I didn't really want to watch the VP debate last night. I don't believe that any traits necessary to be president (or VP for that matter) are demonstrated in the debate format, and I didn't want to see a
Palin train-wreck on the order of her interview with Katie
Couric. Maybe it was the train-wreck possibility that made me turn on the debate anyway.
I thought
Palin looked weak in the first half of the debate, stammering answers and avoiding many questions inelegantly. After about half the debate, I got fed-up with
Biden's smarmy answers and unanswerable attacks, on regulation/
de-regulation, for example. I turned the channel to something more important: the Pitt/
USF football game and the
NLDS baseball game.
There was an
interesting post and
comment thread on
Volokh yesterday about the legal goings-on in Sen. Ted Stevens corruption trial in Washington. It seems the prosecutor has failed to give the defense some exculpatory evidence that seriously undermined the prosecution. (The prosecution used a version of the
"I Forgot!" defense.) The trial judge was taking the subject under advisement and would decide later what the penalty should be. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems he has three choices: (a) he could sanction/punish the prosecutors and let the trial proceed. (b) he could declare a mistrial. or (c) he could dismiss the charges completely.
I gather from the comments in the
VC post that his decision will be made partly on how much damage he thinks has been done to the defendant's case. Some
commenters thought there had not been much damage since the affected witness was still on the stand and could still be cross-examined. Others thought the damage was significant since it affected the entire defense case, from the opening statement on. I don't think any of them called for outright dismissal.
I was reminded of this today as I thought more about Joe
Biden's performance last night. He made a number of inaccurate statements (see
here,
here, and my earlier post
here). Gwen
Ifill didn't correct him on any of these, so either
Palin had to know enough to know how wrong
Biden was in each instance, or she had to react to bogus, inaccurate assertions from
Biden. It is understandable that she might be hesitant in responding/replying.
Should
Biden be sanctioned or penalized for his errors and
misstatements? Certainly
Palin made some inaccurate statements, but
Biden isn't being judged on the smoothness of
his answers.
I'm thinking that maybe the appropriate response is to realize how unimportant
Palin's hesitance and uncertainty in answering were. I think I'd rather have a hesitant VP than a smooth, stupid one.