Generic Congressional Ballot is now at 48-45, which I imagine is as close as it's been since 2005 or so. This could be a blip, but it looks like it's possible the GOP won't get wiped out in Congress. That would be delightful. We're still gonna get run in the Senate, but have to keep the House closeish so that a run can be made at taking it back in 2010 and 2012.

jerseyhoya wrote:She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. This is the same board that was pretty sure she gave the worst speech ever. Probably not the place to go for objective analysis.

Okay. I didn't see it, and I take your point about this board (or Andrew Sullivan, or Josh Marshall, or any of the other places I'm inclined to look) not being representative.

But from what I read, she really didn't seem to grasp some of the basic basics of foreign policy thinking and doctrine. She directly contradicted past statements she made about global warming. She misunderstood the question about the Bush Doctrine.

I know you look at this as wins and losses, somewhat similar to following the Phillies or Giants. There was a time when I probably would have thundered in self-righteousness about that; not now. (I don't know whether this is maturity, deep-black cynicism, or simply being beaten down by American politics to the point where I think you're totally right to see it this way.)

But, really, would you feel very confident with this woman in the presidency? Is it that you think she'd be guided by more senior/knowledgeable/responsible Republicans? That she'd just be a figurehead?

dajafi wrote:But, really, would you feel very confident with this woman in the presidency? Is it that you think she'd be guided by more senior/knowledgeable/responsible Republicans? That she'd just be a figurehead?

Let's definitely give that eight more years...

Palin's next interview

They should extend the world the same courtesy as Palin, and just put the questions online ahead of time. That way we could all play along at home...

If, like me, you dislike Sarah Palin in part because of her views and policies on wildlife - ie, support aerial hunting of endangered grey wolves, even offering a $150 bounty for their severed forelegs - you should know that Defenders of Wildlife is raising funds to run a 60-second spot that highlights her record in this area.

http://actionfund.defenders.org/palinvideo

I made a small contribution to this effort.

I support this effort (1) because I agree with it, but also (2) because I think this is an issue that with wider exposure can bring moderate white female voters back into the Democratic fold.

Palin's original comment that US troops are on a task from God does not follow Lincoln's quote. ‘I think there is no computing the precise Lincoln quote with her own quote,’ Holzer said. ‘Lincoln sought guidance from God, he didn't tell people that God was guiding him. It is just different.’”

dajafi wrote::lol:

Palin's next interview

They should extend the world the same courtesy as Palin, and just put the questions online ahead of time. That way we could all play along at home...

The answers will be in the questions.

There is a reason why in our judicial system leading questions are not permitted on direct examination; namely, it allows the examiner to testify. This is exactly what you will get with a Hannity/Palin interview.

dajafi wrote:I was playing poker last night rather than watching Palin.

(Ears perking up)

Quick - who's the VP candidate who brilliantly floated the idea to have the US "donote" $200 million to Iran right after 9/11?

Hint: Stand up, Charlie!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0&eurl[/youtube]

were they giving the white power sign?

the board just ate my reply. again.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:She wasn't great, or maybe even good, but she didn't flop. This is the same board that was pretty sure she gave the worst speech ever. Probably not the place to go for objective analysis.

Okay. I didn't see it, and I take your point about this board (or Andrew Sullivan, or Josh Marshall, or any of the other places I'm inclined to look) not being representative.

But from what I read, she really didn't seem to grasp some of the basic basics of foreign policy thinking and doctrine. She directly contradicted past statements she made about global warming. She misunderstood the question about the Bush Doctrine.

I know you look at this as wins and losses, somewhat similar to following the Phillies or Giants. There was a time when I probably would have thundered in self-righteousness about that; not now. (I don't know whether this is maturity, deep-black cynicism, or simply being beaten down by American politics to the point where I think you're totally right to see it this way.)

But, really, would you feel very confident with this woman in the presidency? Is it that you think she'd be guided by more senior/knowledgeable/responsible Republicans? That she'd just be a figurehead?

I wish I wasn't busy at work, tired, and a little hungover, because I have a pretty good rant in me. Instead I'll keep it shortish. (After writing, this is not a short answer for me)

First, I don't think she directly contradicted herself on global warning. She made a ridiculously parsed comment on it, unless I'm missing something else she said, but I don't really find a terrible contradiction. In any case, part of the VP's job is to move to the positions of the top of the ticket. McCain believes in man-made global warming, she sort of has to as well, although she's not giving up on ANWR, and she seems to hint McCain will move towards her on that.

