I watched the debate with some moderate interest last night, not because it was a debate between the vice presidential candidates, but because it was the first and only live uninterrupted and unedited coverage of the choices the candidates had made. After the first twenty minutes of the debate, it became clear (to me anyway) that the Democrats have the stronger ticket by far.
It's not that Sarah Palin did a bad job, I would agree with the general perception that she exceeded expectations. But the fact that the McCain campaign (or more likely, the left and right media) had driven the public's perception of her to the point that expectations were low continues to baffle me. Setting strategy aside, I looked at it from a legal perspective, as if both were testifying and the moderator was the examiner.
At least in the beginning and for the most part, Biden answered each question pointedly and with specific examples, as one would expect a lawyer to do. Palin, on the other hand, either did not answer the question, would answer a totally different question on what seemed to be a rehearsed topic, and could not refute any of the points (right or wrong, I don't know), that Biden was making. Certainly when it came to foreign policy and the governments in the middle east (and admittedly, I know very little on this area), it seemed that Biden had a firm understanding of what was going on and Palin seemed to ramble.
But more than that, Palin's responses were substantively empty or nonresponsive. Even my non-lawyer friends would agree with that. Without at least a firm understanding of her candidate's policies (or the party's), I was left with the distinct feeling that confirmed my initial suspicions that Palin was picked not for her political prowess, but for mere political reasons. And if that is indeed why she was picked, then the Republican party deserves to lose. But with both McCain and Obama in favor of big government and bailing out private businesses from the mistakes of their executives and clients, I'm not sure whether there really is a republican party even still in existence. Whatever emerges from this mess and unification of the two party system, if anything, would only be in its conceptual stages at this point, and I need not speculate on it further at this time.
This race has never been about Republicans or Democrats; it's about the direction of this country and whether we should continue down the same path for another four or eight years. Because the Republicans are in power, this is an incredible hill to climb. I remain convinced that Obama will win the election, in part because of his charisma, but more so because he is drawing different numbers and demographics (the college-age, mostly) than any previous Democratic contender. See generally my March thoughts on the electoral map. His choice of Biden semi-cuts against this message, but less so than any other candidate, and it was clear after watching the debate that Biden was the superior choice in the matter. I'm sure at some point McCain wondered about his choice regarding a McCain-Kerry ticket, as did many others in fact, but that bridge certainly went nowhere fast.
Anyway, as a "juror" on the vp debate jury, I think Biden made his case for his guy and Palin did not make hers for hers. That's all it was about. But in watching some of the cable shows yesterday, I have to make one additional comment on this process before I begin to think about how I am going to continue to follow this political process.
I have decided that, notwithstanding my previous six months or so of following cable news, it's time to stop watching it. For example, I have liked the O'Reilly Factor and have tried to watch the first segment when I can. For the most part, I believe that O'Reilly is probably the least biased of all the nightly cable news people, although he certainly is to the right of the neutral mid-line. Is he a good reporter though? I don't think so, especially after watching last night's rant against Rep. Frank. See video and discussion here, or here. Assuming reporters are supposed to get to their point quickly and efficiently, as soon as I heard O'Reilly tell the interviewee "that is bs, blah blah blah" my ears turned off. I know that I was taught that if I was cross-examining someone and lost my cool, I would lose the case. Certainly that happened for my opinion of O'Reilly and my constant defending of his show after that interview.
So that there is no dispute over my position on the cable news media, I have developed a continuum for the left to right bias: Far right (Hannity of Hannity and Colmes) - Mid right (O'Reilly) - Mid (David Gergen, CNN political commentator) - Left (Chris Matthews, Hardball), Far left (Keith Olbermann of Countdown). Sometimes I will watch Hannity to offset Keith Olbermann, but I really can't watch either for very long. I balance O'Reilly with Anderson Cooper. I heard morning Joe is good, but haven't seen it; I rarely watch Lou Dobbs but he's sort of between O'Reilly and the middle; the new Rachel Maddow show I haven't watched nor plan to, and Glenn Beck, after reading his book, may be further right than all of them.
After watching some of the quick political spin immediately after the debate, I have concluded that the cable news media is the core reason behind the perpetuation of a nationwide desire for 24/7 news. See generally my earlier thoughts on the media's distain for economic success. I did flip over to ABC, CBS, and NBC briefly after the debate and they seemed much calm about speculating on who won and who lost, so maybe I should just stick to the evening news and be done with it. Whatever I decide, I am going to make a conscious effort, and like television (save the Office and Lost, and a couple of other shows), I am simply going to turn it off. After spending three years in law school and another year clerking, the last thing I need is for some doofy television personality to tell me how I should interpret something I just saw. And since I suspect most of the general public has the same dislike of patronage, I am willing to bet that once the discussion over the vice presidential debate calms down (likely today), the rest of the country will shift its focus back on the major issues, particularly the pending recession.
The more interesting point, and I suppose this will have to wait for four years, is how the next president will be able to deliver on the promise for change without stalling out the economy. I predict a massive overhauling of the tax code to start. The current tax code became outdated about ten years ago.
Friday, October 03, 2008
The VP Debate, or why the cable media is continuing to distort common perceptions
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One other point. I found it fascinating that Gov. Palin conceded to Sen. Biden that gays should have the same civil liberties as heterosexuals, save calling their unions "marriages." While it may be chalked up to confusion, that doesn't help her case either. I'll suggest that it indicates that the nation has fundamentally begun to shift into a position of tolerance of the issue.
Thus, if the Republicans and Democrats finally agree on this issue, as perhaps Palin's slip revealed, then maybe we can finally move past this gay amendment nonsense and get on with more important things, such as filling the void in our economy from the loss of our manufacturing base.
I got rid of my TV during my undergrad and have never regretted it, granted I spend too much time online but I can pretend it's educational right? You're absolutely right that 24 hour cable news has dumbed down the national political discussion, it's nearly impossible to get any sort of news without spin or someone immediately opining about what it all means. I just want them to tell me what happened, not what they think about it. All in all I was a bit disappointed with the VP debate I was hoping for some firm policy positions from Palin but I was thrilled that she, probably accidentally, threw some support to gay rights. Thanks as always for your thoughts!
Post a Comment