Only Time Will Tell
On Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, a handful of Hamline students, myself included, gathered on a Metro Transit bus. Our goal was to join other college intellectuals in watching the ultimate and final presidential debate. We all anticipated a large number of politically riled up observers, perhaps with picket signs and posters in hand. Upon arrival at our intended designation, Willey Hall, at the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus, what we found were not hoards of U students, but a mere dozen of debaters waiting for the show to start. Regardless of the minimal outcome, all of us were on the edge of our seats, eager to hear what candidates Barack Obama and John McCain had to say. I was awaiting answers from both parties that contained more substance and conviction than seen in the first two debates. The initial presidential debates were relatively uneventful and to some degree—disappointing. It seems that every night, dozens of expensive political ads are aired nationwide poking fun at, and attacking each candidate. When it was finally game time, I wanted to see these two gentlemen play to their full political potential-- face-to-face, unedited, and uncut.
I had three primary expectations going into this last debate in which I hoped both parties would meet. I really wanted both candidates to touch base on important topics other than the economy. There are so many divisive issues in America today that cannot go without attention: immigration, education, social security, global warming, and healthcare. Secondly, when discussing such issues, I hoped Obama and McCain would talk a bit more realistically, and less robotic and scripted. In the last two debates, both frequently abused key terms and sentences previously used in their campaigns: fundamental, change, economic crisis, etc. How can a candidate relate to the American people when they sound like they’re reading off of a teleprompter? Lastly, I wanted both parties to provide adequate and descriptive solutions to the problems and questions raised. Much to my surprise, the candidates somewhat met my expectations, but they still jumped around and jumbled a couple of questions. Conclusively, I think it was by the far their strongest debate.
For the past few weeks, Obama and McCain have been understandably wrapped up in reforming one single issue, the economy. It was refreshing to see moderator Bob Schieffer throw ten diverse and concise questions at both senators. Some of the issues talked about included the character of the campaigns, the economy, healthcare, abortion, taxes, and education. One of the most pressing and controversial social issues in the United States, abortion, was brought up by Mr. Schieffer in the form of a question aimed at discussing the Roe v Wade decision. He asked if the candidates could nominate a Supreme Court Justice who differs on their views. McCain seemed a little bit wary about answering the question raised, possibly because he has consistently followed party lines on abortion in the past. He repeated that he does not “do litmus tests,” but would make his choice with “strict adherence to the constitution, based on qualifications versus ideology.” Unlike McCain, Obama got straight to the point about his views stating, “Women are in the best position to make the decision.” He firmly believes that Roe v Wade was “rightly decided.” Even though both candidates insist that they would not “do litmus tests,” in regard to choosing a Supreme Court Justice, it is easier said than done. A president wants to ensure that most, if not all, appointees will ultimately favor rulings that somewhat match their ideologies and political views. I find it highly unlikely that those two factors would be completely unacknowledged when deciding. The candidates were rather civil when talking about abortion, but they were some heated moments when President Bush and negatives attack ads were brought up.
Unlike the last two debates, the candidates produced a hefty volume of attacks intended to throw the other one off. When addressing negative campaign advertising, both candidates agreed that the opposing party has been guilty of producing this type of propaganda. Obama even made an erratic statement that one hundred percent of John McCain’s advertisements have consisted of negative attacks. McCain maintained his defensive demeanor throughout the whole debate, especially when questioned about his past positions on budgets and taxes. At one point, McCain displayed his turbulent side when Obama accused him for voting in favor of 4 out of 5 of Bush’s budgets. “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have four years ago.” Overall, Obama appeared to be more poignant, calm, and elaborate when it came to answering questions, in the midst of his opponent’s accusatory remarks. McCain seemed to get quite perturbed, a bit combative, and visibly upset. This was McCain’s opportunity to turn his campaign around as he trails behind Obama in the polls. I do think he that he appealed to his loyal followers; I suspect he did not prove himself or relay his message to the undecided American voter, in the time he was allotted.
Post-debate commentaries were everywhere in the media. An article written by New York Times author Jim Rutenberg, “Candidates Clash over Character and Policy,” focuses on Obama and McCain’s demeanor and overall performance. I found that what I perceived was pretty spot-on with what Rutenburg observed and writes in his article. He makes an accurate statement when pointing out the fact that this debate was “by far the most spirited and combative of their encounters this fall.” Rutenberg notes that their demeanors were incredibly opposite, much like what we have seen in the past. “Mr. Obama maintained a placid and at times bemused demeanor,” While McCain was “at times showing anger and at others a methodical determination to make all his points.” Self-presentation and the art of impromptu speaking seemed to be the greatest factors in determining the winner of the final debate.
Rutenburg also addresses the greatest distraction that took place during the debate. The mention of Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio who Obama said had approached him at a rally, asking him about his plan to tax small businesses. The mention of Joe approximately two dozen times proved to be overkill. “The plumber came up directly or indirectly 24 times during the debate, an Everyman symbol of the divide between candidates on how best to address the economy.” Rutenburg found that Obama and McCain were least elaborate in the area of economics. He explains that when moderator Schieffer asked what would have to be postponed or cut from their initial financial plans since the collapse of the U.S. Stock Market, “neither man went very far, though Mr. McCain perhaps offered a more detailed list. Repeating his pledge of an across-the-board spending cut.” Rutenburg insinuates that the debate, which touched on a “wide variety of issues,” seemed to end in Obama’s favor.
