Today on NPR, commentator Daniel Schorr called the Vice Presidential debate a draw because neither candidate fulfilled negative expectations. Palin didn't look naive and Biden wasn't too wordy. I earnestly hope this is true, because it looked to me that Palin won, based on my assumption that the portion of the viewing audience who decides things based on appearance far outnumbers those who have to step back, read, research, and reflect before they can decide.
Palin shows an impressive grasp of how to sell herself to this first kind of voter. She smiles often, talks readily and forcefully, and is almost always positive. This latter technique means that she almost never addresses problems, or if she does, she quickly summarizes them with a catchy phrase like "bridge to nowhere," and moves on to the sunny future McCain will give us. And so, while Biden answered the moderator's questions by identifying the problem so that we could follow the reasoning of his proposed solutions, Palin skirted the questions, going straight to bright futures. For instance, when asked how they would fix the economic crisis or end the Iraq War, Biden outlined policies of the Bush administration that got us into both messes to underscore how his solutions represent change. Palin then responded to Biden by saying something like "There you go again, looking backward. McCain is forward-looking, pointing the way to a better future."
And Biden replied to this with "The past is prologue," - and I wanted to turn off the TV. The number of viewers who don't understand what he means by that, or won't bother to figure it out, and who would rather hear palliatives like "a better future," far outnumber the viewers who want to hear problems clearly addressed.
I'm not saying this out of elitism or because I live in the liberal northeast or because I'm cynical or prone to seeing the glass half-empty. I'm saying this because of the last election, when Bush - who talks platitudes rather than problems - beat Kerry.
Another way Palin resembles Bush is that neither of them correct themselves when they mispeak. They just blunder on - with confidence. This is brilliant on Palin's part, because when she said things like "The toxic mess of mainstreet has spread to Wall Street," or misnamed the general in Iraq who replaced General Petraeus, she didn't blink. She went right on talking forcefully and with a smile. My ESL students, who aren't even fluent in English, noticed at least one of these times, and ventured that maybe Palin isn't smart enough to realize that she's made a mistake. I told them I don't think so, and I differ here from many of my friends, too, who say that neither Palin or Bush are very bright. I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. They are smart, to my mind, in knowing that they project strength, reliability, and know-how if they talk past their mistakes rather than saying "oops, I mean the toxic mess of Wall Street." It takes a lot of practice to perfect this sprightly flow of words, to rid oneself of any show of hesitation, even of any ums and ahs.
I think both these people are superb politicians. They have a sophisticated grasp of what pleases the majority, and that plus their ability to deliver it should never be underestimated.
