But just as she does now, Ms. Palin often spoke in generalities and showed scant aptitude for developing arguments beyond a talking point or two. Her sentences were distinguished by their repetition of words, by the use of the phrase “here in Alaska” and for gaps. On paper, her sentences would have been difficult to diagram.

John Bitney, the policy director for her campaign for governor and the main person who helped prepare her for debates, said her repetition of words was “her way of running down the clock as her mind searches for where she wants to go.”

These tendencies could fuzz her meaning and lead her into linguistic cul-de-sacs.

When I read the passage above, it doesn’t sound like an especially singular or unfamiliar description. If pressed, I’d say that it sounds more like the rule than the exception when it comes to political debates. Some folks are worse than others when it comes to such practices, but I’m VERY used to politicians falling back on vague general talking points because they are either blanking on specifics or don’t have a great counterargument. Happens all the time.

However, I don’t see the need to belabor this, since we’ll all be better able to make our judgements firsthand in just a few hours. My sense is that most of the folks here at donklephant are treating the outcome “Palin falls flat on her face” as a virtual foregone conclusion.

I’m still skeptical, but we’ll all know soon enough. My guess is that she avoids outright gaffes, but seems weak and faltering to me on more than one occasion. Whether that’s the impression the GenPub also gets will still remain to be seen, regardless of my impression. After all, I viewed the 1st Obama-McCain debate as pretty much a draw. But I agree that the polls seem to suggest that Obama won on demeanor.

Like it or not, the “winner” in a debate is whoever takes away the best impression in the eyes of the general public.