Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...f=slogin</a> A new poll suggests that the Palin bounce is over and that things have largely returned to pre-convention levels, with Obama now leading McCain nationwide. The poll shows that Obama is more likely in voter's minds to bring about change, and it also shows growing concerns with Sarah Palin's experience. Another important point: the poll also suggests that while the Palin pick did energize and excite the Republican base, it did nothing to move moderates or women who weren't already Republican.
Originally Posted By Mr X If anything, it seems to me that women in general find the Palin choice offensive and men are more receptive to her.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>it also shows growing concerns with Sarah Palin's experience<< Thank heavens. More people are waking up.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Thank heavens. More people are waking up.<< Let's hope so. The poll was taken shortly after Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson. (BTW, I finally saw the clip of her when Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. That was more cringe-worthy than I'd even pictured it.) Obviously the poll still shows a tight race. And the electoral college is what matters and that's a tight race too. Next up: the debates.
Originally Posted By Mr X I sure wish I could be the moderator for the VP debate. Are we allowed to submit questions?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yep. It's been a wild ride already, but the debates are going to be REALLY crucial to both sides. Who will say something dumb? Who will fire off a memorable zinger? Who will flounder a second too long for an answer? It's crunch time! Everything hinges on a gaffe or a pearl of wisdom!!! The free world holds its collective breathe in anticipation!!!!!! I'm running out of hackneyed, cliched phrases and exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (On a related note, I think I've seen enough close races for my lifetime now, thank you very much. This all does my blood pressure no good.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Are we allowed to submit questions?<< Us!?? Hell, the press isn't even allowed to ask Palin questions. She's been hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Us!?? Hell, the press isn't even allowed to ask Palin questions. >> Hell, I've heard Palin being asked (and answering) a whole lot more questions than I've heard from Biden. I know that isn't necessarily Biden's fault. The press seems to ignore him because he doesn't wear lipstick. But I must say, at this point in time I know one helluva lot more about Palin (for better or worse) than I know about Biden.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Hell, I've heard Palin being asked (and answering) a whole lot more questions than I've heard from Biden.<< Really? She's done one interview and answered her first impromptu question *today*. Of course, she also agreed to jump in the shark pit that is, Fox News. Obama did the same thing; somehow I suspect he got a different reception than Palin.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm sure the Hannity interview will be studied in schools of journalism for years to come. It will be that hard-hitting and deep... "What's your favorite thing about America, Mrs. Palin?" "Why do liberals hate women, Mrs. Palin? Follow up: Why do liberals want America to fall into the hands of bloodthirsty terrorists, Mrs. Palin?" "How are you holding up under the stress, Mrs. Palin?" "Mrs. Palin, what does freedom mean to you?"
Originally Posted By RoadTrip One interview? Well, it was a pretty lengthy interview getting a whole lot of TV time. I don't remember seeing anything similar about Biden since he was named Obama's Veep. I've also seen pretty heavy airplay today of Palin taking questions at a "town hall" type meeting. Sure, the questions were from the audience and mot from the press, but they were unscripted and fairly wide ranging. Were the questions slow pitches? Probably so. Real people don't typically go for the really nasty stuff. On the other hand, I haven't really heard Biden say much of ANYTHING other than that Hillary would have been a better VP pick. Which she would have. One place where Obama put personal ego over what was best for the country... even over what would be his best opportunity to win.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***even over what would be his best opportunity to win*** I don't think so. Given the filth that McShame has been flinging non-stop at Obama, I'd say it was a brilliant move to hire someone pretty low key and boring. Such folks are difficult to attack (and should it be necessary, he's got a backstory they could trot out if McCain gets too nasty). No, I don't think Clinton would've worked out at all. They'd be crucifying her daily and have plenty of ammo to work with.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***One place where Obama put personal ego over what was best for the country*** This from a McCain supporter? Amazing. Really, I do think the March Hare will be along any minute!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<***One place where Obama put personal ego over what was best for the country*** This from a McCain supporter? Amazing.>> There is a difference between ego keeping you from making a decision that would give you a sure win, and desperation making you come up with some way to give you a chance to win. Neither one was probably any better for the country than the other. Obama's was driven by ego; McCains by desperation.
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't believe Obama's decision was based on ego is my point. I really don't. The GOP would've roasted her alive, and I'm sure that was carefully examined and considered. Don't forget, the attacks started long before the VP pick..it was clear the road McCain had decided to follow.
Originally Posted By Mr X I certainly don't believe picking her would've resulted in a "sure win" either, based on GOP tactics. No way. Liability all the way. Biden is just a wash, pretty much.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Obama's was driven by ego; McCains by desperation.<< Suppose Obama picked Hillary. Next day, the conservatives are going bonkers, wailing hysterically about all the well-known Clinton flotsam and jetsam. Suddenly, it's 1998 again, and here we go through all of that stuff from now until November. Obama/Clinton is reviled as "the most inexperienced team ever!!!!" and McCain picks someone like Pawlenty. Game over, meet President McCain. The difference between the two choices couldn't be more clear: Joe Biden was a legitimate presidential candidate, and brings the experience Obama needed to the ticket. On the other hand, Palin thrills the Republican base, certainly changes the game, but also solidifies support among the Democratic base for Obama. Time will tell if the Palinmania will last or be too little too late.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess where I differ is I don't see Biden bringing anything to the ticket. The hard core liberals are going to vote for Obama anyway. The conservatives aren't going to vote for Obama no matter who he is running with. That leaves the group in the middle... many of them Hillary Democrats. Obama's choice does nothing to attract them, or many other middle of the road voters out there. Biden may have been the safe choice and maybe even the choice that was best for America, but it is also the choice that brings absolutely nothing to the ticket politically. Just as McCain’s choice of Pawlenty would have been safe, and would have ABSOLUTELY been best for America, but it would have brought nothing to the ticket politically.
