The soft bigotry of low expectations
Marc Ambinder:
Palin's defenders, on the other hand, saw -- well, I won't even try to characterize what they saw, because honestly, I don't understand it. Usually I can see both sides of an argument, but not in this case. Obviously she beat expectations, and I can see people finding her personally appealing, but I'm afraid I just can't wrap my head around the notion that she was truly impressive, that she was vice presidential, that she demonstrated her readiness and silenced her critics last night. I just don't see it; I just don't get it. And I'd just end up caricaturing this position if I tried to explain it. But, suffice it to say, Palin's defenders saw something very different than I did (see, e.g., Malkin), and now any notion that conservatives might desert Palin en masse is out the window. Instead, the Right is back to its old tricks, drawing false equivalances between Biden and Palin, and blaming the media for everything. Great. So basically, we're back to the pre-Couric state of affairs.
John Edwards was right. There are two Americas: one that thinks Sarah Palin is the second coming, and one that thinks she's demonstrably unfit to be vice president. Never the twain shall meet.
What did swing voters see? I have no idea. My initial assumption was that they'd love Palin, and the Luntz focus group did. The CNN focus group, on the other hand, preferred Biden. Insta-polls have generally favored Biden. Overall, the debate seems likely to have very little impact on the race, beyond perhaps "stopping the bleeding" for McCain (especially if it's coupled with House approval of the bailout today, thus changing the subject) and allowing him the opportunity to try and seize the offensive, and change the dynamic of the race, next week. Then it's just a matter of whether he can successfully do that.
I'm going to try to refrain from further commentary on this today, because I have other things to do, and because arguing about Palin tends to make me quite angry -- much like banging one's head against a brick wall might. I'd rather keep my blood pressure low today, so I'm going to take a deep breath and just... let it go. :)
To practiced ears, Palin memorized and repeated talking points and Biden responded to the questions and argued. Palin dodged questions and seemed vague; but then again, for those whose only impression of Palin has been the one Tina Fey performed on Saturday Night Live, she cleared the bar.A cursory review of blogospheric commentary this morning suggests that, as I suspected while watching it, last night's debate has basically reinforced convictions on both sides of the aisle. Palin's critics, myself included, saw her regurgitate talking points, usually more coherently than with Couric, but nevertheless demonstrating no ability whatsoever to think on her feet (even explicitly announcing early on that she had no intention of answering the questions if she didn't feel like it). We saw her prove her mastery of the "glittering generality" without being forced, by either her gun-shy opponent or the neutered moderator, to clarify her contradictions, clear up her occasionally jumbled utterances, or otherwise defend her positions in any sort of detail. We saw, in Jason Zengerle's words, someone whose "style wasn't strong enough to cover up her total lack of substance," giving, as Michael Crowley said, "a cosmetically strong performance" that "on the substance [was] a horrorshow." We saw, again, a candidate in severely over her head, unfit for high office, unready to lead.
Palin's defenders, on the other hand, saw -- well, I won't even try to characterize what they saw, because honestly, I don't understand it. Usually I can see both sides of an argument, but not in this case. Obviously she beat expectations, and I can see people finding her personally appealing, but I'm afraid I just can't wrap my head around the notion that she was truly impressive, that she was vice presidential, that she demonstrated her readiness and silenced her critics last night. I just don't see it; I just don't get it. And I'd just end up caricaturing this position if I tried to explain it. But, suffice it to say, Palin's defenders saw something very different than I did (see, e.g., Malkin), and now any notion that conservatives might desert Palin en masse is out the window. Instead, the Right is back to its old tricks, drawing false equivalances between Biden and Palin, and blaming the media for everything. Great. So basically, we're back to the pre-Couric state of affairs.
John Edwards was right. There are two Americas: one that thinks Sarah Palin is the second coming, and one that thinks she's demonstrably unfit to be vice president. Never the twain shall meet.
What did swing voters see? I have no idea. My initial assumption was that they'd love Palin, and the Luntz focus group did. The CNN focus group, on the other hand, preferred Biden. Insta-polls have generally favored Biden. Overall, the debate seems likely to have very little impact on the race, beyond perhaps "stopping the bleeding" for McCain (especially if it's coupled with House approval of the bailout today, thus changing the subject) and allowing him the opportunity to try and seize the offensive, and change the dynamic of the race, next week. Then it's just a matter of whether he can successfully do that.
I'm going to try to refrain from further commentary on this today, because I have other things to do, and because arguing about Palin tends to make me quite angry -- much like banging one's head against a brick wall might. I'd rather keep my blood pressure low today, so I'm going to take a deep breath and just... let it go. :)
posted by Brendan Loy at
10/03/2008 07:45:00 AM
