Here's what Joe Biden needs to do tonight, in the vice presidential debate: Promote and defend Barack Obama, recite the case against John McCain, and prevent his own foot from tickling his tonsils.
That's about it. This debate is basically a referendum on Sarah Palin; few viewers are going to pay attention to Biden unless he screws up. He'll serve Obama best if he simply does no harm. He'd be smart to just hang back (as much as he is capable of doing so) and allow the viewers to judge the fitness of his opponent. She's the one who still hasn't passed the audition.
Quite the contrary; the latest nonpartisan Pew Research Center poll, released yesterday, shows that 51 percent of Americans now deem her unqualified to serve a heartbeat away, with only 39 percent finding her fit for the job - a stark reversal from early September, when 52 percent found her fit and 37 percent did not. A similar slide shows up in the new ABC-Washington Post poll, released earlier today; that survey reports that 60 percent of Americans now view her as unfit.
The basic rule of thumb is that the more she talks, the lower she sinks. And last night, in terms of performance, she may have hit bottom.
I wouldn't be surprised if Palin views the 90-minute debate as a welcome reprieve from her string of conversations with Katie Couric; perhaps she will be helped by the tight time frame for responses, and by the ever-present possibility that Biden will draw attention for the wrong reasons. It's hard to imagine that the debate could be worse than the episode that aired last night on CBS News - an episode, now in wide online circulation, that is bound to make tonight's viewers even more skeptical about her.
This exchange with Couric was arguably the worst of her many embarrassments. While watching it, I conjured only two possibilities to explain it: Either she's auditioning for Saturday Night Live, or Saturday Night Live is writing her material.
It all began when Palin was asked to explain her opposition to Roe v. Wade. She replied, "I think it should be a states issue...States should have more say in the laws of their lands in individual areas."
Then Couric asked, "Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?"
Palin, with no hesitation: "I do. Yeah - "
Couric: "That's a cornerstone of Roe v. Wade."
Palin: "I do, and I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."
Let's pause here. Never mind her characteristic incoherence. The news in this exchange is that she contradicted herself on a fundamental point of constitutional law (as Couric pointed out)...yet she didn't even know she had done so. The high court upheld abortion rights in Roe v. Wade by citing a woman's right to privacy; the whole case hinges on the notion that a right to privacy is inherent in the U.S. Constitution. The anti-abortion groups have been arguing for 35 years that there is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution; that's a big part of their case against Roe. In fact, ever since the high court first recognized an inherent right of privacy (in a 1965 decision on contraception), conservatives have been assailing that ruling as "judicial activism."
This prompts me to wonder how she can attack Roe if she believes in the ruling's core principle...but perhaps we shouldn't necessarily expect "a normal Joe six pack American" to answer such a basic question. That's how she describes herself; that's the standard by which she seeks to be judged. It's a weird argument, in a way. None of us, if we required hospital surgery, would want to be operated on by a normal Joe six pack American, yet here are being asked to place a normal Joe Six-pack American within sight of the nuclear football.
Anyway, the worst interview exchanges were yet to come. This was an instructive 60 seconds. This was not Joe six pack talking. At best, this was Joe trying to talk after the binge consumption of several six packs.
Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Palin: "Hmmm. Well, let's see. There's, of course, in the great history of America, there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues again like Roe v. Wade, where, I believe, are best held on a state level than addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others, but, umm - "
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I would think of any again, that can best be dealt with on a more local level, maybe would take issue with, but as a mayor and as a governor and even as a vice president, if I am so privileged to serve, would be in a position of changing those things, but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."
Hack your way through that verbal thicket, and you discover that, over a span of 60 seconds, she couldn't even think of a single case. Granted, perhaps we shouldn't expect judicial erudition from somebody who, only a short time ago, was busy building a small-town ice rink...but surely there has to be some fundamental awareness.
Conservatives have been ticked off at the court for a whole host of reasons. How about last year's ruling when the high court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to assess the perils of global warming? Or the 1989 ruling when the court decreed that flag-burning was constitutionally-protected expression? Or the famous decree, in Miranda, that police have to inform criminal suspects of their legal rights? Or the 2003 ruling that struck down an anti-gay Texas sodomy law and essentially crafted a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy? But let's make it really easy, and find something that virtually all Americans would disagree with. How about the famously racist Supreme Court decision that upheld segregation by mandating "separate but equal" facilities?
Surely she will not whiff so blatantly during the debate tonight. Right?