Not that this is necessary, but Eamus, your comments are ridiculous.

"Hating someone because of their race, and treating a woman like a sex object, there's no parallelism there? No attempt to deflect from someone's talents (if there are any) by focusing on a physical charactersitic?"

No.
Maybe, but there are many many ways to "deflect from someone's talents" that do not involve racism. I could say something like "Palin looks silly in glasses" and by your logic that would be equivalent to your racist comment (I'm hoping the slip-up in pronouns was accidental).

Both comments have many things in common, in that they refer to physical characteristics, refer to political candidates, and are both composed of nouns, verbs, and other parts of speech, but you might want to look at the differences too.

"Romance has nothing to do with saying someone would do dirty, dirty things to her."

Wanting to have filthy acrobatic sex with someone implies exactly nothing about the abilities or authority of either you or the object of your prurient desires. You're apparently operating under the impression that the act of sex itself is inherently demeaning to women, and that it is impossible to respect a woman to whom you are attracted, both of which are paternalistic and insulting. By holding this view, and advocating it, you are doing women no favors. They are thinking beings with their own desires, and just as capable of wanting and thinking about and pursuing sex as any man.

"If God Almighty chose to incarnate as a Negro, Whites would still look down on Him. There is no possible amount of power a Negro could have that would make Whites unwilling to consider him as nothing more than a second-class citizen. If you think that this is a realistic goal, or even a positive aim, thou art badly deluded."

You could have posted that, sure, but that wouldn't have made it even slightly true.

Let's game this scenario of yours out for a second. If men stopped being attracted to women when women became powerful (apparently your ideal outcome), then men would be unwilling to reproduce with those powerful women, and thus the very traits which enabled women to become powerful in the first place (strength, intelligence, wisdom, etc.) would be gradually bred out of the species. Evolution generally does not work in ways that make a species less viable, and as such, your conjecture is at best implausible.

I also feel sorry for your wife or girlfriend, if you have one. From your remarks, it's plain that you either don't desire her or don't respect her, and neither prospect is likely to make her happy.

"JJ1986 and the Answer Guy"- a new show about politics and sexual attraction in which the hosts never agree...on anything!

I think Sarah Palin's a perfectly acceptable VP candidate and I still would like to #### her. Is that okay?

Is it okay to think that she is a perfectly acceptable VP candidate? Only if you think McCain is going to lose, or is guaranteed to live out his term.

I also feel sorry for your wife or girlfriend, if you have one. From your remarks, it's plain that you either don't desire her or don't respect her, and neither prospect is likely to make her happy.

I can't decide if this statement is more unnecessary than it is inane, or vice-versa.

I could say something like "Palin looks silly in glasses" and by your logic that would be equivalent to your racist comment (I'm hoping the slip-up in pronouns was accidental).

Both comments have many things in common, in that they refer to physical characteristics, refer to political candidates, and are both composed of nouns, verbs, and other parts of speech, but you might want to look at the differences too.

Glasses are somehow equivalent to sex in your world? I pity your ophthalmologist.

Women haven't been marginalized for hundreds of years because of their eyesight. If you really don't see any difference between pointing out that someone wears glasses and pointing out that you'd like to treat them like a dirty sex object - in terms of your respect for the person you're speaking about - then you're beyond help.

For 5 years as a prisoner in Hanoi, John McCain didn't have trading cards. Or beauty queens.

I also feel sorry for your wife or girlfriend, if you have one. From your remarks, it's plain that you either don't desire her or don't respect her, and neither prospect is likely to make her happy.

I can't decide if this statement is more unnecessary than it is inane, or vice-versa.

Can't it be both?

For 5 years as a prisoner in Hanoi, John McCain didn't have trading cards.

What, no stats were kept on the Vietnamese league leaders in captives tortured? Value Over Replacement Prisoner? Wince Shares?

I think it is possible to state that someone is sexually desirable without denigrating any of their other characteristics, unless the sexual desirability is the only thing that is ever discussed, in which case it denigrates the other characteristics by ignoring them.

That is aside from the question of how to appropriately mention someone's sexual desirability.

