Palin/Biden predictions

My brother (a steadfast Democrat) offered me a new theory over the weekend. I'm curious what you all think.

He says that Joe Biden is going to get trounced on Thursday night. He compared it to an NFL team playing a high school team--either the NFL team loses by winning or it loses by losing.

He's convinced that Palin and company will just give stock answers even if they don't line up with what's asked and that anything close to "breaking even" will be a huge victory for the GOP. He thinks this will all be about how it "feels" and not about the answers themselves. (I personally think the 'feeling' period has ended, frankly)

I think it's interesting because I keep hearing that Biden better be gentle to Palin or people will see him as a bully. I think that's odd because McCain wasn't "gentle" to Obama Friday night and the spinners labeled that as "strength".

So my two-part question is (1) what do you think their strategy will be (from both sides) and (2) what will be the outcome?

You're brother and I are in complete agreement. His only prayer would be to behave as a total gentleman and hope that she looks like a shrew.

No clue on strategy although I do think Ms. Palin is feelin' the pressure. She has such a nice smile, she may just win because she is more loved by the TV camera.

1) Palin will go on the attack, so the subject won't be about her but about her opponents; Biden's approach will be to give her enough rope, and hope she hangs herself. Of course either strategy can backfire.

2) The outcome will be that both sides claim victory, as usual.

Bible Spice versus the King of the Gaffe. If nothing else it will be entertaining.

>5 vq5p9:
Bible Spice! Very nice :)

If the interviews are a good sample of Sarah Palin's abilities, then we'll hear the scripted answers that we've grown accustomed to love. It is too bad that Tom Brokaw is moderating the debate: Tim Russert would have been less likely to accept a boilerplate answer than Brokaw.

Joe Biden's performance doesn't really matter. This debate is all about Palin. No one questions whether Biden is fit to be President (if necessary).

I have this dream that Biden will describe Palin as turtle on a fencepost (Something I came across in reddit.com recently - A turtle has no business being on a fence post. If couldn't have gotten there itself, so someone must of put it there. It probably has no idea how it got there and no idea what to do now that it's there.). But, that would probably come across as too mean.

The best way to win a debate against Joe Biden is to hand him the microphone.

My hope is he smacks her around (intellectually, of course) on policy, foreign affairs, legal precedents, etc, and people see the shallow, woefully under-prepared person that Sarah Palin is. My thought is that no matter what the republican camp will just continue marching on, ignoring any objective reality that does not fit their world-view.

This is what sucks about the debate is that those who are already in one camp (whether it's Dem. Rep. or other) can almost never be swayed away form blindly following the leader. The republicans seem especially prone to this with Palin, because no matter what she says, no matter how dumb she sounds, its rationalized to "media hounds" a "gotcha answer" or good ol' "bias liberal media taking things out of context". I have my own biases in this race, but I like to think that on any given election, I will listen to either party and pick the person whom seems best for the post. I liked Bush in 2000 and I liked Kerry in 2004. I have voted on both sides of the isle, and even in the middle for local elections.

But maybe independents or those on the fence will be swayed by real answers, substance and logic, there is hope yet...right?

Independents on the fence - swayed by "real answers" that they receive through their television set.

Yeah, that’s some comfort.

Some comfort indeed. That is what got us Bush for the last eight years.

I think the economic issues of the last few days should alert people to the possibility of electing people who may actually be smart enough to a) understand the depth of the problems we face as a country, and b) have some idea what to do about them.

Should, I say, but we probably won't and will instead get a whole new crop of people who can say with a straight face, "We changed our vote on what is best for the country because Nancy hurt our feelings."

I'd like to add to Arctic-Stranger's list of possibilities: c) have some ability to recognize the multiple impacts of the chosen action(s).

The unintended consequences of government action frequently adds to our problems.

I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.

Arctic, are you in favor of the bailout?

I seriously have no idea. This is over my head, and I don't pretend to understand the full ramifications of whether we should or should not pile more money into this fiasco.

That is why I think we need thoughtful people who reflect what they think is best for the country, and not what all the yahoos back home are yelling about, nor what the administration is pushing down their throats.

My representive, Don Young, said that the bill was not all that bad, but that his constitents were really opposed, so he voted against it. Now, really, what do his constitents know? I am relatively well informed, and I really have no idea what we need to do here. I have to trust people at this point but the fact is, I don't trust these people to do what is best for our country. They are more concerned with saving their own short term asses. And some of them are dumber than dirt (like Don Young).

