Why high-school debate teams don’t have cheerleaders — or crowds
posted at 7:35 am on October 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
The consensus after last night’s debate, in both the blogosphere and the commentariat, formed quickly and rather inexplicably that it failed because it was too dull. Most people I see blamed Tom Brokaw for not spicing it up, and both candidates for putting most of the people watching it to sleep. Ironically, this comes from the same people who complain about the lack of substance and policy and the plethora of sound-bite gotchas in most political debates.
Last night’s debate shows what we get when both candidates focus on policy and (mostly) avoid sound bites and gotchas. It was a debate, not the political equivalent of a Roman forum or Match Game with slightly less salacious questions. Both candidates did their best to lay out their policy preferences and their records, and while John McCain was more aggressive about contrasting himself with Barack Obama on those, both did so mainly by sticking to policies and records.
Real debates don’t make good public spectacles. High school debates don’t get held at stadiums or gymnasiums on Friday nights in front of massive crowds. The bands do not conduct halftime shows and cheerleaders do not appear, unless coincidentally a cheerleader is a member of the debate squad. There is a good reason for this. Real debates tend to be dull to everyone except the people involved, or those very interested in the topic under discussion.
Everyone complains when the candidates don’t provide substantive discussion of policy, but it appears that the truth is that very few people in the media are interested in a substantive debate. They need headlines and hooks, and find an actual debate on substance a waste of their time. The truth is that they don’t want a debate, because a real debate does nothing much more than compare position papers and well-established policy. They want bloodsport, a cage match in which two candidates joust to the rhetorical death, so that they can breathlessly report on every injury — and then act superior in chastising everyone for not providing substance.
Maybe the two candidates will provide the crowds what they really want in the final debate on October 15th. Better yet, maybe some in the media will think about their reaction and realize what a waste of time most of these presidential debates are, and how they usually reward glibness and appearance while penalizing substance and detail. Otherwise, let’s give people what they really want and add Pat Sajak, Vanna White, and a big spinning wheel to entertain people in these affairs.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
BO’s mantra (“the last 8 yrs”) could’ve been better responded to. Bush spent way too much, but his tax cuts helped us recover from the Clinton recession & 9/11.
jgapinoy on October 8, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Missing from this debate: immigration, abortion, guns, courts, voter fraud, same sex marriage, protection of our borders, killing the “death tax”, school vouchers. There were no questions about those topics and the candidates didn’t bring them up on their own initiative.
The debate lacked in substance, in my view.
Keemo on October 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM
I was surprised when I saw Yahoo News’ characterization:
“Heated Debate“.
I agree that it was dull, but effective.
jgapinoy on October 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM
It was boring because both candidates just blew through their usual talking points, adding nothing new. More spontaneous answers that actually addressed the questions, rather than just providing an opportunity to reiterate once again their policy positions, would have been helpful. It also would have been more exiting to have had them be given more interesting questions.
NNtrancer on October 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Also, a chance for each to respond to the other’s attacks on past associations.
jgapinoy on October 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Brokaw should have asked the “One” about Ayers, Wright, Phleger and Rezko and gotten a response. McCain should have hammered home the point that he was the one who tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
PierreLegrand on October 8, 2008 at 7:45 AM
I got bored and depressed after 30 minutes and tuned into “How I Met Your Mother” on Tivo. I’m glad to hear it go somewhat better as it went along.
dmarie on October 8, 2008 at 7:49 AM
go = got.
dmarie on October 8, 2008 at 7:49 AM
McCain should have dropped the “OBAMA TOLD MALAKI TO DELAY THE WAR UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION” BOMB.
I can’t believe he didn’t use it. He wuused!
pherrman on October 8, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Brokaw chose the questions; thus the problem. Brokaw would in no way choose questions that would further expose Obama’s radical ties to extremists, and carefully avoided allowing the debate to corner Democrats and their 10% approval rating since taking over both houses of Congress.
Keemo on October 8, 2008 at 7:50 AM
zzzzzz
lodge on October 8, 2008 at 7:52 AM
I really like the idea of dancing girls… maybe with poles (for pole dancing) and little suspended cages. Also, flash- bang grenades that go off occasionally, if the audience, as a group doesn’t like something.
