Joe Biden’s Smile

Last night America had the chance to watch Vice-President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan engage in a wide-ranging debate as they represented their respective tickets for the November election.  It was, for the most part, a rather serious evening…and far from the “fun romp” I had characterized yesterday.  For this, perhaps, I ought to apologize.

I took some notes during the debate, and the following represent my thoughts about the “second-in-command” contest:

  • Martha Raddatz, the debate moderator, did a TERRIFIC job.  I thought that she was tough, focused, and willing to push both candidates on the issues of the day.  I’m not sure if that is what her role was supposed to be, but for what it is worth, I liked her approach.
  • Coming into this debate, I would have almost certainly told you that Biden would have the edge in foreign policy (he’s an old pro) and Ryan in economic matters (it is where a significant amount of his attention has been focused).  How surprising, then, that over the course of the debate the exact opposite result seemed to emerge.
  • The Vice-President didn’t seem as effective in the foreign policy issues–especially early on–and Ryan seemed to know his stuff.  To be sure, Iran and Libya are particularly sticky issues for Biden and the administration, and the opposition has an easier job here.  Yet Biden’s discussion of the matter did not help; at one point when discussing Iran he even said “let’s all calm down a bit here,” something that I suspect might not play so well with parts of the American population.
  • Depending on your perspective, Biden’s tone was either 1) feisty and aggressive or 2) condescending and aggressive.  This will almost certainly be known as the “Joe Biden smile” debate, as he mockingly rejected Ryan’s words in split screen.  For my money, he adequately conveyed a feeling of disgust with the Ryan position…and while brusque, I think it worked for him.  Based on some of the comments I have seen thus far online, a good number of people feel the opposite.
  • Paul Ryan seemed much more nervous and perhaps less rehearsed than Biden.  Time and again he seems to have reverted to “canned” statements or lines of arguments that revealed either a lack of response or a desire to return to a more comfortable line of conversation.  It made him seem less assured than Biden.
  • With regard to economic issues, Biden played the angry populist, and did a nice job doing so.  He came off as a fighter for the American people.  Ryan had an opportunity to show how he too was a fighter, but failed, I think, to really integrate his economic philosophy and solutions in the midst of his arguments.
  • Ryan’s problem was a lack of specificity about economic plans and issues.  Biden and the moderator both pressed him for details, and he wasn’t able to offer as much as he should have.  At one point, he was very nearly pushed into a corner; for his sake I’m glad the conversation turned elsewhere.  President Obama is a smart man, and will likely seek to press Mitt Romney in the very same way in the next debate.  If the Republicans wish to continue their comeback in the polls and hearts of the American people, they are going to have to do much better than what Ryan had to offer last night.

Show us the money (details), Romney.

If you haven’t guessed by now, I give this one to Joe Biden.  Though he may have been a jerk at times, I feel that his attitude was calculated to be about his rejection of the Romney-Ryan set of ideas.  Ryan’s failure to show or indicate anywhere near as forcefully that the Democrat’s ideas are suspect means that Biden wins the day.  If the Republicans fail to double down on their economic philosophy and show specifically how their plans will work, I’m just not sure how they win.

About these ads

100 comments on “Joe Biden’s Smile

  1. I only got to see some highlights from this debate as I am traveling in South America at the moment, but from what I saw I agree with the key points of your review. Great unbiased recap, and congrats from a fellow freshly pressed alum!

  2. Too bad it’s not Biden vs. Romney.

  3. Yeah, this debate wasn’t as clear cut as Romney’s and Obama’s, but they did both present their points pretty well, though Biden’s attitude was horrible and VERY condescending when it concerned some very serious matters. I already know who I’m voting for, so I am merely watching these debates to watch the candidates struggle.

  4. When Obama is finally done in Washington and hosting a late night show, Biden will be there at his side, just like Ed McMahon–guffawing through his dentures every other minute, oblivious of context.

  5. laketta says:

    Reblogged this on Business Soup and commented:
    Everyone has an opinion!

  6. This is a fair analysis I think! I’m curious to see what the polls say about the “winner.” Not that it will matter at all.

