VP Debate Success: Palin Avoids Appearing 100% Moronic!

by Deb Cupples |   John McCain’s campaign aides have repeatedly failed to prepare Gov. Palin to present herself as a knowledgeable and articulate candidate.  Last night’s VP debate was no exception. 

Gov. Palin still seems blissfully unburdened by actual knowledge of public policy, world events, and even her running mate’s voting record.  But that's just substance.

Last night, Gov. Palin demonstrated improved ability to repeatedly repeat at-times-nonsensical talking points, platitudes and metaphors as though she were reading from a script – even when said talking points, platitudes and metaphors had absolutely nothing to do with the debate moderator’s questions.

Gov. Palin also demonstrated a stubborn addiction to staying on script, even when the scripted phrases had absolutely nothing to do with the debate moderator’s questions.

At one point, for example, Sen. Biden slammed John McCain for having voted for $100 billion in tax loopholes for corporations that move offshore.  Moderator Gwen Ifill asked Gov. Palin to respond.

Gov. Palin’s response:  “I want to go back to the energy plan, though”  -- and that's precisely what she did.  She didn’t even try to defend her running mate via simple refutation. (Transcript via CNN).

The obvious conclusion: McCain’s aides did a good job of training Gov. Palin to cling to a script, even while delivering inane-sounding lines that would embarrass most speakers who were actually hearing the words coming out of their own mouths.

On one hand, Gov. Palin’s addiction to the script made her seem tenacious, even "in command" (albeit, in command of something that I cannot quite identify).

On the other hand, Gov. Palin’s script-addiction made her seem devoid of knowledge to the point that she was downright unable to stray from a script and intelligently discuss the sorts of issues that tend to come up at national political debates.

It didn’t help that Gov. Palin, citing the U.S. Constitution, completely mis-described the role that  the U.S. vice president plays in the U.S. Senate.

I suspect that Tina Fey and the Saturday Night Live crew will have fun with numerous aspects of Gov. Palin’s debate performance.  (See Fey's most recent performance.)

Reluctant to focus only on the negatives, I’ll devote space to some positive points about Gov. Palin’s performance:

1. She was lightening-quick to speak when it was her turn, preventing her from seeming baffled by the topics at hand


2. She exuded confidence while repeating empty metaphors and sound bites that bore no relevance to the actual topics being discussed at a given moment


3. She was amazingly proficient at smiling while she talked.

Frankly, I have trouble pulling off number 3.  I’m not totally inept. I can smile while saying short phrases like “Good afternoon.”  Really, I can.

But if I have multiple sentences to get out -- especially if analysis is required while I speak -- I cannot simultaneously maintain a broad, perky smile.

My hat is off to Gov. Palin.

Though she failed to demonstrate a basic grasp of issues relevant to the office of U.S. Vice President, at least Gov. Palin’s presentation style has improved since her interview with Katie Couric.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* McCain Strategists Make Palin Seem Moronic Again

* Train Wreck: Couric Interviews Palin

* Senate Passes Bailout Bill: House Should Kill it and Do Over

* Did Bailout Really Cause Dow to Drop?  Bailout Fans Say So.

* Still More FDA Shenanigans

.

Comments

[Tone]

I think Palin won, in that she showed up Smarter than Bush, I'll give her credit for that. She managed to pull that off, while not appearing 'smarter than you'. She pronounces 'newculer energy' just like him.
I heard the criticism 'over educated' about a candidate for the pres/vice offices. Darn right! I want to make sure that my 3rd grader can understand all the issues facing this country! Shucks, it is so simple! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to design newculer energy policy!
I was worried that McCain is such a Maverick, that he would upset the fine job that the GOP has done. Even though they picked a woman, I am encouraged by her straight talking on all the subjects that are most important. She doesn't let the question get in the way of the answer, but reminds us of the really important issues.
She will protect Marriage, and even give me back some of my money to buy health insurance!

[Close Observer]

The comments were really embarrassing.

"The American public has a stomach for success." And referring to Bosnians as "Bosniaks." Is that some punk rock group? What a Bush-like, moronic construction!

Playing up her so-called Main Street credentials, saying she recently ate at Katy's Restaurant with regular folk ... when Katy's actually closed years ago! (Oops, that's a "lie.")

Oh wait. Joe Biden said those things (and about 14 other whoppers that defy spin. Nevermind. We've already concluded that he's serious and intelligent, so we'll ignore his gaffes (and flat-out lies).

It seems that Palin's greatest fault is that she can't lie-with-a-smile like Senator Joe (those are some great choppers!) who just a few months ago was calling Barack's position on Iran dangerously naive.

But that's not important - we must attack the strong woman!

[Guy Blaise]

Senator Joe Biden was certainly the most experienced and more comfortable and knowledgeable about all of the issues tonight. It is difficult to debate Sarah Palin because she talks and talks and avoid the questions. As the Bamilekes of Cameroon say, "A woman's strength is a multitude of words."

