Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Thursday, October 2. 2008Fair WarningThis is directed to those of you planning on watching the Palin-Biden debate tonight at 9 EDT. It's the only debate they'll have. This is a warning. As you know, we here at Maggie's Farm advocate the peaceful, bucolic life. Why, just this morning as BD was sloppin' the hogs, we decided we had a civic duty to warn our readers about tonight's debate and the dangers of sudden shocks to the central nervous system and the inherent possibility of stroke or even heart attack. And, well, we don't want any heart attacks, now, do we? Of course we don't. Hence the warning.
Ah, I remember it like it was yesterday. I sat there mesmerized. I'd never really been into politics, like knowing who the key players and power brokers are, or how the great machine we call 'Washington DC' really works. I'd never watched C-SPAN and probably couldn't have picked five senators out of a police lineup — just to pick the nearest analogy. But I was thinking of getting into something new when suddenly the John Roberts judiciary hearings came up (when the Senate Judiciary Committee vetted him for the Supreme Court), so I thought I'd tune in. Each senator on the committee spoke in turn, and I thought Senator John Cornyn's speech was just about the most impressive thing I'd ever heard in my life. Sitting there as Mr. Average American Voter — who knew a little about politics, but not much — I was quite impressed with the erudition and import of each senator's opening remarks. But then he spoke. And I can remember sitting there just entranced at the sight and sound of this man. The posture, the face, the penetrating eyes, the timbre of his voice. The vibrational intensity he exuded. The charisma. I thought at the time, This guy has 'president' written all over him. I looked down at the bottom of the TV screen. His name was Joe Biden. I believe a lot of people are going to be surprised tonight. In the few clips of him I've seen (usually making some delightful Joe-like gaffe with a dozen microphones stuck in his face), this presence I saw during the hearings was understandably missing. Even during the Democratic debates, he was just another face in the crowd. Tonight, though, is different. In all honesty, it appears most of the Righty (and perhaps a number of Lefty) bloggers view him as something of a clown, a joke, even a buffoon. And certainly a large tactical mistake on Obama's part. Most right-wing bloggers were thrilled when he was selected. They view him as nothing but a big gaffe-o-matic machine. But I think Team Sarah is petrified. Because I think they've reviewed the very same opening statement he made that so enchanted me, and I'll bet you the first thing that went through their minds was, Holy shiite, this guy's intense! Seriously, if all you've seen of him are quick video clips and delivering sound bites on the weekend talk shows, you haven't even glimpsed the powerful presence this man can be when he's in his element. Why isn't THIS guy running for president? Good question, actually. With Obama as his VP, grooming him for his own presidency eight years hence? And a promise to give Hillary the Secretary of Health and Human Services cabinet post? The guy would have been a shoe-in. You'll see what I mean tonight, and you'll probably find yourself asking the same question at some point.
