This morning on Face the Nation, Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm said of Sarah Palin's debate performance, "Michigan is hurting. We don't want to hear 'By golly, oh shucks, dog-gone-it.'"

Throughout the show, it seemed like the two main topics were Wall Street and Palin. Her debate performance, if she's ready to be Vice President, her politics, her style, her female fans, etc.

One of the most interesting questions of the show was, are her fans valuing style over substance or substance over style? How would Republicans have reacted if Hilary Clinton had been winking and mugging for the camera? The earliest criticisms of Obama centered on his preacher-like style. "His speeches sound like he's in a church!" an 80 year old woman said to me. "I can't trust him! "

"His fans are too fanatical!", "He speaks too vaguely!", "He doesn't have any substance - It's all just fancy rhetoric." I'm sure any of Obama's early supporters remember these criticisms. But what now? Why is Palin's style so highly valued now that it's clear that she's been front-loaded her substance? Michele Norris described Palin as "Allergic to complexity." Palin is able to talk about the things she's been told. If there's a surprise, she can't hold her own and use her experience and reason to answer a question.

Also, on Face the Nation, Sarah Palin's gumption was a topic of conversation. Common sense, horse sense, boldness, aggressiveness...Maverick. Do we really want a cowboy or an action star for a president?

Isn't that what got us into this mess?