  7. “Ryan’s problem was lack of specificity about economic plans and issues”….. right, yeah…. so all I have to say is ~~ Substance over style people, please!!!!

  8. Sean Breslin says:

    I don’t think there was a clear-cut winner in this debate, but I, like you, have already made up my mind in this election.

    • Joshua R. Ziefle says:

      It does feel strange for me to be set for who I’m going to vote.

      • Your piece is interesting, but I think anyone who is undecided at this point hasn’t been paying attention for several months or only votes for the likely winner.

      • Interesting though: only voting for the likely winner. I’ve thought about this, and how there is some (misguided) pressure to pick the winning horse. A little electoral peer pressure, and something that must be guarded against.

  9. Josh Fults says:

    For the most part, I found VP Biden completely unlikeable during the debates. He bordered on the verge of disrespectful and pompous. On content the candidates were pretty equal. I find that Ryan pulled ahead on decorum.

    Also, I felt that Martha Raddatz catered to Biden throughout the evening. I also found this annoying.

    • marymtf says:

      I don’t know anything about the candidates but I have to say that things aren’t much different in the US than they are in Australia when it comes to judging people on personality rather than content.

    • Maggie O'C says:

      I don’t think Biden just bordered on disrespectful. Even commentators on the left were disturbed by his disregard for the event and the process. I notice he’s back under lock and key again. Did you see this past week’s SNL opener? Hilarious but also spot on.

  10. stockcents says:

    I am not able to vote so I try to be objective. Seems Romney’s political history is to say whatever is popular at the moment (conservative fund raisers, liberal Mass gov’t, conservative leadeship race, and now presidential election) instead of sticking to one set of views …. but he had the better 1st debate … the remaining debates will likely be the difference ….

  11. You give it to Biden? You had already made up your mind to vote…I have to maintain that’s probably why. Ryan may have “…seemed more nervous and less rehearsed…” but, then again, you don’t have to rehearse arrogance and rudeness. Especially not when you’re Joe Biden. Those things come naturally to him. He is much different than Obama. Obama is smart enough that he actually scares me, because he really believes the things he says, and he has been working hard since day one in office to create and pass legislation that conforms this wonderful REPUBLIC to his socialist ideals. He is, as I say, smart enough to scare me. Biden, on the other hand, is a man who never seems to know where he is and what he’s saying, but he means “every word he says.” I guess that means he meant it when he said that the Republicans want to put the African American population “back in chains.” What, pray tell, is the welfare system if it is not government-subsidized slavery? It is dependence on the government for EVERYTHING, and it is a preview of what the entire country will become under a socialistic government. Socialism causes everyone, rich and poor alike, to become poorer. Socialism removes the incentive to work hard in order to succeed, create wealth, and create jobs. Socialism is doomed to fail because it is a flawed system run by flawed human beings, whether they be smarter than the “plebeian class” (as they certainly claim to be) or no. Socialism is a double-negative-sum game, because neither the man who has the product of his work taken, nor the one to whom it is given, win.

    Government has never created wealth; indeed, it cannot create wealth. Government can only take wealth that someone else has created and give it to another. In the private sector, if I take $50 of your money and give it to someone in need, I am stealing from you, an offense punishable by law. If, however, I use the tax code and government offices to take the same $50 from your pocket and give it to someone else, regardless of their need or lack thereof, I am hailed as a good man and a hero, when in fact I am neither. I am still a common crook…except that now, I work for the government, so it’s nice and legal.

    While your post seems to have the semblance of half-way serious thought applied to the creation process, I am sorely disappointed by your evaluation and conclusions. Biden did not, as you so succinctly put it, come across as the angry populist unless one had already been predisposed to vote for him. Rather, he came across (to undecided voters) as angry, malicious, rude, arrogant, condescending, and spiteful. He resorted far to often to attacking his opponent’s character rather than using facts to discredit his points. This is a serious logical flaw known as “argumentum ad hominem.” Also, anyone who cuts someone off in mid-sentence, rather than waiting for him to have his say and then actually DEBATING him on the merits of his points (however far off-base those points may be in one’s opinion), must not expect intelligent people to react with anything other than disgust and revulsion. Why, you may ask? Because intelligent people dislike being treated as though they are incapable of thinking a matter through for themselves.