Women weren't marginalized for hundreds of years because men wanted to do filthy things to them either.

"I can't decide if this statement is more unnecessary than it is inane, or vice-versa."

Hey, it's just a reductio ad absurdium from what he's saying. If it's inherently as wrong and evil and disrespectful as RACISM to think about having sex with someone, then all married couples should sleep chastely in separate beds so they can maintain their mutual affection and respect (which are apparently fundamentally incompatible with icky sex fluids). And then the human race will die out, solving the global warming problem once and for all.

I guess there are a few other possiblities that I didn't consider: He might love and respect his wife, but also be a racist looking for cover under which to make jokes about black people. Or he might just not be very good at logic.

Glasses are somehow equivalent to sex in your world?

No, they are equivalent in your world -

"No attempt to deflect from someone's talents (if there are any) by focusing on a physical charactersitic?"

In case it wasn't clear, my point about glasses was an attempt to argue through reductio ad absurdum that your logic would lead to absurd conclusions.

If you really don't see any difference between pointing out that someone wears glasses and pointing out that you'd like to treat them like a dirty sex object - in terms of your respect for the person you're speaking about - then you're beyond help.

No, see, I do see the difference. Much like I see the difference between your racist comment and the earlier posts about Palin.

This is a dirty, dirty thread. You all should be ashamed for expressing your natural human impulses.

It's funny, but women generally have less hangups about such expression, at least when they're talking amongst themselves.

This is a dirty, dirty thread. You all should be ashamed for expressing your natural human impulses.

I mostly restrain myself because otherwise I'd gross pretty much everyone out. I'm outnumbered.

when did expressing your natural human impulses get to be okay? i thought the whole idea about morals and values and such is that they are tools for ethical living that elevate us; as such, we invoke them to keep us from doing things like force ourselves on women who don't want to have sex just because we have a natural impulse to want to have sex, take candy from babies, etc.
my natural human impulses aren't always pretty.

I mostly restrain myself because otherwise I'd gross pretty much everyone out. I'm outnumbered.

You admit on this board to being a Red Sox fan. Nothing else could be any more objectionable.

Cool, I got called a racist (by more than one person too). It only took like 60 posts.

I now remember why I don't talk about things like this at BTF.

I now remember why I don't talk about things like this at BTF.

If it took you that long, you must be a dumbass, too.

I wanted to make degrading comments about not being able to stand Palin's voice and the 10-foot pole, but I figured others would beat me to it.

Guess not.

If you really had a 10-foot pole, you could do way better than Sarah Palin.

I wanted to make degrading comments about not being able to stand Palin's voice and the 10-foot pole, but I figured others would beat me to it.

Do you have me on Ignore?

when did expressing your natural human impulses get to be okay?

Writing/talking about your natural impulses is not the same thing as expressing them, at least in the way you're suggesting "expressing" means.

Hey, now, be fair. I didn't out-and-out say that you were a racist. I also gave you the options of idiot, misogynist, and paternalistic jerk.

"Making "I'd hit that"-type comments isn't necessarily dehumanizing to the person under discussion"

Statements like this are just so ####### stupid that there's no point in getting involved.

I could say that the substitution of "that" for a pronoun like "her" just MIGHT be a little bit revealing, and people will deny it, and talk about their intentions, and how language's meanings are controlled by their intentions, and so on, and--#### it. Not getting involved.

boobies

..my natural human impulses aren't always pretty.

It's because they've been perverted from the get-go. The whole idea that we'd all be murdering, raping thugs if not for higher culture is wrong; our culture has repressed our natural desires for human warmth, giving and contact with others and turned them into greed and vice. It's starts in the cradle, and continues with endless inducements to pursue getting 'stuff', including women, instead of giving of ourselves, of which our bodies and their icky fluids are an integral part.

It's why our politicians can speak of high ideals and the American Way and ignore the murder, rape and plunder underlying it. We are split off from our true selves, which are our bodies in all their beauty and frailty.

