October 03, 2008

10/3: Sarah Vs. Joe

Liberal and conservative bloggers agree that Sarah Palin exceeded the media's (low) expectations for her at last night's VP debate. However, that's about the only thing they agree on. For the most part, liberal bloggers are convinced that Joe Biden decisively won last night's debate, whereas conservative bloggers view Palin as the clear winner.

On the right side of the blogosphere, there is a palpable sense of relief, as well as a sense of "I told you so!" Conservative bloggers believe that TV viewers saw the "real" Palin last night -- confident, sharp, and down-to-earth. They're blaming her shaky interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric on "the biased editing skills of ABC and CBS" and are arguing that Palin "is back as the GOP's best weapon in Election '08". A number of conservative bloggers are calling out Palin's critics on the right (Kathleen Parker, David Brooks) and telling them to "eat their words".

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are pointing to the post-debate polls conducted by CBS and CNN as evidence that Biden won the debate, regardless of how much Palin impressed the pundits. Lefty bloggers are criticizing Palin for repeatedly dodging Gwen Ifill's questions and instead relying on "pre-packaged talking points". They believe that Palin came across as phony and overly scripted, despite her efforts to portray herself as Joe Six-pack. Markos Moulitsas echoes the views of many lefty bloggers when he writes:

"Palin was like one of those dolls where you pull the string, and some pre-recorded message comes out. Pull string, 'They hate our freedoms!' Pull string, '[Barack] Obama will raise taxes!' Pull string, 'Drill, baby, drill!' It was tiresome and, frankly, a little boring."

VP DEBATE: The Public Agrees: Biden Won!

Many liberal bloggers pointed to the post-debate polls conducted by CBS and CNN as evidence that Biden won the debate, regardless of how much Palin exceeded the media's expectations:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I think this was only close to a draw in a political sense, from an expectations vs. reality perspective. Sure she didn't fall on her face. But looking at it as a debate and even as a political event, I think it was so monumentally clear who won this thing and I think viewers will concur it was Joe Biden."
• Ezra Klein: "At the end of the day, it wasn't about expectations. Palin surpassed hers. Shattered them, in fact. The stumbling, tongue-tied, intellectually uncertain novice who withered before Katie Couric's steady questioning was absent this evening. Palin was confident, on-message, and at times, sharp. But it didn't matter. The polls were clear: CNN showed 51 percent for Biden, 36 percent for Palin. CBS, restricting their sample to undecided voters, showed 46 percent for Biden, 21 percent for Palin. Like [John] McCain before her, Palin performed at the top of her game, and it wasn't enough. That's two straight victories for the Democratic ticket."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Watching the mismatch between the complicated and mildly pro-Palin sentiments of the pundits on television and the poll results -- people thought Biden was better -- is interesting. It's almost as if ordinary people don't grade these things on a complicated 'expectations' curve. When someone shows up and seems slightly dimwitted they don't think to themselves 'well, she's not quite as dumb as I thought -- what a triumph!' They think, 'wow, she seems slightly dimwitted.'"
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Palin managed to meet the absurdly low expectations she faced going into the debate. But, judged by any actual objective measure, I think it's hard to deny that Biden made far more substantive points about John McCain."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I think Biden won pretty convincingly. He didn't overdo things, but he did demonstrate a good command of the issues as well as a good command of working class folksiness. He defended himself well without seeming overbearing. For her part, Palin probably seemed friendly enough, but her obvious lack of command of the issues combined with her obvious reliance on stale talking points can't have been very impressive."

Other liberal bloggers believe that Biden won the debate simply because Palin failed to change the trajectory of the race:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Who won? Who cares. Nothing happened to change the dynamics of this race. Palin proved that she's still unable to answer the questions posed to her, but she also didn't fall flat on her face. And in the ridiculously depressed expectations for the governor of Alaska, she didn't crash and burn. But she didn't need to maintain the status quo. That's toxic territory for her. She needed to prove that she could get beyond pre-packaged talking points to demonstrating some capacity for analytical thought. In that regard, she failed. On the merits, Biden won easy. On the things that debates are scored on, it was a draw. And for us Democrats, that's the same as victory."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[This was] basically a win for Biden because he just did a lot better and it's Obama-Biden who want the trajectory of the race to stay as is. [Palin] made herself less of an embarrassment and gave core Republicans a reason to stop being embarrassed. But there were a bunch of flatly false or nonsensical things she said -- and we'll see those picked apart over the next few days."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The McCain campaign needed Palin to come out and speak in complete sentences. She did. They needed her not to humiliate herself as she did with Katie Couric. She did that, too. But given the recent trajectory of the campaign, the campaign also needed this debate to help turn things around for John McCain. And that clearly didn't happen -- Biden wouldn't let it happen."