    The object of each side in a debate is not to seek to discredit the other side based on character, nor is the object to see which side can get in the most pointed, witty jabs in the time given; rather, the job of each side is to present the evidence for their side of the argument and leave the decision of who is right to the AUDIENCE. However, in the culture in which we now live, the Democrats cannot do this, because history is replete with instances where the policies they endorse have done more harm than good to a number of countries’ economies. Open a history book written from an objective point of view (and believe me, they are out there), and you will see instance after instance of socialism being the beginning of the slow decline of such various mighty empires as the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the British Empire, and now (I fear) the “American Empire.”

    While this post may never see the light of day beyond the eyes of the moderator, it was necessary , in my opinion, that I respond and at least bring these points to your attention, in order that you might possibly be willing to incorporate more logical thinking into your future posts. I enjoyed reading your post, don’t get me wrong…but don’t expect me to take you seriously, either.

    Cheers,
    The Southern Voice Writer

    • I appreciate your comments, but please note that I did not say which side I was going to vote; I try to play this close to the chest. Furthermore, it would seem that from your point of a view (and stated comments), you are someone that clearly supports a certain kind of economic philosophy and are clearly not an “undecided” voter.

      • As being undecided on any given number of things can be a rather untenable and unworkable position, I do not object to your classifying me as “decided.” I confess, I had noticed that you did not explicitly state which way your vote would go; however, I assumed….that was my mistake. Thanks for including me in the discussion on this post!

      • Joshua R. Ziefle says:

        No problem at all. I really am trying to be non-partisan here. I have voted in the past for candidates of different parties, and really do consider myself a moderate. I certainly understand the economic point of view you have shared, and appreciate very much that you have taken the time to think (and respond) to what I have written.

        I’m a historian by trade (and teach mostly ministry classes at the university I work at), but enjoy dabbling in political analysis now and then.

        I’m actually sitting on a panel at my school this Tuesday and commented on the debate. It has the potential to be a momentous one, surely.

      • 247southernvoice says:

        I would like to thank you again for including me in the discussion. While I do not agree with everything you have said in this post, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to engage those of different points of view in a reasoned discussion, rather than cutting them off or bombarding them with facts supporting your position. I understand the idea of using facts to bolster your ideas, but disagree with the tendency some people have to “silence the opposition” by blasting them with facts until they retreat with their tail between their legs. Such an attitude, I feel, is prideful and ridiculous, because such people seem to feel that they can learn nothing from anyone. To discuss an issue with someone who does not have such an attitude is refreshing indeed.

        I wish you well on your panel discussion, and feel as you do that it could indeed be a momentous occasion. Thanks again for your understanding and willingness to foster dialogue rather than diatribe. :)

      • Maggie O'C says:

        I am so impressed by this dialogue. That’s it.

    • layer100 says:

      You don`t like socialism then you are in the wrong country. We have had socialism for years but I guess you missed that in your sociaology class. Social Security comes to mind yet? It went social when they started welfare for white women and food stamps but you missed that one also. We have long been a socialists society but you seem to try and put a negative spin on it. You need to quit listening to your neighbor and read and learn. You might surprise yourself as to how much you don`t know.

  12. dankieffer says:

    This is a wonderful un-biased review. I agree with you that Ryan had more “canned statements”, whereas Biden seemed more natural.

  13. He who laughs at last laughs for good.Just can’t be hidden with lies.Jalal

  14. sonofwalt says:

    We were driving home from a long day of poetry in Harrisburg that night. The three of us in the car were so engrossed by debate that I missed a ramp and drove us out of the way by about thirty miles! Honestly, I think that Biden’s smile was mostly warranted. It’s funny to me that Joe Biden is being called a bully for this. Romney’s approach was more subtle, but what with his answers being often so different from what he has talked about in his campaign, thereby leaving the president confused as to whom he was speaking, I feel that Biden was at worst the less friendly of the two bullies.

  15. sannekurz says:

    It’s very strange to follow this all American rituals with each US election from the far…weird, like some tribal rite, but definitely very entertaining to see.

