Skip to main content

Biden Wins, Hands Down

That "debate"! - that is, between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. So, who won?

Ari Berman in The Nation sums it up this way:

"Joe Biden was substantive, thoughtful and in command. Sarah Palin ignored virtually every question and stuck to generalities and platitudes.

Yes Palin didn't stumble as she did during the Katie Couric interviews. But she didn't impress, either. It was all boilerplate--like she was giving a scripted pep talk, not proving she could handle the toughest job in the world.

Biden kept his cool, even though he clearly had a much greater mastery of virtually every subject discussed. He kept the heat on John McCain--where it should be--and forcefully defended Obama when Palin made ludicrous claims about transferring the surge to Afghanistan or "waving the white flag of surrender" in Iraq.

I'm a little surprised to see the talking heads on TV talking about what a great job Palin did. Maybe they just want this race to be closer than it currently looks. But most swing voters, in an instant snapshot, thought otherwise.

According to a CBS poll, 46 percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Joe Biden was the winner. 21 percent thought Sarah Palin won, 33 percent thought it was a draw.

According to a CNN poll, 51 percent of voters though Biden won, compared to 36 percent for Palin.

(Only voters polled by Fox, surprise surprise, gave it to Palin.)

Before the debate, 54 percent of CNN voters said Palin was unqualified to be vice president. After the debate, that number (53 percent) only changed by a point.

Maybe, for once, substance prevailed over style."

Meanwhile, The Independent reports that the British Ambassador to the US has described Obama as "uninspiring":

"The British ambassador to Washington faces calls to resign after he described the US Presidential candidate Barack Obama as "uninspiring" and said his policies are "still evolving".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more