Tonight's debate was a dispiriting display. Both candidates spoke rather negatively and gave the same answers I've heard already. When the word "Iran" was mentioned, out came the same answers. Same for "taxes" or "healthcare," etc.
The negativity was no surprise, given the rhetoric of the past week. Sarah Palin has apparently adopted the mission of questioning Barack Obama's character by association and fitness as Commander in Chief, and declared that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Unfortunately, Obama felt the need to respond with a discussion of McCain's Keating 5 scandal. A similar tone dominated the discussion tonight, though no mention was made of any of these specific things that are being discussed in campaign stops. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to try to evaluate the negativity of each candidate tonight, and I don't have the benefit of a transcript yet so I have scant examples, but McCain's negativity feels more "belittling" to me than Obama's negativity. McCain's worst example that I can remember was during some discussion of an energy bill when McCain jabbed a thumb toward Obama and called him "that one." Just unsettling to me. If I had to scale the negativity, I would score Obama at 4 out of 10 and McCain at 6.
On substance, as I mentioned, I heard nothing new. It seemed to me that on two questions Obama passed McCain by a clear margin. One question that Obama handled with a substantive answer over McCain was the young man who asked about specifics from the bailout bill that would help middle income earners. Obama gave an explanation about the availability of credit that might have actually answered the guy's question. The other question that Obama succeeded on very well was "what will you ask Americans to sacrifice?" McCain proposed a spending freeze and fewer "earmarks." If the earmarks are wasteful, how is that a sacrifice? If spending is out of control, how is a freeze a sacrifice? Obama did not give the full call for sacrifice I think is probably needed, but he at least did answer that we have to conserve resources in our households and our businesses. One other Q&A that stood out to me was once again the "Pakistan" question. Except this time the questioner was very smart, and included "let them go back across the Pakistani border like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?" I have expressed before that I cannot understand why McCain digs in his heels on this issue, and especially tonight in the face of the Cambodia comparison. Very damming of McCain's thought process, in my opinion.
On the non-verbal part of the evening, Bill Clinton can rest easy. He remains the King Of The Town Hall. If you have time, read this amazing account of Clinton and town hall events: "The Visual Byte: Bill Clinton and His Town Hall Meeting Style." Obama's visual performace was not notable, but will also give no one anything to talk about. McCain did pretty well, but sometimes seemed to wander the set. Once he answered a question without raising his microphone. And when Brokaw was ending, McCain walked in front of Brokaw's teleprompter, apparently not aware Tom was reading from it and it threw McCain in a blur in front of the camera. Three small things there, but gave people something to mention.
My "who won" polls have apparently bothered some readers. I guess candidates aren't the only people reluctant to answer a yes or no question. I'm all for nuance, so feel free to give your refined answers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I only have a quick moment to comment, but I will agree that it felt very anti-climactic. Both were at times petty and mean spirited. I believe that Barack had no choice but to force himself to behave that way. He would not let McCain end w/ his misleading crap. The whole format was a disaster. I thought that JM would really knock it out of the park. Apparently, he is really only spectacular when it is his own fans.
Across the board, I would say that there were no winners. No new revelations on how they would rule, but just more talking points and stump speeches. How many times did we hear, "we must sit across the table" and nothing about what would be on that table. They should allow follow-up after follow-up until at least one of them offers up a legitimate answer.
That is all I've got for now.
I was bored to the point of not finishing the debate.
At this time in the campaign I feel like I've heard what each candidate plans to do, and most questions asked are answered with their canned monologue - vaguely connected to the question.
The Town Hall attempt seemed pretty lame overall, in terms of production. From my limited experience (about 30 minutes viewed), the only difference I saw from a standard debate was that the candidates didn't get as much chance to banter back and forth. They were each cut off by Brokaw when attempting to respond to the opponent's comments.
And the "town hall people" looked uncomfortable, like they were told sternly to not react to anything or they'd have to spend the evening with Chris Matthews.
I doubt I even attempt to watch the third debate. I'll just catch a hard-hitting recap the next morning on The View.
Post a Comment