Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I think Palin did considerably better than she did in the interviews we've seen. She was more commanding, more sure of herself, she spoke as though she was credible and confident. And frankly, that's what really matters. The vast majority of viewers aren't analyzing substantive positions, they're making a subjective judgment based on superficial perceptions. And on those scores, I think she did better than expected in the ways it matters politically.
Having said that, I just grit my teeth listening to her. She had the folksiness turned up to 11, full of golly gees and doggonits. She kept cutting the 'g' off the end of verbs - lots of runnin' and fightin' going on. Lots of "darn rights" and "you betchas." And she has this incredibly annoying habit of changing to this breathy tone of voice that sounds like a kindergarten teacher reading a story to the kids. It sounds to me like "And then the prince climbed on a BIG WHITE HORSE", as though the response she expects is "ooooooh."
As I said after the first McCain/Obama debate, there's really only one way to measure who "wins" this kind of thing and that is by the polls of voters, especially the undecided voters. With 4 1/2 weeks left in the campaign, everything is about winning those undecided voters to your side. We'll have to wait for the polls over the next couple days to see how those voters will respond. But I think Palin probably did fairly well on that count.
There were no major gaffes by either side. The biggest one that stuck out to me was by Biden:
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the former chair of the judiciary committee should understand that Article 1 defines the legislative branch; Article 2 defines the executive branch. If you're going to try and give that kind of detail, you damn well better get the detail right. He also made the common mistake of relating the overreach of executive power to the "unitary executive" idea, which is a misnomer. Palin's answer to the same question, on the other hand, was pretty much meaningless babble:
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
If you can discern something meaningful in all of that, please inform the rest of us.
Comments
I expected that she would do well superficially and she did. I was listening to someone who watched the debate and she said that she "felt like it was me up there, that I could be vice president"
Wonderful. That's what this country need, some average joe six pack being president. Running the world's most powerful country needs someone with exceptional intelligence and compaqssion, not your average joe.
Substantively, she did exactly what I expected. If there was a question she didn't understand, she just dropped back to her talking points. And she did it very smoothly.
I wanted substance and she provided gloss.
Biden was much more impressive, the consummate, experienced politician.
Palin might be scary good in 2012.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | October 2, 2008 10:58 PM
Aw, c'mon Ed, didn't you realize it was really Tina Fey tonight?
Posted by: Jim Satterfield | October 2, 2008 10:58 PM
I agree that Palin felt a lot more self-confident than in the Katie Couric interviews. I was waiting for her to produce more fodder for Tina Fey, and it didn't happen. However, Biden addressed specific points, giving data and facts. Palin, on the other hand, stuck to stock responses like, "We got to fight the evil in the Middle East and bring freedom and democracy!"
CNN had a live graph of undecided Ohio voters' approval. I noticed that, throughout almost the entire debate, Palin scored better among men than women, and Biden vice versa. Not really sure what it means, exactly. Maybe undecided voters tend to listen to their hormones?
Posted by: Brandon | October 2, 2008 11:03 PM
I was wqaiting for her response on global warming to be "it's just God giving us a great, big hug." Probably my most favorite SNL quote of the year.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 2, 2008 11:04 PM
Her style was good. Her substance, unfortunately, can best be described as "Pathological lying". Not that hardcore republicans will have a problem with that.
Posted by: steve s | October 2, 2008 11:05 PM
And can someone please teach her how to pronounce the word "nuclear"?
Posted by: steve s | October 2, 2008 11:07 PM
She stuck to her recitations and avoided "debating" issues but opted for her memorized responses instead.
Posted by: Not Sarah | October 2, 2008 11:12 PM
Agreed on the "vice president/fourth branch" business; if you're going to attack, at least be correct yourself. I'm kinda hoping the McCain campaign will disavow her remarks on the subject.
Posted by: Ignignockt | October 2, 2008 11:14 PM
Well, since the whole Cheney/Fourth Branch business has been covered, I don't have much to say.
She was clearly well prepped, as was Biden. She made some really stupid remarks (and a few that were untrue), but they were delivered believably. Hopefully she'll be called out on them.
I thought the whole "Senator Obama voted against funding" thing was absurd, and I'm glad that that has been quashed in two debates. The McCain flunky who thought that point up should be fired, then he should be taken into the public square and flogged.
Posted by: JStein | October 2, 2008 11:19 PM
After watching Hillary spend 35 years re-building the image of a female politician as experienced, hard-working, and intelligent, it pains me to watch Sarah Palin tear that down. The most unfortunate affect of the Sarah Palin VP nomination is that America's image of the female politician will be Sarah Palin, and not the far superior Hillary Clinton.
Hillary put 18 million cracks in the ultimate glass ceiling, and then here comes Sarah Palin, with her bottle of super-glue, trying to reverse the progress that has already been made.
If John McCain was going to pick a moron, he should have picked a man--that way it wouldn't have tarnished the reputation of females across the US.
Posted by: RealityCheck | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM
I'm so happy not to have a television. I stopped watching presidential debates at least 30 years ago. The candidates do political karaoke--yes, that's right, "empty song". It's all horse shit. It would be so refreshing to see the candidates get questioned by genuine journalists who would not let them spin or evade the question.
Posted by: democommie | October 2, 2008 11:25 PM
I presume that what Biden was referring to in Article 1 is the provision: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." and was making the point that is the VP's only legislative function, no?
Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | October 2, 2008 11:34 PM
Right-spinners are heaping hymns of praise upon Palin ["she wiped the floor with Biden" etc.] We will have a very quick check on whether they mean it or not: Will Palin give a press conference tomorrow? This week? Ever before November? If the answer is "no," the current right-spin blather will be exposed beyond saving for what it is.
