Okay so ... you know that kid in college who never really paid attention in class, got the notes from a friend the night before the test, did some half-hearted cramming, barely managed to B.S. their way to a C+ on the exam, and then forgot what little they had learned the next day?
Well, that was Sarah Palin in last night's debate. It kills me, because the expectations for her performance were apparently so low that all she had to do to get positive reviews from Republican supporters was not fall on her face and not speak in tongues. Within the first few minutes of the debate, a few things were clear - that Sarah Palin clearly does have a certain presence and a certain likability factor and a certain "folksy" sort of stage presence, but also that, that being said, she is still not an intellectual, not a big thinker, and not someone who can argue a point very well without the aid of scripted catch-phrases or elusive non-answers.
So once it was established that Sarah Palin could in fact, like any other politician, stand on a stage and have some semblance of a back and forth debate, then it became time to actually look at the issues, look at who made the better points, look at who more persuasively argued their case to the American people.
And the pundits are *surprised* that the polls overwhelmingly stated that Americans thought that Joe Biden won? I mean, come on - most people are not going to declare a victory for Palin simply because she gave a few well-timed winks and used phrases like "doggone it." If I was voting for which candidate talked more like Foghorn Leghorn meets Frances McDormand's character from Fargo, I'd vote Palin. But as Biden reminded us, well, there are actual issues at stake here.
Now, I'm not saying this was the best debate ever from Biden either. Especially in the beginning, the whole thing was just hard to watch at times. It was like one of those really sloppy basketball games where a good team plays a really bad one, and the good team gets dragged down to the bad team's level. I mean, it's got to be frustrating - how do you debate someone who isn't responding to questions and who doesn't directly address any of the issues on the table? And even tougher, how do you do so without tearing into them and in turn potentially coming off as a bully? Because of this, Biden was certainly off of his game a bit for at least part of the debate, and you could almost see him mentally conjuring up John McCain as if to have some kind of fantasy debating partner rather than his actual opponent - a woman who talks in sentances that make no discernable sense.
Case in point - when the talk turned to Iran, and by extension Israel, and Joe Biden talked about being a friend to Israel throughout his years in the Senate, and then went on the criticize the Bush administration's handling of the Middle East peace process. Rather than addressing Biden, or anything of any substance for that matter, Palin simply said something like "well, I'm glad we both agree that we love Israel." Okay ... how is one supposed to argue with that?
So yeah, there were many moments where Biden could probably have laid into Palin harder and really attacked her and put her on the spot. The only problem is there's always the chance that that would backfire, and the perception would, again, be that of Biden as bully. So while he had to play it a bit more subdued and let Palin do a lot of the talking, the strategy was probably ultimately the most sound. And at times, Biden did get fired up, and was quite effective in connecting McCain to Bush and in shooting down McCain's much-trumped-up rep as a maverick. Not Palin's, of course - but McCain's - a much easier and les risky target, even if there is so much with with to go at Palin with that it's almsot hard to know where to begin.
Personally, I thought the debate was not moderated very well, and Gwen Iffel's shoddy job contributed to the somewhat trainwreck feel of the event. Iffel was extremely inconsistent in terms of when she allowed the candidates to respond or rebut and when she just cut them off and moved on the next question. I was also surprised that the caliber of the questions didn't seem that great - there was nothing truly hard-hitting, and it was annoying to see her revisit some well-worn issues yet again. I mean - come on, another question about what agenda items would have to be cut back due to the economic bail-out? As if either candidate is going to give a hard answer on that one at this juncture? Simply a poor choice of question by the moderator.
Overall though, Biden really picked up steam in the latter half of the debate, and railed against McCain very effectively, making a direct link to Bush and clearly stating why McCain's foreign policy and other views were misguided. Palin, meanwhile, continues to be cringe-inducingly inarticulate. Her answer about the causes of climate change, for example, were completely incoherant. She doesn't know or care about the cause of global warming? Awesome - that's the kind of mind we need in the White House. Her answers on the economy made little sense and basically just reaffirmed that we are in a tough time. But where was the solution? I don't think Palin gave one concrete example of how a McCain-Palin administration would actually reform anything or work to solve any of the major crises we're currently facing. And oh yeah, out of nowhere she stammered something about increased powers for the office of the Vice President. Talk about the icing on the cake - so *she* of all people wants to be even *more* powerful than Dick Cheney!?!? Now THAT's a scary thought.
So yes, overall, the debate was not a great one. But at the least, Biden made several important points, none of which were in any way challenged in any substantive way by Palin. And, um ... isn't that how one *wins* a debate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment