I have not watched the Palin/Biden debate yet, but I can only assume Palin has done very well indeed. The reason I say this is that listening to the BBC’s coverage of this event on the Today programme this morning the entire tone was that Palin had not fouled up. Essentially the BBC line was that “gaffe-prone” Palin had managed to just about hold her own, though she wobbled “a bit” on climate change and Iraq. Biden was painted as having glided serenely through the debate. So, if we believe the BBC, instead of being a total train-wreck, Palin just about got through. Talk about raising and lowering expectations. The BBC, like their soul-mates in the Democrat Party, are scare senseless of the values Palin stand for and so they have spent the last several weeks mocking her. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I can but assume that Sarah walloped slow Joe.
THE TROUBLE FOR SARAH.
Bookmark the permalink.
I do wonder why people bother much with the MSM today. Its task seems to be to tell (some of) the things that happened and what you should think about them.
The consensus from US sites is that Palin ‘won’ this one, just as McCain ‘beat’ Obama.
From the BBC alone one would never know anything about Ayers, Wright, Rezko etc – just as the MSM kept silent about John Edwards’ affair and ‘love child’.
Biden was dull, Palin was awful. No surprises, I wouldn’t rush for the action replay.
It’s like learning how to read Pravda, isn’t it.
Initial scannings of the reactions to this VP debate is that the left wing American press (LA Times, NYT, WAPO, CNN etc) are declaring it either a draw or a narrow Biden victory.
So, discounting those left-centric viewpoints, I think you can fairly conclude that the ordinary Main Street American will see this debate as a win for Palin.
It’s like learning how to read Pravda, isn’t it
That is the most insigthful soundbite on the current state of the BBC that I have ever seen. Sheer brilliance.
I thought Palin did very well indeed. On Fox News they had the BBC’s favourite pollster Frank Luntz with his group of swing voters.
At the end of the bebate according to them, she’d walked all over Biden.
However, turning to the BBC and our favourite idiot German Matt Frei he was claiming that McCain is done for and it’s all over. No evidence to prove this of course.
Frank Luntz predicted a shift inthe polls to McCain again.
Looks like the BBC won’t be inviting him back.
The political quietude of the pro-Obama, pro-Biden, pro-Democrat Party BBC, AFTER the PALIN-BIDEN debate, contrasts with the BBC’s totally biased rants on all its current affairs/news programmes on radio and television against Palin, BEFORE the debate last night.
Presumably MARK THOMPSON has decided that it is politically acceptable for the BBC to ignore all criticism from licencepayers, and for it to campaign for, and cheerlead:
1.) a Democrat Party victory in USA:
and
2.) a Labour Party victory in UK,
using all the spoiling strategy and propaganda of full-time political party activists against its political opponents.
Michael Taylor
“It’s like learning how to read Pravda, isn’t it.”
I wish I’d written that – you’ve got it exactly. Just three examples of current kremlinology:
(1) the damning by faint praise of the Vice-Presidential debate means that Palin did well – or much better than the BBC hoped or expected;
(2) the use of only those sound-bites (and interviewees) accusing the Conservatives of playing “politics” concerning Blair’s resignation (and never a mention, for instance, of his public support for the Labour flagship policy concerning ID cards) reveals – as if we didn’t know already – the BBC agenda of portraying the Tories as destroyers of a consensus (which had already been dumped by Labour and the egregious Livingstone); and
(3) the 10+ minutes of Today this morning devoted to the 50 year old behind-the-scenes cabinet discussions on Suez – means that the BBC can reveal how nasty and deceitful Conservatives really are.
If the BBC think Palin “just about got through” she must have been fantastic !
I tuned in to the news this morning but had to turn over to sky news to get any kind of update on how the debate went this morning.
I can only go on the lack of reporting that Palin did better than Al Beeb had hoped for.
Funny thing is though…that after all the hatchet jobs, all the smears, every single little problem, reporting news from the Daily Kos, its a wonder Palin can actually say her name without falling over (if you only ever followed Al Beeb).
Yet, away from the media filter she is actually quite articulate and has an ability to connect with voters.
YET, after being done over so thoroughly by the MSM and people like Webb/Frei…its no wonder people have low expectations of her.
And maybe that is the real crime here, that the MSM has been able to run their hatchet job without anyone outside the republicans crying foul!
