Debate Review: Gwen Ifill
October 3rd, 2008To preface, I’m trying to try to honestly post my pre-debate expectations here even though I’m writing this post-debate; I realize that gives me the opportunity to fake clairvoyance which I’ll try to avoid.
On the moderator, Gwen Ifill:
Pregame expectations: Ahead of the debate, Ifill was attacked from the right for “failing to disclose” that she’s got a deal to drop a book about how Obama’s changing the face of Black politics or something on inauguration day. Odds of McCain campaign actually not realizing this until a few days ago when it was first brought up: extremely low. Well, that’d be the case with any normal, competent campaign, anyway. Reactions to this from the left varied from defense of Ifill to worrying that she’d be overly cautious to avoid any impression of bias to scheming to have Obama request Ifill be replaced to throw a last-minute wrench into Palin’s debate prep.
Postgame reviews: On the right, reactions are mixed (judged largely by posts at The Corner). In roughly equal proportion, some people found her questions fair and others found her questions fair but are still full of barely contained resentment regarding her conflict of interest. Also, complaints about no abortion questions. On the left, it’s almost uniformly negative: Ifill didn’t ask any follow-up questions even though Palin didn’t always (or usually) come close to answering the prompted questions. Also, complaints about no abortion/women’s issues questions.
My take: Remembering Ifill’s strict non-interventionism in the Cheney/Edwards debate, I wasn’t expected any Russertesque follow-up attempst. That debate was in a more open, roundtable format, and Ifill didn’t use it to frequently press the issue even though the Cheney/Edwards experience gap almost perfectly predicted Biden/Palin. Ifill’s smart; she clearly recognized Palin’s dodges and redirects and wasn’t just doggedly moving forward to the next question. She redirected the debate when further clarification was possible, and moved on when it was clear that Palin was just going to fillibuster.
Here’s a section where Ifill damns Palin’s tactic with a subtle jab:
BIDEN: … Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That’s why we got into so much trouble.
IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?
PALIN: I’m still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And 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.
IFILL: OK, our time is up here. We’ve got to move to the next question. Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let’s talk about taxes.
This prompted Ifill’s question about major criticisms of the candidates’ tax plans, leading to Biden’s perfectly scripted answer about class warfare, and his “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere” attack on McCain’s health benefits tax that Palin was utterly unprepared to defend. Obama did a great job seizing the reigns on the tax debate a week ago, but Palin drew first blood here by talking about taxes when the question was about anything but taxes (it was about McCain support deregulation in health care). Ifill recognized this, and basically said, “If you’re going to insist on debating taxes, we’re going to debate it on my terms.”
Attempts to hang Obama/Biden with the phrase “increased taxes” practically define the McCain campaign’s media strategy. Palin was clearly given the task of redirecting the debate along those lines whenever possible, and after Ifill called her on it, she never brought it up again in any serious way.
I suspect the common-wisdom criticisms of Palin coming from the debate will include her simply not answering questions and redirecting to talking points that often (usually?) bore little relation to the quesiton at hand. Had Ifill been overly aggressive in pointing this out, we’d instead be hearing about how Ifill attacked Palin during the debate for avoiding questions. Most people aren’t stupid and they know when someone’s dodging a question and can read their body language when someone’s staring at notecards and reciting something that’s got nothing to do with Ifill’s question. Criticizing Ifill for not actively pointing this out during the debate, I think, underestimates (barely) the intelligence of an average, undecided debate viewer. Had Ifill interjected, the story would’ve been: Palin exceeded expectations and usually knew what she was talking about, but occasionally was chided by the moderator for straying off topic, maverick that she is! Instead, the story is: Palin exceeded expectations but sometimes avoided issues and gave unrelated answers on questions that Biden showcased the depth of his knowledge. There’s only room for two characters in a story about a debate, and I’d much rather it be about Biden and Palin than Ifill and Palin.