Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Sarah Palin Drinking Game!

I wish I could have created a drinking game for the vice-presidential speech tonight. But I was stunned at how many times Sarah said the following things. If you really were playing a drinking game, you'd be as trashed as Palin's future son-in-law in the first 10 minutes if you were taking a drink every time she said one of the following:

"Darn it!"
"Up there in Alaska..."
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
"I love America!"

-said something folksy: "I don't know what the fancy folks in Washington think, but darn it, up there in Alaska where I'm a maverick..."
-grinned like the Cheshire Cat into the camera as Biden was speaking
-referred to hockey moms, soccer moms, or Joe Six-Pack

I think one of my favourite moments was when she said, "Say it ain't so, Joe, you're bringing up the past, doggone it!" Hahaha!

Was she terrible? No, she wasn't. She avoided most of the big questions, kept diverting things back to the damn energy stuff so she could mention her energy-rich state over and over, and the only times she was called out on not answering a question she said, "I may not answer the questions the way you guys want me to, but I’m gonna talk straight to the American people!!" But I think she was prepped well, looked straight into the camera to "the American people" watching at home. She certainly had a loose handle on the facts... but I expected nothing less.

The only times I ever got really angry was when she acted all shocked and frustrated that Biden was bringing up policies and track records of the Bush Administration. John McCain has been a FUNDAMENTAL backbone of the Bush Administration, he is a powerful and vocal member of a party that has had a disastrous run. But of course, she had to deflect those questions to try to trick the American people into believing that McCain is some sort of non-partisan candidate who actually challenges his party.

This debate didn't seem to change the game at all, but it was still interesting to watch. I think Palin held her own, I think Biden did an excellent job once he got going (and began looking into the camera more), and I think both of them really backed their candidates. Did it change anyone's mind? No. If for some ungodly reason you thought Palin was qualified before this debate, you probably still think the same, and if you thought she was unfit, you still do.

When the moderator asked about the problem with nuclear weaponry in Pakistan, I turned to my husband and said, "Twenty bucks says she pronounces it nuke-you-lar" and he took the bet.

Silly, silly man...

I've gotta go collect my money now.


poppedculture said...

Whatcha doin' watching the American election anyhow?

Lisa-Maladylis said...

I started to laugh with my boy friend when she started in again about the soccer mom crap like because she is a woman with kids who talks to other women, this makes her qualified. I have to wonder since I'm a mom of a son with downs, who will raise her son that needs her the most if she becomes the VP ? I thought when you were a mom of a special needs child, you started fighting for their rights by starting at home, not leaving them to get a better Job. That right there is what made me dislike her right off, the rest just followed when sh started talking lol

The Chapati Kid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Chapati Kid said...

I didn't see the entire debate, but I did watch the political analysis after, and it seemed clear that Palin put up a good fight. Yes, she did deflect every domestic policy question back to the economy, but on the whole, she seemed to have been well-coached these past two weeks in her intense practice with her advisors. (Now, Republican readers, don't attack me. Every media source has been reporting that she's been on media lockdown with the exception of the Couric interview, because she's been getting prepped by her advisors for the debate.)

I would have to respectfully disagree with Lisa, though. Just because a woman has a special needs child doesn't mean she has to sacrifice her career. Having a special needs child is not a punishment, so the argument that a woman must sacrifice her career in order to prove that she is a good mother to her special child is flawed. She's not leaving her children, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Yes, unlike the common American mom, she is in a position to be able to juggle both, with the support, I'm sure of nannies, etc. that the average mom cannot afford. Parents of special needs kids do have to make massive sacrifices just in terms of their lifestyles, their financial choices, the future of their family, but I don't think that just because Palin is seeking the Vice Presidency, it makes her a worse mother. Most importantly, her abilities as a mother should not bear any consequence on her capabilities as a politician or her grasp of the issues that concern the nation. Everyone has personal lives and struggles, but how they choose to live their lives should not have a bearing on how they represent the voice of a nation. Sure, if she was an abusive mother, that would be a different thing -- that's a criminal issue. As long as any politician isn't conducting their personal lives in a way that damages others, I don't see why it should become public fodder to judge them.

