After replays of media-filtered quotes (two predominantly) that sought to recast her as a dolt, shallow, specious, and uninformed Sarah Palin won the Vice Presidential debate. And she won it on two levels. First, for the same reason I said Obama bested McCain, that when no major mistakes are made, the younger, more articulate, better looking candidate wins.
But it wasn't just that. Unlike Obama, who has been the media darling for 18 months and whose sheer length of campaigning translates to the perception of experience in office, Palin had a boatload of crap dumped on her in 5 weeks. She had to be not only facile on the issues, which she was. She had to have enough command to be taken seriously as a Presidential contender due to McCain's age. She has been ruthlessly raked over in the media as either a dolt in the best case, and trailer park trash in the worst. And even those inclined to support her on the issues, like myself, were beginning to wonder if she was going to drop the ball.
She not only didn't drop it, but she picked it up from where McCain fumbled and recovered the lost yardage. It is a case of the running back being better on her feet than the quarterback of the team. So far, she gets the MVP. And thankfully, moderator Gwen Ifill was on a leash, forced to be on her best behavior after it was revealed that she'd written a pro-Obama book to be released on Inauguration Day.
Palin's folksy style, while irritating intellectual snobs, did not undercut the seriousness of the event, nor the office. Liberals don't get it. This was Sarah Palin the way we like her. Easy. Real. Ordinary. And sharp. Unafraid, and more than able, to tangle with a Senator with more than three decades more experience in Washington than herself.
But as I said before, I'm too close to the issues. You won't change the minds of conservatives or Obama supporters. You energize a base, while you sway the uncommitted and perhaps strike a little fear into your opponent. What matters is the effect it has on those yet undecided. And that's where Frank Luntz comes in.
In a room filled equally with former Bush and Kerry supporters who, while leaning one way or the other, were not decided in this election, Luntz asked who won the debate. Nearly every hand in the room went to Sarah Palin. And a number of that group was convinced enough by her capability to move in the direction of John McCain away from support for Obama. Virtually none went the other direction.
It wasn't a wash. It was a win. Her one and only shot to set the record straight, regain the confidence of her supporters, attack the opponent, point out the differences, counter an experienced Senator, give a positive message of vision...and Sarah Palin did it with a smile, a wink, and a poise that was very satisfying to watch. And because of the media scrutiny, a lot of people saw her do it.
Job well done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Darren,
I really appreciate your summary here.
Be well,
Bob
Sir,
A friend of mine used to forward me your newsletter, and I recently started reading your blog. There was a time when more conservative Christians would have more seriously critiqued the performance we witnessed from Palin in the debate Thursday night rather than celebrate it. Every superficial quality you despised in Obama you celebrated in Palin (even though this Christian conservative Republican disagrees with him on may issues, I think he's intelligent, aware and has more substance). You affirm Palin despite all of the shameless mugging, surplus of unfactual data, and even greater lack of substance. This anti-intellectualism is a huge mistake for conservatives to make, especially Christians who know and celebrate the high intellectual and academic achievements of our founding fathers and other great Christian Statesmen (except when others show themselves more knowledgeable (then they're elitist)! Celebrating that debate as a victory simply because she was not as bad as expected misses the point. A moral victory is still a loss. Don't we deserve better than this? Or have we become so dumbed down that we are not even aware that these candidates should not be acceptable to us. And she did not win; Here are just some of the polls: Survey USA-
Biden 51% Palin 32%
Undecided 17%
MediaCurves.com tracked independent voters, showing them breaking to Biden 67% to Palin 33%.
Random and non-random polls for the vice presidential debate declared Biden the winner.
Non-random (unscientific) polls on AOL and MSNBC web sites show Biden winning 48 to 45 and 78.6 to 18.9 respectively.
Randomly selected subjects on three other polls also show Biden winning:
CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36
CBS Biden 46 Palin 21
Fox Biden 61 Palin 39
In the CBS poll, of the uncommitted voters, 18% now say they will vote Obama/Biden, 10% now say McCain/Palin.
I do not want a candidate just like me "darnit, a'dontcha know (wink)". I want a God fearing Statesperson, one who understands all of America, and who has the breadth and depth of substance deserving of the office, and until we gain some objectivity here, expect more, and show the courage to demand more from the candidates (even the ones we support) we are going to continue to get these sort of options passed off on us.
New York,
The Luntz focus group is not a poll. It is a scientific study with true undecideds who lean equally one way or the other based upon past actual votes.
And the idea that you can draw an equivalence between the media treatment of Senator Obama and Governor Palin is intellectually indefensible.
