VP Debate: Biden Wins on Substance, Palin Meets Low Expectations

::::::::

Early polls following last night's vice-presidential debate show that Joe Biden won handily on substance while Sarah Palin "met or exceeded" the low expectations set for her by Republicans and the media. Many leading observers agree, contrasting Biden's focus on the issues and command of the facts with Palin's evasiveness and folksy grandstanding.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 51% of viewers thought Biden performed better in the debate overall while 36% thought Palin performed better, with higher marks for Biden also on intelligence, ability to serve as president if called, and ability to bring change: 57% of CNN respondents said Biden was the more intelligent candidate to 26% for Palin, 87% said Biden was qualified to serve as president to 46% for Palin, and 53% said Biden was more likely to bring change to 42% for Palin. Meanwhile, a CBS News poll of uncommitted voters shows Biden won 46% to Palin's 21% with 33% saying the debate was a tie. On knowledgeability, Biden led Palin in the CBS poll 98% to 66%, while on preparedness for the job of vice-president Biden led 97% to 55%. A Media Curves poll shows independent voters favoring Biden in the debate 69% to 31% overall, with independents (and Democrats) giving Biden significantly higher marks also on foreign policy and national security as well as on the economy.

Many prominent political pundits have also called the debate for Biden, with many also highly critical of Palin's evasiveness and folksy grandstanding. At CNN, David Gergen called Biden's performance "the best debate performance of his life"; while Bill Schneider writes: "Palin's answers do not lack confidence, they lack coherence." Bob Schieffer of CBS said that, while Biden showed a clear command of the issues and facts, Palin was evasive: "I found it a little disconcerting, time and again, Governor Palin would just choose not to answer the question and launch into some dissertation, sometimes talking points, and not really address what Gwen Ifill had asked her" (America Blog). While Biden seemed to speaking to all of America throughout the debate, Salon's Joan Walsh observes, Palin "was talking to - and winking at - her own private Idaho." Newsweek's Howard Fineman compared the tone of Palin's attacks on Biden to "what a wolverine would sound like chewing through plywood...."

Using attack lines she had carefully rehearsed, drawing on a decade of conservative sound bites and dismissive rhetoric, Palin dashed through 90 minutes without having to expose her lack of detained knowledge, blasting away at Biden. Moderator Gwen Ifill rarely followed up, and the format--a strict two minutes for answers--insured that the pace was what Governor Palin wanted: frantic.

But does any of this mean that Palin “won” the night, in the sense that it advanced the cause of her Republican ticket? I don’t think so.

Time's Joe Klein writes likewise: "Sarah Palin's high-energy performance in the vice-presidential debate was the most glaring demonstration - since George W. Bush's performances in 2000 - of how little you can get away with knowing and still survive one of these things...," Klein writes, "...Joe Biden, by contrast, demonstrated a real knowledge of the issues in question...."

[Palin's] relentless opacity was impressive. She refused to answer the questions where she hadn't been prepped with answers and when Biden pointed out that an early question had been on deregulation not taxes, she flashed: "I may not answer the questions the way you and the moderator want to hear, but I'm gonna talk straight to the American people."

Talk straight she didn't, with only a few exceptions. She talked talking points. And when the talking points concerned areas where she didn't know diddly, she didn't talk them very convincingly. Indeed, there were times I got the distinct impression that she didn't understand the points she was talking about (on the vice president's constitutional powers, for example).

For Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, the overriding patern in the debate was one of Biden presenting facts and Palin "saying stuff." Writes Robinson of Palin: "Sometimes she throws in a fact, but mostly she seems to be offering a string of approximate policy positions, encomiums to the American spirit, disputed interpretations of Barack Obama's record and anecdotes from Alaska." Even two former Bush administration officials, defense staffer Torie Clarke and communications staffer Matthew Dowd, agreed that it was Joe Biden's night (see Huffington Post, America Blog). Said Clarke:

I think Joe Biden had his best night tonight. He came with one mission, and that was to go after John McCain, and he did it, backed up by facts. I think he did a better job tonight of tying McCain to the Bush administration than Obama did last week.

Said Dowd, agreeing with Clarke:

I think, you know, I agree with her on this. I think Sarah Palin did reasonably well. The death spiral she has been on for the last week, she survived. She's lived another day. She did well. But I think, when the polls come out in the next two, three days, Joe Biden won this debate.

Sarah Palin's only "win" of the evening was that she exceeded the low expectations set for her by Republicans and the media, which in the real world of issues, ideas, and facts is no win at all. The New York Times observes:

We cannot recall when there were lower expectations for a candidate than the ones that preceded Sarah Palin’s appearance in Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate with Joseph Biden. After a series of stumbling interviews that raised serious doubts even among conservatives about her fitness to serve as vice president, Ms. Palin had to do little more than say one or two sensible things and avoid an election-defining gaffe.

By that standard, but only by that standard, the governor of Alaska did well. But Ms. Palin never really got beyond her talking points in 90 minutes, mostly repeating clichés and tired attack lines and energetically refusing to answer far too many questions.

Senator Biden did well, avoiding one of his own infamous gaffes, while showing a clear grasp of the big picture and the details. He left Ms. Palin way behind on most issues, especially foreign policy and national security, where she just seemed lost. It was in those moments that her lack of experience — two terms as mayor of a tiny Anchorage suburb and less than two years as governor — was most painfully evident....

One can argue (and her supporters will) that Ms. Palin is a newcomer and can’t be expected to know all of the wonkish details, that what matters is the image she projects. Except, anyone who is running for vice president in these very dangerous times needs to have detailed knowledge....

In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin’s candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.

There are those, of course, who will say that Palin "won" the debate simply by exceeding the low expectations set for her and surviving the debate, or that Palin's folksy grandstanding is just as good as Biden's command of the facts - that, in the battle of style vs. substance, Palin wins. One of these is Ruben Navarette at CNN: "Tie goes to the hockey mom," Navarette stupidly writes, as though you can make it that way simply because you imagine it to be. Another is Roger Simon at Politico: Oozing with admiration for Palin's folksy charm, Simon arrogantly dismisses Biden's assertion that "facts matter," asking rhetorically: "Yeah? In politics? Since when?"

Since the beginning, Mr. Simon: The political debate is a tradition that dates back to the ancient Greeks who invented democracy - a tradition based on issues, ideas, and facts, not folksy little tag lines. In the battle of issues, ideas, and facts, Biden wins.