Sarah Palin Proves She's No Quivering Mass of Jelly.

The much-anticipated VP debate is now history, and the spin cycle has begun. Obviously both sides are proclaiming victory for their candidates. But as I said in my post after the first Presidential showdown, I think talking in terms of overall winners and losers is a bit of a distraction. I believe it's more important to look at expectations and measure performances accordingly. So what were the respective expectations for Biden and Palin? There's no doubt that one of the candidates is credited with experience, knowledge, and a lengthy record of service, while the other is not. Perhaps it was appropriate (as one poster did in a thread on this blog) to characterize Biden as a man with "everything in (his) favor".

So what about Palin? What were people looking for? No doubt a significant portion of America tuned in to see if she would be as inarticulate as she was in the Couric and Gibson interviews. It may not be admirable, but schadenfreude is very much a part of the modern political landscape. Of course the McCain campaign couldn't allow that kind of embarrassment. That's why they fought so hard with the Commission of Presidential Debates to set a very tightly structured format for this debate. They understood from the start that this was the condition that would maximize Palin's ability to deliver the ticket's message. A free-flowing discussion would have been disastrous for Palin.

I clearly communicated my thoughts on this matter in the comment thread of a post from two days ago. I wrote:

"All Palin needs to do is sound reasonably articulate, not make any fatal gaffes, and avoid answering every question by parroting talking points, clichés, and platitudes. She's a former sports broadcaster and beauty queen, and she's used this very strategy to great effect in her Alaskan debates (just YouTube them). If she manages to execute this completely undemanding strategy, her supporters and campaign will declare her a huge winner, the media will go along with it so as not to appear sexist, and viewers with 'concerns' will think that she's not so bad as they feared."

I realized that I had predicted the outcome correctly as soon as Palin, in the midst of dodging another inquiry, said, " And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear". Um, yeah... Exactly. Who cares if it's a "structured debate" when a candidate can simply ignore the questions and talk about whatever he/she wants? No follow-up means no accountability.

So this tactic seems to have worked for the night. Palin was able to continue promoting her GOP-created persona. She was folksy, decidedly not an intellectual, and more interested in her image than the issues themselves. And we'll have to wait a few days before we learn whether or not her audience bought into her act. Certainly she showed herself once again adept at memorizing talking points. But that's not to say that she didn't make any significant gaffes. She was just able to keep a continuous flow of words coming out of her mouth so as to obscure them. Palin was doubly wrong when she tried to claim that "McClellan" (a long-dead US civil war general) said that surge principles would work in Afghanistan. Still, this likely went over the heads of Palin supporters, as well as those still "on the fence".



On the other hand, Joe Biden (who had merely to avoid losing his temper and acting condescending to his opponent) did a stellar job. Viewer polls demonstrate that the vast majority of observers thought that Biden "won" the debate. Still that's likely to be seen as a minor point. The McCain campaign is no doubt expelling a long sigh of relief. Palin didn't collapse into a heap of quivering jelly, and for that she deserves a "Gold Star". All they have to do now is keep her from doing any more interviews with interlocutors who will actually make her answer questions. They'll simply put her on FOX and the Right Wing talk radio circuit. In this respect, Sarah Palin's performance can be called successful. She has transformed herself from being a millstone around the neck of the ticket, and she can now resume her role as "ordinary hockey mom".

Bring on the Debates!

Having expressed my serious reservations about the validity of a series of debates with rules agreed upon behind closed doors by the two major political parties, I still have to admit that I'm looking forward to watching the candidates square off against each other. Supporters of both sides have been boasting about the verbal abilities of their respective candidates. Will John McCain lose his temper, or appear to be hopelessly out-of-touch in his dotage? Will Barack Obama be too long-winded, and will he be able to dispel Republican accusations branding him as an "elitist"? It's clear that there are some clearly defined tasks for each politician. Some observers suggest that these debates could have a decisive effect on a close election.