VP DEBATE II: No, Palin Won!

Many conservative bloggers believe that Palin decisively won the debate:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Sarah Palin just field dressed Joe Biden like a moose. She was awesome. She connected with the people. She had fun. She was relaxed. She was awesome. [...] Well done Sarah Palin. Those who were wavering should be standing up straight tomorrow cheering you on. And some of us never doubted."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Verdict: Palin wins, gets more great soundbites off, reassures Americans that she's up to the job, and helps the ticket about as much as she could have during the debate. All in all, I was very happy with her performance."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Palin was confident, assertive to the point of aggressive, knowledgeable, and open. She repeatedly went after Biden, which is not usually a tactic seen much in VP debates (candidates usually attack the presidential nominees), and Biden had no answer for Palin."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "After the wave of assaults on her, Sarah Palin shows the nation why John McCain picked her and why the center-right loves her. She has a great night. Joe Biden does well too, but this was all about Sarah Palin, and she delivered a strong, strong message of energy and change. [...] The [Frank] Luntz focus group picked up the decisive Palin win, and Luntz is predicting a move towards McCain in the polls as a result. [...Palin] is back as the GOP's best weapon in Election '08."
• NRO's Amy Holmes: "Sarah Palin rocked."

While other conservative bloggers didn't think that Palin necessarily dominated the proceedings, they were nevertheless pleased by her performance:

• NRO's Michael Graham: "Sarah Palin wasn't brilliant. She wasn't able to adlib like Sen. Biden could to score additional points. She let quite a bit of Biden nonsense go unchallenged. But six weeks into the race, she went toe-to-toe with a guy who's run for president twice, and she held her own and even pushed him around a few times. For the average voter, content was a wash which means this ended up as a personality contest. Which means she wins."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Sarah Palin was shaky at times tonight, but never lost her footing. She even managed to trip up her debate veteran opponent Joe Biden on occasion. [...] Although the media may not give Palin the 'win' outright, she can be proud of her performance. Most importantly, she did not violate the time-honored vice presidential rule: 'First do no harm.' That's a win in itself."
• Glenn Reynolds: "It seemed to me that both did well, and that this was a bigger deal for Palin than for Biden since the press was portraying her as some sort of airhead before."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I think that it is safe to say that while each side fulfilled its objectives, Sarah Palin impressed most. In part, this was because expectations were low but even if one tosses aside the expectations game, Palin did what was necessary to revitalize Republicans who had been feeling demoralized because of the polls and because of the economic news we have been hearing about for the past three weeks."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Sarah Palin did as well if not better than anybody could have expected. This will help repair some of the damage that was done to her reputation over the past few weeks. She was likeable, spoke to the concerns of average Americans, defended McCain and went on the offense against Obama. She wasn't afraid to mix it up with Biden either, and she added good humor. Most of all, she seemed comfortable up there and avoided any major incident."

VP DEBATE III: Awful Ifill

Many liberal bloggers thought that Gwen Ifill did a poor job as moderator, since she allowed Palin to frequently ignore her questions and rarely asked follow-ups:

• Yglesias: "I'm not sure if Gwen Ifill was cowed by the rightwing mau-mau brigade or what, but I thought Ifill's handling of the debate was pretty disappointing. Palin was clearly operating with a game plan that involved simply refusing to answer certain questions in order to drift over to her pre-prepared text, and Ifill didn't ask any followups or challenge either candidate to address the questions she was asking. Indeed, at times Ifill was barely even asking questions -- just suggesting topics."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Palin was able to filibuster and repeat talking points without being pressured by Gwen Ifill. I suppose the mau-mauing worked."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "Ifill [was] terrible. Yes, she was constrained by the agreed debate rules. But she gave not the slightest sign of chafing against them or looking for ways to follow up the many unanswered questions or self-contradictory answers. This was the big news of the evening. Katie Couric, and for that matter Jim Lehrer, have never looked so good."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Gwen Ifill got bought off by McCain before this debate. He played her and she rolled over. What a sad excuse for a reporter. I've always liked Ifill in the past, but what has she done tonight that a 5th grader couldn't do? She's read questions. That's it. Palin doesn't answer them, Ifill moves on to the next question."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "[Ifill]'s been absolutely awful. Her questions are terrible. And more importantly, she's let Palin ignore every single question. Just flat out ignore them. They got in her head."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "There was only one loser: Gwen Ifill. She was intimidated, peripheral, neutered. The rules didn't help. But Ifill put in a dreadful performance."

