La Vida Politica
Viva Wolf Vegas: Nevada Hosts Reality TV Debate
By Emily Esterson, 11-15-07
 | |
|
Call me a traditionalist, but bring back the bell. The buzzer. The 90 second answer, the 30 second response.
That’s my overall thesis for last night’s CNN Democratic presidential candidates’ debate. Whatever producer decided it was a good idea to “free-form” the format, allowing the candidates to answer questions out of order and to wave their hands madly like the second grader in the back of the classroom who knows the right answer but never gets called on (who’s name was likely Dennis Kucinich), was dead wrong. If you’re interested in the politics of the debate, or “who won” the debate, stay with me for just a moment while I engage in a little media criticism.
Another imaginary backstage discussion may have been about “firing them up.” First question, Wolf Blitzer throws the steak to the Hillary-Obama attack dogs. Hillary volleys, Obama shouts, and the ever smiling Edwards tries to get a word in edgewise. Forget the other guys. Chris who? Bill who? Hillary gets a laugh saying she is wearing an “asbestos pantsuit,” just one of several very good Hillary moments (more on that later). The way the pre-game show was scripted, it was almost as if Wolf Blitzer had been directed to get Obama and Hillary going after each other. Unpleasant to watch, and more importantly, completely uninformative. Between the shouting back and forth and the interrupting, who really cared what the candidates were saying? What was the question again? It was almost enough to make me shirk my responsibilities to New West readers and turn the darn thing off ("doesn’t ‘The Office’ start right about now?).
But then, Christopher Dodd says this: “When a campaign is about turning up the heat, the American people turn off.” By the volume of the applause, the audience agreed with him. Enough egging them on, Blitzer, let’s get to the issues. CNN’s ill-conceived attempt, even if it was unconscious, of creating a reality-tv-like debate, complete with poor camera work and shouting participants, failed miserably, lucky for us.
After Dodd’s comment, all returned to civility and issues. There was still hand waving and desperate attempts to talk, but—imagine this—issues bubbled to the surface, with real answers. The candidates began to push back on Blitzer’s determination to get a yes/no answer to such questions as “Do you support or oppose giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.” Obama attempted to add a level of complexity to the answer, which is about much more than letting illegal immigrants (who we should stop “demonizing,") in the door at the DMV. As he and Richardson pointed out, immigration reform is the issue, not drivers’ licenses. But Blitzer kept hoping for that simple sound bite to characterize the candidates. He kept pushing for the yes or the no, even on issues as mired in diplomatic muck as Pakistan and as seriously complicated as nuclear energy.
Through it all, some moments stood out: By far the favorite line of the debate came when reporter Campbell Brown (female) asked Hillary Clinton if she was playing the gender card when she responded to the last debate by saying the boys were “piling on.”
“I’m not exploiting the gender card. They’re not attacking me because I’m a woman. They’re attacking me because I’m ahead.” (rousing cheers). And she added, that it is humbling and exciting to see the progress made in her lifetime that she could be running against a Latino and an African American. Suddenly, it was very uncool to be a white man.
Since tonight’s debate started out as sound bites, it makes sense to finish with them:
Dennis Kucinich wants to impeach President Bush.
Bill Richardson wants you to know how experienced he is (he even managed to get the North Koreans involved in the debate).
Bill Richardson wants to give peace a chance.
Hillary is funny and human. She’s likable. She’s strong.
Obama is well spoken and unmemorable.
Ditto Edwards. He smiles a lot.
Dodd likes Republicans.
Biden, oh, was he there?
Did we learn anything new? Did this undecided voter decide who to vote for? Did the debate turn anyone on, or off, any of the candidates? I doubt it, but at least we made it past the first horrible ten minutes and got to hear some real answers. If Blitzer’s “yes/no” tactic was meant to push the candidates off their stumps to explain the thinking behind the rhetoric, then it worked. What I saw were candidates who were, each uniquely qualified to run the country, and all want it very badly. For once, we have some good choices.
I’d like to believe that CNN producers were, by using a simpleton’s method of demanding a positive or negative answer to infinitely more multi-layered questions, actually elicited interesting responses. But that would be a little optimistic. The cynic in me says, ‘Nah. It’s gonna be a long election season.’
[End of article]You spelled Hillary wrong, every time.
Obama isn't unmemorable.
