Hands Down, Gloves Off, Sarah Palin Does More Than Just Win VP Debate

Ever since Sarah Palin and Joe Biden squared off in Thursday night’s debate, there has been much discussion regarding who won.

The pretensions to objectivity on the part of most of the discussants aside, it seems clear that their judgments concerning the victor are largely determined by their partisan commitments: those who plan on voting Obama-Biden say Biden won, while McCain-Palin sympathizers think that she prevailed.

A few brief thoughts.

First, if there can be any “winners” at all in the kind of contemporary American political “debate” with which we are all too familiar, the truth is that it is much less likely they won because of the substance of their positions than for their rhetoric, presentation and style. Such “debates” are as meticulously choreographed as any Hollywood production, and usually just as scripted.

Second, while I don’t mean to suggest that Palin said nothing of substance (she did) or that Biden defeated her in the way of substance (he most decidedly did not), as far as these non-substantive considerations outflank considerations of substance in the evaluation of modern-day presidential debates, I think that a more or less reasonable case can be made that Palin won.

Palin managed to articulate her views with energy and passion while looking not at Biden or moderator Gwen Ifill, but the 70 million Americans who anxiously tuned in to see how the Alaskan governor would perform. She insisted on controlling the terms of the debate, expressly telling both Biden and Ifill that she would answer questions not as they wanted for her to, but in terms that she felt would resonate most readily with “the American people.” As if this weren’t enough, Palin succeeded brilliantly in hitting Biden and Obama where it hurts while simultaneously avoiding every semblance of “mean-spiritedness.” She was down-to-earth, likeable (it is hard to avoid the impression that even Biden genuinely liked her) and, let’s face it, she looked great on camera.

Still, what matters is not who “won”; what matters is that Palin went some distance in dismantling the negative image of her that members of the so-called “mainstream media” have been so busy trying to create. She went toe-to-toe with a seasoned Washington politician who has been in this game for nearly 75 percent of the time that Palin has been alive, and she did not cede any ground, proving to the nation that she promises to be a formidable opponent to any Washington “insider” or left-leaning Democratic journalist who is invested in undermining her.

This debate was significant for one other reason that shouldn’t be lost on anyone: it marked a turning point in this race. With respect for his decisions concerning the Iraq War, Palin called out her opponent’s running-mate with a bluntness and forcefulness yet to be seen in her running mate. The following day, in an interview with FOX news’ Carl Cameron, Palin, in referencing Obama’s association with “the unrepentant terrorist,” Bill Ayers, said that, in her estimation, the Democratic presidential nominee’s insistence to go “palling around” with terrorists “disqualifies him” for the office that he seeks.

Word is that McCain will be “taking off the gloves” in this Tuesday’s second presidential debate. Supposedly, a focal point of the McCain campaign, from this moment onward, will be Obama’s character and judgment as the latter’s long standing radical friendships and associations will finally receive the attention they so richly deserve.

It is kind of ironic that in getting tough with his enemies, the Vietnam War hero, “John McNasty,” has to take the lead from a “hockey mom.” On the other hand, we shouldn’t forget that this hockey mom also goes by the nickname “Sarah-cuda.”