Darn wrong

What I was most struck by in the debate between Biden and Palin was the stark difference in their approach to following a line of questioning and the lack of critical thinking on Palin's part. Biden was thoughtful and intelligent; he clearly has a deep understanding of the issues behind the questions posed. Palin was all personality, platitudes, and empty talking points (and why people are so drawn to her sarcastic, forced-folksy style I personally have no idea). She blatantly didn't answer many of the questions, most notably flat-out ignoring the issue of McCain and deregulation. This was the same issue that tripped her up in the Couric interview when she infamously answered "I'll try to find ya some [examples] and bring 'em to ya." After so much prepping you'd think she'd have an example by now--here's a transcript from the debate:

BIDEN: If you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: Oh, I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

She flat-out says "I won't answer the questions you want to hear, only the ones I want you to hear." That right there points out a very simple fact about Sarah Palin: she's not a thinker. She has a debate format and will ignore the questions asked of her to focus on her talking points. Repeat words often enough and hopefully people will start to believe them: "maverick" "reform" "taxes" "Main Street." What this means is that people will think she's doing OK simply because she's not acting like a moose caught in headlights, but all the debate proves is she knows how to debate.

Taken out of structure of the debate format she's exposed for who she really is, as we've seen in interviews with follow-up questions (false claims of "gotcha" journalism aside). At this point throw away the issue of her experience: what she lacks is intellectual curiosity. Which is an awful lot like our current president. I'm not saying she's not smart, I'm saying she doesn't care. She doesn't think about the issues the way that politicians like Biden and Obama do. She doesn't turn over various options in her mind, reasoning things out, examining all angles in order to come up with an answer or a decision on a critical issue. She sticks to what she knows: to black and white, right and wrong. And the world doesn't work this way. We don't live in a Hollywood movie where it's "good guys" versus "bad guys." Life is complicated; sometimes you have to sit down with people you don't agree with or understand in order to work out a solution to a crisis, but she (and McCain as well I might add) take what I would call a superficial stance, a stubborn worldview, claims of bipartisanship aside.

This is dangerous. This is what we've had to deal with in the White House over the last 8 years, and we all know how disastrous that's been. I would argue at this point it's about a philosophical outlook, and in this sense Palin is eerily similar to Bush. Heck, he was called a maverick when he ran against Kerry. I'd say maverick is becoming a synonym for two-dimensional. There are those who would argue that it's McCain, not Palin, who will be running the country. But he picked her--he's comfortable with her leading should something happen to him, which is a very real possibility given his age and history of cancer. Regardless, anyone can choke on a chicken bone, and McCain's choice reflects his own outlook.

I was also struck by the emotion Biden showed in talking about losing his wife and child, which I found to be an authentic and heartfelt moment. Palin's reponse after this? "People aren't looking for more of the same. They are looking for change." That she didn't acknowledge his loss shows one of two things: she literally wasn't listening to him or she couldn't be bothered. The debate was coming to a close and she was either so busy searching her cue cards for any talking point she might have missed that she simply seized on the last line he spoke which was "[people aren't] looking for more of the same" or she didn't want to waste any time acknowledging his loss, once again so she could check off the last of her hot-button issues. I would honestly hope it was because she wasn't listening, because if she heard him then she is one cold Alaskan. That people haven't picked up on this more is surprising, given her claims to understand middle America's pain and all of her supposed "approachability." All of this again points to a lack of critical thinking--she was playing off a certain rehearsed structure: vaguely listen to your opponent, latch on to something that can bring you back to one of your broad topics, hammer said topic home with repetition. Another example that the only thing we learned is that she knows how to debate, not how to think.

The point I want to hammer home is to make clear that Biden showed he's ready to be president should the unthinkable happen; he demonstrated his ability to think deeply and thoughtfully about the issues facing the country. All I heard from Palin was a bunch of talking points peppered with "you betchas" and "darn right." Ready to be president? Darn wrong.