Some have suggested Biden be as gentlemanly as possible and let her speak as much as possible--which might not be so bad. She has shown a tendency to ramble as well especially when she is not sure of herself. What struck me about the Couric interview--in particular the part about the bailout which Tina Fay mimicked in her SNL skit--is that Palin didn't go off message really--moreso that she went from answering an interview question to giving her stump speech. Clearly it's because she's out of her league and unprepared and so instead of saying too little she starts saying way too much.

Here's the bottom line, as far as conservatives are concerned. Or this conservative, anyway.

She is woefully underqualified to be President. I am sure my ancient sexist prejudices are in play here, but they are not decisive. Were her accession to the Presidency to happen, we could only pray that she would convene a committee of qualified people who would closely advise her on what to do and say, while running the US on autopilot until the next election. (Think the Soviet Union under the ageing Brezhnev.) I am sure (well, pretty sure) that in private she does not think she is ready to be President -- it would be frightening if she did think that.

But even that would be problematic. So we would certainly face the real possibility, in case she became President, of some very bad decisions.

But what kind of bad decisions? I cannot see any catatrophically-bad decisions on the domestic front. Here, it is lack of imaginative leadership that would be the problem. But not a catastrophic problem. In fact, a Republican President with her instincts coupled with a Democratic Congress would probably do pretty well. Here, her political instincts would actually serve her well. (From a conservative point of view, of course.)

It is in foreign policy that we would have to worry. (Winston Churchill, during the First World War, said that the head of the British Fleet, Admiral Jellicoe, was 'the only man who could lose the War in an afternoon'.)

In a period of "normalcy", such as the second Bush apparently expected to inherit, a poorly-qualified President would not be much of a problem. But we are in anything but such a period, and all signs are that things are going to get worse: more complicated, faster moving, and with higher stakes.

We have no rulebook for how to be smart in such a situation. Invade Pakistan -- as I understand some raving reactionary neo-con proposed -- or let it stew in its own juice and hope that the Islamists within the Pakistan military don't let AQ get access to the nuclear arsenal?

The real fear is that a President who is unable to understand the nuances and multi-layered level of diplomacy will let us stumble into a war we are not prepared for and whose outcome is uncertain. (But wait ... we have already seen the US deliberately stride confidently forward into a war it was not prepared for and whose outcome is uncertain.)

Or in a fit of sentiment and shallow committment to a policy, get us involved in a war from which we then have to flee ignominiously after our first bloody nose, as Bush did in Somalia.

In fact, looking back on American foreign and military policy over the last fifty years, I wonder if Sarah Palin could have done worse?

Korea: announce we will not defend South Korea, then respond to the Communist invasion, beat it back, then continue towards the Chinese border, provoking a massive Chinese invasion which almost destroys us -- end up with the status quo after three years and 50,000 American dead.

Vietnam: back the hated French colonialists, then back their chosen puppet in the South, then try to fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy until it's too late for a change in strategy to make any difference.

Iran: overthrow a popular nationalist, pull the British chestnuts out of the fire for them, end up hated even by the Iranian liberals.

Cuba: back a dictator, then try to overthrow a popular radical government with the Havana Yacht Club plus rifles.

Okay, there were also successes, some of which American presidents played a role in, and some of which fell into our laps to illustrate the truth of Bismarck's observation that God watches out for drunks, idiots and the United States of America.

And our best success -- the bringing down of the Soviet Empire -- can to some extent be credited to a President that liberals believed was a mooncalf. All the smart folks said that the Soviets were solid -- Reagan trusted his instincts that they were not (and yes, the wish was probably father to the thought), and he was right.

Bill Clinton acted on his decent instincts with respect to the Balkans, probably against the advice of the sophisticates, and did an enormous amount of good there.

So ... all things considered, I still wouldn't like to see her become President. (Leaving aside the "experience" thing, I reluctantly have to admit that Obama seems a bit more open to the kind of new thinking we need in our foreign policy: recognize Cuba, make the Israelis dismantle their settlements, and so on.)

But it's not like, if she did become President, she would really have a very high bar to jump over.

#16 I agree. I think that if Palin consistently gives short answers and doesn't say much beyond her message, she will probably be OK. By now she probably realizes that she has nothing to gain by talking a lot.

