We've seen the last interview with Palin, and the only thing we'll see for the next 30 days is her stump speech.  

That's my gut feeling and I'd be very surprised if I am wrong.  

Palin pulled herself out of the gutter, but she's still covered with mud.  She can't afford to be in a position to screw up again.

that's what I'm worried about... and unfortunately I've been thinking the same thing.  If the McCain team gets their way we've seen the last of her (except a few stump speeches).

I am holding out a little hope that the media and/or the public will demand more.  She could potentially be the next President and we know next to nothing about her.  So hopefully we collectively will not take "no" for an answer when we ask for more.

They realize that she's being kept under wraps because she isn't knowledgeable enough about the key issues to think on her feet -- she's only capable of spitting out the talking points. As Couric's interviews showed, once you follow up or point out a contradiction in her statement/position, she gets flustered and just flails about.

Palin is in effect a VP that can't campaign fully for the President for fear she gets exposed. That's a tremendous disadvantage for a ticket down substantially in the polls, and seeing their prospects diminish everyday. She can't be an effective attack dog against Obama or Biden because she has no record of accomplishments to speak of.

I tend to think Biden handled things correctly last night -- go after McCain. Palin has a ridiculous series of bad news in her past, but in the end it's about the top of the ticket.

I do also think that part of the reason Palin got off the hook was because of Ifill. She was painfully irrelevant.

She did her job, but only if you consider the job of a debate moderator to be extremely basic: read the question, shut up.  I don't believe that should be the case at all; if so, why not just get a voice synthesizer to read the (randomly generated) questions so there's no "bias?"  The way I see it, the job of a decent moderator is to ask questions, but also to follow up, to keep the debaters from straying off the question, and to try to get them away from their straight talking points that they've memorized (in Palin's case, was literally READING!).  Ifill didn't do that, and I can't help but wonder if it wasn't because of all the s*** she took before the debate from Republicans (e.g., she was intimidated).

The Republicans "worked the ref", and got rewarded for it.

You are absolutely right about Ifill needing to call out Palin on her talking points that don't even answer the question. I can only recall about one or two times that Biden did this, while Palin did it on basically every question. However, he public again seems to have seen through the spin and nonsense and made the correct call that Biden won the debate.

Katie Couric is looking like a better journalist by the day. And frankly at this point I'd rather have her moderate one of the next two debates than either Tom "McCain Contact" Brokaw or Bob Schieffer.

I don't know if it will help her (Couric's) ratings, but she deserves plaudits for being a responsible journalist in this instance.  

I'm a new Katie Couric fan, not much of a Gwen Ifill fan right now... :(

whether the rules somehow prevented Ifill from specifically following up on questions.

I mean, Palin specifically said at one point that she would not be responsive to the questions if she did not feel like it, and she was non-responsive so much Ifill had to realize it.

I was never a huge Ifill fan, but I think she is made of sterner stuff than to let a few posts from wing-nut bloggers and the McCain campaign affect her that much.

She is usually an effective interviewer.  I've heard that the rules set for the debate explicitly prohibited Gwen Ifill from asking followup questions.

Of course, she could have ignored those rules and nobody could have stopped her.  The McCain campaign would have whined about her bias, after the damage was done.

was to get Ifill to ease up on Palin.  And it worked.  Ifill is never truly a tough questioner.  (Neither is Couric, for that matter.  But Couric did do the minimum in her questions with Palin, which is more than anyone else around has done).

I think Ifill was a real disappointment on her lack of follow-through.  Shameful for a "debate" of such importance.

Katie Couric's interviews (asking Biden and Palin the same questions) have aired a couple of times. Each night, they've only covered a couple of questions. I'm hoping there's more to come, especially if they're like Thursday night's segment:

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

I'm sure George H.W. Bush appreciated having his pre-VP experience compared with Palins'. And in comparison to Biden's answer about the worst thing Cheney has done as VP (torture and undermining the Constitution), Palin was quick to respond with "the duck hunting accident."

I didn't laugh half as hard at "Saturday Night Live" as I did this.

But I completely disagree with your contention that Biden could have put her away last night. for a few reasons:

1.  Palin is known as a good debater, and had he been goaded into trading one-line zingers with Palin, the discussion today would be very different.

2. The election is clearly trending Obama's way, although I suspect that was about to slow down anyway. Playing for the status quo was therefore the right move.

3. It's all about risk-benefit. Even if your scenario is one possible one (that Palin crashes and burns, which I think was unlikely in any event), the risk that Biden comes across as a bully or a know-it-all that turns people off was similarly likely. Remember, we like Biden now, but the fact is that he did not do that well in the Democratic primaries when it came to attracting voters, even when he scored debating points. Since things are clearly going Obama's way, why tempt fates.

