It is one week, give or take an hour or two, until my twenty first birthday. That milestone that signifies so much, and I suspect changes so little, for millions of Americans across the country.
But I don't want to dwell on the stereotyped importance. I want to dwell on the state of affairs that I have arrived at some 252 months after that day in 1987.
When we are young, I think the world seems very constant, because we have only ever seen such a very small sliver of time's passage. And I think it is customary to instill this sense of security in our children. We try to keep them warm, and full of food, and occupied with the same toys in the same room.
But at the close of two decades and one year, the vantage point seems much higher, and I can begin to appreciate the fullness, and the dynamic flow of things.
Sometimes I wonder at having gotten to this moment of time we call the present. So much has occurred, and there is even more than this yet to occur. I don't understand having made it to this point. I don't know what it means to be here, in now-ness.
And if I am vague herein, it is though no malicious desire to keep my reader ignorant, but rather through my own inability to adequately express myself.
I remember rotary phones. I remember the Apple II computer. And Floppy Disks. I remember Power Rangers, tomagachi, and the twin towers. All of these things rise up, in the crests of great waves, and all of these things come washing up, in a surfeit of metaphorical surf. And soon enough, the next wave rolls through, bringing cell phones, ipods, flash drives, britney spears and the Patriot Act. And soon, I suspect, these things will recede back out to sea as well.
In one week, I will be twenty one. I am arriving at the golden ages of which I long dreamt about as a child, and as a kid, and as a teen. And they are more complex than I thought. And they are more difficult than I thought. And I wonder at the human condition that pushes me through each day's trials and sees me to tomorrow, and tomorrow, and the next day.
There is, in this reflection, not a profound sadness. Nor even any disillusionment. I am not the wearied desert traveler who finds sand in his mouth where he thought to find an oasis and salvation. What I feel is not cynicism or bitterness. I would more likely call it acceptance. It is the mood of a man who needs to be perpetually reminded of the day's agenda. My senses tell me now that this is how things are, what they've become, and I docilely accept them, for what else is there to do? There is no confusion in that what is is not what I thought it would be. I accept just as readily that then I was mistaken. And now I am not. And in the future I may yet be again, even about these things I again hold to be sure. Such is the nature of this existence.
I find it hard, at the moment, to conjure up any sort of passions. Perhaps what I lack is purpose. Maybe in some sense freedom. Purpose is important. It drives a man. It sustains him. I appeal to purpose, then, at the close of my twenty-first year on this Earth.
I shall close then, with what feels to me the most appropriate quote imaginable, by one of the greatest playwrights imaginable, from one of his best works.
Mr. Shaw, you have the floor.
============================================================
MORELL
Man can climb to the highest summits; but he cannot dwell there long.
MARCHBANKS
It's false: there can he dwell for ever and there only. It's in the other moments that he can find no rest, no sense of the silent glory of life. Where would you have me spend my moments, if not on the summits?
============================================================
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Conservative Tourette's
Alright. Just a quick update here.
I understand that sometimes people see things, and they make assumptions. And, we all do this. I get that. But sometimes those assumptions really just sound a little absurd.
Here's a good one.
Did you hear about how Obama is refashioning the American flag in his own image? Yeah, it's got all the same colors, but now there's a real big O in the blue part, and he did away with a bunch of the stars.
I don't think Bob Grant mentions this part, but I betcha he didn't include a star for any state that he didn't win in the primaries.
Or maybe the stars aren't the United States, but some collection of exotic African or Muslim states! Stop the presses!
Wait. What? Oh. I see. ...So it's not a new white flag of surrender to the terrorists that he pals around with while eating babies and beating women and stoking his tyrannical megalomaniacal ego??
Well then what else could it possibly be?
Oh. That's the state flag of Ohio, you say? That seems like an odd and rather implausible thing to place in the background of your rally in Toledo, Ohio.
Shoot. And I was so hoping for another excuse to call him an arrogant, elitist liberal. Though, I admit, it's a pretty nicely designed flag- *gasp* Do you think he's gay, too?
Oh, right, he didn't design the flag. It was probably designed by somebody in Ohio who wasn't Obama. As far as we know...
*cough* Hussein, Arab, Ayers, Muslim, tax raising, Manchurian, teach-kids-sex! *cough*
Sorry. Something in my throat.
I understand that sometimes people see things, and they make assumptions. And, we all do this. I get that. But sometimes those assumptions really just sound a little absurd.