In the past, I'd lay this at the feet of our Puritan/Calvinist heritage, but it's roots go back to the founding of civilization in which anything and anybody not labled "Man" was considered with contempt, the higher Man split off from the lower female, slave, child, animal, plant, planet.

I'm certainly not immune from the same criticism, was born and bred in the same culture, and am highly fearful of my own wants, desires and the frailty of my human body and its sensitive feelings, spent way too much time trying to live up to some mythical ideas of what it means to be a man instead of trusting my feelings, trusting my heart, trusting myself to do the right thing. I don't need outside morals and values to elevate me into not only something I'm not, but something I never can be.

I blame Philip Roth's mom.

my natural impulses have been perverted from the get-go? dude, you don't know me. i said they are 'not always' pretty. i'll buy that generosity can be a natural impulse. but i also know that i am frail, and can't always trust my natural impulses. of course, your experience might be different.

There is no equivalence between calling Palin a MILF and making racist statements about Obama.

That said, a discussion of whether the sexual objectification of a woman is problematic must consider the past and present context of such behavior contributing to the systemic discrimination, harassment, and abuse of women.

The whole idea that we'd all be murdering, raping thugs if not for higher culture is wrong; our culture has repressed our natural desires for human warmth, giving and contact with others and turned them into greed and vice.

Disagree.

Writing/talking about your natural impulses is not the same thing as expressing them

yes it is, if you aren't filtering your utterances. a lot of which goes on here. i'm not absolving myself, just sayin.

Anyone who denies that Sarah Palin is hot is kidding themselves. No matter what you may think of her politics, she is an extremely, extremely attractive person.

Anyone who claims that Sarah Palin would make even a passable President is kidding themselves. No matter what you may think of her politics, she is nowhere near knowledgeable or smart enough to govern this country.

Also, it deserves to be said that for a man of his age -- noting that women are drawn to dignity and charisma for evolutionary reasons -- Joe Biden is also quite a looker. For that matter, McCain has held up quite well over the years. Were it not for Barack Obama's buffoonish ears, this would be one attractive slate of candidates.

as such, we invoke them to keep us from doing things like force ourselves on women who don't want to have sex just because we have a natural impulse to want to have sex, take candy from babies, etc.
my natural human impulses aren't always pretty.

so if someone expresses his desire to do these things in print, on a message board, etc, he is going to do these things? And by not expressing his thoughts in public, he assures the world that he won't do these things?

I need to see her naked before I can decide if she's hot or not.

...my natural impulses have been perverted from the get-go? dude, you don't know me. i said they are 'not always' pretty. i'll buy that generosity can be a natural impulse. but i also know that i am frail, and can't always trust my natural impulses. of course, your experience might be different.

Do you even know what your natural impulses are? How do you tell? As I put it later in the post, I wasn't singling you out -- we accept ideas about ourselves and our behavior that have been bred into us before we could even speak. It does indeed make it hard to trust yourself and your impulses, to be a fully aware, awake and alive human being.

This thread is testament to our cultural belief that sex is bad, or at least very likely to be abused if not put under the proper control of church, state and parental units.

Was it better when I was quoting Artaud than arguing for the position of natural human freedom and dignity? I do indeed know we live in a warped world with a fragmented sense of self and reality. I can definitely relate to Artaud's fear and madness. But my higher self is not rooted in abstract ideals, but in the very human body that is prone to be driven by fear and madness.

I'm certainly not arguing that all expression, sexual and otherwise, is good or beautiful. I just reject the idea that I'm a naturally selfish, greedy, evil person in need of more of the medicine that ails me.

As a caveat, there are impulses in a human being that are 'antisocial' for lack of a better word. I'm not arguing for Rousseau's noble savage. I just don't believe that they are primary to our human nature, that these antisocial impulses would rule without keeping ourselves on a short leash.

Obviously a complex subject.

Anyone who denies that Sarah Palin is hot is kidding themselves. No matter what you may think of her politics, she is an extremely, extremely attractive person.

hot? hot??? carla bruni is hot. elizabeth kucinich is hot.

sarah palin isn't ugly, but she sure as hell ain't attractive to me ...

Bah! Tzipi Livni is much better looking...

