Obligatory post-debate post

Oh. God. Andrew Halcro was right. Andrew Halcro ran against Sarah Palin in the race to be Governor of Alaska. He described her as the "master of the nonanswer" and adept at "glittering generality." With Gwen Ifell asleep at the moderator's desk, and repeatedly failing to push for more specificity, we were left with a lot of empty rhetoric from Palin that really no one could disagree with. For example, here are 10 things she is for:

1. The American workforce
2. A heck of a lot of good lessons
3. Energy
4. Marriage
5. A little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street
6. Freedom
7. Third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School
8. The kitchen table
9. Kids heading off to college
10. Living in America

All right, maybe we aren't all convinced we need a dose of reality from Wasilla. But, all in all, when it comes to any of the other items on the list, I think just about anyone would raise their hand and say, "I'm for that!"

Who would have guessed that we would be longing for a taste of Katie Couric's journalistic instincts? The reason Palin looked so bad in those CBS interviews is because Couric didn't allow Palin to deliver a stream of empty answers. Ifell, by contrast, didn't even ask Biden and Palin to circle back and answer the questions she asked. Did anyone else notice she asked a question about when WE would use nukes, and neither Biden nor Palin answered it? Any answer, any string of words, linked together in bizarre circuitous streams, was fine for Ifell. One note: I'm not a grammarian, but Sarah Palin's sentences are wild roller-coaster rides. Here's one that caught my ear:

If you're going to do any harm and mandate more things on me and take more of my money and income tax and business taxes, you're going to have a choice in just a few weeks here on either supporting a ticket that wants to create jobs and bolster our economy and win the war or you're going to be supporting a ticket that wants to increase taxes, which ultimately kills jobs, and is going to hurt our economy.

Other times, she threw out phrases masquerading as thoughts:

Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has.

or:

Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different.

Some of you are going to say: "Now you're just being mean." No. My point is to encourage you to look at her rhetoric. There is no "there there." No policy position. No logic. You can argue, as some have, that Palin talks this way because she doesn't know anything. But I don't think that's true. She employs this approach to political discourse and dialogue because she thinks it helps recruit support. On one hand, her meandering phrasing makes it difficult to know exactly what she is saying. Take this example:

Who's been there and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military.

She's talking about John McCain and his position on a draw down of troops in Iraq. But what she says has no meaning. It says nothing about McCain's policy. So how can you argue with it? Your own views can be mapped on to this string of words, giving meaning to a statement that can't otherwise stand on its own.

This is her other trick: if she voices solidarity with a lot of things we can't possibly disagree with, she believes we will be drawn in and take her side. Here is what she hopes the conversation inside our head looks like:

Sarah likes kids! So do I! She has some differences of opinion in her family! So do I! We are so much alike, I think I'll back her!

She talks this way because it works. If no one pushes back. I can't decide if Ifell is just incapable of taking control of a debate or, in the wake of the phony outrage about her upcoming book on race and politics, she was just afraid of looking pro-Obama if she called Palin on her hazy generalities and deliberate evasions.

But, out of all of her nonsensical and noncommittal blah, blah, blah, two strategies for shaping the remaining days of this race came through:

1. This race is about energy independence. And McCain and Palin, because of their commitment to drilling and Palin's "experience" with energy issues as Alaska's governor, are more likely than Obama to lead us forward into the day when all of our energy needs are met through fossil fuels we pump out of America's soil or dig out of America's mountains. The thing she said over and over: McCain/Palin are for an "all of the above" energy policy. What is appealing about this, for voters who don't look very hard, is the suggestion that we can get there without government spending and without asking for sacrifices - like conservation or smaller vehicles or excise taxes on fuel. It's a fantasy and, I think, largely beside the point in most voters' minds. People are worried about the economy, and unless McCain/Palin are prepared to contruct a more elaborately architectural argument that ties energy issues to the collapse on Wall Street and economic woes on Main Street, energy issues will remain a sideshow. One thing I heard from Palin - a claim that East Coasters are out of touch with folks in the West who want to profit from pumping out fossil fuels - may have relevance in some Western states, like California, Alaska, and Texas, but these states aren't really in play anyway.

2. Convince people that Obama will raise their taxes. If Obama can enact his tax plans (and it is a big if, given our economic meltdown and the obligations the Federal government is taking on), most people will actually see their taxes cut. Yet, Palin (like McCain) continues to shout her claim that Obama will boost taxes. Over and over again last night, Biden attempted to correct the record and beat back Palin's misstatements. Different media sources have tried to set the record straight. A visit to Obama's website tells the story, there is even a calculator online that let's you calculate your own "Obama Tax Cut." Yet McCain and Palin's claims still seem to have the ear of a majority of Americans. A friend last night asked: How can this be? My answer: people are more likely to believe a claim - even an untrue one - if it corresponds with some preexisting narrative or conventional wisdom. In this case, the American people are predisposed to believe Obama is a "tax and spend" Democrat, because conventional wisdom holds that Democrats tax (and Republicans cut taxes). But, again, like the energy issue, I don't think Americans care. In many, many studies, Americans have been found to be willing to pay higher taxes IF they value the public benefits they receive in return and they TRUST that these goods will be delivered. The goal for Obama, then, needs to be to continue to publicize the facts of his tax plan while also convincing the American people that his policies promise real benefits and he is a trustworthy public ally. In the end, even if he can't displace the widespread perception that Democrats are addicted to taxes, he can still win the argument that his policies are better for the majority of Americans and he is more trustworthy than John McCain.