It seems possible to me--and I am not the first to suggest this--that many people want reassurance from Gov. Palin Thursday; more specifically, reassurance that she would not be a disaster as president, if she were ever called upon to accept that position. In this regard, she is very much like Ronald Reagan in 1980, ex hypothesi.

Of course, there are some important differences, also. Most obviously, Reagan was running for the presidency itself, whereas Palin is running only for the vice-presidency. But given Sen. McCain's rather advanced age, it does not seem entirely unreasonable to weigh the veep candidate's qualifications for the presidency in a serious manner.

An even more important difference is the fact that many Americans were predisposed, in 1980, to vote out the party whose incumbent president had visited upon the country a sense of "national malaise," as epitomized by long gas lines, stagflation, and America's apparent impotence in the face of the thuggery attendant to the Khomeinist revolution. In the present case, Sarah Palin represents the incumbent party--the party that many Americans wish to throw out of office.

In short, the parallels are imperfect. Very much so.

Still, I think there may be something to the basic theory. This may be especially true among women, many of whom would take pride in Sarah Palin's being elected the first female vice-president; but absent some reassurance that she is not the bonehead that the MSM have attempted to portray her as being, they may be disinclined to vote for the ticket to which she is attached.

Of course, this second point suggests a form of identity politics; which is a form of politics that does not merit my approval. But it would be unrealistic to suppose that Gov. Palin's gender is of no consequence to any women voters, just as much as it would be to assert that Sen. Obama's race is a matter of indifference to all African-American voters. (However, Sen. Palin has much more room for growth in this area. At least 90 percent of the African-American vote typically goes to the Democratic candidate, irrespective of that candidate's racial makeup; whereas the women's vote--largely on the strength of the voting patterns of unmarried women--usually leans Democratic.)

Do others agree with me that many people would like to vote for the ticket containing Gov. Palin--in other words, that her impact on voters' preferences is much greater than is typically the case for a mere veep candidate--if only she can reassure them Thursday, in her debate with Sen. Biden?

As long as the moderator has a financial stake (obvious bias) in the outcome of the election, the Debate is meaningless.

I am not nearly so troubled by Gwen Ifill's upcoming book, to be released on Inauguration Day, that (as I understand it) contains a chapter that will praise Sen. Obama, as I am by the fact that center-left media figures are invariably chosen to serve as moderators.

That said, however, I thought Jim Lehrer did a good job in the first presidential debate. And, for the most part, I thought the same about Gwen Ifill's performance tonight. One exception, however: Ms. Ifill's apparent attempt to portray Gov. Palin as being a hardcore supporter of gay rights did seem a bit gratuitous and biased.

That's because there are very few right or center-right media idiots er um figures to pick from. And, of course, the other vice presidential candidates were left out as usual!

I've never seen Lehrer do a bad job. As for the gay rights thing, she and Biden have the same position on that one - so if any of the leftist idiots try to criticize Palin they're going to have to criticize the Obama-Biden ticket as well.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

This format is no debate. It is an attempt to put the agenda of the left wing moderators and the Media on the air.. Rather than produce an actual 'debate'.. This format allows the politicians to rely on the moderators rather than demonstrate their real acumen in convincing people of a particular political agenda.

Obama refused to participate with McCAin in numerous town meeting style forums because he has a real problem with communicating without a script.

We should abandon these media shows during the election campaign.. and more to a more traditional 'debate' style and have moderators who have demonstrated that they have no financial stake in the election and can 'moderate' at traditional debate style without an agenda.

Everyone has a bias.. but few of the left are able to admit it. Ibiased Ifill has demonstrated that the old system has been shattered and broken beyond repair. It is a sham to consider that these so called 'debates' provide anything but a boost in ratings for the media.



As for the gay rights thing.. did you see the biased moderator bring up anything controversial about Obama or Biden? The moderator Ibiased has a financial stake in obama winning the election.. it was a farce.

WASHINGTON - Facts went adrift on taxes, deregulation and more Thursday when Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden clashed in the vice presidential debate.

The article:

Facts go adrift in Biden-Palin debate - The Debates - MSNBC.com

Facts go adrift on both sides. Though whether one can accept what factcheck.org has to say is debateable.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Correct FACTCHECK.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation which gave 50 million dollars to William Ayers, Terrorist. Anyone who gives that kind of money to a leftist terrorist is NOT mainstream.

Yeah, as opposed to Bush and his illegal war, killing 600,000 people. Just weigh that up for a moment. If a leader of another country did what Bush has done, he would be hauled up at the ICC and jailed for life. Hypocrit.

600,000 people? Really.. did he do it with one hand or two? LOL.

Another leftist smear. The left is really gone lunatic.

You tell me, using US figures how many Iraqis have died as a result of this war?

Can't? Because the US doesn't even collect the figures. Forget keeping them secret - they don't even bother to count. "Their" suffering is irrelevant.

You're right though - 600,000 was a figure i recall from somewhere or other - but unsubstantiated. 88,000 - 96,000 is an estimate that IS widely accepted. Iraq Body Count (About IBC :: Iraq Body Count)

Without checking, i'd wager that's a lot more than Saddam ever killed. While Bush didn't order these casualties, he chose to wage an illegal war in which millions have suffered. It wasn't about freedom, it wasn't about liberty and it certainly wasn't about democracy. It was about control. Whether or not you believe that to be a good thing is a separate issue.