Dumbed-down format, low expectations, moderator beatings all good for Palin tonight

The fickle swing-vote (in the swing-states…see http://www.slate.com/id/2201071/) can't quite make up its mind about the wing issues (abortion, gay rights, free-market v. government, nationalism v. world engagement, etc) and goes by gut feeling, or at least so we're told. Whether or not the gut-feeling assessment is true (if it's not, then based on Palin's recent interviews, this election is over), the center-swing voter is undecided because he or she is suspicious of all players, and views the choice as between the lesser of two evils.

So the debate will be important (and most likely the most widely-watched piece of political television before election night). It'll be a significant piece of the “benefit of the doubt” puzzle for those who insist on keeping an open mind. We had the acceptance speech, on which Ms. Palin received decent marks from all but the most hard-core talking heads, then the interviews (an unmitigated disaster, but “she could have just been flustered”). Now we'll get to see her in a more-or-less “official” event, one for which she has both been “adequately prepared,” (whatever that means) and during which she will nonetheless be required to speak without a teleprompter, and attempt to speak in complete sentences she must compose on the spot.

For this last reason, I believe she's doomed–I don't think any amount of cramming can make up for her inability to use basic English. Of course, I'm biased that way–I tend to like my world leaders to be able to compose coherent, complete sentences, on the fly, in their native language.

On the other hand, our electorate has twice voted in a man whose verbal skills wouldn't permit him to pass one of the 8th-grade achievement tests his own administration has mandated in “No Child Left Behind.” And whether or not you agree with the “sentiments” of a particular candidate, what seems to be lost on our electorate is the fact that there is no such thing as an easy, clear-cut decision, when you're president of the United States. Every decision a president must make, and every agenda he or she espouses, must take all the people into account–not just the party faithful. While it's possible to take a firm stance on a particular subject (and certainly possible for a president to believe he's acting in everyone's best interest regardless of the popularity of his decisions), even that firm stance requires a plausible explanation for those who might disagree (and are still willing to listen).

In short, nuance matters. Diplomacy matters. Logical thought processes matter, and the ability to communicate them effectively matters. A sentence doesn't have to contain hundred-dollar words, or five subordinate clauses, to be intelligent–but it should make grammatical sense–anything less is an embarrassment to our nation, and our president is its most visible representative.

So even if I didn't find her politics repulsive (and I do, so the argument is somwhat moot) I couldn't abide this woman as vice president.

But that's just me. We'll see what the swingers have to say after tonight's slugfest.