Anyone who denies that Sarah Palin is hot is kidding themselves. No matter what you may think of her politics, she is an extremely, extremely attractive person.

You're nuts. She's mannish looking, and given that you used the word "person" I'll take that to include her personality, beliefs, and behavior, all of which are as appealing as year-old milk.

No matter what you may think of her politics, she is nowhere near knowledgeable or smart enough to govern this country

Frankly, after seeing how all the "smart" people have run this country, I'm ready for someone outside the box to take over. And let's wait to see Obama's test scores before we talk about his high IQ. Because outside the world of the teleprompter, he sure does say some dumbass things.

Why haven't those been released anyway? We know what Gore, Bush, and Kerry all did in school. I think McCain was in the bottom part of his class. Where's Obama's rankings?

Why haven't those been released anyway? We know what Gore, Bush, and Kerry all did in school. I think McCain was in the bottom part of his class. Where's Obama's rankings?

Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law. Even given some affirmative action, we know he did well in school. (The Naval Academy, incidentally, takes behavior into account in ranking students, so while McCain was near the bottom of his graduating class, that's not purely a reflection of his academic performance.)

Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law. Even given some affirmative action, we know he did well in school.

Does affirmative action impact your scores in school?

Frankly, after seeing how all the "smart" people have run this country

Are you referring to W?

1. I actually agree with Eamus about it being problematic to get into "I'd hit that" exchanges everytime a female comes up in conversation.

2. He framed it terribly and ruined his point entirely with the racial reference, which is ridiculous. Furthermore, I've never seen the "if somebody said this about blacks" argument used effectively.

3. Sexual objectification aside, I find Sarah Palin to be a repulsive person. If I was expected to have sex with a Pres. or VP nominee, I can think of two I'd rather get with IN THE CURRENT ELECTION. I honestly can't understand mainstream ideas of what's hot, and I think any comment about "being blind if you don't see _________ as attractive" simply says that the speaker understands little about attraction in the first place.

Does affirmative action impact your scores in school?

I think some conservatives want to see Obama's undergrad grades because they think he only got into Harvard Law because of Affirmative Action. I assume David's point is that, even if that's why he got into Harvard, he obviously proved that he belonged there by graduating with honors.

If Obama got into Harvard Law on Affirmative Action, I'm not sure anti-affirmative action conservatives would necessarily want to advertise that. He'd seem to be an argument in support of affirmative action if that was the case.

Anyone who denies that Sarah Palin is hot is kidding themselves. No matter what you may think of her politics, she is an extremely, extremely attractive person.

She's hot for a politician. She's no Yulia Tymoshenko though, that's for sure.

The guy graduated from Punahou. It may not have quite the academic rigor of Iolani, but they make you work and they always have.

Frankly, after seeing how all the "smart" people have run this country, I'm ready for someone outside the box to take over. And let's wait to see Obama's test scores before we talk about his high IQ. Because outside the world of the teleprompter, he sure does say some dumbass things.

Why haven't those been released anyway? We know what Gore, Bush, and Kerry all did in school. I think McCain was in the bottom part of his class. Where's Obama's rankings?

That's got to be a pretty low percentage of the electorate, looking for something different because they thought George W. Bush was too smart...

Obama has a background that to me indicates some intelligence, and I've heard at least a few of his off the cuff comments that indicate intelligence. Compared with the current White House occupant, how high can the standard be?

Bill Clinton was quite intelligent it seemed, though there's some question how much he was able to apply this intelligence to anything useful. I honestly don't know the intelligence level of George W. Bush. It's my opinion that he stands with Harding as the presidents of the last 100 years whose chief distinguishing feature was their incompetence. Others were successful or had fatal flaws; with those two you start with incompetence and expand from there.

I'll be voting for Obama. He may do well, he may be terrible, but he'll at least move the discussion somewhere else. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done that. McCain is unappealing for a number of reasons - too old, too many years in the Senate for the transition to work well, too contentious, too unpredictable in a bad way.

As long as she doesn't say anything, and I squint a little bit, then she reminds me of Tina Fey.
And that is someone I'd be interested in.