  16. I wanted to watch both the Pres and the Vice Pres debate. Saved from waiting endlessly for a video to buffer thanks to you! Loved the summary and congrats on being/getting “freshly pressed”!

  17. In order to solve the country’s financial problems and pay off the massive debt, we are actually going to have to CUT government spending, CUT programs, and repeal regulations. The other so-called “alternative” to pay down the debt is to severely inflate the dollar (and thus destroy the economy even more.) Unfortunately, Romney and Ryan don’t have the moral spine to even talk about real cuts, let alone follow through with them.

    • Thanks for the comment. I’ve often thought that if the right is serious about cuts, then ALL cuts out to be on the table (including the military). If our national economy is like a household economy writ large, why not consider selling guns and butter?

      • The reason that Republicans are never for military cuts is because national defense is one of the responsibilities of the federal government according to the Constitution. Obamaphones, healthcare, and birth control didn’t make the final list.

      • The argument could be made that healthcare, for instance, falls under “promote the general welfare,” also a part of the Constitution.

      • conservativenutmegger says:

        It says “promote the general welfare”, not provide. The distinction is important because immediately preceding it says “provide for the common defense”. Using your suggested interpretation, there isn’t much that the federal government couldn’t mandate under the guise of promoting general welfare. The states are well within their 10th Amendment rights to provide healthcare.

      • Joshua R. Ziefle says:

        Fair argument. Question: how would you interpret “promote” in this case? What should we take it to mean?

      • conservativenutmegger says:

        It’s certainly vague, isn’t it? Personally I believe that’s the point though. I believe it’s similar to the maxim, first do no harm. The government’s job is to ensure that it’s function doesn’t harm the people.

  18. deckiewoman says:

    I think Biden did an AWESOME job and his reactions were important to disclosing truth in the matters that are important. Everyone wants our troops to come home, and that is what Biden is telling us they plan on doing. I mean, why on Earth would we want to put more American troops on the ground in Afghanistan when we have trained the Afghans to take over their own country? Ryan wants to send more troops to the East where is is more dangerous. We do not need to loose any more lives over this whole mess. Bring the troops home NOW!! Biden handled a most sensitive subject really well. On the issue of abortion, he is able to separate his religion from government, and let women have control over their own bodies as they should!! Ryan may claim that in the case of rape or incest abortion may be permitted if the victim so chooses, but in reality, without the safety net for a woman to be able to choose on her own, she may not come forward with the truth. Rape and incest brings on terrible shame is very personal. Many rape victims and MOST incest victims do not come forward and report it, for obvious reasons. Taking a woman’s right to choose away makes the entire situation more difficult and harder to bear. Biden is right. I see a big difference in the two candidates as to where their allegiance lies. Biden’s allegiance is to the safety and welfare of our people, whereas Ryan’s is to his religion and to Grover Norquist. This debate made it very plain and ultra easy to see.

    • Thank you for your comments. Regarding the issue of religion and abortion, I’d point you to two reflections on this. One is mine, the other is an article (see last paragraph) that points out that Ryan is, I think, at least consistent on this. You may disagree, but if abortion is the taking of life, does this change the conversation?

      • deckiewoman says:

        Thanks for your response! The abortion issue is indeed a sensitive one. And it is indeed the taking of a life, I have always agreed with that. I used to be pro-life for the longest time until I learned that many lawmakers seem to want to control the personal lives of women even beyond the issue of abortion. Romney stated in some interviews that birth control is not healthy. A wacky republican from Wisconsin believes that women can’t get pregnant during rape because of their body’s natural ability to prevent it. Most of our male lawmakers and representatives have no idea what it is like to be a woman, and obviously did not have sex ed in school. Birth Control is not just birth control. It is used by many women as an important prescription drug to regulate their cycles and relive painful periods. Some women lay in bed all day in pain from the cramping, and birth control helps a great deal. There are some teenagers take the pill so they can get the most they can out of school instead of suffering in class. I know some women who took the pill so they didn’t have their period during boot camp. There are a variety of reasons women should be in charge of their own bodies, and It is discrimination to treat birth control pills differently than any other prescription drug. I can’t remember in what state it is, but there were court cases in which the rapist got out of jail and was allowed visitation rights to the child of his victim. The child, ashamed that his father is a rapist, is now forced to spend time with this man who hurt his mother… and who knows what other perverted ideas he has during visitation. Yes, abortion is the taking of a life, but I can not agree to let lawmakers decide what a woman should do with her body. The abortion issue is only part of what I see as “the war on women.” So my answer is NO. If abortion is the taking of a life, it doesn’t change the conversation for me at all. It’s all the more a sensitive issue that a woman and her doctor should have, and no one else.

