Ifill could have at least tried to keep control of the event, rather than just letting herself be pwned by Caribou Barbie. If press moderators allow this behavior they condone it, and ask for more of it in the future.

Not surprisingly, after the debate many in the media fawned over Sarah Palin's bizarre performance. Satruday Night Live isn't exactly what one would call "elitist." Neither is David Letterman, and both seem to have their fingers on the pulse much more accurately than the the news media. SNL could easily have taken their Palin parodies in the opposite direction, but in fact, they've been savage. Last night's spoof of the debate is probably a pretty clear indication of how much of America viewed Palin thursday night.

I do not accept Ifill's assertion that it was not her responsibility ask Palin to respond to the questions as they where asked. It's not Biden's job to be the moderator.

Not surprisingly, after the debate many in the media fawned over Sarah Palin's bizarre performance. Satruday Night Live isn't exactly what one would call "elitist." Neither is David Letterman, and both seem to have their fingers on the pulse much more accurately than the the news media. SNL could easily have taken their Palin parodies in the opposite direction, but in fact, they've been savage. Last night's spoof of the debate is probably a pretty clear indication of how much of America viewed Palin thursday night.

JimBOB is right (other than the fact these aren't debates, and arguably violate the Fairness Doctrine).

Cry my a fricking river, Gwen Ifill. You looked like YOU could have spent some time at debate moderators' camp. Other than not "sitting on" Palin (and you're a woman, that would have countered, at leas theoretically, the sexism charge), you asked questions in a halting manner at times, never established a flow to the joint press conference, etc.

Gwen Ifill could have been replaced by a tape player.

Gwen Ifill: "Governor Palin, what would you do or not do about issue [x]?"

Governor Palin: [talks about issue y]

Gwen Ifill: "Senator Biden, what would you..." etc

SNL was hilarious. Almost as funny as the right-wing idiot who declared this week that the debate would provide no fodder to SNL. (I think it was Brooks.)

The woman is an abomination, and the TV-centric types who validate TV by comment on and from TV just don't realize how badly she's going over. They see a TV show: America sees an idiot.

P.S. Remember Gwen Ifill broke her ankle and people thought she might not be able to "moderate" ("it is to laugh")? She broke her ankle carrying DEBATE PREP MATERIALS up the stairs.

Seriously, DEBATE PREP MATERIALS.

If that performance indicated preparation, then I'M qualified to moderate a nationally-televised debate ... and also to be Vice-Presidential candidate.

Gwen AwFill is the one who bears a good deal of responsibility. She could simply have said, "Ms. Palin, either speak to the question or lose your turn. These are the rules you agreed to when you signed up for this debate."

Were we expecting anything else but for her to ignore the questions.

Gawd, I wish I could have been the moderator. Cause Biden ain't no friend of mine like he is the corporations in Delaware.

So I could have been impartial, you betcha.

Next time, have Ray Suarez as the debate moderator.

Next time, have Ray Suarez as the debate moderator.

i'm gonna break ranks a bit here and note that part of Ifill's problem was arguably Team Obama's fault. the rules for the Veep debate were bizarre, and micromanaged Ifill's ability to reign in Miss Wasilla. Team Obama agreed to those terms (and, really, to no real detriment: Biden still won the debate.)

what i found interesting about MTP this morning was how poor a job Brokaw did of "moderating." He let Noonan fillibuster and take much more than her share of the time; he never did let Yepsen comment on the DM Register interview that Yepsen was part of.

it was kind of humorous, however, what a tough time Brokaw and Noonan had fending off the tidal wave of reality as Yepsen, and most notably Chuck Todd, repeatedly made the point that with real problems on Americans' minds, McCain/Palin seem to totally beneath the task that they cannot get any traction and aren't likely to do so by Nov 4.

i'm gonna break ranks a bit here and note that part of Ifill's problem was arguably Team Obama's fault. the rules for the Veep debate were bizarre, and micromanaged Ifill's ability to reign in Miss Wasilla. Team Obama agreed to those terms (and, really, to no real detriment: Biden still won the debate.) Posted by: zeitgeist

Nope. Screw the format.