Does affirmative action impact your scores in school?

It can. Big 1L lecture classes in law school are blind graded, but in later years, you can take seminar and clinical classes which aren't. (Also, there's the issue of getting into HLS in the first place.) I wasn't saying it did in Obama's case; I was saying that even if you grant some of that, we know Obama still did well in school.

Bill Clinton was quite intelligent it seemed, though there's some question how much he was able to apply this intelligence to anything useful. I honestly don't know the intelligence level of George W. Bush. It's my opinion that he stands with Harding as the presidents of the last 100 years whose chief distinguishing feature was their incompetence. Others were successful or had fatal flaws; with those two you start with incompetence and expand from there.

Harding was a quite good president. He was pretty much the anti-Wilson, and since there's really nothing good about Woodrow Wilson, that's a pretty darn good record. Good (for his day) on race, good on civil liberties, good on economics.

The thing people remember about Harding is scandal, but it was not his scandal (and, frankly, was pretty small potatoes: just run-of-the-mill personal enrichment.)

That's got to be a pretty low percentage of the electorate, looking for something different because they thought George W. Bush was too smart...

Obama has a background that to me indicates some intelligence, and I've heard at least a few of his off the cuff comments that indicate intelligence. Compared with the current White House occupant, how high can the standard be?

I was speaking more of the geniuses in Congress and the high finance boys who put us in this mess, as well as Bush, Clinton and the others who lived in the Oval Office.

I grew up with two kinds of smart people: the ones that were sharp enough to think "I'm going to start my own business and make a fortune", and the ones that thought "I'm going to go to law school and become President one day."

One group of smart people has the intelligence and common sense to run the country. The other group just thinks they do. Rather than running off the Palin group by nitpicking every word said, maybe we should cut them a little slack. Unless we are happy having the country run by career politicians who can't fill up a tank of gas without sending an earmark bill to the government.

Palin may not be polished enough to run the country, and you may disagree with her beliefs, but being repulsed by her is a bit much.

I basically feel that way about Obama, but I don't think he's repulsive. Nancy Pelosi is repulsive.

Nice rack though.

---
Hard in the face of a cold and brutal world filled with humans committing heinous acts to argue for the basic goodness of human nature, and against the idea that human nature must be restrained on the leash of high culture/religion/morality if we are to live together -- but I know in my bones that human beings are in their nature good -- because life itself is a great and wonderful blessing, and human beings are a natural part of life.

It's only when human nature is put on a leash and told to obey that all of humanity's base conduct comes to the fore, when all that our bodies naturally desire is posited as the root cause of evil, when true knowledge of ourselves is only credited to the experts, when freedom is only for those who have earned it through the toil of an entire lifetime or at the whim of life's lottery, when from the cradle we are taught to obey those more powerful than ourselves or suffer the consequences.

It's hard to make that argument when when the history of civilization and most of its great books weigh against it, language itself camouflages the truth, and when the dominant narratives of civilization tell the story of culture's war against nature. I can only see glimpses myself -- check that, feel the truth infrequently through the encrustation of culture, feel my fragile shoot struggling to breathe freely and prosper in rocky soil.

That my life is often crooked, twisted and fraught with conflict is not evidence of nature's amorality but of life's ultimate refusal to submit to its cultural fate.

Expressing sexual desire at BBTF for Sarah Palin is certainly warped; she doesn't exist in my life except through mediated experience, she's a figment not of my imagination but of mass hallucination. There's a real person behind the figment, but I'll never know that person. Like many other media figures of women we all lust after, none will ever slake our thirst but help keep us on the treadmill of simulated life.

I may wither and die before my life breaks open and bears its true fruit, but I'd rather die trying than accept a consensus reality in which I do not truly exist, connect with real human beings through every means at my fingertips, most espectially erotically.

So why I'm here typing away?

Old habits die hard.

---

One group of smart people has the intelligence and common sense to run the country. The other group just thinks they do. Rather than running off the Palin group by nitpicking every word said, maybe we should cut them a little slack. Unless we are happy having the country run by career politicians who can't fill up a tank of gas without sending an earmark bill to the government.