  19. GP says:

    Reblogged this on misentopop.

  20. melloh31 says:

    I found the debate still lacking in many areas. For one, it was clearly a debate over what would happen overseas, with the rich, and the middle class (partially), but nothing touching on the poor or why we are still spending obscene amounts of money on military defense. What is even more appalling is that we no longer feel it’s necessary to include the third party candidates and are treating anything outside the two party system as alien, or remote, and not to be touched.

  21. free penny press says:

    I actually tuned in not knowing what to expect. Regardless of which candidate I vote for, regarding this debate I think Comedian Chris Rock said it best, “” Paul Ryan isn’t ready to be VP of the student council at his high school. Get him off the stage, bring the empty chair”.. I was thoroughly entertained all night and yes the teeth, oh so white :-)
    Congrats on being FP!

  22. Great post. Thanks for your thoughts. I missed the debate and greatly appreciate your thoughtful summary.
    Congrats on being FP!

  23. It was an interesting debate for sure. I think that they were both very educated and although I have chosen who I will vote for, they both did a great job. Congrats on being Freshly Pressed!

  24. David says:

    Congrats for being “pressed”…The operation of Obama/Biden over the past four years forms voter opinion. One debate being a grain of sand in my eye; especially Biden’s childish mannerism. Joe Biden’s rebuttal consisted of a cartoon face. This administration does not have a foreign policy, does not have a budget, and has thrown tax payer money into the failure bin. Your article is very well written. However using the microscopic outcome of a debate as the tool for voting choice is rather odd. If asked; “how have you been” by a friend who hasn’t seen you for four years and your reply is how you felt last Tuesday;You have certainly fed that friend erroneous data.

    • I don’t think I’m asserting that a debate should determine things completely. I suppose my thought is this: there are few places where our candidates are (somewhat) unscripted and where we get to see a bit of their real self under pressure. The debates are perhaps our best tool for this, and as such are a helpful measuring stick.

  25. Congrats for being pressed. Voting choice is guided by four years of performance. The debate is like a grain of sand in my eye. Biden was childish with his cartoon face. Your article is very well written, however using a debate as the tool for choice is odd. If a friend has not seen you for four years asks; “how have you been” and your reply is how you felt last Tuesday; you have fed that friend erroneous data.

  26. TAE says:

    I also think that Raddatz did a terrific job (and to think that if it hadn’t been for a petition from some high school girls, we wouldn’t have had any woman moderate a debate…).
    To Ryans debating skills: he’s ok, unless you actually read his words and sentences. That he didn’t say “We’ll close loopholes by closing them!” is all (he might have actually said that, now that I think about it…).

    Good post.

  27. S.C. says:

    Debates are only good so far as we, the voters, use them to hold politicians to their policy promises once they’re in office. As far as I can tell, we don’t do this, so all these debates are useless. Maybe fun to watch (especially if you love tax policy discussions) but useless.

    And Raddatz was pretty good, but she’s still not asking the most important questions. Still, I don’t expect anyone to ask those questions.

    • Out of curiosity: what do you think the most important questions are?

      • S.C. says:

        Security and foreign policy. Those are the areas in which the president has the most power, by far. The economy is definitely important, but for the last year everyone’s been talking about the president as if he really has that much power to create jobs. The strength of the economy is something the president has indirect control over at best.

        I know Biden and Ryan talked a lot of foreign policy at their debate, and supposedly Obama and Romney will do the same tomorrow. But this talk doesn’t go nearly far enough; it’s just a rehash of standard Democratic and Republican positions. We need to really pin our leaders down and ask when and how they’re planning to solve the ongoing war on terror without letting them give their typical non-answers.

