Open Thread: The VP Debate
Let’s get our fact checkers in the house:
The Washington Post – Fact Checker
New York Times – Check Point
And a live blog covering the main points:
New York Times – The Caucus Blog: St. Louis Showdown
And the floor is open (a little early tonight).
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
adamson wrote:
Man, this debate is good, so far. Palin’s getting smashed on. All she can bring up is, “Well, John McCain is known as a ‘maverick’…” BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 9:22 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
I think Sen. Biden was very, very successful in getting in his message/points across w/out looking like he was bullying or being condescending to Gov. Palin. And Ms. Ifill (go fellow Simmons College alum!:-D) silenced the (mostly conservative) critics with her usual even-handedness with her questions.
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶
Tony wrote:
You know, I’ve tried no to judge Palin much, given the coverage of her.
I really wanted to see something where I could really judge her.
Tonight, live, unedited, not a speech, great chance to judge her.
I swear, I thought BETTER of her when all I saw was edited loops of her bloopers.
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 10:12 pm ¶
chi wrote:
Palin reminds me of Lil Wayne. His lyrics sound somewhat hot and catchy on the surface, but when you stop and really listen, you don’t know what the hell he’s saying. Along the same lines, all Palin seemed to do was parrot every conceivable talking point she memorized, while directing the (excuse-for-a) debate back to topics with which she was comfortable.
This is random — but did anyone else catch her remark about Biden’s late wife (that she “got her reward in Heaven,” or something to that effect. I thought it was inappropriate and fucked up.
I think Biden took it hands-down. More poise, coherent and humane, compared to her robotic behavior.
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 10:48 pm ¶
Tariq Nelson wrote:
Palin had her talking points and she was not going to stray from them – even if the question was not relevant.
Biden was strong.
Obama/Biden: 2
McCain/Palin: 0
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 11:04 pm ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
Biden was awesome, and Palin was Failin’.
Palin was unable to answer the questions clearly, trying hard to divert back to her comfort area. It was hilariously pathetic.
I oficially HATE the word “maverick.”
Biden, on the other hand, did a GREAT job and totally answered all the questions on point.
OBAMA/BIDEN O8!!!!
Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 11:18 pm ¶
i-geek wrote:
To her credit, Palin remained mostly coherent. However, Biden was clearly the more professional, articulate, and experienced VP candidate. He is a true asset to the Obama campaign.
Gwen Ifill was great. Totally professional and fair. I think she effectively silenced the critics who wondered if she would favor Biden due to her own political leanings.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 12:16 am ¶
nikko mahor wrote:
palin did better than expected but biden projected himself better as a potential vice-president which is understandable because he is a veteran debater having served in the legislature for some time now.
still, it’s the top of the ticket that matters. and obama has the lead, and thanks to obama, biden’s going to be vice president.
but even if the republicans lose this november, i think we will see more of sarah palin in the next us presidential elections. a more seasoned sarah palin, a more prepared sarah palin… she might even be the next republican presidential candidate come 2012…
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 12:43 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
No the folksy (anybody else hate that word now, makes me think of quilts and pies and pickled beets) “reward in heaven” comment was referring to all the teachers and the work that they do in the world. I think.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:12 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
Agree, agree, agree!
lol @ the lil’ wayne comment.
I LOVED all of Biden’s oblique jabs. “now THAT’S a bridge to nowhere!” Blammo!
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:19 am ¶
eff wrote:
I wouldn’t exactly say she was eloquent, but I think Palin spoke well, and I was surprised by how she did.Though she relied too much on anecdotes, dodged questions, and didn’t seem comfortable, she exceeded my expectations.
I don’t believe for a second that John McCain is a “maverick” and her constant reiteration of that really irritated me.
Biden was more restrained than I thought he’d be, but I think that will work out to his advantage. He won this debate, hands down.
Did she say that Obama voted 90-something times for tax hikes? I’m pretty sure that’s not true.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:40 am ¶
brownstocking wrote:
Biden won hands down; Palin’s voice became quite grating after 5 minutes.
And how you gon’ not answer the moderator’s questions? For real?
Ifill was mediocre, but she was last time around, too. Hope her book is good.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:55 am ¶
edwardbernays wrote:
I thought Ifill was way better than dan rather or stephenopolous, or any one of those guys. I just feel like it’s so staged. There’s no action, you know?