Mailman
Michael Taylor 8:51
“Pravda”. Oh, how very well said. Sums up the BBC perfectly.
mailman: The mistake the McCain capmaign made was trying to turn Palin into a Washington droid politician.
Palin is at her best being Palin, which last night she was.
At times she sounded like a school teacher telling Joe Biden off. I thought she was charming and Biden just another Washington stooge.
I knew straight away this morning,before the headlines, that Palin had done well.You could almost hear the disapointment in BBC voices.And why have we not heard from our Justin?
As for the Ian Blair story,the Lib Dems agree with the Tories that Blair should go yet they are absent from any BBC discussion of the issue.
The BBC are trying like mad to make out the Tories are alone in their view.Usualy the Lib Dems are invited on because the BBC agrees with their standpoint:Ming Campbell on Iraq (to the general exclusion of Bernard Jenkin); Vince Cable on the economic situation (to the General exclusion of George Osborne)
A poll on Drudge – very large response – has Palin winning 68-32. Haven’t heard anything about that on Pravda.
The BBC dutifully, and uncritically reports Labour government on its ‘Terror strategy’, but lacks detail:
“UK terror strategy to be updated”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7649763.stm
For more information:
‘Jihadwatch’ has this, based on ‘Telegraph’ report:
” UK: Jihadist threat ‘approaching critical’ level”
[Extract]:
“MI5 is watching around 200 networks across Britain and MI6 and GCHQ are constantly monitoring communications on the crucial Afghan-Pakistan border area.
“Although key commanders have been killed in air strikes, one of the particular concerns is the disappearance of Rashid Rauf from Birmingham, an alleged al-Qaeda mastermind who escaped from Pakistani custody last December.
“Security officials are also worried about threats which may come from off the radar.
“They are particularly worried by lone operators who ‘self-radicalise’ over the internet and stock-pile chemicals from domestic sources.
They are discreet from traditional networks and have a very small intelligence signature which makes them hard to pick up,’ the source said.
“There is also a fear that some in the Somali community in Britain could have ‘potential connections’ with al-Qaeda terrorists.
“Last week’s attack on the US embassy in the Yemen means security officials now consider the Arabian peninsular ‘particularly combustible.'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022944.php
Interesting that on the BBC radio 5 lite phone in. Rachel Burdon tried to shoot someone down over the allegations against Ian Blair.
However, when people come on and spout lies about Sarah Palin, no one at the BBC stops them.
Is this an additional dhimmi excuse of the BBC for supporting Biden?:
“Pakistani Religious Leader Issues Fatwa on President for Complimenting Palin”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/pakistani-religious-leader-issues-fatwa-president-complimenting-palin/
Just watched the full debate.
Palin more than held her own.No wonder there’s a sense of disappointment all over Pravda this morning.
Her point about speaking direct to the American people in that kind of debate,rather than through the filter of an edited interview on the MSM was well made
“Palin wins the Debate”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/palin-wins-the.html
Justin Webb, pissed off that Palin didn’t implode, concludes his debate blog with this: “what is going on with her voice? It cuts glass.”
She really winds him up, doesn’t she?
Compare with Mark Steyn speaking on the Hugh Hewitt Show after the debate: “I loved Sarah Palin’s voice. I think people underestimate, experts underestimate, the appeal of someone who talks in the cadences of the American people.”
http://townhall.com/talkradio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=7dee553d-12fe-493c-a3a6-a2bdf06b1f9a
DB: Justin Webb’s voice is the worst of all, along with his deformed mouth. So annoying.
She did a great job of showing that she is loyal to McCain, that she is capable of communicating well even under tremendous pressure and that she is a quick study.
Most of all, she showed Americans, again, that she is one of them, not just someone pretending to be one of them and that she is not afraid of praising her country.
And she’s not afraid of looking at a longtime senator and telling him he’s prevaricating (on national tv).
Hee.
BBC: ears burning at this ‘Guardian’ report? –
[Extract]:
“Sarah Palin defied the critics who have been mocking her all week to deliver a punchy, down-to-earth performance in her clash with Joe Biden in the first and only vice-presidential debate of the White House campaign.”
‘Sarah Palin defies critics and delivers punchy performance in debate against Biden’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/uselections2008.sarahpalin
Michael Taylor and Umbongo – brilliant posts.