      • Hopefully the third debate (foreign policy centric) will do more of this.

  28. segmation says:

    Your blog makes me smile! I can’t wait to read your next blog!

  29. David says:

    Congrats on being “pressed”. Your article is very well written. I would challenge the tool used to decide voting. Four years of performance is how I would select a candidate. A debate is like a grain of sand in my eye. Using it as a tool to make that choice is not sound. If a friend who has not seen you for four years asks; “How have you been?” If you reply by telling them how you felt last Tuesday; you have fed your friend erroneous data.

    • Joshua R. Ziefle says:

      Understood; absolutely. But for Romney and Ryan, we don’t have the past four years. We have not seen them govern. No matter how bad one might feel about current administration, it is in theory possible that other choices might be worse. For making this comparison and finding out more about the challengers, the debates are a helpful tool.

      Moreover, the debates might also give us at least some indication as to the mindset of our current leaders in a way soundbites and talking heads do not.

      • David says:

        I attempted not to tip my hand with my comment, but in this particular instance that is not possible. At 70 years of age I’ve lived through quite a few administrations and the current is the worst of the lot. There is no foreign policy, no budget, massive amounts of taxpayer money thrown at failed projects, stomping on The Constitution, giving aid to countries that want to kill us…Etc…Your young and apparently have not suffered. That is not a slam just an observation. Biden is a childish cartoon, his boss is a Socialist. Lies are the support columns of Socialism, AKA propaganda. Likened to placing a cucumber in brine it soon becomes a pickle and will never be a cucumber again. Lies left unchecked become truth over time. Debates are a helpful tool and have confirmed my opinion. Both B&O are a tragic story for the USA.

  30. writerdood says:

    I can’t saw I saw a “clear” winner between these two. I do think Joe came across too aggressively at times with the laughter and interruptions. I don’t blame him for doing that – it goes to his passion for the subject. But in a debate, there needs to be more civility. Paul was, I think, quite a bit more nervous, but stuck to his talking points and did a decent job overall. Joe seemed hyper and excitable in comparison, but also stuck to his points, and did a decent job.

    The one place I think they both did well was on the question of their faith as Catholics and how it relates to their political perspectives. Ryan was clear about how his faith defines him and his perspectives. Biden was clear that his faith defines him personally, but that he doesn’t feel that the need to impose it on others. Clearly Biden is in preference of the separation of church and state. It was unclear if this was how Ryan felt – or so it came across. This is an important issue to me, as I greatly disagree with the role of religion in politics. Therefore I give the points to Biden.

    It was an interesting debate, but overall, I don’t think it will have a large influence on the election either way, unlike the last presidential debate where Obama appeared to be having trouble staying awake and let a variety of opportunities slide right by him. The results of that are still being shown in the polls, and the next presidential debate will certainly prove to be more interesting since Obama will now know the results of a poor performance and how these debates are nothing to take lightly. I think he may have underestimated their overall effect, and as we can now see, this election will not be decided by Democrats and Republicans, it will be decided by a small minority of people who are neither.

  31. I believe they both President Obama, and Mitt Romney both have good points. I must say the debate between Biden & Ryan was more entertaining however. The fact of the matter is this country is and will always be misled by the government. They spend $17billion a year to send people to the moon. However you have people here without jobless, suffering , kids who are dying everyday from Mal nutrition and that’s less important than putting a damn camera on the moon. The president is one person and he cannot fix everything. People give up on him because they are used to the quick fast messy way. I agree the debate between Biden & Ryan was great. But at the end of the day we need change and someone who will just not screw us worst.

  32. While I’m one of the opposite feeling, that Biden came off condescending and aggressive, I really appreciate your thoughtful response to the debate. Thanks for helping me see it another way!

  33. heavensfool says:

    They will win because people are sick of the empty rhetoric and do-nothingness of the current administration. It’s time for America to take out it’s trash.

  34. I think both did okay, but biden surprisingly more than ryan. I rather not vote because both are terrible, but from the bottom of the barely one might be better than the other one. I dont know how this will turn out but hoping for the best.

