Amid a swirl of national affairs, two rock-steady debaters
Neither Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin nor Delaware Sen. Joe Biden did their campaigns harm in St. Louis. For the less-seasoned Palin, that was an accomplishment. But her ticket is still playing catch-up.
A record viewing audience watched the nationally televised vice-presidential candidate debate Thursday night, Oct. 2. They got a good show. When it was over, things stood just about where they were before the debate began — that is, with Obama-Biden holding a 5 percent lead nationally over McCain-Palin (as per the most recent Gallup Daily tracking poll).
Meanwhile, the context of their showdown in St. Louis was anything but stable:
- The financial rescue package, passed in the Senate, had not yet been passed in the House of Representatives. The Dow fell 348 points during the day Thursday.
- Several major-state polls showed Obama-Biden forging into the lead. NBC's polling director went to far as to state that Democrats might already have clinched victory.
- The Obama-Biden ticket's surge was attributed by most analysts to the ascendance of financial/economic issues, where voters traditionally have preferred Democrats.
- Unseen by most analysts, the Obama-Biden campaign had made major media investments in key states over the previous week. So had independent committees waging negative campaigns against McCain-Palin.
- Entering his debate last week with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain had weathered several rocky campaign days. McCain fought Obama to a draw and pulled himself up. Entering Thursday's debate, Palin was in exactly the same position. Weak performances in network TV interviews had hurt her. She, too, held her own with Biden and thus broke her bad streak. In particular, she probably reclaimed support among female voters who were having second thoughts about her.
Neither candidate made a major blunder Thursday. Both did a good job of representing their presidential candidates' views. Sen. Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, showed his knowledgeability on overseas issues and also was able to cite legislative history on domestic issues of which Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lacked knowledge. But Palin held her own on foreign, domestic, and economic policy. She was poised, well-briefed, and exceeded expectations about her performance.
Morning-after analysts will find minor errors or misstatements by both Biden and Palin. But none were important enough to make any difference with voters. Biden reinforced Democratic partisans; Palin reinforced Republicans. I doubt independent or undecided voters were swayed greatly in either direction as a result of the debate. Polling data a day or two hence will tell us about that.
Now, where we do we stand?
The Obama-Biden lead of 5-6 points is not important in itself. An event or campaign occurrence can cause a swing that large in 24 hours. But Democrats have several strong strategic advantages now.
First, so long as finance/economics remain at center stage, voters will continue to lean Democratic. Second, Obama-Biden are better financed and will be able to pour media and organizational money into key swing states. As noted above, McCain and Palin each has had a several-day slump in the general-election campaign and bounced back. Obama-Biden have held generally steady. In sports terms, the Republicans have had to keep rallying from behind, without ever pulling even. If nothing changes, an Obama-Biden victory seems likely. But remember, an unforeseen international event, scandal, or October surprise could change that.
Finally, a personal word. As a lifelong Democrat, I favor Obama-Biden. I have known Biden for many years and have seen him put foot in mouth or become verbose on previous occasions. He did not do that Thursday. He gave a strong, tight performance. Palin, a relative newcomer, held her own and did a professional job in her own right. Both handed the batons back to their No. 1s for their remaining two debates without having done them harm.
Biden choked back a tear as he told of losing his wife and child in an accident. Palin shone through as highly intelligent if still relatively inexperienced. Each, at debate's end, clearly had gained respect for the other. Given their body language during the debate, I also think they came to like each other. Good people, with similar origins, worthy of our pride.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 8:37 a.m. inappropriate
Where's the beef: Okay, now it's my turn to say you're giving too much credit. Sarah Palin did an excellent job of coughing up scripted comments, but if I had heard another "Gosh darn" or "heck of a lot" I would have barfed. She never strayed from the memorized script, offered no specifics on either the economy or foreign affairs and used the term "maverick" a few too many times. I'm glad Biden finally challenged that notion. What, besides tax cuts, would she suggest to get the economy going and just exactly how would tax cuts (which haven't helped so far) change anything? One thing she did seem to say was that the executive branch should have more power (when talking about the duties of the veep). In her Couric interview, perhaps the Supreme Court decision she should have cited - that she disagreed with - was Marbury v Madison. What she proved to me is that she was at least smart enough to commit to memory a 90-minute script (albeit with lots of repeats) and that she can project a bubbly, cheerleader public persona. I do agree that the VP debate changed nothing.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 10:58 a.m. inappropriate
High comedy: I'm not sure which is funnier:
1. "knowledgeability"
2. "Palin shone through as highly intelligent..."
I think Gov. Palin is not stupid. I would not go so far as to call her "highly intelligent."
