Here's what Biden is going to do, and how Ifill will aid him:

Biden will read up on some arcane bit of information for each question. Some obscure agency, etc. For health care, he'll drop TERPSA's third-party copayment provisions. (I just made that up. I made up TERPSA. I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd say S-CHIPS, but most people know what that is, including Palin.)

This isn't difficult. Ron Paul did this to McCain in one debate, asking him about some obscure federal agency which he did not identify, except by acronym (or vague name). Turns out, it was a panel to set the rules as far as automated-selling in a market panic, or something.

Not something we really expect any Presidential candidate to know offhand -- if they do, great, if not, well, come on.

Paul's question was crafted to demonstrate McCain didn't know anything about the economy (which was the story that week, as it was popularized that McCain had once said he didn't know as much about the economy as he'd like).

Now, this is a pretty easy trick. If I do this to any of you, and if I'm allowed to get away with it, I will make you look stupid. And you can easily do this to me. I can look up the history of longbows in the 15th Century (uh-oh-- thread killer), spring a question about it, pretend like I'm so knowledgeable that this information is just part of my normal "active inventory" of data, and expose you as a dummy who doesn't know that Agincourt was actually the third battle in which longbows had been a decisive factor.

So Joe Biden is doing this for every single easily-anticipated subject matter of question. Health care gets asked about, generally. Joe Biden drops his earlier-rehearsed bit of legardemain about TERPSA's third-party copayment provisions.

Now, when the question goes to Palin, Ifill will specficially re-ask the question to incorporate Joe Biden's mention of TERPSA's thrid-party copayment provisions.

He will get a general question, which he will deliberately shape to be more specific, as to a specific he has planned and boned up for. Ifill will then demand Palin answer the nit that Biden interjected, just for this purpose.

So why can't Palin do this to Biden? She can try. But Ifill will not insist Biden answer intelligently about her specific-data-gotchas. He will be allowed to answer in general principles and only stick to his own talking points.

Has Palin gotten the knack of moving away from such gotchas? She's probably practiced it a bit. However, Ifill is going to demand she answer Biden's goofball TERPSA question, and not the more general question originally posed.

Pendant? Gore did this on occasion to Bush in the debates, a commenter pointed out. There was one specific bill he kept asking if Bush would support. He only identified it by the names of the cosponsoring senators.

Gore looked like a bit of a dick, and Bush was able to parry that.

So it's not a surefire solution. However, the MSM is determined to Quayle-ize Palin, and further, I hate to be a downer, but the public is wondering if Palin is a female Quayle. Yes, the knock on Bush was that he was a dummy, but bear in mind: Bush had been running for President for two years by this point, so he had plenty of time to study up on federal questions and legislation.

Palin's pick came out of left field -- she wasn't expecting this nor preparing for it. She's had, what, a month to learn what Bush, Obama, and Clinton had a year to learn?

This may be why Senators are so often tapped as Vice Presidential candidates -- because it's their daily job to be informed (or partly informed) about this stuff. They know this, stuff, pretty much; they just don't have what it takes to actually be president.

A governor who knows he's running for President for years can bone up on this over such a long period of time; but a governor who was never expecting this and never running for any national office has a very short period to master all the data of federal policy.

More "Defeatism"... from Neo-Neocon. Actually, it's just musings on the point, but apparently anything other than PALIN RULES! is defeatist.

Posted by: Ace at 03:56 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 744 words, total size 4 kb.

McKinney, always a reliable purveyor of the highest quality world class crazy, brings her A-game here. We need to find a way to get this DEMOCRAT a LOT more face time in the public's eye.

Dave put this in the sidebar, but any sort of democrat crazies need to be front and center. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:08 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't read this if you're standing on a ledge, he advises. And it's good advice.

I have the same fears. They are just fears -- not expectations -- but fears nevertheless.

It doesn't help that in-the-tank Obama apostle Gwen Ifill is moderating the debate. And -- oh yeah -- just played the race card (how delightfully unexpected!) to rebut her obvious conflict of interest. (See last update for that non-stunner.)

More on this from Steyn and Instapundit.

More nonsense here, as Howie Kurtz, shockingly, defends his fellow partisan hack.

Obviously she shouldn't be moderating the debate. She should have declined, knowing her own conflict. Instead, she waited to see if people would discover it themselves -- which they did, but too late.

McCain's playing nice, saying he's sure Ifill will be even-handed. As Allah says, what other play does he have?

Heh: Treacher previews Ifill's questions.

Petition Demanding She Be Replaced... For what it's worth -- at least it might be calming to sign it.

Posted by: Ace at 03:07 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 175 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm inclined to think parody -- it's too in-sync with the right's mockery of Obama cultists.

And of course it references my favorite video, below the fold.

But it could be real. A parody is hard to tell from reality on this point.

Thanks to JackM. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:24 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess this is the downside of being a hottie.

Seems like a good excuse for a little spoofing.

Gee, I wonder if the video will feature a flute.

H/t Blog PI.

Posted by: Ace at 01:03 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Their rotations are too full with McCain cancer ads.

Still -- viral attacks are where it's at in 2008.

Via Gateway Pundit, thanks to CJ. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Well. Gee. Someone noticed.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., today told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the American people don't know much about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “and she is now being thrust on a stage without a script and everyone is curious about how much she knows."

More pointedly, McCaskill said of Palin's opponent, Sen. Joe Biden, Del., that he “has a tendency to talk forever and sometimes say things that are kind of stupid.”

“He a regular guy and … he doesn’t parse his words and he’s not hyper-careful,” she said. “He’s very authentic."

She then seemed to regret what she'd said.

“I was probably having a Joe Biden moment myself,” McCaskill said of her candid moment minutes before.

Jake Tapper notices, but then, he does a fairly admirable job of separating his politics from his job.

I can't say "no one" in the media notices this -- but it seems pretty indisputable that the media is not exactly on Joe Biden Gaffe Patrol, as they are as regards Sarah Palin.

Obama's made a lot of gaffes himself. The media never reports those. Slate does not run "Obamaisms" as they did with "Bushisms." To do so would be racist.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw this on Bill O'Reilly's "Body Language" segment the other night.

Greta asks the question that no one in the media will ask -- "How is a close association with Rev. Wright different than a close association with David Duke?" -- and the gregarious, smooth Clinton is stumped.

He eventually recovers and says the election is "fundamentally" about other things. But his five seconds of silence say it all.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

May come. But there is proof at least much of it comes from foreigners, and because Obama refuses basic disclosure, there's no way to tell about the rest.

Overstatement Alert: I'm warned that the headline overstates and misrepresents. I'm comfortable with it. We know at least a chunk of these small, undisclosed contributions are illegal and from foreign sources. Even with this knowledge in hand, Obama refuses general disclosure regarding them, refusing to afford anyone the opportunity to see if there are more "Mr. Good Wills" donating vast sums of money.

So up to half? Yes, up to half. Is it likely half? No. But given Obama's refusal to disclose where this money is coming from, he deserves the most adverse inference possible.

Prosecutors used to be allowed to say "You may read an adverse inference into the defendant's refusal to testify on his own behalf." That's not the law anymore (thanks, Brennan and Marshall and Warren!), but it's a sound rule.

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

John Hawkins has put together a list of worthy Republican challengers to incumbent Democrats in competitive House races. Worth a read, and worth a few bucks, if you're so moved.

Posted by: Ace at 11:09 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.