clarity
Well, I'm happy to be proven wrong by the instant-reaction polls, most of which seem to be showing a Kerry win. I wonder if that isn't a byproduct of people having decided, based on the previous two debates, that Kerry's demeanor is more presidential. If so, it's bad news for the President.
Still, I really thought last night was easily Bush's strongest performance, and that at times he outperformed Kerry significantly -- particularly in the first half of the debate. Things levelled out toward the end, however. Also working against a decisive victory either way: the high wonkiness level -- I imagine a lot of people (myself included) didn't pay enough attention to detail to truly evaluate the arguments on their merits. The President's positions are harder to attack when shrouded in statistics; Kerry definitely seems to benefit most when he can go after the administration's overly simplistic conceptual approach to inherently dramatic issues like the war on terror.
Given the lack of gaffes and zingers, I think this debate will flow into the others in the minds of most people. I suspect that most folks will remember an overall debate narrative rather than a singular closing impression. If that's the case, then these contests clearly did Kerry's campaign a lot of good.
However, after a night of television viewing and carefully considering the options, I'm leaning toward casting my vote for that dude with all the knives on Lost. Promising to kill the terrorists is fine and all, but how many wild boars have either of the major party candidates personally downed?
Also: how bad were Bob Schieffer's questions? His use of the flu vaccine fiasco as a segue into a discussion of healthcare was kind of like saying, "Apple juice prices are rising. Would you say there's a child care crisis in America today?"
Comments
Hey Tommy, in an effort to accidentally bump into Hot Hot Devon at the gym I have started going late on Wednesday nights, forcing me to watch Lost because there isn't shit else to watch on TV at that time. And boy have I got a lot of questions about the knife guy. First of all, sure he gets results but not in a very pragmatic manner. He completely abandoned his buddy bleeding in the muck just to get a wild boar which they probably didn't even need that bad. I'm sure that tropical island has any number of vegetarian options. He is definately an act-first think-later guy and is totally a slave to his emotions. Do we really need another weapon-toting yahoo with an enigmatic personal agenda in the Oval Office?
1. Lost is better than this season of ANTM. I am very sorry to confess.
2. My favorite hard-hitting debate question of last night (paraphrased), "How much do you love your women-folk?" Gag.
Jon, to answer your question: yes.
(I'm as surprised as you are)
I can't really figure out how to evaluate debate moderators—if a wilfully stupid question provokes either a really smart dodge or a very stupid answer, isn't it in some way a good question? I tend to give them all passing grades for not being Wolf Blitzer.
I thought Bob was awful. But in his defense, the question about the flu vaccine was pertinent. More american will probably die from the flu, than in Iraq in the next five months. Why Kerry didn't exploit this f*** up more than he did, I don't know. Not to mention how many branching discussions could have stemmed from this. Bush says drugs from Canada are bad, except when we're short on vaccines and then he's all for it.
Maybe so, but they won't die for lack of a flu vaccine. And the vaccine problems have very little in common with the problems plaguing our healthcare system.
I guess Kriston's got a point, that the discussion spurred by the questions is a better way to gauge the moderation than the questions themselves. But on the other hand, the candidates will cram their planned responses into whatever question they find themselves presented with. So I still think Schieffer's questions should have been better.
He did run the show better than Gwen Ifill (although her questions were better). But they should think about just using Lehrer for all the debates.
bush has never said drugs from canada are bad. they just have to pass our FDA. democrats can't have it both way. you don't want jobs outsourced, yet you want jobs for drug manufacturing and research outsourced is basically what you are saying. the reason kerry didn't pin the flu vaccine problem on bush is because it was clearly a fuck up from england, not from america. i also doubt that there will be that many deaths unless people like us, who are in good health, go out and use the vaccines to keep us from being out of work for a week or two.
Jillyn, I agree completely about the flu vaccine. It's a silly political issue to play against Bush. Frankly, the flu vaccine isn't that critical a health resource, and it wasn't the administration's fault.
But on the drug reimportation thing -- it's reimportation. Not buying Canadian drugs. So, I think you're misinterpreting the situation. This might lower drug company profits... but, they won't be getting any sympathy from me.
Also, I'll point out that, given Bush's previous rhetoric and inaction, he's likely just playing lip service to drug reimportation because his pro-industry position on this issue isn't very popular.
Post A Comment