VP DEBATE IV: Fair And Balanced?

After criticizing her ferociously for the past 48 hours, most conservative bloggers thought that Ifill did a reasonably good job as moderator:

• Malkin: "As for Gwen 'Age of Obama' Ifill, she behaved herself for the most part. She was duly chastened. But the questions and the controversy and the double standards don't go away. [...] As I noted in my liveblog, Gwen Ifill failed to disclose her book and financial conflict of interest at the start of the debate. It's a travesty."
• Carpenter: "Going into this debate there was concern moderator Gwen Ifill may not treat the candidates fairly because of the financial stake she has in a yet-to-be released book about Obama's impact on race and politics. I did not detect any outright bias and believe her questions were fair at first blush."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "Ifill didn't ask any obviously loaded, leading or 'gotcha' type questions, and all in all she played it pretty fair."

Other righty bloggers were more critical of Ifill:

• Erickson: "Ifill herself did wind up showing her bias. She rarely gave Palin the last word. By the end of the debate it was almost 3 to 1 with Biden getting the last word. She also tried to disrupt Palin's relationship with evangelicals by framing gay marriage around Alaska, mischaracterizing it too. Likewise with global warming."
• Geraghty: "Gwen Ifill's questions were not glaringly biased, but it was ridiculous that she didn't feel the need to acknowledge her book on 'The Age of Obama' at the beginning of the debate. It was the third time in this process that she has behaved dishonorably. The first was not disclosing the book to the Commission on Presidential Debates. The second was dismissing the criticism out of hand, and not acknowledging that debate moderators ought to not have a financial incentive to see one side win. And thirdly by refusing to acknowledge these facts during the debate, information that the viewers at home are entitled to take into consideration."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "I think [Ifill] did an appalling job. The job is about more than the asking of the questions. And the overall context here...is that the media is in the tank for Obama."

PALIN DEBATE: How Sarah Got Her Groove Back

Many conservative bloggers are arguing that Palin has regained her mojo:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "Tonight, Sarah Palin was sharp, articulate, and connected with the middle class. The #1 political effect tonight will have is an important one for the McCain campaign: she shut the doubters up, and then some. [...] Palin can no longer be defined as a liability in any meaningful political or analytical sense. Her claim to leadership in the next Right stands stronger than ever."
• Michelle Malkin: "Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight's debate. She was warm, fresh, funny, confident, energetic, personable, relentless, and on message. She roasted Obama's flip-flops on the surge and tea-with-dictators declarations, dinged Biden's bash-Bush rhetoric, challenged the blame-America defeatism of the Left, and exuded the sunny optimism that energized the base in the first place. McCain has not done many things right. But Sarah Palin proved tonight that the VP risk he took was worth it. Her performance also underscored the underhandedness of the hatchet job editors at ABC News and CBS News, which failed to capture her solid competence on the whole array of foreign and domestic policy issues on the debate table tonight."
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "[It] looks like Gov. Palin has been underestimated once again. Take away the biased editing skills of ABC and CBS and Gov. Palin does well. At least that's what a lot American might be thinking tonight."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "With a solid, articulate, polished performance tonight at the debate, Sarah Palin made liars of the MSM, which has used edited interviews, elitist snobbery and repeated abuse to try to convince the American people that John McCain's running mate was nothing more than an ignorant, backwoods hick. Governor Palin's strategy was to talk about what she wanted to talk about -- whether, as she put it, it was what her opponent or the moderator wanted to talk about. This, of course, is highly defensible given that the world knows Gwen Ifill wasn't going to do much on terrain that's unfriendly to Barack Obama. [...] What's become clear is that anyone who has tried to smear [Palin] as stupid or ill-equipped owes her a deep and profound apology."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Did she pass the could-she-lead-in-a-time-of-crisis test? Let me put it this way. I could picture the woman on stage tonight leading in a crisis. I couldn't picture the woman interviewed by Gibson and Couric doing that. She's a natural saleswoman. She certainly saved her prospects for national office in 2012, if she so chooses. She certainly, my guess is, reenergized the GOP base and independents, centrists, and undecided, if they're honest with themselves, will conclude that they witnessed an impressive woman tonight. Many Democrats will continue to loathe her."