The purpose of these debates is to get candidates to give at least semi-substantive answers to ostensibly important questions regard how their team would govern the country. Palin was not doing this, so Ifill had a responsibility to point this out. All she would have had to do is state that Palin did not answer the question.

Sarah Palin = Chatty Cathy Doll.

To refresh your memories, if any, regarding this talking doll, you pull the string on the back of the doll's neck, and it then says something. There are about 6 phrases it says, after which the phrases are repeated.

I believe one phrase was "I have to pee pee".

part of Ifill's problem was arguably Team Obama's fault. the rules for the Veep debate were bizarre, and micromanaged Ifill's ability to reign in Miss Wasilla.

Nobody forced Ifill to be the moderator of this debate. If the rules prevent her from doing a moderator's job, she could have declined to participate. By acquiescing to these rules, she tacitly approved them.

One other question Palin blew off: on gay marriage, Biden suggested that Palin had said she agreed with civil unions, so Ifill asked, "Is that so?" Instead of answering that question directly, Palin repeated her "one man, one woman" stance. Which is hardly the biggest pivot, but still odd because Biden put words in her mouth and Ifill gave Palin a chance to take them out.

SocraticGadfly: "...violate the Fairness Doctrine..."

Ain't no such thing anymore.

zeitgeist 1:02

But wouldn't it have been a hoot if AwFill had grabbed her crutches and hobbled off the stage? Do you think they may have had a standin - Rush Limberger, maybe?

What would our mild mannered little starburst generator, Clara Kunt, have done? Ripped off her bodice and flown off the stage as SuperSnatch?

One catch is that both candidates often did not answer the questions that were asked, which Gwen Ifill pointed out several times during the debate. That made it easier for Palin to resort to repeating talking points without it looking obviously out of place.

I'm shocked. A politician who dodges "gotcha" questions?

I wasn't surprised or offended that Caribou Barbie ignored the questions to cut to her prepared babbling points. Talking past a question is an age old tactic for politicians of all stripes. It's something that a seasoned politician knows how to pull off.

Her blatant and ham handed efforts merely underscored how far out of her league she is. The winks and phony folksiness she relies on when at a loss only exaggerated how far out of place she is on the national stage. If the right had any moral center, they be humiliated by her.

wow, lots o kool-aid for breakfast this morning. seriously, can we not ever accept that sometimes our guy does silly things - like agreeing to those debate rules?

it isn't the moderator's job to break the rules - doing that would result in fewer future debates as campaigns refused to operate in fora where they have no control over the parameters. that is how it has been for decades. Ifill was highly constrained by the rules; any Ifill-replacement would have been highly constrained as well; going renegade and breaking the rules would ensure the journalist hhad no access going forward -likely to either campaign, or any future campaign.

no offense, but y'all live in la-la land.
Team Obama accepted the Palin-protective rules. It wasn't Ifill's job to save Team Obama from itself. (And, I'll repeat, they really didn't need saving - the correctly calculated that Biden would win anyway, and Palin would look like she was transparently ducking. Hello - the system worked like it was intended.)

The anonymous commentator at 1:09 deserves the prize for most offensive comment of the month. I hope it is gone -- and this with it -- the next time I check the thread. Leave that sort of shit to the Republicans, stupid!

I think it was better this way. Palin was Palin, and nobody interfered or intimidated her. And it was plain to see that she is completely unqualified for the VP spot.

I really didn't want to see her suffer the humiliation of a meltdown on national television. She didn't, and everyone got to see just what she has to offer - nothing.

Anyone who could conceivably vote for Obama got a good dose of reality from that debate: Biden is an absolutely superb candidate, and Palin is a disaster. And John McCain bears the responsibility for that cynical nomination.

