« Evangelicals and 2008 | Main | Does Education Matter? »
November 16, 2007
The Debate
I didn't watch the debate. This is why.
November 16, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I find the ongoing enthusiasm amongst lefty bloggers for not watching the debates to be more than slightly bizarre.
This attitude actually makes a bit of sense when it comes from Matthew, given his overall distaste for electoral politics. But I expect better from Ezra.
We're likely going to be living with the results of this nomination battle for a long time to come. It's worth paying attention.
American electoral politics consists of what happens on TV. If you're too good to watch, you're too good to have relevant opinions of American electoral politics.
-----
Having watched, I'll note that while I have severe problems with MSNBC's handling of the debates, CNN makes MSNBC look very, very good by comparison.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 16, 2007 1:33:37 AM
Yeah Nana, because I'm sure this is the best place to peddle your wicked RMT wares...
Posted by: soullite | Nov 16, 2007 6:30:18 AM
I don't find a Wolf Blitzer moderated debate any more or less ridiculous than a Chris Matthews moderated talk show (ok, maybe a little more ridiculous). But all the more reason to have sane voices explaining what is up and what is down. For the same reason we're glad to see you challenging the CV on Hardball, I would like you to be watching and weighing in on these debates. That said, these things have become so distorted, superficial and nonsensical, I'm not sure if it's a good sign when my candidate does WELL in them.
Posted by: Devin Castles | Nov 16, 2007 6:51:59 AM
Newsflash, CNN is just another thinly concealed propaganda arm of corporate interests in this country.
The journalists who work for the network all believe their independent thinkers who are able to view problems dispassionately and objectively, because they got some loose training in this approach during their college years.
Perhaps early in their career they gave some thought to the endless stream of lackeys and toadies who swing by their office on a daily basis to voice the concerns and perspectives of corporate. But after 10 or 20 years of this daily bombardment, the conditioning has set in, and they hardly even notice when they're being manipulated any longer.
What we need at these networks are journalists with some passion, folks who are able to evaluate the situation and recognize when one viewpoint has literally no ground on which to stand in comparison to another viewpoint and presents the information as it is, without attempting to artificially manufacture validity where there is none.
In many ways, the concept of objective journalism has been turned on its head, and far too few journalists are willing to rock the boat, and do the right thing, because their careers depend upon maintaining the façade and the pretense.
Posted by: Aaron B Brown | Nov 16, 2007 7:08:51 AM
I was not impressed with the debate last night, it was far too much of a manufactured media event, then an actual debate. Chris Dodd seemed like the only person who was interested in a more genuine exchange.
And I wonder how many of the people in the crowd were planted there by the Hillary campaign, I wonder if anyone bothered to question these hecklers and Hooters. To me it seemed quite obviously contrived.
They should have been detained, and after a little water boarding I'm sure they would've spilled their guts. Doubtless their checks are in the mail already. :-)
Posted by: Aaron B Brown | Nov 16, 2007 7:17:14 AM
About the media they do whatever will attract viewers/readers. When I lived in Bradenton Florida the Bradenton Herald once had the following headline in huge type:
"Braden Florida Has the Highest Death Rate in the USA"
Down in the body of the story a few paragraphs in it said "Bradenton has the second oldest population in USA and we just beat out the town with the oldest."
When reading listening/reading the news media you need to keep that in mind that their goal to sell products be attracting viewers. They are all far more like the enquirer than they like us to believe.
Their behavior can be damaging when people believe them. Like in the case of where they have built up a few thousand Arab Islamic terrorists into a world threatening force or when they talk about how bad American school/medical care are or the crisis in health insurance etc.. If they can convince is that our economy will be crushed without Arab petroleum or that we do not have plenty of time to address AGW or that addressing AGW will destroy our economy has detrimental affects.
Non-incumbent politicians generally love this media behavior because non-incumbent politicians need to convince the people that there is a significant problem that they have a solution to it.
A point on this I was against the stupid war in Iraq from the start and I think that it is completely stupid but it has not gone as badly as the media made it look. In fact we won the war in 2 weeks. BTW We should leave Iraq now and ignore the media when they make it sound like the end of the world.
The media also grotesquely botched the Katrina story. They told of people being killed in the super dome etc. etc and it never happened.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 16, 2007 9:11:27 AM
Overall the debate form and question list seemed to suck to me, although as far as the candidates went, each had some really high and some really low moments. And I'm sure my opinions of which moments are which will differ 100% from the pundits.
As a tiny observation, I think Kucinich was really, really p***ed off most of the evening, and now I think he actually hates Edwards. Which seems stupid to me, because Edwards backs more of Kucinich's views and agenda than any other candidate and stands more than a snowball's chance in hell of being President. But although he had his moments, he seemed more like too publicly bitter than righteously angry.
And briefly I thought Obama did very, very well in the ways that matter to me. On the downside, as an Edwards supporter, I'm wondering why overall he seems so uncomfortable with the debate format. Biden may have actually showed the lot of them how to introduce and promote your points as well as debate your rivals, though his little inside joke about being incredibly concise and stopping whenever the moderator asks immediately is growing old as a joke.
I'm completely confused by the whole 'coronation' feel toward Hillary, but if that's the way the country wants to go, if that's the best they think we can do, then, well, whatever.
Sometimes I just get tired of trying to justify giving a sh*t about the same population which to some significant fraction came up with a variety of whiny, pathetic reasons to vote for Bush Jr. over Kerry (whatever percentage you think actually did) because Kerry didn't run their fantasy of a Great Campaign. Or people that think that people like Edwards are 'too radical' or not enough 'in the middle'.
Posted by: El Cid | Nov 16, 2007 9:40:37 AM
Shorter Yglesias: "Don't ask about immigration, just keep moving...nothing to see here."
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 16, 2007 9:40:40 AM
I am embarrassed for Mr. Yglesias. Better debates, sure. Whining about gotcha questions is loserish, no matter who is doing the whining. Especially when they are forseeable questions about hot topics, not gotchas about unforseen details.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Nov 16, 2007 3:43:37 PM
Also, a question about Roe would, could be an opportunity to firm up your credentials? What does it mean that an answer will "alienate" voters in this context or the others? That would make the question a good one, wouldn't it? Setting the candidates apart. Finding out their views on the issues that might make the difference in how someone votes? The more I think about the Yglesias post the more ridiculous it is.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Nov 16, 2007 3:47:24 PM