In my imaginary world, not being able to talk intelligently about your political positions would be political suicide. In the real world, it's safe and doesn't hurt. Which potentially leaves Biden in the no-win described in post #1. Biden can try to get Palin to talk. But, if Palin is well prepared then the Biden might be better off stepping back and hoping for a draw. The worst that can happen is he can go on the attack and come out looking not only mean, but also arrogant (remember Gore in 2000).

However, having said that, I think there is way to attack Palin enough to get her talking and in such a way that would not come across mean or arrogant. If Biden doesn't point at Palin or at himself, but instead makes the case the Americans really need to know what Palin thinks and really need to hear more details, well that would put pressure on Palin to talk and it isn't a clear attack. It's a fair request. But it's risky to try to do that in a big debate. (just my two-cents)

I thought Gwen Ifill was the moderator for the VP debate.

Biden should pull out all the stops when answering a question and conclude with "Let's ask Sarah what she thinks."

This business of handling Palin with kid gloves is BS. As Harry S. (# 33 for all you BushCo fans out there) is reported to have said, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

The first time she sits down in top level negotiations with someone, say, Russia or China or Iran, for that matter, is she going to come with a list of rules on which questions are "fair" and which are not, which issues she understands and which ones she doesn't. Are we going to demand they treat this obviously incompetent (incompetent at this stage of her career) individual with deferrence because she's our incompetent individual? Come on, folks. If nothing else we have to make sure America see's this pig in a poke, Bible Spice (thanks, MrsHeisenburg).

dchaikiin>

You say that if Palin gives short answers she'll probably be OK.

But let's say Biden is asked, "What's the likelihood of our having to stand up to Iran?" He then speaks for the whole 2 minutes, mentions leaders, mentions agreements, shows how specific agreements may conflict, etc. Do you think Palin will sound OK if her response is then only 50 seconds and doesn't go into too much detail?

geneg, you're right, it's Ifill (not Brokaw).

If Biden concludes like that ("Let's ask Sarah what she thinks"), it will come off as condescending and the "poor Sarah" posse will be outraged. Better to let her presentation speak for itself. Biden's credentials are not in question and won't be diminished in a debate. A mediocre performance from Biden is sufficient. From what we've seen so far, Palin may struggle to reach this level.

geneg - I agree with theoria.

#20 JS - IMO, yes. I think a short simple confident answer, with some criticism of Obama or Biden (Obama would be better b/c he can't defend himself) would work. It can be a stupid. If she keeps it short, I don't think it will hurt her. (think of Bush vs Kerry. Kerry said we have no allies in our war with Iraq. And Bush made a big fuss saying "What about Poland." It was stupid response, but it was enough to soften Kerry's jabs.)

I certainly hope they both have their bracelets!

theoria>

Maybe instead of "Let's ask Sarah what she thinks" he could try, "If Governor Palin disagrees I think we deserve to know why". Or, "If Governor Palin disagrees she has yet to explain why."

There's a fine line between talking to someone and talking DOWN to someone (though I must say, no one has explained to me with any clarity how McCain's approach on Friday's debate was NOT condescending.)

Here we go. What it's like to debate Sarah Palin

I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.

jason,

Those would be better ways of prodding her to talk. However, if I were advising Biden, I’d tell him to speak about McCain not Palin; he shouldn’t get anywhere near an attack or risk the appearance of condescension (yes, McCain was condescending towards Obama). I don’t think Biden needs to force the issue that Palin isn’t suited for the VP slot. Just show her the respect neither McCain nor Palin extend towards Obama and let her own responses do the damage. Then she’ll have to spend the remainder of the campaign working to heal the self-inflicted wounds.

MrsH's link is instructive. Allow Palin to give an hour and thirty minutes of non-responses.

I was privileged to be at one of those debates, sponsored by the chamber of commerce. Halcro did not come off so well either, calling Palin a cheerleader at one point. But during the entire debate, Palin did not provide any specifics as to what she would do while in office. She was specifically about a gas pipeline, building a biological research center at UAF, subsistance hunting rights, oil and gas reserve tax, and a few other issues pertinent to Alaskans, and she basically lambasted the former governor (also a Republican.)

Doug,

With a strenously argued approach for low expectations, your defense of Palin is, well...plausible. But, even in these screwed-up times, could we indulge in higher expectations?

