Biden v. Palin

I think my pre-debate predictions that, given the hype and expectations, the result would be inevitably anti-climactic were largely borne out.

Palin was clearly relying heavily on talking points (in written note form) to the point where she seemed to give the "answer" to questions that weren't asked on several occasions. Nevertheless, given the macabre fascination with her previous interview performances, I think it's true that her main goal last night was to survive. And she did. She started to fade in the later stages as she was forced to return to talking points she had already used.

For Biden's part, his main goal was to steer carefully to avoid appearing overbearing, patronizing, long-winded, mean, etc... And he did. I think he gradually took control of the debate in the later stages after tip-toeing through the opening.

So all-in-all, a draw? On substance I think Biden clearly won. If you were grading on a curve, Palin probably won. But it's unclear if the voting public is grading on a curve. Meanwhile, real life events continue to generate headlines like this:

Employers Cut Jobs by Most in More Than 5 Years

It's a bad sign for the McCain campaign that their victory cry this morning is "We survived!"

Here was an answer by Palin last night that I thought stood out for its incoherence:

IFILL:

Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

PALIN:

Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.

As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.

We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for.

So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change

So... On the one hand she's calling for "reduc[ing] emissions." But she's also calling for "energy independence" because relying on other countries means that we're allowing them to produce and emit and pollute.

But we also need to "conserve our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet."

See, this is what happens when the talking points and bullet points get mangled together.

How does she square "conserve" with "Drill Baby Drill!"?! And if we're buying energy from other countries how is that "allowing" them to emit and pollute? Doesn't the emitting and polluting (burning hydrocarbons) occur here?

Not to nitpick, but here's the problem. The US consumes about 25% of the world's oil. The US is estimated to control 3% of the world's oil reserves. (Biden brought up these facts in the debate.)

So "Drill Baby Drill!" is NOT going to provide any meaningful measure of energy independence. In fact, because petroleum is fungible, DBD won't even reduce fuel prices.

Furthermore, to the extent that DBD "works" it would have the precise effect of increasing emissions.

Sigh...

On a lighter note, I think Yglesias figured out who Palin was referring to when she mentioned the non-existent "General McClellan".

I kind of wanted Biden to point out that it's "McKiernan" in Afghanistan and McClellan was a Union Civil War General, but he probably would have had to throw a joke in there so he didn't appear snarky while doing so: "I actually attended McClellan's retirement ceremony when I was first elected to Congress."