Vern explained my new word-of-the-day pretty aptly: a biographer of saints who attributes only “saint-like” qualities to the individual being described.

As it relates to self-hagiography, I suppose most people are guilty of that to some degree. Obama’s and McCain’s hagiographical propensities, especially in the context of an election, don’t seem so unusual. I don’t know many people who run around espousing their quirks, detriments and dark sides! I usually try to wait at least a year before I expose people to THOSE facets of my personality!

My personal opinion is that you’re over-reacting to this post. If someone wants to take the time to document an audio and highlight portions of interest, then that is the author’s prerogative. I believe the vast majority of the readers of this blog recognize that those observations were that of the writer and not necessarily of everyone present (praise God! I do not want to hear a Dana supporter going gaa-gaa over his position on Prop. 8).

As a journalist, I know you appreciate the amount of time it takes to listen to a recording, especially one of this length (re-winding it over and over again), to summarize it as fairly as possible. No one else took the time to do this. I challenge anyone who thinks it doesn’t accurately summarize the debate to write their own version. Then we can all debate about perspective!

So far as I heard, Vern did not write anything that was untrue. If you wish to characterize adding commentary as “spin,” having listened to the debate myself, I will have to respectfully (and strongly) disagree.

Also, thanks for educating Juice readers on a fun word, but it’s spelled hagiography. And I probably wouldn’t use it for a politician or anyone else touting their own good points – just someone else doing it for them.

Err, I wasn’t really defending you on that last comment. Honestly, I don’t know WTF a hagiographer is. S’pose I could look it up but mostly, I was enjoying Anonyms’ funny comment!

If I have a “crush” it’s definitely on both Tom and Debbie, but even more than that it’s on the idea of beating Dana. Still, I made a lot of effort – HOURS! – summarizing just about everything each of them said as fairly as I could. (And I used your recordings too, John – thanks – they were better quality than the one I had… until they ran out in the middle of “No Child Left Behind.”)

If I didn’t write as much about Ernst, it’s because he didn’t say as much and repeated himself a lot. I am sure if you asked him if he were short-sheeted, he would blame it not on me but on the “Federal Government.”

The part where I said “mumble” was accurate – John wouldn’t know because it was after he ran out of disc space! Ernst had just told the crowd of college kids that nobody should have to pay for their education, then said “I’m just telling the truth, if you want somebody to tell you whatever you want to hear then…” and then wisely trailed off before calling everyone else on the stage a pandering liar. It was kind of funny.

Also by that point you could hear everyone getting tired. The debate was going past two hours, the seventh and eighth questions were both about education, so taking into account the rebuttal time, each of them had to make four two-minute statements about education. Eventually they were all reduced to relating their own college experiences and their kids, and almost audibly yawning. As was I, transcribing.

Happy to have a new nemesis on the left, I’ve got way too many on the right! Cheers, John.

Haigiographers rock!

I’ve just spent the last hour-plus greeting trick-or-treaters and listening to the debate you posted in order to compare it to Vern’s depiction. I don’t think Ernst was short-sheeted, as you suggest. He didn’t seem to say as much as the other candidates, or, as Vern indicates, his consistent theme was the government staying out of everyone’s business. That was a fair account and my compliments to Ernst for being true to his party’s beliefs.

The only thing Vern underemphasized, in my opinion, was how nervous Debbie Cook seemed, but that’s understandable considering this was her first foray into this kind of arena. Also, as I mentioned in other comments, she had more to lose than her Libertarian and Green counterparts. The “spin” that you insinuate Vern’s account contains really was not founded in my listening. Frankly, I found his “selective quoting” to be pretty on-point and his “color commentary” certainly made the event seem more interesting than it proved to be on audio recap …

Just click on the links related to each of the questions and the audio will magically appear.