disservice

The Real Diss

Back to Home Page  

The real time [for change] is now...

A number of colleagues, media outlets, students, friends, and family have asked my opinion on the Vice Presidential (VP) debate, so here goes.  I thought Senator Joe Biden did a very good job telling the American public WHAT the Biden-Obama administration (WHO) would do and HOW they would do it, and made a strong case for WHY a member a the electorate should vote for the Democratic ticket.  Other than that, I thought the debate was largely a waste of the American public’s time.  I state my disappointment with two targets—Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and Washington Week Editor, Senior Correspondent for the NewsHour show, and the VP debate’s moderator Gwen Ifill—in mind.  My criticisms of both will likely ruffle some feathers.

 

First, if Palin’s performance in the debate was an indicator of how she would handle VP or Presidential duties—foreign relations (e.g., diplomatic meetings), legislative discussions (e.g., convincing members of congress to support/oppose issues), or public relations (e.g., press conferences), it could only be viewed as deplorable.  Leadership is not about getting people to like you or your style, it’s about getting people to TRUST you, and follow you into battle with confidence that you can win.  Let me repeat, the executive office of the government is about LEADERSHIP.

 

With 70 million viewers watching the debate on Thursday, Palin took the opportunity to showcase her “down home” style and delivery, and speak to the American public about the only thing of which she appears competent, herself.  It was completely unacceptable for a VP candidate to ignore questions about substance, and focus on style.  This is akin to a car salesman focusing on how good the car looks and sounds, but refusing to say anything about how much it costs or how it runs until after you agree to buy it.  This is akin to telling young children in school to charm their teachers instead of expressing what they know (or even trying to).  In the end, both settings result in disappointment toward the car and children, and distrust of their future performances.

 

Sure, Palin did attempt to drive a wedge between Obama and Biden, but we’ve already seen and heard this before with all the business about Clinton, her delegates, and her not getting the VP nod. In fact, it was a wedge between Obama and the Democratic Party, which is more problematic than a wedge between Obama and Biden. The easy counter to this wedge is that Obama has openly said he wanted Biden BECAUSE they have disagreed, and a thoughtful White House is better than a consensus White House.  So, while many pundits have said this is a strong point, it’s really an “old-point” from a new needle.

 

What the public really wanted to know was “are you [Governor Palin] ready to be president?”  They wanted to know HOW the McCain-Palin ticket would carry out their initiatives and HOW they would be different from what’s going on now.  They public got “dissed.” While the Democratic ticket should [and does] emphasize the nature of the change from the current administration, they don’t HAVE to.  Conversely, the Republican ticket MUST do this because they are in the same political party as the current administration.  The Republican ticket has been clear about WHAT they want to do, neither McCain nor Palin has been able to clearly and consistently state HOW they will create jobs, cut taxes, deal with health care, end the war in Iraq, deal with Pakistan and Afghanistan, improve America’s national reputation, manage the economy, and bring about change in a way that is DIFFERENT than what America current has in the Presidential office.  Just saying, “America/Country first,” “Maverick,” “Reform,” “New Energy,” and “Change” doesn’t mean that it’s true or going to happen.  The Palin performance (and McCain’s the previous week) showed a ticket in dis[-array]: no coherence, no consistency, no knowledge, and no leadership.

 

Worst of all, early into the debate Sarah Palin said the following to Joe Biden and the moderator:

 

“… I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.”

 

While Palin (and her coaches) saw this as an opportunity to show her “Maverickness” or feistiness, it was clearly a slap in the face of the expectations of the American public.  It was, I think, symbolic of everything that is currently wrong with the current leadership in the executive branch. It was a “go it alone” mentality, and it was about her (Palin). It was not about the American public, or governance.  Moreover, she was clearly making the point that she can’t talk “straight” to the American people on questions being asked by anyone (e.g., Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, or even Carl Cameron (FOX news)) other than people favorable to her.  In fact, in the Carl Cameron interview Palin described her responses to Couric as “annoyed” because she didn’t get to answer the questions she wanted to answer.  Thus, Palin (or her coaches) feel like the media are not on her side and it’s their duty to wage war against them. If they wage war against the media, you can only image who they will take on as President and Vice President.  I’m serious!!  Just imagine: media first, Iran, and Spain next.  This brings me to the second disappointment: Gwen Ifill.

 

Gwen Ifil has been in the journalism business since the early 1980s. She’s worked for highly respected newspapers (The Washington Post, and the NY Times), and she’s been an invaluable editorial and corresponding contributor to Meet the Press, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and her own show, Washington Week in Review.  She also moderated the 2004 VP debate between Chaney and Edwards, were she was applauded for keeping the candidate on time and task.

 

Yet, this veteran of television and print media allowed a newcomer to essentially silence her voice with the simple statement, “I may not answer the questions that …the moderator… want[s] to hear.”  In essence, Gwen Ifill was dissed in front of 70 million viewers and she did absolutely nothing.  I may be wrong, but I believe that there is no doubt that if Palin had done this to Tim Russert, one of Ifill’s mentors, he would have immediately responded, OR taken it to the candidate in another way (e.g., pressed them on issues with follow-ups). 

 

Now many will say this is unfair to Ifill because she was constrained by the format and rules of the debate.  This logic doesn’t follow through when we consider that Sarah Palin said that she was not going to follow the most important part of the debate: answering the questions.  An even bigger diss on Ifill is the fact that these were her questions!  She came up with them, and the goal was to have them answered for the American public.  Ifill is a veteran, and should have immediately taken control of the situation. That’s what the moderator does. If you watched the debate via C-SPAN, Ifill told the audience exactly what their rules were and that she expected adherence.  Yet, she didn’t remind Palin of the basic rules, when Palin was explicit in her disregard. 

 

I know, I know, but there’s the issue of the book Ifill is writing about Black political figures. So, Ifill didn’t push Palin because she didn’t want to appear one-sided, or biased, and thus, she deferred and took her medicine (literally, she was probably on Tylenol due to her broken ankle).  Yet, if we follow this logic, then what’s the value of almost 30 years experience in journalism.  In street (and popular culture) language, Ifill got dissed, and punked. She backed down and did nothing, when she had the opportunity to control the most watched debate in the history of debates.  When the moderator doesn’t do their job, the entire debate suffers.  This is WHY Sarah Palin was successful in getting through the debate without making any major mistakes; she induced Gwen Infill to back down.  Perhaps Ifill didn’t see it that way, but her inability to make the debate about the questions rather than the candidates was a disservice to American public, and to her own track record.  In the end, this [read between the racial and gender lines] was the real diss of the VP debate.

 

David C. Wilson