Anyways, my favorite part was after on cnn where they had the people who decided to vote for palin after the debate.
one said “it’s because she’s so real, she talk’s straight” and i had to turn off the tv because i was so appalled that they would just repeat the buzz words and not even recognize that their thoughts are being fed to them.
and also, thanks for not approving my post. it was too real. i know. it’s ok. i don’t blame you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
this man is the architect of advertising and focus groups. maybe it’s important, i dont know. maybe not.
I think palin just has no experience at all. I can see the moon at night, but that doesn’t make me an astrophysicist.
Mod Note – Your post was real – real off topic. We do not approve posts that don’t bother to address the subject at hand, so save the rants about the sucky two party system for your own blog. – LDP
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 7:21 am ¶
Mimi wrote:
I am so glad I watched this with closed captioning in a bar. It was still irritating, but at least I didn’t have to hear her voice. You could tell she went through serious training beforehand.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 7:30 am ¶
CJsDaddy wrote:
I think each side got what they were looking for. Politicians use debates to speak to the viewers – average watchers don’t give a hoot what the questions are. Us politics watchers get worked up over them ignoring the question or missing opportunities for a good comeback – but the average undecided voter doesn’t notice those things
I also actually thought it was rather boring and congenial. They “jabs” at one another were more light hearted and on several occasions they specifically expressed respect for one another. They also seemed to come across as more moderate than the rest of us percieve them. They agreed on civil union benefits and carbon emissions caps.
For that reason, I don’t think there was a clear winner.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 7:47 am ¶
CEdwards wrote:
Can we talk about “Joe Sixpack” and the fact that this perjorative is continually being used in a race-baiting way — appealing to the poor, Southern or Midwestern white person (perhaps mainly male) with no higher education than high school and a distrust of anything “other” or let me be specific if Sarah Palin and John McCain will not –non white.
I am growing tired of Sarah’s suggestion that she is for the “Average American” and then calling that person low rate white trash (which is a term I’ve always hated because it implies that the trash is still “good” cause it happens to be white). She DOES NOT reflect or understand the America that we are a part of — diverse and intellectual, innovative and strong. She MOST CERTAINLY needs to stop speaking for “me”, that’s for “dang” –that’s for you, Sarah – sure.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 7:49 am ¶
Mary wrote:
Man, remember how everybody was talking about how if Biden challenged Palin, he would look sexist? The way he actually challenged her – on facts and policies – I actually thought he looked LESS sexist than Palin’s own campaign and running mate. Biden destroyed her on substance but didn’t humiliate her as a person, which I think a lot of people might have expected after the Couric interviews.
If I had to pick “The Moment” of the debate, it would be when Biden lost his composure talking about being a single parent after the death of his wife and baby daughter; and then Palin responded with glib talking points about being a maverick, not even the slightest acknowledgement of his personal tragedy. I know she was nervous and probably didn’t know what to say, but she still looked terrible when that happened.
As for Gwen Ifill, I thought she was OK. I would have liked more follow-up questions, but I think she kept the debate moving smoothly and asked interesting questions. The fact that I didn’t come away with a strong impression of her is in some respects, a good thing – she played the “invisible hand” very well.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 8:04 am ¶
Chris wrote:
@chi – EXCELLENT description of Palin’s speaking and debatnig style!
I think Joe Biden did an outstanding job, and did something Obama failed to do in his first debate, as well as what McCain and, to an extent, Palin has been doing or trying to do: driving the point home through adamant repetition of his main talking points.
One example is the $4 billion tax break for Exxon/Mobil, which was repeated at least 3 times in the debate. That’ll be a phrase that I’m sure will stick longer than the word “maverick” in most people’s minds.
Another was the foreign policy answer, where Joe Biden constantly repeated the lack of change in Bush’s policies when it came to Pakistan. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Israel.
Overall, Palin did a lot better than I, and I gather most people, expected, but Joe was on point. Lightyears ahead of Palin, and I’d say he fared better than Obama did last Friday.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 8:12 am ¶
jen* wrote:
I couldn’t watch the whole thing – it was getting on my nerves. Palin came across better than expected, and that was the plan – keep expectations low, and she can sail over them with minimal achievement.
