Debate Round-Up, Pt. 2

Venting about the first Obama/McCain debate took longer than I anticipated, so Biden/Palin get their own post now. And before the diatribe begins, allow me to remind you all to watch Obama and McCain go at it again tonight. It's a Town Hall format, which is McCain's specialty, so everybody keep your fingers crossed and hope Obama is on his game.

So, Senator Joe Biden vs. Governor Sarah Palin. The Great White Gaffe vs. Dear God No. The Madman vs. The Equation.*

* Why is Sarah Palin "The Equation?" Simple: (Tina Fey - Humor) + Unrelenting Horror = Sarah Palin.

After Palin's catastrophically poor performance in her interview series with Katie Couric, who is not exactly known as the toughest interviewer in the world, expectations for Alaska's great shame were not high. As for Biden, he is an unceasingly passionate politician, which is my favorite kind. You can tell in an instant that he truly cares about the issues on which he speaks. The problem is, his mouth sometimes gets ahead of his brain, and although his intentions are good, his sound bites sometimes are not. So between the two of them, we were all expecting a pretty hilarious debate. The Daily Show has already done a thorough job of covering the nation's disappointment at a debate that was actually fairly free of blunders, so I won't try to cover the same territory. Instead, let's talk about what was at stake.

First of all, it was Biden's debate to lose. Expectations were so low for Sarah Palin that all she had to do was stay on the stage for the full length of the debate without passing out or wetting herself and her supporters would remain staunchly behind her. Biden, on the other hand, could actually show the country what he was made of, and really change some minds. But to do so, he had to rein himself in to keep himself from getting overexcited, which often leads to the sort of verbal slips we've seen from him in the past. And given that he had to listen to Palin all night, the irritation factor was pretty high. It took remarkable self restraint to not rip her to shreds. And thank God he didn't. If he had eviscerated her, if he had really put her on the spot and made her squirm, he would have looked like the mean old man beating up on the little girl. Because sexism works both ways.

I thought Biden was masterful. He knew his stuff, he answered questions, he didn't fly off the handle, and when he turned on the pressure, he directed it at John McCain, not at Sarah Palin. He went after McCain's record, McCain's policies, McCain's proposals, not Sarah Palin. Amazing, considering that after her pathetic performances in the press leading up to the debate, she basically had a bullseye painted right over her winkin' eye. I don't wear hats, because I look ridiculous in them, but if I had one, it would be off to Senator Biden. Although I think he missed a few opportunities to land some winning lines, he stayed on course and did a terrific job. He kept it professional - when Palin asked right at the start if she could call him "Joe," I worried that he might call her "Sarah" all night, but he kept the discourse elevated - and he brought his message to the people. Perhaps most importantly, he drew a clear line between himself and Dick Cheney by saying he was only looking to fulfill his Constitutional duties as VP, and he was not hungry for more power. Very nice.

Palin, on the other hand, basically admitted to being as power-hungry as we all feared she was. Giving credit where credit is due, she could have done a lot worse at this debate. She didn't stutter, she didn't stammer, she didn't say things that make no sense or aren't in English. She didn't mention her morning vigils as governor of Alaska, where she would pace the length and breadth of her yard with shotgun in hand, patrolling for Russians hiding in her azaleas. She didn't cry, faint, or run off the stage. Mission Accomplished. The media has been patting her on the back for this monumental performance ever since.

Of course, there were a few minor issues. Like how she was parroting rehearsed lines all night, or how she blatantly refused to answer questions and instead just went back to her script, or how when she was eventually forced to answer questions she gave vague answers that provided no substance whatsoever. And then there were the third graders. She took a moment out of the debate - the only debate in which she'll have to participate, mind you - to give a shout out to a class of third graders, and remind them that they would get extra credit for watching. To her fans, it no doubt seemed like a personal touch that went beyond just dropping names of everyday people and their everyday plight. To me, it seemed like another in a laundry list of stalling tactics, as well as wildly unprofessional. But I can't deny that it was folksy as hell.

