The Palin-Biden debate and the poverty of low expectations

Well, I have just finished watching the vice-presidential debate – and I must admit I feel a bit cheated. I didn’t tune in because I was hoping for enlightenment. I wanted car-crash television: gaffes galore, the implosion of Sarah Palin, something weird from Joe Biden. But  judged by those standards  the debate was a huge disappointment. Palin was, of course, profoundly unimpressive. But she didn’t mess up – she even managed to say “Ahmadinejad”, without stumbling or hesitating. And Biden also avoided any of his trademark gaffes.

The fact that both candidates will be judged to have done OK is – I think – a sorry commentary on how low expectations have sunk. Because by any reasonable standard, it was a pretty sorry performance. Neither candidate even came close to answering the first question, on whether the House of Representatives had been right to reject the bail-out bill. At that point, I longed for the moderator to jump right in and do a Jeremy Paxman – and insist, preferably with a sneer, that they actually answer the question. But no such luck.

So what did we learn? Well, it turns out that both candidates hate Wall Street and Iran; and love Israel and the American middle-class.

I thought that Palin gained in confidence as the debate continued. And some of her most effective moments came on foreign policy, which is meant to be her biggest weakness. She did quite a good job in exposing the awkward fact that Joe Biden supported the Iraq war, while Obama opposed it. Biden occasionally broke the informal rules of the debate, by speaking coherently and making sense, and I thought he was pretty effective in hitting his theme that Obama’s tax proposals were about fairness. At one point, I thought he was actually going to cry when he recalled the injuries his children had suffered in a car crash. How the Obama campaign must have been willing him on! But he pulled himself together and the moment passed.

Strangely, I thought Palin’s weakest passage came right at the end when she was allowed a prepared statement. To me, using her closing peroration to claim that American freedom might be extinguished within a generation, sounded a little goofy and paranoid, and missed the opportunity for an “I feel your pain” moment on the economy. Biden took that chance.

But overall, the debate will have made little difference. I don’t think it will reassure the growing number of people who have voiced doubts about Palin’s ability to serve as president – nor should it. But it won’t add hugely to their numbers, either.

That means the political focus will switch back to where it should be: Congress’s vote on the bail-out and the McCain-Obama battle. Perhaps now, the vice-presidential candidates can be allowed to recede gently into the background.

The World

with Gideon Rachman

About this blog About Gideon Blog guide
Gideon Rachman and his FT colleagues debate international affairs.

Gideon became chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times in July 2006. He joined the FT after a 15-year career at The Economist, which included spells as a foreign correspondent in Brussels, Washington and Bangkok. He also edited The Economist’s business and Asia sections.

His particular interests include American foreign policy, the European Union and globalisation
To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact gideon.rachman@ft.com about The World blog.

See the full list of FT blogs.

The FT’s Brussels blog

For views and opinions on the European Union from Peter Spiegel, Joshua Chaffin, Alex Barker and Stanley Pignal, follow the FT's Brussels blog here.

Tags

The blog day by day

« Sep Nov »October 2008
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031