« Print column reference links | Main | `Hey Chicago, Whaddaya say, the Cubs just won a game today'? » Originally posted: September 29, 2008

The bar is painted on the floor for Sarah Palin Estimable Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria has jumped on the pile : Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. ...In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true. Zakaria was piqued, as so many have been, by Palin's flabbergasting performance in an interview with Katie Couric last week, an interview in which she gave such rambling, dim-witted responses to predictable questions that "Saturday Night Live" lifted whole hunks of actual transcript verbatim and inserted them into a parody sketch over the weekend. Syndicated liberal radio talk-show host Ed Schultz (heard locally from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on WCPT AM 820) has been saying this: Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless." (From his Web site ) All of which makes me wonder: Is it possible that the Couric interview -- so much worse, even, than Palin's unimpressive interview with Charlie Gibson -- and the supposed leaks to Ed Schultz are part of an audacious attempt to lower the bar down to floor for Palin in her debate Thursday with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden? Yes, lowering the bar for one's own candidate is a time-honored political tactic (or is it a strategy?). Our candidate doesn't really shine in the debate format, whereas our opponent is a veritable forensic champion. Yet we will do our humble best. This positions your candidate to "win" the debate simply by exceeding expectations. And it's fair to say that expectations for Palin almost couldn't be lower. Her ditzy ramblings have reinforced the image of her as a sparkly naif that the late-night comics have seized on: John McCain wants to suspend his debate with Barack Obama until the economic crisis is over. And Sarah Palin wants to suspend her debate with Joe Biden until she can find Europe on a map.....Jay Leno Similarly bar-lowering was the campaign's decision (tactic? strategy?) to keep Palin under wraps after Friday night's debate instead of coming forward, as Joe Biden did, to speak to reporters and declare victory for the running mate. So now Palin doesn't have to do better than Joe Biden on Thursday night to "win." She just has to do better than Miss South Carolina did in the Miss Teen USA pageant in 2007. Which, of course, she will. Won't she? UPDATE -- I'm going out on a limb here and predicting, at 3 p.m. Monday, that Thursday's debate will not go on as scheduled, and that this will be the result of some annoucement or decision from the McCain camp. Palin will cite a need to return to Alaska to help the state cope with the economic crisis or she will say it's inappropriate to have such a debate when things are so up in the air or she will be ill or she will withdraw from the race to spend more time with her family. Feel free to come back here and taunt me Thursday night when I'm proven wrong. UPDATE TWO-- Poor, poor victimized Sarah Palin: A Voter Asks A Question, And It's "Gotcha Journalism" ONLINE:

• `If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.' (re. Kathleen Parker column)

• Palin's foreign policy chops James Wolcott on the lowered bar :

It's the conservative men who are now the most condescending to Palin, treating her gaffes and knowledge gaps as trifles because she brings something fresh and telegenic to the ticket. Today on Chris Matthews, David Brooks, setting the bar so low for Palin a cricket could hop it, lamely defended her as "smart" and said that if she improved in her debate with Biden, she might rise to the level of "mediocre," the shruggy wave of his hands indicating that mediocre was enough to pass muster with him. Over at NRO, that little scamp Mark Steyn, echoing the cry of Let Sarah Be Sarah, conceded that Palin Unfiltered might be Malaprop City, but what the hey: All Governor Palin should insist on...is that every interview be live. And, if they're all disasters, they'll wind up like Biden's gaffes or Clinton's adulteries. As Stalin remarked in another context, one is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Not the choicest analogy. The Moderate Voice : All [Palin] has to do in her debate with Democratic Sen. Joe Biden is to put in a credible performance and not make any gaffes. She has been kept away from the press by McCain’s high command so she already suffers from a bad press due to her inaccessibility. She has become a comedian’s punchline. And she has been lampooned mercilessly by satirists. If she comes across the debate as being serious, thoughtful and able to respond aggressively with accurate facts to back up her responses, many will consider it a win. Expectations — and Fey’s two SNL parodies — have now been set so low that even a blah performance with no major gaffes will allow Palin’s partisans to proclaim it a home run and Biden in the eyes of public opinion could indeed be overshadowed Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic,com: How can it be that some people still pretend that Sarah Palin is suited for high office? This country has never seen someone so comprehensively unprepared for the vice presidency; Dan Quayle was Metternich by comparison. I've watched Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric three times, and my astonishment does not diminish. Her nonsensical answer about Russia has deservedly been highlighted, but let me focus on another question...The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. ...The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Andrew Malcolm at LATimes.com on the lowered bar: [The Democrats] They have so successfully mocked, derided and lowered expectations for Palin in Thursday night's VP debate that if she doesn't drool or speak in tongues, many millions still open to persuasion will be impressed. Al Gore's campaign made the exact same mistake going into the 2000 debates. So all Texas Gov. George W. Bush had to do was not lose. In that sense, Democrats may have played right into a PR cul-de-sac. Biden, for instance, described Palin as merely better-looking than him. A far better communications strategy would have been to insincerely portray Palin with superlatives as a superwoman, making it harder, not easier, for her to impress. Too late now. Over at Salon, Joan Walsh lowers the bar still further: Palin "didn't blink" when McCain asked her to join the ticket, didn't think twice, because she's a supremely self-confident woman with a limited worldview, impressed with her own greatness and not terribly curious about anyone else. ...McCain risked his entire reputation for integrity with his cynical choice of Palin, and he'll have to live with the consequences. One consequence is the loss of respect by many journalists who once admired him. ... Boy, Republicans have to be dreading the Thursday debate, huh? ...and Rebecca Traister muses on what might have/should have been: Let's consider that there are any number of women who could have been John McCain's running mate -- from Olympia Snowe to Christine Todd Whitman to Kay Bailey Hutchison to Elizabeth Dole to Condoleezza Rice -- who would not have provoked this reaction. Democrats might well have been repulsed and infuriated by these women's policy positions. But we would not have been sitting around worrying about how scared they looked....[Palin] boldly tries to pass off incuriosity and lassitude as regular-people qualities, thereby doing a disservice to all those Americans who also work two jobs and do not come from families that hand out passports and backpacking trips, yet still manage to pick up a paper and read about their government and seek out experience and knowledge....

When you don't have enough regard for your country or its politics to cram effectively for the test -- a test that helps determine whether or not you get to run that country and participate in its politics -- I don't feel bad for you.

Andrew Sullivan makes an important point about the gender issue: Until Sarah Palin agrees to a full and open press conference, she should not even be considered as a possible vice-president of the United States. What has been going on with her and access to her is an outrage to democratic discourse and the entire electoral system. Since she was selected, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held more press conferences with American reporters than she has. Forget all this debate spin or pre-spin. Just give her a microphone, a roomful of inquisitive reporters and be done with it. If she were a man, this wouldn't even be debatable. That we are being told these lower standards are acceptable for a woman candidate is sexist cant. When will the press simply stop cooperating with this farce? .

| Permalink Comments I can hardy wait for the Ultimate Sarah Palin SNL skit...she does a strip-tease, down to the skivvies and sport-bra...off comes the wig...and - OMG - it's DAN QUAYLE! A Crying Game indeed - for the whole country! Posted by: anon | Sep 29, 2008 11:45:21 AM The word out, via Howard Kurtz, is that there are two other even worst segments of Palin's comments in her interview with Katie Couric that CBS chose not to run, apparently under the long-standing journalistic practice of trying to save interviewees from themselves. This practice I find legitimate to a degree in correcting grammar, in excising libelous statements, omitting statements made while drunk, etc. Whether CBS was correct to not run those segments would depend on what we hear (if we ever hear them at all). Posted by: Robert Pruter | Sep 29, 2008 11:58:17 AM I was thinking about just this thing the other day. Especially in light of the "tie-goes-to-the-frontrunner" post-debate analysis that has allowed Obama to claim victory in the first debate vs. McCain, I say all Palin has to do is show up, stand upright and simply speak coherent English and she could easily be declared the winner. We've been led to believe that she is the stupidest person in the history of American politics. I suspect that, assuming she doesn't say something incredibly stupid, Biden is a no-win situation. Much like Michigan playing Appalachian State in football a couple years back, Biden is expected to win, and win easily. But the fallout could be disastrous should he be perceived in any way as having lost to a nitwit. ZORN REPLY -- I think your analysis is fairly spot-on. I've yet to see Palin speak in coherent paragraphs when she's off-script, however. Posted by: JB | Sep 29, 2008 12:16:08 PM Well, the Trib declared McCain the winner of this first presidential debate, despite everything, and I have no doubt in Palin's ability to be equally dishonest and unlikable. So will she win? No. Not in a factual sense. But your paper will say she did. Posted by: chigal | Sep 29, 2008 12:27:04 PM "I've yet to see Palin speak in coherent paragraphs when she's off-script, however. " Which is where the SNL skit failed. Other than when she was quoting the segments lifted verbatim from the Couric interview, the actress who portrayed Palin spoke in complete, grammatical sentences, and thus gave an inaccurate portrayal. Posted by: jlp | Sep 29, 2008 12:49:27 PM The key to the debate will be for either the moderator or Biden to dig beneath the thin veneer of rote memorization that will be the basis of her performance. She has had plenty of time to memorize some statistics and talking points to certain questions she knows will be on the test, and even someone with her intellectual paucity can do that somewhat convincingly. It's when you dig slightly beneath the surface that she implodes. As anyone who has ever B.S.ed their way through anything knows, your goose is cooked when you're asked to explain the basis of your statements. Being able to give simple, concise answers to complicated questions is way harder than it looks. You need to have a deep understanding of what you're talking about - an understanding of international and domstic affairs that are the result of years and years of study and analysis, not just a few weeks of cramming. Given the what we've seen of her, I can't envision any scenario in which she passes this test. But it's really up to Biden and the moderator to not let her get away with parroting rote talking points, and actually probing into the basis for those talking points. If they do that, I'm quite certain her performance will be a disaster. If they just let her blather on without a challenge, given the height of the bar that's been set for her, it's possible that she'll be able to declare victory. Either way, it's gripping reality television. Posted by: tb | Sep 29, 2008 1:43:50 PM Eric's theory is interesting. I think it's possible that this was part of a plan to lower expectations and launch a sneak attack on Biden but I doubt it. The more likely scenario is that she had a couple of bad interviews and now the McCain team is lowering expectations even further by claiming she isn't doing well in mock debates. The problem with the McCain team is that their strategy of keeping a tight leash on McCain works for him but doesn't work for Palin. McCain is a smart, competent, knowledgeable, and good person but he's not a nice person. Keeping a tight leash on him makes sense because it controls his temper and reduces the chance that he'll anger the base. Palin is a likeable person and people would forgive a few gaffes here and there. The problem is that by tightly controlling her message, she sounds like she's robotically spewing a set of talking points (because she is). She doesn't have experience dealing with handlers like McCain does. Governors who run for president should talk about national issues in the context of how they addressed similar issues in their state. Palin isn't doing that because the McCain team is so worried about a gotcha question that they won't let her speak freely. The problem with that strategy is that it's not natural for her and she looks uncomfortable and incapable of putting together a coherent answer. I'm not saying that she's going to be as smooth as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton if they let her loose but I'm sure she won't do any worse. So I'm with Steyn - let Sarah be Sarah and we'll see what happens. ZORN REPLY -- These aren't classic gaffes, though. A classic gaffe is when McCain talks about the Iraq/Pakistan border, Obama says he's visited 57 states or Biden says FDR went on TV after the stock market crash to reassure the nation ---- a strange little slippage of the thought gears...a misstatement... a garble... a botch. No one seriously thinks McCain doesn't know there is no such border, that Obama doesn't know there are 50 states or that Biden doesn't know FDR wasn't the president and there was TV when the stock market crashed in 1929.