It couldn't have worked out better.

I think it's common for candidates to duck the question and talk about what they want - they're just usually more adept at giving 10 seconds of lips service to the question, and then making the segue to the subject of choice. What was unusual about Palin was that she actually stated that she wasn't going to answer the question.

I'm not sure whether it was because she wasn't skilled enough to do it otherwise, or whether it was a calculated move to defy the moderator - I'm thinking it was a calculated to feed into her "the media is filtering me" talking point.

Look, politicians in debates answer what questions they want to answer, whether or not they're the ones being asked. Palin's crime is one of degree--HUGE degree--not of kind. It's being viewed as exactly what it is, an attempt to weasel out of numerous questions she was too dumb or too dishonest to answer.

Debates are not interviews, which is why we should stop having media personalities moderate them. Having said that, Ifill did what she was supposed to be doing in terms of skipping follow-ups--she's right that in this format it was Biden's job to call out Palin, and I think he used pretty good judgment on picking battles so as to avoid people crying "bully,"--but what the hell is her excuse for those seventh-grade questions? The Achilles heel question and the "Why isn't this class warfare (yes, she actually said that)/sticking it to the poor" query were just embarrassing.

And zeitgeist, Obama's team may have agreed to these rules, but they also fought for a back-and-forth format between the candidates which McCain's team strenuously rejected. We know why.

Palin's debate schtick was actually quite smart - spout out memorized, unrelated questions while claiming to talk directly to the American People. As noted above, the rules prevented the moderator from pressing too hard for answers - not entirely a bad thing in this era of Republican stenographers posing as journalists.

Sarah's handlers apparently thought it better for her to appear arrogant and scripted than to generate sound bites displaying one's complete unfitness for national office. Regardless, the voters now have a clear view of the McCain/Palin ticket - it's now up to the voters to make a rational decision rather than one guided by Rovian distractions.

If Tina Fey is not available to do Sarah Palin next week, I'm sure Rich Lowry will be willing to do her.

2008 1:46 pm
Yes, Sarah Palin speaks with a fractured forked tongue.

And true, Senior Bush was born with the silver foot in his mouth and Sarah Palin had a moose hoof in her's.

But, as Mencken long ago observed: "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." (Not to mention PT Barnum's, "there's a sucker born every minute.")

Sarah's good looks, winning smile and blank mind can catapult her to victory: (once she moves to the top of the ticket.)

Sarah the political blow off. Likely will stone wall for every Republican screw up in the War or the economy.

If the Republicans win this one I think I'll have a sex change and join the Republican Party with Liebermann.

I think the real problem is that the news media is completely out of touch. Its ironic that conservatives and Republicans have raised the evil media bias claim to hysteria at a time when the news media has a definite conservative bias. The corporate ownership demands a conservative veneer on everything and a head start for Republicans on every issue. The concept of "middle America" has also been lowered. I'm sure many on here have seen the "Redneck woman disses Obama" video clip. The uneducated rubes and racist rednecks are what the corporate news media has dictated "middle america" is.

You can only keep that charade up for so long. The news media is now in a tug of war between its conservative ownership and thr real middle america. Saturday night live is about as middle america as you can get. Middle america is the bread and butter that's kept them on the air for over 30 years. The Palin parodies could very easily have been adorable blown-kisses, but they've been merciless and pretty savage. The news media is having a hard time with the story conservatives want told and what the American people are seeing.

One of the biggest benegits of an Obama win in November may be that it breaks the back of conservative's hold of the information passed to the public.

In real time, I thought Ifill did a terrible job and that she should have done something to either get Palin to address the question asked or to emphasize that Palin's answers were not responsive. But, on reflection, I have totally changed my mind.

Ifill did Obama/Biden a favor by sitting like the dull-witted lump of corporate press/media trash she appears to be.

