Debates Were Held

An interesting article from CNN lays out the differences in Biden and Palin’s speaking styles from the debate. What struck me the most was this:

The analysis by the Austin, Texas-based Global Language Monitor said Palin, governor of Alaska and the GOP vice presidential nominee, used the passive voice in 8 percent of her sentences, far more than the 5 percent used by the Democratic senator from Delaware.

The analysis noted that the "passive voice can be used to deflect responsibility; Biden used active voice when referring to [Vice President Dick] Cheney and [President] Bush; Palin countered with passive deflections."

Passive voice, as they mention, is used to obscure the subject of a sentence: “Mistakes were made.” I’m not saying who made the mistakes, but there they are and we should move on without belaboring the point. I’m no great statistician, but it seems odd to me that 8% is really “far more” than the 5% that Biden used. What’s more interesting, the article implies, is the way that Palin used the passive voice to avoid mentioning George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I know that Republicans are going out of their way to avoid being associated with the one time leader of their cult of personality, but isn’t it interesting that even Palin would resort to eliding their existence grammatically rather than have to deal with the consequences of eight years of Republican leadership? Actions and consequences, it seems, were referred to.

Exceeding Expectations and Other Low Hanging Fruit

The debate last night proceeded pretty much exactly as I thought. Palin’s performance was uninspired and uninspiring unless you are already in the bag for the governor of Alaska. I think the conventional reaction so far has been pretty dead on. Palin clearly has little to no understanding of matters foreign or domestic. The format last night was a great favor to her. When Palin got into trouble with Couric and Gibson was on the follow up questions, where she was expected to rephrase and explain ideas and thoughts that she had learned by rote. The format last night gave her the opportunity to simply recite the talking points that have been carefully drilled into her, even if those rote responses didn’t answer the question that had been asked her. She didn’t fall down or drool on herself and I have no doubt that this will be the last time we see her in any setting that is not a stump speech in front of a carefully vetted crowd. There’s no margin for the McCain campaign in putting her out there – she can only make herself look like a fool.

I thought Joe Biden’s performance, especially in the early going, was uninspired. As the debate wore on, I felt he picked up steam and really got into the moment. He certainly “won” the debate on the merits, but this was never about “winning.” Everyone knows Biden is worlds smarter and more informed than Palin. All Palin had to do was do better than the exceedingly low expectations set for her. Mission accomplished.

Barring some sort of unforeseen disaster, I think Palin has stopped being a factor in the race. Not that she should, of course. But once the McCain campaign pulls the curtain in front of her, what is the media going to do? I can’t see them going into open revolt on one of the major party candidates a month before the election. I also think the rumors of Bristol Palin’s wedding happening before the election are absurd. There’s simply no way the McCain camp will want to put the spotlight back on her now that they’ve cleared this hurdle.

Arguments and Expectations

Tonight’s the big debate. I’m looking forward to checking it out, although it’ll be on at about four o’clock in the morning here, so I’ll likely have to wait until tomorrow to see tonight’s debate. There are a lot of issues in play – Gwen Ifill, the specter of the big, old white guy picking on the attractive young(er) woman. I think, however, anyone expecting a kind of nationally televised schadenfruede-fueled meltdown is going to be disappointed. I agree with James Fallows who thinks that the expectations for Palin are so low that any performance she turns in that doesn’t include drooling and pratfalls is going to be treated as a victory over expectations. I don’t think this means Palin is going to deliver anything close to a successful performance – or even a coherent one – but I do think she’s going to do better than every expects.

Palin will get up there, read through her talking points, and that will be the end of it. Republicans will claim that Ifill was being overly harsh on the governor and that, regardless, Palin’s poor performance so far was all liberal media bias to begin with.

Uncle Joe Running Diary

I just couldn't get enough during Bill's speech, so I rolled the running diary dice with Amtrak Joe (link to speech is here). Enjoy:

Biden’s video: Apparently, he’s a great father and grandfather. Very salt of the earth. It was ok I guess. Came off as more contrived than Michelle, Kennedy, or Hillary’s videos in my opinion.

10:32: Off we go.

10:33: He loves his family.

10:33: A shade more than he loves the Clintons (but just a shade). Is it necessary to pay this much homage to the Clintons?

10:36: He seems nervous, which I find surprising.

10:37: He loves his mom. Apparently, he’s very, very normal. I’m poking a bit of fun, but the bit about his mom’s advice was pretty touching. It helped that she kept smiling and leaning over to the person next to her and mouthing, “that’s true”. He’s definitely settling in a bit.