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that Palin's conservative critics should eat their words after last night's debate:

• Malkin: "I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words. Eat them."
• Erickson: "Paging Kathleen Parker, Connor whatshisname, etc: If you still want to talk about Palin dropping out, you have beltwayitis and need to leave the NYC-DC corridor of talking heads and cocktail parties for the real United States."
• Ruffini: "Conservative weak sisters like Kathleen Parker and David Brooks can turn their pens in another direction. Tonight, they've been silenced."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Based on a mediocre interview with Katie Couric, some conservatives were actually calling for Sarah Palin to step down. It still blows me away. ...What will they say today??? [...] David Brooks' column today is titled: 'The Palin Rebound'...My guess is Peggy Noonan's next column will ooze with praise for Palin, too. This really reminds me of the fair-weather football fans. You know the people I'm talking about...the guys who always wore their Dallas Cowboys jackets back in the 90s..."

PALIN DEBATE II: Darn Right, Ya Betcha!

Liberal bloggers were very critical of Palin's performance -- particularly what they perceived to be her over-reliance on platitudes and sound-bites:

• Moulitsas: "Palin was like one of those dolls where you pull the string, and some pre-recorded message comes out. Pull string, 'They hate our freedoms!' Pull string, 'Obama will raise taxes!' Pull string, 'Drill, baby, drill!' It was tiresome and, frankly, a little boring."
• Oliver Willis: "Shorter Sarah Palin: 'I won't answer your question. But I'll recite this talking point.'"
• publius: "[Palin] didn't wear very well. Her schtick got old. Like her candidacy more generally, it was a sugar rush that fades quickly. It wasn't so much that she had any truly trainwreck responses (though there was plenty of gibberish). It was that her mindless memorized cutesy lines and winks began to look like amateur hour in comparison to Biden's command of facts and policy."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "Palin seemed overly precious and flirty and unprofessional, and overplayed her narrative of 'I'm just a simple middle-class girl, I'm not like these Washington politicians, the American people want straight talk.' She came across as overly smug and a bit phony."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "She did not come off as Vice Presidential. She sounded like a moderately effective surrogate -- a little better than a Carly Fiorina, not as good as a Mitt Romney -- but not as an able partner to John McCain, and certainly not as one who could step in as President should God forbid anything happen to McCain. In this regard, this was not a successful debate for the McCain-Palin ticket."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Palin's largest problem, to my eyes, is that she was tangibly nervous for most of the debate, rushing through talking points and canned jokes alike with unusually little inflection. I doubt that this will impact her favorables much -- in fact, it seems likely that her favorables will improve. But it may contribute to the increasing feelings of dis-ease that some voters have with the McCain campaign, which no longer seems like the manifestly safer choice."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "If all Palin had to do tonight in order to meet expectations was to answer questions, then she pretty much failed. More than half of the time she didn't answer the question put to her at all. For example, when asked about household debt, she talked about energy. When asked about Pakistan, she talked to Iran. And on and on. [...] Pundits think that because Palin didn't suck as bad as she did in the Couric interview, that she done good (to be all folksy). Talk about getting her a low bar. That's like a baseball team improving because they didn't get no-hit in the second part of the double header."

Several liberal bloggers found Palin's answers incoherent:

• Drum: "I'll be honest: I genuinely didn't understand about 50% of what Sarah Palin said. She pretty overtly didn't even pretend to address a lot of Ifill's questions -- probably because she couldn't -- and a lot of her filibustering ended up sounding like random strings of phrases from the Hockey-Mom-o-Bot 3000. This was especially true as time wore on. If nothing else, this makes it almost impossible to judge the substance of what she believes, and despite the fact that she 'connects' with ordinary people, I have a feeling that an awful lot of ordinary people weren't impressed with this."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "I have the sense that people are scratching their heads today asking: What the hell was Palin talking about? [...] I know that debates aren't ever about substance. But seriously, what the hell was she talking about last night? I defy anyone to find a truly coherent, well reasoned answer to any question."

PALIN DEBATE III: Medicare Leads To Totalitarianism?

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait:

"Palin's final quote was from Ronald Reagan, warning that without vigilance, 'you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.' In fact, Reagan was not warning about a general lack of vigilance about freedom, he was warning what would happen if Medicare was enacted."

