Politico: Biden Won by any ‘Objective Measures’
[Guest post by DRJ]
Politico claims Biden clearly beat Palin in last night’s debate:
“… [I]t is hard to count any objective measures by which Biden did not clearly win the encounter. She looked like she was trying to get people to take her seriously. He looked like he was running for vice president. His answers were more responsive to the questions, far more detailed and less rhetorical.”
Biden especially won if you include a category for gaffes, misstatements and lies.
— DRJ
This is why Politico has lost me. I unsubscribed a couple of weeks ago. They are just as in-the-tank for BHO as the rest of the MSM.
Mike K (155601) — 10/3/2008 @ 3:53 pmApparently Politico feels the need to keep up with MSNBC …
JD (f7900a) — 10/3/2008 @ 3:57 pmWhoever said “perception is everything” was on to something. The perception is that Palin won. Look at the faces of the press last night. It told the whole story.
Jenny (a7a9b9) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:02 pm“She looked like she was trying to get people to take her seriously. He looked like…”
So it has now come to this trenchant and insightful analysis from our media potentates – facts don’t matter, only what they “looked” like. Wonderful.
Dmac (e639cc) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:07 pmThe press knew she won by a knockout and even PUMA member Hillary agrees. They’ll spend the next week making up excuses, aka lies, to cover for their boy Hussein. Considering all the Nazi tactics used by Hussein the press had better hope he doesn’t win. If he wins the press becomes copy boys and girls. Everything they say will come from the Hussein regime.
Scrapiron (c7a298) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:09 pmPolitico just lost any and all claim to credibility, by any objective measure.
Ropelight (1be620) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:15 pmGotta give Biden some credit for his constitutional analysis, though. The Constitution really does have an Article I, and Article I really does mention Vice Presidents.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:20 pmXrlq – Coming from the smartest man in any room, that one left me scratching my head.
JD (f7900a) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:25 pm“Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Biden almost had me choked up there at the end.
Laughing, of course.
Mike K (155601) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:42 pmActually, I thought that the Democrats’ own “Palin is an idiot; Palin is a snake-handler” meme pretty much blew up in their faces last night; if “expectations were low,” it’s because the Democrats were the ones who lowered them. Really, all she had to do was show up and not drool all over herself and she won.
But, to me, the debates are really a useless indicator of how good a president someone would be. In our form of campaign debates, we put the candidates out there, without notes, to see who can marshall the most facts in a setting with time for preparation but no on-stage help, and try to get in the one-line zinger that defeats his opponent, while avoiding such a fate himself.
And that’s the exact opposite of how we expect presidents to operate.
Our presidents take decisions, after long, careful consideration, with a bevy of aides and advisors available to present all of the information he wishes, answer any questions he may have, and help him phrase his decision to avoid the pratfall in explaining his decisions to the American people and to the Congress. Being a good debater does not mean that someone will make a good president, and being a good president does not mean that someone would make a particularly skilled debater.
The bast book I’ve ever read on presidential decision-taking was Robert Kennedy’s Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn’t a scholarly publication, going through all of the publications, but a memoir by a close participant, concerning how President John Kennedy came to his decision on what action to take — if any — during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy was presented with a variety of options, and the one chosen, blockade, wasn’t one of the initial ones considered. Had President Kennedy been required to take his decision in a debate format — this is what I will do, and have to answer it immediately, in less than two minutes, with no advisers to pose counter-arguments or present information — the option chosen would almost certainly not have been the one derived after careful consideration, and the plan that actually worked.
Some Dana, somewhere (556f76) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:43 pmPolitico: Biden Won by any ‘Objective Measures’
If the contest was Biggest Teeth, Biden won by any objective measure.
If the contest was Most Boneheaded Gaffes, Biden won by any objective measure.
If the contest was Most Brazen Lies, Biden won by any objective measure.
If the contest was Best Fake Tan and Hairpiece, Biden won by any objective measure.
JD (f7900a) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:46 pmHey, all the drunks down on the corner thought Biden won. Of course Obama’s people had just been by giving them some walking around money to remind them to vote and they were going to buy some Thunderbird. They were a real happy lot. Chicago politics at its finest.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/3/2008 @ 4:50 pmThe significance of the debate was the size of the audience and the fact that Sarah was able to hold her own. This was Convention Speech II. Nobody saw the Couric interview and few saw the Gibson interview (more did because it was first). One member of Frank Luntz’s focus group last night knew about the editing issue. I was very surprised at that.
