a two-for-one post day, so i can hold up my pledge to respond to each debate.
enjoyed last night's debate a little more than the previous one. for starters, i thought the format was great, and i thought bob schieffer did a great job. i thought he missed a few opportunities to chase them down a little more, but overall i thought he was unbiased and fair with his questioning.
from the candidates, the rhetoric was all the same, most of it right down to the sound bites that are all too familiar now- "the same kind of insurance senator mccain and i enjoy", "clean coal, solar, biodiesel, wind...", etc. even the newest proposals, those regarding the recovery plans for the falling economy didn't seem to offer much of anything new. like with the last debate, i think i was too familiar with each candidate's policies and plans to get anything out of their context.
i did, however, gain a lot by watching these men in their attitudes towards each other. the longer this campaign goes on, the more mccain comes across as a grumpy old man. his tone of voice, his snide comments, and his annoying smirks give the impression that he's completely fed up with obama. on the times when obama gave his negative opinions of mccain's plans, he gave straightforward opinions of why he felt those choices would not work. when mccain brought up perceived flaws in the obama plan, he did so with a sense of incredulity and arrogance that those suggestions would even be made. this kind of attitude does not exactly match up with the open-minded, reach-across-the-aisle persona that he is trying to portray. worse, it insinuates an inability to negotiate with adversaries, a quality that a presidant can ill afford.
time is winding down, and as you can see from my lack of recent posts, i've not found my own time to comment more on this election. i'd like to put up another comparitive post or two on policies, but as much as i wanted my vote decided only on issues, i'm having a difficult time separating the subjective from the objective. this ship is listing to port, and it will take a strong wind in the next 3 weeks to change the course to starboard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Schieffer unbiased? I disagree, homeboy! For the most part, the moderator did well to keep the discussion between the candidates flowing and his first set of questions were cut from the same mold we saw in debate #1. Good job.
But then, he went and asked that question about the respective VP choices. C'mon! Do the American people really care what each candidate thinks of the other's choice for VP? Instead, wasn't this just some disguised way to bring a perceived weakness of the McCain campaign into the discussion? As my good friend, Donger, texted me immediately upon that question being asked, "Bullshit CBS News question".
As far as the debate itself, and continuing the boxing analogies - if the first debate was a 10-9 McCain decision and the 2nd a 10-9 Obama decision, than the 3rd one was a McCain knockout.
For the first time in 3 debates, McCain finally but Obama on the defensive. He looked Obama in the eye and challenged him. From Bill Ayers, to his plan to raise taxes, to his failure to break from his party, etc. McCain finally challenged Obama to get off his talking points and explain himself.
To his credit, Obama handled everything thrown at him with aplomb and refused to get off his game. But last night you finally saw a chink in the Obama armor and when challenged on taxes, Obama couldn't get away from the same class warfare rhetoric we've been hearing for months.
Obama is a wonderful orator and extremely eloquent. And this eloquence disguises well his policies that many deem harmful to an already fragile economy. McCain finally called Obama out on them last night.
I just hope it's not too little too late.
the veep question was completely legit. the candidates' opinions of their opponent's choice of VP's are as valuable as their opinions on their opponent's energy plans, health care plans, or any other position. the VP choice is the first look into what a potential cabinet may look like and what individuals a potential president chooses to surround himself with.
true, if palin were a worthy candidate, the question never likely would have been asked. but if she were a worthy candidate, you'd have no problem with schieffer asking it, either.
As long as we're in agreement: the question would likely have never been asked had this issue not been perceived as a McCain weakness.
Hence - Schieffer biased.
Post a Comment