Neither are these Kinsleyan gaffes -- named for pundit Michael Kinsley's memorable one-liner that a gaffe in Washington is when you mistakenly say what you actually believe to be true.

Neither are they mistakes -- such as McCain's assertion that Ike wrote a letter of resignation before D-Day just in case -- or lies.

They are just weird, parted ramblings in the rhetorical thickets. Posted by: Greg J. | Sep 29, 2008 1:44:18 PM I don't think anyone in this fine country truly believes Sarah Palin is educated enough or bright enough to handle the job that John McCain has chosen her for. The other real scary thought is What If: john McCain is elected to the nations highest office and shortly thereafter passes away from the stress of the job. Take a long hard look America,at what we as a nation would be left as a leader of this great nation. It nauseates me just thinking about it. Posted by: Steven Hassel | Sep 29, 2008 1:46:44 PM Oh wow I just got a flashback to Bush 2000. I seem to remember someone saying at the time that after Bush got his clock cleaned by Gore in the first debate, all he needed to do to win the second one was to walk over to the podium without falling on his face. Also, I recently saw it written somewhere (forgetting where) re: Palin that she is like a less-educated, less politically talented George W. Bush. Now THAT'S some scary stuff right there. Posted by: Marlissa | Sep 29, 2008 2:15:14 PM After hearing the clips from the CBS interview, I honestly felt a little sick to my stomach imagining the debate--for her and for its reflection on McCain's legacy as a candidate (not that he's helped himself much). Both of them seem like good people, and I don't think most people are interested in seeing a decent person melt down in public. Posted by: Joe | Sep 29, 2008 2:33:58 PM Just finished reading a story comparing Palin and Biden: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-the-veep-debaters,0,1337583.story which suggests that Palin might not be a complete pushover in the debate. My favorite quote: ""She did such a great job with just the glittering generalities and filling the room with her presence that people didn't care what she said about agriculture," Halcro says now. "Palin's a master at spending 45 seconds telling you what color the sky is," he adds, "and people will say, 'That's the greatest thing I ever heard.'" Sounds like the McCain campaign might be better off not trying to fill her (pretty little) head with facts and figures, as that just makes her sound stunted and unnatural (as we've seen a few times now). If they just let her be Sarah, she won't say anything, but she just might sound good not saying it. Posted by: Dienne | Sep 29, 2008 3:03:12 PM I saw the Charlie Gibson interview and within three mins said to my wife, "this woman is clueless!" I did not see Katie's interview with Palin but if it's worse than the Gibson interview, she's in real trouble with Biden. It won't be so much what Palin says but rather how Biden will cut her to shreds for saying what she does say, and therein lies her greatest danger. ZORN REPLY -- I added capital letters to your posting, Peter....we try to use them here at CoS. Posted by: peter | Sep 29, 2008 3:23:58 PM You mean to tell me that CBS has even more damning footage of the Palin/Couric interview then they showed? How could that even be possible? Posted by: Bopst | Sep 29, 2008 3:26:33 PM I'm having trouble believing that all Palin has to do is show up and speak English and she'll be declared the victor in Thursday's debate. Palin's problem is not that she can't speak. It's that she can't think. When she speaks, she sounds like the McCain campaign sound-byte machine malfunctioning at high speed. We need people who can think and speak coherently. Vote for Obama/Biden! Posted by: Diana Shellenberger | Sep 29, 2008 3:29:35 PM Sarah Palin over the past few weeks has given us more than enough evidence to support the fact that she is totally unqualified for the VP spot in our nation's capital. May God have mercy on us all if that "team' is elected. Posted by: RJinchi | Sep 29, 2008 3:33:21 PM One has to wonder what other, far more qualified Republican women must be thinking--what an insult to them. Why in the world did McCain pick this woman? It must only be out of desperation to shake up the race--but it has failed miserably and speaks volumes about his poor judgment. Posted by: Judith | Sep 29, 2008 3:36:34 PM The Dan Quayle for the new millennium. Heaven help us. Posted by: Ann | Sep 29, 2008 3:38:21 PM I think the best hope the Republicans have is to ask Tina Fey step in and be the one to actually debate Senator Biden. We'd all have a good time, and how much worse could it be than having Sarah Palin actually debate? Posted by: peter | Sep 29, 2008 3:38:39 PM She can still surprise all of her critics and make a good impression - she can wear her bathing suit. Posted by: French Official | Sep 29, 2008 3:38:42 PM 15 minutes ago I told a co-worker I fully expected Palin to come down with laringitis on Wednesday. Her interview with Couric would be funny if she wasn't up for the job of VP, instead it scares the hell out of me. The only thing Sarah Palin has in common with Hillary Clinton is their reproductive organs. Posted by: Deb | Sep 29, 2008 3:41:07 PM Wouldn't it be wonderful if Joe would take mercy on Sarah and administer the 'coup de gras", Sarah, as a renowned Moose hunter would surely understand it as an act of mercy if Joe would cancel the debate himself and take her out of her (and John's) misery Posted by: Drak | Sep 29, 2008 3:45:52 PM No, Eisenhower wrote a note to be used in case the D-Day landings failed that stated if there was any blame, it was solely his. Essentially it was a resignation that was never used for if the landings had failed, he would have been replaced immediately. One of his aides asked to keep it & saved it for history.

I can't think of one person currently in public life that would do the same. But to get back to Palin, if she cancels out of the debate, she looks even dumber than now, which means she makes Quayle look like a genius & probably dooms McCain's candidacy! ZORN REPLY --No, Garry. There is no "essentially" about it, and you can't spin fast enough to make that so. ABC and others have reported, "Fact: Eisenhower wrote a letter taking full responsibility for the consequences of the invasion, but did not write a letter of resignation, according to the National Archives. See the letter at

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/d-day-message/images/failure-message.gif

