You've got quicker fingers than I.

Besides, didn't McCain agree to the format and moderators long ago? Why would this be coming up just now? Oh right, because it's not really an issue, just a ready-made excuse. Carry on.

+1

now is not the time for anyone to be making a stink about this. if the campaign felt it was a problem they have had ample opportunity to speak up, and if the campaign doesn't feel it's a problem then really why is anyone else claiming to know what is better for them then the professional, paid campaign workers?

and yes i'd say the same even if Rush Limbaugh or O'Reily were moderating a debate.

Look, it's not like the moderator determines who speaks first, or asks different questions of the two candidates. although they have an impact in determining what questions will be asked, it's not like they can have a massive effect on how well one candidate performs versus the other.

Wow - wasn't aware of that. That's a pretty bad oversight, IMO, and you'd think the commission on teh debates would try to get someone who at least doesn't appear to have a stake in the game.

FWIW, mine was a comment on how sad the defense was and not saying the defender was sad for defending. But, if you want to act like a martyr, take your ball and go home because you're getting laughed at, maybe the internets aren't for you.

What's up with these Quinnipiac polls out today:

Pennsylvania - Obama +15
Ohio - Obama +8
Florida - Obama +8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls

Yikes, no wonder newspaper sales have fallen so far. This explains a lot.


And then onto the internet as reprints, bootlegs, repurposed, etc. Case in point was the writer I mentioned up the thread a few pages back who is largely known to me as "a nationally syndicated writer" but who actually appears to work for a Chicago newspaper. I've now read the piece but haven't touched the physical paper nor the paper's website. In other words, it's possible to read the work of various writer's without associating them with a particular paper at all.

And I'm not saying she reads any of those guys, just saying it seems pretty plausible that you could read the work without having any particular publication come to mind.

I don't buy any of those yet. All of them look like outliers.

Oh, give me a break Arles. You certainly didn't care baout the "90%" when your candidate was doing well. In the days following the Republican convention when it looked like Obama was tanking, I didn't threaten to leave the thread when McCain fans were having their little circle jerk about how badly Obama was stumbling.

I ask again, when did conservatives become a bunch of whiny bitches? Pelosi is mean to me! FOFC is mean to me! Now I know why people hated whiny liberals so much. That shit is annoying.

From 538

"Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia)."

You’re looking down your nose at me because I can’t see Russia from my house, aren’t you?:)

Unless the McCain camp can teach her how to tap dance around the questions, I just don't see this debate being anything less than a train wreck of the Palin Express.

I'm not trying flair up tempers or anything like that, but, I have yet to see one redeeming quality in her that makes me think that she would be capable of fulfilling the duties of President if McCain some how can not finish his term, if he wins in November. She just doesn't have 'It'. Even Dan Quayle wasn't this bad.

thanks foo-foo.

even if you lop off 2-3 points off those polls, they still look good for obama, particularly the PA one

Meanwhile, as the Green Party campaigns to have Cynthia McKinney elected president...

She is definitely coocoo for cocoa puffs.

Nominating Palin as VP and putting her a potential heartbeat away from the presidency is unbelievably irresponsible and shows a severe lapse in judgment by McCain and his staff.

A horrible, horrible choice made only to secure votes from the far right. If you're going to pick someone to be VP, you better make damn sure that person could handle being president as well.

but but but...didn't you hear? John McCain is the original maverick! He's a maverick! You know? :lol:

*and if you hadn't heard I'm sure Sarah Palin would be happy to tell you all about it

I think that's probably it, in part -- she is justifiably apprehensive about having anything she says get picked on. If she decided to spontaneously lie and say that she read the Wall Street Journal, there's the chance that (1) she'd say it wrong and it came out "the Wall Street Times" or something; (2) some joker would find that there was never a single copy of the WSJ delivered to or available in the AK state house during the entire term, or (3) something even more dreadful I can't even think of yet.

