Sarah Palin is getting headlines, but after-polling shows the quieter Democrat winning over independents and Republicans in last week's VP debate.
The Pew Research Center reports: "Biden’s favorability rating among registered voters re-contacted over the weekend climbed from 54 percent to 63 percent, and the percentage believing he is qualified to serve as president jumped to 77 percent from 69 percent a week earlier...
"Among Republicans interviewed both before and after the debates, 14 percent changed their view of Biden from unfavorable to favorable, as did 12 percent of independents. By comparison, Biden had little room to gain among Democrats, 81 percent of whom already viewed him favorably before the debates."
Meanwhile the Palin phenomenon seems to have leveled off as "voters who had been first polled a week ago found that most (55 percent) continue to have a favorable view of Palin, but most (52 percent) also still believe that she is not qualified to serve as president, if it becomes necessary."
These figures, registered before Palin started her "palling around with terrorists" attacks, may not stand up as CNN analyst Bill Schneider makes a prediction about tonight's McCain-Obama encounter:
"If either of the candidates tries to go negative when you're with an audience of ordinary voters, they don't like it. We've heard them sometimes get very upset when the candidates start attacking each other, so that's going to be hard to do in a town hall format."
Despite the cheering partisan crowds, Palin will have to put a lot more lipstick on her pit-bull act to overcome that kind of voter disgust.
Showing posts with label Sen. Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Joe Biden. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Dating Joe Biden
Thursday night was, Sarah Palin says, like most first dates, a bit awkward at first.
"There was a lot of eye contact," she recalls, "and it was pleasant. It was, hey, you know, we're both in this together. We both understand what each other would be going through at this time. Kind of wondering, what's coming next...So, that connection, it was some good chemistry. And again, at least I had a ball. It was fun."
Right off, she tried to put Joe Biden at ease with a two-handed handshake, asking "Can I call you Joe?" (Some media cynics saw this as a set-up so she could later use the line from the Black Sox scandal, "Say it ain't so, Joe," but these people have no romance in their souls.)
The post-debate parsing of the Palin-Biden brief encounter goes on. In one focus group, her own gender liked Palin's strength and confidence, and the married women particularly responded to her "folksiness" and "down-to-earth" personality, but...
"That personal regard, however, didn't necessarily mean they wanted to see her in the White House. 'I'd like to have lunch with Sarah,' said one married woman, 'but have Joe running my country.'"
In microscopic analysis of their monumental meeting, a language monitoring service has found that "Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at a more than ninth-grade level and Sen. Joseph Biden spoke at a nearly eighth-grade level."
That might explain the ultimate lack of sparks from their date: She was talking over his head.
"There was a lot of eye contact," she recalls, "and it was pleasant. It was, hey, you know, we're both in this together. We both understand what each other would be going through at this time. Kind of wondering, what's coming next...So, that connection, it was some good chemistry. And again, at least I had a ball. It was fun."
Right off, she tried to put Joe Biden at ease with a two-handed handshake, asking "Can I call you Joe?" (Some media cynics saw this as a set-up so she could later use the line from the Black Sox scandal, "Say it ain't so, Joe," but these people have no romance in their souls.)
The post-debate parsing of the Palin-Biden brief encounter goes on. In one focus group, her own gender liked Palin's strength and confidence, and the married women particularly responded to her "folksiness" and "down-to-earth" personality, but...
"That personal regard, however, didn't necessarily mean they wanted to see her in the White House. 'I'd like to have lunch with Sarah,' said one married woman, 'but have Joe running my country.'"
In microscopic analysis of their monumental meeting, a language monitoring service has found that "Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at a more than ninth-grade level and Sen. Joseph Biden spoke at a nearly eighth-grade level."
That might explain the ultimate lack of sparks from their date: She was talking over his head.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Biden's Burden
Simply put, he knows too much for snappy hockey-mom images and I-put-it-on-eBay sound bites as answers to serious questions. Three decades of real experience will weigh him down in what viewers expect to be a mud-wrestling match.
What to do? Joe Biden is caught between the devil (looking mean by showing up Sarah Palin's ignorance) and the deep blue sea (appearing to be an elitist know-it-all by ignoring her and giving serious responses on policy issues).
In a political moment when America is faced with economic tragedy, the Vice-Presidential debate tonight is set up to be a farce, and Biden seems to know it.
"If it's going to get down to who can deliver the toughest lines, then she's going to win the debate," he says. "But I'm not going there."
If so, the entertainment value of the show will suffer, and for voters who love "American Idol," it will be a test as much as it will be for Biden.