Posted by: flatlander100 | October 2, 2008 11:38 PM
Intrade
Obama 66.7 up 2
McCain 33.2 down 2.4
Democrat Presdident 67.8 up 0.7
Republican President 30.7 down 3.8
So much for the 'Palin effect' -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | October 2, 2008 11:39 PM
You said it yourself - no one cares. What I find fascinating and important is that Biden choked up when talking about his children and family and every chooses to miss that.
(also - you don't know how many gay Obama "supporters" where shocked when they discovered that Obama doesn't support same sex marriage ... have they performed any research into their candidate?)
Posted by: yoshiq | October 2, 2008 11:52 PM
The winner was clearly Elizabeth May.
Even pundit Russell Oliver of CTV news thought so. She was the only candidate who brought facts and references, and held her composure while her 5 rivals descended into soundbites.
Oh, you're talking about the American debate tonight? Pity. The Canadian Leadership debate was excellent.
Posted by: Glendon Mellow | October 3, 2008 12:06 AM
Joe Biden did not 'debate' Sarah Palin. He simply ignored her. With the format how could he 'debate' her. Where would he start with the thousand contraditions of everything shes said so far, her freakeshly right wing fundamentalist beliefs, the simple fact that not only does she not have specific positions on many of issues on multiple fronts - foreign policy, the supreme court, what newspapers she reads, she's apparently never even had thoughts on these issues.
Had he 'debated' her, he could have asked very elementary questions like- "Gov. Palin, are you ever going to give a press conference? I know why you think its wrong to talk to Amadinejad without preconditions - you don't talk to the press without prescreened questions or have a debate without a format that lends itself only to answers which are parroted canned and well rehearsed. If you'd like to have a real debate, Gov. Palin, I challenge you to debate me with an open ended format where we can discuss issues unscripted, and any challenges of your record or beliefs or mine won't be answered with howls of 'don't patronize me' or 'a woman would never be asked that.'"
Now that would be a debate. But no, my friends, that was not a debate we witnessed.
Posted by: Michael B | October 3, 2008 12:07 AM
I was disappointed that Palin demonstrated relative coherence tonight after the inanity of her Couric interview. Still, I think Biden gave more specifics about policy, where Palin was vague. Palin stuck to "this is what we need to do" rather than "this is how we need to do it." On top of that, her "what we need to do" was in direct opposition to Republican positions most of the time. Does she really support equal right for homosexuals? Does she really support REAL alternative energy?
On top of that, she kept twisting the topics to match her rehearsed talking points, rather than answering the freaking questions.
I don't know how many people picked up on these things. Maybe the fact that she didn't break down and run off stage makes her a winner in some peoples' eyes. In the end though, it seems like little more than a draw. Same with the first Obama/McCain debate. I don't think the Democrats are going to rock the boat much as long as they're in the lead.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 3, 2008 12:14 AM
To be fair, Obama very often drops the g from -ing words too.
Posted by: mike | October 3, 2008 12:18 AM
yoshiq:
Although I'm a flaming atheist, I don't think government should force religions/churches to wed gay couples. Separation of church and state works both ways. At the same time, I think government should recognize the same civil benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. This seems to be Obama's position, and I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 3, 2008 12:20 AM
Joe Biden specifically said in the primaries that he supported full marriage rights for gays. Wonder what made him change his mind. Anyway, you have to respect the position the candidates are in. Any sentence with the word "gay" in it is going to piss off half the population. It's quite a land mine they're dealing with here.
Not that all this wishy-washy stuff really matters, since Congress writes the bills. Obama or McCain are going to support anything that vaguely resembles their views and veto anything that would anger their voting base. The details are just filler for the debates.
Posted by: Brandon | October 3, 2008 12:31 AM
I would be *astonished* if you could find even one person who has ever suggested that the government should do that. I'm a flaming atheist too, and I'd love to marry my partner of 17 years, but do it in a church? A church where they performed the ceremony only because they were forced to? Are you out of your mind??? No one wants that!
Posted by: xebecs | October 3, 2008 12:37 AM
No one thinks that -- that is not the issue, and if you think it is, you simply haven't been paying attention. The issue is about having all the legal rights of marriage (and the traditional label that goes with those rights), not forcing religions to marry gay people.
Posted by: Tulse | October 3, 2008 12:37 AM
Do you actually have any? We're happy to lend you Paxman. In fact, I'd pay to see that. Hell, I'd kill to see that.
Posted by: MartinM | October 3, 2008 12:37 AM
The way things are now, any church is allowed to marry or not marry whomever the crap they want. Nothing the government can do will ever change that. The government offering full civil benefits is functionally identical to offering marriage licenses to gay couple. It just leaves a sour second-class-citizen aftertaste.
Posted by: Brandon | October 3, 2008 12:37 AM
What's wrong with her pronunciation? According to linguists, "nü-kyə-lər" is winning the language war as English speakers desire to distinguish "atomic" from "central".
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | October 3, 2008 12:44 AM
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 12:45 AM
I recorded it and slowly went through scoring each question.
Biden -
Lies 3
Strong Points - 63
Weak Points - 13
Palin -
Lies 41
Strong Points - 22
Weak Points - 46
For a point of reference, here's the last presidential debate:
Obama -
Lies 5
Strong Points - 42
Weak Points - 8
McCain -
Lies 16
Strong Points - 15
Weak Points - 24
Lies - any assetion that is not true.
Strong points - unique arguments on solid assumptions, even those I disagree with.
