Editor's note: NPT asked two El Pasoans with a keen insight into politics -- and an overt political bent -- for their take on the Palin-Biden debate. For a different view, click here.
***
There's never really a "winner" in a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate. There are only losers.
Had Palin made some huge gaffe last night, it would have been a loss for her. If Biden had lost his temper or said something off the cuff that was misunderstood, he would have lost. Luckily for both campaigns, the two held it together and delivered what both teams wanted to see – a screw-up-free performance.
Democrats are going to claim that she acted like a trailer-park mom in front of a city council; embarrassing herself by giving "shout outs" to third graders in her hometown. Republicans are going to laud her connection to everyday Americans and how she proved to be a "beltway outsider." A fair and impartial take on the debate will not be found in this land of severe partisanship.
Biden came off stiff and very "inside Washington." Many people like that in a VP candidate. Al Gore is a perfect example of a Vice President who was stern and serious. This type of candidate makes voters feel good about the seriousness and tradition of Washington.
Palin, on the other hand, played her hand at soccer mom. It's an untested strategy. Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton don't resemble soccer moms in shape or fashion, and they are the only two women we've seen at this high level of politics. Palin's performance is less about winning or losing than it is about being liked or disliked. In my opinion, it's going to be hard to honestly dislike this woman – you're going to have to work hard to do it. That doesn't mean you're voting for her; it just means deep down inside, you connect with her in some way.
The importance of their perceived image comes down to the last two presidents and their vice presidents and the last two losing candidates and their VP selections.
In 1992, Americans picked the charismatic guy with the stiff running mate over the established President George H. W. Bush and his bozo buddy Dan Quayle. In 1996 Clinton defeated the stiff and perceived "Washington insider," Bob Dole, once again showing that his charisma was the soup the public was ordering. [Editor's note: The previous sentence was corrected at 5 p.m. on Oct. 6, 2008, to read 2006. A previous version of the sentence incorrectly gave the date.]
Come 2000, the stiff and dull Al Gore was defeated by the cowboy-talking, charismatic George W. Bush. Bush went on to beat the stiff and stuck up John Kerry in 2004, proving that there is something to this charisma thing.
America has consistently voted for the person with more personality at the top of the ticket. However, both Bush and Clinton had the stiff guys behind them to legitimize the office somewhat.
If Obama has the charisma and McCain can be argued to have a little, then who has the formula to win? Obviously, it's Obama, given Biden's appearance last night.
Forget policy and start looking at the winning combinations of the past. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I do, however, see a pattern, and Obama has successfully copied that pattern and it might just be what wins this race.
Palin is wonderful to watch and refreshing in many ways, but she's one too many "mavericks" on the ticket. At least that's true if you believe there's a discernible pattern from the last four elections.
Maybe if Biden had gone all "Biden" and started yelling and saying ridiculous things, I'd have a different take on the race today, but he didn't. He may be an old dog, but he's proven to be trainable.
After a week of horrible interviews, Palin had nowhere to go but up. She may not be the cure for the McCain ticket, but I see something bright in her future when it comes to politics or media. She's a delight to listen to and a breath of fresh air. I just don't think enough Americans are going to see her as White House material.
This does not mean that Obama and Biden are any better suited for the White House. They just play the role better on TV than the other team. Remember, Presidential elections are not about issues, they are about image.
Think I'm wrong? Just go see how often we're worried less about candidates' messages than we are their delivery of those messages. It seems that being orator makes you presidential material these days. We've lost sight of the issues. Our take on politics is all about delivery and not substance. A mute person has no chance!
What we should take from last night is the fundamental ignorance of both candidates as to what the president of the United States of America is empowered to do by the Constitution.
They talked little about leading and a lot about legislation. The executive branch is not in charge of legislation. So why were they talking about things out of their control all night? That's the question you should be asking yourself : Why were the plumbers telling me how to wire my ceiling fan?
***
David Karlsruher is a conservative and a Republican who writes frequently for Newspaper Tree. His commentary can be found at Refuse the Juice.
