Answering the Unanswerable: Advice to Biden
Everybody and his or her brother or sister (and that's everybody!) will be offering advice to Joe Biden on how to comport himself Thursday night in his much-anticipated/ dreaded debate with Sarah Palin. So why should I be any different?
Below, some last-minute ideas, offered free of charge and worth at least twice that. But first we must address the central challenge that confronts any office-seeker on the eve of a national debate against an opponent of Palin's qualities:
Do we want to make her seem ignorant, or insane?
Anyone? No? Well, I'm not surprised, because it was a trick question. The answer is, neither. Anyone at all capable of correctly appreciating the depth of this woman's ignorance has already done so, and has either decided they care about it or they don't. As for "insane," Palin is too attractive and poised, in that steely, bullet-proof, beauty-contestant way, to behave in a manner openly indicative of mental dysfunction.
Is, then, all lost? Is Joe Biden doomed to suffer a TKO, to be correct on all the facts but still "lose," as some of the (useless) pundits put it, "on points"? Not necessarily.
One plausible goal to which he might aspire is to goad Palin into demonstrating, not that she is out of her mind, but that she is out of her league. (Yes, yes, I know: Everybody knows that already, too. But there may be a few undecideds susceptible to being reminded of it.) How?
Not by correcting her or flatly declaring that her Seasonal Vegetable Medley of proudly-spouted clichés, talking-point truisms, patriotic-sounding boilerplate, and frankly incomprehensible yammerings are "wrong." Rather, Biden should assume the role of the cheerily befuddled colleague, the sympathetic peer who can't quite get a handle on whatever chirpy gibberish the Governor has just emitted.
But rather than ask her to repeat or clarify her answer, he should good-naturedly discredit it. And, in so doing, he should attack, not Palin, but her running mate.
Thus:
IFILL: Next question-and Governor Palin, we'll start with you. The government bailout of the financial industry has proven to be enormously controversial. What is your understanding of the underlying causes of this crisis, and how do you think the Federal government should address it?
PALIN: You know, Gwen, all of us, on Wall Street and Main Street, the outrage, because people are hurting no matter what, and it's terribly, terribly important that there be equity among the taxpayers as well as both the bad actors and the good actors in the financial community, which is why actor's equity is so important at a time like this. In Alaska we learned that it's a question of doing due diligence before you get a done deal done. You've got local banks, Fannie Farmer, Freddie Mercury, Bernie Mac, and the whole Banker Bernanke wing of the Fed. And that's just not fair. You know, there's an expression economists like to use: "Follow the money." Senator McCain and I both agree that our financial markets and our economy are intimately connected, so that a solution can only be workable if it's feasible and makes sense for the American people.
IFILL: Senator Biden?
BIDEN: Hoo boy. Wow. I...I have to apologize to the Governor. I just can't keep up. Her explanation is way over my head--although what I think she said was, that the absence of regulation that John McCain has championed his entire political life has caused this crisis--which is true--but that the solution to it somehow is even less regulation. She couldn't have said that, because that's just silly and absurd. Or maybe she did say that and I'm just too dense to pick up on it. If she did say it, well, she's entitled to her opinion--although it's not an opinion any sensible person running for Vice President should have. In any case, here's my opinion: Republicans come into power, they eliminate regulation in the financial industry, and we get a crisis. The savings and loan scandal. This current emergency. And every time, they turn to the taxpayer to bail them out. Is it hypocrisy? Of course it is. That's the least of it. It's also theft... (etc.)
Okay, I got carried away with Biden's "answer" toward the end there. But you see the point: When your opponent talks in enigmas and nonsense, you can't refute her, but you don't have to. You use it as a setup to a) tell everyone what she "really" said, and b) why she's just slightly off. You do this "respectfully," the way arbiters and instructors of etiquette teach us to assert ourselves over people we dislike by cloaking it in a smile and in expressions of deference.
A couple won't leave even after dessert has been served, coffee has been drunk, and everyone else has departed? You don't say, "Hey. You two. Get the fuck out already." Rather, as you herd them toward the front door, you murmur, "I'd love it if you two stayed all night, but I'm sure you've got a busy schedule tomorrow and I don't want to keep you."
So there ya go, Joe. Defer to the lady but hijack her answers. The very vacuity of her replies provides a blank canvas on which you may--and should--paint a portrait of her as you see fit. Her fans--the ones who aren't really aware that her answers are nonsense--won't know what you're doing. If they don't know what she did say, how can they know what she didn't?