Near as I can tell, the only private sector job Sarah Palin has ever had has been as a TV sportscaster. She's been in electoral politics continuously since the age of 28. I don't have much problem with career politicians, but there's no doubt she's a career politician.

Expressing sexual desire at BBTF for Sarah Palin is certainly warped

Well, then I'm warped (whatever that means), because I *still* want to do dirty, dirty things to her...

I'm warped as well -- like it's not evident throughout my contributions to BBTF.

What else should I be? All apologies.

Palin may not be polished enough to run the country, and you may disagree with her beliefs, but being repulsed by her is a bit much.

I basically feel that way about Obama, but I don't think he's repulsive. Nancy Pelosi is repulsive.

one man's Nancy Pelosi is another man's Hockey-Mom-with-a-wallered-out-vagooter

"and since there's really nothing good about Woodrow Wilson"

As a Debs fan, I'm not in love with Wilson by any means, but "nothing" is going a bit far. If nothing else, I'd think that you'd respect his efforts to dismiss William Estabrook Chancellor's rumors about Harding's racial background during Harding's race against Cox.

It can. Big 1L lecture classes in law school are blind graded, but in later years, you can take seminar and clinical classes which aren't.

You aren't really talking about "affirmative action" in that case. You are talking about favoritism of a different stripe.

One group of smart people has the intelligence and common sense to run the country. The other group just thinks they do. Rather than running off the Palin group by nitpicking every word said, maybe we should cut them a little slack. Unless we are happy having the country run by career politicians who can't fill up a tank of gas without sending an earmark bill to the government.

Very few businessmen make good political leaders. They are used to giving orders and having everyone kowtow to them automatically, without having to convince people of the correctness of their position.

And given the way the top people in business have arranged things so that they get rich even if they run the company they are in charge of into the ground, I don't know that they are governed by anything other than personal greed.

And asserting that Palin ever was any kind of a business leader is just a flat out lie.

Finally, leave us never forget that W was our first MBA President, a guy whose resume in fact was far more business-oriented than political, and whose main henchman, err, assistant, was Halliburton's own Dick Cheney. What a bang-up job they've done.

I'm just popping in to say this: I have no predisposition to not like Palin. I very much like the idea that someone who isn't from the usual pedigree might ascend to the highest office. I like western women who hunt. I like girls who played high school basketball.

So, I've heard horror stories but, honestly, I haven't seen the woman speak on TV. So I talk to my mom today - a woman who should be firmly, strongly in Palin's camp. Mom hates her. So, I'm going to watch the debate and see what happens. If she's as bad as advertised, I'll vote for Obama.

If you are going to decide who to vote for in a Presidential campaign at this time of upheaval, based on how one of the Vice-President candidates does in one of these phony debates, may I respectfully suggest that you either skip voting altogether, or just flip a coin?

Damn she looks good tonight.

Mom hates her.

How come?

I suspect that Palin will do fine tonight, for four reasons.

1. Different format
2. Has had more time to learn Repub national talking points
3. Ifill will be watched closely and will be watching herself closely
4. Biden has a long record; any pol with a long record can be attacked

I agree she looks fine, though I ideologically disagree with her.


Srul, I simply meant that if she was the horrible, horrible dumbass my colleagues have talked about and being vice-president behind a 70 something man then I might vote for the other guy even if I disagree with him on many issues. that is what I was getting at. I'm fairly ambivalent between the two - I disagree with Obama on a lot of things and McCain on a lot of things. And I may well not vote for either. But if, say, GW Bush was McCain's veep, I'd vote for Obama.

Okay, she's slipping some.

rr, we didn't have time to discuss it. I'll ask her. (Though, obviously, so could you...)

Shouldn't we have a game chatter up for the debate?

Yeah, is anyone watching this thing? Why can't she ####### answer a question?

Why does no one support gay marriage?

Why can't she ####### answer a question?


It's a good question. Another good question is why can't any of them? I mean, I don't like that about her and I don't like her politics, but she doesn't seem the idiot everyone has been saying she is. Obama and McCain didn't answer direct questions either. It's a troublesome feature of these things.

