My reaction is no different from what most people are saying this morning. Biden won the debate -- crushed her, actually, if one were to see it as a real debate (and why would we want to do that?) There was really only one person up there that could credibly become president if he/she had to: Biden answered questions, knew what he was talking about and showed confidence; Palin just ignored questions if they didn't suit her and spouted talking points -- most of her answers either made no sense or were superficial. Taking expectations into account it was a tie: Palin showed confidence, energy, an ability to attack (a lot) and that she could grow quickly -- her cramming this time worked much better than with the Couric interviews (though it was clear that she really didn't know them any better than before). Biden also performed better than expected: no gaffes, disciplined (except at the beginning when he sometimes sounded too wonky), and respectful.
What will the effect be on the race? First, I'm going to go out on a small limb and say that the public will think that Biden won the debate -- it isn't hard to see that her answers were memorized talking points. But, I don't think that will have any effect on the polls whatsoever. Everyone expected Biden to do well and by all he did was confirm that expectation. But Palin's performance was a bit of a surprise and will reassure nervous conservatives and bring a little hope back into their lives. Maybe the polls go up a bit for McCain as a result, though it's certainly no game-changer.
The really salient aspect of the whole thing is that it was terrible, just terrible. No follow-ups, no challenges on most questions or non-sensical statements. And, that fault has to lie at the feet of Gwen Ifill. I don't know if it was the format or the accusations of bias that made her into a pussy-cat, but she was awful! It wasn't a debate, it was a just a platform for each candidate to recite positions. A real debate would have pierced through the theater-of-denial that is Palin. Sigh. In a rational universe this wouldn't even be a contest. It just makes me more depressed for the stupid, irresponsible, tragic media circus that is contemporary politics.
Posts
4 comments:
Victory for McCain's Campaign:
This debate represents a total victory for the McCain campaign's "wag the dog strategy". When I asked a 1 undecided older voter and 1 McCain supporter what they thought of the debate, their first answer was something like: "I think Palin did OK." So Karl Rove and company have done EXACTLY what they set out to do: make the issue of the day ANYTHING BUT the real issues. Make it about personality and something other than policy. Because on policy, the know they have it wrong. They needed to provide an excuse for people who like Palin to like her: sadly, Mission Accomplished.
They also accomplished one other thing: they convinced the public that Sara Palin can be "taught" and "trained". The mentality I've heard goes something like this: "If something does happen to John McCain while in office, it probably won't happen in a few years and by then, Palin will be read."
So in summary, this debate was a political victory for McCain's campaign: not many really cared about the substance as Rove's people provided to much of circus to distract the people.
And a Defeat for Good Journalism:
Totally agree on Gwen Ifill's awful moderating job: Palin was not forced to think on her feet as any VP has to do in meetings: reliant on the sound bites that she is given just like George Bush was reliant on the "expert" advice of people like Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. When someone is in over their head, the will rely on the people who give them the black and white answers-- the answers easiest to explain--without questioning it.
Don't blame Gwen -- she gave Biden an alley-oop pass and he dropped it. Remember the weird question about Cheney and whether the VP is part of the legislature? Palin had no idea that the question was about the Bush White House's accretion of executive power and Cheney's refusal to produce documents to investigators based on his contention that he's immune because he's part of the legislature. Gwen had Biden answer second, after Palin was already committed. He had a perfect opportunity to lay into the Imperial Presidency (and, in a quiet, indirect way, Palin's cluelessness) and just . . . didn't. It was a good reminder that there is nothing in his background to suggest that he's any smarter than Palin (or Bush, for that matter). Harvard Law Review, he's not.
I do blame Ifill. There were numerous times she could have gone after both more thoroughly, and, of course, particularly Palin. For example, Palin had a very vague, nearly non-sensical response on climate change, and should have been challenged on gay marriage, where she seemed to want to have it both ways. She was asked about health care and then didn't answer and went back to Taxes. A better moderator would have challenged her on these points.
And even though Biden's answer on the power and nature of the vice-presidency could have been better, he attacked Palin a lot. It wasn't because of him that she wasn't being challenged. And, I want to add that there is lots in Biden's background that shows he is vastly more intelligent than Palin or Bush. For a very long time Biden was one of the very few people in Congress that was proposing a real plan for Iraq, when both sides of the isle were just dithering. It was honest and intelligent and dealt with the problem head on. He may be a blowhard but please! Don't even compare him to those two!
My opinion: Palin did much, much better than I thought -- to the degree that it made me uncomfortable and defensive. And you know, I think she actually did well in comparison with Biden. Biden is certainly more "presidential" -- white hair, blue tie, male, tall and in a suit -- and on a substantive level, he's clearly far more thoughtful and experienced. There's no doubt that I'd rather have him in charge, but I was convinced of that beforehand, and was frankly unwilling to be unconvinced. I am not on the fence, but am not sure that thoughtfulness and experience mean more than charisma when it comes to politics. Stylistically, I couldn't get away from his row of tiny bottom teeth -- that seemed angry and defensive. Now, her approach made my skin crawl, and I know that she shook off some questions (and was allowed to do so) and for that I also was disappointed in Ifell. But someone has been very effectively coaching Palin on how to turn her weaknesses into strengths, and I think she did a bang-up job of driving. I don't trust her and want frankly nothing to do with her, but don't doubt her effectiveness in playing to the American people who don't already find her odious and scary. She was cheerful, forward looking, and approachable, whereas he seemed on the defensive rather than looking towards the future. On that point I agreed with her. I hated it, but it happened.
How come no one is bringing up NOOKYULAR? We should amend the constitution to make it impossible for people who pronounce it that way to hold any sort of office.
Post a Comment