She did misunderstand the question about the Bush Doctrine. Cringeworthy, embarrassing, and maybe a little disconcerting. I guess to answer the basic question of whether I'd be very confident in her as president, I'd say no, not right now. I'd like to think that my answer will be different in another couple of weeks. I do think she's smart enough, and she appears to be working hard. Anecdotally, a guy I used to work with is now on her rapid response/research staff, and he was telling us about how she has been killing them asking for more and more detailed information about all sorts of topics, and that she's very driven to prove everyone wrong, and tell them to go fuck themselves. I liked hearing that a lot.

As a more general point, I think it's ridiculous how much of a no win situation she was in last night in many respects. She's getting hit for regurgitating talking points and responding like she was cramming for an exam, but she was getting questioned like she was taking an exam. She would have gotten hit on global warming either way, either for flip flopping or contradicting McCain. She's getting mocked for the Russia answer, even though it's true. People (Josh Marshall for example) are ripping her over her NATO-Georgia/Ukraine answer even though it is more or less the same position held by Obama and Biden. If you want to find fault in her interview, you won't have any trouble. If you want to find something to like, her confidence and quick answers were things I liked seeing, showed she might do pretty well in the debate.

I would have loved if in the interview, Gibson was just like "Please tell me over the next five minutes what you think about foreign policy." Maybe it would have been a stream of talking points, but also maybe she could have given a better insight into what she finds important, and how she sees the world. Instead we got what happened, and everyone's happy because she made her one big error, so that's what we can talk about. I know I'm being hypocritical since I am the guy that loves the gotcha stuff, but I will take solace in the fact that I can see and admit to many of my own hypocrisies.

Thanks jh. Good stuff.

jerseyhoya wrote:Anecdotally, a guy I used to work with is now on her rapid response/research staff, and he was telling us about how she has been killing them asking for more and more detailed information about all sorts of topics, and that she's very driven to prove everyone wrong, and tell them to go $#@! themselves. I liked hearing that a lot.

are you serious? im having trouble understanding if that was meant as a farce or not. that you are happy that the VP candidate is literally cramming for a test rather than already prepared when she was selected.

isnt that just completely, openly, and as you say cringeworthily, admitting how ridiculously unprepared for this job she is?

in any case, as i noted before, as an obama supporter i was really calmed and relieved last night. im more confident than ever after seeing her fail just about every question thrown her way. i think this might be the start where the initial "omg she is so hot and young and fiesty and i love her" mania starts to turn into "wait, had she really never heard of the bush doctrine?"

If she's in a no win situation, isn't that really a bad job by the McCain campaign? It's their candidate, and their hand picked interviewer.

(redundant)

gr wrote:the board just ate my reply. again.

Oh, no, TRT has flipped.

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Anecdotally, a guy I used to work with is now on her rapid response/research staff, and he was telling us about how she has been killing them asking for more and more detailed information about all sorts of topics, and that she's very driven to prove everyone wrong, and tell them to go $#@! themselves. I liked hearing that a lot.

are you serious? im having trouble understanding if that was meant as a farce or not. that you are happy that the VP candidate is literally cramming for a test rather than already prepared when she was selected.

isnt that just completely, openly, and as you say cringeworthily, admitting how ridiculously unprepared for this job she is?

in any case, as i noted before, as an obama supporter i was really calmed and relieved last night. im more confident than ever after seeing her fail just about every question thrown her way. i think this might be the start where the initial "omg she is so hot and young and fiesty and i love her" mania starts to turn into "wait, had she really never heard of the bush doctrine?"

She isn't just learning about issues for herself. She has to make sure she knows everything, knows McCain's stance on the issue, and be able to articulate his stance with her personal spin with no room for error because every statement she makes will be held under the microscope to be mocked.

No, it's not a farce. I'm happy that she's working hard to get herself where she needs to be. Honestly, if you had asked me before last night what the Bush Doctrine was before last night, I would have probably thought it was "You're either with us or you're against us." not the doctrine of preemption.