Debate stuffs
Sep. 27th, 2008 09:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richFor those analysts who called this a "draw" - were we watching the same debate?
Let's get Obama's negatives out of the way, first. He could've been more forceful more often. He could've jumped on McCain's insistence on talking about "earmarks" by gutting Palin, and he didn't. He could've brought up Social Security and Medicare just to force McCain into a corner. He could've brought up George Bush and linked him to McCain more often. He should've hammered McCain on voting against the GI Bill. He could've said "I agree" a little LESS often.
There, that's done.
If there was a way McCain could have been more rude, dismissive, demeaning, and disrespectful of his opponent, I don't know how - even walking over and punching Obama in the face would've been filled with more warmth and interest than how he treated the man. In contrast, Obama was genial, attentive, he addressed "John" directly several times when McCain refused to "Barry" this or "Barack" that.
Obama DID hammer away at McCain quite a bit, in aggressive manner, and did bring up plenty that he needed to - such as countering the $2,500 health care credit with McCain's plan to tax employer share for health care coverage AS PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S INCOME. Which is often more than $2,500. He was also much more specific than McCain, giving individual ideas and plans, instead of the broad-based "we need to cut spending" over and over and over (how, John? How do we cut spending, other than leaving the bears alone?).
Aha, so the U.S. government has sponsored or conducted torture. According to McCain, it won't do it "again." Gee, I didn't know we were supposed to do it in the first place, John. Weren't you one of those repeatedly saying the U.S. didn't do torture?
If I had been playing a drinking game on repetitiveness, I would have been falling down all over the place halfway through just on McCain's "Senator Obama doesn't understand" "What Senator Obama fails to understand" "Senator Obama is a dumbshit uppity N- kid who doesn't know his place" and so forth. (What? He didn't say the last part? Sure he did. You just have to know how to translate.)
Finally - saying you agree with your opponent or acknowledging that he is right JUST BEFORE you present your disagreements is a classic debate move. Now I understand us Americans are dumb as bricks and wouldn't appreciate a classic debate if it took us out to dinner, but I'm just saying. It doesn't mean you actually agree with your opponent. It's being gentlemanly. "Jane, you ignorant slut" is so NOT the correct mode of classical debate, even if it's what Americans mostly prefer.
So - who's up for the VP debate next Thursday? Palin's going to be squashed like a bug - and that's just by the moderator, Gwen Ifill. (Who could probably debate Joe Biden herself without breaking a sweat.) Of course, this will somehow translate to success for those who talk about what big meanies the Democrats are to poor, helpless her. Which are also the same people "proud" of what a "strong woman" she is. Personally, I am offended they changed the debate rules just for her, because it clearly gives the impression we poor weak females can't possibly keep up with a Joe Biden. Are leaders of other countries going to change the rules of war or diplomacy for her, too, should she end up in the Big Chair at some point?
Let's get Obama's negatives out of the way, first. He could've been more forceful more often. He could've jumped on McCain's insistence on talking about "earmarks" by gutting Palin, and he didn't. He could've brought up Social Security and Medicare just to force McCain into a corner. He could've brought up George Bush and linked him to McCain more often. He should've hammered McCain on voting against the GI Bill. He could've said "I agree" a little LESS often.
There, that's done.
If there was a way McCain could have been more rude, dismissive, demeaning, and disrespectful of his opponent, I don't know how - even walking over and punching Obama in the face would've been filled with more warmth and interest than how he treated the man. In contrast, Obama was genial, attentive, he addressed "John" directly several times when McCain refused to "Barry" this or "Barack" that.
Obama DID hammer away at McCain quite a bit, in aggressive manner, and did bring up plenty that he needed to - such as countering the $2,500 health care credit with McCain's plan to tax employer share for health care coverage AS PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S INCOME. Which is often more than $2,500. He was also much more specific than McCain, giving individual ideas and plans, instead of the broad-based "we need to cut spending" over and over and over (how, John? How do we cut spending, other than leaving the bears alone?).
Aha, so the U.S. government has sponsored or conducted torture. According to McCain, it won't do it "again." Gee, I didn't know we were supposed to do it in the first place, John. Weren't you one of those repeatedly saying the U.S. didn't do torture?
If I had been playing a drinking game on repetitiveness, I would have been falling down all over the place halfway through just on McCain's "Senator Obama doesn't understand" "What Senator Obama fails to understand" "Senator Obama is a dumbshit uppity N- kid who doesn't know his place" and so forth. (What? He didn't say the last part? Sure he did. You just have to know how to translate.)
Finally - saying you agree with your opponent or acknowledging that he is right JUST BEFORE you present your disagreements is a classic debate move. Now I understand us Americans are dumb as bricks and wouldn't appreciate a classic debate if it took us out to dinner, but I'm just saying. It doesn't mean you actually agree with your opponent. It's being gentlemanly. "Jane, you ignorant slut" is so NOT the correct mode of classical debate, even if it's what Americans mostly prefer.
So - who's up for the VP debate next Thursday? Palin's going to be squashed like a bug - and that's just by the moderator, Gwen Ifill. (Who could probably debate Joe Biden herself without breaking a sweat.) Of course, this will somehow translate to success for those who talk about what big meanies the Democrats are to poor, helpless her. Which are also the same people "proud" of what a "strong woman" she is. Personally, I am offended they changed the debate rules just for her, because it clearly gives the impression we poor weak females can't possibly keep up with a Joe Biden. Are leaders of other countries going to change the rules of war or diplomacy for her, too, should she end up in the Big Chair at some point?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 03:57 pm (UTC)Which is as much as admitting Palin isn't ready to play with the big boys in DC. Either that, or it's them showing their inner sexist pig and assuming the little lady can't hold her own against a man.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 05:43 pm (UTC)and
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7045e68a-6627-45cc-bad1-72a017869fc4
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 03:42 pm (UTC)Fuck. I thought it would be impossible to loathe her more than I already do. CLEARLY NOT.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 04:01 pm (UTC)It seems the Repubs don't think the little lady can go toe to toe with Biden unless they shorten the field so there are only 5 yards between downs. Or something like that.