Here's a good one.
Did you hear about how Obama is refashioning the American flag in his own image? Yeah, it's got all the same colors, but now there's a real big O in the blue part, and he did away with a bunch of the stars.
I don't think Bob Grant mentions this part, but I betcha he didn't include a star for any state that he didn't win in the primaries.
Or maybe the stars aren't the United States, but some collection of exotic African or Muslim states! Stop the presses!
Wait. What? Oh. I see. ...So it's not a new white flag of surrender to the terrorists that he pals around with while eating babies and beating women and stoking his tyrannical megalomaniacal ego??
Well then what else could it possibly be?
Oh. That's the state flag of Ohio, you say? That seems like an odd and rather implausible thing to place in the background of your rally in Toledo, Ohio.
Shoot. And I was so hoping for another excuse to call him an arrogant, elitist liberal. Though, I admit, it's a pretty nicely designed flag- *gasp* Do you think he's gay, too?
Oh, right, he didn't design the flag. It was probably designed by somebody in Ohio who wasn't Obama. As far as we know...
*cough* Hussein, Arab, Ayers, Muslim, tax raising, Manchurian, teach-kids-sex! *cough*
Sorry. Something in my throat.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Variations on a Theme
I knew going into the debate on Wednesday night that we weren't likely to hear anything substantially different from the previous debates. But third time's supposedly the charm, and I wanted to see what Bob Schieffer could do as the moderator.
Disclaimer: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say up front that I have an affinity for Bob Schieffer that seems to border on doting. I thoroughly appreciate his years of experience in dealing with slippery politicians, and managing to actually extract some concrete positions from them. Moreover, he does this in a classy, reserved way that is perhaps the antithesis of the rather gruff and abrasive approach taken by Tom Brokaw a few days ago.
On Wednesday night, Mr. Schieffer did not disappoint.
Some articles point to the fact that the format of the debate was simply more conducive to actually having a debate. Sitting at a table, in such close proximity to the other candidate and the moderator makes it more difficult to willfully ignore or speak over either person. And I suspect there is a good amount of truth to this. I also would argue that the other half of the debate's merits were brought out by Schieffer.
But, alas, Mr. Schieffer himself is not running for president. My guess is that he has far too much wisdom for that. Not to mention, do you know how many politicians this guy has associated with over the last forty years? And I hear he invites them to chat weekly. Without preconditions!
Anyway. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, if you will, of the debate proper.
I agree with Nate Silver's assessment of McCain's arc in the debate. I think McCain was coming off as stronger, and more than holding his own at the beginning of the debate. But as soon as McCain got into the question of running a negative campaign, he tripped over his own feet, and couldn't really get his stride back.
The problem, in my eyes, was that McCain has been proving that "erratic" label that Obama tossed out there in his ads. It's one thing for your political opponent to try and tag you with a label. It's another to prove him right.
As Nate points out, the public's perception is that McCain has been running the more negative campaign. So for McCain to go out there and try and blame Obama for the negative tone because he refused to take part in town hall meetings and then immediately sling some more mud at Obama about his campaign spending and dishonesty, it just doesn't seem credible.
And Obama, to his credit, seemed to take everything McCain threw at him and deftly knocked it aside with a calm and rather casual air. The "controversy" over what John Lewis said about McCain was never going to play particularly well for McCain no matter how he phrased it, I thought, so I was surprised he brought it up at all.
But Obama came back with a particularly effective counter-punch: "I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply."
With one line, Obama eloquently defended himself with a double whammy, saying two key things in the subtext. First, there have been insinuations against me that I'm a covert Muslim, a terrorist, even the antichrist, and you don't hear me whining about it, John. Second, I agree wholeheartedly that we should be discussing the issues, so why don't you actually do that, Senator?
And this exchange, of course, didn't end there. And I would like to point out, that it was Obama who actually seemed to tire of this back and forth over nonsense first. He tried to steer the conversation back to the issues, but McCain would have none of it. And this is where McCain began to really become a little frenetic:
"it's not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.
And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about."
Now, you can call me biased, because I am, but this seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. McCain spends all this time talking about how untrustworthy his opponent is, and sums it all up by saying, "And that's how I'm gonna fix the economy." Huh?
If you notice, Obama did not bring up Mr. Keating, and McCain, for all his huffing and puffing was unable to offer any examples of Obama's campaign being quite as nasty as his own. And for the record, not that I like any of the options, but I'd rather be compared to Keating and George Wallace than Osama bin Laden and the anti-Christ. For one thing, people don't want to lynch George Wallace.
