Biden was on MJ playing downplaying his debating skills.....He studied 2000-04

[Fluffdaddy]

This shows me that Biden gets it. Don't rise the bar to high for yourself in the up coming debates........be the underdog. We made this mistake in 2000 and 2004. All chimp had to do was not wet his pants and peeps said he held his own, when all he did was say ...."It's hard work" fifty times

[dysfunctional press]

1. what was he doing on michael jordan? or are you saying that he was stoned?

:shrug:

[Fluffdaddy]

3. joe scarborough's Morning Joe...............you ding a-ling

[snooper2]

22. That's what I thought, Joe was on Mary Jane

:rofl: :rofl:

[stray cat]

2. Palin should knock it out of the park in the debates!

at least thats the way it should get played. Biden is right. Expectations were so low the fact that she could read a speech someone prepared for her made her look good. Think what they would say if that had been Hillary's performance. Palin did well for a novice not for a president (except for W)

[Fluffdaddy]

5. You get it....... That's how the game is played.

On my Buddy list you go. ;)

[blm]

4. Dems never raised the bar in 2004 - in fact, most were thoroughly shocked Bush was as BAD he was

as if he didn't have four years experience speaking to the nation, at all.

[Fluffdaddy]

6. Oh come-on now. I was here.

Everyone here thought that JK was going to kick chimps ass all the around the debate room. The bar was raised to high for JK and lowered for Chimp. Lets not nake that mistake this time...............JB gets it

[blm]

9. You're wrong. We KNEW Kerry would easily win the debate, but none of us expected Bush to be as bad

as he was in that first debate. Read the threads in the archives - we expected bad from Bush and saw STUPENDOUSLY BAD, beyond anything imaginable bad.

Where did you see any Democrat lowering the bar that low for Bush in 2004?

Let's not be revisionists just because the revised version helps to make a point. Make the point WITHOUT the revisionism. We get too much revisionism forced down our throats every single day by the corporate media.

[Fluffdaddy]

10. people thought JK would overwhelm bush in the debates

IT DID NOT HAPPEN. lets down play the debateing skills of our team this year. Lets play the underdog for once

[blm]

11. Kerry did win the debates decisively and NO ONE EVER EXPECTED Bush to be THAT bad after 4yrs

in office speaking in front of national cameras. Why are you exaggerating what the expectations were in 2004? To make your point. Make it WITHOUT exaggerating - We all expected Kerry to win the debates, and he did....BUT...no Dem and no one in the media, corporate or left media, predicted how unbelievably bad Bush would be in that first debate. No one.

[Fluffdaddy]

12. Then why did he still win the election if he was so bad?

[blm]

14. Terry McAuliffe refused to secure the election process in the 4yrs after 2000s theft.

McAuliffe was as bad a a Dem party chair as Bush was as president. The RNC dragged Bush back into the WH, while the DNC made sure Kerry and Dem voters were obstructed.

Hey - if YOU want to pretend Bush did well in the debates, go ahead...but, the DU liveblogging of that debate in the archives shows that 90% of DU (who always expected Bush to lose the debate) was surprised how TRULY BAD Bush was on that stage.

[Fluffdaddy]

15. So you are says the 2004 election was stolen for us?

They stole the game is the excuse of losers and it makes us look like tin hat wearing fools .....WE LOST. Leave it at that

[blm]

16. Look away - look away - Rove would NEVER cheat. And the US attorney firings have nothing to do with

elections, right?

And...you still haven't shown where Kerry camp and ANY Dems, even on DU, lowered the bar for Bush before the debates. You can't admit you exaggerated to make your point.

[blm]

17. BTW - it's stolen FROM us.

.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. Nice retort. Yes I made a typo. You're a class A+ debater alright

The first sign of someone that has no response to an argument, is to watch them jump on a grammar or spelling mistake. The freepers love to do that.

[blm]

19. Actually you DIDN'T respond - what do you THINK the US attorney firings were about?

The RNC spent their 4yrs gaining control of every level of the process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted, and even adjudicated, but, according to you that is not true, Rove never mapped out that strategy and it is all made up tinfoil, eh?

Now....please show us where Kerry camp or the majority of Dems on DU lowered the bar for Bush before the debates as you claim?

[karynnj]

23. Here's a real time analysis by the NYT Adam Nagourney

Reading between the lines, it is clear that he thinks Kerry the better debater - he repeats things like "quick on his feet", where is prediction was wrong was that he called Bush a formidable debate opponent - which was absolutely not the case versus Kerry.

Click on Weighing the contenders in the multimedia popup box. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/campaign/28campaign.html?scp=5&sq=Kerry%20debate%20preparation&st=cse

As this was a media view shortly before the election - Kerry, not Bush had lower expectations from where they should have been more successfully. Kerry was KNOWN as an incredible debater so there was no way he could do more.

[cynatnite]

26. Kerry kicked ass in all those debates...

everyone said he won. bush said 'it's hard work' and he snickered like the little punk he is. I'll never forget it.

[Jim__]

7. Good luck with that.

Right idea. But watch the media raise the bar for Joe and lower it for her; even as they repeatedly tell us how everything she does is absolute perfection.

