Channel Mike

I am appalled.
Our media has, again, failed us. I'm not sure if it's because we're American, or because we're human, but we have such a tendency to handicap contests like they're golf outings, that we have not taken the time to analyze the content of last night's vice-presidential debate. If it were just the pundits on the standard fluff outlets, I wouldn't be appalled. I wouldn't even be slightly surprised. But even on substantive outlets like The NewsHour on PBS, the post-debate discussion is about how Palin didn't totally blow it. What?!?!
To join in and get it out of the way, I will acknowledge that she didn't blow it. I was surprised at her performance. But we can't let our low expectations cloud reality. If McCain had picked a squirrel with rabies as a running mate and it somehow managed not to foam at the mouth in the debate, we'd be having the same conversation. The lack of failure is truly not the same as success. Palin was far from successful if anyone had expected her to actually debate Joe Biden rather than just to spout memorized talking points. She did a good job of memorizing what her writers put together for her while she was sequestered in one of John McCain's homes for the last two weeks.
Our media failed to cover the substance of the debate, though. Instead, they all seemed to analyze each person's performance like it's some sort of sporting event. To drive home the point, how are some of these post-debate conversation topics?

• Joe Biden consistently tied McCain to Republican policies of lifting the tax burden on the rich while ignoring the middle class and the poor. Palin never refuted this, but simply returned fire by essentially calling Biden and Obama tax and spenders. She used the terms "raise" and "tax" together about half a dozen times. In contrast to Palin's refusal to dispute Biden's attacks, Biden refuted Palin's repeat of the same attack several times before just letting it go from then on. Who is right? Who is exaggerating? What is the reality?
• Sarah Palin talked about how George Bush and John McCain want a victory in Iraq. She even went so far as to accuse Obama and Biden of wanting to put up the white flag of surrender. But she didn't address what a victory looks like. What would have to happen to declare victory and come home? Nobody knows. Nobody says. There is no plan. Is there? Is this just an inability to communicate the plan?
• Joe Biden went after McCain for a consistent deregulation campaign, connecting the current economic collapse to the deregulation policies that Republicans, including McCain, have pushed over the last decade. Palin did not defend deregulation, but instead refuted that McCain has been for deregulation. It seems that both tickets are saying we need to reintroduce regulations on our financial system. Is that really the case?

I didn't hear any of this addressed anywhere except for the fact checking analysts usually found online. No pundits on TV seemed to be interested. They wanted to talk about how "folksy" Sarah Palin didn't make a fool of herself, and therefore won. Is that the criterion for success? Not for Biden. Why the double standard? Because we accept that Palin is less intelligent, less skilled, and less experienced. And that doesn't seem to bother us just as long as she outshines the dim expectations we have of her. We analyze debates like we're all working for People Magazine. I grudgingly accept that our culture actually accepts voting for a person because they "like" him/her; they want to "have a beer" with him/her; they like the "folksy" rhetoric. But this is what appalls me. I have my own ideology. I have my political beliefs and stances. I also respect people who believe differently as long as they can do it honestly. But when the issues don't matter and it's just a contest of personality, our democracy deserves to decline. When we vote against people because they are elite, we deserve what we get. If we really want Palin's "Joe Six Pack" with the "gosh darns" and "bless their hearts" and "you betchas" we're going to get a leader who is not actually a leader. As for me, I'll take the smartest, most elite, substantive candidate I can find every time. I'd be happy to have a beer with the George Bush that was governor of Texas. He could be my friend and come to my house. And we could barbecue. But I don't want him running my country, my state, my city, or even a company I do business with. He doesn't have that mental capacity. And I wish we had had a president with the intellect of Al Gore, even if he did come off as lacking personality in 2000. I'll acknowledge that he wasn't as likable as Bush. But people shouldn't care! He understood the issues better and came down on the correct side of most of them. Bush thought God was sending him to the white house. I'd rather have a president who can see both sides of an issue and understand that nearly every vote has costs as well as benefits. I'd rather have John Kerry's reasoned shifts in position than George Bush's unflinching ideology in 2004. And today, I would be delighted to have Barack Obama's intellect, work ethic, analytical ability, and poise combined with Joe Biden's experience and understanding of the workings of our government. The alternative is the guy who's concerned more about branding himself, "The Maverick," than actually being one combined with a small state governor whose only jobs in this campaing are to be young and energetic, to be pro-life, and to try not to look too stupid. She is doing a good job of being younger than McCain and pro-life.
The choice we have to make next month has a clearly superior option in the Democratic ticket. While Obama and Biden are both likable and charming, they're both also intelligent and well-educated; they have substance as well as style. McCain might be a fighter, and Palin may be young and folksy, but neither of them has shown any intellectual power. This election has got to be about more than style. It has to be about substance. I wish our media would push for more of that rather than all devolving into Access Hollywood.