Michael Taylor:
It’s like learning how to read Pravda, isn’t it.
Michael Taylor | 03.10.08 – 8:51 am | #
Nothing to add. It’s worth repeating.
.
Palin has been attacked quite a bit on Sky this moring. One Sky presenter claimed a Conservative on Fox said she was terrible. Well I watched her on Fox last night and I don’t remember ANY Conservative on there saying that about her.
A lot of ex beeboids at Sky I note. Anyone ever seen Anna Botting getting angry if someone attacks Labour or Gordon Brown? She was a beeboid for many years.
While I am delighted that the polls showed Palin winning the debate, I have to say I was distinctly unimpressed with her last night, and to me Biden won the debate comfortably. Whereas McCain was superior to Obama on foreign policy, Biden trounced Palin, though the inconsistencies with Biden’s measured views and Obama’s airiness on foreign policy will be there for all to see. This could play into McCain’s hands in the end.
Having said that, if people were looking for a friendly face to all America, Palin came across as exactly that, which is a positive. Biden’s constant reference to the past would have turned many off him. However, if people were looking for any knowledge of policy then they would, like me, be desperately disappointed with Palin (except on energy – and again, it is a positive that she took the lead on her one own area of expertise).
The great advantage here is that the liberal media, and particular that stupid buffoon Justin Webb, had caricatured her as someone who couldn’t string two syllables together and whose views made her so evil that you could see the horns rising from her head.
She did easily well enough to knock that theory on the head. My view is that the smears against her may have done her a favour last night. I guess my problem was that I never believed that crap anyway. Having seen her, I was disappointed though.
What was also interesting is that no attempt was made by Palin to blame Clinton and the CRA for the economic crisis. My guess is that the Republicans are holding this back until possibly the final debate.
Were the election to be held now, I think Obama would win. However, there seems to be a lot of powerful ammunition that the Republicans are holding back so there could yet be a dramatic twist.
Michael Taylor:
It’s like learning how to read Pravda, isn’t it.
Michael Taylor | 03.10.08 – 8:51 am | #
……That deserves a permanent place on the sidebar.
It’s Official!
Palin won.
BBC tv 1 o’clock news headlines.
1 Mandelson
2 Credit crunch
3 Congress bailout vote
4 Steve Fossett
Absolutely no mention of the VP debate.
Well Palin is an absurd candidate and all of the post debate polls amongst undecideds offered the win to Biden after the event. It is hardly only the left-liberal media who have been mocking her. Conservatives have also been attacking her and her ABC interview was frankly laughable.
I agree with much of what is said on this site but your love in with Palin is rather a case of “the enemy of my enemy…”
For those in the UK: the “skilled debater” Biden spouted facts which after checks are being shown as “not accurate”. As the debate wore on he began to say things even I knew were not true. He came over as the pure Washington insider (except for one touching moment when he almost broke down when referring to his family).
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has it right about Sarah Palin:
“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.”
http://michellemalkin.com/
The biggest hit (I think) she got at Biden was when she quoted his own criticisms of Obama in the Democratic debates back at him. Suddenly the curtain was pulled aside we saw simply a “skilled debater”, a career politician who’d do anything including turn 360 to be on the ticket. A ‘wow’ moment.
You can’t expect Frei and Webb to get that. They are apparatchiks (loved the Pravda comment, Michael Taylor) who fail in their primary purpose: to EXPLAIN America to the world. I don’t care what they THINK.
Palin won the night because she didn’t just talk about the middle class she IS the middle class.
Now I just wish McCain would take the gloves off!
Disraeli: You’re a part. The ABC interview was a sham and cut to pieces to make her look bad. Just how thick are you? Another beeboid hiding behind some stupid name no doubt.
Perhaps you might like to tell us why Obama and Biden are so wonderful?
Because Obama is black perhaps?
Pillock.
Not having seen or heard her much at all before – other than snippets I picked up here – I found her very personable, warm, good humoured, likeable and with a feel-good factor.
I can see why Americans would love her. She embodies the good, honest, unpretentious and natural optimism, confidence and openness of America. She is natural, articulate and proud of who she is and of America and does not hide the fact. She said many things that would be music to the ears and would raise the mood and morale of people. (And all without shouting and barking at people.)