" Posted by: Garry | Sep 29, 2008 3:47:48 PM The analogy of Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle is a good one. Of course to complete it (with intellectual honesty) is to relate Palin now to Quayle circa 1988. Then dig for some less politically charged retrospectives on Dan Quayle. Meaning, what was Dan Quayle really like? That fact finding mission might be disappointing. Unless you think a stand-up father and businessman who has and has had a great marriage and normal kids is sucks. If so be filled with glee. In all honesty, I don't know if all that I don't know about Sarah Palin is less disconcerting to me than all I do know about Joe Biden. I sincerely hope neither actually gets to be president. I do know that much. And I know that all the anti-Palin theatrics is strictly for entertainment value. Personally, I'm not impressed with Sarah Palin OR TIna Fey at this point. I'm far less impressed with those who think either is important. Priorities folks. They matter. Posted by: Alan Hopkins | Sep 29, 2008 3:54:19 PM I was just reading Zakaria's article on my lunch. In the same issue of Newsweek, a strategist points out that Biden will have to do his best to not seem condescending in his debate with Palin. How do you avoid that when the person you're speaking with has zero experience nor the knowledge of how to cover that up? With Biden's lengthy resume, no matter what, he will seem like he's talking down to her...and he will be, albeit unintentionally (probably...how could you resist the urge to do it on purpose??). Biden runs the real risk of looking like a thug. A Politico over the "average American". Look at the Bush-Gore debates..and Bush-Kerry debates, for that matter. Smart talked to Stupid and Stupid got elected...TWICE! The funny thing is, Biden might come off looking too cerebral. I love that. Like it's a handicap to have a smart president. Like that's a bad thing. Grrrrrrr. I hope they do delay the debates..although I would miss watching the Republican party bleed out. Any delay and it's obvious to everyone and their dogs that the Republicans are deeply regretting their decision. Posted by: | Sep 29, 2008 3:55:48 PM This may be one of the most nail-biting times ever. Question - What kind of assistance would Palin have in running the country, should she be called to do so? Someone please tell McCain has some great choices for his cabinet. My nailbed is bleeding already. Posted by: Tootie | Sep 29, 2008 4:07:11 PM McCain can't let Palin resign from the race because, no matter how noble the stated reason is, enough undecideds will know the real reason. And the conspiracy theorists will immediately begin claiming she was pushed. McCain can't push her out as it confirms his poor judgment in selecting her in the first place. [Of course we know, but he can't be the one who says the elephant is in the room. He does and he loses.] Perhaps they will try a pretext to cancel the debate (postponing does them no good - it just moves it closer to election day.) But given McCain tried to reschedule last week, that isn't going to fly very well. And his staff must realize that his rescheduling attempt contributed to his slipping on the slope last week. I predict the debate will go on, she will do mediocre to moderate, Biden will trip all over himself not to insult her, and the debate will be considered a wash. Watch for Biden to be formal (he will call her "Governor Palin") and direct all his attacks at McCain, almost as though she isn't there. Watch Palin (in her scripted remarks) to continually tweak Biden for being a long time DC insider. She might even intentionally spin in a couple of subtle faslehoods in an attempt to get to him and cause him to go off script. Posted by: Danny | Sep 29, 2008 4:09:43 PM I guest all you need to be qualified as a Vice-Presidential candidate, is be a democrat and a liberal one at that according to your standards. What made Hillary Clinton so qualified she is just a Senator. Is she so qualified because she was married to a President? You need to get a life. Sarah Palin has as much qualifications to be Vice-President as Barrack has to be President. Here stealing your own words and using them where they fit best. Barrack is utterly unqualified to be President. He is a charismatic politician who has done some things in Illinois. But he has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. ...In these times, for the democrats to have chosen this person to be a Presidential candidate is fundamentally irresponsible. Democrats want to say that they always put country first. In this important case, it is simply not true. Posted by: | Sep 29, 2008 4:13:49 PM To the people wondering why McCain chose Palin - on paper, she represented what his campaign needed. McCain had a choice - he could go with Lieberman (his first choice) and appeal to independents and moderates while totally alienating the Fundamentalist Whackjob set that makes up about 35% of the GOP base. Or he could go with a Fundamentalist Whackjob Neocon and secure the 35% F.W. set, while risking alienating independents and moderates. Because of the overhyped "P.U.M.A." problem, he thought he could kill two birds with one shotgun-toting Whackjob by getting the Fundamentalists and the resentful Hillary women on board by picking Palin. He just forgot a little thing that tends to be "left behind" by the Rovian strategy - the person has to actually appear somewhat competent, something Palin is failing miserably at doing. And I don't blame her - it's really, really hard to pretend to know stuff you don't, especially when that stuff is very complicated and every word you utter is dissected to the molecular level. It's a lot of pressure, and very few people are up to the challenge. I really don't think she ever had VP or Presidential aspirations, at least not in the short term, but the demographics to which she appeals made her the perfect running mate (on paper) for the GOP. Now of course that speaks volumes about what the GOP has become, but that's another topic altogether. Ultimately, she will probably be a large reason McCain loses, which will be all for the better because under no circumstance does he deserve to win. Posted by: tb | Sep 29, 2008 4:18:24 PM Maybe we should wait until Friday morning to discuss this issue. Posted by: Ryan | Sep 29, 2008 4:27:37 PM "...that Biden doesn't know FDR wasn't the president and there was TV when the stock market crashed in 1929. " I disagree, this statement along with what he said BEFORE it...I really do question his cognitive abilities. I'm paraphrasing, but he said "we need someone who knows what they are talking about" Then followed with his FDR gaffe. Add that to his asking a guy in a wheel chair to stand up and claiming that HRC would have been a better VP choice, and multiple charges of plagiarism. I think you may be talking about the wrong VP candidate. Oh but I forgot. He's on YOUR side. Posted by: JD | Sep 29, 2008 4:29:04 PM The worst part of all this is that McCain selected Palin as a publicity stunt. His erratic behavior in this campaign, and his choosing a mannequin as running mate, display just how desperate for a candidate the Republicans have become after the failed administration of the very unpopular George W Bush. Wait, I was wrong. The worst part is that it's still a pretty close race. (Race being the issue, I think). Posted by: Messagero | Sep 29, 2008 4:36:44 PM Assuming nothing truly serious happens between now and Thursday, I disagree with your prediction. By "truly serious" I mean real-world serious (e.g., terrorist attack, serious illness or death in a candidate's family, or something else that would be generally accepted as a reason to miss an important business appointment), not political-serious. The one political event I would include is if Palin does, in fact, withdraw. Very unlikely but possible. Canceling the debate is all but an admission that she is not up to it. The Republicans are better off sending her out to take her chances. Maybe she waffles artfully enough to get away with it. Maybe Biden says something absurd. (It is not just conservatives who get worried when a VP candidate starts talking.) Maybe he is perceived as beating up on her. As long as Palin does not drool -- and she won't because she is a pretty good performer -- the McCain team will be able to flood the news shows with surrogates arguing with a straight face that she won and 30 percent of the country will believe it. That is a better result than not showing up. Now that I think of it, Bush did all but drool on a couple of questions in one of the 2004 debates and he still got reelected -- for president. My prediction is that Palin debates. My somewhat less confident prediction is that independent post-survey polls show at least 35 percent of people who express an opinion saying that she won. ZORN REPLY -- I agree with the prediction above that, if she debates, she will come armed with a series of attack points and will try to get Biden off his game, which almost certainly will be NOT to criticize her or get into a back and forth, but to criticize McCain and McCain's record, and to challenge her on THAT. It will be his job to respond in a way that seems strong, fair and non-patronizing....none of this "what Gov. Palin doesn't understand" condescending crap that John McCain laid down. That won't work. And to try to get her to talk away from her memorized debate points as much as possible.

She will appear glazed at times, robotic at others, utterly nasty at others. She'll smile ten times more than McCain smiled. There will be at least a few themes -- words, expressions -- that she repeats more than five times.

Posted by: JL | Sep 29, 2008 4:44:10 PM Sorry, that should have been "post-debate," not "post-survey." Posted by: JL | Sep 29, 2008 4:44:54 PM Palin's interviews are embarrassing to hilarious, depending on how you want to take it -- either way, it's not good. Kathleen Parker was spot on--Palin should do the right thing + step down. Posted by: marie s | Sep 29, 2008 4:52:59 PM Eric, the McCain people don't need to lower any expectations, as the media and the Democrats have already done that. It's disingenuous for liberal democrats and the media to complain that the "bar is too low" when they had a primary role in setting it there. I read the comments above, and you would think that John McCain put Minnie Pearl on the ticket! In any event, I don't understand why Democrats think that attacking Gov. Palin makes any sense. You guys played this game in the days following the convention, and it did not work. The problem here is that the Democratic platform is generally not appealing to types of voters Barack needs to attract. Perhaps Barack should focus on this aspect of his campaign.... ZORN REPLY -- Well, no I think the "attacks" on Palin have been effective and for the most part fair. Many independents, moderates and even honest Republicans have confessed to me their profound dis-ease with Palin's place on the ticket. I doubt that will change any Republican votes, but I also doubt that, in the end, she will attract many moderates or independents. Those who do end up voting for McCain will do so in spite of Palin, not because of her.

I'm not complaining that the bar is low, I'm just pointing it out. Posted by: mark | Sep 29, 2008 4:57:29 PM Why isn't anyone giving Biden a hard time?

Because he's above it? Posted by: ahzroc | Sep 29, 2008 5:00:49 PM PALIN PRE-DEFEATS BIDEN IN DEBATE! By planning to show up and not drooling over the moderator, and by not speaking in incoherent gibberish, Palin has already won the VP debate, days before it is to take place. Asked how she did it, Palin explained that she agreed to memorize a series of 45-second speeches and deliver them, no matter what the moderator says and no matter what her opponent says. Because the speeches were carefully written by GOP staffers to be gaffe-free, the media won't have any juicy bits of idiocy to quote. They'll be reduced to trying to show how her speeches are not connected to the questions being asked in any way. But that will require a longer attention span than her supporters have, so they'll run out of the room chanting, Drill, Baby, Drill! Posted by: zorg | Sep 29, 2008 5:07:39 PM Getting ready for a debate that you are unprepared for is a lot taking the final in a course that you never attended, didn't do the homework and never cracked a book. You could get lucky, but chances are you won't and everyone will learn you are loser. I'm betting on Palin looking like the loser she is. Posted by: Richard Friedman | Sep 29, 2008 5:11:11 PM ZORN COMMENT -- By the way, those of you, like "Helen" here, who find themselves permanently banned from these boards for violations of civility and so on need not bother to continue to try to post comments. I empty the spam folder with a single click, seeing only in a glimmering second that several of you are persisting in your attempt to degrade our conversations here. I say this as a favor to you....save your fingers. Posted by: Helen | Sep 29, 2008 5:21:32 PM I'm going to have to go with the McCain-Camp-Postpones-Debate scenario. I think McCain will cancel Palin's participation "until an economic rescue bill is passed" or Palin will need to return to Alaska because one of her children is ill, etc. I believe they will try to buy time and postpone (or downright cancel) the debate. I'm not sure you can lower the bar enough to make her appear intelligent in this arena. She may know Alaska, but she certainly does not have a sound view of either the rest of the country, or the world. That's more than obvious. Posted by: Alexandra | Sep 29, 2008 5:28:19 PM On the day that Palin was announced as the VP candidate, my mother had this theory: McCain is deliberately trying to throw the election. After Palin's interviews, I'm starting to think that's true. Posted by: Nik | Sep 29, 2008 5:45:06 PM It's no secret that the Neo-Conservative Right Wingers are not satisfied with McCain. He's much to soft for them. I bet they put pressure on McCain to select Palin and he took the bait. Posted by: Rick D | Sep 29, 2008 5:45:50 PM The Republican Party has always had the uncanny ability to make many Americans simply ill at ease and embarrassed. So often their platforms and "go it alone" attitude are emblematic of the "Ugly American" as seen by those in other countries overseas. Now, with Sarah Palin, they have taken this self-loathing to a new level by making even many of their own party members uncomfortable and ashamed. A McCain presidency? Probably WORSE than Bush, the world's most unpopular miserable failure. Posted by: Stephen Bonser | Sep 29, 2008 5:50:40 PM Why not just replace her with Tina Fey and then everybody will be happy. Posted by: Michael M Doherty | Sep 29, 2008 5:55:24 PM Even without gaffes, Joe Biden has his work cut out for him. Think of how McCain has been criticized for not looking at Obama. So Biden has to look at Sarah, and project a stern, dismayed yet non-condescending disagreement. Can he even get away with stern, I wonder? But if he plays it too gentlemanly, that's a condescension in itself. Posted by: Literal Lee | Sep 29, 2008 5:58:33 PM Palin is the lipstick and McCain is the pig. Posted by: realOC | Sep 29, 2008 6:27:03 PM While I wholeheartedly support John McCain, Sarah Palin is a disappointment. The less she talks, the better for her. The more Joe Biden talks, the worse for him. At this point, both presidential candidates probably wish they could go back and rethink their running mate selections. If only Tom Ridge wore a dress... Posted by: Jim Franklin | Sep 29, 2008 6:40:40 PM I think she will do the debate. They already tried to postpone (cancel?) the VP debate last week with McCain suggesting that Friday's debate be canceled and done in place of the VP debate. For her to not come for any reason now would be too obvious a dodge.