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 1:47 p.m. inappropriate
Image or Substance?: I think that if someone wants to vote for a charmingly cutesy, g-droppin' hockey mom of little political experience for vice president, then have at it. Perhaps she is the Republican dream and the *future of the Republican Party,* as some pundits like to say about Palin. However, with McCain at 72 years of age, the chance that we may arrive at a President Palin if he's elected and expires in office is a very frightening vision and a very real possibility. And we as a nation haven't been privy to any of McCain's health records, save for a few reporters with brief access, so we're uncertain of the current status of his health.
I have to admit that before last night, I was not a big Biden fan. However, I felt that he brought dignity, knowledge, a thorough understanding of the operations of the Senate, and a sense of gravity--a groundedness--to his presence and arguments.
It seems obvious that Biden was on a leash last night, and wasn't provoked by Palin's "say it's not so, Joe" or any of her cute traits such as eye-winking that one my find endearingly folksy or irritatingly gratuitous and/or patronizing. Personally, I felt as if I were watching a canned commercial.
As an Independent voter, Palin is not for me, and never will be. We've already a President that is far too folksy with his verbiage and posture and far too incompetent in his actions, and as a consequence has done great damage to our nation, our standing in the world, and the environmental well-being of the planet. I'm through with image and crave substance.
It'll be reassuring that when Obama IS president that he will be able to count on Biden's connections, expertise, and experience when dealing with the legislative branch of our government. Palin would only know where to start, because I have no doubt that working in the Washington everyday is a far cry from memorizing and spouting scripted answers in a debate. And when Biden kept *looking back*--in Palin's words--when he was referring to the current Bush administration policies, he was truly looking forward to the tragic possibility of a McCain/Palin victory. Nothing, in all probability, would change on our current course as a nation, and nothing could be more devastating to our current predicament and downhill slide.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 3:15 p.m. inappropriate
National candidates do a lot of hard work to prepare for televised debates.
Even experienced ones sometimes make mistakes or misstate things in front of the cameras. I was impressed by the degree to which Palin had absorbed her material and held her own with subject matter with which she was not previously familiar. I had expected Biden to trip her up, in particular, on a foreign-policy issue or two but he could not. I have watched her otherwise and concluded that she is, indeed, highly intelligent although not yet ready for such high office. She has a genuine populist appeal in a time when there is much dissatisfaction with establishmentarian performance in both the public and private sectors. She should not be underestimated. I suspect she will be a national figure for awhile.
As far as v.p. candidates go, she clearly is stronger than Agnew or Quayle, both of whom served in the office, and probably Edwards, who did a lackluster job four years ago as Kerry's running mate.
Sure, Obama-Biden are the better ticket and Biden is more ready for high responsibility than Palin. But why direct such anger and hostility toward her? It was McCain who made the choice. She is simply trying her best and doing surprisingly well.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 3:31 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Van Dyk comment: She has a genuine populist appeal in a time when there is much dissatisfaction with establishmentarian performance in both the public and private sectors.
There's also much dissatisfaction with a certain other someone with similar populist appeal – the W himself.
I like to believe my elected leaders are much smarter than me. Palin does seem pretty bright, but she seems more a peer than a superior. I was impressed that she didn't bomb her debate the way that she did in her Couric interviews, but doing better than expected isn't the same as doing particularly well.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 6:27 p.m. inappropriate
Suck it up and show some honesty: I'm just about at my wits end with commentary like this that suggests that somehow this debate was a draw. I'm sorry, the fact of the matter is, it wasn't. It was no contest. It's crystal clear that Palin is far from being qualified for VP or Pres. of the most powerful country in the world. Who are we trying to kid? When I read stories like this, I just can help but wonder what people were smoking when they watched last night's debate. I, for one, don't like my intellegence tested by being told that, awe shucks, Sarah really deserves high marks for holding her own! Give me a bloody break!
Betty
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 8:22 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Van Dyk comment: But why direct such anger and hostility toward her?
Because she's there. Because she represents all that's wrong with the religious right's entanglement with politics. Because she'll take us to a stall scientifically as Bush has done and continues to do. Because she won't get us any closer to weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. Because she's just a rhetoric spouting renewal of the last eight years. When I've seen my country go way off course in so many areas, and I see Palin representing the continuation of that sad sad saga, then she deserves to draw my anger. And everyone else's who has witnessed the erosion of a once great nation.
Posted Fri, Oct 3, 8:44 p.m. inappropriate
Wink wink!: Perhaps you're just being a gentleman, Ted, but you're assessment of Palin's performance is far too generous.
No, Palin didn't make a complete fool of herself, but that's simply because she was not pressed to provide coherent answers to the questions she was asked, unlike she was in the Couric interview.
She said plenty of things in the debate that were unintelligible or too vague to mean anything. When faced with questions she couldn't answer, she served up canned answers to unrelated questions. The only difference here was that no one called her on it.
Take a cue from Couric. When a politician tries to feed you a s**t sandwich, you are not obliged to eat it.
