Biden's dilemma

Biden's certainly prone to making a gaffe or two on the stump, but his performance in debates is usually quite measured and skilled. Palin, meanwhile, can obviously give a good speech, but is reduced to completely incomprehensible blather during even modest questioning. So assuming she starts talking like a Speak-n-Spell with dying batteries during Thursday's debate, what should Biden do? If he mocks her, does he lose the debate for being too mean? But if he lets stuff go, does he lose the debate for being too soft?

I was showing the freshmen in my campaigns class some debate clips the other day, and their reaction to the Bentsen/Quayle "You're no Jack Kennedy" exchange was really quite interesting. You should watch it if you haven't seen it in a while:

Some of my students were pretty stunned at how bad Quayle came off. He looked like a frightened child, barely able to make eye contact with Bentsen while he was being chastised. Others thought that Bensten came off as a cruel old man. (For me, the really cruel part was his line, "You're the one who was making the comparison, Senator....")

My recollection of the event is that Quayle was resoundingly considered the loser in that exchange. There was no real blowback against the Dukakis/Bensten campaign for Bentsen's cruelty that night. It was considered one of the few high points for the Democrats that year. Indeed, the main criticism of that campaign remains that it was not nearly tough enough with Bush.

So, would Biden face a similar situation with Palin? If Bentsen had been so rough with a female opponent, would people have rushed to her defense? It's hard to say. It's a pernicious form of sexism if a woman is held to a lower standard of competence in a political debate. Of course, Biden may well be accused of sexism if he treats her as harshly as he would a man.

I don't have good answers here. Any thoughts on this?

Whew, it's not just me

Slate has been inviting readers to chime in about their dreams about Sarah Palin. She's having some weird effect on Americans' sleep patterns. This was one of my favorites:

"Sarah Palin's standing over me (I'm naked, she's not) and shouting, podium style, through a pair of great, floating glasses, 'And you know what? I'm going to cut it off. I'm gonna CUT IT OFF.' I hear cheers. Are we onstage? I don't see it, but I feel the presence of TV camera everywhere. She continues, 'And you know why? Because, well why shouldn't I? If you're good, I know God will put it back.' I look down and realize I have the biggest pot plant ever growing up between my legs. I mean, the thing is beautiful. I think something happens next, but I can't remember what. All I know is we are in a field, and Sarah Palin is kneeling over me decked out in hunter gear. She cradles her rifle pragmatically and smiles pathetically as if to say, 'You silly bear,' and ruffles my stomach. The plant is gone, but I am now covered in fur. And blood. And bits of grass. And as much as I want to bite her face off, I can't be angry at her. Or rather, I can't argue it. I've got nothing. And she knows it too. Her triumphalism is effortless."—Joshua Mensch

Look into my eye

Edge of the American West has a nice photo essay on McCain's lack of eye contact with Obama. It is kind of creepy.

New McCain ad

This one is fascinating:



McCain's message: "My opponent thinks I'm right. Therefore, he's wrong."

Fallows is right that Obama can henceforth dispense with saying "John is right" about anything for the remainder of the campaign. Praising McCain will only be met with similar slaps.

Quick debate reaction

This was a relatively dry debate. Both candidates basically held their own, no one made any major gaffes, and there weren't too many big attacks.

I can see arguments why such a debate could help either candidate. Independents are leaning Obama but want to know that he has the maturity and thoughtfulness to be president; he showed tonight that he does. On the other hand, McCain had a really crappy week in which he looked pretty unstable; tonight he looked stable.

My guess is that this debate won't affect the state of the race very much. As Tom Holbrook reminds us, most debate effects are pretty negligible, with the exception of 1992 (after the Richmond debate in which Clinton connected with the audience and Bush kept checking his watch) and 2004 (after the first debate when Kerry skewered W on Iraq). There were no such moments tonight.

Public reaction to McCain's stunt

Thumbs down.

• Gallup: Obama 48%, McCain 45%, with a ±2% margin of error. Yesterday, the candidates were tied 46%-46%.

• Rasmussen: Obama 50%, McCain 45%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to an Obama lead yesterday of 49%-46%.

• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 49%, McCain 42%, with a ±3.2% margin of error, compared to a 47%-43% Obama lead yesterday.

• Research 2000: Obama 48%, McCain 43%, with a ±3% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 49%-43%.

Adding these polls together and weighting them by sample sizes, Obama is ahead by a margin of 48.9%-44.5%, almost double his margin from yesterday's 47.7%-45.3%.

Now it's personal

Washington Mutual owns my house. Or at least, they did until yesterday. Not sure where to send my next mortgage check.