Thoughts on the VEEP debate

A draw. I thought Sarah Palin outperformed incredibly low expectations. I don't think she shined to the extent that she changes any undecided minds. But Joe Biden did a wonderful job of thoughtfully engaging and being substantive without offending. All in all, I thought it was an enjoyable debate: not especially challenging, but not especially phoney.

This is not a game changer, but you can bet that the punditry will have less to mock about Sarah Palin. For that, she made me respect her again as a woman .

FYI, the Manhattan was the right drink to accompany this debate: fun and a little substantive. What will be the drink for election night? Comments?

The electoral field begins its tightening

So it begins: Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that the McCain campaign is pulling out of Michigan. Based on recent polls, that means in 2008 the election will likely hinge on... wait for it....

Florida and Ohio.

Joy.

Silverman for Obama

Warning: link to indelicate language follows.
(You're totally going to watch now, right?)

Sarah Silverman's plan for winning a swing state: "The Great Schlepp". Classic Silverman.

More swing state polling

Remember those swing states we looked at yesterday? Let's look at some new swing state polling this one from CNN/Time:

Florida: Obama +4
Minnesota: Obama +11
Missouri: Obama +1
Nevada: Obama +4
Virginia: Obama +9

OK - the polls have consistently shown that Obama has the momentum. If you're following the horse race, I think you can ignore polling for about a week. By next Thursday or Friday, people will have had time to digest both the VP debate and, more importantly, the second Presidential debate, which is scheduled for Tuesday. As I've argued before, people are going to vote the top of the ticket this year. Sarah Palin would have to prove herself to be an utterly disasterous possibility for the Presidency in the eyes of her GOP following in order to have any additional downward drag on McCain.

Also, look for any stories coming out of Kenya for the October surprise that could change the narrative in the way McCain needs.

Patriotism, taxes, and the conventional wisdom

This recent exchange between Joe Biden and ABC News' Kate Snow has been pointed to by the media as an example of a Biden gaffe. Can ANYONE explain to me why this is a gaffe?

Snow: "Anyone making over $250,000..."

Biden: "Is going to pay more. You got it. Its time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And the way to do that is - they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."

I'm with Biden! All the way, man. Why is it that we CANNOT seem to accept sacrifice? Isn't this what got us into our financial crisis? An expectation of entitlement? We deserve to have a bigger house, a better vacation, cheaper goods, and not pay ANY more in taxes during an incredibly expensive war. This notion seems to be a political standard: Americans do not need to give more. Do actual Americans really feel this way?

Do YOU feel that way? And, by the way, are you sure you AREN'T giving more?

Biden is talking about wealthier Americans (do you make over $250,000 year? I actually don't have a single friend who does.) getting fewer tax write-offs, thereby increasing the nation's income. Are you going to tell me that families with McMansions and Escalades can't afford to chip in to the cause? The America I grew up admiring expected its wealthy members to step up during tough times. That's who we were supposed to be.

We can't help the largely middle-class Americans who are in trouble with mortgages and debt. After all, they made uninformed, impulsive decisions, making bad investments, ignoring what the long term consequences would be so that they could get the best deals for right now. We have a moral obligation to let them face the consequences. Now, where did I put that Bailout Bill?

Glittering generalities: ooo, SHINY

One tactic to watch for in tonight's veep debate: folksy tales and "glittering generalities". In yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, Alaska state rep and former gubernatorial candidate Andrew Halcro writes about what we can expect to see from Sarah Palin:

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.