Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

I have one thought about Bob Barr -- at a time when it was obvious that Clinton would never be convicted, Bob Barr thought that the Senate had nothing better to do than to try to force him out of office. I have always wondered if the Senate maybe could have spent more time defending the US so that 9/11 would never have happened. And of course the Senate had many other things to do as well.

My attitude on this extends to the Bush administration, by the way. Quite a few leftists would have liked to try to impeach Bush because of the many, many bad things he has done in office. My position is that wasting time in such ways is wrong and irresponsible, whether done by Democrats or Republicans. It is dumb to try to do something that will obviously fail just to make a big show. That is what Bob Barr and his friends did, and that is what Democrats did not do, and I'm glad they didn't.

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

Palin was very well rehearsed. But for me, that created a certain disconnect because it wasn't real; although the weak attempts at creating a down-home feeling with phrases like "Joe Six Pack" and "Soccer Moms" seemed to be intended to combat this, it made it even more painfully transparent to me.

Appearances aside, she side stepped many issues while Biden seemed to pretty much answer as asked. Her attacks on Obama were just that, attacks, and really didn't have a lot of substance, while Biden really seemed to level McCain. Biden also seemed to be on offence far more than Palin, but I suppose that was no surprise.

In conclusion, I think it can be summed up with a few words: "It could've been worse for McCain/Palin".

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

Bush claims to represent Joe Sixpack, which was apparently good enough for too many deluded voters. Sorry if I oversimplified.

And the interview editing is immaterial to Palin's errors and poor performance. You especially can't single out Palin as a unique instance since that's been common in such interviews as long as I've been watching them (don't ask).

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

I felt the same way at the time, but grew to reconsider.

Clinton put himself in a compromising position, and thus the country at risk, and IMO he deserved impeachment... even if the rationale was something as simple as lying under oath.

And to get back on topic, Palin isn't in the same league as any other politician mentioned here so far IMO. EDIT: except one. :D

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

You're right. I've never liked that Bush as a president... Has he done much (any) real good? (I actually wanted John and John to win that last race.)

I'm not, they're always edited to... ehm... lean ;) This has~ happened, lots. That's why I don't understand *why* they let her do it.

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

That's certainly the standard rant (this time from the right), but the point still stands: Palin's bizarre rambling cannot be solely blamed on "editing that makes the interview lean". That's her.

One could definitely speculatively argue that perhaps the editing skewed the ratio of good-to-bad responses, but the ones we saw stand (or fall) on their own merits. If the McCain/Palin camp is using editing as their excuse for her poor performance, they fail.

I thought she looked an awful lot like Bush in them...

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

I thought Clinton was a rather good president. Maybe not so good a man, but a good leader, nonetheless...

And Yes!

I *don't* want a politician as VP! "Politician" was never meant to be a profession! The founding fathers expected it to be held by someone who represented the community, fixed problems, then left and went back to running his farm or buisness. It was never supposed to be a permanent job.

Palin never intended to make a living off of politics (from the news and her), but apparently she did pretty damn well up north, and she fixed problems ;)

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. ;)

I used the word "politician" to substitute for a sentence that would be more descriptive but more awkward, too. Suffice to say I've never been a fan of "politicians" in the derogatory sense of the word.

And I suggest you review Palin's performance in Alaska. Looks like she caused more problems than she fixed... more come to light almost every day.

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

Evidently I should have watched this... maybe if I get bored over the weekend.

Anyway, as for the veep's constitutional role, it does exist, and consists of being "a heartbeat away", and of being President of the Senate, and breaking ties there.

The de facto role of the vice-president is expanded remarkably, and without more context on that remark, I can't tell what she meant. It is refreshing, at least, that she put the qualifier "constitutional" in there, rather than assuming a natural grant of any desired powers...


On the "intelligence" issue:
As for me, I'd rather have a President be good, intelligent, and correct. But I'd order correct first, followed by good, and intelligence coming in last. A president doesn't work alone, and will (if he's honest, which comes under good) choose smart and wise advisors and listen to them. He'll never pick advisors opposite his ideology, and the placement of "good" is somewhat arbitrary as all career politicians fail it.

Re: Palin/Biden debate
 

I would hope every president would have at least one devil's advocate on staff. If nothing else than to check groupthink and demagoguery.

I know, I know: keep dreaming.