Many liberal bloggers are mocking Palin for reciting what they consider a poorly-chosen Reagan quote:

• Yglesias: "This wasn't something Reagan said in the 1980s. It was a jeremiad against Medicare with Reagan arguing that Medicare would lead to 'socialized medicine' which would lead to socialism and totalitarianism. [...] Does Palin want to eliminate Medicare? Well, probably she does. But does she want to say that publicly? I doubt it."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "What Palin did not mention -- probably because she did not know -- is that Reagan's quote was about what would happen in the sixties if Medicare was enacted. So what's worse; overwrought bullshit, quoting overwrought bullshit, or improperly using a quote that is overwrought bullshit?"
• Benen: "Oops. The McCain aides probably should have checked that one a little closer before handing Palin the script."
• Mark Kleiman: "If I were Obama, I think I'd hit this hard."

BIDEN DEBATE: A Home Run For Joe

Liberal bloggers were very pleased with Biden's performance:

• Marshall: "One thing that I think is easy to overlook here is that Biden did really well. He started a little slow. But he quickly got into his groove and in the second half there were several answers that he took the debate squarely to John McCain in a way that I thought was very effective."
• publius: "Putting aside the first half hour, it was an extremely impressive performance by Biden. On foreign policy, he was especially powerful -- he sounded authoritative, passionate, etc. He also was gracious and earnest, and never nasty. It was pitch perfect."
• Klein: "[Biden's] performance tonight was the best I've seen from any candidate in this election, including the primaries. Just a superb job. I'm a bad barometer for middle America, but tonight seemed a clear win for him and his ticket."
• BooMan: "Biden turned in a really superlative performance tonight. The last time a Democratic vice-president (or vice-presidential candidate) decisively won a debate was when Al Gore bested Ross Perot in a debate about passing NAFTA."
• Moulitsas: "Joe Biden obviously knows his shit. That was never in doubt, and nothing Biden did changes that perception."
• Beeton: "Biden: sharp, focused, informative, compassionate, passionate; Palin: sloppy, glib, scattered, charming. This was no contest."

Liberal bloggers were particularly moved by Biden's emotional remarks about caring for his children after his wife's death:

• Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "[The] moment when Joe Biden talked about being a single parent unsure whether his sons would make it after his wife and daughter were tragically killed in a car accident? Most real thing I've seen in politics in a long, long time."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "We just had the moment of the debate: Biden defending his fatherhood, choking up when recalling when he was a single father who wasn't certain that one of his children would survive."
• Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "[Biden's] discussion of his injured family was the deal-maker for the audience, a moment Palin handled awkwardly afterwards in her response."
• Moulitsas: "This was clearly the most dramatic of the evening. What struck me was that Palin didn't seem to know Biden's family story. Anyone who knows what Biden has had to deal with raising his kids wouldn't have blithely made that comment."

BIDEN DEBATE II: Give Joe His Due

Most conservative bloggers thought that Biden did a fairly good job, even though they were more impressed by Palin:

• Liebau: "[Palin] did a good job tonight. It's no surprise that he's capable of holding his tongue in a debate format -- as he proved in the Democrat debates through the spring. Unplugged, he's a goofball, but a likable one. It was never realistic for Republicans to hope he'd implode in a controlled setting, and he didn't."
• The Next Right's Jon Henke: "Face it, Biden did well. He was serious, fluent, he had gravitas. He didn't pull a Biden. And yet, Biden reinforced the real problem he represents for the Obama campaign: whatever he may be, Senator Biden is not 'Change'. In a campaign built around a Change brand, Biden is a jarring reminder of the traditional Democratic establishment.
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Biden avoided putting his foot in his mouth, was well informed and crisp if occasionally to Washington-wonkish, and struck the right balance in terms of challenging Palin without bullying or patronizing her. He was a little flat in the beginning but picked up steam as he went along. But the expectations game did not favor him."

Erickson disagrees: "Biden literally blew this debate -- sighing heavily in the microphone. Rolling his eyes. Being condescending. Flagrantly lying about policies that Palin repeatedly called him on."

PALIN: Free Sarah!

