Really, let's be honest now. Biden is reinventing the VP, not her. We all know you hate her, but stick to things that are true, shall we?

Buncha red herrings, designed to distract the voters from the real issues. o_O

The link seems to claim (and Amy seems to agree) that Palin's statement, "The Vice President is in charge of the Senate," is false. But the link also notes that, under the Constitution, the Vice President is the president of the Senate. So how false is her statement?

So how false is her statement?

*Neither true nor false. The VP has as much authority as the President to work with Congress: namely no explicit power, but whatever amount of informal liaison duties the administration wishes to impart.

Out of all the non-issues presented, this is the one that has me most ticked off. The same wonks who LOVED Hillary's active "expansion" of the First Lady "office" are now picking on Sarah because *holy shit* she actually wants, as a duly-elected VP, to take an active role in shaping legislation.

In theory, the VP could step in at any time and preside over Senate debates in place of the President Pro Tem. In fact, since Senate debates typically occur only for the sake of C-SPAN I'm sure the PPT would be thrilled with that arrangement. So what if she's glamorizing that role a bit? Most of us would love to believe that floor debate was a real thing that actually changed minds and shaped policy. Good for her for championing that fantastic notion.

Because "President of the Senate" is a largely ceremonial job. It's only real power is casting the deciding vote in event of a tie. That's not bein' in charge of the senate and gettin' in there and makin' some good legislation. If you don't know this, I'm not sure you should be allowed to vote, let alone run for office.

And the NY Post had to retract the story about lobster and caviar, as Ms. Obama never even stayed at the Waldorf Astoria:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm

The $150,000 wardrobe charged to Republican donors is relevant if only as further evidence that Palin is a typically corrupt Alaskan pol, who's fine with government subsidy programs -- for governors and VP candidates (e.g. charging Alaskan taxpayers for unnecessary travel expenses for her children, a per diem for sleeping in her own house).

Cue an unhinged and profane attack from Brian in three... two... one...

A great sadness comes over me every four years in this way: nobody seems to realize that candidates promise things they will be Constitutionally prohibited from doing once elected.

And the idiot press and public laps that up - even when the offenders are NOT doing their existing duty.

Can't anyone in the media bother to go straight to the source and read the *@*! Constitution before leaping to conclusions and spewing ignorance?

Article 1 defines the role of the Legislative Branch, and the role of the Vice President is clearly defined here, in Section 3:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Yes, the VP only votes in the Senate to break a tie, but the Founding Fathers could not have made it any clearer that he is a full-time Officer and President of the Senate, except when he is acting as POTUS or when the President pro tempore is presiding in his absence. If the VP wants to exercise his lawful authority over the Senate, there is nothing in the Constitution that would let the Senators stop him ( or her ) from doing so.

Article 2 defines the role of the Executive Branch, and while it lists several specific duties and responsibilities of the President ( "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", etc. ), it lists none for the Vice President. There is nothing in there about giving the President advice or going to foreign funerals.

Sarah's ideas about the Vice Presidency may be a departure from current practice, but they're perfectly constitutional. She has a much better grip on it than Joe Biden, who's been a Senator for 36 years, and she's not the one who needs a civics lesson.

At Wikipedia we see Albert Gore's involvement in suggesting and pushing legislation in the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Of course, he did this by talking to the members of the House and Senate, and the press, as Clinton's chief advisor, and point man for introducing legislation.

Clinton committed himself to regular lunch meetings, recognized Gore as a principal adviser on nominations, and appointed some of Gore's chief advisers to key White House staff positions [...] Clinton involved Gore in decision-making to an unprecedented degree for a vice president. Through their weekly lunches and daily conversations, Gore became the president's "indisputable chief adviser.

So, isn't Palins description of the role of the VP reasonably accurate, as a matter of practical fact? She usually would not have a vote in the Senate, but she would have a deciding vote if it came to that. She would have a preferred position to advance or hinder legislation, in accord with McCain policies (just like Gore did for Clinton). And, she was asked to frame her response as going to a 3rd grader.

Cue an unhinged and profane attack from Brian in three... two... one...

Why bother? You're not going to get any smarter.

She was talking about how she explained the VP's role to a little kid. What was she supposed to do, read to the youngster from the Constitution?

Besides==do you really like Nancy Pelosi?

Good god Amy, stop nitpicking! She was telling an elementary school kid what the VP does. And, admirably, she managed to say exactly what the constitution says about a VP. That it's typically figurehead and not nuts n bolts, doesn't matter.

Palin's got you way off your game.

Damn, you are stubborn!

"Cheney, for example, is not hanging out there rolling up his sleeves and writing laws"

Yes, but the Constitution gives him the authority to do so if he chooses. It's tradition, not the Constitution, that has limited most VPs to a figurehead role in the Senate.

Palin was not wrong or uninformed. The more desperately you try to deny this, the deeper you dig your hole.

It's depressing. On my favorite (local) newspaper forum, I started two threads titled "I'm Voting For McCain Because:" and "I'm Voting For Obama Because:" - and both have turned into recess at first grade. People just want to smear somebody.

No wonder government is less and less responsive, more and more self-justified. Few can actually come out and say what they want and why they want it.

Oh, look! Clothes! That's Important!

Gack.

When I was a little boy, comic books offered mail-order 'x-ray eyeglasses' (like Superman!) that would permit you to see what someone looked like 'underneath their clothes!'

That was titillating as Hell! But they cost a whole dollar or something, and I was a little boy from a modest family, and couldn't afford it.

(There was also a submarine that cost, like, six dollars. I'm pretty sure Johnson-era schoolboys died Kursk-style deaths in that fucker in lakes across our heartland, only without the radiation. But it didn't make the the paper, because a Nixonian man had his foot on the throat of the free press.)

In adulthood I learned to see beyond people's clothes by measuring body language. Watch the first three minutes of this video. Set aside the (presumably) Italian cut of the fabric, which (as Raddy notes) means nothing to grown men, anyway.

Do you see anything there that's in anyway non-serious, like a "naughty librarian"?

Me neither.

"The VP breaks ties in the Senate. He/she doesn't have an expansive role."

Technically, neither does the President. Yet we still expect that person to legislate through his influence. I really think you're grossly underestimating the influence a VP can carve out, if he/she is the right person.

Even if limited to a tie-breaking role, by itself that can create significant leverage right now given The Senate's current 49-49-2 makeup. Gore cast 4 tie-breaking votes, Cheny did it 8 times.