If Ifill had done anything to attempt to get Palin to answer the questions, Palin would have attacked her and Ifill would have backed down. The story coming out of the debate would have been "hostile media (and African-American at that) attacks Palin, but she fights back and wins."

As it happened, the story was "Palin survives by sticking to her talking points, but convinces no one that she is fit for national office."

The meme that Palin cannot stand up to scutiny is now fixed in the minds of the independent voters and the corporate press/media. Palin will continue to be a net negative for the ticket.

Ifill performed the task assigned to her to perfection; she offered reasonable questions, proffered several follow-up questions, and allowed Palin to make a lipsticked ass of herself in front of a global audience.

Repeatedly.

There was a subtle choice on that night; to either keep chipping away at three or four items in the hope that Palin finally stumbles onto the correct answer---which would have been cherry-picked by the Right---or let Palin fall down on more than a dozen issues, landing on her face each and every time. Yes---Ifill was, indeed, blown off---but it'll cost the McCain Fake-Talk Express another five points' worth by mid-month, and should push the McCain/Palin camp into a low-30s percent measure before the election....

I'm with Shortstop on this one. And, Hark, I admit I was hoping for a full-on melt down for Palin. I am affronted that she offers herself as a VP candidate. That she can do so shows me that she has absolutely no consideration for this country and, by extension, me. So, from where I stand, the more she is humiliated in this process the better. Matt Taibbi's take on her (and her fans) in Rolling Stone was brutal and much deserved, IMO. I am heartily tired of those who revel in the "average-ness" of the candidates they support and glory in the unfamiliarity and indeed contempt of those candidates for "worldly" matters. Sarah Palin is incurious, imperious, and filled with a very unattractive sort of conceit. She is filled with the kind of ambition that enables her to lie without any check from her internal moral compass. I don't believe she has any such compass. So, I want her to suffer humiliation, even as I believe with all that I am that she is incapable of realizing that it is humiliation that she is experiencing. She is happy to let us feel the humiliation for her.

I thought the best word on this came at the end of Brian Lehrer's NPR show on WNYC in New York (the best talk show on radio) the morning after the debate. The last caller came on the air, and the following colloquy (paraphrased from memory) ensued:

Brian: So what did you think of the debate?

Caller: Brian, I just wanted to say that I have four of the most wonderful grandchilren (gives names and ages).

Brian: So ... I can ask any question I want, and you'll answer any question you want?

Caller: And my wife, my wife had always been the best ...

I doesn't take Tina Fey to do this.

Brokaw is totally in the tank for McCain. Expect him to raise Bill Ayers when he moderates the debate this week.

Next time, have Ray Suarez as the debate moderator.

Replace Ray with Jorge Ramos, & you have yourself a got-damned deal. Hell, El Gordo y La Flaca would do a better job refereeing a joint-press conference.

I personally have it with PBS folks acting as commentators. They continue to bend over backwards to try to be "fair" and end up colluding with the bully right. Talk about needing to grow a couple.

What did they expect? That Palin would play fair?!
The woman is a wolverine. They're attempt to silence Ifill by mentioning a potential bias apparently worked really well (or Ifill may have done this anyway).

If Ifill feels she was 'blown off' why didn't she step up to the plate right than and there and confront Palin? Why didn't she insist answers to the questions posed? Whey didn't she ask for more follow-up?

If Palin continued to refuse, this would have allowed Ifill an opportunity to say something to the effect of: "Okay, governor, so you are refusing to follow-up on this question".

That way, it would've been clearer that it was Palin who was consciously choosing to refuse Gwen's follow-up requests.

Palin's bully performance continues careflully crafted and cloaked under the demise of the maverick victim who is up against the big bad, corrupt, elite filtered "Gotcha" MEDIA that is c --so corrupt that "I'm gonna not answer such ridiculous questions --instead, I get to run this show, I will make up my own rules and speak directly to the American people.