Day's end: who is more prepared to lead the nation and represent the voice of the American people who are crying for change?

That Palin is unqualified for the position is an entirely different issue. The fact that she said herself in a national debate that she "only had five weeks to prepare for this" says it all: that she's just not qualified to stand in for the President if anything should happen to the incumbent. She's only had five weeks to prepare to lead a nation. That's just not enough time, given the current crisis the nation is in.

Ryan said...

One of my favorite moments was when Palin stated the solution to the current economic crisis:

"Go to a Saturday soccer game and ask one of the parents on the sidelines what they think of the economy. You will probably be met with some fear."

Who knew?! We've been sitting on the answer all this time! :)

Allison said...

Don't forget:
-"ya' know"
-"like me"
-"also" (which seems to be her way of completely changing the topic).

We kept a tally... a drinking game would have been a heckova' lot better. (To use Palin-speak.)

Also, does her winking skeeve anyone else out?

Lisa-Maladylis said...

No one said she had to sacrifice her career, she has one now that probably fit in with her child but what will she do if she is VP and her child needs her ? tell them no, she is busy ? Downs kids get sick easy and alot. Yes she can have nannies. I find it sad that she says she wants more rights for special needs kids while she is looking for a job that will keep her away from her new child with special needs. But that's probably the least of her worries, I think she is more fit to run that soccer game she likes so much than being VP

Jen said...

Sarah Palin is like Drop Dead Gorgeous meets Legally Blonde, but in a a bad, bad way.

Nikki, I love reading your blog!

Nikki Stafford said...

Jeremy: You mean I should have skipped the veep debate so I could fall asleep in the first 5 minutes of the Canadian one? :::snore::: I wish just one of our candidates had a fraction of the charisma of ANY of the U.S. ones. But please do tell... how exciting was Jack Layton? Did he take his shoe off and bang it on the podium? That's coming one of these days...

Lisa: I can absolutely see what you're saying. As a mom, there's always a twinge in me that thinks, "You have five kids... shouldn't you be spending more time with them?" She boasted that she was back at work three days after Trig was born, and I thought okay, you totally did NOT impress me with that statistic.

But then I think I haven't once thought that Obama hasn't spent enough time with his kids while he's been campaigning, and I realize my inherent chauvinism.

It's a tough one... on the one hand, there's something about a mother that a father can't replace, and in the early months of a child's life, he/she needs his/her mom more than anyone, whether it's for nursing or the comfort or anything. They just spent 9 months in the mother's womb, and scientific data and research show that an infant responds to the mother instantly, and spends weeks or months getting used to anyone else, including the father. To be apart from his/her mother during that time is traumatic for the child, whether or not he/she can express it.

But on the other hand, Chapati Kid, I can see what you're saying, too. It's not fair for us to hold a woman candidate up to a standard that the male candidate doesn't have. I think Lisa was commenting on her as a mom, not how being a mom will affect her as a VP. I've had the same thoughts: Trig will have a lot more needs than a child without special needs, and there will be nannies and other people surrounding him to help him, when he might really just want his mom. She won't be around -- not during the day, not during the night, she'll more likely be in foreign countries or having to pose for photo ops, whether she wants to or not. I have no doubt she loves him completely, but her ambition to be president outweighs her desire to be at home with him. And again, that's saying nothing about her as a person. When she's with her kids, it's the only time I really DO like her, and I believe 100% that she loves those kids with all her heart.

As I said to my husband, I felt awful for that poor little guy when they brought him up on the stage at 10:30, WAY past his bedtime, and he was so conked out on her shoulder. But at the same time, she has to do this... he NEEDS to be there with her because that picture of her with him hoisted up on her shoulder as she alternately patted him and rubbed his back is essential to who she is. And for the first moment in weeks, I actually liked her. I think Trig is crazy adorable, and every time she's holding him I forgive her her trespasses. Then she passes him off and becomes the candidate again, and I remember oh yeah, she doesn't read newspapers. ;)

But I totally see what both of you are saying, and there can easily be arguments for both sides. Thanks to both of you for saying what you did! :)

Ryan: HAHAHA!!