(do you have time to pop online or call today? we haven't had a chance to talk in a while)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:26 pm (UTC)Will be hangin' 'round online this evening. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 05:43 pm (UTC)and
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7045e68a-6627-45cc-bad1-72a017869fc4
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 03:49 pm (UTC)Or (same song, different verse) Grandpa patronizing "the youngsters" because he assumes he's entitled to respect purely on the basis of his age.
One commenter on the NPR blog-factchecking about the debates actually complained Obama hadn't shown enough deference to McCain as an "older and wiser" man, ffs. Age does not automatically guarantee wisdom, and I know a whole lot of Gen Xers, Millenials, etc who are sick and tired of their parents and grandparents constantly dragging Vietnam out of the political dustbin and making an election, yet again, All About Them.
No, I'm not a Gen Xer, Millenial, ect, nor am I a Boomer. I'm from that 5 or 10 year slice between the Boomers and the Gen Xers--call us Watergate brats--and while I can understand why the Boomers' Vietnam-era scars are still stinging, I am also sick and tired watching them refight Vietnam every four years.
Which is one of many reasons I voted for Obama in the primaries and will do so in Nov.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 01:05 am (UTC)And the reason he can't is the flipside of Kerry's famous line, "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?"
If McCain admits Vietnam was a mistake, and unwinnable, then he has to accept that he spent 5 years (wasn't it 5 years?) being tortured by the Viet Cong for a mistake, a war that should never have been fought. That his sacrifice and that of all the other brave young men (and I'm sure they were brave, patriotic young men) he saw die and maimed and forced to live in tiger cages was for a mistake.
McCain has to believe Vietnam was a good, just, winnable war because if he doesn't his life-narrative, as he's always told it, breaks down. He's not a brave war hero who suffered for the good of his country and the Vietnamese people, he's a gullible fool who bought the snake oil the Administration was selling and suffered horribly for no higher purpose whatsoever.
And that, I think, is why he's so fixated on "victory" in Iraq. If we can win in Iraq, (whatever "win" means in this context) it'll "prove" that we could've won Vietnam if we hadn't given up. Which means it'll "prove" that his and all his friends' suffering and sacrifice was justified.
In a sense, he's still in a cage too small to move freely. But this time, he built it around himself.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 03:36 pm (UTC)Of course, the other side keeps insisting Vietnam was a mistake because what they're really saying is, "Wake up! Your suffering and that of all the other Vietnam vets was for a mistake. It should never have happened. Why can't you see that? You need to see it or they'll do it to you again."
Or, you could just sum up the two arguments by quoting the women who gave McCain & Obama their bracelets. "Don't let my son's death have been in vain (for a mistake)." vs "Don't make other mother suffer as I have (for a mistake)."
no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-27 11:53 pm (UTC)Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
But yeah, I agree on nearly all points. I liked the 'you were wrong' sequence the best. I do wish he'd brought up the GI Bill, because that is one of the most unfuckingforgivable things I have ever seen.
I admit that I know nothing about Gwen Ifill, so I'm glad to hear that she should be a good moderator. I'm willing to bet we won't hear another word from Palin until the debate.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 12:16 am (UTC)Keith Olberman has a bet going with co-workers (I think) at MSNBC that Palin will be off the ticket by Oct. 1. Don't know that I'd take that bet, but you know what? Nothing else McCain has done smacks of sound political strategy, so who knows?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 01:13 am (UTC)I agree.
Biden needs to keep his attack-dog instincts battened down if he doesn't want to stir up sympathy for "poor Sarah, bullied by that horrible Biden".
If her performance with Couric is any example, all Biden has to do is be clear, be polite, and call her on her obvious illogicalities when they get to the "free exchange" part of each question. Palin's so far out of her league it's pathetic (or do I mean bathetic?) and making that clear to the voters will have the added benefit of showing what a bad decision McCain's picking her was.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:02 am (UTC)This reminded me of something I feel should exist somewhere in this world: a Palin vid to Avril Lavigne's 'Girlfriend.' I don't know if people actually do stuff of that nature, but my god, I would laugh for DAYS.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:40 am (UTC)I was reading comments on the NYTimes coverage of the debate and one of the (obviuously pro-McCain) posters said McCain had come across as the "Master" schooling the obviously-green "Disciple" Obama.
And I suddenly had this flash of McCain in a black, hooded robe saying:
"You are strong in the Force, young Obama. But you are not
a JediPresident yet."no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:48 am (UTC)Which explains his "fellow maverick" comment during the debate.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 04:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 01:43 pm (UTC)Take your pick, either an "I" stateor an "M" state will win the election for one of them. I like to think that Midwesterners have the most common sense, but I've been a Midwesterner all my life and I wouldn't bet on it.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 03:55 pm (UTC)In Wisconsin it's mostly directed at the Native peoples and the Hmong who settled here after Vietnam because, until recently, there were effectively no other minorities in those parts of the state. But the Hispanics who've moved here in the last 5 years are a convenient scapegoat to blame for the poor job market (goddamn wetbacks taking all our jobs) and blacks make a useful scapegoat for explaining why their kids didn't get accepted to the higher-prestige state schools (goddamn affirmative action), to name just two.
I don't want to believe that'd tip the balance in who they vote for, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it either.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 06:57 pm (UTC)Candia
no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-28 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 12:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 12:50 am (UTC)