One trend I’m starting to see here, though, is the commentary about her voice. I can understand that it may be personally irritating, but it just reminds me of the commentary about Hillary’s voice, and general categorization of women’s voices as shrill, sharp, annoying, etc. Hopefully we can remain above the thinly veiled sexism that plagued Hillary, even if we don’t agree with Palin’s politics.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 8:43 am ¶
RainaWeather wrote:
I’m glad Biden jumped on the “maverick” thing.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 8:57 am ¶
Princess wrote:
Hello everyone!
It was great to see Biden was well prepared, focused, on point and did not fall prey to election dramatics during this debate. He clearly provided examples of what the Obama/Biden ticket will bring to the table. And contrary to pre-debate rumor and speculation, Mrs. Ifill proved to be a fair moderator.
Palin evaded answering many questions, or answered with a totally unrelated response. She was also unable to answer the question, “What has the current administration done right?”, and finally claimed it has not been a failure. She repeatedly failed to provide any solid examples of what distinguishes a McCain administration from the current administration. And she was way off track regarding the duties of V.P. Of course, Biden set the record straight on this. However, Palin did admit she hasn’t promised much with only 5-weeks into the election as McCain’s running mate.
In my opinion, I’d like to think having knowledge of the constitution and constitutional law would be viewed as an important factor for any candidate running for the highest offices in U.S. government. Obama and Biden are both seasoned in this area.
After watching the V.P. debate, I came away with the a heightened awareness that if Palin is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, then many others with at least a 4-year degree would also be qualified.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 9:18 am ¶
Chris wrote:
@Mary: excellent point. Actually, I think when Biden went into his single parent narrative, he actually succeeded in framing Palin as sexist. Especially with his remark about how, just because he’s a man, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know about the sacrifices parents make in raising their children.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 9:20 am ¶
Global Wire wrote:
She came off as totally scripted and didn’t answer most questions. Biden wiped her dry. At least Biden with his experience provided a breath of knowledge. How many times was she going to repeat that she is a maverick, an supporter of domestic energy and Alaska drilling and her love of Israel???
Unfortunately, there are people who will watch this debate and vote for McCain just because of her personality, and not her substance of on the issues. This is how we ended up with Bush because everyone thought he was the kind of person they would “want to have a beer with” and not thinking about the issues he represents.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am ¶
geo wrote:
biden won, imo.
during the first half palin seemed to remember her script pretty well, but it seems like the script ran out during the second half of the debate. all she could resort to was “maverick’.
my favorite part was when biden BROKE DOWN that maverick b.s. he obliterated her on that! lol
biden gave a lot of technical and detailed answers to the questions. my fear is that it may have went ignored by people cause it didnt contain fluff like palin’s answers.
i am so tired of her interjecting her ability to birth children and being mayor of small-town as a qualification of being vp.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 9:42 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
but did anyone else catch her remark about Biden’s late wife (that she “got her reward in Heaven,” or something to that effect. I thought it was inappropriate and fucked up.
Yes I did. Yes it was.
this woman: (heartrate monitor nose dives) \____
To her credit, Palin remained mostly coherent. However, Biden was clearly the more professional, articulate, and experienced VP candidate. He is a true asset to the Obama campaign.
Coherence is a positive trait, especially after a 6er! Biden looked clean too. They are both a credit to their race!
this woman: ___/
a more seasoned sarah palin, a more prepared sarah palin… she might even be the next republican presidential candidate come 2012…
Sounds like she may rack up the frequent flyer miles as a Warshington insider…
this woman:~~~~~
folksy (anybody else hate that word now, makes me think of quilts and pies and pickled beets)
Wilford Brimley & his diabeetus
this woman: `——-
average watchers don’t give a hoot what the questions are. Us politics watchers get worked up over them ignoring the question or missing opportunities for a good comeback – but the average undecided voter doesn’t notice those things
Very true. We need to raise the bar in this country. Joe 6pack is not good enough (yeah I said it) to run anything but a putt putt/go cart center.
this woman: \____
CE – AMEN!! What kind of 6 pack? Does Blue Moon (elitist), Tecate (they’re taking our beer) or Schaeffer (je’ttow) count? Isn’t Budweiser fer-en now/again [like it was a century ago]? Does it have to come in a can or does a bottle count? Can I drink out of a frosty mug, or do I need a Mason jar?
this woman: ///////
I actually thought he looked LESS sexist than Palin’s own campaign and running mate.