Obama's campaign adviser David Axelrod predicts: "I don't think he's going to go after Governor Palin. I think he's going to make the case for Senator Obama."
But against an adversary whose only strength is pit-bill tactics with a lipsticked smile, can Joe Biden stay positive and prevail?
What to do? Joe Biden is caught between the devil (looking mean by showing up Sarah Palin's ignorance) and the deep blue sea (appearing to be an elitist know-it-all by ignoring her and giving serious responses on policy issues).
In a political moment when America is faced with economic tragedy, the Vice-Presidential debate tonight is set up to be a farce, and Biden seems to know it.
"If it's going to get down to who can deliver the toughest lines, then she's going to win the debate," he says. "But I'm not going there."
If so, the entertainment value of the show will suffer, and for voters who love "American Idol," it will be a test as much as it will be for Biden.
Obama's campaign adviser David Axelrod predicts: "I don't think he's going to go after Governor Palin. I think he's going to make the case for Senator Obama."
But against an adversary whose only strength is pit-bill tactics with a lipsticked smile, can Joe Biden stay positive and prevail?
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Joe Biden's Last Hurrah
An accumulation of small signs suggest a strong third or fourth place finish in Iowa for Joe Biden to keep his candidacy alive. If not, it's over.
County leaders and mayors are endorsing him, and, perhaps sobered by the death of Benazir Bhutto, crowds are coming out to hear what he has to say about Pakistan and other worrisome parts of the world as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“Barack does a room, Hillary does a room, I do the same room and I win,” Biden told Roger Simon this week. “I have absolute confidence in that. The question is: Do I get in enough rooms?”
In debates, the Senator's 34 years of experience get "Joe is right" responses from most of the other candidates. His confidence and command on TV are presidential, but the polls have him stuck in single digits.
Iowans, known for surprises in their caucus results, will have to give Biden more than that to keep him viable. If they don't, there will be one less voice of sanity on the campaign trail.
County leaders and mayors are endorsing him, and, perhaps sobered by the death of Benazir Bhutto, crowds are coming out to hear what he has to say about Pakistan and other worrisome parts of the world as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“Barack does a room, Hillary does a room, I do the same room and I win,” Biden told Roger Simon this week. “I have absolute confidence in that. The question is: Do I get in enough rooms?”
In debates, the Senator's 34 years of experience get "Joe is right" responses from most of the other candidates. His confidence and command on TV are presidential, but the polls have him stuck in single digits.
Iowans, known for surprises in their caucus results, will have to give Biden more than that to keep him viable. If they don't, there will be one less voice of sanity on the campaign trail.
Monday, November 05, 2007
From MAD to Madness
Pakistan could make Iran look like small potatoes. President Musharraf's move to seize emergency powers and crack down on opposition has opened a Pandora's box of potential nuclear threats in the Middle East too numerous and ugly to be covered by Joe Biden's characterization as "complicated stuff" in last week's Democratic debate.
"The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid, mostly to the military, since 2001," the New York Times notes. "Now, if the state of emergency drags on, the administration will be faced with the difficult decision of whether to cut off that aid and risk undermining Pakistan’s efforts to pursue terrorists--a move the White House believes could endanger the security of the United States."
Even worse is the prospect, however remote, of Pakistan imploding from the dueling corruption and incompetence of Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto to be replaced by Muslim extremists who would then control the nation's nuclear weapons. Is that something the US, India or Israel could live with?
We never got a straight story about Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist selling technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya even while Musharraf's hold on power was firm. Can we be sure that terrorists won't be able to get what they want in a shaky Pakistan?
In the last century, nuclear conflict was averted by the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) Doctrine that deterred two superpowers from using such weapons without annihilating each other. But in a world where they may become available to groups of suicidal zealots who believe they will be rewarded in an afterlife for destroying those who don't share their beliefs, MAD could rapidly give way to madness.
In World War III or IV, depending on which Neo-Con is doing the numbering, what do we do about that?
"The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid, mostly to the military, since 2001," the New York Times notes. "Now, if the state of emergency drags on, the administration will be faced with the difficult decision of whether to cut off that aid and risk undermining Pakistan’s efforts to pursue terrorists--a move the White House believes could endanger the security of the United States."
Even worse is the prospect, however remote, of Pakistan imploding from the dueling corruption and incompetence of Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto to be replaced by Muslim extremists who would then control the nation's nuclear weapons. Is that something the US, India or Israel could live with?
We never got a straight story about Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist selling technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya even while Musharraf's hold on power was firm. Can we be sure that terrorists won't be able to get what they want in a shaky Pakistan?