Allison: That winking moved into crazytown territory at points, and I think she can't help it, but it certainly doesn't help her. She'll say something like, "John McCain is a maverick who won't raise taxes" and she'll wink, and then I think, "Uh... does that mean she was lying?"

Jen: LOL! Brilliant comparison. And thank you! :)

Nikki Stafford said...

Oh, and I should mention in the category of late thoughts... when I went to bed last night and was about to fall asleep, I suddenly thought of a better title for my post: "Did She Palin Comparison?" HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Ah. Brilliance. But yeah, I'm sure others thought of it for their columns this morning, so I didn't get up and change the title. Besides, she actually DIDN'T.

Anonymous said...

If they had a five party debate and no one watched, does it still count?

Wow. Talk about bad timing. Did anyone watch the Canadian debates yesterday? I would rather sit through a Sex and the City marathon than watch Gilles Duceppe and Stephan Dion talk about the issues.

I, like a lot of others, watched the US Veep debates to see how well Sarah Palin would do. I thought she didn't implode, so I guess that was a victory. One thing I didn't get it is how come Sarah Palin speaks with a Minne-soe-ta accent? "Geez, we play soccer in Wasilla, ya' know?". It was like watching "Fargo".

Nikki Stafford said...

Amsted: Yah, I know, eh?? Haha! I kept waiting for Biden to say, "You know, as Margie here said... er... geez, I'm terribly sorry Mrs. Governor. *cough* I have no idea where that came from..." Palin: "Ah well, yah, ya know. Sure."

MC said...

I live in the Detroit television market... every American channel was showing the VP debate (or Wrestling).

Lisa-Maladylis said...

Quote:: VP debate (or Wrestling).
isn't the same thing ???

Anonymous said...

Nikki, have you seen It's pretty funny. also had a similar drinking game blurb today, with both Palin & Biden.

Brian Douglas said...

Wow, I can't even imagine what it would be like if we had a president that said nuke-you-lar. That would just be a disaster.


Oh wait!

K J Gillenwater said...

This is what i heard...Biden listing a voting record over and over and over again. Boring statistics that really mean NOTHING to me. As we all know, both sides can bend voting records to look good/bad depending on the question. So that kind of information just makes my eyes glaze over.

I wanted more specifics from Biden, and the only ones I really got were their tax plan and their health plan. Both of which stink, IMHO.

Palin managed to put Biden on the defensive for much of the debate. And in my understanding of debates, she won decisively.

Nikki Stafford said...

Kristin: True. Because when someone is in the office of president, we certainly don't want them to have a handle on statistics. Good thing Sarah Palin wouldn't know a statistic if it hit her in her pipeline. Whew. Let's vote her in!

Anonymous said...

You forgot - every time she dropped a 'g'. That woman has one annoying voice.

Seemed to me Biden answered the questions asked and defended his candidate from untruths. Palin wiggled around the questions to try to fit in her cheat notes.

I didn't watch the Canadian debate. I know who I'm voting for. The one most likely to get the most votes that isn't Harper.

Anonymous said...

For some reason this isn't letting me post under livejournal.

K J Gillenwater said...

Jeez, are you serious? You think it's important for every VP candidate to be able to spout out from memory voting records? Lord.

We all know that votes in Congress aren't just black or white votes. Things get tacked on to ordinary laws and spending measures. So it is easy enough for either side to pick something and find their opponent voted 'for' or 'against' things.

By the way, I think my favorite analysis of the night was when Biden claimed that McCain's $5000 tax credit would go 'straight to the health insurance companies.' Um, dude, you *do* realize the tax break is FOR health insurance, right? Of course that money would be going to health insurance pay for people's health insurance. LOL!

poppedculture said...

Ok, admittedly, it wasn't as exciting as the episode of Survivor I watched afterwards, but Layton as Khrushchev? Have you been talking to Rob? ;)
See you soon.

The Chapati Kid said...

Do you think it's important that people learn from the lessons that history has taught us?

Do you think it's important that someone who will represent your nation have a stellar record of ethical judgement? That the person who might ostensibly be the next President should anything happen to the incumbent, actually prove to the American people that they have the experience to do the job by citing, factually, their record?