I thought he looked less sexist than what her role in this debacle represents.
this woman: \\
Palin reminds me of Lil Wayne. His lyrics sound somewhat hot and catchy on the surface, but when you stop and really listen, you don’t know what the hell he’s saying.
this woman: *flatlines________*
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 9:46 am ¶
Asada wrote:
I watched it on MSNBC and they were right, those of us looking for a train wreck left disappointed. She CAN debate well enough and certainly didn’t sound as stupid as she did with Katie Couric. I left feeling that both of them did not get their point across very well. McCain and Obama were better to watch. I kept asking the TV for explanations on what taxes and which laws and which votes when etc. I WAS hoping to get a good laugh. It was not funny. Oh well…
I don’t think I’m going to vote this year, even with ” the most important election of my life”. It’s all rubbish to me now.
For instance, try as I might, the Marriage equality is incredibly important to me as well as reproductive rights. I was shocked when BOTH candidates said they did not support gay marriage. I felt embarrassed, because I was almost certain Biden was not bigoted against the GLBT community. But then he just said it plain. I though he was simply “neither for, nor against marriage equality”.
I think I was also sadeddned by the fact that I was fooled. Of course there is a difference between ” I don’t support gay marriage” and ” I don’t want to change the laws to hurt anyone”.
How do you all feel about the issue? Do any of you feel strange gays are being pushed to emulate the heterosexual standard of marriage or what? Do ya’ll support it? Are you into alternatives to marriage?
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:07 am ¶
chi wrote:
@ CEdwards — my thoughts exactly!
I kept wondering who the “average American” is, goshdarnit!
(She might have well just say ‘hell’ and ‘damn’. Shit. )
This morning, I watched a few recap clips from the debate but put the volume on mute. When you can’t hear her, she looks like she’s actually saying something significant, in spite of her deer-in-the-headlights wide-eyed facial expression. Maybe the lights were a bit too bright? (OK..that was mean. Or was it?)
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:17 am ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
TCS, I went to Simmons too!!!!!
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
em wrote:
biden killed it. i heard one pundit say that palin won by not failing, in a sense. which i could see, but biden rocked. he should coach obama on debating. don’t get me wrong–obama’s got skills, but more of the oratorical variety. obama needed to blast mcain/palin last week the way biden did last night.
on another note, it’s soooooo great to know that regardless of who gets elected, everyone in government has got israel’s best interests at heart. are there any racialicious plans to delve into how palestinian americans and american jews feel about these sentiments?
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:28 am ¶
Asada wrote:
@ edwardbernays-
thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for!
I’m interested in how politicians can manipulate large populations and convince ppl they are doing what they aren’t. I couldn’t vote if I wanted to because both candidates are so far apart on issues and I’m mostly a moderate. Any alternatives are either “radicals” or just “have no chance”. Its sickening. I really wish there was a viable alternative.
Younger ppl don’t see this, but at one point it was more important to be an intellectual in office. They don’t question why every candidate who is successfully needs to have military connects ( among other things). I don’t believe they understand the USA moved from being leaders on the world stage to war mongers .Its so much more complicated that it seems.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:29 am ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I agree with much of what has already been said. Palin clearly decided to ignore the actual questions and give her talking points. For anyone who was actually listening, this was obvious, but for people who already support her, they probably loved her performance. I was really impressed with Biden last night; he was so well-versed on the issues, and when he detailed exactly why McCain is not a maverick, everyone in the room with me burst into cheers. That was a great moment.
We also took bets on which of Palin’s lines would appear on SNL this weekend. Sometimes, she just comes across as a character or caricature. Also, umm… since when is Alaska the “heartland” of America?
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:29 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Sarah Palin sounds like a prototypical white middle class suburban Canadian lady [with a little Fargo thrown in for good measure]. So hilarious and yet so embarrassing.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:37 am ¶
coco wrote:
It’s funny how Sarah Palin relied on her talking points about Greed, Corrpution, cutting spending, etc., although she may have abused her power as Alaska Governor in Troopergate, trying to get the commissioner of public safety fired …and she got mad, crazy earmark money for Alaskan citizens. Whatever.
