The spin from the Obama campaign and from various independent commentators (who seem to mean it) is that Sarah Palin is actually a pretty good debater. So, given how ridiculous she’s been in these network interviews, is there any way that can possibly be true?
In a narrow sense at least, I think the answer is, Yes. When we were doing research on her position on the Road to Nowhere back during her 2006 gubernatorial run, I watched a number of her debates. And she was pretty good. She definitely held her own. She played the role of the common sense political outsider. And she was good at turning a line, especially ones that were cutting without seeming angry or hostile.
The key though was the issues. Those debates were about local Alaska issues that she clearly knew well enough to give pat answers. They were also highly structured debates where there wasn’t a lot of give and take. But it seemed clear that when she felt comfortable with the issues and had some sense of where they were, she was confident and affable and came off well. But that’s the key. She appears to know nothing about national economic or foreign policy issues. It’s as simple as that.
I also think my colleague Greg Sargent is right on the mark when he says that the terrible interviews actually raised the bar for Palin. As they say, better to stay mum and have people assume you’re a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. At the moment, I think the consensus is that Palin’s a fool. So just stumbling through with some bromides, I don’t think that will do it. Because people will assume that she’s a fool who got off a few bromides. Successfully executed zingers may juice up McCain’s core supporters. But I think to change non-right-wingers’ views about whether Palin belongs in the White House she has to do or say something that gives some reason to believe that those interviews gave an unrealistic view of her.