Or would you rather have a redneck Alaskan, who tells the MODERATOR of a national debate, and her OPPONENT, that she is not going to answer questions the way they want her to (which is precisely how she should be answering them), but the way the American people want her to, thereby implying two things:

1. She thinks her rhetoric (please, I beg you, look up the meaning of that word) can take the place of cold hard facts.

2. She think that the American people are dumb enough to buy into that.

But then maybe, you're one of her demographic, so I wouldn't expect you to agree with me.

How can anyone possibly have their eyes GLAZE over when someone's citing their record of experience? I don't remember you saying anything like that when we talk about McCain and his endless litany of how he was a POW and how he has a record of this and that and his aunty's underpants.

Nikki, can you tell that I am really fed up of reading comments written by ignoramuses who can't back up ANY of their arguments by cold hard facts (like Biden)? Instead they resort to slippery slope and straw man arguments (LOOK THOSE UP KRISTIN!) that make them look even more idiotic then I previously thought they were.

It might behoove, you, Kristin, to attempt to have an adult discussion and actually support some of your thoughts with rational judgement than using such throwaways as "Lord" and "Jeez." You're taking His name in vain you know. He wouldn't be happy about that.

K J Gillenwater said...


So, I'm no longer allowed to have an opinion unless you deem that I am 'informed' enough? No, I'm not really interested in either side spewing out voting records that are meaningless. And, yes, they are meaningless the way they are presented in debates.

I can point to both sides using exaggerated voting records to prove their argument. Guess what? exaggerations and misdirections about a candidate's voting record is not 'the truth.' It proves nothing. Gives no weight to an argument.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to change your mind. And I'm sure you realize I'm not going to change my stance. I'm just a little fed up with the left ignoring problems with their own party and claiming they are infallible and always win every debate.

I will agree that Palin made some mistakes during the debate, but so did Biden. I think Biden made more mistakes and did a worse job defending (and that is what he was doing most of those 90 minutes) his side. But no one here will admit to ANY mistakes on the part of Biden. That is just being dishonest, IMHO.

(Nik, if it makes you happy, I cringed when Sarah said "nu-cu-lar" too.) See? I can admit these things. My candidate is not perfect. But I like the pair of them over anything the left can put up there. And that won't change.

Oh, and are you saying, Chapati, that Biden was not 'coached' as well? 'Coached' to me means Palin prepared for the debate. Of course you have people helping you prepare! You don't just sit in a room and go at it alone.

Jen said...


I never said that Biden didn't make any mistakes. Did anyone here say that?

As a matter of fact, I think both candidates achieved their goals in the debate and that there was no clear winner. You chide people for saying Biden didn't make any mistakes when no one did anything of the sort. Please show me the quote where someone said that Biden didn't do anything wrong.

I've mostly been pointing out how much of a joke Palin is as a VP nominee.

To use your reasoning, you admonish us for our lack of talking about Biden, yet like most of the people on the right, you won't admit that both candidiates did well. Like a loyal Fox Skews viewer, you think Palin came out the winner despite dodging questions left, right, and center (or the number of other things that people have pointed out about her performance).

Nikki Stafford said...

Jen: Don't worry... when you've been on here for a while longer you'll see Kristin will post often and will put words in my mouth and the mouths of everyone opposing her. No one here said Biden won; in fact, if Kristin had bothered to read my post rather than making her usual knee-jerk reaction, she'd have seen that I said that there really was no clear winner, and Palin was clearly not a loser. If she'd read through any of the comments so far she'd have seen me defending Palin as a mother.

But maybe her "reading" extends about as far as Palin's, who can't name an actual newspaper or magazine that she reads.

A week or so ago Kristin was on here making her usual comments about the "problems" with the Democratic party and saying we need to lay off the ever-brilliant Palin (yes, she used the word brilliant... unlike her, I do NOT put words in people's mouths) and when I tried to politely ask her to please just start listing off the reasons why Palin is qualified to be in the White House, she disappeared. She waited for me to make another Palin post so she could come on once again and talk about the problematic Democratic party and why Palin is awesome, but never actually gives a single reason why she's great or qualified. I've yet to see ANYONE do that.