Oh yeah, and a trap door to swallow the loser.
Guaranteed ratings bonanza.
lionheart on October 8, 2008 at 7:54 AM
With Brokaw “filtering” the questions I knew it would be boring! Thats why I didn’t watch it. Guess who Brokaw will vote for?
grapeknutz on October 8, 2008 at 7:55 AM
The questions were heavily weighted toward Dem party issues. Grrrrrr.
pugwriter on October 8, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Not enough responses. In school debates, don’t the opposing sides get rebuttal time? What we saw last night was the two of them droning through their usual talking points (with a few new bad ideas thrown in). Either way, it was a waste of my time.
The only new thing was McCain’s new plan to subsidize reckless borrowers at our expense. If his opponent wasn’t completely unacceptable, that new idea of his would have caused me to switch my vote. I can’t stand it. Maybe I’ll get behind on my mortgage so I can be rewarded too.
forest on October 8, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Dead on.
I think both men were acutely aware that many people are tuning in to the election for the first time. Neither could afford to project an image of pugilist. Both of them are focused on the center: Obama by faking to the right, and McCain by being McCain.
There is no doubt that McCain’s answers were much richer in substance.
RushBaby on October 8, 2008 at 8:03 AM
That debate sucked.
Read the rest here.
NeoKong on October 8, 2008 at 8:04 AM
I was at the Victory 2008 Rally in Greenville, NC last night to see Governor Palin. Overflow and enthusiastic crowd. Sarah is phenomenal. People love this woman. However, because we were at the rally, we had to listen to the debate on the radio on the way home. We heard the whole debate on the radio. There was no doubt that McCain came off as more knowledgeable, more well spoken, more confident, and having more substance to his answers. The Messiah has a pattern, when answering a question, of spending a lot of time rephrasing the question, saying what a dangerous or important situation we have, how great this is or that is, blah, blah, blah! The man speaks in vague terms and comes across as blithering. And for all you doves, he is going to invade Pakistan – he has said it several times. The libs should be very afraid of this man.
bloggless on October 8, 2008 at 8:05 AM
I agree that the questions Brokaw chose were the problem. It led to the candidates using the same answers as in the 1st debate. Other than McCain’s plan for the mortgages and Obama’s saying he wouldn’t support Israel,I heard nothing new.
I agree the economy is horrible, but they need more questions asked about social issues. Plus, let the audience ask what they want to, not what Brokaw wants. Either way, the MSM will always say Obama won, no matter what.
btw..did anyone notice Obama using McCain’s own words…this is not the beginning of the end… etc?
becki51758 on October 8, 2008 at 8:07 AM
I feel Obama wins these things because they’re so controlled that he benefits by simply being in a Presidential debate. It seems his main goal is to obscure his radicalism. Being pedantic and boring and monotone does that.
McCain has to overcome the fact that he is nobody’s first choice, and was the last choice for many Republicans. He doesn’t accomplish that imo.
This is a pro, or anti-Obama election. McCain, if he wins, will simply be the lucky beneficiary of sufficient fear of Obama. Other than expose Obama’s radicalism, I don’t think McCain has, or can do anything to stir up enthusiasm for himself.
Frankly, on topics other than national security, I don’t find him worth listening to much, except to see if, and how far, he’s wandering off the reservation.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Did anybody notice the residue on Michelle’s mouth, leftover from the duct tape Obama used to shut her up for the past few weeks. I was surprised to see that Obama even let her out of the closet; actually allowed her to say “hi and good evening” to several members of the crowd, before ushering her back to her closet.
Keemo on October 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Did anyone catch it when McCain made that hairplug crack…?
NeoKong on October 8, 2008 at 8:09 AM
ps…since when did healthcare become a “right”? I didnt see that in the Constitution.
becki51758 on October 8, 2008 at 8:10 AM
After 15 minutes I was bored. After 30 minutes I was depressed. McCain needed a home run, and all he could hit was singles and punts.
Obama was his usual squirrely self.
Maybe they talked ‘policy’ on some level. But except for McCain’s mortgage buyout, there was nothing new said there last night.
The future looks grim, real grim.
petefrt on October 8, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Did anyone catch it when McCain made that hairplug crack…?