The Obama/Biden campaign chose the right strategy, and Biden executed it well, IMHO. It now appears that the developing MSM take is that while palin did not crash and burn, she did not help herself because she was too often non-responsive and merely reciting practiced talking points.

So, while the Convention showed us Palin could read a teleprompter, this debate showed us she can remember canned answers from a series of flash cards.

But the question of whether she knows anything about the issues hangs heavy in the air, as Biden showed the public what a thoughtful, knowledgeable leader  sounds like.

I get that you wanted to see Sarah Palin go down in flames last night, but I just disagree that that was likely to happen.  The format of the debate made that really unlikely.

Palin got 90 seconds at a clip to run on about whatever she wanted.  She took advantage to deliver her little prepared speeches.

I thought Biden did a great job last nights.

I did not think it was likely that Palin would go down in flames, except I his that thought in statements like this:

Even if your scenario is one possible one (that Palin crashes and burns, which I think was unlikely in any event)...

Next time, I'll try to be more explicit.

I meant to say:

I did not think it likely that Palin would go down in flames, a thought I subtlety expressed in statements like this:  

Even if your scenario is one possible one (that Palin crashes and burns, which I think was unlikely in any event)...

Next time, I'll try to be more explicit.

I hate it when snark goes bad.

hah!  I understand.  I don't think many of us really expected a huge Palin trainwreck, in spite of the Couric interview and all that.

My point was that I don't think Biden was any more likely to make that happen, and I have no problem with the Obama campaign strategy.

I really liked how Biden handled himself last night.  It seemed like every time Palin said something "worrisome", Biden came right back and smacked it down.  I really thought he killed it last night.

Thanks for the post and the comments!

what I would have done.  Ultimately I probably would have played it safe as well - mostly for the reasons you cite.  Obama/Biden has taken the lead and it is better to sit on that lead than take a risk going for an all out win.

And perhaps they did experiment different strategies during debate prep and found that they just couldn't get the formula right.  In order to pull it off Biden would have had to come across like the friendly passive-aggressive Ronald Reagan when attacking.  Otherwise Biden looks like a bully and does cost the campaign some ground.

Despite Palin's reputation as a good debater, I didn't see anything great last night.  She probably could have out "folksyed" Biden, but I didn't see anything that made me think she could wiggle out of a hole were she to be put in one.

She was clearly nervous to start with and had been mercilessly pounded by just about everyone - she was vulnerable at the start.  If Biden could have gotten her rattled by pushing for details which she didn't know or generally thrown her off her memorized talking points she'd be wandering into that dangerous ad-lib ground where she does not perform well at all.  Once there, with all the pressure, I think she would have started flailing badly which would have spiraled.  

To move her to that point without appearing as an ahole would have taken tremendous skill and been a bit of a gamble.  The payoff would have been huge though.  So the play it safe approach was probably the best choice and shows the Obama team isn't taking risks like the McCain team.

Besides, if Palin does have to make any other non-scripted appearances we will hopefully get back any ground we lost.

have "put her away last night."  ZERO chance of that.  The conundrum was that if he had tried to be aggressive, people would have screamed "sexism," which of course is reverse sexism and it's b.s. but it's a reality.  In other words, if Biden had tried to "put her away last night," it would have almost certainly backfired, most likely in a bad way, against Biden.   No, what needed to happen last night was for the moderator to insist that the candidates ANSWER HER QUESTIONS.  Also, she should have thrown at least one or two curveballs in there that neither candidate possibly could have rehearsed for, just to see how they responded.  Instead, it was all medium-speed fastballs, right over the center of the plate, all night long.  

P.S. Despite all this, the polls indicate that Biden won the debate.  

Source

I don't believe there was ZERO chance of nailing her last night.  It certainly would take a tremendous amount of skill to attack her without coming across looking like a bully - perhaps more skill than Biden possesses in the public debate/presentation area - but it is doable.  

As for the sexism accusations, I'm surprised Team McCain haven't gone after Biden for shaking her hand.  Or looking her in the eye.  Or any other BS they can think up.  You're right that had Biden been more aggressive the hard core R's would have screamed sexism, but so what?  They've already done that every chance they get.  

So Biden would have the challenge of not looking like a bully (or sexist) to the general public - which is certainly above a zero percent chance.  I think a skilled debater could have pulled it off.

My expectations were, unlike those of many Democrats, that Palin would "be allowed to be Palin" and thus re-solidify the Republican base behind her and her running mate, McCain. In other words, the "debate" would be a return to the populist anti-Washington phony maverick indignation that electrified the Republican convention (even if most of the words put in her mouth at that event were scripted for her). She did that in an excellent, workmanlike manner in the debate, frankly saying she did not intend to answer Ifil's questions as such---- and she did not.  She gave us a modified stump speech over and over, but with the image-enhancing embellishments of having crammed up for the test by learning how to pronounce the odd names of foreign leaders, and gave indications that she had boned up on a little geography. Mirabile dictu!