On policy she presented clearly the basic message of the conservative agenda as the alternative to big government and taxes, used her knowledge and experience of energy issues extremely well, made much of the maverick character and record of McCain, presented her own experience and credentials confidently though without bombast and painted a picture of herself and McCain as real, down-to-earth pragmatic people willing to work across party lines and get stuck in and get to work. She also appropriated the Change mantra from the other side and attacked them on that front too! That was a good move.
She did not hesitate to go on the attack throughout on Iran, Pakistan, terrorism, energy and the Obama and Biden’s voting records on a variety of issues. Obviously, she does not have the same depth of experience and longevity in Washington that Biden has, and he had his moments of passion too, but of the two of them, she is the more personable, charming and the one people are more likely to take to.
I thought it interesting that Biden failed to create an appealing and compelling image of his would-be boss either as front-runner, inevitable choice or a towering figure as befits a messiah and supposed man of destiny.
Indeed one of the most intriguing and telling comments for me when asked what role the would-be Pres wanted him to have as vice-Pres, he said something to the effect that he wanted to have him with him on everything, helping him to be President. It sounded to me as if he didn’t know what to do or how to be President and needed Biden there to hold his hand. That is the image it left me with – a little boy with a grown-up holding his hand. I was having to picture two people sitting side by side at the big desk in the Oval office, attending a summit or a parade, answering the press’s daily questions.
That I think maybe fits with what the Obamamessiah is really like behind the hype and hysteria. A bit empty and a bit at sea. To me that comment counts as letting the cat out of the bag and qualifies as a Biden gaffe. He painted the wrong picture there, of a novice and an empty man who would crumple and be blown over in a mild gust of wind.
There was another comment he made where he said that he wouldn’t change and hadn’t changed in 35 years! Err…did I hear that right? Is he not running on a ticket of CHANGE? Maybe I missed something of the context but…Gaffe No.2, I thought. Oh, well.
Martin – Good to know your debating style resorts to nonsensical and offensive personal insults. No I am not a “beeboid” – as I said I agree with much of what is said on this site. I just do not agree with the reverence for somebody blatantly unsuited to the job of VP.
You cannot deny that the debate now looks like a Biden win:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/02/debate-polls-biden-wins/
DV, no – she didn’t “wallop” Biden; that’s you projecting, I fear. The consenus seems to be that it was a bit of a dead-heat. Michelle Malkin is hardly less biased than the BBC, though she is considerably smarter, so we can’t take her word as Gospel.
I worry that this site is investing too much in McCain and the UK Conservative Party. As soon as McCain started to close the gap in the polls the crowing started, and a kind of gleeful “ha ha BBC you’re gonna look so dumb when McCain wins!”. Well, with the GOP virtually conceding Michigan, and the financial crisis wiping out the gains McCain had made in the polls, a little less political partisanship might be in order here, lest the site and its readers end up with egg on their collective face.
I’m not saying McCain can’t win, merely that it is looking harder for him to win now than it did a month ago, based on the current projected Electoral College votes. All I’m saying is that when we go beyond analysing and exposing BBC bias, and begin to show our own political preferences, and start gloating based on slight movements in opinion polls (much the same way the Beeb does on Brown’s behalf) we risk looking dumb come election day.
Our concern is supposed to be BBC bias; at times it looks merely as though we are here to campaign on behalf of any right-of-centre party anywhere in the world.
Disreali and henryflower I think you are missing the point. There may very well be people here who support any old right wing agenda, after all didn’t the famous John Reith tell us that he new for certain that many correspondents were BNP members.
However, this is about bias and the comment from Michael Taylor at the head of this thread nails it perfectly. It doesn’t matter whether the debate was a draw or a major victory for Palin (a win for Biden is really wishful thinking, even Daily Kos admits he didn’t win) the point is that the outcome was obvious solely because the BBC bias is so blatant that the lack of coverage of Palin this morning told you that was the case.
DB: Justin Webb criticising Palin’s voice! Oh, that is rich, coming from him. Now, I have heard everything.
He has the most awful slithering, slimy, supercilious, lisping sounding voice on the airwaves. It is like venom coated in cornflour coming out of a strangely buckety rabbit mouth.
Every time I hear him I wonder what on earth Americans must make of the English. Do they think they are all like that? I do hope not. I also hope against hope that they do not hear him at all and that he is only broadcast to us.
