Palin-Biden Debate Reaction

1) I thought both candidates were at their best. Like the first McCain-Obama debate, there were no real gaffes (defined as an oops! immediately obvious to those watching, not the "fact checking" stuff the next day). Palin obviously exceeded expectations, but Biden also avoided his tendency to talk his way down the long and winding road, or say anything outright silly. Most likely, Biden will be considered the winner.

2) Regardless of which way the election goes, Palin more than salvaged her future as a national Republican star tonight. She has her confidence back, and is obviously gaining facts and figures regarding national issues at an exponential rate. Combine those developments with her considerable personal and political skills, and the sky is the limit for Sarah. (Minor Palin point: I've noticed she has a habit of referring to people by their last name -- "McCain, McLellan" -- that she should use a title with. Just a bad habit, one she's no doubt working on.)

3) It's measure of how well Palin did that the conventional wisdom almost immediately turned away from her competency to the question of how much Palin might have helped McCain. We probably won't know for a few days, but I doubt she landed the kind of blows on Obama that might take his numbers down substantially (VP debates don't usually produce that result). Advantage Obama.

4) And I'm afraid that given the economic situation, I'm still pessimistic about McCain's chances. The liberal Democrat will always be able to demagogue hard times better than the Republican -- even one that never misses an opportunity to blamed "greed" for so many problems created by Washington.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic if McCain-Palin could be bothered to loudly and consistently pin appropriate blame on Democratic abuse at Fannie/Freddie, highlight how McCain and other GOPers tried to sound the alarm while Dems resisted, and stop blaming everything on "Wall St. greed." But it is crystal clear after these first two debates that McCain has decided against that approach. I'm guessing he thinks that the election will be decided by those who hate the dreaded "partisan bickering and finger pointing." Hence his emphasis in the first debate on cutting spending and fighting earmarks, two things the "post-partisan" Perot type voters have always responded to. I think this is a losing strategy. I hope and pray McCain is right and I am wrong. Mac has been counted out about a dozen times throughout this campaign; perhaps he will rise yet again.

5) I thought Gwen Ifill did a good job, relatively speaking. Yes, I thought she had no business sitting in that chair tonight. It is pathetic that she didn't even bother to tell the Debate Commission that she was writing a book with Obama's name in the title, a book that will likely rise and fall with Obama's fortunes. (It's also frustrating that apparently the McCain campaign didn't know about the book, either.) But I thought her questions were mostly fair, serious, and worthy.

Here's what I mean by "relatively speaking:" I think it was somebody over at National Review's Corner that pointed out that any bias likely would be found not in the questions she asked, but in the kinds of questions not asked. Exhibit A: "Senator Biden, can you explain your running mate's relationship with Bill Ayers?"