Debate: Final thoughts?
I admit to taking a bit longer for this than I had hoped (had another story to file).
It’s easy to bag on debates and moderators and formats. That said, I’ve been reading reviews of the showdown between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and there seems to be some general criticism of this one for a few reasons.
First off, commercials. How many were there? It seemed like far too many. And one just about five minutes in?
One blogger wrote that the audience was groaning by the end and ABC’s Charlie Gibson made a joke about a revolt.
On to other matters: The first half or so of the debate apparently held most of the fireworks — bitter, Bosnia, flag pins, Ayers, Weather Underground, etc. I am inclined to wonder if that’s what the voters wanted to see? And I’m honestly not sure how to answer that one for myself.
On those terms, it appears that Sen. Hillary Clinton came out better. I felt it as was listening and a few pundits said the same thing: She definitely attacked more.
That said, Obama did pointedly take the high road a few times. He said trivial campaign trail fodder wasn’t what the people needed. How much of that was honest, and how much of that was just asking for breathing room, I’ll let you decide.
The second half of the debate seemed mostly on issues and featured pretty bland responses. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos seemingly tried to get some firm committments, and struck out most of the time. I personally would have liked to see Gibson interrupt a few more times, as both the candidates — as almost any on a debate stage are wont to do — sometimes talked in cirlces, and sometimes reverted to talking points.
Two points to note:
Clinton said “massive retaliation” against Iran should it attack Isreal. That’s pretty strong language. Given than McCain took so much heat for ardently threatening Tehran, am I the only one wondering if she’ll regret that? Of course, it should also be noted that those two words seemed to come almost as an afterthought.
Obama made the no middle class tax pledge, same as Clinton. But I’ll hand it to Rosanopoulos Gibsonopoulos (I can’t remember who got this one) for asking whether upping the cap on payroll taxes wouldn’t amount to an increase on some people who consider themselves middle class. Obama had to hedge, repurpose and reiterate for a second.
The closer was vanilla; both went back to their campaign lines. Clinton talked in promises of what she’d do and simultaneously touted herself as the best woman with more experience for wartime. Obama went over the historic nature of the race, the change movement, his place as the leader of change and his ability to engage people who have never been engaged before.
That’s it from me. Now your turn. For one, I’d be curious to know how many people actually watched a majority of it. And general impressions? Aside from simply bashing/cheering the two of them, answer this: Who really won?
(4 votes, average: 2.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
I think the inanity of the argument over Obama perhaps taxing people making between 100k and 250k is ardently insane. If anyone thinks that these numbers are ‘middle class’ they are far and away out of touch with reality. According the US census bureau in 2006 people making over 100k a year represent a grand total of 5.63% so if this is somehow taxing the middle class I missed it.
The questions themselves were bad and Stephanopolus should have had the good judgment not to enter into this debate as a moderator considering his political history.
There were many things wrong with this debate on many levels and as an American I am embarrassed.