My guess is that her handlers have basically just said "here are twelve things you can say, just steer clear of everything else." Names of newspapers wasn't on the list. But a phrase like "health care reform" was, and so that phrase oddly slipped in a few times when she was responding to questions about the economic bailout plan. She's just doing what they tell her, I reckon.

I don't think there's any debate that the truth of the matter is that she simply hasn't had any real interest in national and international affairs until just now, and that the honest answer to the question being asked just felt too embarrassing to just let it go. At least she had the political sense to dodge that, i suppose.

if she hasn't had any interest in national or international affairs until now she should not have accepted the nomination. And yes, she couldn't turn it down publicly, but she could have made it clear behind the scenes. For her to have no interest in national or international affairs and still accept the nomination is really the height of hubris. It also displays a stunning lack of respect for the job, a lack of judgement, and a lack of respect for the American people.

This forum has always been mostly Obama Kool-Aid drinkers and it used to be somewhat bearable. As the election gets closer, it's just extremely difficult to have a respectful discussion here. No biggie, there are many other places where one can be had.

I've said about 10 times in the past 15 pages that I don't think it's the end of the world if Obama wins, nor am I thrilled with McCain. I've admitted my bias for Palin and am trying to atleast explain the reasons why she is doing poorly (not to say she is doing a wonderful job in interviews as some have argued against).

But, you guys want no part of any discussion like that. You just want the election to be tomorrow because you are so terrified something's going to happen to "steal" the election from Obama that all reasonable debate has gone out the window. Not that this couldn't have been anticipated (esp given the results in 2000 and 2004), but the tension in this thread is palpable and I expect it will be a name-calling, whining, anger-filled, elitist :cool: gathering over the next 3-4 weeks and I just don't see the need to participate in that.

I think the country will be fine if Obama or McCain wins. I think all four candidates are good people and trying to do the best they can. I don't have a ton of angst or anger about this election and therefore feel a little out of place in this thread.

Again, that's because you are adamant that Obama will be a much superior president and are willing to put up with a minority of 20% complaining about him in this thread to discuss it. I'm fairly ambivalent about this election and feel no need to justify the McCain/Palin ticket to every piece of criticism (esp when 80% of the thread is criticizing it).

This is the angst that I'm talking about. You guys are so vested in Obama that anything remotely positive about McCain/Palin needs to be immediately snuffed out without debate (ie, dismissive comments). As to your question, I see conservatives having two issues with participating in this thread from now on:

1. No actual debate is desired at this point. It's just a "quickest way to try and shut up/dismiss the McCain/Palin fan" by about 8-10 posters. Who wants to participate in that unless you really love that ticket?

2. I might be convinced to put up with 1 if I really thought that McCain/Palin would be a much better president/VP than Obama/Biden. But, I don't. I think they are similar and will vote for McCain, but I can't see an inch of difference in real economic/military/environment between the two tickets. I honestly don't feel like I have a candidate that represents what I would like to see done so why continue to fight for a side when even if I win the "battle", I don't really win anything.

Maybe this will fall on deaf ears here and I'll be referred to as a "whiner" again, but that's why I think this thread has run its course from a participatory standpoint for me. I'll still read it and I do think a lot of you have smart comments/perspectives, but I don't feel the need to say something I will regret in the next 5 weeks (something I think everyone participating will do) - especially when I don't see the outcome as all that "ground breaking". Either way, I will have someone in the White House I agree with between 30 and 50% of the time. That's something to fight for! ;)

Whiner.

Arles, the problem Ive seen with this thread is that no matter which side of the debate a person is on they will be able to find op-ed pieces or facts to back up there side. There really isnt any open mindedness. I, in particular, have a hard time with "lying, hypocrisy" etc. but, as pointed out by others, it exists on both sides of the game and I am really the only one suffering from point it out and getting my panties in a wad. If anything Ive stressed myself out for no reason since as Bucc said 'it really doesnt matter' and 'my words dont matter' and he's right.

