Philadelphia debate, by the numbers
Posted 24 weeks 4 days ago byFirst: I didn't watch the entire show.
Second: I don't regret it.
Third: Barack Obama no doubt wishes he could have spent the evening hanging with the Boss instead of swatting back questions from Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. He looked weary, sounded tired, and generally played defense all night. Was there blood? Yes. I missed Obama's dissertation on taxes, but reports only reaffirm my argument that he's a conventional left-liberal. Class war, anyone?
Fourth: I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton was magnificent -- she struggled to defend herself from a guy named Tom who said she "lost (his) vote" over that Snipergate business -- but she made her case well enough. Unfortunately, Hillary has her own "bitter" problem. The Clinton camp denies everything, and maybe it won't matter in Pennsylvania next week. Nevertheless... effete liberalism, anyone?
Fifth: I hereby pledge to use the phrase "vainglorious solipsism" whenever possible for the duration of the election. Maybe longer. You've been warned.
Thoughts
keeping it short (er, in summa)
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by John 2000I thought the 'debate' was a totally accurate summation of the entire Democratic Primary Eon.
vacuous, lame, embarrassing, and stupid.
A little respect
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by Jim LakelyKansas Girl writes:
When did I say this? Seriously?
The rest of my response to your reply is here.
Show a little respect
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by KansasGirlSeriously, I'm getting fatigued by this argument that says every Obama supporter is a fainting woman enthralled by his charm and incapable of making a good decision. It's insulting, and it's not true.
Obama has plenty of substance. It hasn't been about entertainment, it's been about empowerment and (you're right) character. But there is no world in which Obama comes out badly in a character debate. His understandings are nuanced in a way that doesn't always play well in soundbyte-land, but when taken in context I have yet to hear him face a question he can't answer with integrity. You may not agree that, as an influential person, it's important to stay involved with just the sector of the Black community that Rev. Wright represents and Obama disagrees with. But you change minds by being involved, not by distancing. You may not agree that serving on a committee with someone has very little to do with endorsing their beliefs (what, he was supposed to okay every person on that committee? what kind of arrogance would that have been?) And finally, those weren't questions about character. There is not time in a debate to receive an answer that would satisfy such questions! Do a 60-minutes interview. Make a speech. Oh, wait, he has . . . and the fact that he's a good public speaker is a mark against him? Please.
Well, Kansas Girl
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by Jim LakelyYou say:
(1) Obama's public record in elective office is so bereft of accomplishment, that it is essentially a legislative nullity. He knows that, which is why he has based his entire candidacy on his personal appeal — also known as character. That's why an examination of his character is essential, and it's about time he was challenged on it. For the record: This Republican will take his chances on a character contest with John McCain. (And, in the unlikely event that fails McCain, it would be a wash vs. Obama. At least McCain has a real record to run on as a fallback. Obama doesn't.)
(2) Interesting you bring up the term "entertainment." Obama's campaign has been all "entertainment" from the get-go. The power of his voice. His charisma. The fainting spells of the stricken. And let's not forget the entertainment value of the Obamessiah videos made on his behalf.
(3) Obama has more than just "screwed up." He inadvertently cracked a window into his character. And he has been forced to answer questions about what he truly believes in — and explain it in more than a sound bite. It is not a "distraction" to ask questions of his character. It is the media's long-delayed attempt to probe what he, and his campaign, is all about.
I didn't watch it all...
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by Ben...but I did read the transcript this morning!
As for there never being a political contest without gaffes, I simply would remind you of Michael Kinsley's timeless definition.
Well, Jim
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by KansasGirlI disagree with you wholeheartedly. But at least you seem to have watched it all, which Ben (unrepentantly) didn't. So you're entitled to your own misguided opinions! Grin.
But I will point out that you weren't going to vote for a Dem anyway, so the fact that you liked the debate kind of proves my point. You know as well as I do that "explaining their thoughts" amounts to spending time backtracking on whatever statements were picked up and batted around by the media for lack of news to fill the cycle. There has never been a political contest without gaffes like these (much worse, really) and if you seriously think any of the things that were on the table last night show the character of these two candidates, that's going to come back to haunt you come the general. Every candidate screws up. That's not news, that's entertainment, and cheap entertainment to boot. John McCain will be embroiled in the same way soon enough.
What's sad to me is that "what's wrong with the country and how are we going to fix it" is an unworthy question in your eyes. You're electing a President, so I'm not sure why you think the answer to that question would involve anything other than government, since that's the job description. And the fact that a) not everyone has voted yet and b) more people watched the debate than any previous debate indicates that there are still newcomers to this discussion. You might be tired of their issue positions, but the person who just got interested today still has a right to be informed.
Re: disappointed
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by BenNo, I don't blame the candidates. It was nice to see them forced to depart from the talking points and the canned answers for once.
The questions to Obama were actually quite good -- and revealing. Especially his discourse on Bill Ayers and Tom Coburn. Sure, Ayers bombed buildings back in the day, but Obama barely knows him and by the way Ayers is an English professor. But Obama's friend Coburn said some extreme things about abortion, so, you know, same difference. With friends like that, who needs enemies!
It's not that I don't like Democrats. I don't much care for the media, that's for sure. I do like this election campaign, however. I think we're learning some things about the candidates we wouldn't otherwise know. That's good for the country. Might not be good for your candidate, though.
Why are you disappointed?
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by Jim LakelyActually, Monica, I think I know the answer. John McCain's oppo-research team -- if they taped the debate -- can take a vacation this summer and report back to work the week before the Democratic convention. That will give them enough time to get the coffee machine working right at the home office, because that will be their most difficult task.
Au contraire! Most of the questioning at the Dem debates, before this one, were dog and pony shows. The gist of most of the questions were: "The country is screwed up. How will you fix it?" And in the answers to those questions, the Dems -- endlessly -- went over the various government programs they would enact. You seriously don't know by now where they stand on the issues? (And, in truth, Hillary and Obama stand arm-in-arm.)
It is not irrelevant to ask Obama to explain how he thinks "regular Americans" think and feel. I think voters are curious. It is not irrelevant to ask Obama about his long association with an admitted (an unrepentant) terrorist. That interests many. And if you're thirsting for a little "substance on the issues, it was quite enlightening for Obama to admit that he sees tax policy as a punitive club against "the other" — even if it brings in less money to the government to pay for his endless list of programs.
That was the best, and most revealing, Democratic debate yet. We need more of them.
I'm a little disappointed
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by KansasGirlDo you really blame the candidates for that carnage? The media pitched the dog and pony show, filled it with irrelevant questions, and made it insulting to the average squirrel's intelligence, as well. You don't like Democrats, I get the point. But people who DO like Democrats were disappointed, and that's the real tragedy. Mass media fails once again!