In the last century, nuclear conflict was averted by the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) Doctrine that deterred two superpowers from using such weapons without annihilating each other. But in a world where they may become available to groups of suicidal zealots who believe they will be rewarded in an afterlife for destroying those who don't share their beliefs, MAD could rapidly give way to madness.
In World War III or IV, depending on which Neo-Con is doing the numbering, what do we do about that?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Fred Thompson's Floppy Performance
In 1966, during his first political campaign, Ronald Reagan was asked what kind of governor he would be. "I don't know," he said. "I've never played a governor."
Using Reagan as a role model, Fred Thompson is running for President, but he just can't seem to get the dialogue right. Yesterday he told a South Carolina questioner "we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices."
Trying for Reaganesque earthiness, Thompson came up, as he often does, with a mouthful of mush, prompting Democratic candidate Joe Biden to call him "totally divorced from reality" about "a civil war between lethal militias."
Citing Thompson's foot-in-mouth flubs about Terri Schiavo, the Everglades and lethal injections in his home state, the National Journal noted that although "some conservatives herald Thompson as a modern-day Ronald Reagan, his recent gaffes seem to indicate he's more like the next George W. Bush."
Looking back at Reagan's presidency, Joan Didion observed that he "regarded his daily schedule as being something like a shooting script in which characters came and went, scenes were rehearsed and acted out, and the plot was advanced one day at a time."
But Reagan never blew his lines, something Thompson still has to learn.
Using Reagan as a role model, Fred Thompson is running for President, but he just can't seem to get the dialogue right. Yesterday he told a South Carolina questioner "we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices."
Trying for Reaganesque earthiness, Thompson came up, as he often does, with a mouthful of mush, prompting Democratic candidate Joe Biden to call him "totally divorced from reality" about "a civil war between lethal militias."
Citing Thompson's foot-in-mouth flubs about Terri Schiavo, the Everglades and lethal injections in his home state, the National Journal noted that although "some conservatives herald Thompson as a modern-day Ronald Reagan, his recent gaffes seem to indicate he's more like the next George W. Bush."
Looking back at Reagan's presidency, Joan Didion observed that he "regarded his daily schedule as being something like a shooting script in which characters came and went, scenes were rehearsed and acted out, and the plot was advanced one day at a time."
But Reagan never blew his lines, something Thompson still has to learn.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Republican Race for Running Mate
Sam Brownback, who started his run for President by spending a night in jail, is free at last. Tomorrow he will leave the Oz of campaign country and be back in Kansas to announce he is dropping out.
As a bona fide conservative, the Kansas Senator will automatically join Mike Huckabee, who still has hopes, as a leading contender for the ticket of Republican front runners who leave the Rev. James Dobson and other Religious Rightists as unbelievers.
Since Brownback has been bashing Mitt Romney, he may have an inside track with Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or particularly John McCain, with whom he agrees on immigration. (The new issue of Time proclaims “McCain Is Back.")
Brownback signaled his possible departure from Oz last week by joining with a Democratic Presidential candidate in spearheading a Senate Resolution for the partitioning of Iraq.
“This plan,” he proclaimed, “wasn't pushed by members of one party. Instead, Senator Joe Biden and I, who are consistently on opposite ends politically on economic and social issues, worked together to build consensus to push the legislation forward and on to a resounding victory.”
A man who talks like that has clearly given up his hopes of succeeding George Bush.
As a bona fide conservative, the Kansas Senator will automatically join Mike Huckabee, who still has hopes, as a leading contender for the ticket of Republican front runners who leave the Rev. James Dobson and other Religious Rightists as unbelievers.
Since Brownback has been bashing Mitt Romney, he may have an inside track with Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or particularly John McCain, with whom he agrees on immigration. (The new issue of Time proclaims “McCain Is Back.")
Brownback signaled his possible departure from Oz last week by joining with a Democratic Presidential candidate in spearheading a Senate Resolution for the partitioning of Iraq.
“This plan,” he proclaimed, “wasn't pushed by members of one party. Instead, Senator Joe Biden and I, who are consistently on opposite ends politically on economic and social issues, worked together to build consensus to push the legislation forward and on to a resounding victory.”
A man who talks like that has clearly given up his hopes of succeeding George Bush.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Too-Easy Answers About Torture
Tim Russert blindsided Hillary Clinton last night, positing “a situation in which we were holding the “number three man in Al Qaeda. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation? Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”
When Sen. Clinton answered that “torture cannot be American policy period” and “in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit is that there is very little evidence that it works,” Russert told her that the scenario was suggested by Bill Clinton last year.
“Well, he's not standing here right now,” she responded to applause.