10:40: Talking about the pain of Americans is solid. He’s tying this “we get it and John McCain doesn’t” bit together nicely as it relates to the economy.

10:44: Pan to Bill Clinton who looked legitimately interested.

10:45: Crowd’s clapping for John McCain’s “heroism”. “He’s my friend.” “Our friendship transcends politics.” Sigh.

10:46: There are a bunch of McCain policy descriptions, followed by “That’s not change, that’s more of the same.” This bit is ok. They’re clearly putting all their eggs in the “3rd Bush term” basket. Hope they realize that meme requires media help that’s not coming.

10:50: “We’ll hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we will help Georgia rebuild!” Don’t know how much more I’ll be able to write. I can’t really hear because of all the blood coming out of my ears.

10:52: In fairness, the rest of this foreign policy section is solid and direct. He’s explicitly questioning John McCain’s judgment, which is a step in the right direction.

10:55: Closing sentence, “God bless America, and may God bless our troops.” Might sound a tiny bit contrived if not for his son being a soldier…but he is, and it didn’t.

Thoughts: A step in the right direction to be sure. I’m tempted to say it could have been even more pointed, but it’s been enough naysaying from me for one evening. It’s tough to comment a lot because I thought it so utterly fit expectations (which were fairly high) without exceeding them. Obama needs to blow me away tomorrow. It feels like a long, long time since Iowa (the most moving 15 minutes of rhetoric I’ve ever heard live – watch it if you’ve never seen it).
Rating: 3.75 LSs of 5

Until tomorrow…

But What Does McCain Think?

John McCain, Bill Kristol, and Rudy Giuliani all agree, Obama shouldn’t have picked Biden – instead, they should have gone with Hillary Clinton. As McCain and Rudy Giuliani are both well known and long term Clinton supporters, it’s unsurprising the media would turn to him for an opinion on the race.

At least Kristol came around to his new-found support of Sen. Clinton in his own magazine. I find it strange that the Washington Post would open a 1,000 word article on reactions to Obama’s pick with a quote from a Republican. Of course McCain and Giuliani think Obama picked the wrong person. They’d hardly be likely to say, “Man, what a great pick. We might as well pull up stakes, ‘cause this one’s all over.” It would be like asking a vegetarian what they think of your Steak Roquefort. The only reason they’d offer a comment is if they thought they could cause Obama some damage – in this case, of course, trying to stir up disaffected Clinton supporters. It’s absurd that the media would give a forum to such obviously prejudiced voices.

It’s also quite interesting that they spend so much time on whether or not Clinton supporters will be upset with Obama’s decision without mentioning Clinton’s support of Biden.

What Joe Biden Says About Barack Obama

The more I think about Joe Biden, the more I feel like this is a pretty good pick for Obama. The media class clearly loves him, he’s a got a good story, and he seems to fill in a very working class role in the whole Obama narrative. All of that is well and good. What frustrates me about the pick is that it further enforces the meta narrative about Obama, and about presidential election politics in general: Obama is an “elitist,” he’s out of touch, he needs a working class, foreign policy expert to balance him out. One of the big problem with the pick of Biden (as opposed to, say, Kathleen Sebelius) is that it plays into this narrative. Michael Kinsley has an editorial in the Washington Post today that illustrates why.

With so much going their way in this election, the biggest challenge the Democrats face is simple: The Republicans just play the game of presidential politics so much better. They play it with genius, courage, creativity and utter ruthlessness.

I do not think this is as true as it might seem. One reason Republicans have been as successful as they have (and let us not forget, the Republicans didn’t win the 2000 election) is that the media is reporting on the race. In almost every category, people – even Republicans – prefer Democratic positions. But when they know that it’s a Democratic position, their like for it goes down a touch – and if it’s presented as a Republican position, it goes up. When people look at the issues, the Democrats do great. When they look at the brand, not so much.

I think this reflects the fact that, for quite a while now, the media has reflected and reported on how candidates are doing, and not what they’re saying. It’s a lot easier to show a new attack ad and then discuss whether or not it’s “effective” rather than explain the underlying issues. I don’t think there’s maliciousness in this. It’s difficult to explain some subjects. A lot of policy positions can be somewhat arcane, and on an issue like tax policy, both sides tend to leave things a little bit vague (although, it should be pointed out that McCain’s policy is a whole lot vaguer). Television news, where most people get their news, only has twenty-two minutes a night.

I don’t think that Republicans are necessarily better than Democrats at presidential politics. But I do think that a substance-free, discussion-free format, such as we have with the current obsession with who “won the cycle,” benefits the Republicans. When you’re wrong on most of the issues, it’s better to talk about something else.