Weak points - Logically impossible promises (e.g., McCain supporting bailout and Iraq while claiming he'll cut spending, especially when his budget shows spending increasing, that counts as a lie and a weak point).
More points in VP debate due to different format, they could bring in crib sheets allowing more use of facts (I don't score campaign stump talking points unless they are unique to candidate). Use of crib sheets should have caused less lies, yet Palin continues to show she's a world-class serial liar, I'd say she stands alone. I even missed two noted by NBC after show (a "lie" on my scorecard is any untrue assertion, even if it's an innocent gaffe).
Biden's lies: McCain opposes alternative energy, he doesn't, he didn't like other aspects of those bills. Obama did the same attack on McCain. Given their Senators as well they should know better. Biden referred to Article I as the section on the Executive, it's actually Article II.
Biggest Palin lies (there were a ton):
1) Claimed McCain was out front years ago on credit crisis wanting more oversight, yet also claimed he voted for tougher bankruptcy laws because he was not aware of credit crisis.
2) During climate change question, claims Obama/Biden against "every domestic energy solution". I counted six lies in this section alone. Hyperbole is a lie to me.
3) Claims she's for equal rights and tolerance (stated at least twice in debate), but also claimed she opposes equal rights for gays.
4) Claims Obama/Biden against funding troops. Just like Biden lying about McCain's alternative energy position, Palin lied about this claim, except she did it repeatedly.
5) Claimed Obama refuses to acknowledge success of surge. I've personally heard him acknowledge it three times, including O'Leilly interview where he noted it succeeded "spectacularly".
6) Lies repeatedly about Obama's position about foreign engagement, claiming he'd meet with enemies without any diplomatic groundwork first, also claimed he'd meet with Akhmadinejad when in fact Obama has never stated that, something Biden brought up as well.
7) Claims Bush policy on Israel was fine, doesn't define it (she obviously doesn't know it), then contradicts her assertion claiming "huge blunders" on our part regarding Israel and Iraq (which could have had huge blunders and still been a good policy, not so with Israel).
Biden went on to stomp her ass on this issue given his position we should have sent NATO troops in during conflict with Hamas in Lebanon. She claims they want to put an embassy in Jerusalem - never heard this, is this a nod to the Hagee crowd? Who is lobbying for that???
8) "Will fight for middle class", but they want to tax employer health care benefits and provide a tax credit less than half of what it costs a family for health care. Several other contradictions between campaign verbal promises and campaign policy as well.
9) Claims Obama wants to raise our taxes and he's against energy independence.
I was very impressed by Biden, a real class act. I'm proud to have supported him these 21 years. His score on lies is the lowest I have ever encountered going back to the Reagan/Carter debates (I also count them on State of Union speeches though I quit on Bush 43's third, it gave me a tummy ache counting so many, and I voted for him in 2000).
Palin has a very good Q factor. The fact she has zero integrity, is a liar, and pretty much knows nothing will go over the heads of conservatives relieved she at least put semi-coherent sentences together.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 3, 2008 12:50 AM
Seriously? I've never heard the moron version anywhere in Europe. And who on earth needs pronunciation to distinguish two terms which are clearly identifiable through context?
Posted by: MartinM | October 3, 2008 12:52 AM
Glendon - Canadian Politics is strange:
traders show that the conservatives are extremely likely to win in a landslide (95% down form 97%), but a minority Government is likely (60%)*. How can this be? Weird.
My dear Mr Cartwright, perhaps 'nu-kye-lar' is winning out on the Ponderosa, but way out here it's still pronounced 'Nu-cle-ar'. From the sticks - DJ
*Intrade 3OCT 1:00AM EDT.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 3, 2008 1:06 AM
Also. Also. Also!
...Did anyone find Palin's use of that word as a transition, opener, and general "um"-phrase incredibly irritating?
And does anyone have a count of how many times she used it?
Posted by: Adene | October 3, 2008 1:52 AM
I wish somebody in the media commenting on this stuff - if not Biden who missed it - would lay this out about McSame's health care (sic) proposal:
1: a $5000 tax credit only helps families who pay more than $5000 per year in taxes.
2: Most of those families work for employers who provide health care benefits.
3: most families who work for employers who do not pay health care benefits are working in the lower paid (incl. minimum wage) jobs ( 4: Most health care benefits will value around $12,000 / yr
5: therefore the tax rate on those as income will be $2K - $5K at least (as new extra income it will be taxed at the maximum marginal rate).
6: the insurance companies are given zero incentive to work on lowering their rates - the plan assumes as a given that the rates will rise to consume those who can use their tax credit to buy insurance. Those people are probably already buying it anyway.
7: if beneficiaries are to be taxed on benefits as income, then I would guess the IRS is going to also add that 'income' to the employers' employee overhead taxes. SSI will also go up.
Net result: everybody loses except the insurance companies. Reminds me of the Medicare/Medicaid Insurance Company Benefit bill.
The other bit missed (this is more speculative than above, I may have missed something essential myself) is the myth that the 100% coverage mandate is necessarily a Government-run system. McPalin tried to paint that as a bad thing; I am not sure she realizes that she was condemning her own party as the exemplar of bad governmentally run programs. The fact is that the system as merely a regulated one, not a managed one. Laws set requirements, standards, and responsibilities, budgets fund, and people automatically get whatever care their doctor recommends. Since preventative and early warning care is mandated for everyone, the serious stuff goes down and the budget is not ridiculous. SSI in the UK was not ruinous to pay. Shouldn't be here either.