  35. nearlynormalized says:

    Key phrase in your statement was, regarding Ryan, “lack of specificity”, it seems to me the Republican candidates both have that in common. I will not vote out of fear of losing or fear of what is supposedly lost. Propaganda of fear is so unattractive. Vote, vote, vote and fight for the right to vote; again, again and again.

  36. PDXx says:

    The angels sing when Joe Biden smiles.

  37. Constance V. Walden says:

    Liberals totally delude themselves and are willfully blind. You all know in your hearts that Biden was not the best person in that debate in terms of truth telling and sincerity. Mr. Biden’s smile, is really a sneer. Stop pulling the blinds down over your eyes.

  38. Hi there, I am not trying to be rude. I am just posting what I think. It seemed to me that Biden was being rude, selfish, and arrogant. He rudely interrupted Ryan around 82 times! Yes Ryan wasn’t aggressive in the way he spook about what he and Romney want to accomplish, but maybe he doesn’t speak in front of cameras that well. And how would you feel if someone interrupted you and cameras where watching you? Would you be rude or kind? Would you react harshly or gently? Romney and Ryan are in my favor, Obama had his chance, but he spent millions of dollars on things.

  39. David Navarre says:

    When did Raddatz press Biden on something? It often seemed like two people debating Ryan.

  40. thewestview says:

    Replaces Jobs Loss Act.Check out my blog:)

  41. [...] Joe Biden’s Smile.  When you have nothing else to hang your hat on then you go for the trivail and hope it sticks. Romney ranted and raved during his debate and it was obvious that he was depressed that he couldn`t bring out the angry Black man in Obama. So what does he do,he turn on the moderator and threatned Big Bird. He was so hyped up on something and I guess it was something Limbaugh gave him from his stash of OxyContin. Why was Romney sweating and everybody else was cool? He wiped his brow with a hankerchief that he used to camouflaug his notes his brought on stage.  yea Biden smiled because he had the lyin`Ryan by the balls and thats why Ryan dranked like he was in a desert. [...]

  42. rachel says:

    Nice post! I didn’t have strong feelings for either Biden or Ryan before the debate. However, by the time the debate was over, I was impressed with Biden. I thought his reactions to Ryan were honest and sincere. He looked comfortable and confident, while Ryan didn’t look ready.

  43. robiraheta says:

    Loved it and enjoyed how Biden destoyed Ryan that night. Anyway that’s my point of view!

  44. Also think about this, Who do you want to run the country? The answers and how they react in the debate is more important then who had the biggest impression. Just my two bits.

  45. flashcomindonesia says:

    Like This Topic bro…

  46. mdprincing says:

    Biden was a condescending ass who came across as the polished politician that he is. When one makes a career out of politics you learn what the people want to hear, that doesn’t mean you actually do what the people want, he and Obama have proven that for 3 1/2 years now.

    I think you are spot on about the Romney campaign, America needs details of plans, not empty promises

  47. misfit120 says:

    Very good perspective

  48. Cool, interesting stuff. I´ll check it out now.

  49. Joyce says:

    I like Biden most of the time, but I think Obama underperformed in his debate, and Biden overcompensated for this in his. I believe that in terms of style (substance notwithstanding) a more nuanced approach to contempt and condescension goes a long way. We’ll see how it goes tonight – it’s their last shot!

  50. Biden was smiling to stop from crying. Better to smile than to frown in consternation, as Obama regretfully did. Enjoyed your post and look forward to reading more!!!

    http://improperganda.com/2012/10/15/debating-the-debates-do-they-matter/

  51. Lonnie says:

    Great post, enjoyed the discussion.
    Bottom line I think everyone saw and heard what they wanted to hear from the debate. The VP debate’s winner could be argued by either side whereas the Presidential debate’s had a clearer victor. Can’t wait to see what happens tonight with Obama and Romney.

  52. pastormack says:

    Joe Biden should be sued for copyright infringement by Jack Nicholson’s take on The Joker. :)

  53. Lafrowna says:

    Smiles and politics are a very very dangerous game. Looking like a weird old pedophile has been shown to be detrimental to chances at the polls and is the number one cause of creepy ads. That’s why Romney never smiles. That and because his machine structure can’t enable him too, it’s not programmed into RomNet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s