[Adam]

Close Observer,

"Bosniak" is the correct term for a muslim Bosnian. Don't worry, Cokie Roberts and other MSM idiots didn't know that either. I forgive you.

[Close Observer]

R U suggesting Biden did not avoid questions? C'mon. He was asked what the Obama admin cannot fund in lieu of the economic crisis ... and he cites items in the McCain plan that we cannot afford. That's just one of many examples.

Just hoping for a little consistency here. It seems you're giving Biden a very wide berth for dodging questions, stretching the truth, falling back on well rehearsed talking points, misstating things (The Constitution's Article 1 is about the Executive Branch? Huh?), and brazening lying to the people.

Meanwhile, Palin mispronounces one name and the knives (and anti-woman bias) comes out!

[Adam]

Close Observer,

You have no point. I agree that bringing up McClellan/McKiernan, or "Toxic Mess on Main Street Affecting Wall Street", or other such minor Palin gaffes, is meaningless. However:

1) Neither Deb nor I have done anything of the sort.

2) You seem all too eager to do exactly that to Joe Biden. Moreover, you reveal your own ignorance when you try to label "Bozniak" a gaffe, when it's actually the correct term for an ethnic group. There's nothing wrong with not being familiar with that term, but you should at least fact-check it before you try to accuse the chair of the foreign relations committee of making a mistake.

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Close Observer,

If you are related to Gov. Palin, please understand that I meant nothing personal against her.

Joe Biden may very well have lied or got some issues wrong. I didn't critique his performance, because he was not the main topic of my blog post.

Note that I didn't even lavish praise upon Biden for keeping both feet out of his mouth.

My problem with Palin is not gender related. It's that she has repeatedly made it obvious that:

1) she is unaware of some issues crucial to all national-level candidates, and

2) she thinks that American voters will fail to notice her unawareness if she simply keeps repeating empty metaphors and specious sound bites.

I saw too much of that come out of the mouths of White House spokespeople since 2001. I'd prefer to not suffer through more of that.

During these extremely trying times for our nation, style simply cannot be allowed to trump substance.

[Close Observer]

So it's safe to assume, then, that you find Barack Obama a man of "substance." Puh-leaze. His whole campaign is sloganeering - "We're the change we've been waiting for" .. Hope and Change and We're Not Bush.

Are those really substantive statements ... or applause line cliches?

And it's fair to ask why Biden wasn't the subject of your post ... if you're rating their moronic stature. How close would you put Biden to 100 percent? This is the guy who says FDR went on the TV in 1929 to explain the stock market crash. Is that a statement from an intelligent person? Biden voted against the Alaskan pipeline that key in our current energy strategy, praised (in 2005) the free elections in Palestine (and Iraq), which he condemned as a Bush failure last night, and wanted to split Iraq into 3 separate entities and send a billion dollars to Iran. Does that sound like good judgment?

So between Obama's breathtaking inexperience masked by empty rhetoric and catchy slogans and Biden's poor judgment (he voted for the war, too!) and chronic lying, you pick on the girl.

Curious.

[Adam]

Wait, so your point is that you think Deb should have blogged about something else? That's really a pathetic point. People can blog about whatever they want. If you think the subject is uninteresting, don't read it.

The rest of your post is just a scattershot of right-wing talking points with no real connection, so there's not much point in trying to respond point-by-point. I will say one thing, though: splitting Iraq up into three more or less autonomous regions in late 2003 would have prevented the civil war and gotten us out quickly. So yeah, that sounds like good judgement to me. Well, worse judgement than not going in in the first place, but better than what we did do.

[Close Observer]

So my comments are right-wing talking points but yours are orginial and penetrating? Funny, but I heard Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow saying exactly the same thing as you last night ... so who's parroting who? You could at least provide the citation!

Maybe that's why you're so uncritical of Joe Biden. He's the Alpha Plagiarizer!

Of course you won't respond point-by-point. There is no credible response. Barack ("57 states"?) Obama is a woefully unqualified, vacuous ("Breathalyzer" for asthma patients) politician, and Hillary was a thousand times more qualified. Hillary said she landed in Bosnia (among Bosniaks) and was under sniper fire. A falsehood, to be polite. The media savaged her. Joe Biden says his helicopter was forced down in Afghanistan. Another easily proven lie. Silence. Hillary the female candidate misleads and she's attacked. Biden the male candidate does it, and you guys give him a pass. Now Palin the female candidate mispronounces some names and you all call her stupid. Biden claims FDR was president in 1929 and went on the TV, and you two fawn over his brilliance.

I'm just pointing out your double standard that is applied not simply to Republicans but to women.

So without first asking Keith Olbermann what to say, can you please provide your reasoned analysis of this clip and -honestly- tell us what you would say had Palin said these things. (I suspect you'll ignore it.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&feature=related

Why is your standard different?

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Hi close Observer,

You said this:

"So it's safe to ASSUME, then, that you find Barack Obama a man of "substance." Puh-leaze. His whole campaign is sloganeering - "We're the change we've been waiting for" .. Hope and Change and We're Not Bush."

No, NOT a safe assumption at all.