Posted by: GrayGaffer | October 3, 2008 1:59 AM
I would think that the interviewer should be unbiased or, at least, act as if they are.
Paxman is hardly unbiased, he is just another NuLabor sycophant and brown noser of Jonah Broon the beloved PM.
--------------------
Ed,
I'm suprised you comment on Palin's folksiness and way of expressing herself, perhaps that is how she talks normally. Then again she may be doing it on purpose to associate herself with her target audience which, I suspect, you aren't amongst.
As a foreigner I worry about whoever gets elected US president (not fussed about the VP as long as they don't overstep their bounds), surely both parties could have done better.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | October 3, 2008 2:58 AM
My impression of her "folksiness" was that it was a contrived affectation. She was very inconsistent about it. I would say that most of the time, she weren't speakin' all folksy-like, jest ifn she 'membered to.
And that previous paragraph pretty much sums up the sudden whiplash of her folksiness. It was jarring at times.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 3, 2008 3:29 AM
Kevin - I thought your signal went out. They will be broadcasting here soon. I'll try and post a digital recording (no guarantees though signal is pretty piss poor here too, at least digitally). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 3, 2008 3:46 AM
As an American, I wholeheartedly agree!
Posted by: Gretchen | October 3, 2008 5:24 AM
I read the transcript ... there were some questions she never got around to answering. I wish the moderator had been allowed to point out the lack of answers in those cases.
But, doggonit, gee whiz, she sure was folksy and hocky-momish as allgit out.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | October 3, 2008 5:32 AM
"On top of that, she kept twisting the topics to match her rehearsed talking points, rather than answering the freaking questions."
This is a defining feature of all American political debates (not having watched any from other countries, I can't say if it's true there, too). The debates are carefully designed so that a) the candidates don't actually have to answer the questions, but can instead stick to their scripts and the talking points that make them look good; b) the moderator is prohibited from calling them on it; c) the other candidate is also prohibited from calling them on it. Heck, if a politician actually had to ANSWER questions, they might say something substantive that they had to actually implement (or try to implement) later! We can't have that!
Posted by: Dr. Kate | October 3, 2008 5:55 AM
It's on you tube if you want to watch the whole thing.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | October 3, 2008 6:01 AM
Wow. Wow!!!
That's not the case over here.
Of course, what may play a role here is that such debates have just two participants in the USA. Over here it tends to be 5 or 6.
Not with sufficient training. A good politician can always manage to say nothing substantive while talking for minutes.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 3, 2008 6:39 AM
Wow. Wow!!!
That's not the case over here.
Of course, what may play a role here is that such debates have just two participants in the USA. Over here it tends to be 5 or 6.
Not with sufficient training. A good politician can always manage to say nothing substantive while talking for minutes.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 3, 2008 6:39 AM
Wow. Wow!!!
That's not the case over here.
Of course, what may play a role here is that such debates have just two participants in the USA. Over here it tends to be 5 or 6.
Not with sufficient training. A good politician can always manage to say nothing substantive while talking for minutes.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 3, 2008 6:39 AM
Michael Heath:
Good analysis. You must drive the contractors who do your work out of their minds with punch lists. If I ever move to MI, we'll have to do some 'bidneth'!
I know we're all trying to keep this polite, but...
This thread has been far too civil.
It is obvious to me that Sarah Palin is an "empty frock" but I wasn't going to vote the McStain ticket in any event.
It's also obvious that the Bushboobs WOULD vote it if Beelzebub was the campaign manager.
I don't watch debates, ever, because they never shed any light on substantive issues for me. But, for those who did watch--at least those with a higher level of awareness than, say, Terry Schaivo--it's also obvious that Palin is a well rehearsed bonehead. Dan Quayle with lipstick and 3″ FM spikes.
I think mroberts is gonna be flippin' out, she said something vaguely tolerant of gays from what I hear.
And heddle will say she was smart, folksy and HOT!
Posted by: democommie | October 3, 2008 6:40 AM
I though she was terrible. She didn't stumble all over her words or break down into a panic, but you wouldn't expect someone who spouted memorized talking points to stumble; her answers required no thinking. It's almost as if she was listening for key words from the moderator to trigger one of her memorized lines, she didn't actually respond in a way that showed consideration on her part. Biden got his talking points out too, but at least blended in actual answers in as well.
Posted by: Matthew | October 3, 2008 7:07 AM
Matthew:
I think it's impossible to "consider" subjects that you know nothing about. Bush doesn't "do nuance", The ImPalinator likely can't define the word.
Posted by: democommie | October 3, 2008 7:13 AM
Exactly!
Posted by: heddle | October 3, 2008 7:59 AM
I thought Palin did much better than in interviews, but without saying much of substance. People paying attention to what she said would probably not be impressed, those listening to how she said it might have been. I thought Biden nailed her on a few things - such as her claim that Obama voted against troup funding - he managed to get points for saying McCain voted against it just the same way as Obama did, and for being honest enough to say why that happened and that he supported an alternative plan.
She talked a lot about McCain, which probably helped Biden, as he could then attack McCain and not her, which seemed to be a worry before the debate
Posted by: G. Shelley | October 3, 2008 8:05 AM
Thought Palin looked, acted, and spoke like a very earnest high school valedictorian, all platitudes and fluff.
Biden, gravitas beyond belief, but very restrained and about to explode.
Posted by: Jim Spencer | October 3, 2008 8:10 AM
As another European who won't be voting in this election, I watched the debate for two primary reasons: I wanted to get an impression of Biden, beyond his stand on various issues (the oh-so-popular "gut reaction"), since I'd just seen fairly short clips before this, and I wanted to see how Palin did, after her consistently disastrous performance since she was presented as the VP pick.
