There’s nothing quite like watching a presidential debate with a roomful of journalism students.
Journalists are, of course, impartial observers and reporters of events. The experience was pretty much what I expected, except I was under the impression that Senator John McCain was running for president, not trying out a standup comedy routine.
The giggles and snickers directed at McCain were not unexpected. I have come to accept my role as a lone soldier in the battlefield of academia, but there just isn’t any reason to laugh, especially with the world the way it is today.
In a town hall setting at Belmont University in Nashville, McCain took on his rival, Democrat Senator Barack Obama in the second presidential debate. With four weeks left until the election and the candidates running an almost even race, many people are looking for answers to the issues that may help them decide who they are going to vote for.
Obama began as expected by taking a shot at President Bush, then mixing in the usual liberal pandering to the middle class by promising tax cuts. He blamed the free market for the financial troubles that have affected the economy, which simply makes no sense. Obama talks a lot, but he doesn’t say very much.
McCain countered Obama’s tax plans by emphasizing that all taxes should be lower, or at best not increased. He criticized the federal government’s excessive spending, and he emphasized his plans for the mortgage crisis. McCain also managed to work in the word “cronies” to describe some of Obama’s connections, a very apt description to be sure.
Democrats can always be counted on for favoring government involvement, and Obama promises that he will not deregulate the financial system. After all, a few statements earlier he blamed the free market. Obama continues to reference Bush and the “last eight years,” and everybody (almost everybody) gets a good laugh.
McCain makes a point of distancing himself from Bush, a well-deserved point. All is fair, but there really is no comparison. In fact, it has been said that McCain and Bush don’t even get along.
As he spoke, McCain had a noticeably softer tone than Obama. It was almost as if Obama felt he needed to talk louder and with more emphasis to be heard and understood. At times, Obama seemed a bit flustered and unsure of his words. At other times, he prattled on about subjects that weren’t even related.
Obama did not like to answer direct questions, and McCain made not one but several references to Obama’s inability to speak to the issues. When asked about Medicare and Social Security, Obama went off in a direction that I would need a map to follow. He ended up calling the system “not fair.”
Both candidates did agree on many issues, though each took turns saying pretty much the same general things about the environment and the dependence on foreign oil.
The best way I can summarize what I have seen in this political contest is that John McCain has the ability to be a statesman. Barack Obama does not come across as someone with the experience to be a world leader, let alone the leader of the strongest nation in the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a well written column, one that I could only take issue with in a couple of places as a journalist. Ideologically we quite obviously do not see eye-to-eye.
From my perspective as a journalist and columnist, you make a couple of claims that beg to be substantiated.
First, journalists are not impartial observers. Perhaps in a perfect world... but alas this is not - we are human. And columnists are in the business of taking sides.
the candidates running an almost even race
The polls I've seen state otherwise. I am quite sure there are some credible or quasi-credible polls that support this claim - attribution would help here.
McCain makes a point of distancing himself from Bush, a well-deserved point. All is fair, but there really is no comparison. In fact, it has been said that McCain and Bush don’t even get along.
Who said it?
I applaud you for standing up to be the "lone soldier." However, as such you are under even more scrutiny to support what you say against what can sometimes be an unforgiving majority.
The writer in this case self discloses that he is a supporter of the GOP early on, which is ok, but perhaps could have been said with a more subtle phrasing.
("I have come to accept my role as a lone soldier in the battlefield of academia,...")
That said, the writer writes reasonably straightforward, though with an obvious bias in descriptive language:
"Obama began as expected by taking a shot at President Bush..."
More effective would been to have quoted - or described that shot - and said why it was, in fact, a 'shot' and not a reasoned argument.
Likewise, "Obama talks a lot, but he doesn’t say very much..." begs for an example.
A good argument can be made that one candidate is more effective than the other, or more likely to be elected, or make a better president, though it requires some evidence to make the argument.
The writer offers good use of language in several spots.
For example, the use of the word "prattle..."
But I am prattling on too much here.
Post a Comment