Palin looks uncomfortable and a little nervous. And I hate it when either Palin or McCain refer to themselves as mavericks. That’s pushing a little uncomfortably to try to set a tone, but it’s doing it through repetitionUnfo not through action.

Palin, taking the second question, looks a little more comfortable talking about the sub-prime meltdown. She puts the banks in her sites, but then she tells us that we, as citizens need to be more responsible. Which, yeah.

When Biden talks about the problem with the sub-prime crisis being one of too much deregulation, I get cranky. The problem is rarely deregulation, it’s poor regulation and bad legislation that is, for some reason, called deregulation. Need to talk about that later. Palin, in her response, is starting to sound better and hitting Obama and Biden on tax policy is always fun to me.

I like it when she gets more aggressive.

Biden still thinks that rich people should be taxed out of proportion with the rest of the citizenry. Unfortunately, that might be a strong selling point for a lot of people.

Being a conservative, I like hearing Palin talk about economy and monetary philosophy. McCain and Palin may not be the most fiscally conservative, but when either Biden or Obama talks about how they are going to build a ton of new programs for me while delivering a tax break to 95% of Americans, I want to scream. Every word seems like a lie.

Now Biden seems a little flustered--especially when Palin points out that Obama voted tax breaks for oil companies, too, and that Palin is the one with the history of taking on those oil companies. Biden can keep talking about how patriotic it is for people to give more money to the government, but Palin can talk about what she has actually done in this specific arena.

Aside: abandoning Michigan? I wouldn’t do it and I’m not sure why McCain would concede there. The money is there and so is an audience that might turn right under the right conditions.

It’s fun watching them obliquely blame each other for the sub-prime crisis.

Wait, wait...why should a bankruptcy court be allowed to adjust the principle owed by people on their mortgage. No. No. No. And again I say, no.

Now, to energy independence. Drill. Mine. Plan for the future. Biden opposes coal (even cleaner technologies) and both of them have been pretty consistently strong against things like off-shore drilling. Another area where I tend to agree with the McCain-Palin side of things--and the irrational hatred of coal is tremendously self-destructive. Another topic I think I’ll hit on in the next few days.

Biden is now talking in positive terms about clean coal. Really? When he says that he has “always supported clean coal” he’s simply lying. His words from just over a week ago: “"We’re not supporting clean coal.” China is building coal plants to support its growing economy but, Mr. Biden said, “No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they are going to build them, over there.”

And you know what? I don’t want big government money going toward clean energy sources--the market is starting to take care of those things all on its lonesome and it doesn’t need my tax money to make sure that a positive future happens.

Gay rights is one area where I would probably agree more with Obama and Biden than with Palin. But it’s a pretty thin line between the two, I think, and it’s not even close to being one of my most important issues. And when it comes to gay marriage, I end up to the left of all these folks. So, yeah…

Kumbaya.

Biden keeps telling us about fundamental differences. Which is a little irritating after a bit.

Palin brings out the gut-shot quotes from Biden pre-VP pick and I love it. I’m easy that way.

Fundamental.

Biden’s idea that the central front in the war on terror is in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t fit in well with what I believe the war needs to achieve, but that’s very possibly a fundamentally different view on exactly what we are trying to achieve in Iraq. That would require a few hours of conversation all by itself, though, wouldn’t it?

Palin is picking up steam as she goes along. Biden is advocating for his side well, though, too. Palin, though, is speaking to me and many of my beliefs about war, about radical Islam, about diplomacy, about the economy, and more.

I think that almost everyone agrees--with the exception of fringe groups--that a two state solution is the only path to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Of course, finding a way to make that happen will be far more difficult than the accusations that are made and the sound bites thrown out during a debate.

Aside: The original--and still the best--drunkblogger.

Palin is definitely holding her own, but I don’t know that she’s winning this debate. From a contextual standpoint of the last two weeks of underwhelming performances, she’s certainly doing better. But that doesn’t mean winning, does it?

Aside: For more Palin fun, check out Macomber’s links. One is a good little article and one is a fun little toy.

A funny little thing that girl just brought up: Biden talks with big crankiness about the Bush pre-emptive war stuff--but he wants to go into countries that haven’t attacked us, probably aren’t going to attack us, and commit military resources to political goals. Same goal, different targets.

From Steve’s drunk stuff (see link above), two things that caught my eye, too:

8:10PM “I agree in essence with every major proposal he’s suggested …” That’s Biden on Obama. Palin on McCain? “He’s never asked me to check my opinions at the door.”

8:09PM Biden says if Obama died it would be “a national catastrophe of historic proportions.” We’ve never had a president die in office before?

Gipper!

I love the Gipper moments, you know.

Out of curiosity, how can you put Obama’s record as an agent of change against anyone else’s? He doesn’t have a record in a political sense.

The mavericky war!

Anyway, I think they both did a good job--in fact, I think they both did better than McCain and Obama managed. I don’t know if either of them is going to change anyone’s minds, though: is there anything between them that really surprised anyone or broke out of the typical left-right talking points? Not sure. Neither of them succumbed to the potential negatives of their own personalities or capabilities, so no one seemed to come out too terribly bloodied.

And one last thought: I know and understand why the right was upset about Ifill (and I hated it when she played the race card), but she did a fine job. The questions were solid, she seemed to treat them both fairly and impartially. There is no doubt where her sympathies lie, but if you weren’t aware of that previous to the debate would you know it at the end? I don’t think so.