Then you see Lunchbox Joe. And that steely look in his eyes when he's talking about foreign policy is telling you, Dear Leader, in no uncertain terms, I could crush you like a bug and wouldn't think twice. Remember, there's a reason enough people thought he had a chance at the presidency that he made it to the first round of ballots. This is a very direct, likable, sincere-sounding guy who — discounting policies for a second — would probably make a great president. He's got that faraway maniacal gleam in his eye that would scare the beejeezus out of Putin and Ahmadinejad. He'd be lashing out at them from the Oval Office and they'd be thinking, Yikes, this guy means it! He's probably one of the very few Democrats who'd have the stones to bomb Iran back to the Bronze Age before it's too late. If a Democrat had to be in the White House, I'd want Joe Biden. So, fair warning. I haven't seen Biden 'in his element' since the Judiciary Committee hearings a few years ago, so for all I know he's turned into a doddering old fool, himself, but if he's still got what I saw back then, you're in for a small scare if you're a Republican. This guy's the real deal. And picture the impact of these two bullet points together:
As I said, I think Team Sarah is petrified. She's going to come across as 'knowing some stuff,' almost desperate to fill up her allotted time slot, while Biden is going to give the distinct impression that he could ramble along for another two hours on the subject. We're going to see that whole "McCain lecturing the young Obama" meme that came out of the last debate turned completely around, with the young deer-eyed Palin trying not to gulp audibly as the Taskmaster kindly points out yet another example of her political naiveté. That, or they'll be unbelievably polite with each other so they don't have to go through all of the "Was Biden being sexist/condescending?", "Did Palin use her feminine wiles?" routine afterward. If the whole event is later criticized as being 'marshmallow fluff' because they never once got into it, I'd say good for them. Of all the animal analogies out there ("dog tired", "acting catty"), none is more appropriate than comparing the media to a circling school of sharks awaiting the next feeding frenzy. If Palin and Biden tacitly agree not to bloody the waters, then kudos to both of them for a class act. With all of this said, not a very large percentage of the American populace watches the debates, so I don't think tonight's event will have any real impact on the election, even if someone clearly "wins" the contest. I still think the Dems are going to lose big-time come November. Despite what the polls say, I think that there, in the privacy of the voting booth, 40 years of unquenched feminine pride is going to handily outweigh mere political ideology, and Sarah — and whoever's running with her — is going to sweep into the White House. As I said in my Maggie's post on the subject, women are going to look at Sarah's name on the ballot and consider the possibility that this might be the first, last and only time in their lives that they'll have the chance to shatter the glass ceiling. To be a part of history. If Hillary crossed your mind, she'll be too old and passé by 2016. People tout her as running in 2012, but that's only if McCain wins this November, and there's certainly no guarantee she'd be nominated. If Obama wins, and doesn't commit any impeachment-worthy blunders during his first three years, there's little question he'd be the Dem nominee in 2012, not Hillary. So, from what women can see at this point, Sarah may be their one and only chance to achieve this quest of almost 40 years, since the very concept of a woman in the White House arose during the FemLib days of the early 70's. 40 years versus a mere 4 years of putting up with another Republican presidency in order to achieve this historic goal? Small price to pay.
PBS anchor Gwen Ifill's upcoming book, a puff piece on Obama, is due to be released January 20th, Inauguration Day. Would you guess she has a vested interest in the election's outcome? The fact that the recent revelation of her upcoming book didn't immediately excuse her from moderator's duties bespoke volumes about the composition of the Commission On Presidential Debates. It's one thing to be blatantly partisan, but to actually have a financial interest in the matter? That's now okay? Pete Rose, call your office. For you sharpies who like to keep an eye out for political bias from the (ahem) neutral moderator, tonight should be an interesting test. If it happens, it'll be subtle, like the way a question for Sarah is phrased ("So when did you stop cheating on your husband?"), or, more likely, tossing something Sarah had previously said back at her, but altering just a word or two, enough to slightly change the meaning and make her spend valuable time just trying to clarify, rather than answer, which will later be reported as either "too obsessed over minor details, not seeing the bigger picture" or "waffling, indecisive, stalling for time," depending on how the writer wants to slant it. Whatever happens tonight, it should be a kick, and stay tuned for all kinds of Nielsen Ratings records being set. As I noted in my post-debate wrap-up last week, tonight's debate falls into a category no presidential or vice-presidential debate has ever fallen into: Entertainment. And, as those untold millions who have never watched more than five minutes of a debate in their lives tune in to see Sarah, like the McCain-Obama debate last week, both sides will be reassured. Those wondering about Obama's inexperience will see the powerful hands of the DC Machine in the form of Senator Biden, and those wondering if Governor Palin is really the witch the media and/or bloggers are making her out to be will see a fun, upbeat gal who's obviously intelligent and comfortable in the spotlight. To the average American voter, it often doesn't take much more than that. Enjoy the show. /make popcorn //screw the diet, use real butter Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Interesting...I guess I missed that one. Whenever I happened to catch Slow Joe bloviating instead of questioning on the judiciary panel I saw a self important, marginally intelligent gas bag. He strikes me not as serious but smarmy, not deep but shallow as a day old puddle representing everything that is wrong with today's Senate.