She also skittered away from questions she didn’t want to answer, like Biden’s query on whether deregulating healthcare (I guess that’s a McCain proposal?) would have the same effect that the deregulation of Wall Street had. hee hee…
The only time she got serious was when Gwen Ifill asked about — Nuclear Weapons–. Her face changed. She looked visibly shaken. It seemed like she just realized the republican party could weild earth-destroying power — through her — and kill/maim thousands of people.
A few minutes later she wiped a finger under the rim of her glasses (an itch? a tear?) and after that, she mentioned the word Humanitarian for the first time. As a Christian, you can be a conservative, even a republican, but you can’t be a tool for just anybody.
I hope her values give her some backbone.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
Slush wrote:
But much of the media is absolutely cooing over Palin’s surprising ability to not melt in the middle of the floor in inarticulate fear during the debate.
Meanwhile no one is reporting on how Biden did not make those big gaffs he’s supposedly famous for but in fact was hard hitting and knowledgeable.
How can the whole situation have gotten so spun around that by being able to have a smile at the end of the night and still finish her sentences (sort 0f), Palin supposedly now hasd credibility as a potential VP? It’s pathetic!
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 11:14 am ¶
sejw wrote:
I realized last night just why Obama picked Biden: Biden can get angry without it being held against him (too much). If Obama gets angry, he becomes The Angry/Scary/Unelectable Black Man. So Obama brought Biden on to be the Voice of Anger, while Obama can be the Voice of Hope.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 11:22 am ¶
Ike wrote:
Remember the part where Palin tried to say that Biden didn’t know what sacrifice, loss, parenting, and family were because he was a man? If she’d had any knowledge of his past, it was a real asshole move.
Biden almost cried during his response. You could tell. He almost made me cry too.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
@Slush – It’s called sexism.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
–I didn’t know much about Biden before, but I am in love with him now.
–I am disgusted how commentators say that Palin’s folksy charm make her relatable and people like that. First, I hate this narrow definition of “all-American.” I didn’t grow up in a small, white town. I don’t relate to her. Second, I don’t care if a politician is like me or not. I want someone who’s qualified, not charming.
–Her folksy charm almost came off as a caricature. When Joe Biden said he was against the war, she said “Gee, I’m such a Washington outsider. You politicians, if you voted for something in the past, just admit it.” Um, come again, Miss Bridge to Nowhere???
–One of my favorite moments was the question of whether the vp is also the legislative branch, and Palin went on about how the founding fathers made the job flexible, and how she would like to expand her powers, etc, and then Biden retorted that Cheney was the most dangerous vp in history, and that Article 1 of the Constitution specifically says the vp is the executive branch. I cheered.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 12:25 pm ¶
Elena Perez wrote:
@ CEdwards: Mia Nutick did a great essay on the real “Joe Six-pack” and why s/he isn’t what the Republicans think and are appealing to: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/10/hey-there-joe-s.html
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶
Nicole wrote:
Palin and Biden did well, but Biden wins the debate. One thing I like about Palin is that she sounds so “folksy” like she’s one of common people. That’s going to get her bonus points with some undecided folks. However, for the most part, she kind of BS her way through some of the topics. Biden avoided some BS by redirecting the Palin’s negative claims to positives claims.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶
shirky wrote:
Palin was referring to Biden’s current wife (alive and well and an English teacher) when she said she will get her “reward in heaven”. I said “Is that some kind of threat??”
as one of TEH GAYS I was very put off to hear Palin say how she’d TOLERATE me. wtf does that even mean? Like, she won’t push me off a subway platform? Won’t actually come and set fire to my house? It was both meaningless and VERY meaningful if that makes sense.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶
ambre wrote:
@Asada (#26)
I too was taken aback by the agreement on gay marriage! I was like, “what? he did he really just agree with her? did I miss something?” I just don’t understand how these people can solely define the word “marriage” by their own personal religious standards.
