• by Barbara Lippert , Columnist, October 2, 2024

The cliché, of course, is “First, do no harm,” and that applies to debates -- especially the debates of vice-presidential running mates.

In the end, no great harm was done, and I’d be surprised if last night’s too-long proceedings changed many minds.

But there were surprises. Rather than the kindly uncle we knew, Walz showed up as a deer in the headlights, and had a rough start.

I knew him for his jovial, punchy demeanor. I’d never seen his eyes defrocked of glasses or as unfocused and filled with fright.

Whereas Vance came out in his empathetic man suit, blue eyes blazing. He seemed charismatic, with none of the awkward or yes, weird, stuff we saw in his retail politics and on the stump for the last few months. That rocky rollout had earned him the highest unfavorables in the history of campaigns. (Those numbers have since gone up.)

Behind the podium, Vance seemed smooth, polished, and above all, reasonable, like a Yale graduate who could easily talk his way into a billionaire-funded startup.

This JD, who agreed that the Republicans have lost some trust, was a world away from the dude making childless cat lady statements on right-wing MAGA podcasts.

I didn’t recognize either candidate until later in the debate.

Before the TV doings, the Harris/Walz camp was trying to lower expectations, but I didn’t want to believe them, as Walz had risen to every occasion before this.

After, my Democratic friends were in a funk over his performance.

For starters, some pointed to how pasty and sweaty he looked. But the makeup, or lack of it, was not the problem.

(Although it did remind me of how key the visuals are, as we learned in the legendary Kennedy/Nixon debate. Due to Nixon’s unattractive “five o’clock shadow,” TV viewers thought Kennedy won, while radio listeners gave the win to Nixon.)

Unlike Vance, debating is not Walz’ strong suit. If Walz had had some serious litigating or DA chops, like Harris’, he could have questioned and challenged Vance many times on his infuriating statements. But instead, he seemed more comfortable looking for points of harmony and agreement, which is in his nature. It made the evening much more civil, but was maddening in a debate with just one month left in the campaign.. 

And granted, with no audience, and only powerful lights, cameras and two moderators to face, it was a tough room to work.

In her debate with Trump, among Harris’ great strengths was the way she presented in the split screens. Self-assured and in control, she listened to the former president’s outlandish ramblings -- like, Haitians are eating our house pets -- with aplomb, occasionally smiling or even laughing good-naturedly, as if to say, “Can you believe this guy?”

Whereas Walz had no split-screen TV game at all. He didn’t seem to be aware that his rattled and flustered expressions in reaction shots were shown on camera as JD blamed all the world’s ills -- including climate change, COVID and inflation -- on Kamala’s failed border program..

Those claims were twisted. And as a VP candidate himself, surely Vance knows the limits of the position.  No VP can’t be more powerful than a locomotive, or able to leap tall buildings, Congress, the President, and our neighboring countries to the south.

But finally, in the last few minutes, Walz found his footing. Almost 90 minutes in, he was able to lodge the knockout question of the night. He turned to Vance and asked directly if Trump had indeed lost the 2020 election.

And when Vance said he was “focused on the future,” Walz pointed out that his GOP opponent had delivered a “damning non-answer.”

Vance’s loyalty to the Trump line was why he was picked. And Walz later pointed out that his predecessor Pence’s loyalty to the Constitution was why he wasn’t there on stage.

In finishing up, Walz said, “What I’m concerned about is, where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his vice president’s not going to stand up?”

He continued, telling voters that they have a “real clear choice” between the two vice presidential candidates: One who would “honor democracy,” and another who would “honor Donald Trump.”

In the end, moments like these are what really count when people later watch the coverage as a series of clips. But to make sure it was circulating,  by morning, the Harris/Vance campaign had already turned that interplay into a powerful ad.

Great question, Tim. Perhaps it even requires that fearful look in your eyes.