Back by popular demand (well... really just a request from Oskar of Suburban Panic!)!  A checklist on whether or not the candidates answered the questions presented to them during the 2nd Presidential Debate on 10/07/2008.  This one was actually a lot harder to go through even though there were fewer questions.  Mainly because the questions that were asked.... SUCKED.

Here is the transcript.

...isn't it?

VP Debate Notes - ^_^

Picking up where we left off...

QUESTION:  What promises -- given the events of the week, the bailout plan, all of this, what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you're not going to be able to keep?

BIDEN:  Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We'll probably have to slow that down. ... The bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminate those wasteful spending that exist in the budget right now, a number of things I don't have time, because the light is blinking, that I won't be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion tax dodge that, in fact, allows people to take their post office box off- shore, avoid taxes.

ME:  A pretty clear answer, although I really don't like this question at all.  The bailout is not a given.  What I mean is.... from the economists that I have listened to... the bailout is most likely not going to fucking work.  It's just a plug in the damn.  Not a real fix.  So that means that there is absolutely NO possible way for either candidate to know how much money they are going to have in their budget when they finally take over the Presidency.  How can you possibly explain what you are going to cut or slow down when you don't even know where this country is going to be in a years time?  I think this is a shitty question.  It's full of rhetoricals and "what ifs" and it's really just... a waste of time to ask.  I was not interested in hearing it from the Presidential candidates and I was not particularly interested in hearing it from the second in command peoples either.   We have no idea what is going to happen next.  They can not give you an answer to this question.

But let's move on, shall we?

PALIN:  Well, the nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group, including his plans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan, even better.   I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is --  .... (blah, blah, blah)  So it was Barack Obama who voted for that energy plan that gave those tax breaks to the oil companies that I then had to turn around, as a governor of an energy-producing state, and kind of undo in my own area of expertise, and that's energy.

ME:  She talked about Obama voting for tax breaks for the oil companies.  Totally not on topic.  And Ifill should have cut her off.

QUESTION:  So, Governor, as vice president, there's nothing that you have promised as a candidate that you would -- that you wouldn't take off the table because of this financial crisis we're in?

PALIN:  There is not. And how long have I been at this, like five weeks? So there hasn't been a whole lot that I've promised, except to do what is right for the American people, put government back on the side of the American people, stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street.

And the rescue plan has got to include that massive oversight that Americans are expecting and deserving. And I don't believe that John McCain has made any promise that he would not be able to keep, either.

ME:  She didn't have a pre-written answer to this one.  And you can tell.  She had no idea what she was talking about.   BUT!  Of course, McCain doesn't have anything that he would have to cut back.  He hasn't really promised Americans anything other than vague things like "reform" and "change in Washington".  His healthcare plan is SHIT but somebody stands to make a lot of money from it if implemented so he's not going to cut that back.  Has he not promised tax breaks?  I don't know.  But, again, Americans are stupid and don't realize that when you pay less taxes other things go up (fees, tickets & violations, tuition bills, interest... etc) so.... you know... I guess no promises from his side are a good thing?

Again.  Just remember.  There is NOTHING that they have promised that they would have to put on hold because of the economic crisis.

Biden then talks some about the tax cuts that McCain wants to give to oil companies.

QUESTION:  Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?

PALIN:  Yes, I would have. But here, again, there have -- there have been so many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even these past weeks that there has been more and more revelation made aware now to Americans about the corruption and the greed on Wall Street.  ...  It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up. That's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects.

ME:  Yes.  She would have supported it.  But like, that was back when Americans didn't know about the corruption.  Yeah, it's true that those in CHARGE knew about the corruption... but Americans didn't.  So... yeah.  Woulda supported it.

And I hate how she tries to pretend like she's on the same level as everyone else.  No.  She's not.  Ask the average American with five kids (one with a major disability and one who is about to have a baby of her own) if they could afford to have a stay-at-home dad and still pay the mortgage and buy food.  They will tell you FUCKING NO WAY.