On both sides, I think some things are indisputable but than somehow they get disputed and we're both left scratching our heads saying, "How do they not see/read that? it's plain as day." For example, I thought McCain won the debate and somehow Im left scratching my head saying, "Did I watch the same debate as others?"

Anyways, dont listen to me because while I type it out I wont even be able to take this sort of low-stress position when something rankles me but at least you can see where im coming from.....for today, anyways.

The whole Palin controversy is a blatant ploy by the McCain campaign to have her portrayed as a moron before she comes out and rips Biden a new asshole in the debate. The struggling through basic questions, "omg sexist media" stuff, McCain holding her hand through the Katie Couric interview, maybe even her daughter's pregnancy, it is just an illusion designed to lower Americans' expectations. I recall Vegas Vic many pages back saying Palin has shown herself to be an excellent debater when running for governor in Alaska, and that wasn't the first or last time I'd seen that mentioned. Tomorrow night Sarah Palin will shock America and the world. Expect a five point bump in national polling and Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina to be taken off the board. We'll all be staying up late on election night.

Peculiar thing about that (IMO). My impression from here & elsewhere seems to be that quite a few Obama-backers thought McCain won the debate and quite a few McCain backers thought Obama won the debate.

Damned if I know what to make of that.

You mean there'll still be a viable McCain campaign after Thursday night?

edit to add: Since sarcasm is really easy to lose on the webz, please allow me to clarify: I'm not kidding.

Love it. :cool:

LOL

I am a registered Republican and I will NOT be voting for McCain/Palin. Palin is too much of a liability to the future of this country and I will not take that risk and am voting for Obama. I wish there was more to choose from, but, there's not.

So, no kool aid drinking on my part.

Am I the only one that thinks the VP debate won't matter regardless of what happens?

Nope. Unless Palin starts ranting about killing Jews, or Biden wants to increase taxes on the elderly by 100%.

There was some sarcasm there (I don't necessarily believe that the McCain campaign had Bristol feign pregnancy to appeal to the pro-lifers in a "talk the talk and walk the walk" kind of way) with a dash of paranoia, but I do have a feeling that Palin will earn a creditable draw at worst in tomorrow's debate. Also, McCain has still has a shot, there's five weeks left and who knows how big the Bradley effect will turn out to be. Sure Obama is more likely to win at this point, but not as likely as the 85.4% chance on fivethirtyeight.com or others that seem to feel it's all but over.

Heh. I couldn't decide whether to put this in the college football thread or the presidential thread ... figured it fit better here than there.

Just noticed an article on ajc.com that talked about the great rating for this past weekend's Georgia-Alabama game. It pulled a 21.7 rating, and didn't show any significant erosion in spite of 'Bama's 31-0 halftime lead. That made me curious ...

Overnight ratings for the first presidential debate, all four broadcast network affiliates in Atlanta combined: peaked at a 21.0 for broadcast, might have had enough cable to match the football game (I don't get the cable overnights locally).

Just kind of amusing to me, in a sad sort of way.

Lots of polling lately. Here are all the ones I see that ended on 9/29-9/30

National

Obama 50-46 (ABC/WaPo)
Obama 49-43 (Pew Research)
Obama 48-41 (AP/GfK)
Obama 48-45 (Ipsos)
Obama 50-43 (Time)
Obama 48-44 (Gallup)
Obama 51-45 (Rasmussen)
Obama 47-42 (Hotline/FD)
Obama 48-46 (GW/Battleground)


Florida

Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
Obama 49-46 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 46-42 (Suffolk)
Obama 51-43 (Quinnipiac)


Nevada

Obama 48-47 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
McCain 49-47 (ARG)


Ohio

Obama 47-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 50-42 (Quinnipiac)
McCain 49-48 (SurveyUSA)


Pennsylvania

Obama 54-39 (Quinnipiac)
Obama 48-41 (Morning Call)


Virginia

Obama 51-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 53-44 (CNN/Time)


Single polls from other states

GA: McCain 52-44 (SurveyUSA)
IN: McCain 48-45 (SurveyUSA)
MO: Obama 49-48 (CNN/Time)
MS: McCain 52-44 (Rasmussen)
NJ: Obama 52-42 (SurveyUSA)
OK: McCain 64-34 (SurveyUSA)
TX: McCain 52-43 (Rasmussen)
TN: McCain 58-39 (Rasmussen)
WI: Obama 49-40 (Strategic Vision)

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

Quick! theres that color vs. that school thingy!

name one case other than Roe v. Wade?