One interesting dimension that has already been examined concerns the agreements that the sides made regarding the structure of these "contests". The McCain campaign had two notable desires for the debates. They wanted to have a tightly-structured format for the entire series, in order to compensate for their candidates' perceived disadvantages in loose and flowing exchanges. Both McCain and Palin rely quite heavily on previously-scripted jabs and "folksy" witticisms. They excel in their combined ability to deliver sound-byte worthy declarative statements on the issues. Obama on the other hand is commonly considered to be an excellent improvisational speaker. He also tends to include more nuance and complexity in his answers.

Obviously there is some give-and-take involved in the secret negotiations of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Apparently the compromise that the Republicans and Democrat reached was that the presidential debates would allow for more free-flowing interaction, while the VP debates would be tightly controlled. This reflects the special concern that Palin's handlers have about her debating abilities. The New York Times reports that "McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive." At first glance this decsion seems to favor the GOP. Palin will have less opportunity to make another potentially "fatal" gaffe.

However, a case could be made that Biden will be assisted by the extra structure as well. He is well-known for his penchant for delivering provocative statements and using more words than necessary to make his point. In addition, there will be less possibility that Biden will appear brutal in his aggressive attacks on Palin's "qualifications". One thing the Biden people worry about is the "damsel-in-distress" sympathy factor. On the other hand, the trade-off is that Obama will be free to exploit John McCain's weaknesses. The 72-year old has often looked confused and unfocused in recent television interviews. If Obama can avoid looking condescending, this should be a major advantage.


On the second issue, the McCain campaign has definitely received its preference. The first presidential debate was initially supposed to be focused on the economy. This has been the source of tremendous difficulty for the McCain/Palin ticket over the last couple of weeks. McCain has been a consistent deregulator throughout his political career, and he needs more than a few days to rehabilitate that image. Despite his baffling comments about the Spanish Prime Minister, many consider foreign policy a strength for McCain. Obama meanwhile needs to appear authoritative on an issue that has led many critics to bring up his relative "lack of experience". If he can convey that he understands what is at stake, he could enter the following debates (in which he is clearly stronger) unscathed.

Convention Tidbits.

It may come as a surprise to some, but I haven't been paying much attention at all to the Democratic National Convention. I caught bits of information leading up to the event, and have since heard a few excerpts from the speeches delivered on the floor. I heard Nancy Pelosi comparing the policies and positions of Obama and his opponent, and trying to stimulate audience participation by chanting "...McCain is wrong". I listened to the thoughts of John Warner, as he imagined a time just four month from now, when we could possibly have a presidential administration that "believes in science". And of course I heard Hillary Clinton speak about potential unity.

I have also gleaned some concerns and reactions from hack radio. There have been the standard issue claims that nothing substantive is being discussed. According to Rush Limbaugh it's all just been "re-packaging of re-packaging". He had some remarks about the surprise appearance of Ted Kennedy, but they were mostly veiled observations that the ailing Senator lacks the energy to be truly inspiring. Limbaugh did point out that he thought it was ironic that they introduced Kennedy with a video montage that began with images of water. Naturally this blowhard is capable of calling the opposing playbook "tired" while still referencing an event that happened nearly 40 years ago. He even supplied the word "Chappaquiddick" for any of his listeners that weren't following closely.

Speaking of water, Limbaugh did have an interesting concern regarding the coming Republican National Convention, to be held in Minneapolis starting on September 1st. He's been tracking the development of the Gustav storm system off the coast of Haiti. One of his sources projects Gustav to develop into a category 5 hurricane, and head straight for New Orleans. Obviously if this happened it would be an effective reminder of how the Bush administration (and by extension, the entire GOP) failed to react strongly and quickly, and left thousands of victims to meet their own fates. Since Katrina, there have been numerous accounts from affected families who report that promises made by Bush and Co. have been left unfulfilled.

