Let me start off by saying that Sarah Palin brought back the charm and personality that made people hopeful about her. She did not make huge blunders and looked very good at times. But a deeper analysis reveals other shortcomings that are important.
1) Sarah Palin spent most of her time legitimating her, if the term is apt, right to be on the same stage in order to fend off public perceptions that have waned about her competency over the past couple of weeks. She also shored up her role as the common mother and tried to distance McCain from Bush and to connect Obama with elitism.
2) Joe Biden spent most of his time legitimating Obama's competency and judgment to be the next President by focusing on core issues and differences between the two presidential candidates.
3) Palin reverted back too much to her stock of knowledge on energy and her life in Alaska in order to confirm the expertise that the McCain-Palin ticket has used to legitimate her nomination. Even when the question was about Darfur, she went back to Alaska and oil.
4) Biden made so many self-corrections that it was confusing at times. He rattled off too much "stuff" and it was very hard to understand to what he was actually referring.
I am surprised that Palin did not pick up on Biden's multiple self-corrections, but that would have not been a very good idea given her lack of experience. So he had some leeway there and I think we all knew that. His multiple gaffes in language and delivery were very minor, but we also know why he has not gotten a presidential bid in his many attempts.
Biden, however, focused his energy on where Obama and McCain disagree and where McCain's policies would not work well. The main reason is because he did what Obama did not do in his first debate – make a stronger tie between McCain and Bush.
The McCain campaign will pick up on his many figures and use that against him. They should. You don't need to know the actual data to understand that Biden had to have screwed something up the number of times that he corrected himself, and didn't (such as Iraq's actual surplus which he rounded up significantly). His biggest correction could have been devastating at the end when he almost brought Palin's autistic child into the fray. I am not sure if people caught that, but he pulled back from what what have been a monumental "gaffe".
Palin clearly was out to relate herself to the "average" American with her linguistic turns and folksy dropping of syllables and consonants at the end of words. She wanted Alaska to feel closer than it has ever been. To that end, I think she succeeded. But did she succeed in her handling of the substance of both the questions and the issues? I am not sure she did well enough even if she did not screw up as in previous interviews. She had her set of answers and offered them well enough. the problem is that her answers did not often fit the questions being asked. Nor did she help us understand how McCain is different from Bush, nor did she give us clear examples of how McCain is a maverick, only that this is the brand that they are presenting.
Final note: Biden was best in about three or four counters where he made distinct criticisms of McCain's "maverick" status, his tax policy, and how McCain's policy would actually not help the middle class (the bridge to nowhere stab was well played). Palin's biggest problem is that she did not use enough time with her responses giving Biden more time in his rebuttals. That gave him an advantage.
One gets the same feeling as if you are watching your team make a fourth quarter comeback that was a fantastic effort but came up three points short as the kick sailed wide right. That will be the difference in the polls as this plays out. If McCain pulls this out, I will be as surprised as a fan of a team where on that kick attempt, the ref calls an offsides penalty that gives them another shot at the kick, just a little closer for the attempt this time.
Image: Daily Dish
No related posts.
It was a better debate than McCain-Obama. I was deeply touched when Joe Biden's heart was crushed when he spoke about the terrible crash and bringing up his boys on his own.
If the ticket was Biden-Palin, they'd win by a massive landslide – they both represent much of middle class America.
I hope Palin doesn't represent the average American. She makes me cringe. The commentary in my country had Biden win. I felt Palin came across as a high school student who had crammed the night before and learned a limited amount of stuff by heart to pass. Biden was far more intelligent, natural, in control and relaxed. Too many cliches made Palin cheap but it seems her audience lap them up. At least she didn't self combust on stage which is what some of us predicted. And elite has a different meaning here – all four candidates are elite but I don't feel that Obama has the same air of superiority.
I didn't watch a whole lot of the debate, but I would say that the better avenue to gain votes for the election was for Palin to come off as likable, more so than come off debating the issues. VP debates rarely have much significance in the polls, but by making an appeal to being more likeable, there was at least a chance Palin could bring some voters to her side. In other words, issues in VP debates haven't shown much hope to turn things around, so lets try to appeal to emotion and affection (and this is coming from a person who will, unless something drastic is revealed, will vote for McCain/Palin).