Bear in mind, too, that (unlike at a political rally or the RNC convention) she won't have an adoring audience to pause for, to mug for, to draw energy from, to preen and dimple and snark at. So a lot of her rhetorical moves may, in and of themselves, arrive D.O.A.
When Palin was chosen, the immediate cliché in Democratic circles was, "Biden is going to eat her alive in the debate." As he would--and bon appetit--if intelligence and facts mattered. But Palin's popularity offers ample proof that--go be shocked--they don't. People like her style. You can't refute a style (that's what "bullying" means), but you can acknowledge it as a pretext for controlling all the substance.
Cross-posted, as always, at What HE Said.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Excellent post. I'm relatively confident that Palin will get diplomatically dissed by Joe. We'll see.
Mr. Weiner & pundits, all Biden has to do after Palin goes into her RBG (Random BS Generator) routine is:
look puzzled a la SNL Amy Poehler for ten seconds, then say "What?" or "Would you please repeat that?"
Nice post. I think this is one VP debate that not many of us will soon forget.
Honey, you have now hit upon what we girls raised in the south know to be a very powerful working tool - the "Bless her heart" philosophy. We were taught that mixing truth with compassion is sometimes a very necessary thing. For instance, when we say something like....."
I enjoyed reading your advice to Biden, but it didn't relieve my anxiety about the upcoming debate. Biden makes gaffes himself, as you know, so it's hard to imagine him deconstructing Palin's puffery. And he must not look like his talking down to Gov. Palin. The women in the audience will be watching that. The culture war is so endemic -- class, religion, sexual politics to name a few -- that there are landmines everywhere. My advice to Biden is to stay centered, clear, concise and stick to your talking points. Try not to make mistakes. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, not to mention my head against a brick wall, let me try to put your mind at ease. Senator Biden does not make gaffes. I challenge you to provide one example. Now, I know what you're saying - I can almost hear you from where I sit!
The truth of the matter is that Senator Biden's so-called "gaffes" are nothing more than manufactured incidents fabricated out of whole cloth, more or less, by the media who have a vested interest in propagating national myths of epic proportions about Senator Biden that have, sadly, been taken up by a majority of the electorate - hook, line and sinker.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have nothing to worry about and I hope you will let me know what you think - here - of his debate performance tomorrow night. I predict that you will be duly impressed.
Liz,
Of course Biden makes gaffes. Dozens, literally. For example, there is a widely circulated video of Joe recently praising the way FDR handled the stock market crash of 1929 in a Presidential Way by going on TV and calming everyone with an inspirational speech.
So, to follow the lines of argument advanced here, (a) Joe must be incredibly ignorant, because EVERYONE knows FDR was not president in 1929, (b) Joe must be insane to think we had TV in 1929.
Joe got caught plagairizing in college, and again during a speech. I give him a bye on the latter (I view it as an innocent oversight), but certainly not on the former.
Why don't we try getting back to substance? Like Energy Independence? What is the plan? How are we going to implement it?
Interesting approach. I've read that she's a formidable debater, but it seems to me that she's at her strongest and most succinct when she's being mean or lying or both. When she's called upon to be thoughtful, well, we've seen what happens there. The base loves the nasty, dishonest stuff and I guess this debate format is better for that kind of thing -- but she doesn't need to win over the base. This debate could very well be about who is more likeable. Yeah, yeah, Joe's not perfect, but if he's relaxed, knowledgeable and affable, he can win this thing.
An excellent point -- we've seen that many undecided voters found McCain rude and belligerent in the last debate.
He should be polite, mostly ignore her, but make sure that he flat out accuses her of lying when she lies.
This is so sad on so many levels.
The most often-used cliche bandied about is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in this case, it's just so apt. It was apt with Bush, and it's (who would have thunk it possible) even more apt with Palin.
Make no mistake. We ALL know she's out of her league, even her FANS know she's out of her league, but some of us care about her lack of intellectual curiousity, ability, and wisdom, and some of us don't. Some of us would vote for Forest Gump if that was an option. Roseanne Barr. Peggy Bundy.....
I won't pretend that McCain's choice of Palin doesn't infuriate me, it does. But what infuriates me most is this apparent national agreement-----on both sides of the ticket----that we have to be "especially" careful not to offend a woman who gleefully calls herself "Barracuda" and PRETEND that she's just another "qualified", highly vetted candidate.
WHEN SHE CLEARLY ISN'T.
Hopefully, during the VP debates, one lone naive child will stand up and say, "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