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that the McCain camp has done a poor job of introducing Palin to the electorate:

• The Next Right's Conn Carroll: "I love Gov. Palin, believe she is a top shelf political talent, and that she did adequate last night. But she could have been better. And the McCain campaign is entirely to blame for her underperformance. Palin is like a highly talented first round baseball draft pick. She is going to be great someday, but when McCain picked her in August, she was simply not ready to face major league pitching the very next day. This is not to say she would not be ready to be VP on January 20th. Just that she needed some practice. And the McCain campaign should have been getting her that needed practice from day one. The major leagues have a farm system for a reason. To develop talent. From day one Palin should have been on [Sean] Hannity, Hewitt, Rush [Limbaugh], and Laura [Ingraham]. Is this group going to challenge her in the same way Charlie Gibson will? No. But they would give Palin the opportunity to answer detailed policy questions in a friendly environment, to hone her skills at explaining her world view, and to grow comfortable in the media spotlight."
• The Next Right's Rob Bluey: "Following the GOP convention last month, John McCain's campaign had an extraordinary opportunity to capitalize on the excitement and good will that Sarah Palin brought to the ticket. Instead, they failed miserably. [...] Over the next month, the McCain campaign needs to let Palin be herself. Here are three things she can do: (1.) Solo town hall meetings. This would erase doubts about Palin's inability to answer tough questions. [...] (2.) More radio and TV interviews. [...] From now until Nov. 4 she should be doing conservative talk radio daily (she's only spoken to Hugh Hewitt so far) and sitting down with local radio or TV journalists in the cities she's visiting. (3.) Outreach to bloggers. [...] Doing this would also put Palin in contact with her staunchest supporters and bypass conservative media elites."

Hawkins: "The McCain campaign's rollout could have been better. They should have sent her out to do a lot more interviews with friendly, conservative outlets right off the bat, but here's the thing a lot of people are missing: there is a very steep learning curve when you get into a national campaign. You are expected to master a truly enormous amount of information and the honest truth is that none of them have it all down when they start, even the guys like McCain and Biden who have been in the Senate for 4,000 years. [...] Palin is having the same big problem Fred Thompson had: they both burst right onto the main stage and had a spotlight shined on them while they were still getting caught up to speed. After a certain point, Fred caught up and was putting on great performances, but by then, the moment had passed him by..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Vindicated?

Moulitsas sees Palin's declining favorability ratings as evidence that the netroots were smart to go after her:

"Good thing we didn't lay off Palin, as so many counseled. [...] I know I harp on this a lot, but it's an important teaching moment -- when Palin was picked, she debuted to sterling approval numbers. Her speech at the RNC was a big hit. She was beloved, and McCain's numbers skyrocketed as a result. This site and others went on the attack. Republicans were busy trying to build a great story about Palin -- hockey mom, 'real', ate mooseburgers, reformer, blah blah blah. We fought back discussing her record, her corruption, her lack of experience, and the results of her brand of 'family values'. [...]

People criticized us for taking on Palin, saying that we were ignoring McCain. But she was his biggest strength, and as such, it would be tough to knock McCain down if she wasn't knocked down first. Ultimately, we were successful beyond our wildest dreams -- the McCain campaign has been forced to stash away Palin in [Dick] Cheney's undisclosed location, and even needs McCain to chaperone her during media interviews. This has forced McCain to shoulder a greater load of the campaign, deprived of a top-level surrogate. This was glaringly obvious during the first presidential debate, when Biden was all over the networks spreading the good Democratic cheer, while they stashed Palin in a Philly bar. And even there, she was unable to stay out of trouble, answering a shouted question by some random dude with an endorsement of Obama's plan to take out Osama Bin Laden even if found hiding in Pakistan.

So I hope this serves a lesson to the likes of Paul Begala, in the party establishment, and way too many bloggers outside it, who thought focusing on Palin was harmful to our efforts. It wasn't. A popular Palin would've given us far less favorable dynamics in this race. Thankfully, that isn't something we have to worry about."

LEST WE FORGET: Man With Food In Beard Saying Something About Climate Change

From The Onion:

"GENEVA -- A man with a piece of food stuck in his beard is currently addressing an auditorium full of world leaders and prominent scholars on what seems to be the subject of global warming, sources are reporting. The food particle has been dangling from the man's facial hair for more than an hour while he has mentioned such phrases as 'sulfides,' 'ice caps,' 'immediately, otherwise we all may,' 'underwater tomb,' and 'of human life as we know it.' It was briefly dislodged during a particularly animated portion of the presentation in which complete global apocalypse was remarked upon, only to fall one inch and reattach to a lower portion of beard. The exact nature of the crumb has yet to be ascertained. Some are speculating that it is aioli. Others, however, believe it to be a bit of chewed-up turkey."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 3, 2008 01:13 PM