Also, more than a footnote, and maybe the subject for another thread: I refuse and continue to refuse until it rains crocodiles that Reagan gets so much credit for winning the Cold War. It is a long continuum and he was partly a contributor and largely a beneficiary, of several generations of bi-partisan American policy. This narrative really gets my tits, this rewriting of history. He was right? Well my barber was right, almost any asshole was right, except some were actually more serious. Remember Reagan's ex tempore sentimentalizing about Lenin's intentions? I don't believe these remarks were seriously founded, intellectually speaking (how's that for a exculpatory praise?) but you're probably attune to nuances of ex-comrades. How do you rationalize this away, for the dumb-ass Gipper, except that he said it because, well, he was a dumb-ass, and other people covered for him?

Anyway, time to make dinner.

Krolik: Reagan's role, if any, in the fall of the USSR; the value of the views (pre-collapse) of liberal intellectuals and Sovietologists on the durability of the USSR; whether or not it has been a good thing ... we really should have an argument about this. Maybe after the election.

I don't recall the particular Reagan reference (to Lenin's intentions) to which you refer. What was it? (I do recall his observation that the Russian language did not have a word for "freedom" -- I suppose he was trying to apply the Sapir-Whorf thesis to understanding the nature of Soviet society -- and all one could say to that was "svoboda!".)

I am very pessimistic about American foreign policy. I avoid disappointment in the classic way: through low expectations.

Not that I actually know anything, of course, but it seems likely to me that the OP is correct that for Palin and the Republicans, anything short of an obvious humiliation is a big win.

The target audience are the "undecided" vote which "As_you_know_Bob" has described, most charitably
in my opinion, as "low information" voters.

Substance counts for less than nothing. Who wants an egghead or policy wonk anyway? Personality, "looking presidential" , or is it "vice presidential"? , and all sorts of cosmetic , emotional, interpersonal nuance is what "wins" the day.

The good news is that it wont matter because there will be a Democratic landslide, a guess about the future that I think is justified on the following grounds:

1. Statistical regularity....The opposition party tends to win when the incumbent president's party has held office for 8 years, when the incumbent president is unpopular, when the economy is perceived to be on the skids, and when there is an unpopular war. Bingo cubed or bingo to the fourth power.

2. Rational choice theory....The GDP has been increasing for at least 8 years, but wages have been essentially flat. So the ordinary bear is getting a smaller part of a bigger pie. You think OB is going to be voting McSame under those conditions?

Of course, nobody knows the future, things could change plenty between now and election day, and of course, maybe OB is just uninformed, impulsive and easily manipulated.

Then of course, maybe the game is rigged. I dont really think its very likely that whatever electoral hanky panky occurs could be enough to actually steal the election, but if I'm wrong and its close, .... well, who knows for sure?

That's why I cap my bets at $0.05 a pop.

PS: I see IEM has Obama:McSame at 70:30
Yow!

As I understand it, the format for the debate will suit Palin's "abilities": 90-second answers and 2-minute follow-ups. She won't have a chance to talk for too long and jumble her scripts. This could also help Biden avoid his own flights of fantasy. I can't see how any questions that would require an elaboration of political philosophy or "deep thoughts" can be handled by either Biden or Palin in this format. Instead, we'll receive 90 minutes of sound bites.

Biden should be prepared for prepared Reaganesque zingers (on the order of "there you go again") from Palin.

Will the candidates know the questions before the debate? I suppose if all else fails, Palin could borrow whatever it was that Bush had under his coat during his first debate with Kerry in 2004.

#30--Low expectations or not--to me breaking even for Palin does not turn things around for McCain. They need to re-invigorate their campaign. Palin may surprise and survive the debate better than people expect but unless she can convince people that she can handle the presidency should the job land on her some day I don't think it is going to do McCain a lot of good on election day. To me she can't afford to play around with her answers. She has to be sharp and on message and she has offer something as far as policy solutions. People are skeptical enough about her now that she's not going to get a free ride by avoiding giving answers.

After the debate, unless it goes well for their side, McCain-Palin will blame Gwen Ifill, who apparently has a new book on Obama and others and the politics of race. (How did she not mention that in debate negotiations???)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081001/pl_politico/22742

It looks like the McCain-Palin camp didn't do their due diligence. Too bad for them now if they suddenly think Ifill is a problem. This doesn't reflect well on the management style of these potential leaders of the USA.