Then there was McCain's quip that Obama wants to "spread the wealth around." I guess I can understand how this can frighten some people, and how they might think that the big bad government is going to come in and take your money from you. But spread the wealth around might not sound like such a bad alternative to what McCain proposes, which is to make sure the wealth stays exactly where it is: with the big corporations and mortgage brokers. That's what the bailout, improperly applied will do. That's what buying up all the bad debt by the government will do. And that money, which is coming from taxpayers, so I guess that means Joe the plumber, etc, will go to... *drum roll* big corporations! (AKA, NOT Joe the Plumber.)
Incidentally, I feel really bad for Joe the Plumber. That's not how I want my fifteen minutes of fame to get wasted.
And later, McCain tried to explain that he would test judges on their qualifications, but would not impose litmus tests. It just so happens however that ideological positions, like being for Roe v. Wade, makes a judge unqualified in his eyes. This, we're led to believe is not a litmus test. In their closing remarks, McCain gave us his standard fare about embodying change in his own way, and being a humble servant of our country time and time again. Obama gave us his story of the hope of brighter days if we buckle down and come together and sacrifice. I know which one resonates with me more. I hope that it resonates with the American people, too.
So, overall, I thought Obama was more presidential. He was calmer, more direct on policy issues, and in command of all the material. McCain seemed desperate to attack, and probably was. He did seem to try to tear Obama down more than lift himself up, and I don't think it worked in his favor much, if at all. Nothing really new was added to the conversation (No, not even Joe the Plumber) and that suits me just fine because it means Senator Obama should still be way up in the polls tomorrow.
To be fair, though, I kind of wish we could bring back the good old no-holes-barred 19th century debates where anything goes, and you've got to have the wit and grit to survive, and you can get away with stuff like this:
“I don’t understand that there is any place where any alteration [...] would be changed except in the state legislature, and in the Congress of the United States, and I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, but as Judge Douglas does seem to be in constant horror of some such thing I do recommend that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the next legislature to vote it off.”
-Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Douglass Debates, 1858.
Zing.
Disclaimer: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say up front that I have an affinity for Bob Schieffer that seems to border on doting. I thoroughly appreciate his years of experience in dealing with slippery politicians, and managing to actually extract some concrete positions from them. Moreover, he does this in a classy, reserved way that is perhaps the antithesis of the rather gruff and abrasive approach taken by Tom Brokaw a few days ago.
On Wednesday night, Mr. Schieffer did not disappoint.
Some articles point to the fact that the format of the debate was simply more conducive to actually having a debate. Sitting at a table, in such close proximity to the other candidate and the moderator makes it more difficult to willfully ignore or speak over either person. And I suspect there is a good amount of truth to this. I also would argue that the other half of the debate's merits were brought out by Schieffer.
But, alas, Mr. Schieffer himself is not running for president. My guess is that he has far too much wisdom for that. Not to mention, do you know how many politicians this guy has associated with over the last forty years? And I hear he invites them to chat weekly. Without preconditions!
Anyway. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, if you will, of the debate proper.
I agree with Nate Silver's assessment of McCain's arc in the debate. I think McCain was coming off as stronger, and more than holding his own at the beginning of the debate. But as soon as McCain got into the question of running a negative campaign, he tripped over his own feet, and couldn't really get his stride back.
The problem, in my eyes, was that McCain has been proving that "erratic" label that Obama tossed out there in his ads. It's one thing for your political opponent to try and tag you with a label. It's another to prove him right.
As Nate points out, the public's perception is that McCain has been running the more negative campaign. So for McCain to go out there and try and blame Obama for the negative tone because he refused to take part in town hall meetings and then immediately sling some more mud at Obama about his campaign spending and dishonesty, it just doesn't seem credible.
And Obama, to his credit, seemed to take everything McCain threw at him and deftly knocked it aside with a calm and rather casual air. The "controversy" over what John Lewis said about McCain was never going to play particularly well for McCain no matter how he phrased it, I thought, so I was surprised he brought it up at all.
But Obama came back with a particularly effective counter-punch: "I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply."
With one line, Obama eloquently defended himself with a double whammy, saying two key things in the subtext. First, there have been insinuations against me that I'm a covert Muslim, a terrorist, even the antichrist, and you don't hear me whining about it, John. Second, I agree wholeheartedly that we should be discussing the issues, so why don't you actually do that, Senator?