Post-debate polls and the volume of roars produced at the U of M suggest that Obama won the final debate. I believe he won for a couple of different reasons. He seemed to manage his differences on the issues with more composure than McCain. He also spoke to his middle-class constituents with more promise and unwavering conviction. This debate was undeniably McCain’s best, but the real question is, did he gain enough attention and trust to decrease the margins and pull ahead near Obama? I don’t believe so, but the only accurate measure we have is the result of November’s general election.
I had three primary expectations going into this last debate in which I hoped both parties would meet. I really wanted both candidates to touch base on important topics other than the economy. There are so many divisive issues in America today that cannot go without attention: immigration, education, social security, global warming, and healthcare. Secondly, when discussing such issues, I hoped Obama and McCain would talk a bit more realistically, and less robotic and scripted. In the last two debates, both frequently abused key terms and sentences previously used in their campaigns: fundamental, change, economic crisis, etc. How can a candidate relate to the American people when they sound like they’re reading off of a teleprompter? Lastly, I wanted both parties to provide adequate and descriptive solutions to the problems and questions raised. Much to my surprise, the candidates somewhat met my expectations, but they still jumped around and jumbled a couple of questions. Conclusively, I think it was by the far their strongest debate.
For the past few weeks, Obama and McCain have been understandably wrapped up in reforming one single issue, the economy. It was refreshing to see moderator Bob Schieffer throw ten diverse and concise questions at both senators. Some of the issues talked about included the character of the campaigns, the economy, healthcare, abortion, taxes, and education. One of the most pressing and controversial social issues in the United States, abortion, was brought up by Mr. Schieffer in the form of a question aimed at discussing the Roe v Wade decision. He asked if the candidates could nominate a Supreme Court Justice who differs on their views. McCain seemed a little bit wary about answering the question raised, possibly because he has consistently followed party lines on abortion in the past. He repeated that he does not “do litmus tests,” but would make his choice with “strict adherence to the constitution, based on qualifications versus ideology.” Unlike McCain, Obama got straight to the point about his views stating, “Women are in the best position to make the decision.” He firmly believes that Roe v Wade was “rightly decided.” Even though both candidates insist that they would not “do litmus tests,” in regard to choosing a Supreme Court Justice, it is easier said than done. A president wants to ensure that most, if not all, appointees will ultimately favor rulings that somewhat match their ideologies and political views. I find it highly unlikely that those two factors would be completely unacknowledged when deciding. The candidates were rather civil when talking about abortion, but they were some heated moments when President Bush and negatives attack ads were brought up.
Unlike the last two debates, the candidates produced a hefty volume of attacks intended to throw the other one off. When addressing negative campaign advertising, both candidates agreed that the opposing party has been guilty of producing this type of propaganda. Obama even made an erratic statement that one hundred percent of John McCain’s advertisements have consisted of negative attacks. McCain maintained his defensive demeanor throughout the whole debate, especially when questioned about his past positions on budgets and taxes. At one point, McCain displayed his turbulent side when Obama accused him for voting in favor of 4 out of 5 of Bush’s budgets. “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have four years ago.” Overall, Obama appeared to be more poignant, calm, and elaborate when it came to answering questions, in the midst of his opponent’s accusatory remarks. McCain seemed to get quite perturbed, a bit combative, and visibly upset. This was McCain’s opportunity to turn his campaign around as he trails behind Obama in the polls. I do think he that he appealed to his loyal followers; I suspect he did not prove himself or relay his message to the undecided American voter, in the time he was allotted.
Post-debate commentaries were everywhere in the media. An article written by New York Times author Jim Rutenberg, “Candidates Clash over Character and Policy,” focuses on Obama and McCain’s demeanor and overall performance. I found that what I perceived was pretty spot-on with what Rutenburg observed and writes in his article. He makes an accurate statement when pointing out the fact that this debate was “by far the most spirited and combative of their encounters this fall.” Rutenberg notes that their demeanors were incredibly opposite, much like what we have seen in the past. “Mr. Obama maintained a placid and at times bemused demeanor,” While McCain was “at times showing anger and at others a methodical determination to make all his points.” Self-presentation and the art of impromptu speaking seemed to be the greatest factors in determining the winner of the final debate.
Rutenburg also addresses the greatest distraction that took place during the debate. The mention of Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio who Obama said had approached him at a rally, asking him about his plan to tax small businesses. The mention of Joe approximately two dozen times proved to be overkill. “The plumber came up directly or indirectly 24 times during the debate, an Everyman symbol of the divide between candidates on how best to address the economy.” Rutenburg found that Obama and McCain were least elaborate in the area of economics. He explains that when moderator Schieffer asked what would have to be postponed or cut from their initial financial plans since the collapse of the U.S. Stock Market, “neither man went very far, though Mr. McCain perhaps offered a more detailed list. Repeating his pledge of an across-the-board spending cut.” Rutenburg insinuates that the debate, which touched on a “wide variety of issues,” seemed to end in Obama’s favor.
Post-debate polls and the volume of roars produced at the U of M suggest that Obama won the final debate. I believe he won for a couple of different reasons. He seemed to manage his differences on the issues with more composure than McCain. He also spoke to his middle-class constituents with more promise and unwavering conviction. This debate was undeniably McCain’s best, but the real question is, did he gain enough attention and trust to decrease the margins and pull ahead near Obama? I don’t believe so, but the only accurate measure we have is the result of November’s general election.
Rutenburg, Jim. "Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy." The New York Times. 16 Oct 2008: A1.
"The Third Presidential Debate." Election Guide 2008. 15 Oct 2008. The New York Times. 27 Oct 2008.
"The Third Presidential Debate." Election Guide 2008. 15 Oct 2008. The New York Times. 27 Oct 2008
posted by Mallory @ 5:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home