Having said that, there's no indication yet that (1) Ifill is promoting Obama (writing a book about Obama within a larger topic of race and politics does not imply an endorsement; the assumption that writers support the people, positions, or events they write about is a common mistake of undergraduates) and (2) whether Obama wins or not doesn't help or hurt the potential for book sales on the topic of race and politics.

It seems conservatives like Malkin, who see clearly the nature of the Palin train-wreck, are doing their part to limit the damage. Blaming media bias for the campaign's inability to climb over Obama in polling data is the one constant in the McCain campaign. I wonder if these conservatives would have been so eager to question Ifill's integrity as a debate moderator if she had worked on a book on gender and politics that discussed, for example, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and Sarah Palin.

Ifill is generally a good interviewer. Still, she should have turned down this opportunity, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

It all depends how you look at it. I heard they're using a 90 second response time on the questions. You could make a big argument that the shorter format favors Palin.

Of course, Ifill has said over and over that her main goal is to make sure her questions get answered. Advantage, Biden. :)

For all their talk about whiners, the mostestly biggerestly stupendentiouslierest whiners of all are Republicans.

They are amazing.

In two days I've heard Rep. Boner whine about Nancy Pelosi scuttling the bailout bill, and now they are whining about Gwen Ifill.

Whine, whine, whine.

I thought Phil Gramm scolded us about whining.

Actually, I understand why they whine: Bush, a tanking economy and House Republican Yahoos yammering about socialism, Bush, Palin's never-ending interview with Katie Couric (this time, she can't name more than one Supreme Court decision, Roe), and Bush. Plus McCain would really rather talk about surging than executive pay.

I wish the dems would whine. Whining looks a lot like assertion when it's your own party and I'm pretty tired of the way that "my" party is ever reacting rather than acting.

Oh, the Dems are great whiners too. Just not as good as the masters.

I think the McCain camp has already claimed victory over the nefariously biased Gwen Ifill.

The same way McCain won the debate with Obama the day before they held it.

"Many also feel the discovery of a "McCain Wins the Debate" ad a day before the actual debate was surprising, but not to students of media manipulation. I suggest it was just like Bush's premature "Mission Accomplished" celebration, but this digital banner was planted on websites off to the sides of online articles where they seep into the subconscious through casual peripheral viewing. After the debate, both sides naturally claim they each won..."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-Claims-Victory-in-D-by-Gustav-Wynn-08092...

LibrErica>

The GOP is planting the "Gwen Ifill is biased" seeds early so that they can fall back on the "Palin's a victim" defense if she loses the debate. Yeah, that's what I want: leaders who plan ahead who they're going to blame if and when they fail at something.

Have you heard Obama play the victim card? Just imagine it...

"It's not fair because the audience was predominantly white."

"Hillary has an advantage because her husband was ALREADY president."

McCain didn't even LOOK at me! I'm a senator TOO you know!"

He doesn't even have excuses AFTER the fact let alone BEFORE it. That's what leadership is to me.

It seems that Letterman is still miffed over McCain canceling his appearance on the show. Top Ten "Things Overheard at Palin Debate Camp"

Palin seems to think she's still campaigning in Alaska.

Someone should tell McCain and Biden never to smile. They look feral.

Palin: "Burn more oil" - next sentence "we need a cleaner earth." Nice

Palin: "Huge blunders" by the Bush administration! Maybe she's not so bad after all!

Now she's starting to loose it a little. Is she going to cry? Growd womenz everywhere are shamed.

Also, what is up with Biden eyes. Does he have eye lids? I thought only Californians had bad facelifts.

People in Bosnia are called Bosniacs?

I am apparently too much of an elitist to understand how "Joe Sixpack" is not a pejorative term.

Bosnians? I'm just happy Biden is fairly disciplined, teeth and all.

Maybe she thinks "sixpack" means firm abs.

John McCain knows how to win a war? We won Vietnam? That's news to me.

#52: I giggle every time I hear that one, too.

Did anyone notice the dead panic on Palin's face with that question on nukes? Whoever prepared her note cards hit most of the issues, but they didn't have that one.

You can tell when Ifill asks a question Palin has prepared for - she looks like she wants to clap her hands and skip. "Ooh! I practiced that one!"