I've heard two strategies they have for helping her out -one is that if her hair is down, it means they have put a transistor in her ear so someone can feed her the answers. The other is that she will just roll out snarky comments like in the acceptance speech, no matter if it relates to the question. We'll see what happens Thursday eve. Posted by: Elena | Sep 29, 2008 6:41:11 PM Now that RedEye has gone broadsheet today and been renamed The Chicago Tribune and is called a newspaper, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Sarah Palin is, in fact, the most qualified person to ever run for the Vice Presidency. All part of the new reality. Posted by: JustWondering | Sep 29, 2008 6:45:35 PM Add to these questionable tactics the McCain campaign's tendency to inflate - well okay, lie about - the turnout figures for their rallies. For example, the Miami Herald on the Sept. 21 Florida rally: "But Palin drew thousands more than the estimated 20,000 people that turned out for Bush. A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size." Miami Herald Bloomberg on earlier rallies: "Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming." Bloomberg

Posted by: zuzu | Sep 29, 2008 6:47:33 PM TEE, HEE, HEE http://video.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wv&q=palin Posted by: basementfrog | Sep 29, 2008 6:47:54 PM Funny this is that if you hold what she says against facts, then she admits the republic party is unsophisticated and based on ignorance. Here's a transcript from http://www.hayibo.com/articles/view/863 It [claims against evolution] has been an argument as sophisticated as our Grand Old Party... Here's the basis of her rejection of evolution: Our primary argument for Creation and against the communist satanic onslaught of evolution has always been: 'Well I've never seen a chimp turn into a man' or 'Show me a gorilla giving birth to a human baby and I'll believe in evolution' Let's find the errors. First communist and satanic contradict each other. Second evolution is neither. Third evolution never says that individual members of a species change their genetic structure to become a member of another species. Fourth, evolution says the change from one species to another is done gradually through mutations, not one species giving birth to a radically different species. Her argument demonstrates her ignorance, hatred of science and need to break things she does not want to understand into inaccurate sound bites. One has to wonder what she'll do when presented with other facts that don't fit into her nilhistic world view. Posted by: Alverant | Sep 29, 2008 6:50:50 PM My prediction? The VP debate will be between Biden and a Palin spokesperson. Posted by: Frank | Sep 29, 2008 7:19:06 PM The main thing to remember is that McCain's judgement in picking Palin, even had he known her and had vetted her appropriately, has to be suspect here. It's one thing to think that this 72 year old cancer survivor has a 4 in 5 chance of surviving through his first term as president, but quite another to imagine this complete neophyte, Palin, in the most powerful and influential job on earth should McCain die in office. It is terrifying. I think for this running mate selection alone, McCain should be fired as a candidate (if such a thing were possible). Posted by: Rob Smith | Sep 29, 2008 7:20:18 PM In the "If she shows up and does not gaffe she can win category", what we need to consider are not just the people who were frightened by the Couric interview. But the other mass of people who will embrace her no matter what comes out of her mouth, they are not listening for facts or correct content, only delivery, and she does have that part down. Be wary. Posted by: CF | Sep 29, 2008 7:25:49 PM My husband and I have a bet as to whether or not Palin will "be able" to attend the debate. I think there will be some reason why the event just won't happen; he thinks that would be deadly for the campaign and that the show MUST go on. We'll see. I've found myself over the last couple of days with a thought that is truly frightening. Imagine we have another national crisis on a scale with our current economic crisis -- only this time, the president is Palin, who took over the job upon the demise of McCain. (Don't worry, this is just a theory and not some kind of plan.) Or... Palin is in charge and there is some international crisis, let's say involving Pakistan, their border region, bin Laden. You get the idea. Posted by: Emmeline | Sep 29, 2008 8:15:05 PM I couldn't agree more. Palin is so clueless that Biden is going to have a terrible time trying not to look overbearing. The McCain camp must really think Americans are stupid to think they would put Sarah Palin in such a globally important position. Posted by: Mr. Mike | Sep 29, 2008 8:20:12 PM Enough already about why we should NOT vote McCain/Palin. But why do I have to scroll down so far in this blog to find a reason to vote FOR Obama? Huh? Posted by: Phil The K | Sep 29, 2008 8:37:25 PM How insulting to Nashville and Minnie Pearl to be compared to Sarah Palin! I just wonder what all of those Country Club Republican Women are truly thinking. Of course Sarah Palin appeals to the ignorant, creationist knuckle draggers... but what do the millions of sophisticated educated Republican women think of this Dodo in high heels, LOL!? Posted by: Eagle640 | Sep 29, 2008 8:48:33 PM What's surprising is that ANYONE could see\hear her interviews and not immediately recognize she is totally ignorant of anything beyond her limited experience, and is struggling to cover it up with BS. But, alas, many of our countrymen view knowledge and intelligence as lower priorities in their candidate of choice than believing the bible literally, being a soccer mom, or several other attibutes some of us might characterize as shallow. But remember, the debate is about winning over undecided voters. Biden should not find it difficult to draw her into uncertain territory (it's a pretty big space), but he ought to inject some definitions of what it takes to be ready to assume the presidency; maybe we can raise the bar again while she's trying to crawl over... Posted by: Chris_VA | Sep 29, 2008 9:10:01 PM The McCain camp has completely "Bush Doctrined" the Obama camp in choosing Sarah Palin for the vp slot. Tactical or Strategical error? Send in the surge, or the casualties after the October 2nd war will have us loony liberals gloating with glee. There is a comment here comparing Senator Obama to Governor Palin. I am not clear on how a comparison can even be made between a Senator with a fairly hefty understanding of foreign policy and an understanding of the diplomatic failures of the Bush administration to a Governor who not only can't convey a complete thought while speaking, but seems to lack a complete thought altogether in that pretty little head of hers. She doesn't even know her own running mate's positions on foreign policy. And if she did could she even agree being as she is utterly clueless? As for the debate she absolutely better show up unless McCain (unlike the Bush administration) can admit he made a mistake. I will have my popcorn ready. Posted by: Shannon | Sep 29, 2008 9:24:00 PM I'm not much for political niceties and nuances. I'd like to see Biden walk all over Palin and show the world how unprepared she is. If we are to have women running for the highest offices in the land (and, indeed, we should), they need to be competent to go toe to toe with the opposition and forget about the "sympathy card." Hillary lost it emotionally once during her campaign (probably intentionally), but she is a fearsome debater who can easily take on a lightweight like Biden (as she has). She would never stoop to the level of expecting others to feel sorry for her mistakes. She wouldn't be getting cutesy on camera. She's a genuine "pit-bull with lipstick." She has the level of political intelligence and courage that a woman must have as a top-rank campaigner. Sarah Palin? I'm sorry. Probably a really nice lady, mother, wife--even governor of 650,000 Alaskans. But at this level, she pales in comparison to Clinton. Something more like a French poodle with lipstick. Is she ready to negotiate with sharks like former KGB director Putin? Even little piranhas like Kim Jong Il? Because if McCain (God forbid) has "the big one" in office, that's what America gets. I have to believe that the GOP recognized the unlikelihood of a Republican win this round, given the unpopularity of the current administration, and decided not to waste any "good" candidates, presuming they even have any. Posted by: Webster | Sep 29, 2008 9:30:57 PM "But [Obama] has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue..." Whoever you are, you're a perfect example of why it's hard to take the "Obama is inexperienced" argument seriously. He's a U.S. Senator, he was a professor of Constitutional law, he's been in politics most of his adult life, and you want us to believe that he's never spent a day THINKING about any important issue? Sheesh. As for Palin, I think she's perfectly capable of memorizing enough talking points to get by in the debate, which, as EZ posits, will be enough. I also disagree with those who dismiss her as a dummy. Check out Philip Gourevitch's interview with her in a recent New Yorker (which, although he never says so, I surmise was conducted before McCain picked her). She comes off as bright enough and surprisingly sympathetic. Surprising to me, anyway. Posted by: Pan | Sep 29, 2008 9:34:05 PM Its not as you see it .. it as you see it not .Stage is set ..power is brewing ..players are the game.. results are invisible.. Posted by: Raji Rab | Sep 29, 2008 9:35:49 PM You are right about the McCain campaign creating a real or imagined excuse that the Thursday evening debate is off.

It all depends how the "coaches" briefing Palin evaluate how she is doing. If the stories are true, they are going to bail on her, but each day that goes by, makes the judgment tougher because of the political heat they would take. Under no circumstances would they put the Sarah Palin interviewed on CBS in a debate with Joe Biden. If she can reinvent herself over the next 48 hours, then she is on. If not, her political career is over because the voters in Alaska also are going to be watching and listening very closely to determine if they have been conned or not.

