I wish I had thought of this

via http://palinbingo.com/

Rules of the debate

Unlike last week, the debate tonight will not have the same free-flowing format. Responses must be limited to 90 seconds (for Palin's sake), and the candidates cannot directly address one another (for Biden's sake). One can only imagine the number of feet Biden could put in his mouth if he could ask questions of Palin.

So here are some more rules I thought of:

1. Answers that do not contain anecdotes of single mothers from Michigan who only work two jobs because they got laid off from their third will not be counted
2. All questions directed towards Gov. Sarah Palin must contain the answer within the question itself.
3. All questions directred towards Sen. Joe Biden must contain at least three, but no more than five, double-negatives.
4. Each candidate has three lifelines: Poll Ohio and/or Florida; eliminate two possible answers; and phone the ghosts of Ronald Reagan and/or John F. Kennedy.
5. Each candidate may take 5 minutes of maternity/paternity leave.
6. Every mention of "God's will" results in 20 extra seconds of response time.
7. Neither candidate can roll Gwen Ifill's wheelchair off the stage.
8. If Gwen Ifill cannot attend, the host will be decided by coin toss. The back-up hosts are David Letterman and Katie Couric.
   
9. The first candidate to reach 10 "that's what she said" jokes wins.
10. In the event of one candidate Rick Rolling another, the Rick Rollee must automatically forfeit.

What exactly is an easy question for Palin?

Here are some softball questions: What Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with? What newspapers do you read? What do you know about our current VP?

Palin's answers to these questions have been off the wall absurd. She can't name a single newspaper. She can't name a single Supreme Court case (beyond Roe v. Wade, perhaps the only thing she can discuss coherently if not reasonably). All she could muster about Cheney is the infamous duck hunting incident, where -- you kn0w -- he shot somebody in the face. She appeared positively ecstatic to follow in his footsteps.

I have never met anybody in my life unable to name a single newspaper. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. She can't even name her kids. (Just ask Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper or Trig.)

This all begs the question, is there such a thing as an easy question for Sarah Palin?

Live blogging the VP Debate

The question on everybody's mind concerning tonight's VP debates: What does a Palin failure look like? What does winning look like? The nature of this debate is so unpredictable, so unfathomable that we need to talk about it like we do the Iraq frickin' War.

I do know this: It's not about brains. When has it been? This is true of all modern debates, dating all the way back to the famous 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. Debates these days are no different than the rest of the campaign. They're measures of character -- not qualifications, but who appeals, who relates, who looks and sounds and thinks like you.

The problem is, what does "you" mean? It's hard to tell, but I'll tell you what I think tonight -- live and in HD. So grab some moose jerky and let's watch them get scrappy. Quite frankly, I'll be surprised if Palin's been prepped to the level of mediocrity.

Lies, damn lies, and elitists

With the bailout defeated Monday, WTF is as common an acronym as S&P. Is it good the bill went south? Unlike the people on TV, I won’t pretend to understand our country’s complex financial clusterfuck, so I’m going to have to say “not sure.” From what I can tell, there was too much pretend money. I remember learning about imaginary numbers in high school and permanently retiring from math later that day. I assume that’s why I don’t get this.

Clearly, this is all above my pay grade, so I wish it weren’t above McCain and Obama’s pay grade too. While it does make me feel less inferior, it’s not exactly comforting. I don’t want a president who’s just like me--nasty, brutish and short. We’ve tried that for four years now and we’re unimpressed.

No, I want my president to be the opposite of me, the anti-average American. I want him to move mountains with his mind and control the thoughts of foreign leaders with his brilliance. I want him to be heroic, fight evil and carry a laser sword. I want a Jedi president, a goddamn Jedi master, because elite is a good thing.

So I have to ask, on whose watch did being the best become bad? Which “culture warrior” do we blame for this embarrassment? I said I don’t know much about math, but I’ve become all too familiar with the lowest common denominator.

Obama needs to ask McCain if he has always envied--so violently and so smugly--the smartest kid in the room. When did intelligence become unpatriotic? When did it become dangerous?

And who let patriotism and liberalism become mutually exclusive? Patriots don’t pick running mates who thought Jesus rode a dinosaur, who will start a war with Russia because it obstructs the view of Europe from her kitchen--countries she of course has never visited and whose names she can hardly spell. Patriots don’t lie through their yellow teeth whenever the truth becomes too hard, too insurmountable, too damning.

Patriots are what McCain once was. I remember vividly McCain winning New Hampshire. I was elated. That McCain was a statesman, a real champ, even a maverick. It made me think an Obama/McCain face-off would be the best thing to happen to this country in years: It would raise the level of debate and bring two of the brightest, most admirable, most elite politicians together. This is not the McCain who blew bricks off buildings in New Hampshire.

And Obama’s guilty too of the wrong kind of change. Obama once spoke his mind and stood up for his convictions. He defused his opponents not just with intellect but also humor. He needs to stop acting like attention will be paid, praise will granted to him regardless. That 10 percent of the electorate they’re fighting for right now? They’re not unengaged. They’re not uninformed. They’re not uneducated, unsuccessful or unaware. They’re unimpressed.

Thursday, bloody Thursday

There will be blood this Thurday. But whose? I have hard time believing it'll be Biden's, given Palin's recent faceplants. Still, television's a visual medium and Palin's a visual miracle.