McCain now has the ball in his court. She did her part. He now has to start convincing people who blew up the credit markets. The time for Senatorial gentlemanly behavior is over. The fact that he was reluctant to shake Obama’s hand yesterday is an omen that he may be going after him next debate.
The lefties are celebrating but they have shown they do not have the same outlook on life as the majority of Americans. They don’t fear Bill Ayres and Rev Wright because they AGREE WITH THEM.
Mike K (155601) — 10/3/2008 @ 5:57 pmre: health care: it’s ridiculous to assume that employers will give raises to their employees to cover their health insurance.
At a minimum, that kind of equilibrium won’t happen overnight, and will cause a lot of problems until it’s sorted out. It baffles me that anyone thinks republicans are competent at anything when they come out with that kind of drivel.
jpe (5320bf) — 10/3/2008 @ 7:19 pmOkay, fellow conservatives, I have a question, and I don’t know where else to post it and get the attention of several articular conservatives. What exactly was so “cringeworthy” about that TPM video? Or that Couric interview? I ask this seriously.
Let me explain my own perspective. I missed the first presidential debate because I despaired over McCain’s terrible appearance and several missed opportunities in the very first question, and I don’t particularly enjoy watching my own hopes fade away. For the same reason, I resolutely ignored the Katie Couric interview. Didn’t see it. Didn’t want to. The next time I saw Sarah Palin was when she was talking to me directly, without an MSM filter between us, and I liked what I heard from her. I liked it so much, and I liked it even more when I find out how many provable lies, not to mention provable absudities such as advocating sending a NATO force into a Lebanon out of which Hezbollah had been kicked. I mean, could you get Lebanon any more wrong?
So I braced myself and sought out the Katie Couric interview. I couldn’t find the whole uninterrupted thing anywhere, but I believe I found the first part, which contained Couric pressing Palin on Rick Davis, and ended with Palin not answering her challenge to give one example of John McCain has favored increased regulation.
This was supposed to be Sarah Palin making a fool out of herself? No, this was a woman new to the national stage who hadn’t been fully briefed on how to handle hostile reporters. And you know what? If Sarah Palin can’t think of a time that John McCain has favored increased regulation, I’m glad. Couric presumes a priori that increased regulation is or ever was the correct policy, and I reject this presumption, and I’m glad that John McCain seems to reject it too. Couric is confusing regulation, which is government interference in the private sector, with oversight, which is government interference in the public sector. One of them is nearly always damanging to the economy, while the absence of the other is the more likely to be harmful. And in this case, it was. This crisis was not caused by a lack of regulation, it was caused by a lack of oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is exactly the sort of oversight that John McCain made an impassioned entry in the Congressional Record about, urging his colleagues to join him, but they, including Obama, declined. Obama would probably have been welcome as a cosponsor, as would have Biden.
I watched that segment and blinked. It must have been in some of the other segments that made Palin look so bad, right? I mean, that didn’t look all that bad to me. More importantly, I watched the camera angles, the lighting, and it was fascinating. My hat is off to the guy with the copy of Avid who put that piece of video together, because he did a masterful job. The lighting, the shadows, the cropping and the zooming, Couric’s expression and tone of voice… masterful. Leni Riefenstahl (sp?) would applaud.
But they overdid it just a bit. Look at it again, and watch what you see. You see Sarah Palin doing a decent job and holding her own against an overtly hostile interrogator. Couric wears a stony frowm throughout, and her questions are clearly attacking Palin in a way that neither she nor any of fellow-travelers in the MSM would ever dream of directing at Joe Biden, let alone the Chosen One Himself!
Then I remembered Patterico had a “prepare your cringing muscles” warning on a clip of video. I don’t enjoy cringing so I didn’t watch it. But after seeing how good that first Couric clip made Palin look, I figured I’d give it a whirl. Watching it, I didn’t cringe once. I prepared to cringe as I watched… well, “interviewers” is laughable on its face, and even “interrogators” doesn’t quite capture the flavor of Couric and Gibson. “Inquisitors” might come closer to the mark. Nooooooobody expects the Klannish Inquisition! Couric and Gibson, you could feel the hate emanating from them. Okay, so Sarah Palin hasn’t been fully briefed on the situation involving Rick Davis, have you? Do you have any evidence at all of wrongdoing? Does Couric?