That's what I thought too. But I've never really listened to the guy.
Why does Ifill need to be subtle? Sloe Joe already has the questions.
Ifill doesn't have to even do the deed. Just leave the questions around where a staffer can scoop them up and make copies. In professional wrestling terms, Ifill's showing her hands to the referee while her staffer is hitting Palin in the head with a chair. Sarah has already won this debate pre-emptively given the Ifill as "impartial moderator" flap. Republicans alaways give away 3 or 4 strokes on the handicap to the Democrats in these things and Ifill-as- Moderator is a perfect example. But the underdogs still win the election, time after time! If Sarah is really the tiger I think she is she will immediately and succinctly work in a mention of the upcoming book to get it on the record and put Ifill on the defensive at the start.
If the discussion comes around to the Supreme Court, Sarah could remind the nation of Biden's shameful role in attacking highly qualified nominees like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas- especially Clarence Thomas- due to their strict constructionist views. Sure it's a gamble, so what, that's what leaders do. Go for it, you'll look like a leader unafraid to stand up for the good guys. Most of all, remind the nation that Obama has no record, is completely untested, and besides we know a lot more about Sarah Palin the person and her record than we do Barack Obama. Who is Barack Obama? What has he ever done? All our Wonderwoman needs to do is turn whatever gotcha question she gets into her talking points about her accomplishments as Governor, i.e., her executive ability in dealing with government agencies, budgeting, and the day-to-to-day issues such as health care and education that directly impact citizens' daily lives, Alaska's enormous potential for energy development, and so-on, policy making and decision making responsibilities that neither Obama nor Biden have ever had. This will all be in contrast to Joe Biden who will appear as just another Inside-The-Beltway windbag- and a plagiarizing one at that- and windbag-by- extension- Obama- in a body full of get-along, go-along windbags, Johnny Mac, of course, being a man of heroic leadership and action, a notable exception. Sarah is the real deal and all she needs to do is be herself, just as Reagan was in his debates. It's true that people will soon forget about this debate. Republican Presidential candidates win by closing strong in the stretch when the finish line is in sight. At this point we are just approaching the quarter pole and top of the stretch where the real racing begins. The real fun begins in October and I still have my $$$ on McCain-Palin pulling away at the sixteenth pole, although it may be a win by a foul claim when we see how much voter fraud is involved. GMP,
Please send this immediately to Palin by hand delivery. Every coach gives those last few owrds of wisdom before the game. This is the best, simplest and actionable advice she could get. While it's true to our practiced eyes that Biden is just another DC gasbag, that's why I specifically mentioned how politically naive I was when I first saw him. To my rube-ish eyes at the time, he was extremely impressive. It'll be interesting to read the comments to various blog posts tomorrow and see how others take to him.
greenie, that was a good comment about what Sarah should do in the opening moments and I meant to mention it in the post. Before the questions begin, she should give Ifills a great big smile and say, "So, tell us all about your new book!" Doc, I love to read your writing! You are so fluid and concise.
I've watched Biden over the years and have never seen him as anything but feral and narcissistic. I can't remember the panel, but his pre-question, self-aggrandizing monologue went on so long he lost time to ask his question. He demanded of the panel's moderator who insisted Biden drop it to be given more time. He got it. It was a disgusting display of bully tactics. I do not disagree that he has the capabilities to scare a foreign leader if he could shut up long enough to get his point across. ... Or maybe simply learn to repeat the word 'Nuke' instead of his labyrinthian, screwed-up maunderings. I think both campaigns have the same strategy going into this debate: They've shown the worst and weakest sides of both VP candidates so that tonight when they come on full-sheeted-home, it will be a surprise to everyone. I was repulsed by Ifill during her last role as moderator. She was officious and impatient. Tonight she will have to lose her innate arrogance. It just might be she has the hardest role to play tonight. It will be a treat to watch. ` I've seen a lot more of Slow Joe than most. He can look impressive for maybe ten minutes. Give him forty five and his disorganized mind (talks in nested parentheses) will be readily apparent.