As with most others, I'll have to agree that Palin performed beyond my expectation of her, but she wasn't even remotely close to the expectations I have for someone who wants to be the VP of the USA. Other than that, I think all my other complaints about her have been covered earlier in this thread, and while some of those do deserve repeating (especially in the media), I can't be bothered.
Sen. Biden, on the other hand, managed to make a really good impression on me. I did notice that he also side-stepped the actual question a couple of times, and I'll admit to being a little disappointed in his answer to the gay-marriage question (but considering what he said about wanting full equal rights for gays, I'll want confirmation on what his and Obama's stance on this issue actually translates to, before condemning him for it), but his overall performance impressed me, and he stands out as the only VP candidate in this election who I'd trust to do a good job.
In the end, I'd say Biden was the clear winner of the debate, and the only reason he didn't get a knockout on Palin was the massively lowered expectations she had, going into this. If we judge her by any kind of impartial standard (and since she's actually running for VP, I see no reason not to), she did a pretty "darn" bad job.
Posted by: Kaerion | October 3, 2008 8:34 AM
Ya, she should, like, totally win Homecoming Queen.
Posted by: Shygetz | October 3, 2008 8:48 AM
There was a point during her babble last night where I was totally hoping for Biden to do one of the *cough* Bullshit *cough* things. Obviously he didn't, but I an waiting to see if SNL does.
Posted by: mr P | October 3, 2008 9:07 AM
As NPR noted this morning, Palin didn't struggle to answer questions, as she did with Katie Couric. That's because, for the most part, she didn't answer questions at all, she just ignored them and kept to reciting her talking points. And when the discourse did roll around to something she happened to have memorized, her voice took on a tone of smug superiority. (I should mention I listened on the radio, so didn't have visuals.)
When the discourse was on topics about which she was ignorant, which happened a lot, she tended to fall back on slogans and over-simplification. (Ooh, those nasty greedy lenders. Too bad we don't have some actual regulations to control and channel their greed.) And she has no problem at all with contradicting herself. She wants to increase regulation and oversight on Wall Street in order to get the government off the backs of the private sector.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 3, 2008 9:09 AM
The two points that stuck out to me were the gay marriage and climate change questions.
Was the moderator's question out of left field on that? She seemed to imply Alaska was leading the charge for gay rights. Biden looked shocked by it, as was I. He also looked shocked by Sarah Palin's response because it seemed like she forgot she's opposed domestic partner benefits and quite frankly been awful on the topic.
On the climate change when Palin repeated her "I don't know what causes global warming, but we need to work hard to prevent it" idiocy, I hit my knees and prayed (first time in quite a while) that Biden was ready to pounce on it. And he did with "if you don't know what causes a problem, how do you fix it?"
Overall, I think Palin did just what she needed to do to keep the ticket off life support. Now she'll be escorted to a remote island for the next 4 weeks.
Posted by: Odie | October 3, 2008 9:10 AM
"can best be described as "Pathological lying". Not that hardcore republicans will have a problem with that"
You are upgrading her from congenital liar?
My neighbor puts this in a light that scares me, because I think many people feel this way:
"I'm not concerned about the things she says that aren't technically true, because she has to get elected. I'm happy that she didn't have an abortion and that she didn't force her daughter to have one - that shows she is a moral person, and that's good enough for me."
Any guesses on the percentage of the population that feel the same way?
(I commented that I didn't know the ability to put feet behind ears was a requirement for vice president. My neighbor was not amused.)
Posted by: Dean | October 3, 2008 9:22 AM
Glendon: I agree, May put the Greens on the map as having a credible grasp of major issues besides environment. I won't be voting Green for other reasons, but hope she does well.
In a perfect world, though, Duceppe would be a Liberal. Or the NDP leader.
Okay, excuse the digression, back to your regularly scheduled American politics, eh!
Posted by: Bee | October 3, 2008 9:25 AM
I thought it was amusing that Biden played the sexism card:
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 3, 2008 9:30 AM
I caught the Article I/Article II mistake, but really, is that such a big deal? I seriously doubt that this is something that Biden doesn't know, and it's an easy mistake to make.
Posted by: Jerry | October 3, 2008 9:31 AM
I watched it and gave Biden a B+ and Palin a C+. My biggest disappointment was Biden not challenging Palin's "raising taxes will be bad for jobs and the economy" Republican mantra. It seems to me there are many ways to make a devastating reply to that, while also tieing the McCain/Palin ticket to Bush administration policy.
Posted by: JimV | October 3, 2008 9:40 AM
As an American living in Canada, I flipped back and forth between the two debates. One of the big differences is that in the Canadian debate, the party leaders were allowed to directly question each other, bring up new topics all by themselves, and even interrupt each other - you know, actually debate each other. The US debate on the other hand seemed specifically designed for the regurgitation of talking points.
The downside of the Canadian debate is that with five participants, the crosstalk got a little deafening at times. A co-worker of mind said that it was kind of like watching The View.
Posted by: Alex | October 3, 2008 9:40 AM
At the "Joe Six-Pack/Hockey Mom" comment, I turned to my wife of 28 1/2 years and remarked,
"I guess that means the Republican Party wants me to become an alcoholic, and you to become a bitch."
Posted by: Farb | October 3, 2008 9:48 AM
On the climate change when Palin repeated her "I don't know what causes global warming, but we need to work hard to prevent it" idiocy,...