Sarah’s a smart girl and she got wise really quick, and stopped trying to take Couric seriously. She was much ridiculed for her answer to Couric’s penetrating question of what printed periodicals she reads. I don’t recall her exact wording, it was something like “whatever’s in front of me.” That was generally interpreted by the leftwing press as “I don’t read any printed periodicals, so I am dumb.”
Strike the last four words of this interpretation and at least it’s a good thing. It certainly describes me; I do not get my facts and I certainly do not get my opinions from printed periodicals. There are much, much, much better sources of timely, accurate, and unbiased news (and rational opinion) than the dead-tree media.
But in point of fact, I do not think that’s an accurate translation of Palin’s answer. I believe that Palin’s answer, translated from Politic into English, could more accurately be summed up as “fuck you”. She was giving a ridiculous non-answer to Couric’s question to indicate that she did not think of it as a serious question deserving of a serious answer. This was not a good faith effort to get insight into what the Governor reads; Couric has forfeited any presumption of good faith for pretty much the rest of her life and I hope she’s proud of herself.Sarah Palin knew, as would any fair observer not dumber than a DUmmie, that had she answered, say, “TIME”, Couric’s followup would have been, “Oh, so what did you think about the interview with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that appeared on page 57 of the August 27, 2007 issue?” Couric had openly declared with her entire mode of expression her hostility to her… well, I can’t say “interviewee” and “victim” makes it sound like she laid a glove on Sarah, which she didn’t. I’ll just say “target”. Couric was going after her target with a vengeance, this is supposed to make me question Sarah Palin’s ability, judgment, and eminent suitability for the position of President of the United States Senate?
One of the things I saw Joe Biden praised for was his “litany” of “just like Bush” lines (or whatever the hell he said.) Well, here’s my own litany, journalists. You won’t like it as much as Joe’s.
To hell with Katie Couric. To hell with Charlie Gibson. To hell with the entire mainstream media and the left-wing filter it puts everything through before deigning to show it to the American people — or not show it to them at all. There are severak provable falsehoods in Joe Biden’s debate, and all of you shitfuckers are gushing about his command of facts!
To hell with you, New York and Los Angeles Timeses. To hell with you, Associated Press and Reuters and Agence Frog Press or whatever the hell that agency is called in its native, insignificant language. To hell with Al Jazeera, Al Gore, and everybody else who would put either politics or religion over the good of humanity. To hell with CBS, ABC, and NBC. To hell with the pundits, to hell with the pollsters, to hell with the race-baiters and vote-frauders and class-warriors. To hell with the doomsayers and the liars. To hell with the sort of Messianic fervor that historically has been elevated very, very bad leaders. To hell with Barack Obama and his smooth politicking. To hell with all who think that affirmative action has a place anywhere in American society, but a special slot is reserved for those who would cast their vote for a manifestly unqualified individual because he happens to be black. To hell with Joe Biden, and his flagrant stinking falsehoods that he gets away with and gets away with and gets away with because he’s a Democrat. To hell with Harry Reid, who declared this war lost, and to hell with Jack Murtha who called our troops monsters. To hell with Steny Hoyer, to hell with Barney Frank, to hell with Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, to hell with Ted Kennedy, to hell with Hillary Clinton, to hell with the whole lot of them.
I love the American people. I trust the American people. The American people are not dolts. And Abraham Lincoln didn’t go far enough… you can’t even fool most of the people most of the time. And I don’t believe you can fool all of the people any of the time. But at any rate.
Americans, when the time comes, will come to their senses. They will not be taken in by the charlatans. They can tell when they’re being lied to, and the hypnotised crowds chanting His name, indoctrinating their children to perform ritual praise of the Savior, needing only armbands and brown shirts to complete the picture… well, they’re probably lost to us, but believe me, their number may include nearly every single mainstream journalist and college professor and Hollywood star, but it is far, far from a majority.
The majority will not be fooled by this crowd of charlatans, incompetents, and thieves. We need to get ready to hear yet another quadrennial chorus of “STOLEN!!!!” because John McCain and Sarah Palin are going to win this thing.