Actually, no, I take back my comment about Kristin not reading anything. Every pundit has pointed out that Biden's one major blunder was saying that the health care money would go to the insurance companies, so Kristin's simply spouting out that one thing that everyone is saying. She's choosing to ignore the reams of other things that were said against Palin. After all, she wouldn't want to hurt her argument now, would she?

Lisa-Maladylis said...

Niki, I have to say that I love reading your articles and your posts in the replies to people that try and come off as if they know it all. It's so nice to be able to read and talk about this debate without feeling like it's a no no to talk about it.

Anonymous said...

I don't object to money going to the insurance companies if it actually buys insurance. If that's the way they want to do it.

As a Canadian, it still blows my mind that people have to get their health care from insurance companies (though I do for dental, through work).

The money should go to the health care workers, as far as I'm concerned.

The Chapati Kid said...

HERE are my responses to your commments, Kristin:

>>So, I'm no longer allowed to have an opinion unless you deem that I am 'informed' enough?

Actually, anyone who makes an uninformed opinion is merely speculating. Forming an uninformed opinion is as dangerous as putting a loaded gun in the hands of a toddler. Uninformed opinions are what lead to bigotry, racism, sexism, and many other gross misapprehensions of reality.

>>No, I'm not really interested in either side spewing out voting records that are meaningless. And, yes, they are meaningless the way they are presented in debates. I can point to both sides using exaggerated voting records to prove their argument. Guess what? exaggerations and misdirections about a candidate's voting record is not 'the truth.' It proves nothing. Gives no weight to an argument.

SO, what DOES give weight to an argument in a national political debate? You say that voting records (albeit exaggerated, they are true, on both sides) mean nothing. So what DOES give weight to an argument where two people are standing on a stage and trying to convince people why you should vote for their Presidents? You want action? If you want to know whose record is actually, in fact, true, there's something called research on the internet. And if you did it, you would learn that Biden has run circles around Palin. The man has done more for women's and children's rights in this country than Obama, McCain, and Palin put together. So, going back to your point: WHAT, in your opinion would give more weight to an argument in a national political debate?

>>Look, I'm not here to convince you to change your mind. And I'm sure you realize I'm not going to change my stance. I'm just a little fed up with the left ignoring problems with their own party and claiming they are infallible and always win every debate.

Yes, I realize that I won't change your mind. But I'm not here to do that. I'm here to point out that there are inherent flaws in your reasoning process. This would make you a terrible lawyer and an even worse scientist. You base your reasoning on your gut, or the family values and god-fearing nature of a candidate. You buy into the rhetoric that they spew for their campaigns: a war vet who is a patriot, a soccer mom who overcame the odds. What I'm trying to point out is that these sentimentalities do not make your candidates better leaders. Their capacity to deal with crises, their voting records, their stances on issues that are vital, at this point, to the survival of your nation (and war is not at the top of that list) -- THESE are the things that the candidates should be judged on. Going just by cold hard facts, McCain has been the biggest supporter of deregulation in his 26 years in the Capitol. He has ALWAYS opposed any bill that attempted to regulate the stock market. Today, he's going back on his word and talking about how markets need to be regulated, and how he's always felt that way. If you look at quotes in the media, McCain even said that the economy was "fundamentally strong" a few months ago.

No one is denying that Democrats exaggerate their fair share. After all, that's what politicians do. Do you think some people are happy to hear that Barack and Biden are against gay marriage? When I learned about that, I was shocked. But what I do respect about this ticket is that they never back down from their stance, they conduct their debates with respect, and if they're wrong, they say they're wrong. If they agree with the opposition (which, if you watched the debates closely), they often do agree with each other, they don't fanny around trying to make a "Yes, but.." argument like Palin kept trying to do when the gay marriage issue came up.

>>I will agree that Palin made some mistakes during the debate, but so did Biden. I think Biden made more mistakes and did a worse job defending (and that is what he was doing most of those 90 minutes) his side. But no one here will admit to ANY mistakes on the part of Biden. That is just being dishonest, IMHO.

