learnandteachonline.com

"Some of Palin's interview responses can't even be critiqued on their merits because they're so nonsensical," Kathleen Parker says in her op-ed about the hate mail the conservative writer has received since calling for Sarah Palin to drop off the GOP ticket.

What if Gwen Ifill, moderator of the VP debate, didn't discriminate against Joe Biden by giving Palin a pass on her public statements? What if she made an assumption that all candidate statements are equal, and examined Palin's speaking in tongues at face value? What if she gave Palin the honor of pretending she is a serious candidate?

It's not uncommon for a debate moderator to cite a candidate's public comment and ask each participant to remark. For example, Ifill might quote from this part of the Katie Couric interviews on CBS.

Ultimately, what the bailout does, is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending. We've got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we have, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created, in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Then, she might pose this question: Governor Palin has calculated that the bailout of the financial sector falls under the more broad umbrella of job creation. The way candidates envision the hierarchy of issues can be a clue to the relative value they assign to them. So, Senator Biden, I'll ask you to comment on whether you would structure an outline of the issues in this way -- placing the bailout as a subset of job creation -- then we'll hear Governor Palin's response.

Think about it. Since when is it fair to cordon off a whole category of questioning about previous statements, and judge it to be out of bounds on the basis that the candidate was just prattling and must be excused for it? Nobody else would be held to that standard.