I just saw some of it again … Palin really does look as thick as Bush. Apart from avoiding answering questions with the transparent excuse of "talking directly to the American people" so she could deliver her prepared homework, she waffled on climate change – and that made her look completely ignorant. Biden was articulate and predictable except for his personal story which made him far more real than Palin … and those spikey little cliches! Agh!
Palin's spikey cliches of course – and even they were rehearsed
I think the viewing public tuned in to see the train wreck effect – and it didn't happen. To that end, she acquitted herself of the task at hand admirably. Furthermore, those "multiple self-corrections" of Biden's had me feeling he looked confused and did little to instill me with a sense of confidence. I'm an independent, leaning toward Obama, and my impression was that Palin was charismatic in a very Republican way while, as you point out, Biden made it very difficult "to understand to what he was actually referring," and to see why he's never secured a presidential bid. Excellent point. That said, I think Obama will bury McCain in the final two debates in a way that Biden failed to bury Palin, overwhelming majority of the pundits' opinions nonwithstanding.
She waffled a lot on climate change. Biden was right. It's a scientific problem. In science if you cannot determine a cause, then you cannot effect change. Simple. She also waffled on whether or not she would support equality of rights for a couple that chooses to partner. It sounded like she is equating marriage with those civic rights. She evaded that by simply leaving us with a very ambiguous traditional marriage line which I can only assume means that same gender couples would not receive equal rights in a McCain White House. Her response to Darfur was just absurd by defaulting back to Alaska, again. Biden actually answered the questions and clarified the differences between McCain with Obama. Palin spent most of her time "talkin' 'bout herself" to get an emotional response.
I think I am realizing that I am not like most Americans in that I understand how campaigns truly market their brand before they focus on any issues at all. Palin clarified her branding because she had to and so, we know nothing of how McCain differs from Bush other than a consistent default back to this "maverick" stuff which Biden rightly challenged. It seems that maverick is too closely associated with being erratic and unpredictable and her presentation of that "What do you expect from two mavericks?" clarified that what it really is! You don't have to be unpredictable and inconsistent in order to be independent and that is what I think is happening the more the McCain campaign unfolds.
[...] Palin – Biden Debate: Wide Right [...]
I am also not like most Americans, I suppose. Apparently most Americans' standards have sunk so low that people think the definition of "win" is "she wasn't the total trainwreck we saw in the Couric interviews."
Next election, I predict someone will run a puppy as VP. Awww…look at the cute widdle puppy! According to our new low standards, puppies are made of WIN!
You're all being elitist with your comments about Palin. She represents the average American very well.
Unfortunately the policies that she is supporting with McCain do not. That's the issue.
It's elitist to expect a Vice-Presidential candidate to have a command of basic facts, an understanding of the nuances of policy, and a passing familiarity with the English language?
Funny, I'd just call that "competent", not "elitist."
Frankly, I actually *want* a President and VP who are elite, that is, the very best, most moral, ethical, intelligent, wise, and caring people anyone can find anywhere. I think this country deserves better than fair-to-middling, mediocre or average leadership. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were members of the elite, and they seemed to do a pretty good job governing our country.
This sudden grab at pseudo-populism, particularly from Republicans, grows tiring after a while. No one's buying it.
BTW, I drink coffee, not lattes, drive a pick-up, not a Prius, live in the midwest, (I actually live on "Main Street", no kidding) and Palin doesn't represent me at all.
I am also not like most Americans, I suppose. Apparently most Americans' standards have sunk so low that people think the definition of "win" is "she wasn't the total trainwreck we saw in the Couric interviews."
Next election, I predict someone will run a puppy as VP. Awww…look at the cute widdle puppy! According to our new low standards, puppies are made of WIN!
You're all being elitist with your comments about Palin. She represents the average American very well.
It's elitist to expect a Vice-Presidential candidate to have a command of basic facts, an understanding of the nuances of policy, and a passing familiarity with the English language?
Funny, I'd just call that "competent", not "elitist."
Frankly, I actually *want* a President and VP who are elite, that is, the very best, most moral, ethical, intelligent, wise, and caring people anyone can find anywhere. I think this country deserves better than fair-to-middling, mediocre or average leadership. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were members of the elite, and they seemed to do a pretty good job governing our country.
This sudden grab at pseudo-populism, particularly from Republicans, grows tiring after a while. No one's buying it.
BTW, I drink coffee, not lattes, drive a pick-up, not a Prius, live in the midwest, (I actually live on "Main Street", no kidding) and Palin doesn't represent me at all.