My Immediate Debate Reactions
By Conor FriedersdorfThis debate had an arc to it — Governor Palin came out far stronger than I suspected she would, seeming sharp and well-spoken. On style she destroyed Joe Biden as things began, giving crisp answers while he got bogged down defending himself by spewing out numbers. After 10 or 15 minutes, I thought that Governor Palin would emerge as the clear winner of the evening.
But when the debate turned to foreign policy her style suffered, and more important, the substance of her remarks signified no real knowledge of any of the topics being discussed. Joe Biden, on the other hand, seemed to have a depth of knowledge on every foreign policy topic, and I say that as someone who often disagrees with Senator Biden — even when he’s wrong he knows what he’s talking about.
My guess is that Sarah Palin did good enough to reassure voters who were beginning to doubt her competency, but that she didn’t win anyone over to the Republican side. This is because the topics on which Biden won — the economy, Iraq, and understanding what regular people are going through — are the most important to voters, whereas energy (drill baby drill!) is mere fodder for the base, though I too think we ought to drill. Likewise the most memorable moment, when Biden got choked up about his deceased family members in a way that clearly wasn’t affected, goes to the Democratic candidate.
Stepping back a moment, America has just witnessed a style of debate different than anything we’ve ever seen before. Governor Palin used cuteness as a weapon, actually winking at the camera on several occasions. Is this a portent of things to come? I can’t imagine that it is, and so I think that this was a singular political moment, and that it probably had Hillary Clinton, and maybe even Laura Bush, vomiting on the floor. For me, this cuteness sometimes made her seem likable. Other times I found it distressing, and found myself thinking, "Weird, this is a vice-presidential debate, but I feel like I’m watching a Fox News morning show anchor." That isn’t a statement about substance at all — just style.
There are limits to the utility of these instant impressions, and I look forward to digging into the transcript over the next day or two, and may well determine that some of this is wrong. But my guess is that Governor Palin’s answers will be worse for closer analysis, because she used buzz words with relish — maverick, straight talk, etc. Also, Governor Palin expressed a desire to talk more to voters without the filter of the mainstream media. The test of whether this is a mere talking point — it is — or whether she is being earnest, is whether she seeks out unscripted forums with voters over the next several weeks.
Finally, what about my call for Governor Palin to be kicked off the ticket? One criticism of my article was that the base would never accept it, and Governor Palin performed well enough tonight for that to be definitively true. But I don’t think she performed nearly well enough to allow John McCain to win the election, and neither did she convince me that she would be capable of becoming President on day 2.
To put a finer point on this, I ask the following of everyone who watched tonight’s debate — were John McCain assassinated at his inauguration by terrorists, even as two American cities saw buildings partially blown up by truck bombs, and Vladimir Putin used the opportunity to move troops into a former Soviet Repulic, would you trust that Governor Palin would have the knowledge, credibility, bearing and calming influence on the country to handle the situation? Or would having her in the Oval Office freak you out in a deep way? I’d be frightened, and I expect a lot of people now supporting Governor Palin would think, "Oh God, what have I done." I was hoping I’d change my mind about that tonight, for I really am all about not wanting worse case scenarios to happen, but alas I still worry about it.
UPDATE: More on doomsday scenarios, and whether they are fair, here.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
sir,
i just came to this site from RedState. there everyone agrees that sarah palin wiped the floor with joe biden. with us or against mr. friedersdorf? or are you looking for “strange new respect”?
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Yes razib, I am sure that the committed McCain supporters at Red State agreed that Palin wiped the floor with Biden. Shocking, I know. Almost shocking as the fact that Daily Kos readers thought that Biden wiped the floor with Palin.
What did the undecided voters think? You know, the people that McCain needs to actually win the election? Well, we don’t have a definitive answer yet, but preliminary polling suggests that they overwelming thought that Biden won.
But I realize that that is not the metric. Evaluating debate performances isn’t about honest opinions, or trying to figure out how the debate played with undecdied voters. It’s all about whether you are “with us or against us.”
