September 27th, 2008
Some people are saying that Sarah Palin’s pathetic performance in her infamous interview with Katie Couric portends a full-blown disaster when the Alaska governor meets Joe Biden in the vice-presidential debate Thursday night in St. Louis.
THIS GUY even suspects that the McCain camp is looking for a way to postpone or cancel the veep debate.
But the Obama people, concerned that the bar has been set too low for Palin, are TELLING THE WORLD that she’s actually “a terrific debater.” They don’t want to her to win the debate merely by barely surpassing exceedingly low expectations.
September 27th, 2008
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/wup4nsIWe8A" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
September 27th, 2008
From DailyKos, we have this NICE LITTLE COLLECTION of debate reactions, including links to some rabid stuff from the right-wing blogosphere.
Enjoy!
September 27th, 2008
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/HqqyTcdCzc8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
September 27th, 2008
Paul Newman, one of the GREATEST FILM ACTORS of all time, was a tireless campaigner for liberal causes.
Local angle: In 1980, Newman made TV spots for the presidential candidacy of John Anderson, the Rockford congressman.
UPDATE: Nobody beats The New York Times at celebrity obituaries. HERE’s the paper’s obit on Paul Newman.
September 27th, 2008
For all the talk about earmarks in last night’s debate, the fact of the matter is that they amount to relatively little money in the overall scheme of federal spending.
In the pie chart above (hat-tip to Brad DeLong, by the way), that extremely tiny little slice at the top represents earmarks.
September 27th, 2008
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/xG1aOORf8Pc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
September 27th, 2008
The question of determining the winner of any presidential debate is a tricky business — far, far more tricky than you might suspect.
It has almost nothing to do with the reactions of us partisans who long ago made up our minds as to whom we’ll be voting for and are not going to be dissuaded in that regard.
In that sense, if and when I ever form an opinion on whether it was John McCain or Barack Obama who clearly won last night’s debate at Ole Miss, it will be based on my reading of lasting impressions among other voters. And it’s still too early for such a reading.
Joe Klein of Time magazine SAYS he thinks Obama won. But he adds that “these debates are won, or lost, on style and perceptions of character—not substance,” and that this one, like all debates, “will need to be digested, discussed around the water cooler and the dinner table” by others.
Such discussions in the days after a debate often focus on aspects that some observers didn’t consciously notice while watching the encounter. Some of those aspects become the focus of media reports, which in turn can influence the thoughts of ordinary folks.
For example, it was only later that much was made of the fact that George H.W. Bush looked at his watch during one of his debates with Bill Clinton in 1992. The interpretation attached to that gesture was that Bush was uncomfortable and wanted the ordeal to end. He lost the election.
The same kind of negative connotation might eventually be attached to the fact that McCain avoided eye contact with Obama last night — as if out of loathing or fear. Little things like that — little body-language quirks — can spawn lasting impressions in voters’ minds.
Quickie POLLS by CBS and CNN after last night’s debate showed a plurality or a majority giving the nod to Obama, but the percentages could shift in the coming days — especially given the fact that neither candidate landed a knockout blow or committed a terrible gaffe.
Meanwhile, varying verdicts from pundits can be found HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.