#51 If that's what six pack means, we definitely need more Joe Sixpacks!

#53 Maybe she means his first divorce.

Energy independence and children with special needs - kind of a hybrid VP/First Lady roll.

54 they didn't prepare a note card on the vice-presidency :(

Palin is from a huge state? Her state is smaller than my school district.

Or on what are your real weaknesses. OMG, she's going for the Beacon on the Hill!

The 'beacon on a hill' answer sounded like an answer to a pageant question.

Oh goody, it's time for the personal background-off.

My husband and I are sparring over whether Biden's choke-up moment was scripted. I'm not convinced.

Biden's crying! Good grief.

"McCain's the man that we need to leave--I mean, lead!" No, the first one was right.

#61 No, I think snakes eyes was really crying. He's tired. He and McCain should be in bed.

I have noticed that Palin scrunches her nose up whenever she has to flounder through a topic that is not in her notes.

#60 All of her stuff is like that. She was born for infomercials.

Bipartisanship in Alaska? Aren't both houses of the state legislature majority Republican? Sounds like George Bush bipartisanship: "I say what I want to do, you roll over and play dead."

Well elitists! You guys are great. I'm off to dream about Saint Ronald.

Yep, it's been fun. Gotta teach tomorrow morning. Nighty night.

Wow, I thought Biden was incredible. And Palin could speak english! They both exceeded my expectations.

Senator Biden: you were disciplined and didn't come off as condescending. Your task was pretty easy but you didn't raise the bar. You can't coast at this level. Final Grade: B

Governor Palin: This debate was all about you. Unfortunately, even in the “unfiltered” format in which you could smile into the camera and address Joe Sixpack and Hockey Mom directly, you still appeared to be in test-prep mode. When your cue cards didn’t address a question, you rambled on about something else you knew by heart, even when the answer had nothing to do with the question. Is that what it means to be a maverick? Too often after an answer it appeared you were waiting for a pat on the head. I’m afraid you’re not in Alaska any more Governor Palin. Final Grade: C

Is this the best the Republican party has to offer?

Ha ha I lied. I'm not in bed!

#71

Is this the best the Republican party has to offer?

The Republicans have some impressive business women that they could have chosen from, but I think that woman and adult would have been too scary for their constituents. They picked what would sell.

Palin won in that she had the most to lose and she did fine. But she didn't GAIN any ground... she didn't set McCain apart from the present GOP at all. That should have been her purpose.

And Biden just stayed vanilla. No mistakes, no mistakes.

In the end, I think McCain and company were just hoping she didn't screw up. That's fine, but that's not going to shift a lot of people. She won in that she exceeded expectations but by Monday they'll be talking about the next debate, which is Thursday.

If Obama's in the lead, then a tie is basically a loss. Mavericks be damned.

The senate in Alaska is actually a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats. The harder line Republicans are on the sidelines, at least for this year.

As a woman, I am SO relieved Sarah Palin didn't embarrass herself. As a voter, I think Joe Biden showed himself to be by far the most qualified candidate to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. (Heck, he would have done well in the first debate!)

Did I see panic on Biden's face when Palin described her plans for being an activist in the Senate, should she win? "~VP's only role in Senate is to vote in event of a tie!"

ETA: Why are all the candidates inserting a "c" in the Iranian president's name (AHMADINEJAD), as in AHK-med-deen-ah-jad? Is that correct?

I've heard his name pronounce by those who should know with what - a glottal stop, maybe, as in "ach".

I thought with everything except healthcare and taxes she pretty much co-opted the Obama/Biden message.

O'Biden ?

Brrr: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10429

An article all conservatives should read and understand. These radicals are far, far more dangerous to America than anything Al-Qaeda or radical Islam can do.

When I expressed fear that there would be no presidential election this fall I was treated, mostly, dismissively. My mail service recently has been pretty good.

Robert

Tina Fey debates: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-i_n_131964.html

Unfortunately, though, the video is over-ridden by a track from Star Wars, courtesy of a McCain-loving hacker, I suppose.

SNL debate skit here.

Thanks oregon, for posting the skit al-so.

77 - I heard Naomi Wolf speak last night at my local bookstore. I haven't yet read any of her books but she is quite the speaker. My blood pressure may not drop down to normal until after the election!

>77 marieke54:

Apparenty Global Research is not the only one harboring that particular paranoid fantasy.