Under International Boxing Rules, as Well as Debate Rules, the Winner is . . .Biden!
No doubt. Not by a knock out, and not even by wearing the opponent down, but just by skill, a solid win. You could even say That Horrid Woman never laid a glove on him, but if you think that is a metaphor too far, then forget it. Bygones.
That is the summary, under boxing rules.
Now under debate rules? Telling the judges you are not going to play by the rules? Not good, that. That will earn you a loss, and if there were real debate judges there, she would have lost as soon as she opened her mouth and let the words fly. I will not even bother to snag and post the actual quote, but the "Straight Talk" translation is as follows:
"Rules? We don't need no stinking rules."
Well I guess she might have done that (a) to provide some anticipatory cover for her really bad habit of getting flustered, and completely avoiding questions she is unprepared for, and (b) thinking it would endear her to Joe and Jane Six pack . . . as if she needed to shore up her numbers in rural areas?
And while I am on the topic of rural stuff? That voice? Like we say here in elitist New Jersey, "Ehy . . . whatta fugazy." That translates to fake. I watched some of the vids of her previous debates, back when she was trying hard for looking and sounding serious, and there was way less of the fluctuations in tonality, or as I think of it, the crazy lady act, never mind the corn-pone babble, the "You betchas," and all the rest of that shit.
I do understand that some people will gobble up that shit, bowl after bowl. Then again, there were millions of Americans who paid cash money to see Pauley Shore movies. My point? In a nationwide, televised debate, it is a gross mistake to over do the,"I'm a hick, just like you guys," stuff, particularly when the evidence that counters that "image" is easily found on You Tube.
Beyond that? Ok. Now she did not totally go yumpy at any point, but there were two or three times she got damn close. More than once she transitioned (inelegantly) to energy when that was not at all the topic. She repeated that lie equating 'fundamentals of the economy' with the American Worker (and since the Wall Street/Finance Sector bailout, er, I mean rescue is not a done deal, mentioning that line was a point deduction. I mean really?) Oh, she told that other lie about McCain suspending his campaign. That is grounds for deduction also.
Her "White Flag," line flopped (When will these republicans learn that the only people who find their lame-assed, terrible jokes as funny, are other republicans?) Her defense of the McCain Health Care Plan was so terrible, that she set up Biden for the spike (mixing metaphors, sorry. Er. I have done that before, I confess.) Using the phrase "Surge Strategy" with the phrase "in Afghanistan" was bad enough. But screwing up on the name of the Commander? HEY LADY! That is the kind of embarrassment you should expect when you either bullshit, or are talking about things you really do not understand and/or know.
And at the end? The way both of them handled the last question about weaknesses, clearly demonstrated her weakness as a national stage debater and candidate. She totally punted on the question (and she punted the ball away so many times I lost count) and just went into babble mode.
But Biden? Biden at least repeated and acknowledged the weakness Ms. Ifill mentioned in the question, transitioned from that stated weakness to what he considered a strength that has been mislabeled as weakness (as he said, his passion), and then he took the conversation to where he wanted to.
Biden; knows how to play the game. That Horrid Woman? Not so much.
One last point. I have to wonder if the McCain Camp is monitoring my blog (not really, but work with me here, for the joke.) Her hair was, for lack of a better way of saying it, contemporary, and the suit was a real professional suit. I almost was going to qualify that some, but no. I will give the Horrid Woman and her stylist the point, clean and whole, with out reservation.
See. I can be objective.
That is the summary, under boxing rules.
Now under debate rules? Telling the judges you are not going to play by the rules? Not good, that. That will earn you a loss, and if there were real debate judges there, she would have lost as soon as she opened her mouth and let the words fly. I will not even bother to snag and post the actual quote, but the "Straight Talk" translation is as follows:
"Rules? We don't need no stinking rules."
Well I guess she might have done that (a) to provide some anticipatory cover for her really bad habit of getting flustered, and completely avoiding questions she is unprepared for, and (b) thinking it would endear her to Joe and Jane Six pack . . . as if she needed to shore up her numbers in rural areas?
And while I am on the topic of rural stuff? That voice? Like we say here in elitist New Jersey, "Ehy . . . whatta fugazy." That translates to fake. I watched some of the vids of her previous debates, back when she was trying hard for looking and sounding serious, and there was way less of the fluctuations in tonality, or as I think of it, the crazy lady act, never mind the corn-pone babble, the "You betchas," and all the rest of that shit.
I do understand that some people will gobble up that shit, bowl after bowl. Then again, there were millions of Americans who paid cash money to see Pauley Shore movies. My point? In a nationwide, televised debate, it is a gross mistake to over do the,"I'm a hick, just like you guys," stuff, particularly when the evidence that counters that "image" is easily found on You Tube.
Beyond that? Ok. Now she did not totally go yumpy at any point, but there were two or three times she got damn close. More than once she transitioned (inelegantly) to energy when that was not at all the topic. She repeated that lie equating 'fundamentals of the economy' with the American Worker (and since the Wall Street/Finance Sector bailout, er, I mean rescue is not a done deal, mentioning that line was a point deduction. I mean really?) Oh, she told that other lie about McCain suspending his campaign. That is grounds for deduction also.
Her "White Flag," line flopped (When will these republicans learn that the only people who find their lame-assed, terrible jokes as funny, are other republicans?) Her defense of the McCain Health Care Plan was so terrible, that she set up Biden for the spike (mixing metaphors, sorry. Er. I have done that before, I confess.) Using the phrase "Surge Strategy" with the phrase "in Afghanistan" was bad enough. But screwing up on the name of the Commander? HEY LADY! That is the kind of embarrassment you should expect when you either bullshit, or are talking about things you really do not understand and/or know.
And at the end? The way both of them handled the last question about weaknesses, clearly demonstrated her weakness as a national stage debater and candidate. She totally punted on the question (and she punted the ball away so many times I lost count) and just went into babble mode.
But Biden? Biden at least repeated and acknowledged the weakness Ms. Ifill mentioned in the question, transitioned from that stated weakness to what he considered a strength that has been mislabeled as weakness (as he said, his passion), and then he took the conversation to where he wanted to.
Biden; knows how to play the game. That Horrid Woman? Not so much.
One last point. I have to wonder if the McCain Camp is monitoring my blog (not really, but work with me here, for the joke.) Her hair was, for lack of a better way of saying it, contemporary, and the suit was a real professional suit. I almost was going to qualify that some, but no. I will give the Horrid Woman and her stylist the point, clean and whole, with out reservation.
See. I can be objective.
posted by Abstentus at 12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home