And a word on lowering the bar. The American people know this is not a time for forgiveness or charity in the political process. We are in terrible shape as a country, and they are not going to tolerate any nonsense from any candidate. Posted by: bobby taylor | Sep 29, 2008 9:40:32 PM I'm sorry. The bar is set at "is this person qualified to potentially step in as president of the United States". For anyone who cares about the country, there is no raising or lowering of the bar based on expectation or past performance. Posted by: Ken | Sep 29, 2008 9:51:38 PM I have read that Palin was good in debates in Alaska. I am sure one could find tape of them. She may be good on subjects pertaining to Alaska. It will be interesting to see how well she does on national and international subjects Posted by: sanfordsklansky | Sep 29, 2008 9:59:52 PM Why does the Chicago Tribune spend most of its time tut tutting Sarah Palin and examining her city council votes while it hasn't once examined Barack Obama's board chairmanship of a $160 million education "reform" grant program in Chicago that was judged to be a failure and whose founder was a domestic terrorist? Until Stanley Kurtz showed up, apparently the Tribune didn't even know this part of Obama's resume existed. Either didn't know or didn't care. ZORN REPLY -- Oh, please, Dan, this is old and nugatory guilt by association and if we really want to hit the wayback machin let's look at the Keating Five, which the American media has apparently decided is irrelevant. Or McCain's sleazy embrace of the Confederate flag, which we're supposed to forgive him for because, gosh, he's admitted to lying for political expediency. And it's really, unbelievable in light of this nitwit you apparently are fine with foisting upon the American people as a plausible vice president. Did you read her response to the question about Democracy and Hamas? Dan, if your consulting firm were hiring help and an applicant for a junior position gave you such an answer to a political question, you'd show her the door. Maybe that's why we're more interested in Palin's character, judgment and record than stories from the 1990s about some educational grants given out by a board. Posted by: Dan Curry | Sep 29, 2008 10:06:12 PM Here you go Democrats - you can jump all over me. I'm a woman who has voted strictly Republican since 9/11. I don't know enough about Sarah Palin yet, and am looking forward to the debates. That, to me, is the best way to judge our candidates. Not by watching SNL, or "fake" news a la Comedy Central. But even if she tanks, I will vote Republican. I am not a right wing religious fanatic. I am somewhat liberal when it comes to social issues. But I really do believe there are evil people out there who want to destroy America. Obama stating that he would attack Pakistan, who we are TRYING to continue an alliance, shows such a naivete...THAT is what scares me. And for those of you bringing race into the conversation? The Republicans I know will only vote their ticket. So that "racist" attitude must be coming from your own party. Sorry, we can't be blamed for that. ZORN REPLY-- He didn't say he was going to attack Pakistan, Pat, calm down. He said just what Sarah Palin said the other day, which is just what any top American official would say, whch is that it's obviously American policy that we'd attack high-value terrorist targets inside Pakistan with or without the permission of the Pakistani government. You and your Republican friends seem to think this is some big secret...we shouldn't speak the truth, we shouldn't talk to anyone. And how's this been working out for us? And how do you think your view on social issues are going to fare if and when McCain/Palin further transform the Supreme Court?

Posted by: pat | Sep 29, 2008 10:15:12 PM I actually concluded this after reading Kathleen Parker's article and I blogged as much in response to her article. Of course the goal is to set the bar low. THAT'S ALWAYS THE GOAL. Only Democrats think that it's good for people to go in to a debate thinking their candidate is the best one. People at home usually decide otherwise, not because the Republican candidate proves himself/herself so much better qualified, but because the Republican candidate delievered a crisp one-liner. Seriously, look back at Reagan's performances and you don't remember facts, only "There you go again" and "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" Of course, Carter was right on the facts and, in reality, America WAS better off than it was 4 years prior. Nixon's corrupt presidency had almost caused a constitutional crisis. If you're old enough to remember, Reagan didn't just magically lift the US out of recession. That didn't happen until late 1983, two and a half years in to his first term. Then he squandered any goodwill with Iran-Contra, again almost causing a constitutional crisis. But the Democrats let him off the hook, allowing Reagan "plausible deniabilty" rather than put the nation through another impeachment threat. In the case of Palin, if she just shows up she will have "shown courage and strength and the resolve we need in a leader." Biden's challenge is to keep his answers short and on-point. The less he talks, the more opportunity he gives for Palin to repeat herself as if she's trying to remember her lines in a play. Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | Sep 29, 2008 10:39:07 PM [[I guest all you need to be qualified as a Vice-Presidential candidate, is be a democrat and a liberal one at that according to your standards. What made Hillary Clinton so qualified she is just a Senator. Is she so qualified because she was married to a President? You need to get a life. Sarah Palin has as much qualifications to be Vice-President as Barack has to be President. Here stealing your own words and using them where they fit best. Barack is utterly unqualified to be President. He is a charismatic politician who has done some things in Illinois. But he has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. ...In these times, for the democrats to have chosen this person to be a Presidential candidate is fundamentally irresponsible. Democrats want to say that they always put country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

Posted by: | Sep 29, 2008 4:13:49 PM]] Well, your premise is flawed. Obama decided to run for president, presumably after having consulted with friends and advisors. He mounted a successful campaign for the Democratic nomination. and, also presumably, had been grounding himself in the issues of the day.

Governor palin, on the other hand, has literally been plucked from obscurity. I think the average American can name, perhaps, five governors from states other than their own, and palin would not have been on that list for illinoisans. Senator Clinton could have had the nomination, except that she ran a sloppy campaign. that aside, she obviously had the intention of pursuing the nomination and had paid attention to the necessary issues. The other thing about Clinton is that had she not sought to tear down Obama, she could possibly have brought some of his supporters into her tent. This is a funny piece about McCain on the Palin choice. http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/2008/09/everything-you-need-to-know-about-john.html At the end of the day, a great deal can be inferred from the McCain camp's decision to keep Palin away from the media. the repubs always claim media bias. It's an amusing tactic, and too often successful. nonetheless, I think people are beginning to sense that something is awry with this pick. Posted by: HMFIC | Sep 29, 2008 10:41:22 PM We seem to be seeing the two faces of Sarah Palin. The confident Sarah follows a script and leads the cheers and jeers. And our initial assumption was that the governor would display a better-than-average level of competence. However, we've also seen the "deer in the headlights" Sarah who emerges when the candidate is in over her head. Then her persona is the sweet-little-girl Sarah who would not be held responsible for making informed statements or decisions. And this Sarah speaks gibberish! On SNL it's funny; as a VP choice, funny it's not! Posted by: Nell | Sep 29, 2008 10:46:17 PM I predict that she will show up for the debate, goad Biden into some attack on her and, while under attack, she'll have a Charles Percy-like fainting spell, people will rush to her side in a wild, dramatic scene, she'll be rushed to a hospital and end up hospitalized (and unavailable to the press) through election day (with occasional, adorable pictures of her recuperating in her hospital bed released to the press), Biden will look like a mean old man and McCain / Palin will ride to victory on the negative fallout against the democrats for same. Posted by: Brian M. Graham | Sep 29, 2008 10:56:27 PM You know how you're supposed to go in the basement and get under a heavy table for protection against a tornado coming through? That's where the bar is. Down in the basement. Just remember: Miss South Carolina won.

If that's an omen...scary times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlin_Upton ZORN REPLY -- Actually, I followed the link you provided and found this, "She went on to place fourth in the Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant." Posted by: Tom J | Sep 30, 2008 2:09:53 AM ZORN COMMENT -- Gosh, sorry MCD, you actually made some decent points. But you couldn't do so without wild-swinging name-calling. So all that typing you did was in vain. And wild-swinging name-callers no longer get a second chance here at Change of Subject. Posted by: MCD | Sep 30, 2008 3:50:13 AM Are you kidding? In the span of less than a week Joe Biden displayed jaw dropping ignorance of American history identifying FDR as the President in 1929 who addressed the nation on television. I think I knew bettter in the eighth grade as did my classmates. Biden contradicted Obama on his energy policy, has formerly declared Obama to be too inexperienced to be president and proposed partitioning Iraq into 4 distinct states. He could screw up a one car funeral. Clinton and Reagan had absolutely no foreign policy experience when they assumed the presidency. Reagan is credited with ending the Cold War and Clinton did well. Its typical of a journalist to put greater weight on how someone says something rather than what they have done. Palin will be laughing all the way to the White House because she connects with the average American. ZORN REPLY -- Again, I'd argue that the FDR mistake was similar to all kinds of little errors that McCain has made -- more brainos than anything else. I don't fault him for not being in lockstep with Obama and it's hardly surprising that you can find critiques in the past rhetoric of a primary foe.Partitioning Iraq may or may not be a workable idea....ditto, though, with McCain's big idea of invading the place, toppling its leader, throwing gasoline on the civil/religious tensions there and then trying to enforce Democracy and peace by force with the idea that we'll be able to step away any time soon and say "victory!" Gen. Petraeus has said over and over that Iraq is not the kind of conflict in which we will be able to declare "victory!" but ol' John McCain keeps saying it and taunting Obama for not saying it. So let's not anyone get up on his high horse about bad ideas and Iraq. Posted by: Samulson | Sep 30, 2008 4:21:18 AM Deep breaths, folks, Palin is not going to postpone the debate, nor is she leaving the ticket. All she has to do is debate a gaffe prone non-genius like Biden. The bar isn't very high, because Biden is, well, Biden. She'll do fine. ZORN REPLY -- Biden's problem isn't intelligence-- I expect he'd clobber Sarah Palin and you and me, too, in a 500-question history/current events quiz. His problem is that he tends to babble unctuously. Posted by: RFR | Sep 30, 2008 4:32:00 AM Governor Palin has to prove she is not a Hockey puck !! She better not wear a black color costume, otherwise she will have all of us confused. Posted by: Action Jackson | Sep 30, 2008 6:11:08 AM The word has been leaked that one of the other parts of the Palin/Couric interview that Palin completely embarrassed herself is that she could not identify one Supreme Court case, aside from Roe v. Wade. There are so so many important Supreme Court cases. After all, the Court sets the law of the United States. This is a national disgrace. All of you people that continue to support her, you folks are showing total ignorance and denial. If you Palin' supporters cannot see why so many people are disgusted by her selection, then there is something terribly wrong with your judgment and knowledge. Posted by: James Tunick | Sep 30, 2008 6:40:13 AM You read it here first. CIting the economic crisis, Palin will withdraw and McCain will choose a new candidate who is better suited to address the economic situation. It will be spun as a reaction to the great economic crisis. Posted by: poor Richard | Sep 30, 2008 6:45:44 AM Sadly, senator biden will go for the jugular, making this caricature of her generation the winner. It is frightening that the best our two parties could produce are mccain/palin, obama/biden. The baby boom generation has only itself to blame for our current state. We went from the idyllic days of hippiedom to greed. As I reflect here, the appearance only changed. the entire premise has been the same. no responsibility, absolute distortions of freedom, and greed.sickening. Sarah Palin is a disgrace to honesty. Jjohn McCain lost my vote. Barack Obama can not distance himself from his racist church in merely 4 months and you want this Jewish vote. sorry. so, Willie Nelson where are you? You are the last person of integrity and compassion left in this country. You have my vote. ZORN REPLY -- Thanks for the comment. You'll note that I've made a cursory effort to capitalize letters for you. Please try to use proper capitalization in the future. Posted by: bob fusfeld | Sep 30, 2008 7:59:42 AM As in '88, the Republicans are doing their level-best to throw the election so that a Democratic president, not one of them, get saddled with the consequences of their failed economic policies. And this time it will actually happen - Obama's no Dukakis-in-a-helmet and isn't about to blow this election because of some silly image issue. Within 12 months, mark my words, the Republican noise machine will be blaring again, this time about how Obama hasn't been able to adequately straighten out the mess that they themselves created. American memory is alarmingly short these days - the people will listen, and they will believe. Pheeeewwwww ... Posted by: HalibutStance | Sep 30, 2008 8:14:01 AM Just the thought of Palin ever being put into the position of casting a deciding vote in the Senate, should be enough for all of you to look across the water and see if you can see Russia...because Putin will have to fly over the Alaskan cuckoo's nest, to get anywhere. I'm looking for Marvel Comics to come-up with a sensible "eternity for Palin in Pulp." J.K.Rowling could never even write such an unbelievable fictional account of United States Politics, such as John McCain has foisted on us with the Palin VP choice. What a shame for all concerned. And the "all concerned" are the US citizens, whether they know it or not. There should be no hatred for Palin, only pity. Hatred in political opinion usually always eliminates facts. We;ve been given all the verbal and visual facts we need to just say that..."...this situation is Pitiful." America not only needs a financial Bail-out, it also needs a political Bail-out by removing the Republican VP Candidate from the ticket. Posted by: Oliver James | Sep 30, 2008 8:34:45 AM Eric to enlighten Dan and similar posters should have either linked to the Atlantic item on Palin and her utterly clueless response to Hamas winning democratic elections, or explain what happened. Palin was asked whether she was OK with the fact that Hamas won democratic elections. Her answer indicated she did not know what Hamas was, that they won elections in the West Bank and Gaza, that she did not know what Gaza was. She appeared completely ignorant. On another subject, you banished the comments of another poster for "name calling," yet you in response to another poster referred to Palin as a 'nitwit." I don't disagree with that sentiment, I just wonder where you are setting the bar on name calling. ZORN REPLY -- A certain amount of name-calling of public officials is part of the robust debate, and I let it go as long at it's backed up by some kind of argument. I'm much stricter about those who call other posters or me names in the context of attacking an argument or addressing an issue, as these other posters and I are NOT the issue at hand. If a commenter says "Sarah Palin is a nitwit because....." on a post about Sarah Palin that's different, to my mind, than saying "Robert is a nitwit for criticizing Sarah Palin." All that said, I admit that my standards shift with the overall tone of the comment -- if it feels nasty and splenetic, I'm quicker on the "BLOCK FOREVER" button than I would be if, in the middle of an otherwise thoughtful comment someone crosses what I consider to be the line.

