Lame, lame, lame

I am totally frustrated with the high-sounding analysis of this ridiculous debate. I say ridiculous because it was engineered into pablum by the format and, as was the case with last week's debate, the weak moderators. I really like both Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill, but they seem to have been completely restrained. I don't know if Ifill got threatened because of the way the spin teams struck an offensive blow over a possible conflict of interest with her book, but jeeze, nobody got called on anything.
Why did Ifill not stand up for her questions?
And the talking heads, for the most part actually gave Palin points. With so much on the line with this election — so much that I can't believe anyone really wants to win it — we have a debate between the two seconds that probably drew the largest audience in history — and the big deal among so called journalists (including the AP's presidential campaign reporter Liz Sidoti) is that Palin won or at least didn't lose because she did not fall on her face or cry. Sidoti actually used the phrases "defended McCain's policy" or "drove a wedge between Obama and Biden." That assumes that she was successful. Evidently, it makes no difference that she had no argument, either logical or factual. Others have said that she did what she had to do; she staunched the bleeding; she reassured the right wing of the party. How is this not just the most embarassing prospect that this is the best candidate the Republicans could come up with.
Biden was terrific I thought, if perhaps too laid back. But I thought he gave enough detail to be credible but didn't sound too professorial. I wish there had been someone on the stage with him that he could have laid into a bit.
How has it come to pass that we accept as debate that someone says something; not that they prove it, or present a case for it, just say the words. Incredible. Literally incredible.
This is what I tried to post on Newsvine in response to AP's Liz Sidoti's analysis, but for some reason couldn't get the post buttons to work:
This article purports to be analysis, but there seems to be little understanding of the issues involved. Sarah Palin might have attempted to defend McCain, but she had no facts at her command in order to successfully defend his record. Palin seems to subscribe to the disturbing recent trend among Republican candidates that people should believe what they say just because they say it.
There not only were no details from Palin on any plans that her ticket has to fix any one of the many, complex and horrifying problems the nation faces, she was unable to articulate the issues. She demonstrated a veneer of talking points that obviously had been drilled into her.
This is far too important a moment, this one debate between the vice presidential candidates, to slough off her complete lack of comprehension. She didn't answer questions she didn't want to. She directed everything back to the sound bites and cute, folksy flotsam her trainers have filled her head with. If that didn't work, she bullied the moderator and Biden. They shouldn't have let her, but that was their coaching too, I believe.
I thought Biden, while perhaps not as peppy as Palin, seriously has considered the nightmare that faces whoever wins this election. I do not find it comforting that the person who covers the presidential campaign for the Associated Press, thus most of the newspapers in the United States, has presented us with such a vapid, shallow analysis of this debate. His job was to attack? Her job was to attack, connect and stick to her folksy script? Really?
I think their job was to tell us how they would run the country and to explain to us how they would solve these real problems. Silly me, I expect substance out of the vice presidential candidates and the Associated Press.