The Note: Soft Bigotry?

Oct. 2, 2008— -- ST. LOUIS -- Maybe Sarah Barracuda knows her head fakes.

Might the stumbling, halting performances have been the best thing that could have happened to Gov. Sarah Palin?

Surely she can clear the bar Tina Fey set for her. Certainly she's been studying up on issues that move beyond Alaska's proximity to Russia. Naturally she'll find a way to ease in some zingers that she knows better than most will be the soundbites people remember. (And if all else fails -- blame the refs.)

It's a face-off of a peculiar sort on tap for 8 pm CT (9 pm ET) Thursday: Palin and Sen. Joe Biden will be measured on their interactions with each other, but mostly they'll be measured against themselves. And, sorry, Joe, most of the public is tuning in to see only one of the two candidates on stage at Washington University in St. Louis.

This is the Palin-Biden debate -- though really it will be Palin's night, the single biggest opportunity for the nation to see its celebrity candidate doing something close to approximating the work she'd be presumed to have to do should she win.

And with a fresh round of national and state-level polls showing some Obama separation -- and some Palin drag -- there may be no better chance for the McCain-Palin ticket to jump back into the ballgame.

(What does it say about the McCain-Palin team's confidence that the conservative noise machine was trying to drown out the moderator before a question has been asked? And when will Team McCain get introduced to the Google?)

This is star power, fading:

"Skepticism about Sarah Palin has soared since she entered the national political stage, with six in 10 Americans now doubting her qualifications for office and fewer than half convinced of her grasp of complex issues," ABC polling director Gary Langer writes of the new ABC News/Washington Post numbers.

"In advance of her debate against Joe Biden tonight, Palin now looks more like a drag than a boost to the GOP ticket: Thirty-two percent of registered voters say her selection makes them less likely to support John McCain for president, up from 19 percent last month," Langer writes. "Just 35 percent say Palin has the experience it takes to serve effectively as president, down a dozen points since early September; 60 percent think not, up 15."

"Public assessments of Sarah Palin's readiness have plummeted, and she may now be a drag on the Republican ticket among key voter groups," Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta write for The Washington Post. "Though she initially transformed the race with her energizing presence and a fiery convention speech, Palin is now a much less positive force: Six in 10 voters see her as lacking the experience to be an effective president, and a third are now less likely to vote for McCain because of her. . . . In early September, independents offered a divided verdict on Palin's experience; now they take the negative view by about 2 to 1."

With that as backdrop, "Any mistake or gaffe by Palin could be fatal," ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported on "Good Morning America" Thursday. "If she has a moment like she had in her interviews with Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric and draws a blank, that could be fatal for the McCain campaign because the numbers are riding on her so much."

What to expect: "In his debate against Palin tonight, Biden will try to show gracious restraint, and focus his attacks against McCain, Obama campaign aides tell ABC News. Meanwhile, McCain campaign aides say Palin will attempt to aggressively take the fight to Obama."

On the bright side -- does this mean the Supreme Court is off the table for Thursday night?

The freshest Palin memory is of the last piece of the Katie Couric interview: Palin seemingly not able to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with (and -- surely setting off alarm bells among social conservatives -- saying she does believe the Constitution protects a right to privacy).

"Hmmm," Palin said after a brief silence that she soon filled with words. "Well, let's see. There's -- of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but . . . ."

ABC's Ariane de Vogue offers a lifeline: "Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857, which held that blacks -- slaves or free -- could not be or become U.S. citizens; Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, [where] the court upheld racial segregation under the doctrine separate but equal]; Korematsu v. United States, 1944, [which] upheld the internment orders for Americans of Japanese descent during World War II."

Another answer that would have worked, per ABC's Jake Tapper: "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the Supreme Court's recent Boumediene v. Bush decision -- ruling that Gitmo detainees have a Constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts -- 'one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.' "

Keep in mind that Palin's appeal is not necessarily on substantive grounds -- and that what she does and says connects with voters in a way media elites just don't/can't/won't get.

"Despite the potential limits of her appeal, Palin has exhibited a rare ability to establish an emotional connection with Republican women who flock to her rallies," Maeve Reston writes in the Los Angeles Times. "In interviews with more than 20, few mentioned specific issues or shared ideology to explain their support -- more often they described Palin as 'real,' 'gutsy' and 'tenacious.' "

Will this work Thursday? "Palin sliced and diced the more experienced, data-driven legislator and another foe during some two dozen debates in Alaska's 2006 gubernatorial race," David Saltonstall writes in the New York Daily News. "She did it not with sharp discourses on policy, but with the same talent she's shown since becoming the Republican veep choice -- a folksy tone, delivered in meandering, run-on sentences that mostly kill the clock but occasionally slice like a knife."

Does this all mean she might not be a disaster? "The smart money says Palin will emerge with, at most, superficial wounds," Michelle Cottle writes for The New Republic. "In part, this is about the expectations game: Post-Katie, the bar has been set so low for Palin that, unless she faints or vomits on air, her team will rush to declare a victory--not just for her, but for all of Joe Six-Pack America. But it is also about Palin's particular skill set, the audience she's playing to, and the nature of the political media."

Yet it's a hard format for her to win, and an easy one for her to lose:

"Thursday night's debate in St. Louis gives her a chance to overcome the doubts in a 90-minute showcase, the first time most Americans outside Alaska will see her in a lengthy give-and-take session," the AP's Beth Fouhy writes. "On the other hand, a poor performance against Biden, the Delaware senator, could cement a negative image for the rest of the campaign."