[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: No manners on one side, no fight on the other [in the debate] No manners on one side, no fight on the other Tom Shales September 28, 2008 The Republican at times belittled his Democratic opponent, who lacked a killer instinct. JOHN McCain wore the more presidential tie but Barack Obama displayed the more presidential temperament, or the kind of demeanour people presumably would want in a president, when the two candidates met for their first debate. Both men seemed well-equipped in terms of facts and figures and neither made an outrageous blunder, although Senator McCain did misidentify the new President of Pakistan. More critically, he came across as condescending and even rude to his opponent, a bit of bad behaviour especially evident because Senator Obama may have overdone the fair-minded bit in many of his remarks and answers. Imperiously enough, Senator McCain — who had threatened not to show up for the debate because of America's financial crisis — seemed determined to avoid even looking at Senator Obama as the debate went on, although they did shake hands at the beginning and end. Many of Senator McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Senator Obama, as if he were talking to a first-year university student way out of his depth. "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," was one typical remark. Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with Senator McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanship run amok. Doesn't Senator Obama want to win? On the matter of wasteful spending, Senator Obama began one answer with: "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right …" and said it again on an issue related to the Iraq war. After all the nice-guy stuff from Senator Obama, which may have reached self-defeating levels, the most, perhaps only, electrifying moment of the debate was when he finally told Senator McCain he was wrong — three times in quick and effective succession. "You were wrong" about saying the Iraq war would be quick and easy, Senator Obama charged, his voice rising. "You were wrong" about finding weapons of mass destruction, he continued. And there was one more "you were wrong" for good measure. Although Senator Obama was "crisper" than usual, as one commentator noted after the debate, he still may not have been crisp enough. His oratorical skills when giving speeches in vast venues have been amply demonstrated. But in debates and conversations, when he ad-libs, he sometimes seems to be weighing his answers almost too carefully, defusing his own remarks by diffusing them. Democrat Paul Begala, one of CNN's army of pundits, criticised both candidates for the way they handled questions on the economy. The whole debate was supposed to deal with foreign policy, but as the economy shuddered and crumbled during the week, it was wisely decided to devote about a third of the debate to that crisis. But as Mr Begala said, a stranger to this planet tuning in the debate wouldn't have known from the candidates' answers and attitudes that America is in the midst of what has been called the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Instead their answers were on the theoretical side, with no real sense of urgency. The folks out there in television land, losing their homes to foreclosure or seeing their retirement nest eggs obliterated, deserved more thoughtful and heartfelt answers. The debate was, for the most part, encouragingly civilised and not flawed with frivolous name-calling. If Senator McCain had been more civil, and Senator Obama were more combative and fervent, it would have been better still. WASHINGTON POST
Poster Comment: I don't' understand why my once fellow Americans don't see what a fraud their political system is. In Europe (except in modern UK which has become Americanized in their politics) there are actual differences between parties and candidates. I swear I can't tell the difference between either Obama or McCain in terms of foreign policy in the debate - even in these differences it is just about degrees off the same policy. America's system realy does resemble the old one party communist states where you had two party members run for the same office and both had similar platforms with some variations where you would find this kind of campaign rhetoric: "I am for more shoe production and less pants production while my estimed collegue is for more pant production and shoe production equally. Comrades, we need more shoes produced than pants". Come on, tell me you see this guys? If you see this why do more Americans not also see this?????
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Destro (#0)
"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering ... And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." This, too, shall pass.
“It seems fair to regard negroes as on the average inferior to white men.” -- Bertrand Russell “Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling." -- Benito Mussolini |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||