It's no surprise that both Vice Presidential candidates repeatedly jammed their thumbs against the Folksy Button. Folksy sells. Folksy has always sold in this country. That's because our nation was founded by a bunch of farmers who were sick and tired of the mega-upper class, in this case an actual monarchy, telling them what to do. Seeing as they were working this whole "royalty is bad" angle, the founding fathers wisely went folksy, and we have been glorifying them as godlike statesmen ever since. And they were. Not godlike, necessarily, but they were great statesmen, because back then, you could be both. You could have folksy charm and still address the issues. Hell, you had to. There was no one else to do it. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Hancock, Clay - all of these guys were known for their pithy remarks and homespun wit, but that was on top of the requirement that they also be really, really, really smart.

I don't know where smart and folksy split along the way, but today it seems like they can't occupy the same administration, let alone the same candidate. We berate candidates for being "professorial" and "intellectual." Jesus fucking Christ. Okay, I understand that people who are really smart without being charming can be a bore to listen to. I get that there's an appeal to the idea that our leaders are just like us. We are madly in love with the very American notion that anyone can be President (even if it takes the likely demise of their running mate). But here's the thing: just because anyone can be doesn't mean anyone should be.

Why on earth would we want a President or a VP who is just like us? People cry "elitist!" whenever Obama - or any Democrat, really - makes a statement that indicates they may have - gasp! - gone to college. But being able to use an extensive vocabulary or grasp the nuances of a complex issue is not elitist. It's goddamn necessary, and I'm terrified by any politician who can't.

I don't want a President who is just like me. I have a short temper. I can be judgemental. I'm disorganized. I'm bad with money. I have only a token understanding of how our economy works. I'm lousy at geography. I can only name a small handful of world leaders, and I think I may have made up some of them. I am too quick to accept anything I read in a paper or see on TV as the truth without doing my own research to see if there are other sides. I don't want a President who is like me. I want a President who is better.

Yes, in this great country, anybody can grow up to be President, and that's awesome. But the idea is not that anybody can just have that highest and most difficult of offices handed to them. The idea is that if you commit yourself to your education, if you work hard enough to become a well-rounded person, if you develop diplomatic skills and critical thinking, if you push yourself to learn all about the issues, if you work your ass off, then yes, you can become President. And the purpose of this nation is to provide those opportunities to each and every citizen so that anyone who has that dream can at least try to see it through. Of course, we don't provide those opportunities to everyone. I don't have to walk far from my front door to find neighborhoods where children can't get that kind of education. But we're trying. And by "we," I mean the Democrats.

But back to Palin. She didn't put in the hard work. Lord knows she didn't push herself to learn about the issues. She got the Vice Presidential candidacy handed to her because she was an attractive, female, conservative unknown. She had enough to gain by joining the ticket that she would, presumably, shut the hell up and do what she was told, smile for the cameras (when her handlers allowed any near her), and spout hardline conservative jargon to satisfy the ultra right-wingers who think that McCain is too liberal. But I hate to think that there's anyone out there who actually believes she was chosen for her legitimate qualifications. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, John McCain would be running alongside a black VP. Not Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell - they have ties to the Bush adminstration, plus too many people already know them - but they'd find some conservative black Republican holding some minor office somewhere, and suddenly he'd be shooting toward the Vice Presidency.

Palin rode that initial wave of interest like a pro, using her pro-gun, pro-life even in the case or rape or incest, pro-drilling stances to keep her afloat. The "pitbull with lipstick" line has become the biggest quote of the campaign so far, and with only a few weeks to go, it's doubtful that there will be another one to top it. And I'll give her credit, it's a good line. Just not for a Presidential campaign. "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick," she says. It's a great quip for the peewee hckey team's spaghetti luncheon. It's even a good one for running for president of the PTA. But for Vice President?

