Palin-Biden VP Debate Winner Is...?

I was very excited to watch last nights VP debate. Not because I care about the issues, because seriously this is the VP debate. If I want to hear about issues I'll wait for the presidential debate. I was excited just because of the entertainment value it could possibly have held. It was the same reason I love to go to hockey games. Hockey is a great game and everything, but I go to see who gets slammed into the boards so hard the glass breaks, and who gets thrown out for fighting. I watched the debate in anticipation of seeing someone blow it so bad that the whole world would be talking about it for decades. This debate surely had the potential to be exceptionally entertaining. Unfortunately, the show was lacking in that and ended up being a serious debate. 

The debate didn't change anything for me. I don't see her as a leader, and I still wonder how she was able to run Alaska. Here are some things from the debate that annoyed me:

1. "Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) reform measures. He sounded that warning bell." Yes, thank God he sounded that warning bell, if he hadn't sounded it who knows what might have happened? We might be in a real pickle right now! Oh, wait! The great "Maverick" wasn't able to get enough people behind him after sounding the warning bell to make a difference. I guess if I thought about it enough it might make me think that John would be a good Vice President. Someone who could see something that could be wrong and tell it to a real leader who could actually make a difference using that information. Palin said it best,"People in the Senate with him, his colleagues, didn't want to listen to him...". Does that sound like a leader to you? By that standard, I should be president. Heck, no one listens to me either!

2. When asked who was at fault for the current economic problems, whether it was the borrowers, or lenders who were at fault Sarah stated," Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that."  That is a good answer for Joe six pack I guess. A good answer for the people who lost their house and want someone to blame, but a real leader would have been able to put some of that blame on the borrower as well. Let's face the facts, I have gotten home loans in the past, and I have never had a lender tell me,"No, you should borrow more than that. Think bigger and better!" No, People look at houses, find one they want, decide if they can afford it, and then apply for the loan. So the first problem is the borrower making a bad choice, and not thinking it out beyond the first six months of the loan. If you apply for an adjustable loan you have to assume it will go up at some point. So, the borrower has some blame here and Palin ignores it to pander to the common person who is looking for a way to pass the blame onto those with deeper pockets. Of course the lenders are not right either and do deserve some of the blame. It is their job to go through the process and make sure the applicant actually has a way of making payments on the loan they applied for not only at the time of the loan, but also when the rates go up. If anyone should know that rates go up, it would be the lenders. They definitely should reap what they have sown. If your lending policies have gotten you to the point of failure, I am sure there is another bank that will happily buy you out at half your value. Buh-bye!

3. How many questions were asked to Palin that she completely ignored? She ignored them because she had no answer. In other words, she lost that point and was hoping to answer a different question she could at least recite a much rehearsed lie for. For example:

BIDEN: "Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble."

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. 

Did she ever come back to that? Of course not. And this happened several times. She had a question staring her down that she had no good answer to, so she ignored it. Better to change the subject than to have another Katie Couric moment. 

Over all, she had survived the debate without amusing us all. I guess that was the best she could hope for, especially without John McCain sitting in the chair next to her. There is no doubt though that as a debate, Biden won this hands down. 

::: Don't forget to vote in the poll to the right if you haven't already. Thanks! :::::