And this exchange, of course, didn't end there. And I would like to point out, that it was Obama who actually seemed to tire of this back and forth over nonsense first. He tried to steer the conversation back to the issues, but McCain would have none of it. And this is where McCain began to really become a little frenetic:
"it's not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.
And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about."
Now, you can call me biased, because I am, but this seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. McCain spends all this time talking about how untrustworthy his opponent is, and sums it all up by saying, "And that's how I'm gonna fix the economy." Huh?
If you notice, Obama did not bring up Mr. Keating, and McCain, for all his huffing and puffing was unable to offer any examples of Obama's campaign being quite as nasty as his own. And for the record, not that I like any of the options, but I'd rather be compared to Keating and George Wallace than Osama bin Laden and the anti-Christ. For one thing, people don't want to lynch George Wallace.
Then there was McCain's quip that Obama wants to "spread the wealth around." I guess I can understand how this can frighten some people, and how they might think that the big bad government is going to come in and take your money from you. But spread the wealth around might not sound like such a bad alternative to what McCain proposes, which is to make sure the wealth stays exactly where it is: with the big corporations and mortgage brokers. That's what the bailout, improperly applied will do. That's what buying up all the bad debt by the government will do. And that money, which is coming from taxpayers, so I guess that means Joe the plumber, etc, will go to... *drum roll* big corporations! (AKA, NOT Joe the Plumber.)
Incidentally, I feel really bad for Joe the Plumber. That's not how I want my fifteen minutes of fame to get wasted.
And later, McCain tried to explain that he would test judges on their qualifications, but would not impose litmus tests. It just so happens however that ideological positions, like being for Roe v. Wade, makes a judge unqualified in his eyes. This, we're led to believe is not a litmus test. In their closing remarks, McCain gave us his standard fare about embodying change in his own way, and being a humble servant of our country time and time again. Obama gave us his story of the hope of brighter days if we buckle down and come together and sacrifice. I know which one resonates with me more. I hope that it resonates with the American people, too.
So, overall, I thought Obama was more presidential. He was calmer, more direct on policy issues, and in command of all the material. McCain seemed desperate to attack, and probably was. He did seem to try to tear Obama down more than lift himself up, and I don't think it worked in his favor much, if at all. Nothing really new was added to the conversation (No, not even Joe the Plumber) and that suits me just fine because it means Senator Obama should still be way up in the polls tomorrow.
To be fair, though, I kind of wish we could bring back the good old no-holes-barred 19th century debates where anything goes, and you've got to have the wit and grit to survive, and you can get away with stuff like this:
“I don’t understand that there is any place where any alteration [...] would be changed except in the state legislature, and in the Congress of the United States, and I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, but as Judge Douglas does seem to be in constant horror of some such thing I do recommend that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the next legislature to vote it off.”
-Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Douglass Debates, 1858.
Zing.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Debate of the Union
Last week, in a town hall meeting, a supporter of John McCain apparently asked him when he was going to take the gloves off with Barack Obama. McCain retorted, "How about next Tuesday?" referring to last night's Presidential debate.
He certainly did.
Since the inception of Barack's candidacy, I have become an avid, (see also: voracious) reader of the news and the ups and downs and ins and outs of the campaign. Now many of these articles tend to be rather insipid, and the attempts to fabricate conflict and petty dramas rather obvious. One of the many variations on this theme early on was the question of whether Barack Obama was black enough or too black. I'm sure you remember it well. One phrase in particular has kept recurring every time Obama has not done quite well enough in the polls, and every pundit likes to tell us that Barack's gotta watch out! He's always perilously close to looking like the angry black man.
Now, last week, I guess I felt just a little bit like this was altogether a stupid notion that the media played up because we're still getting used to someone a little darker skinned on the ticket. But apparently coming across as "too angry" just makes for good political news.
Following the debate, a lot of the news coming has been talking about how angry McCain seemed, and how his disdain for Obama really shone through last night. Honestly, I didn't pick up on this as much as the pundits, and after the debate, given how aggressive McCain had been, I really was looking for things to beat up on him about. But politics really is in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe it's just completely arbitrary. Probably the latter.
But the one bit that really did make me smile was this little nugget about calling Obama "that one". John McCain was on message last night, but he sure delivered it a little oddly at times. What I did notice along with some other articles, notably this one from Haaretz.com was McCain's sporadic and odd use of humor last night that fell on incomprehending ears.
