Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage 144
The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:3, Informative)
Probably, most of her responses were taken straight from John McCain's debate last week. I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job. Even the NPR coverage was favorable towards Palin. I thought she was extraordinarily stiff, and had to work really really hard to fit her scripted answers to Gwen Ifill's questions. She was hanging on for dear life.
Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine! (Score:3, Informative)
Well factcheck.org [factcheck.org] gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.
Link to CNN transcript (Score:3, Informative)
CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here [cnn.com].
I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:3, Informative)
She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again. She delivered a controlled, heavily scripted, marginally competent performance, which is exactly what VP candidates are expected to do.
Come to think of it, controlled, heavily scripted, and marginally competent is exactly what VP candidates are expected to be, so if she keeps this up, she won't hurt McCain at all. Unfortunately.
Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (Score:3, Informative)