Ifill and her preparers should have seen this coming for goodness sake. Talk about naive. Or playing it safe.

I'd have called her on it. You don't get to make up your own rules, you don't get to refuse to answer follow-ups and worse yet claim you are doing it because you really care about 'getting the truth out'.

I wouldn't be so hard on Ifill, though her questions left much to be desired. Both candidates' true colors came through quite clearly, and that is the most one can generally hope for in these types of events.

Tom Brokaw will, no doubt, be asking Obama a lot of tough questions Tuesday night about how much of our financial failure was due to his relationship with William Ayers and the Weathermen. Then he will pointedly ask Obama to explain his rumored financial ties to Willie Horton and OJ Simpson and will not rest until he finally forces Obama to give definitive answers that All American Joe Six-pack can accept.
McCain will be forced to explain how his 5+ years as a POW war hero helped forge his economic education, personal integrity, and world leader credentials and also how much specifically JM can guarantee NBC/Universal/GE will save on his proposed corporate tax cuts.

We'll see who tries to change subjects then.

This morning on "Meet the Press," debate moderator Gwen Ifill argued that Palin "more than ignored" her questions; she "blew me off."
----------

Which raises the question of whether Palin would have been able to ignore or blow off an actual moderator. It's a pity (and a national shame) that we won't get to find out.

I agree she was in a tough spot--and I think it's great she was given a chance today to really say what she experienced...I encourage folks to listen to the entire clip of what Gwen said. I like the part when Brokaw asked her what she had expected and she said "I expected a debate".

She sounds genuinely shocked and angry and perhaps remorseful at what transpired. She perhaps was unaware herself of the fact that she was holding back some because of the book attacks--until after the fact.

Perhaps in retrospect, it would have been best to have her step down and replace the questioner with someone else--I liked the suggestion to offer Katie Couric--or maybe Barbara Walters?

Or perhaps someone should have at least sat down with Gwen to make sure she didn't feel intimidated/suppressed in her role as moderator, to verify that she was still willing to press aggressively for follow-up questions...

Maybe this nonsense will help Brokaw get clearer on his role in setting limits with McCain--because I have no doubt McCain will do whatever he can to play 'maverick' at the next so called 'debate' dodge questions and so forth.

I think Obama will be ready, but the moderator does need to keep it above board.

McCain is going to pull out some of the slimiest stuff in this Tuesday town-hall--he'll be talking about naivete again, about dangerous and white flag surrender, about tax and spend liberal recklessness, about how we need action, not someone who stands on the sidelines and intellectualizes...

I hope we hear more from Ifill's response..

The racist pattern is obvious to many; McCain wouldn't even make eye contact with Obama and then this witch blows off Gwen Ifill. This was no coincidence.

Wow, the choir say hooray to Biden's hands off/Kid(?) gloves approach to Palin and snaps for debunking McCain policies at any turn however the moderator uses the same approach and whammo! I agree on one, the moderator should have kept the candidates to the question at hand, I nearly completely disagree with the former. Just goes to show, I guess you can't please everybody all the time. However the results appear to be in all of our favor so I guess all the complaining is well, elitist?

Ifill got off the funniest line in the debate, though no one seems to have noticed. When Palin said that a class a third graders was receiving extra credit for watching it, Ifill deadpanned, "Everyone gets extra credit for this debate."

How to get even.

Yeah, it's racist and just rude and the thing is
like others have said, it's not going to get easier with the likes of Brokaw and Bill Sheifer as the next two moderators. They are both in the tank deep for McCain...

But nonetheless, I expected more from Ifill. Palin has already showed herself to be a lier and a slippery, mocking sarcastic wolf in sheep's clothing.

And here's the thing--Gwen Ifill sure as heck knew that--I remember Gwen even said on Washington Week' several weeks ago that something Palin said (about the media) 'hurt my feelings'.

Did she expect that this barrage wouldn't continue, especially after the utterly embarrassing gaffes Palin suffered last week?