NeoKong on October 8, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Yes I did, Maybe John is saving the botox comment for the last debate.
Keemo on October 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM
This debate was about as exciting as a rerun of Jimmy Carter’s Inauguration Speech played at slow speed.
pilamaye on October 8, 2008 at 8:14 AM
In my high school, the cheerleading squad and the debate team existed in parallel universes. There might have been a matter meeting anti-matter problem if one of those babes actually liked debate (or debaters).
Mark30339 on October 8, 2008 at 8:18 AM
THE QUESTIONS STANK!
And keeping the contenders within time limits is easy when their microphone goes dead when time’s up.
Hey, the “racial bigotry” T-shirt story from London sounds phony.
1. No witnesses collaborate any of the story. Yet the confrontation supposedly took place within a shop and on a commercial street.
2. No mention that it wasn’t a real gun until into the story.
3. The “victim” supposedly was shot in the face, yet there’s no bandage or wound to his face, only his hand shows bandaging.
Anyone ever hear of self-inflicted wounds, or a collaborative set-up, even involving the wife? It isn’t that his story could not have happened as he tells it. But it is not convincing. Furthermore, if he was threatened in the shop by a white skin-head shouting profanities at him, it doesn’t take an Obama T-shirt to fight over when it’s just pure racism and the threat of a fight. All he had to do was call the police. In England they have cameras everywhere. What do the cameras reveal? This Daily Mail story stinks.
Unbelievable, check.
Ridiculous, check.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 8:23 AM
LOL!
Warp a child’s mind forever. Time-out punishment as cruel and unusual punishment.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 8:26 AM
He did a lot of that last night. He talks about the question instead of (maybe to avoid) answering it. He’s a squirrel.
petefrt on October 8, 2008 at 8:26 AM
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM
No the One wins because McCain has no idea what he believes!
Palin on the other hand has no trouble answering and bringing up the points that Shamesty refused to bring up, because she is a conservative and know what she believes. She is the man of this ticket and it’s about time that McCain grew a pair!
But that’s hoping for too much.
flytier on October 8, 2008 at 8:31 AM
McCain: “I’m an experience bipartisan. Obama is an inexperienced partisan.”
Obama: “Last 8 years, last 8 years, last 8 years, Iraq.”
Boring.
Ed, I love the Wheel of Fortune idea! Have all the possible debate topics on a wheel and have the candidate spin it. They have to talk about whatever the wheel lands on. Eliminates filtering by making it a game of chance. Can we do this at the next debate?
Kafir on October 8, 2008 at 8:31 AM
I agree, McCain needs to hammer away at this “bad-Republican-deregulation” LIE…every day until the election.
HE BLEW his chance last night to do so, even though Obama gave him the perfect opportunity in the opening remark.
Let’s see a McCain TV ad like this go around the country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PECBIPeQpsA
Lockstein13 on October 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Ed,
How can you make a blanket statement like that?
I seem to recall a Hot Air thread that complained about the use of “sound-bite gotchas”. Did you keep track of how everyone responded to that to use as evidence for your theory?
The bottom line: This so-called “debate” was positively dismal. It was not a debate, it was a recitation of policy papers and hackneyed talking points in response to bland questions, with no opportunity for rebuttal.
If I wanted to know their policy positions I could go to their websites, or to a site like “On the issues”. Unlike a website, a debate should be an opportunity to see how candidates perform on their feet, communicate their ideas, and connect with an audience. It’s one step in a lengthy job interview process, for the most important job in the world.
Buy Danish on October 8, 2008 at 8:43 AM
I had to mute The One when he started debating – with no one – why we went into Iraq. He’s only got one note to play.
I fear we will be hearing that one note for the next 4 years.
KrisinNE on October 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
How about this…
I suggest for the next debate, they get a strong conservative moderator and a strong liberal moderator to ask questions. (Hannity and Colmes anyone?)
The first third is spent with the opposition moderators firing off questions that the opposing candidates are weak on… conservative questions Obama on Ayers, Rezko, pork, etc… liberal questions McCain on immigration, global warming, etc.
The second third switches and the moderators ask “their” candidates questions on favorable topics.
