Hard News: The Debate and Onwards
242 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
@Kyle, "post turtle"; genius. Cheers.
@RB
Something happened there, and we might find ourselves talking about it as a campaign turning point.
Perhaps and the link to Fallows piece makes sense; that Obama's feeling secure about his base and therefore going after as yet undecided voters. Still, I also wanted him to get tougher with McCain and was pleased on the few occassions he did (including the best few lines of the debate on McCain's errors of judgment on the WoT).
I thought Obama started stronger and looked and sounded, throughout, the better candidate. My only criticism was that, on occassion, he complicated matters unecessarily - the issues are complex, but in that format, simplicity is essential - if anything, McCain bested him by keeping things simple (if not by concious decision then by ignorance).
-
This was supposed to be McCain's area of expertise - and Obama's weakest point. I thought Obama held his own - except maybe on Iran. And yes, he's shot up in the polls as a result.
But I tend to agree with Maureen Dowd at the NYTimes who pointed out that Obama wasn't hard enough on McCain. She said:
Obama did a poor job of getting under McCain’s skin. Or maybe McCain did an exceptional job of not letting Obama get under his skin. McCain nattered about earmarks and Obama ran out of gas.
he was too nice?
I'm looking forward to a Biden annihilation of Palin, although Palin's lot have been careful not to agree to such an open format.
-
FDR, usually photographed sitting down.
-
My only criticism was that, on occasion, [Obama] complicated matters unnecessarily - the issues are complex, but in that format, simplicity is essential
I couldn't agree more. He doesn't have to abandon his professorial mien altogether, but it would be nice to have a little variety in tone, slightly more folksy/churchy language, and some more punchy phrasing.
Like, the second time he rattled off his laundry list of alternative energy sources, instead of the same blah blah blah, I'd have loved to hear him say something like "We're going to solve this with good old American know-how. We have the best universities in the world, the smartest and most dedicated factory floor workforce, some of the cleverest designers and technicians, and a population that sees no limit to what can be achieved..."
It doesn't have to be 100% true, it just has to sound true and inviting, "hey yeah" rather than "will this be on the test, sir?" And a bit more "you and I" and "we" would be nice; verbal gestures that include the audience. I do respect his Cool Hand Luke (almost Vulcan) persona, but a dollop of warmth and humanity and personal connection would be decisively to his advantage.
-
but speaking of debates...
Are our broadcasters just gonna cave to the little deal cooked up between Clark and Key and shut all other parties out of the debate?
TV3 already has,by the look of it.
Are they going to run at least one "minor party debate"?
-
He was self-aware. McCain, whether by design or temperament, made virtually no eye contact with Obama in 90 minutes.
There’s some very interesting insights in the comments sections of both the Huffpo article by Michael Shaw and on his Bagnews site.
From Huffpo.
Michael, youre perceptions are quite accurate. I'm a dance therapist and what I can tell you is that the body never lies. You (I) can tell you a person's entire life story from watching their body movements. McCain is not affectionate with his wife or children. He is only affectionate with his male buddies. His contempt for Obama was despicable. He should have showed some graciousness. This should serve as an example of McCain's inability to work with world leaders and his lack of diplomatic skills.
McCain does not have a warm relationship with his wife or family. He and Cindy lead separate lives. In other words he lacks emotional intelligence. Obama's emotional intelligence is very high. He loves and respects his wife and children; their is a lot of physical affection amongst them which is a sign of emotional health. I want a president who has a healthy relationship with his wife.
And from the Bag. One view.
"I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that."
And another.
I don't think this is accurate at all. Sorry. I enjoy watching primates myself, certainly I'm no expert, but primates can exhibit this behavior for other reasons as well. An older, dominant but fading silverback can ignore a powerful rival in his troop and not make eye contact at all, because he knows what the future brings. Another reason for lack of eye contact, stiff body language and physical ticks in primates, as in people, can be the result of abuse or emotional/mental instability. The latter is probably the case with McCain. Because fear is not the explanation for McCain's behavior.
-
slightly more folksy/churchy language
Or American voters might some day decide that they want a President with a brain, rather than some hick from the sticks who believes in fondling poisonous snakes.
People, representative democracy doesn't mean your leader needs to be as thick as you are!
-
Oh, certainly. But I didn't say exclusively folksy/churchy language. Just a smattering of it. The way that, if you're constructing a quilt out of a handful of related colours, you add in a dash of a contrasting colour to make it all the more beautiful.
I was just hoping for more of the Obama we saw in his 2004 debut at the Democratic convention, y'know? That section about the bottom-line similarities between the red states/blue states had people on their feet. I like that stuff and think he could do with a bit more of it. I know he's keeping his powder dry, but it's not a sin to be quotable.
-
Wow, check out McCain's animus against Obama in this exchange of letters from 2006.
(Link via a comment in the BAGnotes thread Bob mentioned above).
-
@Cindy, thanks for this link - I need to read Dowd more often, she's smart and a great writer. I loved this line about W's (and McCain's )screw-ups on the bail-out deal:
It was quite a memorable moment in history for the M.B.A. president and the nominee of the party of business. Who would have dreamed that when socialism finally came to the U.S.A. it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street bankers in Gucci loafers?