This whole exchange made me want to throw things across the room. Palin actually answer the question better, but for the wrong reasons. Biden unfortunately answered the question incorrectly in his attempt to simplify things and distance himself from the GOP denialist position. Yeah, nothing at all needs to be fixed with respect to science education in America, nothing at all.
Posted by: Josh | October 3, 2008 9:56 AM
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president...
This is utter crap -- the VP's role is very narrowly defined, and there's NO flexibility: he presides over the Senate, casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and waits for the President to die. That's IT. Period. Palin is lying, and if she doesn't know it, she's in an elite class of willful ignorance.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 3, 2008 9:58 AM
It's not that the Conservatives are going to win "in a landslide" - but it is almost 100% certain that they're going to be the largest party after the election. The problem is that the other four parties are all liberal or left-leaning and they're going to split the lefty vote at least three ways (the Greens don't have a single MP yet and will be lucky to get more than one in this election). So while Harper only has a lock on about 35-40% of the popular vote, that percentage is more than enough to give him a guaranteed plurality of seats.
The dominant leftish party is the Liberals (essentially a center-left party), but the party leader is so colorless and charisma-free that it's looking like the NDP (basically the democratic socialists) has a non-zero chance of becoming the Official Opposition (i.e., second-largest party). Jack Layton, the NDP leader, is extremely charismatic and a great debater. The real issue with him is that because he has always had zero chance of being prime minister, he can promise a living, breathing, pony made of delicious milk chocolate to every Canadian without anyone bothering to fact-check his promises. If his party does end up becoming the opposition, he'll have to start proposing workable solutions for once.
Posted by: Alex | October 3, 2008 9:58 AM
We should really stop calling these TeeVee specials debates. I propose that we call them assertions inasmuch as that is the main portion of what the candidates feel they are expected to do.
Maybe if we could limit political debate to a radio only format we could get beyond the image thing. By that I mean specifically the way that candidates, Palin in point, are forced to project a comforting, familiar and identifiable image in order to be accepted by the viewer. Image necessarily trumps substance.
Just image that the only way we had to judge our candidates was by listening or reading! And engaging our brains!
I just can't stop the picture of Palin's undying smile throughout what is arguably an event of great importance and of greater import in the future. She reminds me of a TeeVee newsreader who segues from a story of child dismemberment to a report of silly shenanigans at a local retirement home with a whitewashed smile that would embarrass Paris Hilton. Tacky. Poor. But so encouraging to her base supporters, the people who we should really fear.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart
Posted by: Gretchen | October 3, 2008 10:18 AM
When Palin went on her "position ushering in an agenda that is consistent with the president's agenda in that position", we all broke out into the First Edition's "Just Dropped in to See What Condition my Condition was In". The biggest stat from the night for me was on the question of "Who better understands the problems of people like me?", where Biden polled 50 to Palin's 44 on CBS IIRC. If he's beating her there, game over.
Posted by: Science Avenger | October 3, 2008 10:32 AM
Joe Biden Debate Flow Chart
Posted by: heddle | October 3, 2008 10:35 AM
Damn you guys even fail at flow charts. It's supposed to sort of summarize how to proceed, as opposed to just being a list of Q&A, like that was.
Unfortunately, we liberals couldn't do a Q&A on the palin performance, since she was missing the whole "A" thingy.
But she's doing well on the platitudes and canned responses part. I mean hell, who knew that "nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet.". Orly? For realz.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 3, 2008 10:48 AM
I can't believe I'm the first to mention this...the only real loser of the night was Ifill. Listening to her stumble through her vague questions, trying to tailor each one separately toward each candidate, was painful. The weak questions contributed to each candidate's ability to dodge into standard talking points when convenient. CNN fortunately posted the question as a graphic, which helped me figure out what Ifill was trying to say - but on some questions, even CNN didn't seem to figure it out, and replaced that with something else until the next question.
I also thought the format favored Palin's memorized answers. (That's not Ifill's fault, as far as I know.) There was too little time to get out coherent and complete answers, and as Ed and others have noted, a sound bite lie always takes less time than an accurate answer. Biden had so many facts to put in that he always seemed rushed. I was amazed that he managed to still seem relaxed even as he sped through multiple bullet points - but the speed detracted from his effectiveness.
Posted by: BobApril | October 3, 2008 11:01 AM
Sarah Palin "wins" the debate if she doesn't soil herself in public. Biden has to be a combination of Demonsthenes and Abraham Lincoln to move the needle, because, after all, he's Joe Biden and he should be able to do this. The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Posted by: CJColucci | October 3, 2008 11:38 AM
The format sucked. But of course we never have real debates in this country. Anyway, I know others felt Palin did better than she did in the Couric interview, but Im not so sure. I think that much of the appearance of doing better came from a more favorable format. Most of the time in the Couric interview, the failures came when Couric highlighted the fact that Palin didnt answer and pushed for a specific answer. This format never allowed for that to happen. Palin could babble her platitudes that are only vaguely related to the question and noone could challenge her on it.
Posted by: Dave | October 3, 2008 11:41 AM
I think Palin is naturally folksy, but she had it plugged in to a Spinal Tap amp that went to 11. That was clearly a strategic decision, and not necessarily a bad one. The rapidly dropping number of people who support her seem to thrive on that "she's just like one of us" meme - which of course is exactly what I don't like about her.
I agree with BobApril on Ifill. I think she was quite fair to both candidates and did a good job in that respect, but particularly on the dueling questions about taxes she was almost incoherent.