The last third provides a set of known topics in random order (abortion, corporate taxes, gun ownership, the Constitution) and both candidates are allowed to make a one sentence statement that sums up their stance, for which they will be held accountable and measured (later) by the American people. (I would love for this to be a score card rated throughout the Presidency.) If a candidate speaks after the first sentence, they are cut off and forfeit a response on the next (random) statement.
Even if the format went waaayy longer, it would go a lot further in providing a clear picture of candidates to the American people.
Let me know what you think.
dominigan on October 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM
So are we all in agreement- This election is now all about NOT electing Obama. McCain may head the ticket, but if he’s (actually) elected, maybe he can stay busy with “Pockistahn” and Sarah Palin can do everything else.
I saw Ann Coulter on FOX this morning, and I realized how much like her I’ve become: disgusted and bitter, and waiting for 2012- whether to elect a better candidate, or for McCain to bow out.
anniekc on October 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Was it just me, or did the camera mostly follow the Obamas around after the debate as they shook hands and signed autographs with the (former) undecideds? If the McCains were doing the same, I’d have expected equal time. If the McCains left before the Obamas, that was pretty stupid.
DrSteve on October 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Obama looked pretty good. But it was because Team Obama created a well rehearsed tissue of lies. The way he said he had been pushing for reform of FM/FM when I know this isn’t true. But most people who watched won’t know any better and will believe the silver tongued devil. The McCain campaign should demand to see the letter to Paulson and get Paulson to talk about why he ignored it.
All that health care discussion has become standard kabuki. Every candidate will present a health care plan that will be ignored as soon as they are in office. Even Obama would have to ignore health care because of the state of the economy.
snaggletoothie on October 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Everyone was so INVOLVED during the primary GOP debates!
Remember when McCain was positioned next to Fred Thompson, and how Fred! and John interacted (much to peanut gallery critics’ chagrin) MAKING MCCAIN LOOK INTERESTING.
McCain’s solo demeanor in debate w/Obama withstood the test that Obama tried undermining this week, namely, “erratic behavior” under duress. Obama sounds stupid using that accusation, as well as so many other accusations that have no merit vs. his opponents. Again, the one suffering a vice, Obama, is the one accusing everyone else of that vice. If anyone is erratic, it’s Obama with his inability to make a decision and vote yes or no, falling back on “PRESENT” the overwhelming tally of his Senatorial votes.
The only erratic candidate is the ever malleable Obama whose only platform is radical authoritarianism. “I could no more disassociate myself from Rev. Wright” vs. “that’s not the reverend I thought I knew,” “that’s not the Rezco I thought I knew,” “the racial slurs from my white grandmother’s lips,” “Bill Ayers, my political godfather, DREAMS OF,” etc.
At least McCain has the right friends and alliances with Thompson, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee; even if his fan club includes a larger base representing interests at odds with conservatives. But we proved our hand on that count, and know full well we can force our hand on that immigration count AGAIN, so it’s a sore but not a mortal wound.
What good is conserving a commodity if kept forever under lock and key, never to see the light of day to be useful in life, WAITING for perfection before participating with support?
GET OUT AND VOTE! And those of us who rant online but not outside our own homes, prepare your conversational talking points AND INTERACT EFFECTIVELY with your voice outside. You can remain insulated yet still reach out via the RNC phone calls online: “drivers wanted”.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Fixed it.
LevStrauss on October 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Ed,
The problem with the debates isn’t that there are no gladiatorial matches. The problem last night as with any of them present or past, is all of them by the candidates define the WHAT of their proposals. But none of them define the HOW they will achieve it.
The People have gotten wise to the Pols and realize that HOW one attempts to achieve an end is vitally important. “I will end the war!” Nice goal. Both Pols agree that is their aim. But one wants to achieve it by nuking every square inch of the country. The other wishes to perform COIN operations for the next 20 years. Either answer acceptable? The People don’t know because the HOW is never proffered to sufficient detail for the electorate to chew on it. That of course is the core problems in the debates. There is insufficient time to get to that level of detail. Nor do their websites do much better on that score.
The folks want not only the aim but the means of achieving what the two candidates propose to do. Devil is in the detail and the electorate wants to see the dance before they pays their money in votes. I think it is a reasonable expectation.
