{"id":12757,"date":"2008-10-03T20:18:25","date_gmt":"2008-10-04T03:18:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/2008\/10\/03\/dave-does-the-election-2.html"},"modified":"2014-11-05T15:16:21","modified_gmt":"2014-11-05T22:16:21","slug":"dave_does_the_election_2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2008\/10\/03\/dave_does_the_election_2.html","title":{"rendered":"***Dave Does the Election"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

It’s the Friday night “this’ll be old news by the time you read it Monday, which is okay because I’ve already been accumulating some of these for the past three or four days” edition …<\/p>\n

I suppose it makes sense to, per tradition, begin with Gov. Palin<\/strong>. Not much new to contribute as to how “well” she did in the debate last night — though some increasingly amusing commentary about her content free presentation (see flow chart<\/a>), especially if you were watching the debate on C-SPAN <\/a>and could see what Palin was doing (studying furiously) while Biden was speaking.<\/p>\n

Despite flow chart<\/strike> note cards, fact-checking of Palin keeps digging up more problems. She was wrong about troop levels<\/a>, for example, and wrong about Biden’s support<\/a> of McCain’s war policy until recently. Heck, it appears she was wrong about McCain’s policy on bankruptcy court protections <\/a>for homeowners (at least that’s what the McCain camp says). It’s a toss-up whether she (or, rather, her script-writers) were either ignorant, or trying to really make a statement about health care programs, when her wrap-up Reagan quote turns out to be from a 1960s recording he made on behalf of the AMA … against Medicare<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of course, outside the debate, fact-checking continues to ring up problems, like her (false) claim that she met with the British Ambassador<\/a>. Funny thing for “Joe Six-pack”<\/a> to be lying about.<\/p>\n

Naturally, it’s okay for a liberal like myself to criticize Palin, since I’m speaking into the echo chamber. Woe betide any conservative commentators who aren’t enthusiastic Palin supporters — they get the equivalent of a fatwa from the “base.”<\/a> Unlike other folk Palin knows who get Muslim fatwas for hanging out with such a flirtaceous girl<\/a>. No Christian fatwas<\/a> — yet — for her being so un-Biblical as to run for political office.<\/p>\n

Back home, Palin’s having problems, too. A lawsuit to get the official Troopergate investigation (as opposed to the hand-picked Palin-appointee-run investigation) declared illegal has failed, and the state attorney general may actually have to turn around and compel people to obey those bothersome subpoenas<\/a>. Including the “First Dude.”<\/p>\n

On the other hand, she’s finally gotten a Fox-sponsored “do-over” on some of her more embarrassing Couric interview gaffes (like the whole Supreme Court decisions? What Supreme Court decisions? <\/a>embarrassment. In the retake, Palin recites a brilliantly memorized answer<\/a> — clearly she was well-briefed in case it came up during the debate. She also reveals that (I am not making this up) the reason she couldn’t name McCain reforms, or newspapers she reads, or SCOTUS decisions was that (I really am not making this up) she was annoyed <\/em>(really) at being asked such questions. (You betcha!)<\/p>\n

The only thing I will say in Palin’s defense is that while, yes, she utters that horrific mispronunciation of nuclear<\/em>, “nucular,” no less a clever guy (and former nuclear sub engineer!) as Jimmy Carter had the same problem. So for that, even if it makes my teeth grind, she gets a pass.<\/p>\n

Less passable is her populist appeal to mediocrity in the “base”<\/a> — though, interestingly, some have suggested that Palin herself can be used as a “wedge issue<\/a>” between the traditional conservatives (the Georgetown cocktail set that McCain despises so openly) and the social conservatives. It’s certainly an amusing idea.<\/p>\n

But not as amusing as this<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile … oh, yeah, there’s someone else on that ticket. Hmmm. Not much talk about Sen. McCain <\/strong>the past few days during all the Palin focus. The biggest news is that he’s pulling his campaign (as in “conceding”) pulling his campaign from (as in “conceding”) Michigan<\/a>. That he did so before the VP debate indicates they didn’t think Palin’s performance would change anything<\/a> — which may be why she didn’t know about it until today<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of course, Palin was also out of the loop — as in, “agreeing with something that Obama said but that McCain criticized” — on interventionism in Pakistan<\/a>. Though, of course, McCain used to say the same thing, before he didn’t.<\/p>\n

A few other smatterings of McCain criticism out there, including a rather damning condemnation of his widely-touted support for veterans<\/a>, as well as an observation that Candidate and Senator McCain is willing to vote for an earmark-laden bill that he’s promised President McCain would veto — which is perhaps why, after voting for it, he spoke out against it<\/a>. Oh, and he<\/p>\n

Which may be why his support among his “natural demographic” — seniors — is waning<\/a>.<\/p>\n

About Sen. Obama <\/strong>… well not much, except for the shocking news that he made Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person” List<\/a> — and I’m sure even Margie would agree on that.<\/p>\n

I won’t talk much about Sen. Biden<\/strong>, except that everything I would write about Biden and Obama’s views on gay rights and marriage (as described by Biden last night at the debate) was already written by Doyce first<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In more general election news, we have (i.e., I don’t want to come up with a paragraph to explain each one):<\/p>\n