Bosniacs was a slip, I think, like O'Biden - and I slip all the time so I'm forgiving.

But nu-kyu-lar is intentional. And I don't care how accepted it's becoming, I'm always going to look down on anyone who mispronounces it. Look at the word. It's not spelled nucular. Nu-cle-ar. It's right there in the spelling. And I don't support the vocabularic pandering of accepting "libary" or "axe me a question" either.

Hey, did you guys notice she recommended we trust the terrorists? Biden said that they're in the hills in Afghanistan and Pakistan; she said that our general and the terrorist leader both said they're in Iraq and we should trust their word. Trust the general, honey, but maybe not the terrorist.

Hrmmm.... I actually liked that line from her the best. What I couldn't stand were the cheesy 'tagline' statements she made throughout.

Overall, interesting debate. I don't think any one did better than the other, really. If anything McCain will see the boost (as mentioned and evidenced by GD), partly because she didn't come off as dumb as she has in recent times.

I actually wonder if Palin will stop dominating the news once the Presidential Debates resume next Tuesday. Since his big "campaign suspension" gaffe, McCain's been invisible in the media. That can't be good for a candidate ... though, in truth, I think the Republican Ticket is reversed and that there are Palin supporters and there are Obama supporters.

I'm not sure there are many true McCain supporters. Quite the oddity this time around.

He tried to put a spin on it, but never directly addressed it.

I don't think it's classy to avoid the issue, though. I think with such a large portion of the current political debate being Iraq and Afghanistan it is VERY important why he thought Obama to be "not ready" to be commander in chief and why those rather pointed criticisms of Obama and praise of McCain - when there have been no significant policy shifts for either since then - no longer apply now.

Indeed. I am not one and I don't know of many, even here in the state of AZ.

You miss my point (and I don't remember what he did in response). Simply not answering is not avoiding the issue to same lame degree as talking about something else entirely. If tearing down your own candidate on national tv is simply NOT a possibility, I personally find just shutting up to be the classier move than prevaracating ... precisely because I think silence speaks volumes in response to certain questions. But better to be silent than to lie or juevenily change the subject.

OK.

No, what he said, over and over, was that in the examples she would bring up in which Obama voted for/against X, either Obama was actually voting for/against Y which just happened to have X attached to it. Did John McCain vote for mandatory mental health coverage, NASCAR subsidies, and tax breaks this week? No, he voted for the bailout package. Did McCainn vote against troop funding? No, he voted against a timetable. That isn't questioning motivation, that's, correctly, pointing out that senate voting records are complex and easily distorted by ignoring context (not saying Obama's camp doesn't do the same, but it's still a salient point).

I would disagree in part. Biden was clearly trying to bring into question McCain's motives, particularly on 4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies. He was saying McCain is in the back pocket of big oil (or big business in general). He pointed out the 4 billion several times in that context.

I have no problem with that spin....it's what politicians do. But don't tell me you aren't questioning motives. Of course Biden was, particularly in that example.

Biden had concrete examples, facts. Palin had generalities. She sounded and looked nervous. She said "I'm not answering that." She winked and condescended, exactly like McCain does.

Again....please, oh mysterious fates, please let the American people see what I'm seeing.