As a performer, I give her a B-plus. On issues and substance, I give her a D-minus, but we all know the Republicans have said consistently that this election is not about issues, so this low rating is of no importance to their side. It would have been difficult for Biden to push back on her refusal to give substantive answers to the real questions, inashmuch as Ifil the moderator had been intimidated in advance not to hold Palin's feet to the fire. It will be ineresting to compare Ifil's performance with that of the moderator of the next presidential debate, whose affiliation with Fox News presents a far more immediate possibility of conflict of interest than anything Ifil could be accused of with her future book.

On issues and substance she gets an F or if you must be generous, an incomplete.

CPD is not interested in a honest and open debate, so we knew this would challenge neither of them...

The biggest surprises appear to have been:

1) both candidates, perhaps disingenuously, paid at least lip service to the equal rights of gay and lesbian couples so long as you do not call it marriage; that is an astonishing change from past elections and debates

2) Palin's complete and callous disregard for the near-death of Biden's son will slowly sink in with certain key members of her own supporters; and she'll slip a bit because of it once the issue sinks in

Aside from that, I completely agree; a non-event, and that is a good thing for Obama/Biden.  The election will still be about Obama vs McCain, and about how ludicrous it is to even have Palin on the ticket.

I have watched highschool debate competition...now THATS debating. Presidential debates seem more like "this is my position" forums. Palin even refused to answer some questions. The goal is to repeat the same points enough times so the viewing public "walks away" with some message in their head. Most communication is non verbal..so a lot times people will not remember what you said but rather what you looked like when you said it: Nixon v Kennedy perfect example.

Back to the financial crisis and the economy.

Based on the 2 to 1 splits Pro-Biden in the post-debate polls, I wouldn't exactly say that all is well.

In terms of the "qualified to be president" in CBS's pre-debate numbers she was at 54 percent "No" -- post-debate she was at 53 percent "No".  I haven't seen any evidence yet to suggest that Palin restored her high water mark numbers in the period immediately after the GOP convention -- and I would be very surprised if her performance last night recaptured those numbers.  Palin simply gave reassurance to those who are already in her corner -- Bush's base.  The right wing outlets too provided her with some cover talking about the "brilliant performance".

I don't think her performance was brilliant at all.  I think it might be an effective con-job with the far-right partisans, but I would be surprised if she gave much reassurance to undecided voters.

In terms of strategy I thought Biden did a great job.  He made concise points -- he pulled some heart strings and he wiped the floor with Palin in terms of the substance of his answers.  He moved the ball down the field a few more yards.  He ended up with a 98 percent rating in one poll in terms of his grasp of policy.

At the end of the day, Palin is a side show.  McCain was rightly the focus last night.  Biden got his jabs in.  Palin regurgitated talking points.

Biden made this race about McCain, not about who's more Joe Six-Pack. He couldn't have been more pitch-perfect -- attacking McCain, gently prodding Palin. If he'd attacked her any more, the McCain campaign and the tire-swing crowd would've been calling him sexist right now.

And really, last night was probably the about last we'll see of Sarah Palin. She'll stumble through an interview here and there, but no press conferences.

As any true street balla knows, any "groove" is useless if you ain't got no game.

She was an empty vessel.  She made much up (see Lowell's article on the 18 lies he's identified).  She never answered a question.  Making "jabs" does not a debate win. There has to be reasoned argument.  The structure of the arguments has to make sense.  

Even a high school debate team would do better than Palin. Her sophomoric approach, ridiculously vacuous answers, and absurd claims on a variety of issues just show even you have let the media and GOP get away with setting her bar down on the ground.  

Don't let them get away with demeaning the intelligence of voters.  Especially, women shouldn't allow them to get away with this dumbed-down double standard.  Sarah Palin demeans women and America.  Raise the bar to where it should be.  She flunked.  That anyone thinks she performed up to par for a VP candidate is shameful.  

your points - objectively Palin did not have a particularly good debate.  And as I mentioned in the post, I do believe Biden out performed her (and Obama and McCain from the last debate as well).

But my real point wasn't about whether she won, or even if she won over the undecideds.  It was that she accomplished (or was allowed to accomplish depending on how you think the Obama team should have played it) her simple goal of not looking like a total moron.   And in accomplishing that goal I believe she's regained confidence that had been worn away by her own interview gaffes and the subsequent pounding she's taken for them.

Hard to tell what that'll gain her, but I know I'd rather have an opponent who has lost all confidence than one who has regained some.

She was in a horrific train wreck, and she was pulled from the wreckage unconscious, but alive.

Last night, they were able to stop the bleeding, and the family has a small glimmer of hope since she is still breathing.  

