AlchemyToday

Just saying.

Spencer Ackerman worries about the effects of forgetting the definition of “terrorist” , as Palin says Bill Ayers is unquestionably a terrorist while she wouldn’t neccesarily go that far when it comes to abortion-clinic bombers or protestors hurling Molotov cocktails at police:

The point isn’t that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, which is also an absurd, lazy and euphemistic statement. It’s that when you start down this path, you lose the ability to draw necessary distinctions, and end up with an overbroad and counterproductive definition of your enemy. That’s a feature, not a bug, of calling something a war on “terrorism.” Bush started it. Palin embraced it. And now she’s trapped in its absurdity.

I have a different problem with Palin’s answer after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

My suggestion (elsewhere) following the Washington Post article about McCain’s planned stepped-up character attacks on Obama:

Obama should bring up McCain’s negative ads in the last debate, assuming they start by then. “John, you’ve been running ads for the last two weeks that lie about my record on taxes and abortion and ethics and say I’m too risky for the American people and that because I live in the same neighborhood with some people, I must agree with them. If this is so important, why didn’t you bring this up in our first debate? Why didn’t your running mate bring any of this up in her debate? If you’re so worried about my, quote, associations, why won’t you challenge them to my face instead of running negative ads. If the moderator will permit it, I’ll let you ask me any question right now and I’ll answer it directly and, as you’d say, give the American people some straight talk.”

And later, just before Tuesday’s debate (wondering whether Brokaw would bring up Ayers):

Brokaw was on Morning Joe or something this week saying that Obama’s never really had to answer questions about Ayers before, but frankly I want Obama to have a chance to take that head on and say something on the order of, “And if anyone has a question about people I’ve crossed paths with, know that I’ll be the first to cross swords with anyone who threatens America, and ask those questions to my face before you lie about my history in sleazy campaign speeches.”

Now, Obama on ABC News last night:

GIBSON: Were you surprised, A, that he didn’t bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?

OBAMA: Well, I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.

But I guess we’ve got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that — that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.

The notion that people don’t know who I am is a little hard to swallow. I’ve been running for president for the last two years. I’ve campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I’ve been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I’ve written two books which any — everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there.

To preface, I’m trying to try to honestly post my pre-debate expectations here even though I’m writing this post-debate; I realize that gives me the opportunity to fake clairvoyance which I’ll try to avoid.

On the moderator, Gwen Ifill:

Pregame expectations: Ahead of the debate, Ifill was attacked from the right for “failing to disclose” that she’s got a deal to drop a book about how Obama’s changing the face of Black politics or something on inauguration day.  Odds of McCain campaign actually not realizing this until a few days ago when it was first brought up: extremely low.  Well, that’d be the case with any normal, competent campaign, anyway.  Reactions to this from the left varied from defense of Ifill to worrying that she’d be overly cautious to avoid any impression of bias to scheming to have Obama request Ifill be replaced to throw a last-minute wrench into Palin’s debate prep.

Postgame reviews: On the right, reactions are mixed (judged largely by posts at The Corner).  In roughly equal proportion, some people found her questions fair and others found her questions fair but are still full of barely contained resentment regarding her conflict of interest.  Also, complaints about no abortion questions.  On the left, it’s almost uniformly negative: Ifill didn’t ask any follow-up questions even though Palin didn’t always (or usually) come close to answering the prompted questions.  Also, complaints about no abortion/women’s issues questions.

My take: Remembering Ifill’s strict non-interventionism in the Cheney/Edwards debate, I wasn’t expected any Russertesque follow-up attempst.  That debate was in a more open, roundtable format, and Ifill didn’t use it to frequently press the issue even though the Cheney/Edwards experience gap almost perfectly predicted Biden/Palin.  Ifill’s smart; she clearly recognized Palin’s dodges and redirects and wasn’t just doggedly moving forward to the next question.  She redirected the debate when further clarification was possible, and moved on when it was clear that Palin was just going to fillibuster.

Here’s a section where Ifill damns Palin’s tactic with a subtle jab:

BIDEN: … Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That’s why we got into so much trouble.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I’m still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

IFILL: OK, our time is up here. We’ve got to move to the next question. Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let’s talk about taxes.

This prompted Ifill’s question about major criticisms of the candidates’ tax plans, leading to Biden’s perfectly scripted answer about class warfare, and his “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere” attack on McCain’s health benefits tax that Palin was utterly unprepared to defend.  Obama did a great job seizing the reigns on the tax debate a week ago, but Palin drew first blood here by talking about taxes when the question was about anything but taxes (it was about McCain support deregulation in health care).  Ifill recognized this, and basically said, “If you’re going to insist on debating taxes, we’re going to debate it on my terms.”

Attempts to hang Obama/Biden with the phrase “increased taxes” practically define the McCain campaign’s media strategy.  Palin was clearly given the task of redirecting the debate along those lines whenever possible, and after Ifill called her on it, she never brought it up again in any serious way.

I suspect the common-wisdom criticisms of Palin coming from the debate will include her simply not answering questions and redirecting to talking points that often (usually?) bore little relation to the quesiton at hand.  Had Ifill been overly aggressive in pointing this out, we’d instead be hearing about how Ifill attacked Palin during the debate for avoiding questions.  Most people aren’t stupid and they know when someone’s dodging a question and can read their body language when someone’s staring at notecards and reciting something that’s got nothing to do with Ifill’s question.  Criticizing Ifill for not actively pointing this out during the debate, I think, underestimates (barely) the intelligence of an average, undecided debate viewer.  Had Ifill interjected, the story would’ve been: Palin exceeded expectations and usually knew what she was talking about, but occasionally was chided by the moderator for straying off topic, maverick that she is!  Instead, the story is: Palin exceeded expectations but sometimes avoided issues and gave unrelated answers on questions that Biden showcased the depth of his knowledge.  There’s only room for two characters in a story about a debate, and I’d much rather it be about Biden and Palin than Ifill and Palin.

From an NPR interview today:

On whether he can imagine turning to Governor Sarah Palin for advice on foreign policy:
“I’ve turned to her advice many times in the past. I can’t imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they’ve been wrong. They were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong about Russia.” He continues: “I’ve already have turned to Governor Palin, particularly on energy issues, and I’ve appreciated her background and knowledge on that and many other issues.”