Andrew Halcro tells us what it is like to debate Sarah Palin.

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges. (For more of Andrew Halcro's insights into Sarah Palin and Alaska politics go here.)

So Halcro has essentially put his finger on how Palin was able to win the Governorship of Alaska in 2006, and what will defeat her in this Vice Presidential debate on Thursday.

Sarah Palin was victorious in Alaska because she had created a mythology that she was a paragon of ethical virtue. She was not like the usual Alaskan politicians who were being investigated and indicted at an alarming rate. Not princess Palin, she was a pure as the driven snow. Or so we thought. (The news about her heavy handed approach to politics as mayor of Wasilla and penchant for banning books was not to be uncovered until just this month)

As you can see in the YouTube clip below Palin's debate style closely matches the nonsensical babble that flows out of her during interviews with Katie Couric and others. (In this case the constant repeating of the word "progress".)



Alaskans were so determined to elect somebody who was not going to allow more corruption in our state that we ignored the two experienced and respected politicians in the race, ex-Governor Tony Knowles and Independent candidate Andrew Halcro, and simply chose the newest person on the ticket. It was short sighted and clearly ignorant. But there you have it.

But this election is different. Palin is not at the top of the ticket, John McCain is. And though the country definitely wants change, they absolutely don't want another slow learning moron in the White House. They want somebody who is smarter then they are, and much, much smarter then George W. Bush. Since John McCain is a fossil it is very important that his number two is not a nitwit.

Sarah Palin is a nitwit. She may be a personable nitwit. She may be an attractive nitwit. But at the end of the day she is still a nitwit.

And if you think Gwen Ifill is going to let Sarah Palin bullshit her way through this debate then you must never have seen a debate moderated by Gwen Ifill before. Ifill will insist that Palin give comprehensive, well informed answers, and Sarah Palin simply cannot do that. And on Thursday night the whole country is going to see that for themselves.

Thursday night is going to be an evening of "must watch tv" all around the nation.