Well well well.  now we know why they do not want her to answer ????s

Seeing Photenhaur (or however you spell it) get owned always makes me laugh. Especially after that "fake Virginia" bit.

I was watching that.  I almost felt bad for the poor girl except Matthews was right on every single point.

Pwn3d.

when I read on right-leaning blogs that people like Biden or myself need to read the Constitution again because the Vice President is not mentioned in Article One, my blood pressure spikes.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT I AM A FAKE AMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC, AND NOT A REAL VIRGINIAN WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER READ OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND I HAVE?!?

I am shocked. Article One, Section Three. Period.

If you can't take the time to read your job description why should I give you that job?

That sense of entitlement is apparently contagious. You'd think the party that rails against unmerited reward would be less assuming. But then again, by their measure, I am not a real Virginian and I suppose not much of a patriot.  

Pfotenhauer's answer about "the VP supporting the president and presiding over the U.S. Senate" is accurate in general terms.

When Matthews says that she's wrong -- he's wrong.

Yes, of course the VP's role also includes stepping in for the president if the president is incapacitated, but the VP's role is not strictly limited to that one function by precedent or explicit Constitutional authority.

Matthew's would have been more accurate if he'd focused on Palin's definition of the VP, which was flat out wrong -- e.g that the VP is "in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes".  

a bit by her mouth full of shiney predatory teeth... sorry, I'm distracted myself by such magnificent dental work which seems to grow in the eye the longer it is on display; one wonders just what those choppers will chop off next.

Personally, I thought the part about "supporting the President" was pretty good in a general, extra-Constitutional way, at least nowadays since the President and Vice-President are elected in-party tandem, unlike in our earliest days when it was quite possible for Pres and V-P to be from different parties. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, were, in fact, regarded with distaste by the framers (who considered them dangerous "factions"), and are a prime example of how we have adapted our fundamental document to fit changing times without destroying its basic premises. Slavery, however, is mentioned, or was until amended.