How Palin could beat Biden Thursday

FYI - There is an mp3 of the interview on that Website link, if you want to hear Palin and Hewitt doing this interview

hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/0c03d39e-df44-41fc-af7d-f2f9a7f56b68

Fortunately, Gwen Ifill isn't going to let her get away with such demagoguing the way Hewitt does. Biden isn't going to let her get away with it. She can mau mau and pander like this with Hewitt or someone like Rush Limbaugh, but it's much harder to do in a debate.

Re: knowledge and preparedness

I've lately been thinking that knowledge and preparedness and smarts are oversold. Where not the leaders of Freddie and Fannie and Bear Sterns and WaMu and Wachovia, etc. all very knowledgable, exceedingly well prepared, and scary smart? And look where that got us. Perhaps character is important too. It seem like all the knowledge, preparedness, and intelligence in the world will not keep you out of trouble if you lack character. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rod,

I love your blog, but I really think it's time to hold your nose, vote for McCain, and stop worrying about Palin.

This election is about Supreme Court justices.

Perhaps character is important too. It seem like all the knowledge, preparedness, and intelligence in the world will not keep you out of trouble if you lack character.

Of course character is important, but is it enough? Don't we need some level of competence? And what character is important? While all the candidates have a compelling character story--raising a disabled child, being a POW, taking care of his family after the tragic death of his wife, the child of a single mom--is that enough? Obama's on his first marriage. Neither Biden nor Obama had affairs that led to divorce. Neither Biden or Obama have unwed pregnant teen daughters. Neither Biden or Obama had shotgun marriages. So if its personal character--instead of policy and competence--is that really a fight you want.

Daniel writes: "Fortunately, Gwen Ifill isn't going to let her get away with such demagoguing the way Hewitt does."

This is actually one of the more hilarious observations I've read on this blog lately, in light of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222871895&sr=8-1

I'm sure Daniel has already pre-ordered it.

I mean the book actually has "Age of Obama" in the title, and I'm supposed to talk Ifill seriously as a "moderator" now?

A quick thought experiment by anyone with any intellectual honesty will show that if the shoe were on the other foot, and this were a journalist who had just written a favorable book about McCain, the establishment media would be crying foul about the upcoming debate.

Good plan, Alexander Fogg. Next time you pick a doctor, don't go for the scary smart one. Pick the one you'd rather have a beer with. After all, if that criterion is sufficient for deciding who runs the country, I'm sure it will work for your health concerns as well.

I'm just curious- does Palin drink alcohol? If not, it seems strange to describe herself with the Sixpack moniker.

"There wasn't a serious, probing question about what vice presidents actually do."

Should he have asked: Sarah, are you prepared to memorize the oath of office so you will be ready to swear in new Senators on day one?

I for one think there's much virtue to a President largely uninterested in foreign affairs. 100% of America's problems in the world are due to America's unnecessary meddling. Sure, it's not as good as if there were a candidate who said Europe and Japan should be able to defend themselves or something like that, but not caring seems to be a start.

The comments about what a tough, great moderator Gwen Ifill will make are actually kind of hilarious in light of the fact that she's coming out with a fawning book in January about the "Age of Obama" - let's imagine for a moment this were a "moderator" who was preparing to release a fawning book about McCain. How well would that fly?

The McCain camp agreed to Ifill because she has a reputation for being exacting and fair. Anyone who has paid a bit of attention would know that Ifill has great integrity as a journalist. No one know what the Obama books says. The title, alone, doesn't mean that it won't be balanced or even critical.

After the death of Tim Russert, I recall being impressed with a clip that was shown over and over again of Ifill confronting Russert--her mentor and friend--about his willingness to tolerate Don Imus and go on his show. This was the guy who brought Ifill into TV and really made her career. She didn't do it to embarrass Russert, but in a demonstration of her basic integrity as a journalist.

"Rod,

I love your blog, but I really think it's time to hold your nose, vote for McCain, and stop worrying about Palin.

This election is about Supreme Court justices."

this is completely insane. this election is not about supreme court justices. it's about electing the president of the united states of america, the executive of the united states. the president has many duties, you know, besides *nominating* (not installing) SCOTUS justices.

the man who will be president next january will have to deal with two active wars, an economy teetering on the brink of implosion, massive socio-political changes around the world (think china and india rising, fast), various social issues at home (ranging from the cost of healthcare to rebuilding and upgrading crumbling infrastructure), a resurgent and aggressive russia, serious environmental issues, and on and on and on. oh yeah - and a little group of really nice guys called al qaeda. *nominating* a SCOTUS justice, something a president might get to do a couple times in a term or two, while of importance, is pretty far down the list of things which a president must be trusted to deal with day to day, month to month, or even year to year.

it just isn't that critical. and i have news for you - even if mccain wins, he just gets to *nominate* judge borliato, hater of the katz v. united states, for SCOTUS. the democrats will retain control of the senate, the body that actually confirms federal judiciary appointments. judge borliato or whomever will not get through that group easily. further, and i know this is unpopular among conservatives today because it isn't very joe-six-pack-y (i.e. smugly mediocre and uncurious), but i bothered to learn about law in my life in the real way, what with evil book lernin' at law school, and i can tell you that MOST people who haven't been through such not only don't understand law, but don't understand how appellate courts, especially one like SCOTUS, work. SCOTUS will, in all likelihood, NOT reverse roe, the single-minded grail of what has become the entire conservative movement, even if more conservative justices are on the court. they'll chip away at it slowly, returning the issue to the states (all reversal of roe achieves) piecemeal. the states will then have their own battles on the issue. there is a judicial principle called stare decisis, which basically means that courts are very uncomfortable with changing legal precedent one way and then another willy-nilly over a short period of time, because it causes instability and uncertainty over what the state of the law will continue to be in the near future. big precedential changes, especially those affecting constitutional rights, tend to bemade slowly, over the course of multiple opinions and years, by SCOTUS. so you probably won't ever see a full reversal of roe or for that matter griswold.

