Friday, October 3, 2008
I tried to watch the vice presidential debate. I started to, saw that Biden was taking the approving uncle tactic in dealing with Palin and concentrating on her running mate and breathed. It was going to be alright. He was tiptoeing through a minefield there and not many people appreciate how hard it must have been.
If he attacked her, he'd be 'mean'. If he pointed out instances where she's lied or bent the truth about her own record, he'd be attacking her because she was a woman. Biden played it smart. He didn't let her get away with charges that weren't true, but he watched her with what appeared to be genuine approval as she fielded questions we all know she was totally unprepared for just a week or two ago.
As for Palin, she didn't humiliate herself. She dodged questions she didn't want to answer and sometimes she got away with it. She painted herself as an expert on energy. But she was coherent and if there wasn't much substance there, at least she didn't sound stupid.
I saw that much before I crashed. Two days at a hospital with your son make these debates a lot less compelling.
So the pundits today say it's back in the laps of the presidential candidates. As it should be.
And as I'm writing this perhaps the House has voted on the latest version of the bailout.
But I wonder if anyone's paying attention to Ralph Nader. He may not be a viable presidential candidate, but there's no arguing he does his homework. He's got an idea that would help the current Wall Street mess without charging us, the people who can't afford to bail them out.
You can read it here.
or more analysis here:
Just because an idea comes from someone outside the system doesn't make it a bad one. In fact, it might make it a very good one indeed. I wonder if anyone will listen.