What a spiteful little toad he is. You won’t heat a peep out of him about the Obamamessiah’s harsh voice and delivery, roaring and hectoring the way he does. Has anybody ever heard that man talking in a normal manner in a normal speaking voice?
Gordon Brown is another one who roars and hectors, mistaking it for some sort of quality or substance, and we know just what sort of sheep he has turned out to be as a Prime Minister. If America elects the would-be messiah, they will get a sheep and an incompetent of such proportions that they will very quickly come to rue the day.
Arthur Dent: no, I don’t miss the point. I get it. Palin didn’t bomb, so the BBC covered things in a low-key way. If she had bombed, they would have supersized the story. I get that. It’s bleedin obvious, with all due respect. You’re preaching to the choir.
What you don’t seem to get is my point: that when we go beyond analysing that bias and start inserting our preferences (ie, gleefully imagining – wrongly – that Palin “walloped slow Joe”), working ourselves into excited fits of gloating at a slight closing of the gap in the polls, then we diminish the credibility of the site as well as offering hostages to fortune in the form of our gloating predictions.
I understand the BBC bias point. Do you understand my additional point?
Disraeli:
It is the reverence and knee-jerk worship of the Obamamessiah by the BBC and other media that is absurd. And the fact of Dems picking the would-be messiah who lacks qualifications or qualities to be President that is the further absurdity. We got Brown, God help us; if they get him, oh dear…
Pressure of work means I’ve only just caught-up with today’s posts – so forgive me for adding my name so late to the long list of people praising Michael Taylor’s astute remark.
Pravda, indeed!
Arthur Dent: if you want reassurance that I do indeed spot the oh-so-subtle bias against Palin, please see my comment/rant near the bottom of the open thread for Thursday, around 150 comments down I think. Tried to link but couldn’t figure out how, sorry!
Martin 1:31
You say that Disraeli is a “part”. Did you mean “prat” or, maybe ” phart” ?
Please clarify !
For the record not only am I not a BNP member I bear a scar on my right hand where I was slashed with a bottle by a NF member during the battle of Lewishham. Me being the tender age of 16 at the time and as left as left can be.
It was my experiences of totalitarianism from both the left and the right that formed my political views of today and my hatred of totalitarian propaganda organisations such as the BBC.
In this manner I took the same political path as Orwell.
I think the debate about Justin Wankstain’s mouth is sterile and “ad hominem “.
The important point about his mouth is that it should be shut.
He always reminds me of a Goldfish in a bowl. Except, of course, that Goldfish are more intelligent.
Disraeli: Don’t dodge the subject. You specifically mentioned the ABC interview. That interview was distorted to make her look bad. That’s been proven with the release of the transcript.
I only take the piss out of idiots who just want to spin BBC bollocks.
Palin is the Governor of a State. What exactly has that cunt Obama done to prove himself?
Oh hang on he can read an autocue. Well well well. That should be useful.
Grant: I think you’ve just insulted a lot of Goldfish!
Grant: Part=Prat.
“So, discounting those left-centric viewpoints, I think you can fairly conclude that the ordinary Main Street American will see this debate as a win for Palin.”
Biden won in all the voters polls.
The debate was a “win” for Palin because she didn’t look totally out of her depth. For a candidate who’s clearly never thought about foreign policy or the the national economy before agreeing to stand for office, she’s holding her own.
As an aside, I agree it’s obvious that most journalists think Palin is a terrible candidate. But I don’t agree that’s to do with her “politics”. She doesn’t have any politics. She’s a shill of the neocons, who says a lot about “conservative christian” issues and who didn;t deliver anything conservative or christian from her time in office as mayor or govenor.
I see the Left has its trolls out in force today.
henryflower: You’re right. She did hold her own against someone who has been doing this sort of thing for 30 years.
She’s a Governor of a State, so why would she know the in’s and out’s of the politics of Pakistan? Obama doesn’t. That does not mean she’s NTO qualified though to be a VP candidate.
What gets me is that these people are surrounded by teams of experts and advisors.
When people elect a President, they want someone they can trust and relate to. They don’t care that much if they do or don’t understand every minute detail of world politics.
Let’s remember it was Obama that said he’d invade Pakistan and it was Hillary Clinton who said she’d nuke Iran. Do we really think these peopel are safe to run America?