@Jolisa; the odd thing was that he did have many moments of simple clarity and I liked the fact that his comments on the economy were sprinkled with regular examples but on foreign policy, he got lost.
<wank> It's was like being witness to total scientific incommensurability; McCain as the Newtonian reacting with equal and opposite force "giddy-up, lets invade Iran" and Obama pushing String Theory to explain how the lack of affordable health care was somehow related to Georgia's membership of NATO... (perhaps I've pushed the metaphor__too far__)<wank>
-
Are our broadcasters just gonna cave to the little deal cooked up between Clark and Key and shut all other parties out of the debate?
Cindy: To be fair, I don't think it's going to be that bad -- in 2005, both Three and TVNZ had 'minor party' debates, and separate ones for Brash and Clark. But it's the utter reality-deficient arrogance on display that pisses me off. Clark (and I'm not picking on her, she just happened to be on the noon bulletin I saw) that "well, one of us is going to be the Prime Minister, and that's what people should be focused on."
Someone should write John and Helen a reality check, and remind them they're unlikely to be there without one or more of those irritating minnows. You may beg to differ, but I'd find both their interactions with Sharples and Norman (or Turia and Fitzsimmons) pretty damn interesting. And it might actually be pretty decisive to some swing voters, which (I suspect) is what scares the shit out of them. Do you really think either Key or Clark want to risk being stuck answering pointed questions from their potential dance partners on unfiltered, live television?
-
Or American voters might some day decide that they want a President with a brain, rather than some hick from the sticks who believes in fondling poisonous snakes.
Karl fucking Marx, Rich.... If you'd like to wipe the perma-sneer off your face for a moment, anyone who speaks or writes English worthy of the name might like to consider the influence the cadences and language of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Ever listen to Gospel or Bach? Looked at a Colin McCahon or read Baxter, Curnow or Janet Frame?
-
Craig
But it's the utter reality-deficient arrogance on display that pisses me off
exactly. Who the hell are they to do a deal?
I do, though, think that TV3 and TVNZ should both call their bluff and say "thanks, but no thanks - there will be no debate then"
... but it seems the terminology "spineless wonders" is extending from Clark/Key to the b.casters themselves.
-
I do, though, think that TV3 and TVNZ should both call their bluff and say "thanks, but no thanks - there will be no debate then"
Wishy-washy me sees both sides of this. I think a couple of head-to-head's between the old party leaders is needed; they're going to win or lose Treasury benches afterall, not the minors. But then the minors will be king-makers so there needs to be a forum for them all. I say this, however, as a supporter of Labour, I might not see it that way otherwise...
-
Cindy,
You’re overlooking the main advantage of a two-way leaders’ debate.
No Peter Dunne.
-
Karl fucking Marx, Rich
Actually, old Karl had a bit to say on why the people of the US are the way they are.
Also, you've met me and I'm sure I wasn't sneering.
-
I'm looking forward to a Biden annihilation of Palin
That will not happen. Whatever Palin's credentials she isn't that stupid (really) and she can talk. Those debates aren't about accuracy or grasp facts. Just look how often McCain stretched the truth WRT Obama. He didn't give two hoots whether he was right or wrong. A tie in the Palin / Biden debate will be news (so no doubt the news media will welcome that) and it will be seen as defeat for Biden/Obama, just as a tie is victory for Obama.
Look for yet another "Palin" bounce which, one hopes, will happen far enough away from the election not to matter.
-
That will not happen. Whatever Palin's credentials she isn't that stupid (really) and she can talk.
OTOH, every time she's been interviewed in an even vaguely unscripted manner it has not gone well, which is why she has been shielded from the press so much. She got pretty incoherent at some points during the Couric interview - "Putin is rearing his head into Alaskan airspace", anyone? - and she doesn't need to be very incoherent to look bad in a debate.
-
Whatever Palin's credentials she isn't that stupid (really) and she can talk.
If stringing together random snippets of English counts as talking. I mean, really, you've seen the Couric interviews? (And the SNL take on them, which uses verbatim quotes).
-
Whoops, yeah. What Lucy said.
-
And Hendrik Hertzberg from the New Yorker.
-
If stringing together random snippets of English counts as talking.
Have a dig around for older, pre-VP, interviews. A different Palin emerges.
Whilst the current crop of interviews make Palin look like an idiot the debates will be different. She won't even be asked ... "give me some examples of...". She will be able to make statements about JM being a maverick, about earmarks about Obama teaching sex to children and essentially remain unchallenged, unless Biden wants to look like a bully boy.
-
3410,
Putin is rearing his head into Alaskan airspace
-
A tie in the Palin / Biden debate will be news (so no doubt the news media will welcome that) and it will be seen as defeat for Biden/Obama
This. She's expected to do so badly that if she doesn't just giggle and fall over, it'll be seen as a win.
-
I thought one of the points of having Biden was that he was allowed to savage the opposition when Obama wasn't. Let's see him just shred her. Unfortunately, it won't happen because I believe the format is structured to just be sound bite exchange rather than actual debate.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.