"I would think any again that could best be dealt with on a more local level maybe i would take issue with but....sigh, y'know as a mayor and then as a governor and even as a vice president if I am so priviledged to serve, to be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."


huh?


nevermind, taken back...it was one she disagreed with when on first listen i thought it was name one, any one.

Sorry....the discombobulation of the english still stands however.

Well she was asked to name a case whose outcome she disagreed with, so she couldn't just shout out the first thing that came to mind.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm watching C-SPAN right now, as the Senate is voting on a US/India bill regarding nuclear inspections, and later they'll be voting on the Financial Markets Bill.

I noticed Obama and Hillary standing off to the side, and it appeared that they were having a lengthy, rather warm conversation with each other. It didn't appear to be contrived by any means. Supposedly, they have a very icy relationship, but she has been vigorously campaigning for him in Florida, so maybe there's not as much animosity between them as we sometimes read about.

Truly remarkable that the McCain campaign felt that she could be presented as a legitimate Vice Presidential candidate rather than as a cheap vote-grabbing ploy.

Also remarkable how effectively CBS News is letting such a damaging interview go viral day by day, keeping their work in the news. Strong work on their parts.

I'll say this for Palin: a person with a less strong constitution would have probably bowed out of the race by now for their own peace of mind, if not the good of the country.

If Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle didn't bail out, why in the world would you think that Palin would?

Is CBS somewhat wrong though in not just releasing it at once as a whole, i mean i was against editing of answers and while that's not the case here I wonder if it all shouldnt be released so it isnt considered sniping. I get the ratings thing and youre right in that they continue to get the viral ratings but im not sure they keep their credibility in the process if they cared at all anyways.

I don't think she would. A responsible person with her background wouldn't have accepted the nomination in the first place.

Ouch. That was painful to watch. Someone should explain to her what the word specific means.

She sounds remarkably like this: YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

i am astounded the Trout is still around.

Here's a decent theory from Ezra Klein:

If true, it's at least a little more comforting than the only other explanation, which is that she's an idiot.

early trout reference

Which would be best for the US in terms of international reaction? - Front Office Football Central

I wonder how much of it is arrogance. I don't know if she's arrogant, but when she was being vetted, she had to know that she was grossly unqualified. I mean, did she ever just say to herself, "darn, I've barely been out the country" or "man, I've never dealt with things on a national level this much" or something to that effect. Who knows, just seems like something is missing.

Obama is now up 353-185 on RCP's projection. It was a 50-50 race last week.

The one thing that Palin has done well so far was her speech at the Republican convention but, as one commentator (who apparently lectures on politics) said at the time "Given a tele-prompter and three days of tutoring and rehearsal, half my students could have given that performance". It now remains to be seen if the latest tutoring can help her shine in the much more ill-defined environment of a debate.

Add to that Biden's apparent propensity for foot-in-mouth gaffs, then I'm looking forward to this debate almost as much as I did the Man Utd Champions League match earlier this week :)

RCP is the gold standard in predicting presidential elections.

:lol:

So you telling me McCain and Co. just found this out? If conservatives didn't care then, why do you care now?

I don't care in a complaining sense. If you read the entire post (a lot of work, I know), you'd see I only care about the entertainment value of a train wreck debate.

It cuts both ways though - the Obama camp knew about the moderator all along too, so they'll have to deal with complaints that she's trying to make Palin look bad. They had a chance to take that excuse away and didn't, so I assume we won't see any Obama supporters bitching about that.

That interview is going to be remembered forever, the hits just keep on coming.

