Hard News: The Debate and Onwards
242 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
The format is structured to just be sound bite exchange rather than actual debate
Exactly. It's fairly obvious why.
the CBS interview was extraordinary. CNN's Cafferty wasn't impressed.
-
Yowza, McCafferty is angry! Love it! That's what I would like to see Biden dishing out to Palin in their "debate" but I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed. The more media canings for Sarah the better, I say. It's going to take every ounce of her ignorance to outdo the colour of Barack's skin.
-
Look for yet another "Palin" bounce which, one hopes, will happen far enough away from the election not to matter.
I'd be satisfied if this is the best they achieve, but I'm optimistically hoping that she is revealed for what she is; a hopeless candidate entirely out of her depth. I'm not a born again or evangelical Christian, but don't they want someone who's competent as well as familiar with scripture (or do they really believe Jaysus will guide her...)
-
Cool Hand Luke
<sniffle>
-
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.
They pulled that off with the convention speech. It really was not great. But expectations were so low that her high-school-debate styling was greeted as a triumphant performance.
-
But expectations were so low that her high-school-debate styling was greeted as a triumphant performance.
Frankly, that's an insult to high school debaters.
-
"... a Biden annihilation of Palin ... will not happen. Whatever Palin's credentials she isn't that stupid (really) and she can talk."
I'm with Don. Obama's campaign have been circulating a video of Palin debating in the gubernatorial contest in Alaska. Apparently the pitbull with lipstick thing works in the debating forum. All she has to do is sound convinced and remember the lines that she's been madly rehearsing these past few weeks.
You don't have to be that clever to win a debate. Remember Reagan drawling, "There he goes again"? Many Americans thought that ws masterful.
-
I don't disagree with Don or Peter however, Palin has to at least meet a new and higehr threshold where she's credible in this forum and it won't be as simple as it was in the one-on-one, edited interviews.
She'll have less control over the questions, less time to contemplate answers and is far more vulnerable to inconsistency and contradiction. A debate's more dynamic, and although she'll be rehersed, I don't expect her to manage it for the full duration.
Kind of like most teams playing the All Blacks; they might have energy and a game plan, but eventually talent and experience overwhelms.
-
A debate's more dynamic, and although she'll be rehersed, I don't expect her to manage it for the full duration.
One suspects they'll have her pumped up with 40 or so 30 second sound bites. She'll probably ignore the question, come out with a sound bite that vaguely matches, and add god bless America at the end. It'll be moderately effective, play to the base but not the middle.
-
-
One suspects they'll have her pumped up with 40mg of speed and loose the pitbull.
-
Independent Andrew Halcro who debated with Palin many times during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign explains Palin’s methods and why she’s so successful.
Palin's debate style is simple: She's a master, not of facts, figures or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the non-answer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Sen. Biden or anyone can do.
…… On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.While public policy wonks might cringe, the fact was that Sarah Palin was simply vocalizing her biggest campaign strength without realizing it. During the campaign, from January to November, Palin's message on important public policy issues never evolved -- because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.
Masochists can watch a full 90 minutes of one of these debates at C-Span.
-
Russell - For the first time we agree on McCain. I thought he nailed Obama in pure debate but far less empathetic. His contempt for Obama was too obvious and he seemed a little smug at times.
As far as why does it matter that Obama constantly said he agrees with McCain. The presidency is not a place to learn on the job. Now that it has been convincingly demonstrated that McCain knows more about what is required to lead the US it is obvious that McCain should be president. Obama may make a fine president when he has sufficient experience in 8 years time.
-
given all the snide remarks made here about inexperience it is more than a little ironic that when Obama is exposed for being inadequate but charismatic his polls bounce on the basis of being nicer and people here are wondering why.
-
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...
Paul: Love you, love your work, but that's nonsense -- and being a Labour supporter has nothing to do with it, Much as I'd like it to be otherwise, I'm not see either National or Labour being in a position to govern alone. They're going to need one or more of the "minnows", and while I see the politics of both Key and Clark wanting to avoid any potential embarrassment by being roasted on live TV it's a shame Three and TVNZ caved. We all love to sneer at the American media, but at least they've grown a pair and aren't playing nice with the McCain strategy to keep Palin in a bubble.
And potential support partners are a damn sight more than mere "king-makers" -- an all-party debate is an opportunity for voters to see how they interact and even tease out some insights in what potential configurations would look like. Perhaps us dumb hoi polloi deserve to decide for ourselves whether that's relevant, not a pair of unelected and unaccountable Leo McGarry wannabes?
-
And another observation, Paul, what would be your reaction if Three News spiked a news story because Clark and Key went into lockdown and refused to comment on the record or make themselves (or spokesmen) available for interviews?
-
As far as why does it matter that Obama constantly said he agrees with McCain. The presidency is not a place to learn on the job.
But it is a place for McCain to make up coherent economic policy on the fly? Or Palin to learn to string together three words that make sense when put together in the same sentence?
Now that it has been convincingly demonstrated that McCain knows more about what is required to lead the US it is obvious that McCain should be president.
Were we actually watching the same debate? Serious question.
-
While the shit hits the fan, MSNBC's Chris Matthews blames McCain for the failure of the bailout vote -- "He shouted 'charge' and Republicans retreated":
-
While the shit hits the fan, MSNBC's Chris Matthews blames McCain for the failure of the bailout vote -- "He shouted 'charge' and Republicans retreated"
House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner all been all over National Radio this morning blaming... Nancy Pelosi. I had no idea she had such enormous influence over the GOP caucus -- especialy l when a majority of House Democrats voted for the bill (140-95) while Republicans voted no by a margin of over two to one (133-65, with one abstention).
-
BTW, Sage, thank God McCain flew back to Washington to work his bipartisan leadership magic, ay?
-
As far as why does it matter that Obama constantly said he agrees with McCain. The presidency is not a place to learn on the job. Now that it has been convincingly demonstrated that McCain knows more about what is required to lead the US it is obvious that McCain should be president.
Que?
Does a president have to reflexively disagree with everyone in the world in order to lead the US? Or is it just the other candidate and Spain?
-
Que?
That's Spanish for "WTF?", right?
-
I agree with Sage and RB in that I thought McCain had the better of the debate purely in terms of technique. Interestingly, when I spoke to friends in US, they didn't see it that way and mnetioned all the things the subsequent polls mentioned - no eye contact, disrespect to Obama, smug, etc. So that suggests to me that most people in the US are looking at the candidates rather than listening to what they are saying. No surprises there I guess.
-
The correlation between congressmen voting against the bill and unsafe seats in the upcoming election may surprise you.
-
Now that it has been convincingly demonstrated that McCain knows more about what is required to lead the US it is obvious that McCain should be president.
Oh, of course. McCain knows how to do everything. Just check out this list. I don't know why the country hasn't fallen in line behind him already - with that list of skills, he's practically *over*-qualified.
(Seriously, sagenz? Just because he repeats "I know how to [fill in blank] over and over does not make him qualified. Or knowledgable. Or anything, actually, except perhaps delusional.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.