I recall Obama’s stance is: separation of church and state, so let each church decide if they want to marry same sex couples. I am under the impression that legalizing gay marriage does not equate telling churches what to do, so I always interpreted this as “legalizing gay marriage.” I thought that Obama doesn’t want to just say “legalize gay marriage” because that would put opposers into a tizzy. If he says, “let the churches/denominations decide amongst themselves” then maybe, just maybe those in opposition don’t feel “forced to accept gay marriage.” However, last night it seemed Biden didn’t reinforce this idea at all, just the whole “yeah, equal rights no marriage” spiel.
I don’t understand why, if civil union rights were to be the same as married couples’ rights that they just can’t be called “married” what’s the difference if they have the same rights? I guess an opposing view could say the same (why would you care about the marriage label if the rights are the same), but it’s the principle. And not all churches/denominations oppose gay marriage.
Anyway, I’m a bit confused as to what the Obama/Biden stance is on gay marriage now that Biden agreed with Palin last night. I’m also surprised that I haven’t heard any talk about it (so far).
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
ambre wrote:
@shirky
wtf co-sign on the “tolerate” usage.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>How do you all feel about the issue? Do any of you feel strange gays are being pushed to emulate the heterosexual standard of marriage or what? Do ya’ll support it? Are you into alternatives to marriage?
Pam Spaulding at the Blend (www.pamshouseblend.com) has an interesting spin on this: basically, whatever personal views are, in 2008 the “civil union not marriage” thing is the only thing a mainstream equality-minded national politician running for executive office can run on. But if (when?) California votes down Prop 8, and if more states follow Mass and HI and realize that the sky does not freaking fall, the state dominoes will keep falling until we have to have a Supreme Court case.
Honestly, I don’t think that “gays are being pushed” into anything that individual couples don’t already want and need. I have 2 couples as close friends, one straight, one gay. The straight one had been together almost 20 years, lived together, had everything joint, put each other through school etc. They’ve chosen not to have kids fo their own. And yet, last year they got married by the JOP: Because it made economic sense, because it made inheritance and selling joint property etc. 10x easier, because one was changing jobs and they were moving from the East to he West coast, and because it made their tax rate better. They are no more or less committed to each other now than before, but the state and federal benefits of marriage tipped them over the edge.
Now, my gay friends are completely different and absolutely the same. Both are committed, have everything joint, are putting each other through school, all that good stuff. But one is on the other’s healthcare ONLY because of the township in which they live and the job that the other has. They are a registered domestic partnership of their township, not even their county or state. If either of them changes jobs, or if they move, their rights vanish. If either of them is injured or sick and admitted to a hospital outside the township, their marriage (and yes, they see it that way) is not validated and they’d have to go through extended family to get visitation rights. When they pay their income taxes, they don’t get the discounted rate for married couples from the fed. When they retire, they won’t share SS benefits or inherit those of their spouse upon death. They’re limited in options if and when they decide to start a family, because many states dictate who can and cannot adopt or foster children. If either of them has a biological child, the partner is not automatically considered a legal stepparent.
I have other gay friends who aren’t into marriage or any equivalent. Which is fine for them. But having the option is something that straight people take for granted and we don’t dare take for granted, ever. It’s not marriage that is being “pushed” on people, they can always just NOT MARRY. It’s the option of marriage and the civil and social benefits attached to it that are slowly being opened for everyone, and there are people trying to limit or end that possibility.
Now, people can and do argue that the gov’t has no business giving any legal or monetary benefits to married couples that they don’t give single couples, sibling households, etc. and I can understand those arguments. But until there’s support for removing those benefits, then the only fair option is to extend them to any married couple, gender-neutral.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶
CJsDaddy wrote:
“Ike wrote:
Remember the part where Palin tried to say that Biden didn’t know what sacrifice, loss, parenting, and family were because he was a man? If she’d had any knowledge of his past, it was a real asshole move.
Biden almost cried during his response. You could tell. He almost made me cry too.”
Ike – when did she say this? I remember his response, but she never suggested anything about him.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Shirky and Ambre! Yes! Tolerate. You will TOLERATE “the gays”! WTF! I would think that we are beyond merely tolerating each other at this juncture. And the whole, “my friends are gay”…actually, she never said she had “gay” friends. She said that she had friends who lead “alternative lifestyles”. Please! Please!
