Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect a U.S. presidential debate to deal substantively - and honestly - with wrongful actions by the American government, even at the end of George W. Bush's eight-year reign as one of the planet's preeminent rogue operatives.Considering the extreme state of the U.S. today - failing economy, credit crisis, housing bust, high unemployment rates, "the war on terror," and a very unpopular Iraq war - I, for one, expected fireworks from the first debate between McCain and Obama. Instead, we got some solid debating, some shaky debating, some good presidential-like moments, and some petty ones; all in all, there were no terribly memorable moments or much very straight forward explanation of how they would change current policy. The news media seemed to agree, publishing quite a few articles that echoed the following :
"At that debate, against the backdrop of the economic crisis, neither candidate scored significantly or caused much damage to the other. But the differences between the two were evident on issues ranging from federal spending to diplomacy with rogue nations."
Of course, even a seeming even handed analysis of the way the two men appeared to their audiences was not acceptable for media-hater McCain. In the spirit of the sameness of all that was talked about Friday night, it was good to hear that McCain still considers the news media to be in the tank for Obama.
and that, due to the poor showing of McCain's campaign last week, he did well to surprise the audience with a tough performance, "Though McCain's stab at becoming the hero of the economic crisis blew up, some of the damage may have been mitigated by his solid debate performance," Among the traditional news media, this seemed to be the consensus. There was simply no clear winner.
Perhaps the event on par with the debate was the frenzy of punditry spin that followed. Flipping through the cable channels projected on the large white screen of the media room that had been reserved for the purposes of debate partying, CNN, MSNBC, and FOXnews played the parts we all expected.
One event of notice that I did not anticipate becoming a talking point was the fact that Obama said, during the debate, that he agreed with Senator McCain on a few points, even praising him for being tough on torture. Though it was generally only mentioned in written news articles and discussed much more by television pundits, what seemed - to me - to be Obama's cordiality was criticized for being a sign of weakness. The McCain campaign has even used it against Obama.
Obama was compared to other debaters such as Gore who, after being criticized for seeming too disagreeable, made it a point to agree with Bush a few times in one of the 2000 debates.
Personally, my head is beginning to spin at the proof positive that it is impossible to get elected without being a populist. Certainly, there are times when two opposing candidates can agree on something: the safety of the country, that torture should not be allowed by the American government, that the world should agree to nuclear non-proliferation... And the statement of agreement would not be criticized as bowing to the "enemy."
I have not seem that many elections during my short years of being politically conscious; this one is certainly the most important to me (though I must say, I hung my head with shame when G.W. Bush was elected, and cried a little when he was elected again - especially in light of the tragedy that was the beginning of the Iraq war). But I hear they always turn in to boxing matches.
What's the point though? If people truly make their decisions based on party loyalty, and the fact that we only have two political parties, why have campaigning at all. Just campaign to the undecideds - and leave the decision up to them. These limits of acceptability when it comes to political parties are like a Christian and an Aethiest arguing about the existence of a god: they are simply fundamental differences in perspective that will never be made the same. (Some people think its great to shoot wolves from hovering helicopters, I think its appalling - and I don't think I will ever change my mind about that nor can I begin to understand the mindset that lets some people think its okay.) So what is the point of getting so nasty? What is the point of lying, or exagerrating? Or picking apart words in sentences?
There is so much coverage out there and everyone seems to have a distinguished opinion - life seems like it should be much more simple. Aim to do what's good for everyone, recognizing that everyone has a different idea about what's good. Just at least admit that! But, I digress.
If the media has anything to do with it, the next debates should be much better. The one thing that McCain and Obama can rely on is the media spin on public opinion; the research is right there on TV, telling the candidates what to do. Candidates, take a lesson from all those youtube clips or the video section of MSNBC, or FoxNews, and figure it out! People want straight talk, they want clear stances, and they want to see solid leadership - and apparently, they don't want to see Obama and McCain agreeing with each other; in this age of instant access, reaching the consensus doesn't get any easier. McCain and Obama just have to make sure that they hire smart kids to get through all that info.
Mr. McCain, of Arizona, gave his own opinion on his performance Friday night. Speaking to Representative Charles W. Pickering Jr., Republican of Mississippi, he was recorded by a television crew as saying, "I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie, but I think that means when they call it a tie that means we win."However, from the point of view of the audience, the news media seems to have the collective opinion that neither candidate came out a prominent shining star but both had their moments. Many editorials echoed the notion that the debate was too-close-to-call
and that, due to the poor showing of McCain's campaign last week, he did well to surprise the audience with a tough performance, "Though McCain's stab at becoming the hero of the economic crisis blew up, some of the damage may have been mitigated by his solid debate performance," Among the traditional news media, this seemed to be the consensus. There was simply no clear winner.
Perhaps the event on par with the debate was the frenzy of punditry spin that followed. Flipping through the cable channels projected on the large white screen of the media room that had been reserved for the purposes of debate partying, CNN, MSNBC, and FOXnews played the parts we all expected.
One event of notice that I did not anticipate becoming a talking point was the fact that Obama said, during the debate, that he agreed with Senator McCain on a few points, even praising him for being tough on torture. Though it was generally only mentioned in written news articles and discussed much more by television pundits, what seemed - to me - to be Obama's cordiality was criticized for being a sign of weakness. The McCain campaign has even used it against Obama.
Obama was compared to other debaters such as Gore who, after being criticized for seeming too disagreeable, made it a point to agree with Bush a few times in one of the 2000 debates.
Personally, my head is beginning to spin at the proof positive that it is impossible to get elected without being a populist. Certainly, there are times when two opposing candidates can agree on something: the safety of the country, that torture should not be allowed by the American government, that the world should agree to nuclear non-proliferation... And the statement of agreement would not be criticized as bowing to the "enemy."
I have not seem that many elections during my short years of being politically conscious; this one is certainly the most important to me (though I must say, I hung my head with shame when G.W. Bush was elected, and cried a little when he was elected again - especially in light of the tragedy that was the beginning of the Iraq war). But I hear they always turn in to boxing matches.
What's the point though? If people truly make their decisions based on party loyalty, and the fact that we only have two political parties, why have campaigning at all. Just campaign to the undecideds - and leave the decision up to them. These limits of acceptability when it comes to political parties are like a Christian and an Aethiest arguing about the existence of a god: they are simply fundamental differences in perspective that will never be made the same. (Some people think its great to shoot wolves from hovering helicopters, I think its appalling - and I don't think I will ever change my mind about that nor can I begin to understand the mindset that lets some people think its okay.) So what is the point of getting so nasty? What is the point of lying, or exagerrating? Or picking apart words in sentences?
There is so much coverage out there and everyone seems to have a distinguished opinion - life seems like it should be much more simple. Aim to do what's good for everyone, recognizing that everyone has a different idea about what's good. Just at least admit that! But, I digress.
If the media has anything to do with it, the next debates should be much better. The one thing that McCain and Obama can rely on is the media spin on public opinion; the research is right there on TV, telling the candidates what to do. Candidates, take a lesson from all those youtube clips or the video section of MSNBC, or FoxNews, and figure it out! People want straight talk, they want clear stances, and they want to see solid leadership - and apparently, they don't want to see Obama and McCain agreeing with each other; in this age of instant access, reaching the consensus doesn't get any easier. McCain and Obama just have to make sure that they hire smart kids to get through all that info.
Leave a comment