Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the debates are the culmination of television's staging of the presidential campign as sporting event.
no worries about excess content.
no worries about coherent presentation of complex issues.
if kerry seems smarter than bush (which is not unlikely) then commentary can turn to weight class, wondering why a middleweight is fighting a flyweight and dont you feel sympathetic to the flyweight who of course is getting pummelled out there simply because you cant expect a flyweight to compete with a middleweight and so the evaluation of the debates as event becomes shifted onto absurd criteria as well.
personally, i think the evening would be better spent trying to work out important questions of great moment, like why would an establishment that is advertising a "hookah night" also brag about the fact that they put white wine in the pipes? why would you do that?
|
While I agree that the debates can be viewed as a sporting event, they are also very important in order to get a better feel for the views of each candidate and for America as a whole to get a chance to hear responses to questions IN context.
And yes, while Bush often appears to be less smart than many, he is sometimes considered a better debater than some or comes across as a better debater. Why? He is aggresive. Aggression often sounds better than weak stammering (even if due to thinking through to find the best most accurate answer).