[Fluffdaddy]

8. True. But it's up to BO and JB to do the opposite every time they speak bout the debates

[slackmaster]

13. I didn't know Biden smoked weed

:shrug:

Does he inhale?

[0rganism]

20. national TV debates are all about style, so he's right to downplay his skills

A candidate can win every issue on substance, and still lose big. This is what happened during 2000 and 2004.

By and large, any given member of the audience won't understand all the issues, let alone the ramifications of each candidate's positions, or the variations from past positions those candidates have held. Even those that do pay attention to issues are probably not going to commit the debate's content to memory; all that will remain two weeks later is a sort of vague positive or negative impression with few specifics. Two things come out of this.

First, people are more likely to turn to things like "body language" to make decisions about wins. If a candidate looks like s/he won, then it's easy to believe s/he did. If a candidate keeps cool under pressure, then that's a bonus. Poise is very important. And these are things that, like a candidate's apparel, are very easy for a news media trying to attain some semblance of issue-neutrality to latch on to. These shallow images will become the building blocks of the summary that gets picked up and spread around like sticky peanut butter on white bread America.

Second, it's like a campaign stop. Candidates are reaching out to millions of voters, including those precious "undecideds" upon whom elections so conveniently hinge of late. Focusing on one's opponent and rebutting their issues substantively is a good way to lose. The important thing is to get one's message out early and often, in delicious bite-size morsels. Taking occasional cheap shots against the opp is okay, but pumping your own agenda is usually much better, image-wise. Connecting with any live audiences is very nice, getting laugh lines out and generating applause (it's even better if you can get the moderator to silence the audience afterwards) shows that you're a winner.

Much of the national audience is already decided their vote, one way or another, by the time the second debate rolls around. The ones who remain undecided are especially unlikely to be swayed by issue-oriented arguments.

So let's look at the caricature you used for W's debate performance, I think it's sufficiently accurate:
> All chimp had to do was not wet his pants and peeps said he held his own,
> when all he did was say ...."It's hard work" fifty times

He did remain calm and unflustered, which is extremely important. He's used to zoning out while people who know things talk over his head, so that's a natural advantage for W. And don't underestimate the power of the "hard work" mantra! When he says, "it's hard work," that is a concise way of backhandedly acknowledging the gravity of the presidency, while turning the most difficult job in the world into something that a mediocrity like W can accomplish through hard work. And by implication, he's playing himself up as a hard worker.

Bush is not a smart man, his grasp of the issues is marginal at best, but he took on far more intelligent people and came out looking like a champ just by keeping his cool and getting out his message on a level the audience could appreciate and understand. It was easy to construct a narrative around him as a "down-to-earth guy doing a tough job", and that lined up well with everything the media whores were selling. On the occasions where he provoked physically visible reactions from Gore or Kerry, he scored big. The media is not going to explain why the opponent reacts to some obnoxious, slanderous lie, but rather emphasize that he got a rise out of them.

The best possible thing Obama or Biden can do in the debates is get McCain or Palin to "lose it", get them twitching, maybe even lose their tempers a bit. McCain especially has a rep for a short fuse, but Palin looks like she too might be susceptible. Biden almost has to hit a trigger on Palin, due to the "experienced insider vs. maverick governor" narrative the RNC/MSM will be spinning throughout the VP debate. It doesn't matter how much he understates his abilities, it's predetermined because it sells. Bottom line: if he doesn't successfully bait her into doing something obnoxious, she wins. Period.

[karynnj]

21. Actually, the Democrats did the same thing in 2004

the week before the debates there were plenty of articles that Kerry would be unable to stay in the time constraints and that the Democrats had lost the argument on the boxes that had lights to indicate when the time was going to be up. At the time I thought this was strange - Kerry had no trouble in the primary debates and he was the Yale debate champ for 4 years, during which they dominated the college world. They also spoke of how bad it was for Kerry that the first debate was on foreign policy and national security - not the "Democratic" issues - ignoring foreign policy was Kerry's passion since at least high school.

I couldn't find the NYT article I wanted, but did find a NYT "video" with Adam Nagourney speaking (something I never heard before) done before the debates that this give independent views of how they stacked up. They do mention at the end of Kerry's segment that the Republicans were pushing him as the best debater since Cicero - a claim I never saw even in the JK group! What is clear is that Kerry did at least as well as Nagourney predicted - and that was a high bar. Bush was way below the bar set for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/campaign/28campaign.html?scp=5&sq=Kerry%20debate%20preparation&st=cse - Click on multimedia box on the left hand side.

[blm]

27. Thanks - seems to me anyone here at DU as part of the liveblogging would NEVER forget that night

Bush stunk WAY WORSE than most of even us could ever imagine. Hell....some were even feeling sorry for him he was so bad.

[Bake]

24. Psssst ... don't tell anybody ... but Biden is gonna lay the smackdown on Palin!

But let's just keep that between us.

Bake

[madrchsod]

25. biden`s remarks were great...

i can see why bush sent him to calm down the europeans