With the deepening economic crisis and the overall gravity of this election, why am I (and others hung up on how Sarah Palin will perform in the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday night?

The main reason, I think, is that the Katie Couric interview I saw scared me so much that I’ve been on a fact-finding mission to determine if this woman is for real. I’ve watched some of her 2006 gubernatorial debates and her interview with Janet Napolitano on Charlie Rose. My conclusion is that she’s definitely more politically adroit than she revealed in the Couric interviews, but there’s something unsettling about watching even these, more polished, appearances. She seems to be gliding through these appearances with no one really questioning her core beliefs.

This might be patently unfair, but after watching these videos, Palin’s rise reminds me of Peter Sellers’ character in Being There.

In the movie, Sellers plays a gardener who works tending a rich man’s garden. he lives a relatively sheltered life and thus learns about the outside world through television. When his employer dies, Chance must go out on his own. Through a series of misunderstandings and chance encounters, he becomes an adviser to the U.S. president and a celebrity. The media celebrates his “folksy wisdom” and he is ultimately tapped to be president.

Of course, Palin has more political skill and is actually conscious of her state of affairs, but her appeal strikes me as similar to that of Sellers’ character. Her very anti-intellectualism is seen as a boon to those whose political ideology she shares. For the rest who are not ideological, she’s an every woman. Judith Warner refers to Palin as tapping into the “inner Elle Woods” of lots of women (and probably men).

But this is a scary proposition. take for instance this incredibly insightful article by Andrew Halcro, an independent gubernatorial candidate who debated Palin twice in 2006. He recalls comparing notes post debate with Palin when she offered this observation:

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?

While we all can relate to instances where we felt “over our heads” and it is appealing to turn to “simplicity” as a response to a complex world, but it strikes me as a great dice roll to elect people to high office based on “folksiness.” I’ll be watching Thursday with great interest.

Update: Oh…my….holy…god!