the truth is, bitter rightwingers, you need to reevaluate you priorities. there are more important things than roe v. wade, i am sorry to say. there are more important reasons for one to decide whether he or she will vote for a presidential candidate than hating abortion. you need to deal with this because, again i am sorry to report, you will NEVER get what you want. americans have supported some measure or another reproductive freedom for decades, even since before roe, and a very noisy, self-righteous, single-minded, and willfully ignorant minority of the electorate will not be allowed to force its religious beliefs on the rest of us. that will never happen.

think about it - the above poster wants republicans and everyone else to ignore the stunning, incredible weaknesses in the mccain/palin ticket and the frightening inconsistencies of mccain's views, and for what? mccain (or as likely pres. palin) getting to *nominate* one or two people that he/she won't get appointed anyway over the next 8 years? and ignore everything else?

the republican party is done for. the stupids have won out completely.

Whatever Gwen Ifill's reputation is, this revelation and her determination to moderate Thursday's debate has soiled it.

Absolutely and utterly absurd. Do you know what the book says? Has anyone read the book? Does anyone know whether it is really a pro-Obama screed as compared to an analysis of the election, warts and all?

This is trumped up, right-wing drama. This isn't a Wasilla book banning and burning. Don't we owe it to Ifill to actually read the book before we decide whether she has some bias that prevents her from doing her job as a fair and impartial moderator?

Anonymous: "It turns out that Gwen Ifill has published a book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," that is set to published on January 20, 2009 -- the day she expects Mr. Obama to be inaugurated President. It's already up on amazon.com

Ms. Ifill probably wonders how far fewer copies of her book she'll sell if, contrary to expectations, McCain/Palin win the election."

Unless her publishers do something underhanded, like change the subtitle prior to publication.

I just watched this clip of Palin that Andrew Sullivan is mercilessly flogging, wherein she is "incapable" of naming news sources she reads. You know what? I think she didn't answer the question directly because she sensed it was another gotcha moment for Couric. If she had said "The New York Times," Couric would have followed that with, "Well, what was on the front page today?" Then when Palin drew a blank (after having read dozens of newspapers in the clipbook format compiled by campaign staffers that morning) it would have been another trap. If she had said, "The National Review" or "The Weekly Standard" Couric would have followed up with exposition about "far right" publications. If she had said "USA Today," Couric would have followed up with a sound bite from a journalism professor deriding the "consumer" quality of that newspaper. See how that works? A thousand traps. A simple blanket answer avoided all of them and did not reflect any lack of interest in magazines or newspapers.

The election was about the Supreme Court and foreign policy until two weeks ago. Now it is about the economy, the economy, the economy and Obama is going to win that argument.

McCain is sinking in the polls now to the extent that even the Bradley Effect may not be enough to save him.

Face it, Rod, you think government is the answer, that it dictates our lives and futures. You cannot square that with conservatism.

The real agents of change, progress and security in this world are not elected. Business and labor drive the economy, generals and soldiers win the wars, scientists protect the environment, engineers build the roads, people's daily choices drive society.

Elected officials are nothing more than our representatives. Their job is to listen to the experts and try their best to ask the questions we would ask, and to make the decision that most of us would make if we only had the time to be there to do it ourselves.

By the way, the question about reading material is not "gotcha" journalism, it's an honest ice-breaker type question that every reporter asks the politicians, whether they're from CBS News or Glamour Magazine. It's not a quiz about what's on the front page of any given paper, it's a common, "softball" question, and Palin came off sounding terse and defensive. If she wanted a dodge, she could have said something like, "Y'know, I have to read so many serious policy reports on the job that I just like to curl up at the end of a long day with Field and Stream." Her "all of them" response sounded like she doesn't read "any of them."

"Interesting, a person who calls himself/herself "Hysterics" has now decided that I am both bitter and stupid based on an elemental concern about our country protecting innocent human life.

It is society's duty to protect innocent human life - that it is not an imposition of religious ferver, that is a fact."

john i have little regard for your decision making process because, any way you cut it and regardless of your views on abortion, this election is most demonstrably NOT about SCOTUS appointments. that is definitely one issue, but far from this biggest one. choosing one cadidate or the other based on that's candidates propensity to nominate judges of one ideological stripe or judicial philosophy or another is ridiculous.

well, gee, john, if you have any substance whatsoever, you might start by responding to my point that your argument that the entire reason to vote for mccain at this point, even if it requires one to "hold his nose" is judicial appointments is pretty foolish because (1) there are simply more important issues, and (2) judicial nominees routed through the confirmation process will not get you your desired result anyway.

anything at all? besides screeching about abortion (and not judicial appointment mania based on said screeching)?

Screeching? Really?

Peace to you, Hysterics.

Sorry, the 2.41 PM post above was me.