Palin is an embarrassment, but I really hope this doesn't start a trend of "quiz" journalism. I've never seen anything like it outside of Chris Matthews (perhaps just because there's not as many hilarious soundbites in regular interviews). It's pretty obnoxious - maybe Kouric should have just handed her a written quiz and then reported on the results.

I'm sure Obama, or even highly intelligent Democrats like Bill Clinton (or anyone, in any party) could be stumped by certain quiz questions at certain times. I don't know what that really tells us about anyone's ability to lead (again, Palin is off the charts here, I'm not defending her, though I'll probably get attacked anyway). We could just nominate Jeopardy contestants to run for president, they can spew knowledge.

You'll have to pry my trout and out of my cold, dead hands!

I agree as well. It was like when Bush couldn't remember or pronounce the name of a world leader of a small country. It is not a sign of lack of intelligence to not know everything. Bush isn't the sharpest tool and the shed, and Palin probably isn't either, but I doubt either have a very low IQ. Just not a real high one.

couldve also been stuff taught between her semesters in college(s). ;)

I think Palin is going to be decent tonight, but there's no way this has all been a ploy. She is almost solely responsible for the complete erosion of independents' support of McCain.

It should be a good debate. Hoping for a couple of wacky Biden moments and a couple of nervy Palin moments to make things interesting. Most likely what is going to happen is Palin will be stretching questions to remain on the 8 talking points she knows, and Biden will continue to hammer home that he loves McCain personally, but how can he be such an idiot.

It gives me no more of a warm feeling to know that a person with just as limited experience may be president right off the bat rather than VP. As Joe Biden said, he's "well-spoken". His speaking skills are the only difference at this point.

Can't speak for Vic, but the big problem for 538 right now is a lack of a record. He did well in the primaries, but he hasn't done a general election before, so we don't know how accurate he can be. I'm a fan, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him need a few election cycles before he's very accurate.

I think there's a chance of some of this. The deer in headlights look she gets in these couple of interviews just doesn't mesh with being a public figure, being a skilled debater in the past, and being a decent interviewer. Just like Obama last week, she has a chance to go out there tonight and move that "has confidence that she is qualified" number a whole lot. And if she does well, they don't have to trot her out much again because this will be by far her largest audience and news cycle to establish her as the VP.

Second point- people always say the VP never mattered. I think in this election, it very much would have. She pretty much breathed life back into a floundering campaign and made it a toss-up. Even after the vetting of her, which was horribly mishandled by the McCain camp (why lie about so many things that were immaterial?!? I get why any politician lies about important stuff but why about the immaterial)- it was a dead heat.

However, in the end, she won't matter now. One, her image has been completely changed. But, more importantly, it's the economy, stupid. An economic event on the magnitude of a major terrorist attack happened. If you're Obama, this helps you on Election Day. If it had been a national security issue, this race would be 8 points in McCain's favor and all but over.

SI

I LOL'd :D

SI

I've heard more than one media outlet put out articles this morning stating that Palin is the real reason why the ratings will be so high tonight. They're either tuning in to see a train wreck or a crowning moment, depending on which side you're on.

Also, I've seen mentioned that Biden will serve more as a second moderator than a true opponent in the sense that he'll push the discussion, but his performance tonight will likely not affect whether voters switch towards or away from Obama. All of the movement of polling tonight will hinge on Palin's performance.

Both sound like pretty reasonable arguments to me.

I think you're largely right Mizzou - although I think there are scenarios where Biden could affect the vote (although I concede that they will likely require Palin too). Nothing Biden says in and of himself is going to make people vote for Obama, but if Palin says something clueless and Biden can turn it and give a great response to it (not necessarily attacking her, but just demonstrating his knowledge) that might help. But like I said, I do recognize that that requires Palin too. Nothing Biden says on his own without involving Palin is likely to sway independents.

"Ken Jennings '12: It's time we nerds started taking over!"

