The religious right would be appalled ‘ to think she supported Civil Unions that were completely equal in marriage in all ways except the name.’

I agree. And that’s why I found it surprising that when asked by Biden if that’s what she supported, she didn’t refute it – she just went back to the scripted talking points. She made it appear she supports Civil Unions that are fully equal to marriage in everything except the name.

Fair enough, but to do so can only mean that you believe the differences are inconsequential.

The religious right would be appalled ‘ to think she supported Civil Unions that were completely equal in marriage in all ways except the name.’

I always try to be objective. If Biden had done a good job, I would say so. He had some good moments mixed in with provable lies. He was totally flustered, and it showed.

And you saw an example of Palin thinking on her feet when she spoke to Couric. The last time with Couric, Palin, with McCain on her side reeled off an answer that was rather obviously drummed into her. Then McCain took over and jabbed back at Couric to protect his golden calf/cow.

That answer to Couric set the tone for how Palin would handle the debate. She even announced it when she said she would talk to the American people and not necessarily to the actual question asked of her. What Palin then proceeded to do was speak from the McCain talking points that were drubbed into her. When she “winged it,” Palin made mistakes and misspoke the policy McCain has espoused. Palin barely looked at Biden while he was talking (if you managed to catch it, they didn’t split screen it) I have read that apparently Palin was looking down at the lectern, possibly to read note cards to jog her memory.

There wasn’t much spontaneous about Palin’s performance, it was scripted.

Pft! Horse hockey. You don’t think that governors have to think on their feet? Mayors? MOMS?

It’s not a question of whether or not she has the ability to think on her feet. It’s a question of whether or not she has the requisite background knowledge related to the issues to enable her to think on her feet and make appropriate decisions. She has yet to demonstrate that she has the requisite basic knowledge of American government, history, national politics, law, or Constitution.

Well, we learned that in a crisis, Palin can meet expectations, provided she knows about that crisis weeks in advance, and sequesters herself for days on end with a team of experts in that particular type of crisis, and provided she has previously lowered expectations to such a degree that anything short of outright disaster is seen as a “win.”

Nick, in a campaign debate, your job is not to answer the question — but to get from the question to your “core message” as quickly as possible. It is a campagn, after all, not an interrogation.

Marty, I don’t disagree with you on the debate strategy. I made the comment because, after her wretched interview performances, I was waiting to see if she had the intellect to meaningfully and coherently answer questions for which the answers had not been scripted. Biden demonstrated the ability yesterday. Palin did not. I still am not convinced she has the intellectual ability to substantively formulate and present answers on her own doing. I’m not saying she’s stupid, I’m saying she’s too ignorant on the subjects for a national leadership position.

And you’re exactly right — the religious right would be appalled at anyone who claimed that homosexual relationships were “exactly like” heterosexual relationships. Obviously they are not.

That’s not what I said. The issue was not whether or not homosexual relationships were exactly like heterosexual ones, the issue was whether or not she thought same-sex relationships should be treated exactly like opposite-sex relationships. Being exactly the same and being treated exactly the same are two different things. In the debate Palin caused Biden to think she supported Civil Unions that were completely equal in marriage in all ways except the name. He asked her if this was the case. She just changed the subject. This raises an interesting question – does she support Civil Unions for gays that are completely equal to marriages in every way except the name. She certainly did not deny that.

Lynn David,

Oh, ok – thanks – I understand. It was your perception as to how she sounded rather than what she actually said. I’m very glad she feels as strongly about Israel as she does.