In the words of one commentator, Palin was “like a wolverine attacking the pants leg of a passerby.”
Whether that reflects victory or failure is open to interpretation. It wasn’t nearly as awful as I thought it would be, and while I think that Biden won based on content and persuasion, the things I tend to look for in a vice president, I have to say that Sarah Palin not only didn’t embarrass herself as I thought she would, but actually revealed herself to be a quick study. Read on . . . “Can I call you Joe?” might be the most interesting opening to a debate that I’ve ever heard, and it set the tone for an aw-shucks exchange as remarkable for its lack of shocking “uh-oh” moments as it was by the one-sided balance of brainpower teetering on the stage.
What do I mean by quick study? Palin memorized a few lofty but ultimately insubstantial points, answered the questions of her coaches and not of the moderator and remembered to keep the focus on McCain. Almost too fawningly — it did remind me a little of Mary Wells’ song “My Guy,” and it’d be OK with me if I never heard the word “maverick” again, ever, in my life. If this was “Sarah being Sarah,” then she was ineffably Sarah by demonstrating that recited answers don’t have to make her robotic — they don’t have to actually refer to the question. She’s utterly charming, and anyone who can pull off “utterly charming” while saying the same few things over and over again has my admiration. (Not my vote, which I’ll discuss later). By announcing at the end that she didn’t like doing the “mainstream media” thing, she made it clear that she’d play by the rules the campaign sets for her, which clearly require Sarah to be Sarah in an entirely scripted setting — no one-on-one engagement with the media, where there’s a risk that she might get a question she wasn’t prepped for.
“Failure” tonight would have been her utter collapse, a low expectation of astounding consequence, but she didn’t fail. She sparkled as brightly as her three-inch rhinestone flag pin, and was about as substantial. She didn’t implode, go utterly blank, break down, or singlehandedly sink the ticket. With the bar set as low as it was, it isn’t going to matter as much as it should that she didn’t answer straight questions with comprehensive answers that reflect a depth of knowledge and experience. That’s obviously not “Sarah being Sarah.” She was pretty, she was funny, she was earnest, and she had some zingers. She dazzles and amuses. Whether that complements a person’s intellect and skill, or simply replaces it, ought to be a bigger issue than it will be.
Unfortunately, the religious right won’t care as much about that. There’s some irony in what I imagine will be the religious conservatives’ applause over her performance, because she was Hillary-like in her cutting stridency — and I have amazing tolerance for cutting humor and am often accused of stridency. She didn’t “submit” to the moderator’s actual questions, openly mocked and derided both Biden and Obama, and flirted pretty shamelessly with the audience. But having gotten religious conservatives to forget their opposition to everything her public position represents for women, she’ll now have them scratching their heads to see how they can reconcile the occasional snotty and yet cloying behavior of their “new Deborah” or “our nation’s Esther.” I might suggest they give up trying to find an antecedent model for Palin in Scripture and, instead, look at recent sitcoms or, perhaps, an old high school yearbook where the cool girl gets the even cooler guy.
Quick note: Given the horror of eight years of Dick Cheney, her suggestion that broadening the scope of the VP’s power is unsettling. Also, I keep imaging GOP operatives wince when she talks about Joe Sixpack and the Hockey Moms “getting taken advantage of” in the current financial meltdown. I guess the prep sessions didn’t quite make it to the GOP’s laying the blame at the feet of Clinton-era rollbacks of racially based lending restrictions and an influx of Black and Hispanic homeowners, but I imagine her coaches will remind her that “personal responsibility” doesn’t allow for a scenario in which lenders and investors “take advantage of” clients. Her bad — and her “well-done.”
Biden was statesman-like, calm, affable, serious, and demonstrated an able, thorough grasp of policy. Yeah, like that sort of thing should matter in analyzing debates. It should, of course, but we’ll just hear that Biden is dull, too smart, too experienced, too . . . too “not like Sarah.” On the bookshelf of political America, Biden is a well-thumbed-through encylopedia. Sarah Palin, I’m afraid, is like a pop-up book — surprising, fun, but not designed for the long haul and, by design, not full of a lot of content.
I’m voting Obama/Biden, but I’d love to have a drink with Sarah and Todd, or go on a church retreat with her. But I require different things from friends and neighbors than I do for President. I hope America does, too.
it sure was an interesting debate – she’s not too good at actually answering the questions
Comment by dragonsinger57 — October 4, 2008 @ 10:47 pm