I've read a number of pieces regarding how the Vice presidential candidates performed in the debate yesterday, and there are a lot of conflicting opinions as to which candidate "won" the debate. For anyone who didn't watch the debate, it can be summarized very briefly as follows: Senator Joe Biden looked and sounded like the boring, middle-aged + white guy he is. Gov. Sarah Palin went for populism and kept referring to "soccer moms" "Joe Sixpack", "hockey moms" and "regular folk" throughout. I wouldn't have been surprised if she had started a crowd chant of "U-S-A, U-S-A". Neither candidate really answered the questions they were asked, and in my opinion, neither the populistic, low-road approach of Palin or the boring, monotonous, Rainman-esque recitation of facts by a old white guy with no passion and no charisma cuts the mustard. Frankly, I thought they both sucked. However, one thing most media reports agree on - and finding evidence of such is so easy that I won't bother to provide any links - Sarah Palin exceeded expectations.
Is anyone surprised? Considering the semi-meltdowns and utter PR fiascos Gov. Palin has committed in the media over the last two weeks, wherein she has failed to answer questions, been caught outright lying and demonstrating an ignorance you'd think was way beyond a candidate in a mayoral election, the expectations were low. Add to that the many "leaked" stories on how debate prep was not going well, and it's fairly obvious that all Gov. Palin would have to do in order to exceed expectations was not to break down in tears or announce that she ran for the position of Vice President of The United States of Al-Quaida.
Senator Biden, on the other hand, went into the debate with overwhelming expectations of thoroughly beating an inexperienced opponent, and thus it's a lot harder to impress the viewers. This was pretty much a worst-case scenario for Biden, because the debate was billed as quite the uneven battle.
This is not exactly a battle of giants to begin with. In one corner, we have a noob who thinks that Earth was created 6000 years ago and that man coexisted with the dinosaurs, which tells me everything I need to know about Sarah Palin. In the other corner, we have a non-descript old white guy with so little charisma and presence that he doesn't get through the automatic doors of his local Harris Teeter on his own.
Is anyone surprised? Considering the semi-meltdowns and utter PR fiascos Gov. Palin has committed in the media over the last two weeks, wherein she has failed to answer questions, been caught outright lying and demonstrating an ignorance you'd think was way beyond a candidate in a mayoral election, the expectations were low. Add to that the many "leaked" stories on how debate prep was not going well, and it's fairly obvious that all Gov. Palin would have to do in order to exceed expectations was not to break down in tears or announce that she ran for the position of Vice President of The United States of Al-Quaida.
Senator Biden, on the other hand, went into the debate with overwhelming expectations of thoroughly beating an inexperienced opponent, and thus it's a lot harder to impress the viewers. This was pretty much a worst-case scenario for Biden, because the debate was billed as quite the uneven battle.
This is not exactly a battle of giants to begin with. In one corner, we have a noob who thinks that Earth was created 6000 years ago and that man coexisted with the dinosaurs, which tells me everything I need to know about Sarah Palin. In the other corner, we have a non-descript old white guy with so little charisma and presence that he doesn't get through the automatic doors of his local Harris Teeter on his own.
Posts
6 comments:
Isn't the problem with any "debate" between US politicans, that they don't really discuss politics or issues? It's just standard, empty phrases or attacking your opponents moral, or history, be it private or professional. BS all the way.
(Yeah, I'm not in my best mood today).
Actually I think it's less of the he said she said in VP and Presidential debates than what you find during the Norwegian elections.
Norway: "Our party has voted against taxes on carbon based fuel since early in medieval times"...
USA: "Your forth cousin on your mothers side has been spoted drinking alcohol three days before his 20th birthday. Does a man that can allow such an appalling breach on your belowed USA's laws in his nearest family possess the moral standards required to be the head of the Albertville Department of Sanitation?"...
Donno which is the better, though. I find the different, but equally boring. In fact, a Norwegian factchecker (as you've posted about earlier) might make the political debate in Norway a bit more interesting, if it resulted in less of the "he said, she said" stiff.
I think that the example you mention is more prevalent in the ads than in the actual debate.
And of the two major debates, the VP debate is by far the lightweight and the one wherein each candidate is most prone to giving a cosmic blowjob to their Lord and Master
You're probably right, but there is still a difference in arguments here. At least the candidates are pretty clear on whether US should redraw from Iraq. I'll give them that. Other than that, it's much of empty phrases like "America first" and "change". It's funny when Palin states something like "the winds of change will blow through Washington" when the Repbulican party has held the office for the last 8 years...
Oh well, I guess that Norwegian and US politicans are getting more and more similar in their arguments. At least FrP seems to have adapted some of the US way of argumenting with their "folk flest"-mantra they seem to be able to stick into any kind of issue.
It's funny how both sides use the "time for a change" slogan or a variation thereof. Talk about having nuthin' to say
Post a Comment