You are making the mistake of looking at substance over style. I am not. I am simply stating what many political experts acknowledge, which is there is a subjective experience of the debate which is what really moves people in one direction or another.
In this case, Palin, as evidenced by the response of undecided leaners who voted half for Kerry and half for Bush in the previous election cycle, won the debate.
I was not at all talking about the substance of the answers. It is immaterial at this point.
You speak as though there is still a question of legitimacy of Obama as a candidate. I have been very clear on the differences between the two. I have clearly said that McCain is a candidate I agree with only 60% of the time. But the alternative is a socialist candidate I disagree with 100% of the time.
If you can't see that clear difference, you force me to question whether you are indeed a "conservative Republican" after all.
The VP debate would have indeed been a draw on substance IF...and only if...the pressure put on Palin in the last 5 weeks by the media had not been so great, and the attacks upon her veracity so strong.
Very Sincerely,
"Sir"
"You speak as though there is still a question of legitimacy of Obama as a candidate. I have been very clear on the differences between the two. I have clearly said that McCain is a candidate I agree with only 60% of the time. But the alternative is a socialist candidate I disagree with 100% of the time."...
This is why McCain/Palin will probably lose. No, Sir, my comment was not even about the legitimacy of Obama's campaign. It was about wanting more from Palin. Therein lies so much of the problem with trying to dialogue about these things. I made a criticism about someone we support based on my observations, but also regarding the candidates (plural), but the mere fact that I pointed out a weakness and expressed a desire for more from "our own" candidate puts me in the "enemy's" camp.
Also, regarding disagreeing with Obama 100% of the time; what an ignorant thing to say. Even McCain and he have agreed that they actually agree on some things. I suppose those things make up the other 40% of the times you don't agree with McCain. This is scary to me considering that there are things that many Christians differ on and are reflected in some of both of their policies. Neither of these four are ideal or even great choices (which was my point regarding Palin), and all seem to have some things worth considering, but ideology seems to get in the way of some. Regarding Obama's legitimacy, what scares me is that I heard this same kind of arrogance from conservatives when Clinton ran for office, and we know what happened there! Again, this kind of cluelessness is why republicans will lose this race, despite my DESIRE for stronger (more worthy) conservatives to take the oval office.
Regards
New York,
You're missing the point if you think I don't desire more from the candidates. And are mistaken if you actually believe I think any of them are perfect. Good grief man! EVERYBODY wants more from their candidates. That's what a PRIMARY is for. So we can all pick who is the best one. I didn't want McCain, but guess what. He's the pick. In the general election, you go with the hand you're dealt! But that's not the point.
The point is whether or not she won the debate. Having had much more to overcome than her opponent, with higher risks if she failed, after blistering personal attack, after two less than stellar interviews, she didn't just pass the bar but exceeded. And she also succeeded much more in connecting with average people who were independent. That is the point you seem unable to recognize.
I did not say she "trounced" him, or "wiped the floor" with Biden as some lefty blogs are writing that he did with her. I certainly hope you save some of your accusations of arrogance for them! (And maybe for yourself as well.) I simply said she won. I believe she did. You have a different opinion. Hallelujah! That's America.
I also did not say that they would beat Obama. I'm concerned they won't. But there are a lot of other factors involved in that including my criticisms of McCain's articulateness which cost him his first debate. Perhaps you didn't read that.
You're also missing the point on the 100% disagreement with Obama. On national security, he is wrong. On taxes, he is wrong. On redistribution of wealth, he is wrong. On spending, he is wrong. On withdrawal from Iraq prior to finishing the job, he is wrong. On presuming that not getting bin Laden is taking the eye off the ball, he is wrong. His willingness to sit down with leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba without precondition (as he indeed said he would do in the primary) is wrong. On his solution to health care, he is wrong. And his position on abortion is wrong.
Issue after issue when it comes to the most important ones of our time, the methodology Obama espouses as to how to solve these problems is incorrect.
You obviously have a different opinion of the debate. More power to you. This blog is an opinion as well. If it really troubles you that much, no one is forcing you to read it.
Regards,
"Sir"
New York,
He's right. Move on and find another blog where dialogue can happen. I've observed that only one opinion matters here, and you you won't find any dialogue, just one guy who keeps commenting with "atta boy, Darren" and that's the way he wants it.
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." Proverbs 18:2
Uh...if only one mattered, I wouldn't leave yours up. Atta girl, Lis.
Anyone is free to disagree all they want. You're not free to trash and run though. You want to post a critique, it's only fair to answer.
Post a Comment