Has anyone taken the time to break that line down and look at what it's telling us? That she wants to be thought of as a pitbull with lipstick? I'll satisfy the dog lover in me by saying that pitbulls, like any other dog, are only as vicious as their owners make them. They are strong dogs, no doubt about that, but their reputation for horrific violence comes from a few specific incidents. There are a couple pitbulls in my building, and they couldn't be sweeter. One could suggest that Sarah Palin is an animal lover and was trying to make a point that pitbulls are just misunderstood and, like them, she looks tough but is actually a big softie. With lipstick. But that seems a little obtuse. I think it's safe to assume she was going for the stereotype of a pitbull. Because what we want in a Vice President, someone who spends most of their time on the job attending solemn diplomatic functions and going on peaceful trips to foreign nations in order to improve our relations, is a snarling, drooling, foul-smelling beast that becomes insanely violent with no provocation and has a penchant for maiming small children; a four-legged tornado of destruction with breath that stinks of its own crotch and a compulsion to pee and/or take a steaming, coiled dump on anything it wants to claim as its own, that humps maniacally and will gladly bite the throat out of anything that resists. With lipstick. Oh, and afterwards it makes the poor hump victim pay for its own hump kit.

Maybe she just meant that she's doggedly determined and she goes after the things she wants. Probably could have chosen a different breed for that.

Perhaps it isn't fair to examine Palin's quote that closely. After all, when you're in the public eye, sometimes you need to say things just because they sound good, even if the substance isn't there. If you take a fine-tooth comb to every quote, everyone looks bad. Like when Joe Biden said, "What is it exactly that the VP does every day." Wait, no, that was Palin. Okay, what about when Obama was asked what, specifically, he would do to spread democracy around the globe and he said, "Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality," which, if you look closely, isn't specific at all! That Obama, what a piece of-- oh, wait, sorry, that was Palin again. I'm bad at this.

But we can't hold Palin accountable for the things she says, or the fact that sometimes words mean things. After all, it's all just gotcha journalism, a type of journalism that Palin (who majored in journalism and minored in politics) must have learned about while she was busy not reading any newspapers. This is one of the things that infuriates me the most about Sarah Palin. People say she's Bush with a bush, which is clever, but not quite accurate. Bush was a horrible President. One of, if not the worst in American history. But Palin is potentially worse. Under the Bush administration, the press corps was silenced, tricked, and dodged. Reporters who asked the wrong types of questions or wrote the wrong sort of articles were given misinformation or no information at all regarding press briefings with the President. Reporters learned quickly that they needed to be on board with the administration, or at least passively silent, or they wouldn't get anything to report on at all. Palin started with dodging the press, and now she has graduated to full-on attacking them, and she hasn't even been elected yet!

Palin had big daddy McCain come to her rescue with Katie Couric, and together they decried the evils of "gotcha journalism," which, as far as I can tell, is when journalists ask you questions and then record your answers. Presumably, they also steal your soul with their magic picture box. Look, I understand being taken out of context. I know how much that sucks. If I say, "Sarah Palin is very talented when it comes to lying her face off," and later someone says, "Even Fishbulb supports Sarah Palin, calling her 'very talented,'" it blows. Asking someone who is running for one of our nation's hghest offices to explain something they said isn't taking anything out of context, it's giving that person the opportunity to provide context. Quoting someone accurately isn't "gotcha journalism." It's just journalism. She has said she wanted the Katie Couric interview to be a chance to speak freely to the nation, and she screwed it up so badly because she was annoyed that she actually had to answer questions. This is something they should have taught her in school - interviews don't work that way. It's a question/answer format. So is a debate, although she ignored that as best she could. And the fact that she'd use being annoyed as an excuse is just frightening. She got annoyed by Katie Couric asking her questions? After signing up to do an interview with Katie Couric? Come on. It's not like Couric was trying to probe her colon. Presidents and Vice Presidents alike have to deal with much, much worse on a daily basis. They can't get annoyed and fall to pieces. It's pathetic. And then to continually blame her failures on Katie Couric's incredibly generous interview is really low. As a former journalism major, Sarah Palin should be fighting to uphold and protect the First Amendment. Instead, she's trying to rip it to shreds.