SI

Replace debates with a week's worth of Jeopardy games hosted by Alex Trebek to determine who knows the most? I think Ralph Nader would perform very well.

There's no way in hell they'd prepare her for a question like that. In addition, this is a perfect example of what I believe has been a critical flaw thus far in the advisor's handling of Palin. It was obvious that she was so busy trying to go through the file of talking points in her brain while putting together a response that she flustered herself and ended up fumbling around in the end. They're better off letting her speak openly than worrying about making a mistake. As I mentioned before, this same approach did in the Dole ticket in '96.

FWIW.......I think the question was a lousy in regards to the qualifier of Roe vs. Wade. She would obviously be passionate about that ruling and I'm sure that people on both sides would have loved to hear her points on that ruling. Honestly, she may have hurt her cause by speaking about that topic as many would disagree with her views. With the qualifier, we don't get much info, which defeats the purpose of the interview unless the questioner was trying to do exactly that. What more do we know about Palin if she says 'Brown vs. Board of Education'? If she says that, all we'll here is how the advisors did a great job preparing Palin, but it does nothing for her as a candidate. It's a no-win situation.

The practice of 'gotcha' questions rather than trying to draw more information is bad journalism, though it has become the norm unfortunately.

But these aren't silly pedantic quiz questions as the previously mentioned "who is the President of Pakistan".

These are open ended interview questions that she's fumbling. "What's a Supreme Court case you disagree with" or "What's an example of John McCain being a maverick". You could pretty much come up with any half-baked anecdote that's barely related to the question and we just move on.

Hell, "what newspapers do you read"- in any other interview, that's a softball just to get people talking. It's an amazing amount of skill (or gross lack thereof) to turn that into a national story.

SI

It's shocking she doesn't have a stock, "I'm not going to second guess..." answer for these types of questions. Part of her problem is that she's trying to answer questions when she should just deflect them.

The fact that people are calling the Kouric questions 'gotcha' journalism is laughable. The original question was incredibly simple to answer - a softball question to get her talking about her political views. "What other SC cases do you disagree with?"

But when it became clear that Palin couldn't answer it, what is Kouric supposed to do? Just let it go, pretend it didn't happen, and pat her on the back for a job well done?

But let's be perfectly clear. She was not asked 'What's a Supreme Court case you disagree with?'. Couric created a qualifier in the question because she knew exactly which ruling Palin would be most passionate about. There's no reason to make a qualifier at that point. She could certainly asked about any others after that in a follow-up, but to do it right off the bat reeks of well-laid trap.

I'd also argue that the majority of Americans couldn't think of a case outside of Roe vs. Wade. Granted, they're not up for VP, but we have lawyers and advisors for a reason. No one's suggesting that Palin is terribly knowledgable from a political perspective. However, for a lot of people, that's one of the main reasons she's an attractive candidate. People are really tired of 'knowledgable' people like Frank, Dodd, Bush, etc. leading us into a mess and then suggesting they have all the answers on how to get out of that mess.

Off the top of my head, by name I can't think of any case other than
R v W that's a GOP talking point case though.

I could name some general areas that are sources of disagreement but by name? Nope.

Totally agree. The political tact is totally missing. Filling her with information in advance as they're trying to do doesn't help her a bit. She needs to make a straight answer or play it off much like Biden does in his interviews. He's very good at changing the focus when needed, which isn't something you learn overnight.

I think I predicted my neutral comments would be attacked. Only 100% loyalty to our next Supreme Leader is allowed around here.

Palin's a complete idiot. Perhaps the dumbest person ever to be on a major ticket for president. Not sure how much clearly I can say that I'm not defending her, and that she should have been able to answer those questions.

But I can see journalists, from all politican leanings, trying to come up with "stumping" questions that sounds simple but might trip someone up. Chris Matthews has become a youtube sensation because of it. Couric knew she was dealing with an idiot and was intentionaly trying to create some infamous moments as well (IMO). It has the potential to be a bad trend.

- Bangs head against wall.

People don't want knowledgable, informed leaders... sigh.