Fixed. Thanks. That's what I get for writing fast.
Comment By sweed7, 11-16-07Where are the good choices hiding? All I saw was a liar-cheat with no memory, an inexperienced Kid and a pretty boy with a few others who wanna be VP. I disclose my prejudice as a response to your so obvious prejudice in favor of Hillary. Are you part of her campaign hiding behind a misspelling? Read your stuff with an open mind. An editorial yes-news NO! You need a course in history. How can you forget prior theft, fraud, loss of memory and ineptness. Actions do speak louder than words-If you care for truth!
Comment By Frank O'Mahony, 11-16-07Obama - I sadly agree that he is unmemorable. I sympathize with his need to get Wolfman Blitzer off the yes/no answers to reflect the complexity of the world, but Obama is just too darned nice to be a president. These are anxious times and we need somebody who's not just whip-smart, but who can make informed judgements & make his case forcefully. As I write this, I'm thinking the only one on stage who fits that bill is Joe Biden. Oh well.
Comment By mw, 11-16-07Frank, I agree Biden may be the best choice but he has no chance. As I did not listen to the entire debate, I have to ask if the "environment" was ever mentioned? If one simply defines this term as: "that which sustains life", one would think that it deserves more discussion. But then clean air & water are not "sexy".
Comment By Frank O'Mahony, 11-16-07MW -
I agree Biden's got even less chance than my Gov., Bill R. - I hope though that he'll get a good gig in the new administration. To yr q., it was so strange, but in the first hour (I couldn't take 2 hrs...) the debate never covered 'Western' issues, of water and sprawl. Wolfman just wanted to play to the ratings with all his yes/no questions. Very annoying.
Frank
I did not see the debate, but I can comment on the "memorability" of those covered by the media. Our ability to "remember" a persona depicted over and over again on screen, which is the one and only mirror that reflects back to us common folk, is in large part a function of how a particular medium wants us to remember him or her.
That's why they invented "sound bites." Short, pithy,
"memorable" answers to complicated questions. The person finally elected will not be the one with the best understanding and best solutions to our problems. It will be the one with the best sound bite answers and Hollywood screen-test presence.
That's exactly why we won't have a President Dennis.
If there is a bias in the media's reporting of the politics it is with promoting the battle and selling the train wreck. Why won't the media hold the candidates feet to the fire over leadership, substance, and the way forward?
See: http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617294.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>
Hillary Clinton Snafu: America Needs a Leader, Not Another Politician
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Lemiska
Nov 17, 2007
We Americans have become pretty cynical about politics and most recognize that politicians have one overriding goal: to get votes and win elections. And they do that by giving voters what they want, or at least telling them what they want to hear, even if it means distorting the truth or reversing a position now and then.
Hillary Clinton Snafu: America Needs a Leader, Not Another Politician (Image: Wenn)
After all, a clever politician can always explain away any apparent contradictions. They spin, obfuscate, and sometimes just plain lie to pull in as many votes as they can. They know that if they appeal to enough voters, they don’t need a vision for the future.
But don’t we want our elected officials to be more than just skilled politicians? Shouldn’t we expect them to have that vision? Shouldn’t we expect them to be leaders? Time and again we’ve seen that political acumen does not necessarily equate to leadership. The tools often used to garner votes: obfuscation, triangulation, and manipulation, are often at odds with the traditional hallmarks of leadership: character, commitment, and courage.
To say that Hillary Clinton is a good politician would be an understatement. She is the quintessential politician. And though both supporters and critics have always understood that, recent events have exposed her true nature to a much wider audience...
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Perhaps New West could begin to raise the bar for others to jump?
why even comment, this women is evil, she is married to a rapist and abuser, misogynist, she has done nothing to make her qualified for the presidency
Comment By Paul Hill, 11-17-07Donny,
I guess you're going to have a hard life under President Hillary...
The thought of Hillary Clinton as my next president scares the bejeebers of me. I would rather spend the afternoon w/ a rattlesnake than Hillary. I think she is the consumate politician who cares of nothing but power and having her way. No one denies that she is brilliant, but (I wish I could remember the source of the quote), "What good is genius without conscience".
Once again, I, like many of my friends find ourselves in the unenviable position of voting for the lesser of evils. And at this moment I have no clue of how to cast my vote.