I meant to write my comment on the debate, like, three days ago, but I've been so encapsulated by the tv talkers. There's not much to say, except that I didn't feel there was much of a debate. They barely engaged each other, and there was nothing said that would sway folks who may, for some retarded reason, still feel they don't have enough information by now. It was more like two campaign speeches at the same time. I was really disappointed.
They both let too much slide, but I, being an anti-neocon, care more about Obama's mistakes - such as how he didn't press McCain on his claims that he'd raise taxes "across the board," which he won't. It would've been nicer to see him say, "Where have you read that, I want you to cite the document or show where I wrote or said that," instead of simply saying that's not true. It comes off as a stronger point when you press the person to provide a reference. Furthermore, McCain probably would've stuttered.
It would've been nice to have him describe in layman's terms why big business needs little guys to have money in their pockets, or Bottom-up economics. For people like me, it's obvious why that's necessary for a balanced economy, but for lower-information voters, it's more like they're just arguing senatorial semantics.
He definitely should've driven it home, in the Iran section of the debate, pointing to the Ayatollahs (and specifically Ayatollah Khomeini) who actually govern Iran, and not Ahmadinejad who is essentially a figurehead. He brought it up, but only squeezed out that Ahmadinejad may not even be the one in charge. Not everyone knows it. He should've said more.
Or how about Pakistan being a failed state, and not governed since Alexander the Great? What about the time that it was a part of India? Did McCain miss that part of history?
Barack let him slide on being so heartbroken about genocide, when he cited the Bosnia issue, as a splinter of the Georgia/Russia conflict. What about Sudan? Has he taken a stance there?
Then, on Georgia/Russia, I can understand why he didn't shout from the mountaintop that Georgia was actually the aggressor. The U.S. actually coaxed them into retaking those areas - which had been laboring to be recognized as independent nations by the international community for years - and Georgia is an ally that our gov't wants to be in NATO. So you can't rub their noses in it. HOWEVER, he didn't even try to counter McCain on his effin retarded "League of Democracies," which not only sounds like archaic lingo, but would essentially nullify the U.N. and further antagonize Russia. It's like McCain is begging for another Cold War. But then, he is a neocon, so I know it is because he and his buds are after unlimited defense spending.
And if all that isn't enough, McCain's bit about North Koreans being 3 inches shorter than South Koreans...w-w-what the hell was that? And not one pundit has even mentioned it besides Stephen Colber(t).
So now, I'm ready for the VP debate. I'm glad some are pointing out that Palin may have lowered the bar far enough that even pronouncing her name right would make her look good in the debate. Others are trying to be nice with reports on how Palin performed in the Alaska debates, although being queried on parochial Alaska issues (a whole state of a whopping 600 thousand people, no less) by a no-name moderator couldn't even compare.
The game tomorrow is very different. She's debating a career motor-mouth politician who is domestically and internationally aware, the moderator is historically no-nonsense, and the topics for discussion go way beyond the five top issues in Alaska (essentially, a pipeline; oil and gas revenue; dealing with Inuit rights/concerns; ecological/environmental management of the artic zone regions; and basic governance of a state with only 600K citizens). Cracking jokes and trying to land zingers may be fine when you're on the stage alone at a rally or your convention, but it doesn't sell when you're facing a moderator who is a very serious and respected journalist (and not a light-weight smiley face like Katie Couric).
My dream is that she'll say something so uberrifically stupid that everyone'll pause for about 3 dead-silent seconds out of confusion, then collectively laugh her off-stage. Then Sandman from Showtime @ The Apollo will come on and drag her off with his cane. Dufus, I know it won't really happen. I said it's a dream.
Even though Biden could totally stomp her, he's up against the media machine which could possibly skew his every move as sexist. Given that they let Obama slide with the win in the first debate (it was more of a tie), they'll probably announce her as the winner. Then I'll have to hear Pat BuKKKanan chatter on and on about how well she did.
I will never understand why MSNBC allows that yahoo to talk on their network. There are plenty more balanced, intelligent R-side speakers who could fill that spot.
No comments:
Post a Comment