They are almost always boring. There are such high stakes, and the errors that have (possibly) cost candidates the presidency are so famous that the campaigns and candidates know how to play not to lose. Just like as kids grow up, tic-tac-toe slowly progresses will it's always a tie. As the TV era goes on, campaigns learn how not to make fatal mistakes, and the debates are always ties now.
Yeah, yeah, McCain was churlish and never looked at Obama, and the media thought McCain won, and the snap polls suggested Obama won. Whatever.
I watched it. I was so bored I had to get the computer and blog while watching.
Was anybody's mind changed by this exercise? It seems like any undecideds who base their decision on the debates must be picking their candidate based on who has a nicer baritone. Just silly.
On another note, I liked Lehrer and the format. He basically threw out the topic and faded into the background, occasionally asking follow-up questions. Not bad, compared to other formats.
5 comments:
I don't know. I thought it was a good discussion. I think it made very clear the difference between McCain's position of isolating enemies, and Obama's carrot & stick approach.
I also thought it was pretty obvious that they have different strategies for the economy.
I thought McCain seemed kind of like an ass, but I'm a Democrat. Mostly I thought it was a good picture of where they both stand and they both looked prepared an informed.
I had a hard time watching the first half hour as they both seemed SO uncomfortable with the format that it was painfully awkward. Lehrer at one point in the first exchange had to direct them to address each other instead of him, and I immediately thought of a parent telling two kids in an argument to apologize... not to me, to Barack... now, you tell John... OK, that's better, now let's talk this out...
Toward the end of the economics portion Lehrer tried in vain to get an answer to "how has this crisis affected your governing philosophy regarding the economy," and despite repeated attempts neither of them seemed to get the point of the question.
I thought the format was an excellent idea that both candidates absolutely failed to take advantage of. They got more comfortable by the end, but even when they extended their talking points into coherent thoughts, they rarely actively engaged each other's ideas, and they certainly never showed any sign that the discussion might spur them to hear or think or say anything new. I certainly came into the event thinking that it was designed to accomodate the "post-partisanship" era. But, that's not how either of them treated it.
I can't stand to hear McCain make one more reference to his POW experience. It's gone from being a powerful story of sacrifice and honor to a crass and cynical trump card to be played over every issue where he wants some hint of moral superiority. Kerry made the same mistake, though my disgust for the Swiftboaters canceled out my ire at his overuse of his story.
To be sure, last night I also finally got sick of Obama's multi-culti family history cropping up in his canned closing remarks.
McCain's repeated dismissal of Obama as naive or foolish struck me as pretty weak, especially given how often he misrepresented Obama's actual positions in order to lob that insult.
Worst example: Obama explains why Iraq was a strategic mistake in the war on terror, regardless of the success of the surge or any other tactics in that battle. In response, McCain says Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy and he starts to try to school Obama. It was all Obama could do not to leap across the stage and beat him over the head with a dictionary.
I though McCain discussing is POWness is no more wearing on my than Obama's relentless reminders that he is from Kansas. He needs to wear a "I am white" sign so he can stop.
I think Lehrer was good, but the format worked because regardless of a tone of dismissiveness, this was the most civil presidential debate of my lifetime.
Post a Comment