But, she's still in the ICU, and from where I stand, she's in critical condition, and she should not be disturbed for at least the next 30 days.

Because she survived, they won't be pulling the plug on her until at least November 5.  

Laying in a broken mass of blood and bandages, the family [Faux News, and the GOP] are hooping and hollering [hoop'n and holler'n for Joe Six Pack] that they've won, they've won...she survived.

I'm not a huge fan of CNN's little focus group tracking gadget, but it was clearly evident last night that Biden was scoring consistently high with both women and men last night, but in particular the women.  There were several points during which Palin waded in with her folksy nonsense and the line representing women's responses stayed fairly low and at some points actually dipped.  

A lot of people taking a second look are going to start wondering why she should be allowed to get away with stating that the Vice Presidency needs to be more powerful than Cheney has already made it, with her incredibly callous non-response to something which almost brought Biden to tears, and her constant repetition of the word "maverick."  She said it so often that my son and I would start humming the tune to "The A-Team" every time we heard it.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

?

from notes that had been prepared for her.  Congratulations!

How she got by:

http://images.huffingtonpost.c...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...

Here is a fox interview with Palin saying she will be more accessible.  

"I look forward to speaking to the media more and more every day and providing whatever access the media would want," Palin said in an interview with Fox News.

I am shocked at this, but she hasn't really actually done it, she is just threatening to doing it.

OK, Sarah, I call.  Do it!

In talking about her train wreck interviews:

Her responses, Palin said, were "an indication of being outside that Washington elite, outside of the media elite also."

Let me give you a clue Sarah.  People ask you questions, and then you answer them.  That's how we roll here on the Elite East Cost.  May not be what you're used to, but give it a shot.

Of the CBS interviews, she said: "The Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed. Because it's like, no matter what you say, you're going to get clobbered. If you cease to answer a question, you're going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that, too."

Here's a thought, Sarah.  Answer the question!  It's not hard.  You take a question, and you answer it.  You don't go through your cards to see what answer might best fit and then read that card.

wink wink

The AP story references a fox interview.

I just watched one of the Alaska debates with Palin. She has no problem saying the "G"s at the end of words like ending. There were absolutely no folksyisms and she pronounced her "I"s like an East Coast resident.

She also did not support benefits for gays.

Now think about this. A person trained as a news reader would not be using all the folksy language and would not be butchering her pronounciations. Her fake down home language is demeaning to her and condescending to the audience.

In my opinion anyone who would put on this kind of fake act in front of a national audience is a real nothing and morally bankrupt.

Thank you for pointing this out again.  I think I've said this before, but everyone should be saying this.

She has a degree in journalism for golly-gee's sake.  Who is she trying to fool?

And, surprise surprise, who does this remind us of?  

G.W.Bush.  

I recall seeing clips from his Texas Gov debates and he sounded much less folksy and fumbling than he ever did on the national stage.

That's all she does is smile.  It's disingenuous.  You need to post the photo of her winking.  That says it all!  I hope to see that in Obama ads from here to E-day!

I tried watching the CNN broadcast where they had live tracking of a focus group's opinions.  The moving scale indicated whether the group liked or disliked what a candidate was saying as they said it.

Some of the highest overall ratings came when Palin was being a pure cheerleader - America is great, democracy is great, we're all greeeeaaattttt.  Zero substance, all cheerleading.  And it got some of the highest, if not the highest, rating from this crowd!!!!

I've been part of one of those focus groups years ago while I was living in NYC.  The thing about it is that you are responding minute by minute to what you are hearing at that time, not to the overall performance.  So, it's possible that the people in that audience were simply hitting their buttons in a favorable response because they liked that particular statement, or because they thought she looked cute when she winked at that moment.

Who, after all, doesn't respond positively to an upbeat cheerleader statement.  It makes us smile momentarily.

The problem is that while those groups measure how well a particular moment plays, you can get lost in the minutiae of the moment and lose focus on the overall performance.  The people in the rarified atmosphere of that studio, concentrating on the moment to moment messages, don't have the chance to parse the total picture.

Audiences at home, concentrating on the whole as well as the parts may have liked particular aspects of Palin's performance - for example, the wink was cute; the rah rah for democracy made them feel good - but they also caught the fact that there was little substance there and she avoided answering direct questions that deviated from her printed notes.  Overall, she changed no minds about her readiness to lead.  And that's not good because people were already doubting that ability.  They still doubt it. And enough pundits have been pointing out the lack of substance to her answers to keep voters doubting her leadership abilities.

All Palin succeeded in doing was reassuring the GOP base that she could walk and chew gum at the same time.  She was not persuasive to indpendents and swing voters and certainly not to Democrats.  She didn't hurt her side by discouraging GOP voters.  But she didn't help win anybody not already convinced.