TB Pickens is doing better selling his energy plan than the two candidates are as to why we should have them for President. The parties should take notes.
Dr. Dog on October 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I wanted bloodsport and substance.
Is it really too much to ask for both?
Disturb the Universe on October 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM
very good…less than paper thin tissue.
I remember that analogy discussion.
Definitely a point to renew!
I do NOT believe that Obama ever sent Paulson a letter 2 years ago UNLESS he and Paulson, being on the same Democrat team, actually did plot together, not adjacent to each other but ACTUALLY TOGETHER, to culminate this fiasco exactly one month before the election in order to insure a Republican loss.
So, Paulson, go ahead and produce the alleged Obama 2-year-old letter. And let’s all read the bloody details of the plot for Obama’s coup d’état.
THAT makes sense, finding Paulson in the massive DNC net, tracing Obama’s history through the who’s who of his past 1st-job-out-of-college global-financier liaisons and Marxist power players who made the Obama image emblazoned across the world today.
Producing the so-called Obama letter would reveal that Obama is a maniac.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 9:07 AM
We needed a trumpet call and we got a kazoo. Too bad.
Fuquay Steve on October 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM
This is a tough election for me, as Mitt Romney was my choice, and I believe to this day that Mitt would be eating Obama up on every issue, while exposing Obama for the empty suit he is. I see this election as a vote for the lessor of two evils. Obama will load the deck with radical Liberals, filling every government run organization with radicals, including the SC. That dynamic alone will hurt our country for decades to come.
Frustrating and dangerous times we face!
Keemo on October 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Eh, Sajak would never be allowed to run it. He’s a Republican.
sobincorporated on October 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Obama seemed to stutter less than other performances without a teleprompter, but his remarks lacked content or contradicted his other remarks.
Right_of_Attila on October 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Right of Attila
So long as Obama has his lines memorized (which he now has down pat) the annoyance rests during his long aaaaaaaaaaaaands.
His message’s lack of content remains within those memorized lines. Promises, empty promises. So many unreal promises, like his readiness to get and kill bin Laden in Pakistan when Pakistan refuses American access within Pakistan.
Libya’s Qhadafi explained Obama to the world better than anyone. We are undergoing Obama’s Egyptian Clearance Sale: promise whatever lies it takes to win the election; THEN laugh at any stupid enough to have believed any of the promises/lies.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM
“But none of them define the HOW they will achieve it.” (above)
McCain laid out what he would do and the boring part was listening to the process he’d undertake in order to achieve is goals.
There is nothing more burdensome and overwhelmingly frustrating than the legislative process on Capitol Hill.
McCain has proven, to conservative chagrin, his ability to perform bipartisan “miracles” passing legislation through that burdensome and overwhelmingly frustrating process.
Obama has proven, to conservative chagrin, his inability and unwillingness to even consider valuing anything conservative as he bulldozes alongside Pelosi and Reid all things conservative. There is not a shred of bipartisanship to Obama, a radical authoritarian Marxist who plays Pinocchio to Bill Ayers his master.
There is nothing boring about genocide, and the Democrats are committing ideological genocide eliminating tolerance for contrast in America via “racist” tagline.
DEFY THE APPLICATION OF THEIR “bitch” TAG ON YOUR FOREHEAD!
The Democrat Progressive Leftists are the racists and the class warfare movement in America.
COUNT HOW MANY TIMES LAST NIGHT ALONE THAT OBAMA USED THE PHRASE AGAINST “THOSE LIVING HIGH ON THE HOG” as in those who are not on welfare.
Regarding Obama’s “taxation net spending cut” it is impossible to cut 95% of Americans’ taxes when 15% of Americans pay no taxes.
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I like you idea Ed but on suggestion how about a Jeopardy format?
GatewayMac on October 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
It seemed McCain & wife bailed out of the hall quickly leaving the cameras showing Obama & Michelle my belle shaking hands getting photos taken with all the participants, autographs, etc. CSPAN & Fox kept that going. Why did he leave so soon? This leaves an impression on people.
