Q: Next: Running mates, why would the country be better off if your running mate rather than his running mate ever became president?The strong rebuttal (bold) was in response to McCain's prior assertion -- made in both debates:
O: Biden has best foreign policy credentials. Pattern through career to fight for little guy. Joe fights on behalf of working families, shares my core values. Where country needs to go. Both us agree we must invest in Am people, tax cuts to [mid class]. Would make outstanding pres if something happened to me.
M: P a role model for women, took on corruption as head of energy group, gave money back to taxpayers, negotiated with ... (O should ask M why he didn't list lies like bridge to nowhere. M was too careful to leave out many bogus accomplishments). She understands autism on the rise. Special needs children. I'm proud of her. She has united our party. I'm proud of her and family.
Q: You think P qualified?
O: Up to Am people. I think her special needs work commendable. I want to point out autism will require additional funding. An across board funding cut cut [McCain wants to mandate no funding increases] won't help them. (great response. Notice that O is being a gentleman, not attacking Palin).
Q: The question was what are you going to cut?"Across the board cuts to programs" -- the "hatchet" approach that McCain makes light of here -- is no way to run a country. Autism is one example, though there are many others.
M: Energy - wind, tide, nuclear. What I cut? Across the board spending freeze. Hatchet, then we take scapal. Government spending out of control. I know how to save billions in defense spending. . . .
As noted in one of the comments (red) I jotted out during the debate, McCain's defense of Palin did not include many of the issues touted during the campaign such as McCain's claim Palin had said "thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere." Or the McCain campaign's assertion that Palin had stood up against federal earmarks.
Source: see my unofficial transcript and commentary.