palin. That said, Biden did not come off as an attack dog, and did not really talk down to Palin... And Palin did far better than most (in here) expected or give her credit for. The liberal side in here is a bit self absorbed... I'll agree. Dick Morris (a known Democrat) gave the victory to Palin... then Colmes (a known Democrat) attacked him with talking points... Dick Morris then quickly replied that he gave the first debate to Obama, and said "anyone with a brain" knows Palin won this round... then he added that Colmes "clearly" did not have one. When known life long moderate Dems are attacked by people to their left, you know that objectivity is out the window. It's the same idiocy that labels people like Lieberman a "traitor" or a "turncoat." We all know those labels are reserved for John F Kerry. I see the same thing here every day. "Moderates" go left, lefties go even more left... and the issue all becomes ridiculously distorted. Any hint of objectivity from either side is ignored or dismissed as "stupid" or some other demeaning adjective. It makes being here less about Debate & Discussion and more about Demeaning & Domination. It's uncool. No bueno y estupido.
I would say he has helped Dems more over time, thus he is more known as a Dem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris
are you kidding me? the wiki entry you just cited has a reference to a book Morris wrote entitled "Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want To Kill Talk Radio, The Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, And Washington Lobbyists For Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us...And What To Do About It" and he's "more known as a Dem" ?
I'll stand by that. Are you saying Bill Clinton was a Republican? As Governor? As POTUS? I suppose any Dem like Lieberman is a Republican to you too then... am I right?
What? I'm not even sure what you're saying. Lieberman is a Democrat because he's a registered Democrat. Morris would be a "known Democrat" because people know him as being a Democrat. I don't think people know him as a Democrat. They know him as a political consultant that has worked with many different politicians, the most famous of which happened to be Bill Clinton. Additionally, they also know him as a guy who has been extremely critical and harsh of the Clintons in recent years. To that point, he is often found on conservative leaning media outlets, such as Fox News, in which he seems to be more supportive of the GOP candidates in this election. The very wiki article you cited references Dick Morris as "America's most ruthless political consultant." You don't think there's a possibility that Morris worked for Clinton because it was a chance to gain personal power? Do you really think that Morris ideologically identifies himself as a Democrat? Do you honestly think people look at Dick Morris and say "now there's a Democrat"? If anything, they might identify him as a man who worked for Bill Clinton and helped him target traditionally republican voters.