As other Democrats more or less agreed, a whiff of sanctimony was in the air, as it always is when politicians talk about the subject.
Only a fool (pace Alberto Gonzales) would advocate torture as policy, but as with so many other issues, it’s not always that simple. One of the less obvious sad results of Bush’s black/white, good/evil view of the world is that it has infected those who oppose him.
Before answering Russert’s “scenario,” Hillary Clinton had observed that “these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.”
It certainly is. In an era when presidents talk publicly about their underwear, voters expect definite answers about everything. But important issues don’t lend themselves to sound-bite solutions.
Just as there is the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater exception to free speech, there may be situations that override the prohibition against torture or, as Joe Biden suggested, offering pardons to terrorists in exchange for information that would prevent devastation.
Years ago, when he had a TV show, William F. Buckley asked a noted attorney who strongly advocated defendants’ rights what he would do to get information from a suspect who knew where a kidnapped child was buried with a limited supply of air.
The lawyer did not hesitate: “Beat it out of him.”
In failing to acknowledge that there are no doctrinaire answers to everything a la George Bush, Democrats who want to replace him are doing themselves, and us, no service. Republicans will be only too happy to characterize them as lily-livered liberals.
When Sen. Clinton answered that “torture cannot be American policy period” and “in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit is that there is very little evidence that it works,” Russert told her that the scenario was suggested by Bill Clinton last year.
“Well, he's not standing here right now,” she responded to applause.
As other Democrats more or less agreed, a whiff of sanctimony was in the air, as it always is when politicians talk about the subject.
Only a fool (pace Alberto Gonzales) would advocate torture as policy, but as with so many other issues, it’s not always that simple. One of the less obvious sad results of Bush’s black/white, good/evil view of the world is that it has infected those who oppose him.
Before answering Russert’s “scenario,” Hillary Clinton had observed that “these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.”
It certainly is. In an era when presidents talk publicly about their underwear, voters expect definite answers about everything. But important issues don’t lend themselves to sound-bite solutions.
Just as there is the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater exception to free speech, there may be situations that override the prohibition against torture or, as Joe Biden suggested, offering pardons to terrorists in exchange for information that would prevent devastation.
Years ago, when he had a TV show, William F. Buckley asked a noted attorney who strongly advocated defendants’ rights what he would do to get information from a suspect who knew where a kidnapped child was buried with a limited supply of air.
The lawyer did not hesitate: “Beat it out of him.”
In failing to acknowledge that there are no doctrinaire answers to everything a la George Bush, Democrats who want to replace him are doing themselves, and us, no service. Republicans will be only too happy to characterize them as lily-livered liberals.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
A Bipartisan Push for Peace in Iraq
In a moment out of distant American history when politics was supposed to stop at the water’s edge, the Bush Administration’s Ambassador to Iraq and a Democratic candidate for President in ’08 joined this week in prodding Shiites and Sunnis to stop squabbling and make peace.
Ryan Crocker and Sen. Joe Biden accompanied top deputies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on a trip to the Sunni bastion of Anbar Province to pledge more than $120 million in reconstruction money as a step toward political reconciliation.
Crocker pointed out that “Anbaris, the Iraqis, and the coalition have [pushed] Al Qaeda out to the extent that a conference [can be] held that doesn't even talk about security...That's really significant."
Biden was less enthusiastic but encouraged reconciliation. "If you continue,” he said, “we will continue to send you our sons and our daughters to shed their blood with you and for you...If you decide you cannot live together, let us know.... we can say goodbye now."
Perhaps as significant as the meeting of Iraqi factions was the joint effort by a Republican official and a Democratic critic. If that spirit is contagious, it may even be possible for Congress to agree on how to end the war. But then again they are on this side of the water’s edge.
Ryan Crocker and Sen. Joe Biden accompanied top deputies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on a trip to the Sunni bastion of Anbar Province to pledge more than $120 million in reconstruction money as a step toward political reconciliation.
Crocker pointed out that “Anbaris, the Iraqis, and the coalition have [pushed] Al Qaeda out to the extent that a conference [can be] held that doesn't even talk about security...That's really significant."
Biden was less enthusiastic but encouraged reconciliation. "If you continue,” he said, “we will continue to send you our sons and our daughters to shed their blood with you and for you...If you decide you cannot live together, let us know.... we can say goodbye now."
Perhaps as significant as the meeting of Iraqi factions was the joint effort by a Republican official and a Democratic critic. If that spirit is contagious, it may even be possible for Congress to agree on how to end the war. But then again they are on this side of the water’s edge.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The Politics of Mock-Outrage
Barack Obama is having his “emperor has no clothes” moment in Presidential politics, being savaged for saying out loud yesterday what is obvious about Pakistan: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, in an editorial, shrieks, “Naive? Sen. Clinton was too kind. If he's serious, he's dangerous.”
