10/02!

[Glitchfinder]

Did you hear Palin (before the debate) say that she has foreign policy experience because of where her state is located compared to Russia and Canada? Also, I hate how she was a parrot thru the whole debate. McCain this, McCain that, McCain says..., McCain believes..., McCain is for/against... Honestly, I'd rather McCain chose someone who could think for themselves. (And who would not only cancel the bridge to nowhere, but the road that went along with it. I mean, she isn't building a bridge, so why build a road that needs the bridge to be of any use?)

 

[Venetia]

Well to be fair, they both did that. She probably did it a little more, but Biden dropped Obama at nearly every opportunity, too. It's not important though because Biden clearly "won" the debate. He had more tact, was more eloquent, and actually ANSWERED QUESTIONS instead of saying,

"Uhh, no, whatever. Okay this is what I wanna talk about (energyenergyenergyenergy)!"

 

[mawk]

Palin definitely did better than I expected, in that it wasn't so obvious that she didn't know what she was talking about, probably due to a measure of training before the debate. I think a lot of that training was in how to sidestep questions, though -- I think I could count the number of times she actually gave a direct on-topic answer on my lobstrosity-mangled right hand. I came into the debate thinking that Palin was an incredibly inferior choice, and nothing really changed that.

Why is it that in this election when someone is above the average citizen in terms of intelligence or academic background (which should really qualify them all the more to lead) they're called elitist, but someone like Sarah Palin who is for most intents and purposes Alaskan Housewife Barbie dressed in a powersuit is the "common man's hero" just because she's no better than the worst of us? (okay she's a little better than the worst of us but I like that expression so ssh)

What's a little funny to me is that CNN equipped a small sample audience with dials to gague their approval of what was being said, and in practice it became clear how incredibly pointless they were. Whenever someone said something, the line would shoot an arbitrary distance into the positive, then go back down to zero in between questions. There was no correlation between who got the highest positives and who the audience considered the winner of the debate, either.

Honestly, I don't get news nowadays. It's all so gimmicky.

HEY LOOK THERE IS A GIANT SCREEN BEHIND ME. SEE THIS LARGE BAR GRAPH? LOOK I HAVE A FORKLIFT I'M GOING TO GO UP TO THE TOP OF THE TALLEST BAR! IT EXTENDS ABOVE THE SCREEN INTO THE NEWS TICKER! NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL REPORTING!