During the primaries, I repeatedly harped on Obama's vague cliches and talking points -- so you can bet I'll be harping on Palin when she uses them.

I have problems with Obama but will vote for him because I have more problems with McCain.

Biden wasn't my first choice for VP, incidentally.

As for lack of knowledge, it's a matter of degrees. After the Couric interview, I said something like this to a friend on the phone: Palin makes Obama look hyper-knowledgeable.

That should give you some idea of where I stand -- and it's not as black-and-white as you seem to think.

As for "picking on the girl," I supported Hillary. But Hillary isn't an option anymore.

My options are Obama and McCain -- and, as I've already said, I have greater reservations about McCain, so Obama gets my vote.

I think you've assumed that I'm an ardent Obama supporter who hasn't actually done any research about him.

That's just not the case (as you can see from my blog posts about the Dem primaries from January through May).

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Close Observer,

I largely stopped watching him back when it became obvious that he was an Obama campaign volunteer during the primaries.

I don't even have cable TV.

Admittedly, I did seek out a few of his video clips on the Internet when he attacked Hillary (to see how badly) and when he tried to defend Obama on the FISA/Telecom Amnesty issue (to see how stupid Olbermann sounded).

Other than that, Olbermann has been OFF my list as a credible journalist for months.

Most of this stuff is in my blog posts from Jan-May.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions about my political stances. Or maybe you're just reacting to what other people who plan to vote for Obama have said.

Of course, that's YOUR RIGHT, but it makes for strange conversations.

Lastly, I didn't comment on Biden, because I couldn't get a whole blog post out of "He kept both feet out of his mouth" and "He was well mannered."

It would have been pointless for me to write an entire post about his knowledge base: he's been an active Senator for decades, and everyone already knows that he has knowledge of domestic and foreign policy.

[Adam]

CO,

Exactly what have I said that was said by Matthews/Maddow? Seriously. I am responding directly to what you write. You, on the other hand, are spouting a new set of talking points every post, constantly veering off-topic.

But you at least seem to understand that Bosniak is a real term, so you can learn. So there's hope.

For someone who gets pissed about people pointing out Palin's mistakes, you are absolutely OBSESSED with the misspeakings of Biden and Obama. You actually care to bring up 57 states? Really? He said fifty in stead of forty, and I'm supposed to care? I'm supposed to believe he doesn't know how many states there are? Really?

This stuff is meaningless and not worth your or my attention. That's the same reason why I don't waste time with McCain's and Palin's many gaffes. Some people like to play that game, but I don't. It's just cheap political points and I don't keep score like that.

--

Please show me the post where I fawn over Biden's brilliance. I've mentioned he's knowledgable, which he is. He also has a well-known tendency to speak first and think second. But at the end of the day, he's clearly qualified (98% of undecededs polled after the debate agree), and I see eye to eye with him on most (although certainly not all) major issues.

--

The idea that Obama hasn't been specific is ridiculous. Of course that criticism is repeated endlessly (ironically, much like a slogan) but it doesn't make it any more true. Obama's website, as well as policy proposals he's laid out in a number of major speeches, are as specific as the proposals of any first-term presidential candidate in American history.

If you want to argue that his experience in major elected office is too short, then fine, that's at least a credible argument. I disagree with it both on the substance (he has a great resume for a 47 year-old) and the significance (I'm far more interested in policy than resume), but you can at least make the argument. But the idea that his rhetoric is any more lacking in substance than the typical politician's, or that he's shied away from details, just doesn't hold water.

--

Palin outright ignored the question on multiple occasions, never responded to any substantive criticism Biden made, and simply spent the debate reading from her talking points. She did a good job reading those talking points, and as the debate wore on she did a better job picking the right one so that she was at least passably responding to the question. Biden, on the other hand, always responded to the question, and only then pivoted to where he wanted to take it. He also actually responded to things Palin said - this is known as "debating".

That said, that Palin has never demonstrated the ability to engage in the normal give and take of a debate doesn't really concern me. What concerns me, from most to least, is that:

1) The policies she does seem to hold dear are mostly ones I disagree with.
2) Based on her unscripted moments, she appears to lack even a basic understanding of many important national issues.
3) She has a history of corruption and cronyism.

[Close Observer]

Adam, I'm sending you my bill for the smoke damage caused in my house. You see, when you - as a supporter of Barack "Rezko" Obama - claimed "corruption and cronyism" as a disqualifier for Palin ... well, my laugh-o-meter overheated and burst into flame. I put out the fire, but the smoke damage was extensive.

It's one thing to cite ideological differences, pragmatic concerns, or just being fed up with the incumbent's party and not wanting more of the same.

But please don't toss your own credibility out the window by citing "corruption" against Palin while championing the campaign of Chicago's Obama. That disqualifies you as a serious commentator.

[James Stripes]

I found this gem a few weeks ago:

Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

So, according to Palin, the Founding Fathers recited a pledge that would be written more than a century later, and it included words added in the 1950s!

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

James,

How are you? Yep, that certainly is a gem.