I also agree with him on the format. Obviously the McCain people worked hard in negotiations to get a format that helped her as much as possible - no questioning the other candidate, being able to have notes on the lectern, etc.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 3, 2008 11:41 AM
I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, and this may not quite be what she means (if she means anything at all), but is what I could distil from the logorrhea from which she suffers:
It was a good idea to make the vice-president a flexible position.
We will use the flexibility of that office of to bring our legislative agenda before the congress. I agree with Vice-president Cheney that the office of the vice president is very flexible, and we will use that flexibility in whatever way we find appropriate to further our policies.
Non-sequitur:
Part of the reason I was chosen to be John McCain's running mate was my executive experience: governor, mayor, oil and gas regulator, and business owner. In addition to helping his campaign, my executive experience will be an asset for him once he is president.
At least that's what I get out of it - did I miss anything?
cheers-
E
Posted by: Eric | October 3, 2008 11:56 AM
On the one hadn I was disappointed not to see a rerun of the SNL skit. I thought she did well enough that none of ther supporters will say "My God, what have we done?" based on the debate, and that's about as much as you could expect.
On nu-cle-ar, well, that says it all. Just look at the friggin' letters.
I kept waiting for a complete sentence. I teach ninth graders who speak much better than she does. She seems to have a deep need to interrupt herself with "ya knows" and "alsos" (hat tip to Adene) and "toos" and.... well you get the picture. To paraphrase, cluttered speech is a sign of a cluttered mind.
I was shocked to hear her support, albeit limited, for same sex couples. Wonder what that will cost her?
I just wish somebody had asked her if she had managed to find any of those McCain pro-regulatory statements she said she'd get back to.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 3, 2008 12:22 PM
BaldApe - "I was shocked to hear her support, albeit limited, for same sex couples. Wonder what that will cost her?" I didn't hear much support there. She said she doesn't want to interfere with their right to visit in hospitals, or to make contracts...which is a far cry from granting them family-member status to make those visits or spousal privilege to make medical decisions, or letting them contract a marriage/civil union that provides any number of assumed rights.
I'm arguing with a guy on another board who makes the same sort of statements - he supports gays' right to run for political office, or serve in the military...as long as they don't, well, admit that they're really gay or anything.
Posted by: BobApril | October 3, 2008 12:31 PM
To our foreign friends out there - especially Europeans - who wonder why our candidates always seem so universally poor:
Imagine you were trying to elect a "President of Europe". Said President had to gather votes that were only sorta-kinda based on total popular vote, but weighted so that national boundaries were almost as important.
Now imagine what kinds of candidates your pan-Europa political parties might churn out that would be equally competitive in the UK, France, Poland, Spain, Bulgaria and Estonia.
That's close to what we do every four years. Is it any wonder we end up with such meh candidates? I'm coming around to the idea that the biggest problem our system of government has is that our Founders never dreamed we'd get so huge.
Posted by: NonyNony | October 3, 2008 12:46 PM
I thought Biden's answer on gay marriage was incoherent, but in this, he pretty well reflects the sentiment of the American public. And it was still a better answer than Palin's. Re: Obama not supporting gay marriage, he also doesn't oppose it -- i.e., he says "vote no on 8". His position is perhaps also less than coherent.
Palin's most substantive policy mentions were shocking -- Moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? Expanding the power of the Vice President? These were frankly nuts, and they haven't gotten the attention they deserve.
Posted by: Nemo | October 3, 2008 12:54 PM
It's ridiculous that we should even be thinking about how she did, she shouldn't be there, the whole thing made me cringe, she makes watching Bush speak seem like a relaxing vacation, smirk and all.
Posted by: Andrea | October 3, 2008 1:25 PM
We tuned in late, and got a good laugh right away when Palin answered Ifil's question on the US support of Israel. She wants to make sure Israel never suffers another Holocaust again. Even my kids knew that Israel didn't exist until after WWII was over. *sigh*
Listening to the commentary afterwards was more painful than the debate, IMO. Apparently the fact that she didn't do as horribly as she could have, and she had "energy" and was folksy was far more important than the fact that she didn't actually answer most of the questions. Had we been watching it on Fox, that wouldn't have been a surprise, but this was PBS. Some of them looked almost frightened to say anything substantive or negative about Palin. . .anyone else catch that vibe? (The reporter from Politico was the only exception, and the only one who seemed concerned that questions were answered with unrelated, well-rehearsed talking points.)
Posted by: Alison | October 3, 2008 1:47 PM
The entire gay marriage conversation was discomforting to me. The implication in Ifill's question was that Sarah Palin had something to do with the passage of legislation that allowed for benefits for same-sex couples, even though she has opposed that legislation. Asking Palin if she'd extend those benefits from Alaska to the United States gave her a complete pass on the issue. Even with that, she managed to come up with no more than a mangled response to it. I think she agreed with Joe Biden because she didn't really understand this issue to begin with.
I've think that the Obama / Biden position is illogical, but perhaps we are at a point where it is the politically acceptable intermediate step needed to grant full marriage status. If you can get republicans to agree that there should be no legal difference between marriage and civil unions (and Palin seemed to whether she knew she did or not), then it's just a matter of convincing people the word "marriage" is meaningless except as an identifier of separate but equal status.
It seems sneaky, like a moving the goalposts strategy, but perhaps having someone as unaware as Palin allow the goalposts to be moved in front of a national audience will actually be more beneficial.
Posted by: Odie | October 3, 2008 1:49 PM
McCain has fallen another 3 points on Intrade today. It stands now at roughly 31% McCain, 68% Obama.
Posted by: steve s | October 3, 2008 2:07 PM
Am I the only one who remembers that Palin wants "all options on the table" when dealing with Sudan about Darfur? That's right, she's going to nuke Khartoum. Hehe.