The debate was flat. CNN commented immediately after with their “non-partisan” focus group (what a joke!) Blitzer said McCain hasn’t shaken hands or greeted Obama after the debate. He actually missed when they shook hands as it was when they both blocked Brokows prompter and he told them to get out of the way. That was’t on camera. Anyway Blitzer says we all know the distain McCain has for Obama. How feckless. CNN will have to change it’s name from Clinton New Network to ONN.
wepeople on October 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Having been a four year policy debater in high school, I’ve watched the two debates thus far and I have a couple of observations.
1. Both men ramble and don’t try hard to stay on distinct points. Obama is even worse than McCain, but Mav still does it too.
2. I would love to see them in a formal policy debate format moderated by a judge from the National Forensic League. Four debates with each man taking two turns on affirmative and two turns on negative.
3. As it stands now, I could probably beat either one if I was still in my prime.
Vatican Watcher on October 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Format sucked. Here’s my idea to “spice” things up:
Ever watch Deal or No Deal? Why not have each audience member submit their question on a 3×5 card. Then, randonly pick the top 20 or so and place each card in a silver attache case. Then, and here’s the good part, standing next to each case on stage is a beautiful, scantily-clad model.
Obama and McCain go for the coin toss. Winner picks one of the attaches and the model opens it, reads the question, and identifies the audience member who wrote it.
Now here’s the best part. With this format, you don’t need Tom “Cotton-mouth” Brokaw to host this show. Get a real entertainer to loosen up the candidates AND the crowd.
Wouldn’t this be fun…?
CliffHanger on October 8, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I’d like a whole series of debates and discussions between the candidates and their parties discussing one important issue a night getting seriously into each topic. Each major network should be forced to carry the debates since it is a presidential election.
Each of the candidates ads should be aired during the debates, those mentioned in the ads should be brought forward to explain their positions at the time until the issues are mush. Let’s talk about the subprime lending, Freddie and Fannie, William Ayers, etc. It’s a freaking presidential election.
Canadian debates have been neutered also it seems. Multiple parties went at it, interupting was common, they really went at it to discuss the issues. Why would anyone watch a documentary with animals tearing each other apart when the debates were on?
Canadian Infidel on October 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I was thinking of this video yesterday. Here’s Michelle’s cheerleader video ‘Defeatocrats’ from last year. I’m sure others can use the laugh this morning.
Canadian Infidel on October 8, 2008 at 10:22 AM
But the format led to electrifying moments like this!
chiefeditor on October 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
It’s like reading the final exam answers from an undergraduate student who rarely attended class and doesn’t know the answers, but is still trying to bluff their way into a good grade. Any college instructor would recognize the pattern.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, but you should have spent more time in class before attempting the final.
blueguitarbob on October 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
blueguitarbob on October 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I agree that he regurgitates the question and throws in fear mongering for extra measure, but what I DON’T understand is how in the world do these focus groups and polls people think that his answers were much more concise and clear??
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM
When the questions are largely fluff, and the moderator can’t control the debaters, that’s a recipe for disaster.
But the real problem is that this race is between a man and a manufactured mirage. Our side rightly questions its own candidate, recognizes his flaws and is loud with disagreements.
The “other side” accepts each word, each pause, each “ummm…” from their candidate as if they are Holy Writ. No one questions his lies, his history, or even his beliefs.
I don’t think the numbers supporting Osama Obama are markedly higher than those on McCain’s side, but they include the nation’s “information sources” — the MSM — and they will speak no ill of their Chosen One.
In a contest between a human and a demigod, the deck is stacked. We can’t win. Unless, by some miracle, we can make the other side question their choice. And that is damn unlikely.
No one else could win with traitors/terrorists, felons and vile race-hustlers behind him. Indeed, those would cause instant meltdown.
Being able to say “we told you so” during the Obama Reign will be small consolation, if, indeed, we are even able to voice opposition after he is sworn in.
MrScribbler on October 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
If I had my way, you wouldn’t.
philnewkirk on October 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Dumb Dora is sooooo dumb…
She thinks Obama’s health care plan will pay for her new (blank).
Mr. Wednesday Night on October 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM
McCain actually appeared on Jeopardy in the ’60s. He won his first game, and lost the second on a Final Jeopardy. The correct answer was “What is Wuthering Heights?”
doppelganglander on October 8, 2008 at 5:06 PM