I think of it, in some ways, like a big dinner party at my house. Lots of points of view are welcome and encouraged, but rank incivility is not. I hope this makes for a more pleasant reading experience for those who tarry here.

As one who has visited many times and who has disagreed with me strongly on occasion, I think you can attest that this blog frequently presents strong criticism of the host's point of view. So it's not about "censorship." Posted by: Robert Pruter | Sep 30, 2008 8:41:42 AM The problem with Palin is not the high number of gaffes, it is the low number of non-gaffes. Ideally one would want to balance the gaffes by pointing to the moments that a candidate has shown some understanding of a major issue. And that is what Palin lacks, and what her supporters are not in a position to do. Maybe the Bush doctrine question was unfair, or the Pakistan question (not clear why, but maybe) so which of her answers when she was not simply reading of a script provided for her, shows that she understands some issue in foreign policy. And the same can be said about economic issues. So despite being the top expert on energy issues in the country, she doesn't know how much energy is produced in her home state, but to what compensatory question has she given an answer that shows an understanding of anything? My guess is she goes to the debate, she does better than expected, because expectations are so low. But that is not enough to erase the picture of her as someone unqualified. Winning the vice presidential debate is not enough to be a major factor in the presidential race. Bush was not nearly this incompetent in 2000. And that was a race about inconsequential things when we were not feeling threatened as a country. I am surprised there is no Obama/McCain debate thread at Change of Subject. But it seems clear that they made interestingly different choices. McCain chose to be a jerk, Obama chose to be a gentleman. (McCain's most common line was the condescending "Obama doesn't understand" Obama's was some form of "McCain is right, but". McCain actually has a commercial in which he quotes these Obama comments without the "but" as if anyone will miss that a disagreement is coming. I suspect the model for the VP debate will be similar. Palin will try to do as many condescending putdowns as possible, since her fanbase seems to see that as a sign of intelligence, and Biden will try to be as gracious as possible. He does have the tough task of not sounding condescending. Oddest thing I have seen from Palin though was a clip yesterday of her making fun of Biden for being old. Did no one point out to her why that might be a short sided line of attack in this particular election. Posted by: Lon | Sep 30, 2008 8:50:15 AM Oh come on. CBS would absolutely put out anything that would "embarrass" Sarah Palin. I just don't see them being so caring and concerned for her that they would "hold back". Their editors would do all they could to make her look less than human. That's my take on the media. Yes, I'm one of "those" that see a serious liberal bias at CBS, NBC, New York Times, even our Tribune, which, by the way, looks more like USA Today than the serious newspaper that it once was. Not a fan of the new look. More dumbing down. Could've done without the "let's scare everybody" soup kitchen line photo on the front page. Um, and I don't think Sarah will have a fainting spell during the debate. Sexist? Posted by: pat | Sep 30, 2008 9:18:19 AM I think the Dems are in for a rude awaking with this debate - it's called an ambush and Barry O and Biden are walking right into it. I didn't realize that Katie Couric is now the 'know all - be all' WRT the dynamics of world politics. Biden gets a pass on TV even existing in 1929 and Ms. Palin gets destroyed because the media doesn't understand her answer which contained references to International Maritime Law (a very complex system unknown to the majority) and triva questions about McCain's policies from years ago. It's unfortunate that the media would rather personally insult people that don't share their political opinions vice paying attention to the details of the discussion. The trouble here is that she's talking above your heads. I'll admit that her responses do not make for good evening news sound bites (AKA if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker a Democrat can't figure it out). The Chicago Bar "Olde Ale Town" with the nude cartoon like painting is a prime example of how insulting the Dems can be. As the 'artist' - which is a huge stretch- used his daughter as the model I am surprised it hasn't been twisted into an incest joke (although had it been a Republican artist it no doubt would have). No doubt the Obama 'Truth Squad' will fly in if things get too ugly. Welcome to the ambush, the show's about to start. ZORN REPLY -- Let me get this straight, Bob: The problem is that Sarah Palin has been talking above our heads? That's your take on her desultory rambling answers to obvious and simple questions for any candidate for federal office? Posted by: Bob in NC | Sep 30, 2008 9:19:47 AM Rambling, no doubt it depends on your political point of view. Old Joe has done it more than a few times. And Barry's qualifications are? Zero executive experience other than running for office with a staff of 2500...and being present. Heaven forbid he take a position prior to knowing which way the political winds are blowing. Again, the show's about to start. Thanks for posting my note(s). ZORN REPLY -- Sure. Calling him "Barry" is very sophisticated and impressive, Bob. Really makes an excellent point. Does that go over well in your circle? You think independents and moderates find it impressive and funny and persuasive? Posted by: Bob in NC | Sep 30, 2008 9:34:38 AM I would encourage everyone to view the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers and Shirley McLaine.

It clearly depicts what has been going on within the Republican party since Reagan took office.

The candidates for the highest offices in the United States are clueless. ZORN REPLY -- I've objected to parallels between this movie and real life in a bi-partisan way and must do so again. One can disagree with a political figure without implying that they are literally mentally challenged/developmentally disabled as Chance the gardener is in "Being There." I don't think Palin is all that smart, but I think it truly degrades our discourse to suggest, as this does, that she's on the autism spectrum. Posted by: thomas gramm | Sep 30, 2008 10:06:10 AM Can't you liberals pull out a new playbook? We all know the old playbook: all those Repubs (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) are dumb, dumb, dumb, and all those Dems (Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Gore) are so smart, only they can recognize the stupidity of the Repubs.

This is a poor election to bring up Quayle-style speaking gaffes, as Obama and Biden have been prolific serial gaffers.

Citing another lib columnist does not establish a fact, by the way.

On the Gibson interview, the big "gotcha" moment on the "Bush Doctrine" was turned back on Gibson effectively by Palin, and backed by Charles Krauthammer (who coined the "Bush Doctrine" and four separate iterations of it). ZORN REPLY-- Well, no, Steve, Palin had no freakin' clue what the Bush Doctrine was and her answer was as lame as the answer that the high school gives on an essay exam she didn't study for, akin to: "The Bush Doctrine is one of the more important doctrines of our time, given that it comes from President Bush and the doctrines of presidents are always important. Doctrines are sets of positions that influence policy, and it's clear that the positions and policies of our president have played a major role in shaping our world. Among all the doctrines now in the world, it's safe to say the Bush Doctrine is, if not the most important doctrine then among the top several doctrines that keep America strong and in the forefront of national affairs. Specifically, I feel the most important aspect of the Bush Doctrine, and the one one that I agree with most and is the aspect that deals with---" TIME'S UP!

Posted by: Steve | Sep 30, 2008 10:10:45 AM I just noticed that Mr. Zorn calls out posters for use of Senator Obama's former favorite moniker "Barry". I'll await Mr. Zorn to call Senator Obama out on his irritating debate tactic of failing to use Senator McCain's title and surname.

It is not presidential (or proper in a courtroom or presidential debate) to be condescending by dispensing with titles and surnames. Obama eventually used McCain's title and surname as McCain had did for Obama throughout, but in the first half of the debate continually referred to McCain as "John". This appeared to be some sort of early and silly tactic by Obama that he eventually abandoned.

Please also publish the liberal rules for referring to Senator Obama. Barry is out. Barack is in? Barack Obama is OK, but Barack Hussein Obama is not OK? Is Barack H. Obama OK? I wish to avoid offense in future posts and seek your guidance. ZORN REPLY -- Oh, poor you, you just don't understand, do you? You call him "Barack" you call him "Barack Obama" you call him "Sen. Obama." You don't throw out his middle name in an attempt to suggest in a bigoted way that there's something different and scary and foreign about him, even if that's what you truly believe. He doesn't use his middle name, so why would you? Just to be a jerk? I thought so.

