The debate ended and my only reaction was, "Shoot, now I've got to think of something intelligent to say about that."
Neither candidate said anything unexpected (as expected), nor anything particularly strong, nor much with more than four syllables, but that too was predictable.
In fact, more than anything, I'm wondering if the concept of debate is completely antiquated. Perhaps years ago, when exposure to candidates' platforms was more limited or their character and oratory proficiency were not broadcast daily, they served a purpose.
I think the AP made the point best, when I saw they released (accidentally, I assume) their debate coverage at 8 am the morning before the debates (9/30), commenting on Kerry's scholarly appearance and both men's discussion of the War on Terror.
Moreover, the coverage of the pre-debate concessions demanded by each candidate, that they shake hands for no longer than three seconds, that the podiums be placed such that Kerry's height advantage was not immediately apparent, that no candidate be broadcast while looking at his watch...
So what did we get out of it? In typical college student style, a drinking game. A drink for any Vietnam allusion, references to Bush Sr, four syllable words, mispronunciations of nuclear.
And what did we actually want? Foreign policy discussion involving more than terrorism, and a concrete plan from either candidate for procession in Iraq; that's not so much to ask for, is it?
Respond
Back to top