She hasn't let up for a second, either. Since regaining some desperately needed momentum after not completely flubbing her debate with Biden, Palin has been on a major offensive. A Washington Post column by Dana Milbank details how at a recent rally in Clearwater, Florida, Palin bashed the media, and Katie Couric in particular (as she has been doing for some time). Her supporters followed suit, "waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

Now, a candidate cannot be held responsible for the words and actions of their supporters. I'm not trying to imply that Palin told one of the people in the crowd to use racial epithets toward any African American sound men who happen by (although sound guys are definintely the ones Palin has to watch out for). We cannot judge her by the actions of her fans. But we can absolutely judge her by her response to those actions. I'm willing to grant that she may not have been able to hear each individual slur being lobbed around from up on the stage. I don't know the acoustics of the setting. But I do know that a whole mob of people shouting at reporters who were just there doing their job, bringing Governor Palin's remarks to the country, as she has so often claimed to want, is plenty audible from any stage in the world. A decent person would have told the raging crowd to cut it out. A bad person would have done nothing. A mean person would have encouraged them. Which do you think Palin is?

Sarah Palin is not stupid. It's easy to dismiss her as dumb, but that's a dangerous move. She isn't dumb, she just appeared that way because she didn't have enough time to get herself together before she had to greet the world as McCain's running mate. She wasn't up on the issues, and so she got caught unawares time and time again, and the fact that she was being shielded from the press made it seem as though the McCain camp was ashamed of her. But she's not dumb. The nomination of a seemingly dimwitted unknown to the Vice Presidency by the Republicans might conjure up memories of Dan Quayle. He was dumb, but harmless, except to the image of the first Bush administration. Sarah Palin is not dumb, she's just out of her league. But she's catching up quickly. And now that she's had a taste of power, she's hungry for more, as she made perfectly clear at the debate, when she said she'd want to expand the role of the VP. It's a dangerous person who openly admits to wanting more power on national television. It's a dangerous person who repeatedly says that Barack Obama is friends with domestic terrorists. It's a dangerous person who stirs up a crowd into such anti-Obama fervor that one person was heard to shout, "Kill him!" It's a dangerous person who sics her supporters on members of the press. Maybe the pitbull metaphor was apt after all.

The official Constitutional duty of the Vice President is to break ties in the Senate. While ties may not occur often, that is still a powerful responsibility, and giving it to someone who believes that abortion should never be legal, someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the stories in the Bible, someone who will vote with the ultra-conservatives every time is a frightening prospect. But more importantly, when we consider Vice Presidential candidates, we must first and foremost consider the possibility that he or she might become President of the United States, and do so without having to go through another election. It has happened on nine occassions so far in our country's history. Not to get too morbid, but no matter who wins this election, their VP may have a pretty serious chance at becoming President the bad way. Like it or not, the fact is that the Republican party is home to both extremist bigots and people who love guns. There have already been death threats and thwarted assassination attempts against Barack Obama. If he is elected, his will likely be the hardest working Secret Service in history. John McCain may not have as much to fear from people who want to kill him simply for the color of his skin, but he is old, he has a history of serious medical conditions, and the Presidency puts more stress on a person than any other job on the planet. When we cast our votes in this election, we must take the VP candidate into consideration, as there is a greater chance than there has been in our lifetimes that the VP may have to assume the Presidency.

It's a shame that there's only one Vice Presidential debate this time around. Palin made it through this one without any major embarassments, but also without giving any real information. Now that she's more fired up than ever, and she seems determined to guide the momentum of the McCain/Palin ticket into a dark, hateful place, it would be interesting to see how she conducted herself in another face-to-face with Senator Biden. Part of me is sad we won't get to see that. A larger part of me is happy just to not have her clogging up my TV.