Posted Sat, Oct 4, 10:36 a.m. inappropriate
Hopefully the same standard will be applied when reviewing Murray and Cantwell.: When viewing judgement and qualifications make sure to use your critical viewfinders evenly, without the "R" and "D" lenses. When a Cantwell is named in a Divorce action of a lobbyist she still sends Government Business to 14 years after she began sleeping with him ( Ron Dotzauer ), does that speak highly of her judgement. When Patty Murray earmarks 17 Million Dollars on Boats for the Navy that no one wanted or needed and ended up being "given" away, is that "smart". How about 6 Million Dollar earmarks for helmet mounted displays for the army, AFTER the units did not win approval in Army Trials and they still sit unused in a warehouse. In true Washington State Democratic fashion Patty also kept the money Jack Abramoff funneled to her from out of state Tribal Interests. Yes sir, the "best and the brightest" of Washington are certainly representing us in D.C.
Posted Sat, Oct 4, 11:13 a.m. inappropriate
information v. knowledge: In the case of Information v Knowledge, this judge finds in favor of knowledge.
Palin has a "talent" for retaining information relating to her idiology. She did not express, or did not have that information given to her, beyond the prep work. She could not connect her own knowledge with the McCain information.
She will have to be told what to say until she can express actual policy on her own. When she had to go there she just started blurting out "McCain", "maverick", and a gesture (wink and point into the air).
Biden actually recalled knowledge from memory, paired it with the Obama position, and expressed policy in response to a direct question.
There is a reason Biden rightly pointed out that he "didn't hear a plan" from Palin when she answered a few questions. She did not have that information and she does not "know" what she had to use for an answer.
She doesn't know.
I hope that is not the new meaning of "maverick".
Posted Sat, Oct 4, 12:57 p.m. inappropriate
RE: information v. knowledge: Where was Mr. Biden's "Knowledge" for the last 36 years? Apparently he was sitting on his knowledge when he went along with the deregulation of the Financial Industry. His "I'm sure I am smarter that you" rhetoric falls a short when discussing the 1929 address of President Franklin D. Roosevelt going on Television to address the stock market crash. His "100,000 cops on the street" were not funded beyond a couple of years and became a huge burden on local jurisdictions He did not fight for the "little guy" in the first Clinton term when the promised "Middle Class tax cuts" never materialized, how did the people down at Katies diner feel about that one Joe? Was Joe for Clean Coal before he was against it , before he was for it ( for export to China)? Which Amendment ws that again Joe? You know the one that outlines the responsibilities for the Job you are applying for ?
Posted Sat, Oct 4, 1:17 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Van Dyk comment: scottacoma writes: "I like to believe my elected leaders are much smarter than me. "
-
This faith, in a nutshell, is the first step on the road to tyranny. People who are successful in politics usually have a good memory for names and faces. Other than that, as a group, there's nothing special about them. Forget that fact at your peril.
Posted Sat, Oct 4, 10:22 p.m. inappropriate
RE: information v. knowledge: Now, what are Palin's positions on all that that Biden knows, and you know but do not agree with?
How is it that you know enough to know you do not agree with him, but she doesn't?
Oh, that's right (wink) she's a Washington outsider. I guess that applies to both Washingtons, clearly you must be posting your opinion from D.C. soemwhere, or here in the real Washington.
Know enough to agree, or dissagree, but just having campaign information is simply not enough.
Thanks for supporting my point.
Posted Sun, Oct 5, 9 a.m. inappropriate
RE: information v. knowledge: Then you will not have any problem refuting the factual errors Joe has spouted in the last several days will you? What is distrubing is that you and other like you in the media are willing to "overlook" statements from Joe Biden that would get any 6th Grader an "F" in History Class. The fact that he is a sitting US Senator in charge of oversight of anything more pressing than his bar tab is frightening. I don't think you ever really had a point did you?
Posted Tue, Oct 7, 10:27 a.m. inappropriate
RE: information v. knowledge: You are missing the point; I don't, you don't, but she does have to be able to refute Biden's claims using HER knowledge, not mine, not yours, as we are not running to be Vice President of the United States of America.
You can turn this away from her to Biden, or you, or me, but that will not change her cramming for a leadership position for this country. Her writers needed to give her more material, an over-all strategery for the McCain campaign might have helped her.
They have themes like Maverick, and outsider, but the missing policy content, even as subtext in the debate, is hard to follow and harder to articulate in that "debate". If it were an actual debate I do not know how much better she could have done.
She had a stump speech moderated by Gwen Ifill. It was not unlike a keynote, used to introduce her, again, punctuated with John McCain themes (information).
That was my point, I am not expecting anybody to agree with it. I am not in the "media". I posted a comment just like you did. The "Editor's Pick" means the "Editor" has "Picked" my comment for whatever reasons they have. Maybe they agree with it.