Limbaugh predicts that should Gustav visit the Louisiana coast, the "drive-by media" (as he calls the press) will surely dredge up the lingering problems associated with the re-building of New Orleans. In addition, he claims that there will be no coverage of the Republican Convention if all of this happens. I find it amusing to hear him construct contingency justifications for the possible defeat of the GOP in November. It's as if he's preparing his audience to accept that fate has decreed an Obama victory. In that case it will have had nothing to do with the failed policies of the last eight years. It won't be related to the thwarted expectations of Middle America, or the breakdown of the neo/theo-con coalition.

Tonight the nation will hear from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Everyone will be picking closely over the words of the former president, looking for any hesistancy in his support of the offical nominee. There have been times over the last few months when I have just wanted ol' Bill to shut the hell up. In my opinion he has subverted his own legacy with his doggedly desperate attacks on Obama. Now he has a chance to redeem himself and help heal the fissures created during the primary battle. I have every reason to expect that he'll rise to the occasion. As far as Biden is concerned, I have no idea what he'll bring to the campaign. Although he seems pretty vanilla, he has a reputation for being a mouthy guy. It might be worth tuning in.

Who is Joe Biden?

I wasn't at all happy this weekend when it was announced that Barack Obama had chosen his running mate. Joe Biden?! I immediately thought to myself that our hero couldn't have chosen a more establishment candidate. It's not that I even knew much about the Senator from Delaware. But I was aware that he had mounted several unsuccessful campaigns for the presidential nomination in the past. There was nothing inspiring about those attempts. He came off as a fairly conservative functionary that has been in Washington way too long to affect any sort of change. And yet when people asked me how I felt about Obama's selection, I was hesitant to go into a lot of detail. I decided to do some research first.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. is the son of a suburban car salesman from Wilmington, DE. Although the 66-year old Biden was born in Scranton, PA, he spent his childhood in New Castle County, Delaware. He got his law degree and was elected into the US Senate in 1972, at the age of 30 (he was the sixth youngest to be elected to that political body). Shortly after assuming office, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident. He was actually sworn in at the bedside of his sons, who had survived the tragedy. Instead of resigning his seat, he decided to commute to DC from Wilmington, which he still does to this day. His progeny have since found their way into politics.

Obama apparently thought long and hard about his choice for VP. Biden offers 36 years of intimate knowledge of Washington insider politics. He is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a long-standing member of the Committee on the Judiciary (he chaired it in '87 and '95) . He is also co-chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. It was in that capacity that he wrote the laws that established a national "Drug Czar". He has focused his efforts on reducing the use of ecstasy, ketamine, Rohypnol (the "date-rape" drug) and steroids. As Judiciary Chair he has been active in promoting measures to stem the tide of domestic violence, and to control the spread of violent crimes.

It is in the realm of foreign policy that Biden has a decidedly mixed record. He was very active in promoting a US military involvement in the Balkans during the mid-90's. After 9-11 he bought the administration line that Hussein was a major threat to American interests. He voted for the War on Iraq, and he has steadfastly supported every appropriations bill for that conflict. His major caveat is that he has continually insisted both on an increased troop presence and an internationalization of the conflict (sounds a lot like McCain, eh?). The major difference he has with the current strategy is that he is in favor of partitioning Iraq into separate regions for the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

One tidbit of info that reveals Biden's true nature is his behavior after being asked to be John Kerry's running mate in 2004. He urged the wannabe president to select Senator John McCain as a VP candidate, in order to heal the "vicious rift" dividing the nation. That lends a bit of irony to my earlier suggestion that Obama and McCain should consolidate on the same ticket. Anyway, after a bit of reading I'm a bit puzzled by the Obama/Biden partnership. While it's true that a moderate Democrat with legislative experience seems to round out Barack's strengths, I don't see this pick helping Obama's chances in the November elections. Biden had only garnered 1% of the votes during the primary, and Delaware is far from being an important battleground state.

I see this move as another in a long line of concessions to the business-as-usual mentality that is so endemic in our society. If Obama was really committed to change, you'd think he'd be more adventurous in his alignments.