But, it is a political minefield for Biden. He is appealing to a certain type of person, so I think he has to couch his words carefully. I HATE that he has to do that, but he does. And, he is Catholic. He probably doesn’t agree with gay marriage.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
@lyonside.
thank you. I think ppl are afraid to speak about the benefits involved in marriage because they are trying not to look “selfish” ( aka looking out for thier own good in a world that feels otherwise) and because yes,
companies would loose money if they had to consider this possibility.
So few ppl bring that up!
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 3:12 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
I’ve got to agree with you guys that have talked about the “folksy” mode of speech. It seemed to me that Palin was trying too hard to be “relatable” to “middle Americans, hard-working Americans.”
I’m a hard-working American. I grew up in a major metropolitan area, but I travel to smaller towns on business and the people there seem nice enough, but until the GOP’s base can relate to me between election cycles, their candidates can’t speak to me and earn my vote.
And don’t think folks didn’t notice that the GOP tried to get slick and have Brian McKnight perform at the Republican National Convention a few years back.
Holy Pandering, Batman!
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
@CJsDaddy: Here’s an excerpt of Palin’s response that prompted Biden’s:
“My experience as an executive will be put to good use [...] But it wasn’t just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We’ve been there also so that connection was important.”
While she didn’t come right out and say Biden didn’t know about personal sacrifices in the face of raising a family during strenuous times, she basically said that her living through that experience gives her more of an insight into what the average American family has to deal with than her counterparts in this race.
Again, this is one of the GOP’s talking points in regards to Palin’s experience: that, since she’s a “hockey mom,” a mother of five, and relatively closer to the middle class than any of the other candidates, she can connect more with “Main Street” American parents.
Biden’s anecdote served to counter that talking point with his struggles as a single parent, which, we all can agree, relates to a good number of people in this country who are also struggling to make ends meet.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶
S&S wrote:
I was not surprised that Biden admitted to not supporting gay marriage. I don’t think he’s ever tried to hide it. I don’t know of many politicians who openly support gay marriage, and we’d do ourselves a better service not to assume that just because one is left-of-center then they would support gay marriage.
I was, however, surprised by the fact that he so readily admitted it without any spin. That caught me off-guard.
IMO, marriage in most countries is used to push a religious agenda. As a supporter of the separation of church and state, I therefore believe that traditional marriages should not concern matters of politics and vice-versa. However, if the government wishes to continue to offer benefits for couples, then it should do so under the right to join in union, with this right being extended to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. And for those who choose to do so, their union can take on whatever aspects of their religion(s) they see fit.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 4:10 pm ¶
CJsDaddy wrote:
@Chris – I see what you’re saying, but it’s a bit of a stretch to turn that into her having said that Biden didn’t know sacrifice because he’s a man. That’s what I was responding to. If that were true, then she’d be saying that about her own husband. I saw the debate and read the transcript and did not get any impression from her beyond re-iterating how she can relate to people.
Like it or not, politicians do this (or attempt to) all the time.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 10:42 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Biden split the gay marriage issue neatly. I agree that at this time very few state level and no national level (POTUS and VPOTUS) politicians can approve “gay marriage” in those exact words – the words are an electoral suicide note.
HOWEVER, he headed his response by a sentence stating that gay committed couples should be entitled to every legal right available to straight couples, and enumerated four: property rights, inheritance rights, rights of hospital etc visitation, and one other. (I think he stayed away from parental issues, but I am not sure, and I know he didn’t mention binational couples’ issues). He then made reference to marriage as a religious rite, up to the churches, not a concern of the state. He then said that he was against “gay marriage”.
I took this display to indicate that he was for equal rights under the law, but was trying to reassure middle of the road Christians that their churches wouldn’t have to conduct marriage services for gay couples. Yes, this should be a no-brainer, but there are a lot of intentional falsehoods being spread by the religious right, along the lines of “legal gay marriage means they can demand to be married in MY church, and my pastor will be put in jail if he refuses”, and people actually believe them.
I think that Biden is still gay-friendly, and likely to help persuade party members to support trans-inclusive ENDA and hate-crimes bills, and willing to work to end DADT armed forces policy, but will work quietly. I suggest that he might work on making some of the 1,000+ legal benefits of marriage available to same-gender couples, but will never utter the M word in public.