(talks in nested parentheses)
What a perfect description. Easily the most annoying and distracting element of writing and speaking in the world of communication. It is the equivalent of a friend of a friend showing you a huge stack of photographs of their vacation and insisting on naming every person in the photographs and telling you all about them. ` Meta - Thanks very much for the compliment. Coming from a wordsmith such as yourself, it means a lot. The 'fluid' comes from innumerable re-readings, editing a word here and a word there until it flows effortlessly before my eyes from first word to last. The 'concise' comes from years of writing computer tutorials where there's no room to stray. I adore colorizing my words with adjectives, but never to the point of being superfluous.
Your use of the word 'feral' was quite perceptive. He does have that weasel-y, predatory nature about him. That's what I meant by that wild gleam in the back of his eyes. If Obama wins and I were some tinpot dictator, I'd wake up every morning and pray for Obama's continuing good health. "I can't remember the panel, but his pre-question, self-aggrandizing monologue went on so long he lost time to ask his question." Classic Biden. When I said he'll leave the impression tonight that he could drone on for another two hours on the subject, that's exactly what I was thinking about. And he wasn't even talking about a subject -- he was just warming up to ask a question! It was, IIRC, the second round of questions in the Roberts hearing. And, FWIW, Biden asked good, pointed questions. The smear artists were Kennedy and Feinstein. "(talks in nested parentheses)" Roy, you nailed it. Unfortunately, we won't see this particular gift tonight, but he's truly a master of the craft. He can go down three, four levels, and somehow manages to claw his way back up to the here and now. In a way, I'm going to miss that tonight. But just in a way. :) I wrote a post two years ago about Biden that I reran when he was nominated for VP. I described a similar phenomenon, though it was a radio show I had heard him on. I get exactly what you mean.
The post was entitled "The Voice of Saruman." Dear Doc,
You were, of course, correct. He didn't have enough time to do his trick. There was a language that I ran across about 40 years ago, I think it was the Pick System, that recognized (), {}. [] and as equivalent lexical symbols. If LISP had adopted this convention it might have prospered. Regards, Roy I'm really surprised at this since I have listened to Biden. In fact I even listened when he used his entire allotted time to preen himself and the word president never entered my mind.
You must really be surprised (I'm not) that he got his clock cleaned. In fact, laughably, the Bidn did all right argument is that he delivered his nonsense and stupid answers well! The man is completely unimpressive. I don't agree with your assessment of Biden, but that's ok. We're all entitled to different opinions.
I am curious about your views now. Was it a good debate for him? Did you see him in a different light? We usually don't elect legislators to executive positions - do you think you saw him earlier i his natural element and this time out of it? Has you assessment of him changed, or are you still a big fan? I said I was "disappointed" in my review afterward, but that barely touches it. When I saw him at the Judiciary hearings and thought he "had 'president' written all over him," it was his voice as much as anything else. It was clear and resonating and had this great timbre to it. He also looked thinner and more Andrew Jackson-like, again giving him that 'presidential' bearing.
At the debate, he looked and sounded like just another politician. IMHO, his handlers screwed up royally. His hoarse voice indicated he was already talked-out for the day, so Sarah (and the audience) never saw what I saw that day at the Judiciary hearing. As far as his performance goes, I was giving him a few quarter-points here and there, but he got the big minus-1000 when he said what he said about Cheney. That was really startling, but one would have had to have been paying strict attention to what had just been said by Palin to understand his anger. Overall, I'd give him a 'C'. A rather humdrum performance, and certainly given my expectations. In the post, I didn't mean to indicate I was a "fan" of the guy -- his policies leave a little to be desired -- but I didn't like the way the entire R/W blogosphere (and to a degree the Left) were dismissing him outright as some kind of joke. They were setting their readers up for a possible major fall. If the guy from the Judiciary Committee had shown up that night, it might have been a very different outcome. |