Here's an excerpt:
"McCain also made a number of odd assertions, including that determining the content of Obama's tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to a wall, an act which is only impressive to anyone who hasn't tried to insulate a house with pudding. Another failed and arguably bizarre attempt at humor and rhetorical victory came when McCain referred to the need for the government to avoid funding "gold-plated Cadillac health-care plans" that "pay for things like hair plug treatments, I may need one, but who knows." Though it may have been in retrospect a sly jab at Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's alleged reconstructive scalp work, the joke fell flat and seemed odd and out of place to say the least.
Later, when asked who he would appoint as Treasury secretary, McCain joked "not you Tom" to a deafening silence, before saying it must be someone Americans can identify with and trust, mentioning the CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman, whose company on Monday announced plans to cut 10% of its workforce and reportedly suffered a 56% loss in the value of its shares over the past year"
I watched the debate with my friend Erik, and right after McCain quppied that last one back to Brokaw, we both turned to one another and did a kind of "Wha?" I think it was not only the content, but the way in which McCain responded. It was nearly on top of the end of Brokaw's sentence, so it not only took a moment to figure out what McCain had said, but another moment after you realized that you'd heard him exactly right and it still didn't make sense.
But to get to my overall opinions, I was pretty underwhelmed by the debate. Barack did well, and I particularly liked his answer about the need to sacrifice more for our country. (Bush's failure to capitalize on the willingness of the American people to sacrifice for the common good is I still think one of the most damning features of his presidency.) But I don't think Obama did as well as McCain did. McCain was always on the offensive, and I hear some people like that. And I'm sure he got a few votes with his gratitude and little arm pat of the military veteran who asked a question. It was much more engaging on a personal level than Obama's thank you and my sense was that people may have felt that Obama remained fairly aloof, as he's been charged with. I also don't know how his interruptions of an increasingly belligerent Tom Brokaw to defend himself went over. I don't pretend to know how this all plays out in the mind's of swing voters, but I worry that it reinforced the Obama being aloof and arrogant stereotype. The pundits tell me this is not true. And I hope they are right. And I tend to believe them that if Obama really is this far up in the polls, he doesn't want to overreach and do something stupid in these debates. He really should just hold his own, and hold his lead. And it looks like he largely did that.
I will say this, Obama still looks more presidential to me. His answers were substantive, if not always exactly on topic, and he has passed the experience test for most voters. We'll wait and see how it goes. I'm looking forward to the next one, not because I'm relishing hearing the two of them have at it over who's position is more nuanced than that, and who's statement of their opponent's position is more mischaracterized (even I tired of that after 30 minutes) but because Bob Schiffer is hands down the man. If you haven't watched his program Face the Nation, you should. Unless of course, you don't like politics to begin with, in which case, I can't fathom why you're still reading this.
Closing thoughts: Also last night, on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart had Sarah Vowell on. Stewart, who I have noticed is also struggling to keep the steam from showing too much under his collar at times, brought up what I consider to be a very valid point.
He mentioned how when Sarah Palin was in New York, she visited Ground Zero, and she draped herself in our collective pain, and misery, and patriotism. (I even hesitate to use "our" here, since I'm a native New Jerseyan, but at least I knew someone in the towers. I doubt the same about Palin) And she professed all this empathy and common ground. And then, Stewart points out, she flies off to some other part of the country and goes back to talking, nay, shitting on New York for our "East Coast, elitist, latte-drinking liberalism." America is a big country. I'm okay if you don't like Manhattan. But don't tell me you're gonna be maverick-y and bring the country together by uniting it against half of itself.
Gosh darnit, I know you're prolly not so good at math either, Ms. Palin, but that's not uniting, that's divide-imicating.
He certainly did.
Since the inception of Barack's candidacy, I have become an avid, (see also: voracious) reader of the news and the ups and downs and ins and outs of the campaign. Now many of these articles tend to be rather insipid, and the attempts to fabricate conflict and petty dramas rather obvious. One of the many variations on this theme early on was the question of whether Barack Obama was black enough or too black. I'm sure you remember it well. One phrase in particular has kept recurring every time Obama has not done quite well enough in the polls, and every pundit likes to tell us that Barack's gotta watch out! He's always perilously close to looking like the angry black man.