Posted 04 Oct 2008 at 5:44 pm ¶
Yvette wrote:
Id be interested in anyone’s thoughts about the extent to which the marriage/civil union issue may be a class-based one. I’ve heard from some the opinion that gay men, lesbians and bisexual folks who are middle class/wealthy and (largely) older are pressing for issues that benefit them to the exclusion of issues that still impact lower income and younger GLBT folks.
Posted 05 Oct 2008 at 11:57 am ¶
deb wrote:
Queen Latifah played Ms. Ifill on SNL last night.
She liked it.
Ifill also talked about it on Meet the Press this morning. Regarding when Palin ignored her question her said: “she blew me off.”
Posted 05 Oct 2008 at 2:03 pm ¶
ASADA wrote:
@ Yvette
it’s def class and age based. I like your new spin on things!
as you may now start to see, the younger generation does not place a high value on lifelong monogamous marriage, but older generations find in order to advance in thier professional lives, they must meet a certain heterosexual standard.
The younger generation ( which have not truly started their professional climb) find themselves unconcerned with family life, as many of them plan on having kids WAY later in life and know they don’t need a “paper” and face little chance of being shunned from the things they enjoy. Yeah right, remember, they are young…..
There was an episode of Will and Grace, where Will( professional, upper middle class, gay white male) is competing with 2 other ppl to impress the boss of a company for a major promotion. They get invited to the boss’es home to explain thier vision for the company. He needs to show that he: has the type of life ( education, background, family, etc) to fit the image of the company. Will has it all , But he lacks one thing- the wife and kids with a big picket home.
Try as he might, he only has a boyfriend and live in …ehem…”F*ghag”. IT funny watching as he trys to convince the boss this is no barrier and his image is totally compatible with the company. It’s actually funny.
After awhile he gets frustrated and leaves, realizing they could never accept him for who he is, only to find out they would have given him the job anyway ( one is left to wonder if it’s just because the female boss simply likes him as he is…another …ehem…).
If I find the episode I will write another post.
Posted 05 Oct 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
@ NancyP
interesting thought,
If gay marriage is legalized, churches will HAVE TO fight to keep from marrying them. I already know of a church in my network that states cleary they think homosexuality is a sin and that they will not perform a gay marriage.
They think they are fighting for what’s right now, they will truely have to fight for what they believe in then!
I wonder if the moderators will ignore this one too?
Mod Note – You do realize that moderators have lives right? And that we don’t live at our computers 24/7? – LDP
Posted 05 Oct 2008 at 8:51 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
but older generations find in order to advance in thier professional lives, they must meet a certain heterosexual standard.
If only the generational divide were just.that.simple. It’s not just about meeting a homosexual standard (in the prof world, you figure out who’s who fairly easily
, it’s also about the family rights that accompany legally recognized marriage. The ones that Nancy P & Lyonside articulated.
If gay marriage is legalized, churches will HAVE TO fight to keep from marrying them
Ever heard of the Justice of the Peace?
Nancy also articulated the irrational foolishness that comes with the marriage issue.
The Separation of Church & State cuts BOTH ways. Folks who have carelessly pushed the church into the state WILL get the state into their church. As someone who doesn’t do church, but believes in the Separation and freedom of worship I would fight to keep state out of church.
Churches don’t have to do anything. They can cast out. They can and do discriminate. I may not agree with that, but in the Church setting, they can knock themselves out. If a church won’t marry you (wrong denom, race, gender), go find one that will.
The rights (hospital, testamentary, children, benefits) matter. The location of the ceremony (save for the JoP) does not.
Posted 06 Oct 2008 at 10:16 am ¶
RoslynHolcomb wrote:
@Jen* Sarah Palin’s voice IS annoying, and surprisingly so, given that she has a degree in communications. She makes the same mistake that many people make (most noticeably Tyra Banks and Elizabeth Hasselbeck) of talking at the top of her throat. You learn in Speech 101 that this is a no-no. It makes your voice sound thin and it’s frankly very hard on the vocal chords.
I think they do it because it sounds ‘girlish,’ and thus ’sexy,’ but as anyone who has ever spent time talking to teenaged girls can attest their voices can be annoying.
I don’t find HRC’s voice annoying, she doesn’t talk at the top of her throat, she does, however have a rather stiff speaking pattern that doesn’t go over well on t.v.
Posted 06 Oct 2008 at 10:51 am ¶