Andrew Halco has some choices words about Palin. He ran against her in the 2006 gubernatorial election and got a hands-on experience with the Barracuda. He has debated her 12 times. 12 times. That officially makes debating her greatest qualification, believe it or not. He has this to say:

"Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges."

While she will rely on "glittering generalities," the media won't buy her bullshit. Not because they have a long, proven record of tough journalism. They simply hate this woman--and not just Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews. Many respected moderates and conservatives have sunk their fangs into Palin:

David Ignatius (conservative Washington Post columnist): "In the military culture that shaped John McCain, there is no more important responsibility than the promotion boards that select the right officers for top positions of command. ... McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee. Two weeks later, it is still puzzling that he selected a person who, for all her admirable qualities, is not prepared by experience or interest to be commander in chief. No promotion board in history would have made such a decision."

Romesh Ratnesar (Time reporter): "But we should stop pretending that she is ready now or anytime in the foreseeable future to be Commander-in-Chief."

Kathleen Parker (National Review's conservative columnist): "She's out of her league ... Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons ..."

Fareed Zakaria (centrist Newsweek columnist and author): "Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"? ... to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible."

Rod Dreher (Conservative blogger/columnist): "Palin just doesn't know what she's talking about. ... Look, I don't think Palin is dim by any stretch, and I admire many of her qualities. It's just that she's just in way, way over her head. ... Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero."

David Brooks (NYT's avid McCain fan): "Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness. (and on ABC) I believe with expert coaching she will be able 'to rise to the level of mediocrity.'"

David Frum (conservative columnist): "Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one. ... How serious can [McCain] be, if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? ... I think she has ... proven that she is not up to the job of being president."

Dan Morgan (conservative blogger): "At first I was really pulling for Palin. So many of us libertarian-conservatives are hoping for a new Reagan to appear, and perhaps she was a female Reagan coming down from Alaska to help re-establish limited government and to fight for freedom. But now that Palin has given several interviews it has become painfully obvious that she is not VP material. I truly hate to say that. ... My advice to her is to stop humiliating herself ... and go back to being Governor of Alaska where you were doing just fine."

Carl Bernstein (Pulitzer-winning journalist): "Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate. ... John McCain is a serious man, as anyone who has spent time with him knows. But he has not run the kind of serious campaign he once promised. Not for the first time, as many of his fellow Republicans (as opposed to friendly reporters and sympathetic Democrats) had long maintained, McCain's more reckless inclinations and lesser impulses prevailed. "

Andrew Sullivan (conservatige blogger turned Obama fan): "She is who she is: an unqualified fundamentalist liar with no knowledge of or experience in national domestic or foreign policy. And McCain had absolutely no idea who she was when he picked her."

3 beers for democracy (The Daily Northwestern 9/26/08)

On Wednesday, John McCain decided to suspend his campaign to focus on the financial apocalypse. He asked Barack Obama to do the same. Of course, this would require the postponement of tonight's scheduled debate. At first glance, this might resemble bold leadership. But the show better go on tonight, and I hope nobody confuses McCain's actions with resolve.

This shenanigan is just a political parlor trick, and not a very good one. It is what we do every Wednesday night when there's a paper due on Friday: e-mail the professor, come up with some dramatic excuse, and ask for an extension.

To their credit, McCain and his handlers know the lay of the land. They see he cannot emerge from the debate victorious. He has a 10 percent chance of winning the issues game, but a 90 percent chance of winning the meaningless gestures game. Now, if Obama mops the floor with him tonight, McCain can claim he was too busy dealing with a national crisis to prepare for such a charade. Or he can just not show up. With McCain's confession that he knows little about the economy, I don't think anybody will buy his bravado.

So in honor of this week's biggest joke, I'll raise a glass to him tonight during my Debate Drinking Game. If, for some reason, you have nothing better to do on a Friday night, check out some of the rules below. All you need is a case of beer, a shot glass for each player, and a bit of love for democracy. (Please drink as you would vote: responsibly and often.)

Take one shot whenever McCain says "POW" or "my friends," and do the same for whenever Obama mentions "change." This alone will get lightweights drunk, but if you're into politics, you're probably into drinking. The two go hand-in-hand for the sake of everybody's sanity.

Here, it gets a bit boozy: Take two shots when McCain refers to the "transcendental challenge of Islamic extremism," promises to "pursue Bin Laden to the gates of hell," or makes an old age gaffe (confusing Sunni and Shi'a or referring to Joe Lieberman as a Democrat). Whenever a candidate refuses to answer a hypothetical question, also take two shots.

Then there are the rare three shotters: if Obama can squeeze in McCain's "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" quote, if Jim Lehrer must repeat a question to get a real answer, or if someone in the audience yawns. Also, to make this fair and balanced, take four shots if Obama mentions policy specifics. He never does that, so this shouldn't be too dangerous a rule.

As with any drinking game, there must be some home runs. For these instances, finish your beer. If McCain winks at Palin, drink. If Obama puts on his sunglasses after a witty one-liner, drink. And if Hillary storms the stage and mauls anybody with her harpy claws before turning them into stone, drink. I wouldn't blame her; she's had a tough year.

My friends, you will not walk away from this transcendental challenge of drinking extremism sober. And when the game gets too hard, don't forget you can call timeout and take a breather. If McCain can do it, so can you.