Democratic Presidential rival Chris Dodd calls the statement “dangerous and irresponsible,” while Joe Biden merely labels it “disingenuous” for sounding like a “bold new initiative.”
Tony Snow responds with a platitude about respecting the sovereignty of Pakistan, but the hollowness of that answer has been exposed by White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend.
Last week friendly Fox News summarized an interview with her reporting that “the U.S. was committed first and foremost to working with Pakistan's president...But she indicated the U.S. was ready to take additional measures.
"’Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about,’" Townsend said, when asked in a broadcast interview why the U.S. does not conduct special operations and other measures to cripple Al Qaeda.
"’Job No. 1 is to protect the American people. There are no options off the table,’" she said. Townsend also said, "'No question that we will use any instrument at our disposal' to deal with Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.’”
The bottom line is that Obama is attacked and ridiculed from all sides for the heinous political gaffe of telling a simple truth that even the Bush Administration acknowledges and is prepared to act on.
Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, in an editorial, shrieks, “Naive? Sen. Clinton was too kind. If he's serious, he's dangerous.”
Democratic Presidential rival Chris Dodd calls the statement “dangerous and irresponsible,” while Joe Biden merely labels it “disingenuous” for sounding like a “bold new initiative.”
Tony Snow responds with a platitude about respecting the sovereignty of Pakistan, but the hollowness of that answer has been exposed by White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend.
Last week friendly Fox News summarized an interview with her reporting that “the U.S. was committed first and foremost to working with Pakistan's president...But she indicated the U.S. was ready to take additional measures.
"’Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about,’" Townsend said, when asked in a broadcast interview why the U.S. does not conduct special operations and other measures to cripple Al Qaeda.
"’Job No. 1 is to protect the American people. There are no options off the table,’" she said. Townsend also said, "'No question that we will use any instrument at our disposal' to deal with Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.’”
The bottom line is that Obama is attacked and ridiculed from all sides for the heinous political gaffe of telling a simple truth that even the Bush Administration acknowledges and is prepared to act on.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Exposing Bad, Bad Joe Biden
In last night’s “debate,” the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was unmasked as the vain, insensitive person he really is, but TV watchers may have failed to notice until keener observers revealed it today.
The New York Sun blog blasts “Biden's obnoxious response when he insulted the gun owner toward the end as being nuts. It wasn't so much a personal gaffe as a moment that projected an ugly image of the Democratic Party as out of touch with rural voters and gun owners.”
On the blog of Reason Magazine, we learn that Biden hurt the feelings of “a libertarian-leaning voter who wants the government off his back.”
Biden’s inhumanity was in response to Jared Townsend of Michigan who asked “if our babies are safe” as he cradled his semi-automatic weapon, explaining, “This is my baby.”
“If that’s his baby,” Sen. Biden heartlessly jibed, “he needs help. I don’t know if he’s mentally qualified to own a gun.”
On Slate Mickey Kaus cites that as another of Biden’s “cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions,” akin to a 1987 incident in New Hampshire when the Senator unfeelingly answered a question about his credentials by saying, "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do."
Those who have been bamboozled into thinking Biden is a distinguished Senator with 34 years of service should be ashamed of themselves. How can they support the kind of insensitivity that led to the martyrdom of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech and that has been visited on countless other Second-Amendment heroes?
The New York Sun blog blasts “Biden's obnoxious response when he insulted the gun owner toward the end as being nuts. It wasn't so much a personal gaffe as a moment that projected an ugly image of the Democratic Party as out of touch with rural voters and gun owners.”
On the blog of Reason Magazine, we learn that Biden hurt the feelings of “a libertarian-leaning voter who wants the government off his back.”
Biden’s inhumanity was in response to Jared Townsend of Michigan who asked “if our babies are safe” as he cradled his semi-automatic weapon, explaining, “This is my baby.”
“If that’s his baby,” Sen. Biden heartlessly jibed, “he needs help. I don’t know if he’s mentally qualified to own a gun.”
On Slate Mickey Kaus cites that as another of Biden’s “cringe-making, unhinged spontaneous reactions,” akin to a 1987 incident in New Hampshire when the Senator unfeelingly answered a question about his credentials by saying, "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do."
Those who have been bamboozled into thinking Biden is a distinguished Senator with 34 years of service should be ashamed of themselves. How can they support the kind of insensitivity that led to the martyrdom of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech and that has been visited on countless other Second-Amendment heroes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)