QUESTION:  Sen. Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill. Sen. Obama voted against it. Some people have said that mortgage- holders really paid the price.

BIDEN:  Well, mortgage-holders didn't pay the price. Only 10 percent of the people who are -- have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 -- it gets complicated.   But the point of this -- Barack Obama saw the glass as half- empty. I saw it as half-full. We disagreed on that, and 85 senators voted one way, and 15 voted the other way.  ...  Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.  ...  There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Gov. Palin.

ME:  I didn't really see a question asked there.  But... whatever.  Biden gave an answer.  Then Palin was asked if that was so.  She said "No, but let's talk about something else" and then talked about energy.  So Ifill moved on to energy.

QUESTION:  What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

PALIN:   I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.   But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?   We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.

ME:  So, just like Bush said like.. 8 years ago.  "Yeah, there is a problem, but it's not man-made and like, even tough scientists are telling me different.. well, I'd like to just not talk about that!  Instead let's talk about how we can fix it!"  Then Biden says...

BIDEN:  Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Gov. Palin and Joe Biden. 

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.

ME:  Can... can I repeat this one more time?    IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CAUSE IS, IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION.  Bush didn't get it.  And apparently Palin is beyond that understanding as well.  Get a goddamn clue!

QUESTION:  Let me clear something up, Sen. McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported. 

BIDEN:  I have always supported it. That's a fact.

ME:  According to factcheck.org, it is a fact that he HAS always supported clean coal.  As has Obama. (It's near the bottom of the page under the heading "Out of Context?")

QUESTION:  Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Gov. Palin.

PALIN:  Yes, Sen. McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into.  ...  There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Sen. McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

ME:  She asked about caps on carbon emissions.  Just to be sure that the "Yes, Senator McCain does support this" was in reference to the question she was asked, Ifill asks again.

QUESTION:  ...Do you support capping carbon emissions?

PALIN:  I do. I do.

QUESTION:  OK. And on the clean coal issue?

BIDEN:   My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. 

ME:  Both people answered the question when the moderator put her foot down and pried it outta them.  Biden then went on about McCain's record some more, but Ifill moved on.

QUESTION:  Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN:  Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

ME:  Answered.  

QUESTION:  Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?  

PALIN:  Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.  ...  But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. ...  But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

ME:  Answered.

QUESTION:  Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN:  No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

PALIN:  Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

ME:  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign has to stick with this message for now.  Though obviously, for now, gay couples are really more interested in the legality of their unions than the exact name.  We can work on that later.  ^_^  And will.

QUESTION:  (On Iraq) You, Gov. Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, Governor?

PALIN:  We do have a plan for withdrawal. We don't need early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there or we're going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan either. We have got to win in Iraq.     And with the surge that has worked we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq. That's where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us and we need to grow our military. We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we're getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.

ME:  No exit strategy outlined.  At all.  And I cut out all the bullshit fluff she said before that that had pretty much nothing to do with anything.  Apparently her plan is "victory".  Like all the other Republicans.

BIDEN:  Gwen, with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan. Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain, number one. Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not quote funding the troops, John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line. Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing. You've got to have a time line to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis.

ME:  Question answered.

PALIN:  Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

ME:  Palin's response......... "We'll know when we've won when WE say we've won."  The Iraqis have already expressed an interest in us getting the fuck out.    Then there is some back and forth about Obama and McCain voting on stuff.  Blah, blah, blah.  Next question.

QUESTION:   I'm curious about what you think starting with you Sen. Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable [Pakistan]? Explain why.

BIDEN:  Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.

ME:  In a nutshell, his answer is Pakistan.

PALIN:  Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda. An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons.

ME:  In a nutshell, since she did not at all mention Pakistan, I would assume they believe Iran is the more dangerous party. 

I gotta go out to lunch now.  ^_^  But hopefully this is helping to see who is actually answering the question and who is not.  It's helping me at least.