Palin is indeed as Howard Fineman said: "A wolverine who is biting at a pants leg..."

And McCain--he's even scarier for
having picked this completely incurious and power hungry, attention seeking snake.

McCain has become unhinged. He is not honorable. I hope Obama confronts his "straight" talk "America First", '100 percent always honest' claims...

How dishonorable to claim your opponent is associating with terrorists. I hope he says that--or Biden says that. We need Biden to start fighting back hard now.

What utter BULLSHIT!

Straight talk, my ass.

Let he who is without sin cast the fist stone. What appalling audacious transparent arrogance to assert such a thing.

Not in a good mood today. Happy the polls are in Obama's favor, but this could be erased within a week if folks get lazy.

And zeitgeist, Obama's team may have agreed to these rules, but they also fought for a back-and-forth format between the candidates which McCain's team strenuously rejected. We know why. Posted by: shortstop

Indeed - and in the end they gave in to The Palin Protection Plan rather than end up with no debate. A very wise decision as it turns out: no amount of protection could hide her ignorance and vapidity. She really has to be an offense to all intelligent, intellectually curious women in America.

Did anyone find out what Biden said about coal plants, in context "in the rope line"? The dextroradioheads were working him as a liar, oddly focusing a lot on that point.

Reccommend reading the Oct 4 NYT op-ed piece:

"Pitbull Palin Mauls McCain" by Frank Rich.

Fantastic!

[Palin] really has to be an offense to all intelligent, intellectually curious women in America. -- zeitgeist, @16:17

Not only to those, either. Yesterday, the check-out clerk at Kroger's -- male, about 25 -- noticing my Obama button (permanently attached to my pocketbook) asked me: "so, what did you think about that last debate?" And, not even waiting for my answer, opined: "she's an offensive joke".

Joe sixpack, a neighborhood fith grader, and myself, are concerned. On November 5th, who will pay for Sarah's fare back to Alaska?

She really has to be an offense to all intelligent, intellectually curious women in America.

No more than Dubya is an offense to all intelligent, intellectually curious men in America. As a society, we're not quite far enough along that people won't still ask Barack Obama to somehow represent all black people or Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton to represent all women.

People like Palin are an offense to all people who don't believe the governing of the U.S. should be a cynical joke. Eventually everyone will catch up :) with those of us to whom it would never occur that we should take the sins of someone who shares our demographics personally.

Why, sakes alive, with McCain blowing off Sen. Barack Obama in their debate (avoiding any eye contact with Obama) and now Palin blowing off Gwen Ifill during Palin's "debate" with Sen. Joe Biden, I get the distinct impression that the Republican Party is RACIST, besides being greedy, immoral, lying, cheating, thieving and downright anti-American.

Why couldn't Biden just clarify the question with the moderator ("I believe the question was "What should be our policy as regards use of nuclear weapons"?) and then say, "Apparently Governor Palin either didn't hear or didn't understand the question because I certainly didn't hear any answer in there, but here is how an Obama administration would address that issue."

Make her evasiveness an issue in itself.

Ifill's performance in the debate was abysmal. She failed to keep the debaters to their format or time. Ifill lost all control over the debate when she first allowed Palin to keep talking when Palin's time ran out. An emboldened Palin continued to extend the limits at her pleasure.

That Ifill would perform in such a manner should have been obvious to anyone who had seen her similarly inadequate moderation of the VP debate in 2004.

Palin clearly had a choice, but she was not limited to the two you gave.

She could also have answered truthfully. But I think she, and her handlers, know that if the American people hear the truth of how she believes and feels about many of these issues, it would kill the campaign. That's why she has had to be coached, and trained, and why we keep hearing all these strange garbled answers - her training and her real beliefs are conflicting, and she does not have the expertise yet to give you an answer that sounds friendly and okay, but does not betray or reveal much about her real beliefs and agenda.