- Looks at our current president.

Obviously you're right.

Palin has criticized the Exxon ruling and hit Obama for his support of the Boumediene decision in her convention speech. There's every reason to ask her about SC decisions when she's used them as talking points.

Agreed. A much better question would have been to ask her about each of the various controversial case matters rather than pull a question about specific case names. Ask her about her feelings on teaching creation in science classes. Ask her about abortion. Ask her about torture and whether it's right. Ask her if the 2004 election decision was correct. Ask her about all those things, but a question about specific case names is something that few outside of die-hard politicos and most lawyers would be able to summon quickly. You'll get the same information, but only one way of asking the question is meant to make that person look bad. The other will provide an informative forum for all voters as to how she would act if elected.

Absolutely! So why did Couric choose to phrase her question in a manipulate way rather than directly asking about why she criticized Obama's stances in those situations? Because Couric knew that the way she phrased the question could throw off Palin, leading to Couric's mug being plastered everywhere and giving name recognition to her struggling nightly news. To assume there's not multiple motivations for Couric to ask the question in this manner is flawed logic at best.

It's attacking when you're disagreeing with things I'm not even saying.

Given Palin's Pro-Life stance, I'm suprised she didn't mention Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a missed opportunity, and Justice Souter as not the kind of judge she'd like to see on the bench. Both are very stock GOP talking points.

Given her role as McCain's running mate, it's pretty astonishing she couldn't mention Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld or Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, or just "The Guantanamo Cases". This is especially surprising given the way she otherwise goes on and on about protecting the country from Terror. Again, both cases are parts of stock GOP talking points.

Are you saying people attacked you for post #6365?

Once again, a total mischaracterization of my point. We've got a whole lot of idiots in government right now. Anyone who listens to members of Congress in some of these hearings on a regular basis would know that. The fact that Palin is considered a better option by a large segment of the population than what we currently have speaks far more to the inept nature of our current President and our Congress than anything Palin has done during her brief career and campaign. I put ticks around the word 'knowledgable' for a reason. The fact that our current government is lead by Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank is frightening at best.

You're right, and I think part of her problem is that she's not a lawyer. She has a very uninspired academic career, and then a regional political career. It's not out of the realm of possibility that everything she's ever known about the Supreme Court, she's learned since she was named running mate. When would she ever come across Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

And that's McCain's fault for picking her, of course. I wonder if it's possible that they were gambling that the American people would either not care about such a background, or even find it somehow charming.

I actually agree with you that if it became trendy it could be a bad thing and destructive to journalism in that people wont want to cooperate for fear of the "gotcha" moment.

i think couric would have been okay with palin saying "oh i forget the name, but the case involving xyz." I don't think most people are saying she should have a knowledge of all cases argued before the court by name and subject, but at least be able to talk about the subjects!

Tonight will be an excellent measuring stick of exactly that. Does she do well from an answer perspective? If not, does she come off as 'real' enough to override any deficiencies in her answers?

In absolute sincerity, if you asked me "what other SC decisions do you disagree with", I would interpret that just as I did here: as asking for cases by name.

As an old journalist, if I had used those same words, that's the level of response I would have been looking for (doubt I would have phrased the question that way myself regardless, unless I was trying to lead them to something very specific anyway).

If I was looking for areas, I would have phrased it more like "what other areas do you find yourself disagreeing with SC rulings about" ... but maybe that's just a difference in questioning style {shrug} I can't say one way or the other for sure about that. But for me, it was usually easiest to get the response I wanted if I phrased the question in a way that lended itself most to what I was looking for.

And I've already addressed that point, which has nothing to do with the question. The topic concerning Couric's question and the topic concerning the screwed-up way they are handling Palin are two totally different topic. I agree that they are turning her into mush by trying to stuff her full of talking points, but that doesn't change the fact that the question was meant to cross her up.

Please. Politicians will appear with Colbert, you think they're smart enough as a group to react by avoiding this sort of situation? Remember, it was never impossible to find a CEO willing to sit down with Mike Wallace.