How sad.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
[…] In Uncategorized on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm Something to think about, from Conor Friedsdorf: I ask the following of everyone who watched tonight’s debate — were John McCain assassinated […]
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Sorry, Razib. I don’t frequent this site enough (or, apparently, have an adequate appreciation of sarcasm) to properly appreciate your post. I blame a bad head cold.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
larry, yeah, i was joking
i really don’t “get” redstate. if they’re trying to do a dailykos they’re doing a bad job. if i want the conservative id, i go to the corner. if i want the liberal id, i go to dailykos. the corner has bias, but redstate just makes me laugh out loud too much. there’s spin, and then there’s enforced group delusion. dailykos has a lot of screaming, but there’s enough substantive stuff in terms of data/opinion/etc. from the far left out of the mass because of economies of scale.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 am
no worries larry, i think i was being might subtle. i don’t comment here much either. though i will be i think since amconmag blog doesn’t have comments and redstate has so little value-add.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
[…] Conor Friedersdorf: “After 10 or 15 minutes, I thought that Governor Palin would emerge as the clear winner of the evening. But when the debate turned to foreign policy her style suffered, and more important, the substance of her remarks signified no real knowledge of any of the topics being discussed. Joe Biden, on the other hand, seemed to have a depth of knowledge on every foreign policy topic, and I say that as someone who often disagrees with Senator Biden — even when he’s wrong he knows what he’s talking about.” […]
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Conor — well, if accounting for your apocalyptic scenario (strangely reminiscent of those wretched questions about torture in the Republican primaries) is now the fundamental political calculation we all must make, I can honestly say that no, I wouldn’t want Palin at the helm. But I certainly wouldn’t want Obama running the country either. What does he actually know about foreign policy, in terms of real expertise and demonstrated good judgment in difficult circumstances?
This is why, at some level, the arguments about Palin have been so stupid. Have you ever asked THAT question of any other vice-presidential candidate before? Really? Frankly, I wouldn’t have wanted Tim Pawlenty responding to those conditions, or Mike Huckabee, or Charlie Crist. I also wouldn’t have wanted Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius be in charge during such a time.
Using your criteria, the only people qualified to be VP would be old Senate hands, or longtime congressmen, or perhaps former military leaders or those with very particular past experience in intelligence or military affairs (perhaps a former SecDef, or CIA Director).
I’m not trying to carry water for Palin, because I think she’s been pretty horrible so far. All I want to suggest is that if we really take your reasoning seriously (and I’m prepared to) then never again should a governor, or perhaps just someone with expertise in domestic policy, be nominated for the vice-presidency again.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 am
” All I want to suggest is that if we really take your reasoning seriously (and I’m prepared to) then never again should a governor, or perhaps just someone with expertise in domestic policy, be nominated for the vice-presidency again.”
you’re binning this into two categories; but there aren’t two categories. there’s a spectrum. i would say mitt romney is at one end. sarah palin at another. someone like charlie crist (who runs florida, which could plausibly be its own country, and below which castro used to rear his head!) is in the middle. mike huckabee less than crist, but probably more than palin. and so on. your rank order might differ, but this is an ordinal variable, not a categorical one.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 am
It was never very plausible to think she’d be taken off, I don’t think Perot even dumped Stockdale, but I think to still lean that way is close to petulantly denying reality. What you said took guts, but if in the next week she doesn’t embarrass herself again you should probably just reject the idea.
Does this mean she was a flawless winner? No, I’m not even sure it means she won at all. She still dodges, deflects, and says stock-phrases way too much. Would I be confident with her President? I’m not sure, but I feel now that she could be tolerable as President. I think she’d be open to being advised when necessary and that the Republic would survive. So this isn’t a “woo-woo Go Sarah” post.
Still she did a credible performance. She was engaging and made some good points. She seemed tolerant and fair in many things rather than the kind of backwater Theocrat some made her out to be. I think she’s shown that despite naysayers, including me at times, her on the ticket doesn’t rob McCain of his chance to lose with some dignity. (He will lose, the odds are decidedly against him and I don’t think she helped him enough or even that much)