Obama referred 35 times to "Senator McCain" in the debate, and used that form of address throughout.

He called him "John" just 11 times.

McCain referred to "Senator Obama" 45 times. (quick counts using search on this transcript

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/) Posted by: Steve | Sep 30, 2008 10:19:47 AM Steve, The Palin comment in response to the Bush Doctrine was "In what respect?" I assume you can see that while that is consistent with having some knowledge of the Bush Doctrine, it is also consistent with having no knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. I posed this issue above in general, but as someone who thinks that Palin is being treated unfairly, can you point to some moment in any unscripted interview she has given which actually shows that she has some knowledge of an important issue? Obviously if Bob in NC has one I would be as interested. If he can show how one of Palin's answers shows an understanding of Maritime law I would be impressed. (Referring to Maritime law is not itself impressive. It does have to be a reference that shows some understanding.) Posted by: Lon | Sep 30, 2008 10:31:08 AM C'mon...Palin wasn't a mistake...and all this handwringing by McCain's people is just show. As Rebecca Traister put it, there were plenty of GOP women, even conservatives, like Liddy Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Condi Rice who McCain could have chosen. Maybe they said no? Maybe they weren't asked? Or maybe this is PRECISELY who McCain wanted. Why? Look at it this way. McCain hates the right, particularly the christian right, of the GOP. But, he needs their votes and activism. Also he wants to kill the "Cheney" effect where conservatives run to the VP when they're unhappy with an Admin policy. What to do? Pick a candidate the Right will love who no one in Congress or the Admin give two cents about, tack on a pretty face and presto! Sarah Palin! Posted by: Paul in DC | Sep 30, 2008 10:33:10 AM I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. "Experience" alone, does not a good president make. People keep harping on both candidates on their experience or lack thereof. What about learning how to help the American people? What about that? What about those who have no health insurance? What about those who work and slave to earn a minimum wage that barely pays the bills? I find it interesting that no one really talks about that. It's all foreign policy and TV gaffs. No wonder the population has no faith in voting. Posted by: Jennilee | Sep 30, 2008 10:38:13 AM I don't doubt that Palin's Republican "extreme makeover: vice presidential edition" team are working overtime to make her appear at least small town mayor competent and at most, small state (population wise) governor competent with respect to her fluency on national and global issues. The banana republic style of governing in Alaska is so far removed both geographically and ideologically from our lower 48 (and the rest of the world), the stark shortcomings of former beauty queen, mother of five Palin might be tempered by chauvinistic chivalry and a large dose of pity. If Palin can remain composed, speak in complete sentences and appear earnest and passionate during the debate, regardless of her desultory train wrecks of thought, she will crowned Miss VP Debate 2008 and deemed ready to lead by her existing base of rabid supporters. Regardless of her performance, this debate will not alter the outcome of the presidential race. I am also humbled by history and those 2 terrifying words: Dan Quayle. Posted by: Jeff | Sep 30, 2008 10:43:23 AM From Zorn's reply: "Obama referred 35 times to "Senator McCain" in the debate, and used that form of address throughout.

He called him "John" just 11 times.

McCain referred to "Senator Obama" 45 times. (quick counts using search on this transcript" I would add to that that Obama called McCain "John" when he was addressing him directly, as he was supposed to be doing based on the format of the debate. McCain, on the other hand, never managed to address Obama directly, so his only other option was to refer to "Senator Obama" as if Senator Obama wasn't standing 20 feet away. If you object to such informality on Obama's part, I will remind you that Obama and McCain have been senatorial colleagues for four years now. How often to you address your co-workers as Mr. or Ms. (or any other title)? Posted by: Dienne | Sep 30, 2008 10:49:06 AM Eric, how about stepping outside of your liberal echo chamber and read what is being posted on National Review? You would find that "The Bush Doctrine" has undergone six revisions and so it was entirely appropriate for Gov. Palin to ask Charlie Gibson for clarification.

I am also sure that if the network anchors deviated from their softball interviews with Sen. Obama and asked him tough questions about the Annenberg challenge and his raking in the campaign cash from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while voting against Sen. McCain's bill to improve the oversight of these organizations he might have, uh, you know, some trouble actually answering these questions. Posted by: Scott | Sep 30, 2008 10:49:40 AM For anyone who's a Myers-Briggs Personality Type believer, it appears Palin is an ESFJ, which brings with it the following personality weaknesses: - May be unable to correctly judge what really is for the best

- May become spiteful and extremely intractable in the face of clear logical reasoning.

- May be unable to shrug off feelings that others are not “good people”.

- May be unable to acknowledge anything that goes against their certainty about the “correct” or “right” way to do things

- May attribute their own problems to arbitrary and unprovable notions about the way people “ought” to behave.

- May be at a loss when confronted with situations that require basic technical expertise or clear thinking.

- May be oblivious to all but their own viewpoint, valuing their own certainties to the exclusion of others.

- May be unable to understand verbal logic, and quickly cut off other’s explanations

- May be falsely certain of the true needs and feelings of others.

- May be extremely vulnerable to superstitions, religious cults and media manipulation.

- May react too quickly and too emotionally in a situation better dealt with in a more pragmatic fashion. Is this the type of person we want leading our country? Posted by: tb | Sep 30, 2008 10:53:12 AM Jeff says: [[The banana republic style of governing in Alaska is so far removed both geographically and ideologically from our lower 48 (and the rest of the world), the stark shortcomings of former beauty queen, mother of five Palin might be tempered by chauvinistic chivalry and a large dose of pity.]] I find referring to another state's system of government "banana-republic style" at least as objectionable as referring to Barack Obama as "Barry." Both are dismissive and condescending, without offering substance of illumination of any issues. I BELIEVE I read on Saturday -- but did not check -- that Obama called McCain "John" 23 times, and McCain referred to Obama as "Barack" zero times. I know Jake Tapper referred to it on the ABC site on Saturday, and said he didn't think it would have gone over too well if McCain had called him Barack. Personally, to me they could have each called each other by their first names just because they ARE colleagues, though not of such long standing as McCain and Biden, and McCain and HRC. I think Obama should have noted the disparity and adjusted more quickly than he did. ZORN REPLY -- He adjusted fine. 35 "Senator McCains" was enough, and, as you note, they are colleagues Posted by: | Sep 30, 2008 11:00:24 AM Why did Gov. Palin look attractive as a running mate to Sen. McCain? It was because of her record of reform in the Alaska statehouse. She unseated an incumbent old guard Republican in the primary and did ultimately kill off the "bridge to nowhere".

Sen. Obama's bestest buddy, Sen. Coburn offered an amendment to redirect the money allocated for the bridge to the post-Katrina rebuilding efforts, but both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden voted to defeat Sen. Coburn's amendment. Add to that, Sen. Obama's support of Todd Stroger in the general election for Cook County Board President and his complete lack of reform at any level of government, it begs the question, "Where is the change in which we are supposed to believe?" Posted by: Scott | Sep 30, 2008 11:04:38 AM Okay maybe Sarah Palin isn't the best candidate for VP but she beats Joe Biden any day. How does this man get re-elected to office? You can almost be guaranteed a cringe-worthy moment any time the man opens his mouth. Do people ever stop and think if Obama is elected and anything (hopefully not) would ever happen to him that Biden would be president? We've certainly had our embarrassments with "Dubya" in office but nothing like you would see if Biden ever succeeded Obama. If we aren't supposed to accept Palins shortcomings why are democrats so quick to accept Biden's bumblings? After all he is the one with experience but you wouldn't know it from the way he thinks and acts. Democrats look at your own VP candidate before you throw stones at glass houses. Posted by: l | Sep 30, 2008 11:30:14 AM Some people are so blinded by ambition they are unaware when they have ventured dangerously into unfamiliar territory - often suffering tragic consequences. This applies to hikers in the Alaskan wilderness as well as the Alaskan governor in national politics. Posted by: Independent | Sep 30, 2008 12:01:49 PM I don't see what all the panic is about; if McCain/Palin do win and McCain does not survive his first term, the GOP will offer Mr. Cheney as President Palin's VP. It has worked for eight years... Posted by: Brian | Sep 30, 2008 12:03:55 PM Although legitimate, in the context of the presidential controversy, vetting Sarah Palin's credentials for vice president goes too far as a scapegoat for the argument against Obama--first term US senator with a law degree and background in Chicago and Illinois politics, he has no executive, national security, or foreign policy credentials; and generally, in this regard, his campaign image, rhetoric, and politics are criticized as style-over-substance. The supposed point of comparison with Sarah Palin--Alaska governor with a background in political science--rests on the hypothetical but realistic possibility that as vice president she, if called, at a moment's notice would assume the presidency. And although readiness is considered, going beyond it to discredit her is unfair: criticism of Mrs. Palin's foreign policy knowledge (as an executive she carries national security responsibilities) aims at revealing possible insufficiency, but when the media interpretation, especially if errantly asserted as fact instead of opinion, rests on the often not impartial judgment of undisclosed Obama advocate-journalists, political motivations distort the analysis. If Sarah Palin's foreign policy knowledge is important, all the more important is Obama's frequently cited "inexperience," since if elected president he immediately assumes responsibility for national security, executive decision-making, and foreign policy--War on Terror, distressed trade and economy, NATO relations around the world with aspiring partners like Russia. If Sarah Palin's foreign policy knowledge is a measure of her readiness to assume the presidency in a hypothetical situation, Barack Obama's lack of experience is all the more important if immediately assuming the presidency. If the "bar is painted on the floor for Sarah Palin," by similar measures (the Palin comparison dismisses governing experience for textbook knowledge) it is a concrete basement foundation for Barack Obama. Posted by: Shaun Hoffmeyer | Sep 30, 2008 12:32:29 PM What would be fun to watch is Obama debate Palin... Doofus vs. Doofus. Neither one belongs at this level. At least the Republicans were smart enough to put the rookie in the #2 spot. How about McCain/Biden for president and VP, and we send the "kids" back to the minors for some seasoning? ZORN REPLY -- Gee, funny how the public thought Obama won the debate over Mr. Experience the other night. Let's try not to be a Doofus ourselves, there, Flipper. You degrade yourself by refusing to recognize Obama's intelligence and insight on national and international matters, even when you disagree with him on the issues. Posted by: Flipper | Sep 30, 2008 12:48:39 PM Don't wait for that video check this one out where she turns into Bush: http://www.youtube.com/v/TJMtqKXfljo&hl=en&fs=1 Posted by: Tommy | Sep 30, 2008 12:54:06 PM I don't know about Dole, who is currently having difficulty getting reelected to the Senate in a red state, but my impression is that the other women on the list of top republican officeholders are all pro-choice. I suppose it is an interesting question why so many of the competent women in a pro-life party are pro-choice. It seems that Hutchinson would have been a formidable vp nominee, and would have done much better with the Hilary voters. But apparently McCain feared an abandonment from the evangelicals if he went with a pro-choice candidate. (This may have derailed a Lieberman pick as well). Posted by: Lon | Sep 30, 2008 1:31:14 PM Here is my prediction: Sometime before Thursday's VP debate, Palin will be removed from the ticket, and it will be McCain's decision. This will be seen (spun?) as a positive trait in McCain, because it will illustrate both his ability to make difficult but necessary decisions, and his ability to admit mistakes and rectify them, an attribute severely lacking in the Current Occupant, for which he has been rightly criticized. Then he will stick Lieberman or Ridge in there and move on, the right wing nut jobs be damned. Posted by: Chris | Sep 30, 2008 1:38:48 PM "Democrats look at your own VP candidate before you throw stones at glass houses." Classic Republican word-mangling that would make Dan Quayle proud. People don't throw stones AT glass houses, my friend, they are not supposed to throw them when they live IN them. Posted by: Dave | Sep 30, 2008 1:43:10 PM There is no way, given how close a race this is, that the comments on this article can be so slanted to the left. Stop removing posts that don't suit you! You are obviously part of the all out media drive to help Obama win. Unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to NOT be swayed by Hollywood, the media, and the political parties. Why don't you all wait and see how the debate goes? Have any of you ever heard of an open mind?? I can't believe so many people hate this woman when they can't POSSIBLY know much about her, her ideas, OR her intelligence. She's only had 3 (EDITED) interviews, two of which were deliberately edited to show her in her worst light and the other the opposite. We are a nation of SHEEP! Make up your own minds, people. but don't do it until you have all the facts! NO ONE should know whom they are voting for yet! The only thing that will save this country is abolishing political parties! "The only thing worse than a Republican, is a Democrat"!!! ZORN REPLY -- First of all, I NEVER delete comments based on the opinion or party or candidate. I delete them when they cross the line into incivility, and I delete from both sides (though, given that many of the incivil folks come to attack my point of view, those who are pro-Palin get clipped somewhat more often). I generally leave a marker where I've deleted a comment so people can at least get a sense of what's going on. But not always. I suspect overall the thousands of people who come to this blog every day lean Democratic, as I do.