+1. I currently do a lot of interviews in an arena outside of politics. I thought the exact same thing when I heard the question and it was obvious that Palin did as well.

exactly

Biden handled it well, though he did it by not answering the question, which is once again something I've already pointed out (lack of tact by Palin in interviews compared to Biden).

-------------------------------------------
COURIC: (to Biden): What are the Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
BIDEN: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court. Meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said no that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction and I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce. Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said there is an impact on commerce but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it. I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
---------------------------------------------

Seems to me that's a Supreme Court decision right there. Now given, it's a decision not to hear a case versus a ruling on a case, but it's also an issue that he was very involved with so that's okay by me. Particularly because in large part, a decision by the Supreme Court to refuse to hear a case is in itself a judgement on the case (even if it's for statutory reasons).

Funny like from Klein on this mess:

Um, if she says Brown v. Board of Education, then Obama is up by like 20 points right now and McCain is on his knees begging Romney to be his new VP candidate. So maybe she did think of other cases but was smart enough not to answer them.

She could have scored points by mentioning Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. I'd really like to hear her opnions on Griswold. Of course, to be honest, it wouldn't much matter what she answered. Palin could save a drowning baby that Biden pushed into the river and it still wouldn't change my vote.

Of course. I just pulled out a case name. My knowledge of exact case names isn't much better than Palin's in that regard.

That would be totally awesome if she said that...maybe tonight.

I know there are Palin supporters who really want to believe that she doesn't answer questions like the Supreme Court one, or how McCain is a reformer, or even what newspaper she reads, because she has some sort of built-in political instinct that alerts her to a potential trap and allows her to avoid it.

Fine.

Is it too much to ask that she be able to think on her feet enough to say something coherent? To at least give a non-answer that makes sense? I don't mean politically, I mean something that's recognizable as english.

I think it goes far beyond her not being a lawyer. We're talking, after all, about SCOTUS decisions that have been GOP talking points for some time now.

It just seems crazy that on two of the GOP's biggest issues she can't even reference in general terms SCOTUS decisions with which she disagrees.

Let's assume her focus has just been regional, though. Well, she's a firm supporter of states' rights, right (she even says so to Couric). How about 2004 Alaska Dept of Environmental Protection vs. EPA, where the "liberal" wing of the Court wrote in favor (5-4) of the EPA over Alaska on environmental protections vis-a-vis mining?

How about 1997 United States vs. Alaska (revisited in 2005) where the court ruled that the Fed owns submerged lands off of Alaska's coast, not Alaska?


I think you're probably on the money here.

I would bet good money (if this bet could actually be done) that if you asked the Supreme Court question of all the GOP Governors, you'd get, right off the bat:

1. Some case specific to their State that their State just got zinged on.

2. Hamdan/Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (or just "The Guantanamo Cases")

3. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey

I'd also bet that a good portion of them would reference Kelo as a case that blew their mind (and probably reference state legislation they introduced specifically to mitigate Kelo).

Again, a total mischaracterization of any post concerning Palin's answers. Absolutely NO ONE has claimed that she's avoiding answering the question because she has political instinct that alerts her to a trap. As many have already said repeatedly in the past couple of pages, the Republican advisors have chosen to try to stuff her full of information to prepare her for these interviews, which most believe is a tactic that has fallen flat on its face. If they continue to do that in preparation for tonight's debate without working on her 'defensive answering' skills to give good evasive answers when she doesn't have a great answer, she'll fail just as badly tonight and this election will be over. Her failure tonight would be a death-knell to the ticket. If Biden screws up, it's just Biden being Biden. No one will care if he does well either for that matter.

Maybe, but I don't see how a governor of any state, especially Alaska, would need to know any of that, especially if they weren't in office when the cases came down. (And in the case of #2, has absolutely nothing to do with her job).

She was mayor of a pretty small town, what, 2 years ago? I doubt she spent meant must time reading up on Supreme Court activity.