NPR News says "both candidates exceeded expectations," acknowledging that expectations were low for Governor Palin. A New York Times report sees the debate as "not a game changer." Andrew Sullivan was worried as he noted Palin's seeming command of stage and cameras for the first part of the debate and then watched with pleasure as Biden took the lead back from her, demolishing her with facts. You can read his anxiety attack here.
The lead New York Times editorial acknowledges that there has never been a candidate who suffered from worse expectations than Palin. The bottom line is that "by that standard, but only by that standard, the governor of Alaska did well. But Ms. Palin never really got beyond her talking points in 90 minutes, mostly repeating clichés and tired attack lines and energetically refusing to answer far too many questions." Another Times analysis quotes a Republican consultant:
“This is going to help stop the bleeding,” said Todd Harris, a Republican consultant who worked for Mr. McCain in his first presidential campaign. “But this alone won’t change the trend line, particularly in some of the battleground states.”
On the other side of the Times editorial pages, in an op-ed piece that says more about his vapidity and narrow range of knowledge and sensitivity than Sarah Palin's, David Brooks writes in a high voice: "By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night."
Politico has this:
"... The past couple weeks have offered little evidence that political theatrics—so important in many elections—are what most voters are looking for in the current circumstances, with an economy on the brink and a global financial crisis threatening to push it over.
"The debate did nothing to arrest – and may even have helped cement – a gradual but unmistakable turnabout in the race, with Obama gaining in polls and momentum and McCain losing ground in must-win states. The financial meltdown has put a new premium on competence, and Palin did nothing to show she is ready to be in charge."
Most Americans will turn to their local paper this morning, and many of those regional papers are part of the McClatchy group. Here's what they'll be reading about Sarah Palin:
"... She didn't score the kind of dramatic breakthrough that she did when she burst onto the national stage with a strong, in-your-face speech at the Republican National Convention. This time, her opponent was there to answer back, and he argued his case forcefully as well.
" ... It delighted some conservatives who've grown anxious about her performance in past days. She also appeared better versed in policy than she has in some of the TV interviews. But she often appeared to look down at her notes and sometimes appeared eager to move past one subject to another where she felt more comfortable."
That's not to say Palin looked like an inflatable doll whose mouth had a wireless connection to advisers off-stage. Well yes, she did -- to me, anyway.
The media are looking worse thanks to Gwen Ifill who took a career-altering hit. The LA Times thinks otherwise.
Uncommitted voters, polled by CBS, think Biden won the debate. By two to one. Men tended to like Palin best. That's because, CBS believes, more men than women are Republicans. I think it's because more men than women are men.