Spoken language doesn't have letters. Just ask Prince Prints.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | October 3, 2008 3:47 PM
I was waiting for her to produce more fodder for Tina Fey, and it didn't happen.
You don't think self-consciously saying "Golly gee" and giving exaggerated winks at the camera is comedy fodder?
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 3, 2008 3:49 PM
After watching the whole thing live, I was rather amazed at the fact that Palin kept sidestepping the questions, something which Biden, when presented with his rebuttal, made a point of at least twice, though she did it more than once more.
As for Obama's stance on gay marriage, I too, aggree that gay + marriage + law have nothing to do with one another. The real trick, and I had hoped Biden as a constitutional teacher of some sort would have gotten it, was that marriage of any form is overstepping the church/state line. Moreover, advocacy of constitutional marriage definitions is a violation of the Constitution, which argues only that what should be held for one man sould also be held for any person, regardless of that individual's race, color, religion, etc. That several states had the GALL to argue that they could shove that onto their own constitutions should have been pointed out by Biden, yet all he did was say that it should be left to the states to decide (and they apparently are).
My position, perhaps in distinction to that of my favored candidate, is that gay marriage is a violation of the Constitution, but so is straight marriage, and for the same reasons. Marriage should just not be regulated. In this way, partnership laws exist both on state and federal levels, and these simply need to be standardized. If marriage is a proposition for the couple, then they can go to their favored temple, mosque, church, or whatever, and have the ritual performed. But it IS a ritual, a religious rite, and therefore falls directly on one side of the church/state distinction.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | October 3, 2008 4:05 PM
I take the point on the EU electing a president sorta democratically (obviouslly that isn't the plan of our masters).
I was actually thinking about previous US presidents who, it seems to me, had leadership qualities and/or intelligence and weren't ashamed of either. FDR, Wilson, Taft, Lincoln, Reagan and probably lots of the earlier ones.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | October 3, 2008 4:05 PM
Alison: I suspect she was trying to sound biblical when talking about "Israel": she meant the 12 tribes, not the state.
Posted by: ebohlman | October 3, 2008 4:22 PM
At which point the religious right go nuts about how the evil gays are trying to take everyone's marriages away. More so than usual.
Posted by: MartinM | October 3, 2008 4:40 PM
Ed, quoted for posterity's sake:
Having said that, I just grit my teeth listening to her. She had the folksiness turned up to 11, full of golly gees and doggonits. She kept cutting the 'g' off the end of verbs - lots of runnin' and fightin' going on. Lots of "darn rights" and "you betchas." And she has this incredibly annoying habit of changing to this breathy tone of voice that sounds like a kindergarten teacher reading a story to the kids. It sounds to me like "And then the prince climbed on a BIG WHITE HORSE", as though the response she expects is "ooooooh."
Damnit, Ed, how am I supposed to comment on Palin's terminal case of Folksiness Syndrome when you write a paragraph that practically touched on every point I was going to make?
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | October 3, 2008 5:26 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
Matt Taibbi, in his Rolling Stone article, "Mad Dog Palin," explained some of the psychology behind thatstrategic decision:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/vp-debate.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 3, 2008 6:38 PM
Crudely Wrott wrote [and try saying that fast 5 times]:
I propose we call them what they are, Beauty Contests. Disadvantages: it works against the older gentlemen. Advantages: Palin and Obama will look great in the swim suit competition, and when McCain says he's no Miss Congeniality he will be literally correct. We'd get to listen to Palin play flute, also.
Posted by: tguy | October 3, 2008 7:26 PM
BobApril:
In some quarters, anything short of tying them to the back of a pickup truck and dragging them down a gravel road is "support."
Posted by: BaldApe | October 3, 2008 8:51 PM
I'm coming on this too late for anyone to bother read this... :-)
I was watching BBC news late coverage of the approval of the "rescue" package. Someone (hey, I don't know America politics!) closed his support for it with: "God bless Sarah Palin for her service to America". Eh? She hasn't served the USA yet. And she may never get to. (I have to admit I also I wish people would us 'USA', not America.)
Posted by: Heraclides | October 4, 2008 4:20 AM
NonyNony,
I know what you're trying to say. I think it'd be harder in Europe, though. The population of Europe in 2005 was apparently approximately 728 million and different European nations are substantially more different than different states are in the USA. (Its more than just language and culture, but in particular also history that they can trace back a long way.)
I think an interesting comparison to think about might be to consider elections in India which has a substantially larger population (over 1 billion), more serious issues of lack of education in the poorer voters and yet are a single democracy.
Posted by: Heraclides | October 4, 2008 4:42 AM
Odie wrote:
I couldn't believe he didn't jump on her whole "We need to get the rest of the world to come along with America" on global warming crap. As if the US is leading the charge. Give me a break!
She said:
also (ha ha)
I actually laughed when she said this. And I was disappointed Biden didn't point out that the US is lagging behind much of the rest of the developed world on this issue.
Although, now that I read the transcript, she does seem to be admitting that even our standards are low!
Posted by: Leni | October 4, 2008 5:58 PM
RE: Obama/Biden being "against" gay marriage. I've been under the impression that this issue, just like atheism, is one of those acknowledged 3rd rails that will derail any candidacy of any party (being in favor of either of them, that is), and the the approved Dem position is to be against g. m. but for "civil unions" w/ all the protections/privileges of marriage...
RE: Nu cu ler. I only hope all those bothered by this also know how to pronounce "realtor." :D
Posted by: edfan | October 4, 2008 8:56 PM