As my capable blog counterparts said already, no one is here to say that Biden didn't make mistakes. All the Democrats were praying that he wouldn't have verbal diarrhea or stick his foot in his mouth as he is prone to do, because he often doesn't think before he speaks. I know I certainly doubted his ability to not run off at the mouth, and was pleased that he stayed on point and was so contained in his debate. But I never doubted for a second that the man didn't have the experience, the wisdom, and the knowledge needed for his position. Did you know that he's the poorest senator in the United States? There's a reason for that - because he's honest.

>>(Nik, if it makes you happy, I cringed when Sarah said "nu-cu-lar" too.) See? I can admit these things. My candidate is not perfect. But I like the pair of them over anything the left can put up there. And that won't change.

You say that you like the pair of them, but you don't say WHY. We have given you our reasons, but other than quoting over and over that you like them, you don't say WHY. Tell us, pray.

>>Oh, and are you saying, Chapati, that Biden was not 'coached' as well? 'Coached' to me means Palin prepared for the debate. Of course you have people helping you prepare! You don't just sit in a room and go at it alone.

Dear, dear Kristin. You can't just twist the meaning of words to make them suit your understand. "'Coached' to me means" indeed. It's not what you think it means. It's the fact that Palin was put into a media lockdown and drilled on the topics by McCain's pundits. The person she really is that hockey mom, who is earthy and kind of a hick, whether you like it or not. I'd even say she's a likeable person. No question about that. But McCain's people have had her on a tight leash since the very beginning, telling her what to say, how to say it, and how to present herself to an audience. The fact that she is unprepared when asked questions she's not expecting, means that she doesn't quite know how to deal with it all yet. I don't doubt her intelligence -- I certainly think she did WAY better than I expected in the debate, which is not a testament to the people who coached her, but to her own capacity to absorb so much under pressure. But the fact remains that McCain's coterie kept her under media lockdown because they were afraid of the gaffes she would make.

And of course Biden was coached: you think people weren't telling him, Joe, don't run off at the mouth? But I don't believe people had to tell him what to think. There's a reason that Obama chose Biden and not Clinton as his running mate: because Biden aligns with his thinking, Biden is an honest man, and Biden has incredible foreign policy experience.

Now, a question for you: why is it that conservative Republicans think that the media is all left wing and liberal? It was the New York Times that supported the war in Iraq. I remember that because I stopped reading the NYT for a while, I was so upset about it. Now, the same newspaper is said to support Obama. Why is it that when the majority of media is critical of Palin, the conservative right thinks this is a conspiracy of the left? Did they ever stop to think that maybe it's just the facts that the media is responding to? I think of a horse (or in this case an elephant) with blinkers on. It's time to stop seeing what you want to see. I think there's a point at which you have to realize that when 97% of the national and world media is critical of the VP choice, there must be some reason, and some truth to it.

I remember asking a Chinese friend of mine about what she thought of the atrocities in Tibet that were being inflicted by the Chinese government. She said, "What atrocities?" Because where she grew up, in China, the media just didn't talk about it. Her whole life, she was taught that Tibet was a part of China. She had NO knowledge of its history. As outsiders, we all know what the facts are because they are presented to us in openly. Because she grew up thinking a certain way, it didn't matter how many news sources I showed her. She still didn't believe it.

I kind of think that's how so many American conservative Republicans feel. They think the media is too leftist and too critical of their candidates, so they only read the media that agrees with their point of view. But they don't stop to think for a second that maybe the reason that the majority of the world media is critical is because there is reason to be critical.

Sorry Nikki. I hate to be a space hog! Kristin, I don't hate you, and I apologize if my posts have come across as vitriolic, but I can't accept ad hominem arguments, and that's why it bothers me when you make statements that aren't supported. I have no doubt that you are an educated person, but it would be nice to engage in a discussion where we could argue reasonably using factual points and counterpoints, rather than you feeling that we are attacking and maligning your candidates without reason. I have researched the candidates. I read five to seven different political news sources obsessively (BBC, CNN, FOX (it's always good to see what they're saying), NYT, Washington Post,, and Slate) I know Nikki does too. We have consistently presented our reasons. We'd just like to see yours.