Best moments of the debate included Palin winking, Palin telling Biden that his wife's reward was in heaven (4:15 into the clip), and everyone agreeing on gay rights.
But what did the guys who are paid to analyze the debates think? A pundit round-up, after the jump:
The New York Times' David Brooks was one of those journalists that slobbered all over McCain's campaign knob when the senator ran for the presidency in 2000, and Brooks still worked exclusively at The Washington Post. The late, great, David Foster Wallace obliquely referenced DB in his essay on the McCain campaign, "Up Simba," when he talked about the 12 monkeys: A group of journos from important newspapers (including the W. Post) who wore "twelve immaculate and wrinkle-free navy-blue blazers…and tortoiseshell specs they love(d) to take off and nibble the arm of, plus a uniform self-seriousness that reminds you of very over-achieving dweeb you ever wanted to kick the ass of in school."
So you would think with all this hero-worship from back in the day, David Brooks would be ready to stand firm behind McCain for this coming election, to the chagrin of his liberal wife and Obama-supporting children. Too bad Brooks is so busy making sure everyone still likes him to take a side:
CONTINUED »
Cheaters always win. Especially sly ones. Because of this, everyone cheats slyly. The whole world's had about eight years to fully grasp that concept. So, why is Salon making a big stink about how Karl effing Rove and Fox News are bedfellows in an article published today entitled "Karl Rove's sly deal with Fox"?
The "most influential pundit" in America, as Fox likes to trumpet, should have to play by the same rules as other high-profile political analysts. For example, Paul Begala and James Carville are regularly identified as supporters of Hillary Clinton when they appear on CNN. But Rove has been able to act as an independent observer while criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain's likely general election opponent.
Oh, Fox News is composed of underhanded jackasses who will do just about anything to promote the conservative agenda? Wow, where ever else could we have heard such news? Certainly not all over the goddamn Internet.
Jeeeeeee-zus! Is it any wonder conservatives love to throw out the term "crybaby" when talking about liberals when "progressive" Web sites are literally crying about "playing by the rules"?
At least the piece goes on to acknowledge predictability:
There is nothing shocking about Rove's attacking Democrats, of course. And his operating with a duplicitous air of independence probably isn't going to make or break Fox's claim to "fair and balanced" coverage. But will the greater public catch on?
We've got some info for you, Salon: The "greater public" knows all about Fox News, because they watch it every night.