Now, last week, I guess I felt just a little bit like this was altogether a stupid notion that the media played up because we're still getting used to someone a little darker skinned on the ticket. But apparently coming across as "too angry" just makes for good political news.
Following the debate, a lot of the news coming has been talking about how angry McCain seemed, and how his disdain for Obama really shone through last night. Honestly, I didn't pick up on this as much as the pundits, and after the debate, given how aggressive McCain had been, I really was looking for things to beat up on him about. But politics really is in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe it's just completely arbitrary. Probably the latter.
But the one bit that really did make me smile was this little nugget about calling Obama "that one". John McCain was on message last night, but he sure delivered it a little oddly at times. What I did notice along with some other articles, notably this one from Haaretz.com was McCain's sporadic and odd use of humor last night that fell on incomprehending ears.
Here's an excerpt:
"McCain also made a number of odd assertions, including that determining the content of Obama's tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to a wall, an act which is only impressive to anyone who hasn't tried to insulate a house with pudding. Another failed and arguably bizarre attempt at humor and rhetorical victory came when McCain referred to the need for the government to avoid funding "gold-plated Cadillac health-care plans" that "pay for things like hair plug treatments, I may need one, but who knows." Though it may have been in retrospect a sly jab at Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's alleged reconstructive scalp work, the joke fell flat and seemed odd and out of place to say the least.
Later, when asked who he would appoint as Treasury secretary, McCain joked "not you Tom" to a deafening silence, before saying it must be someone Americans can identify with and trust, mentioning the CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman, whose company on Monday announced plans to cut 10% of its workforce and reportedly suffered a 56% loss in the value of its shares over the past year"
I watched the debate with my friend Erik, and right after McCain quppied that last one back to Brokaw, we both turned to one another and did a kind of "Wha?" I think it was not only the content, but the way in which McCain responded. It was nearly on top of the end of Brokaw's sentence, so it not only took a moment to figure out what McCain had said, but another moment after you realized that you'd heard him exactly right and it still didn't make sense.
But to get to my overall opinions, I was pretty underwhelmed by the debate. Barack did well, and I particularly liked his answer about the need to sacrifice more for our country. (Bush's failure to capitalize on the willingness of the American people to sacrifice for the common good is I still think one of the most damning features of his presidency.) But I don't think Obama did as well as McCain did. McCain was always on the offensive, and I hear some people like that. And I'm sure he got a few votes with his gratitude and little arm pat of the military veteran who asked a question. It was much more engaging on a personal level than Obama's thank you and my sense was that people may have felt that Obama remained fairly aloof, as he's been charged with. I also don't know how his interruptions of an increasingly belligerent Tom Brokaw to defend himself went over. I don't pretend to know how this all plays out in the mind's of swing voters, but I worry that it reinforced the Obama being aloof and arrogant stereotype. The pundits tell me this is not true. And I hope they are right. And I tend to believe them that if Obama really is this far up in the polls, he doesn't want to overreach and do something stupid in these debates. He really should just hold his own, and hold his lead. And it looks like he largely did that.
I will say this, Obama still looks more presidential to me. His answers were substantive, if not always exactly on topic, and he has passed the experience test for most voters. We'll wait and see how it goes. I'm looking forward to the next one, not because I'm relishing hearing the two of them have at it over who's position is more nuanced than that, and who's statement of their opponent's position is more mischaracterized (even I tired of that after 30 minutes) but because Bob Schiffer is hands down the man. If you haven't watched his program Face the Nation, you should. Unless of course, you don't like politics to begin with, in which case, I can't fathom why you're still reading this.
Closing thoughts: Also last night, on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart had Sarah Vowell on. Stewart, who I have noticed is also struggling to keep the steam from showing too much under his collar at times, brought up what I consider to be a very valid point.
He mentioned how when Sarah Palin was in New York, she visited Ground Zero, and she draped herself in our collective pain, and misery, and patriotism. (I even hesitate to use "our" here, since I'm a native New Jerseyan, but at least I knew someone in the towers. I doubt the same about Palin) And she professed all this empathy and common ground. And then, Stewart points out, she flies off to some other part of the country and goes back to talking, nay, shitting on New York for our "East Coast, elitist, latte-drinking liberalism." America is a big country. I'm okay if you don't like Manhattan. But don't tell me you're gonna be maverick-y and bring the country together by uniting it against half of itself.
Gosh darnit, I know you're prolly not so good at math either, Ms. Palin, but that's not uniting, that's divide-imicating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