And for all of you who are blaming Palin's answers on Ifill, or the Republican rules of the debate, or the Democrats' acquiesence in those rules, just stop.

Palin said what Palin said. She owns those answers, or non-answers. She must deal with the fallout from them.

That Ifill would perform in such a manner should have been obvious to anyone who had seen her similarly inadequate moderation of the VP debate in 2004.
----------

and if she's selected again in 2012 she'll be just as surprised again afterwards that she did a lousy job.

shortstop, i only wish the entire population were as enlightened as you, but the reason Palin should be particularly offensive to women (you are right of course that she should be at least somewhat offensive to everyone but Rich Lowry) is that the country has yet to prove it is willing to elect a woman to the highest office(s), and to those who have long resisted based on overt or repressed sexism, she provides a rationale - food for their existing stereotypes of why a woman shouldn't be in that position. Sad, but my prior experience working on campaign staff for a female politician convinces me it is true.

People like Palin are an offense to all people who don't believe the governing of the U.S. should be a cynical joke.

Actually, Sarah Palin is inoffensive to anywhere from 35-45% of all American voters. Were this not the case, McCain-Palin would be 20-30% Obama in all states.

Eventually everyone will catch up :) with those of us to whom it would never occur that we should take the sins of someone who shares our demographics personally. Posted by: shortstop

Don't hold your breathe.

I saw Gwen Ifill making excuses for being made into a fool.
But she's still a fool.

And I'm not buying her stupid book.

zeitgeist: Of course there are large chunks of the electorate who maintain some level of discomfort with the prospect of electing a white woman or a black man to one of the top two national offices. It is a big deal, or we'd have done it long ago. One gets used to certain kinds of people thinking that the first whatever to become president or vice president -- or the first to rise to the top in any field -- has an outlandishly outsized responsibility for the reputation of everyone who shares his or her gender or skin color.

I just don't expect to see that kind of thinking on progressive blog comment threads. Democrats are not exactly new at electing women or minorities to office, nor do most liberals spend much time expressing wonderment at the capacity of women or people of color to perform well in positions of responsibility. Rushing to label some lousy candidate a non-credit to her sex is a lot more reflective of reactionary thinking than of progressive views, and I don't think it's particularly useful even when done as an exercise in trying to predict what the opposition will say about the situation.

The fact that some idiot down the road will say of a future female vice presidential candidate, "We tried that with Sarah Palin, and look how that turned out" does not inspire me to validate such transparent cover for bigotry by obediently giving Sarah Palin more power over the fortunes of other women than she has. There will always be yahoos who blame entire demographics for the actions of a few bad actors. Thirty years ago it was a hell of a lot easier for them to get away with that crap. I see no reason for us to help them do it in 2008.

Thank God Sarah Palin wasn't on the t.v. show _Are_You_Smarter_Than_A_5th_Grader?_

Nobody would want to see kids screwed up with a role model who wouldn't answer questions and who was obviously a smart ass.

If Sarah Palin won't play by the rules (agreed to by both campaigns), then why should we expect her to obey the Laws of this country if she were put into office?

We can't trust McCain-Palin on any score!

Barack Obama is a much better choice.

If Obama and Biden are sworn in to office in January, America will owe a profound debt of gratitude to Tina Fey and the writers on Saturday Night Live.

What a wickedly accurate and hilarious take-down of Sarah Palin. Palin herself seemed like a parody of Tina Fey doing a parody of Palin, which presented a challenge for the SNL writers -- how do you outdo such an embarrassing, self-parodying performance? -- but they came through.

My favorite lines: "can I call you Joe ... because I rehearsed a couple of zingers where I call you Joe"; global warming could be "just a natural part ... of the end times"; and marriage should be "between two unwilling teenagers". And a bit about being just an average, small-town, all-American hockey mom ... who enjoys shooting wolves from helicopters.

Lethal.