As for gay marriage, marriage has been a man and a woman for millenia. I think that is far more ingrained than its supporters (edit: supporters of gay marriage) imagine. I think, politically, grab the benefits and partnership status and let society take a deep breath.

I'm kind of watching, Eraser, I'm at work so it's gotta be in and out.

As far as gay marriage, not enough people are gay for anyone to actually give a #### yet. It's pathetic.

That's harsh. It's ingrained. No excuse in my opinion, but bunyon's reason is a good one.

I also hope in 2012 there are no senators running. I tire of this debate over who voted for what when and with what riders.

Please consider my giant hat suggestion for 2012. I can't imagine a couple of pulls from the giant hat with 300 million could be any worse...

I don't know for president, but I think pulling a congress from a hat for one two year term would be fine. Make it like jury duty.

Oh God. The gurgling moron Palin is now prattling about "American Exceptionalism".

Brown people everywhere weep.

She's finishing weakly. She blew the VP question badly and sort of set Biden up to talk about his losing his first wife and a child, which is really a hell of a story.

Well, she didn't soil herself. Guess that'll get spun as her holding her own.

Anyone else disappointed in Ifell as the moderator? The questions were too vague to elicit useful responses or to expose a candidate's ignorance, though the format was just right for a candidate who wanted to wriggle out of giving a real answer.

Palin did not impress me at all, although she got better as the debate went on. But as I kept saying to my wife, Biden is much more articulate, much more smooth, much more comfortable with the situation than Palin... but his answers are as substance free as hers are.

I actually half watched 20 minutes or so of this one (up from 8 min on the radio of the prez one).

It struck me that, aside from a couple of timely details that this debate could have been from 1992, or 1988. Blah blah you raised taxes blah blah main street blah blah actually you raised taxes we're lowering taxes blah de blah blah blah.

Hey, at least I remembered why I don't watch them!

Which is worse? Political "Debates" or Award shows?

Oh, and I think comments on lovin' up some random woman you don't actually know is pretty crass, but not precisely derogatory.

It's pretty rude to whistle, construction-worker style a women on the street, not matter how much you respect them as a person.

Well, she didn't soil herself.

I guess she lost George Brett's vote.

Pull congress from a hat. After 2 years, Congress votes for the next POTUS. Runner up is VP.

The constitution is Soooooooo overrated. Well, parts of it.

Finally, leave us never forget that W was our first MBA President, a guy whose resume in fact was far more business-oriented than political, and whose main henchman, err, assistant, was Halliburton's own Dick Cheney. What a bang-up job they've done.

I've not been impressed by anyone with an MBA in matters that would pertain to business administration. Or Presidential matters.

Anyone else disappointed in Ifell as the moderator? The questions were too vague to elicit useful responses or to expose a candidate's ignorance, though the format was just right for a candidate who wanted to wriggle out of giving a real answer.

I thought she did well.

Palin accomplished what she had to: She stopped McCain's freefall and re-energized their base. Never mind the substance, but she certainly came across far better than, say, George Bush would have.

But Biden was forceful and didn't "condescend," and by that he probably stopped any big shift towards McCain.

The bottom line is that on balance the election isn't likely to be influenced by either Palin or Biden. Biden will reassure independents while Palin will re-engergize her base and probably help get some of the laggards to the polls. I see the two as mostly a wash. Of the four candidates so far in the two debates, the one who did the best for himself in terms of reassuring independents was almost certainly Obama. I think that his whole manner and style is doing much to reassure some of the undecided "Reagan Democrats" that he's not going to put them all in some big old cannibal stewpot and feed them to Al Qaeda.

I thought she did well.