Hey Patterico, if you feel the need to add another guest contributor…
Voice of Reason (ea3ea4) — 10/3/2008 @ 7:22 pmVoR, start your own blog.
I’d read it.
I think Sarah should have simply been more overt with Couric. She should have simply told Katie “You aren’t asking reasonable questions, but I’m here to explain myself to the American people about my experience, what I stand for, my leadership on reform and energy… and I don’t find this question to be relevant to that, so I’m just going to tell the American people how I feel about X, Y, Z.”
that’s how Palin handled Ifill, and it seemed to work fine. She’s learning fast.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 10/4/2008 @ 1:23 amEveryone I’ve ever talked to who listened to the Nixon-Kennedy debate thought Nixon won by a KO. Several said that it was an actual shock to see it on TV after the fact. Style will always trump substance in any TV event. She simply won on the only level that means anything: emotional level. I liked her, I wanted to believe her, so I believed her. The MSNBC trashing her 24-7 actually helps her with any viewer just surfing and listening to a sound byte, anyone else watching it is already in the tank.
howard432 (cc8b85) — 10/4/2008 @ 1:43 amThank you, Juan, that’s very flattering. I used to have a blog; you can see its remnants (complete with commentary on the 2004 election) at http://www.politicalities.com. I just don’t have the time to be a “real” blogger. But I wouldn’t mind a forum where I could post from time to time.
In the meantime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIJ813Op2Bo. Thank you.
Voice of Reason (ea3ea4) — 10/4/2008 @ 4:26 amPalin was so impressive in the debates, I don’t know how anyone could have perceived the result any other way. Just because politico.com and every other news source has claimed that their polling declares Biden the winner doesn’t mean we can’t claim the same. I was impressed with her obviously rehearsed answers. I like it when my leaders can’t think on their feet or for themselves and require a 4 day cram session in order to memorize answers to hypothetical questions. I hope she has a few days on her schedule opened up before she visits Putin. Of course, she’s been fighting the cold war on the Alaskan front for the past two years, so she has Russia pretty well contained. Hmm. I think it is going to be quite a predicament for us conservatives. Do we pretend the cold war isn’t over so we can give Palin credit for keeping the Reds at bay, or do we still give Reagan credit for talking tough to Gorbi about tearing down the wall about 2 weeks before their economic system was going to fail anyway. These are tough decisions. But, with the double talk that comes out of our party on a regular basis the public probably won’t know. We just have to make it clear that God ordained Palin as the new freedom defender from the evils of socialism. Perfecto!
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/4/2008 @ 7:33 amTruthnjustice: Me personally, I think that Biden won that debate. I mean, I want my leader to be able to think on his feet and quickly pull a completely false answer right out of his anal sphincter, and Biden certainly is the candidate who shows the ability to do that. So what if Politico and almost every. single. mainstream. media. organ. is so deeply in the tank for Obama that anything which comes through their filter is highly, highly suspect?
Voice of Reason (ea3ea4) — 10/4/2008 @ 8:46 amIf they are in the tank for him it may just be a reflection of what is happening in the general public. McCain is in trouble. Are you going to give me any better examples of Biden’s lies than the 15 wrong examples in that earlier patterico post? Those have been debunked as untrue or at least extremely misleading.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/4/2008 @ 8:52 amre: health care: it’s ridiculous to assume that employers will give raises to their employees to cover their health insurance.
You obviously misunderstand the plan. The plan removes the tax exemption for health plans paid for by employers but DOES NOT end them. It then gives the employee a tax credit to shop for his own.
Maybe this will help.
What it does is level the playing field. If you have a small business or are self employed, it is difficult to afford health insurance. Personally, I think we need to go to a national plan along the lines of the French system but the Democrats have misrepresented the McCain plan.
At a minimum, that kind of equilibrium won’t happen overnight, and will cause a lot of problems until it’s sorted out. It baffles me that anyone thinks republicans are competent at anything when they come out with that kind of drivel.
Comment by jpe
You seem to be easily baffled if you can’t get your facts right.
Mike K (155601) — 10/4/2008 @ 10:44 amIf I had any doubt that Sarah won, which I don’t, seeing where mush-mouth David Gergen said she definitely lost would have convinced me she actually won.
edward cropper (ed6a03) — 10/4/2008 @ 9:00 pm