Her interviews were not highly edited, and if you want a skewed reason for having an opinion about someone, how about the delirious enthusiasm with which Republicans greeted Palin's ability to read speeches off a TelePrompTer. This has given rise to the fiction, I believe, that she's got real chops on the public stage. I hear calls for the McCain team to let Sarah be Sarah so she can dazzle `em like she did in St. Paul. Uh....she was totally scripted in St. Paul. And, frankly, she wasn't very impressive even when Sean Hannity was lobbing mush balls over the heart of the plate to her. Posted by: Independent Voter | Sep 30, 2008 2:13:11 PM Sarah Palin, who has more high-level government experience than Barack Obama, has been the target of the most vicious media coverage in the history of this country.

No wonder she's been nervous in her interviews.

But she's no dummy. To quote an Alaska Democrat, "The landscape up here is littered with the bodies of her opponents."



ZORN REPLY -- Sorry to have deleted your skanky rumor, there, "JayJay." I'm sure you'll have luck posting that to other blogs, though. Posted by: JayJay | Sep 30, 2008 2:25:07 PM Biden is going to have to be careful if he goes too rough and he will be reported as “combative”, too soft and she will win even bigger. To her base she will prevail regardless of what she actually says obviously the package is all the matters. There are some interesting points raised here in regards to what do they really think, guess we will find out. Second, if you are an Independent or even if you considered this a draw or were leaning towards McCain clearly this choice for VP is such a demonstration in poor judgment that you must now rule the Republicans out. He picked the least qualified person in the country for quick strategic ratings and demographic/polls hit, (which is now backfiring) I would not consider that "Country First" and I am not a liberal.

Moreover, the fact that a grown adult, a Governor has not stood in a room full of reporters since the announcement of her running for the second highest position in our country means only one thing, that she can not stand in a room full of reporters or she already would have. There own party should throw them out as candidates as an insult to the people.

Posted by: CF | Sep 30, 2008 3:01:15 PM Independent Voter- It seems unlikely that the election is actually that close among people who read newspaper blogs. And it is almost certainly not that close among people who read blogs by liberal columnists. Self-selection would do plenty to explain the slant here. Palin's support is strongest among people who see a conspiracy in the fact that there are no clips of Palin being coherent on a federal matter during an interview. Posted by: Lon | Sep 30, 2008 3:47:32 PM Maybe this is all an act or a setup to trap Joe Biden at the debate. Maybe Sarah Palin is not dumb as a rock. I'm not convinced that any candidate can be that awful. This would have to be planned weeks ago by a very unimpressive campaign. It is hard to imagine. If so, what is the upside? If not, then McCain put campaign first and America last. This is unforgivable. Posted by: sceptick | Sep 30, 2008 4:01:37 PM Hey, if you don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the Vice President, then don't vote for her. The amount of screeching coming from the left is amazing. It seems like you're actually worried that she and McCain will win. As for me, I laughed when Obama selected Talkin' Joe Biden. Nothing says change for the country like selecting a 35 year veteran of Washington. His command of foreign policy is breathtaking, so much so that one of his first responses following 9-11 was to send a check for $200 million to Iran with no strings attached.

Palin's going to smash him Thursday night. Posted by: Scott | Sep 30, 2008 4:45:27 PM To answer a poster at 4:09 Monday:

>>What made Hillary Clinton so qualified she is just a Senator.

Clinton has presided, partly, over one of the world's largest and most complicated cities for 8 years. She graduated from Yale Law School as well (unless you consider that a negative somehow). >>But he [Obama] has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue

Here are three big ones, he has 55 currently in progress:

-- Co-wrote and passed the so-called "Google For Government" Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) with a Republican senator, the site is at http://www.usaspending.gov/

-- Passed the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005 (S.2125) which Bush passed in 2006

-- Co-wrote and passed the Lugar-Obama initiative, which expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

Posted by: Jeff | Sep 30, 2008 5:26:39 PM Palin will eat Biden's lunch. No contest. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. He's as boring as brown loafers. Speaking of brown loafers, Obama will never be president.

Best Rergards, Jeb ZORN REPLY -- Aw, Jeb, the racist cloven hoof pops out. You just can't help yourself, can you. Well, you're banned from Change of Subject now, so you'll have to try to control yourself elsewhere. Posted by: JebStuart | Sep 30, 2008 8:14:24 PM A good read for all...... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122273224998788261.html?mod=djemEditorialPage Posted by: pat | Sep 30, 2008 8:24:14 PM Biden does not know who was President in 1929 or when TV was invented. The press is shamelessly biased toward Obama, who has yet to be looked at even superfisiously. IMO, she is better experienced to be an executive than Obama who has done zero other than running for President since being elected to the Senate. ZORN REPLY -- Yeah, and McCain doesn't know that Venezuela isn't in the Middle East and Iraq doesn't border Pakistan. Give it rest. Posted by: Mike | Sep 30, 2008 9:19:23 PM Well, at least our conservative women are worth having fantasies about. It's a pain when your liberal broads are Hillary, Pelosi, and the rest of the Congressional lady yahoos. Ugh, makes me sick thinkin' about it ... Posted by: pluto mellor | Sep 30, 2008 9:25:25 PM Liberal commentators are spewing anti-Palin garbage 24/7. The hatred is bordering on psychotic. She showed more political courage in several years in Alaska than Obama has his entire career. She actually stood up to corruption in her own party. She didn't jointly buy her house with a crook. While the MSM fly specks her every word, the media in Chicago refuses to examine the Rezko-Jarrett-Davis slum scandal, aided and abetted by Obama, his ties to William Ayers, his stewardship of the failed $160 million education grant program, his refusal to turn over HUD-1 documents related to his house sale, etc. etc. etc. The biggest scandal in this election is not some phony game of elite media "gotcha," it's the massive tank job by the media on behalf of their beloved Barack. Have you seen the polls? The public is laughing at your "impartiality." ZORN REPLY -- I thought maybe you, of call people, could distinguish between criticism and "hatred." And that you'd have the integrity to admit that McCain is largely a media creation himself, and that Palin is vastly unqualfied to be the vice president. The non wild-eyed, a category I used to put you in, have acknowledged that but moved on and said, yeah, but I prefer McCain. Fine. But this attempt to smear Obama with nonsense --look at this "jointly buy his house with a crook." I won't even bother to point out what's wrong and unfair about that because you know it, Dan. The polls I'm seeing have Obama up. Posted by: Dan Curry | Sep 30, 2008 9:49:37 PM Eric: Got to say I enjoyed your comments about capitalization to either Bob or poor, wasn't clear to me. I posted a short comment to HuffPost last week, along the lines of "Do spelling and grammar count for nothing anymore?" It was ignored. Maybe no matter what our political opinions may be, we should try to spell correctly, and print real sentences. Not saying mine are totally correct, but I do try, at 60 anything I try is ok with me. Democrat all my life, Irish Catholic , grandfather politician in Duluth. VietNam Vet hope its ok if I wait until after Thursday night to opine. Great column and responses. Posted by: John K. Amundsen | Sep 30, 2008 10:15:25 PM Barack Obama is vastly unqualified to be president. As for Palin, I put almost zero importance to silly sit-down interviews with puffed-up liberal titans who ask one snarky question after anothe