Also, keep in mind that the format of the debate and how she could ask questions was negotiated between the camps beforehand. Considering that she was handcuffed, I thought Ifill did the best she could. Biden was mediocre until the end when he became more forceful about the current mess we're in. Palin grated on my nerves but she didn't flop and she stuck to her talking points. (It offends me that they tried to feed her Reagan's lines. I'm no fan of Reagan's but the man was a great politician and could deliver a line like a freakin pro. It was like Hillary Duff covering a Johnny Cash tune. Blech.) Still, I can't imagine that many really feel comfortable with her as president. I think only the hard core partisans go to sleep at night comfortable with the idea of her running the show. Anyway, that's my take. I don't think this will move the polls at all. At the end of the day, people vote the top of the ticket anyway. Next week will be the real show as I think McCain will feel pressure to go for the throat. We'll see just how cool Obama can be.

Biden said Obama and him weren't for same-sex marriage, but not in a legal way (from my understanding). He said something to the effect of 'that is for churches' to decide. It is a smart answer as it doesn't alienate homosexuals and, since the 'tradition' is religious, the government shouldn't play a role in it. At the same time, he doesn't alienate the 'leftists' who don't support gay marriage. So, both not supporting gay marriage, but for different reasons. My guess is that Palin would not oppose changing the constitution, where I think Obama and Biden would.

she kicked Bidens ass.

Who ever taught speech and debate in the early 80's, at the university of Idaho, is due a raise.

If you seriously equate an expression of sexual desire towards a woman with saying you think a black person should be enslaved your conception of human sexuality is monumentally warped.
Seriously, therapy is probably in order here.

she sent a shout out .. I love it!

Is that really what he is saying though? It seems he is saying, and I could have really misintrepeted what he meant, but objectifying or degrading a woman is still objectification and no different than if one was to objectify an african-american in some way. One is just currently more socially acceptable. Maybe, if instead he said that raping a girl is possibly similar to wanting to enslave a black person, his point (that I am assuming once again) would make more sense. The motives for each are fairly similar. Yet where slavery is obviously about power for the most part, a percentage of people still think rape is about sex. The argument can be, and has been, made that if a black person is killed or beaten for being black, that is a hate crime. Yet, if a woman is raped (I understand that not only women are raped/beaten, but the majority of these types of victims are women and are victimized by males) this isn't considered a hate crime, despite the misogynistic motives behind it.

Wanting to have sex with someone is natural, but placing a person's worth solely as being a sex object is probably not healthy (granted when it is mutual it is probably more acceptable. But, even in those circumstances, both parties still have a mutual respect for each other in a lot of cases) and is a form of objectification.

Also, one might have a person that they like to have sex with, which is the main reason for the relationship, but maybe this person cooks/cleans for you as well (as a secondary act(s)). Basically a bang maid. And I already found one. Your mom. Goodbye.

Similar Batters:

Terry Bevington

I'd never vote for her...but after all that winking, I was ready to buy her a drink.

. Yet where slavery is obviously about power for the most part, a percentage of people still think rape is about sex.

Yes; that "percentage" is somewhere close to 100, outside of women's studies departments. And, since we're not talking about rape, if that's what Mr. Catuli's argument is, he'd be included in that 100%; if one equates sex with rape, it's hard to then argue that rape isn't about sex.

Yes; that "percentage" is somewhere close to 100, outside of women's studies departments.

Are you including the majority of mental health professionals in that 100 percent? And all the women who've been raped? And the rapists themselves?

If you really had a 10-foot pole, you could do way better than Sarah Palin.


Nice.

As for the "rape is about power, not sex" stuff:

False dichotomies suck. Just sayin'.

she kicked Bidens ass.

Too bad the people who weren't already in her pocket don't seem to agree with you.

Too bad the people who weren't already in her pocket don't seem to agree with you.

Yeah, there's a big difference between from thinking that she's not as completely clueless as she looked on those Couric interviews---that's a bar that was about one inch off the ground---to thinking that she actually "won" the debate. As relatively polished as her presentation was, it couldn't disguise the fact that in most of her answers she was doing little more than trying to run out the 90 second clock. God help her if Ifill had pressed her with any serious followup questions.

Palin's biggest triumph was that she re-energized her base. Her biggest problem is that her base isn't enough to win the election, and the independents aren't buying her (and McCain's) message. Which no matter how they try to spin their phony "maverick" line and run away from Bush, is essentially four more years of the same group of right wing ideologues running the country.