So, I'm reading the reaction to the debate, and I am confused. I keep reading that McCain did "well", that this was his best debate, but not enough. Was I watching the same thing? With the fidgeting, smirking, the rolling of the eyes, the heavy breathing into the microphone, the obvious disdain he has for Obama - and I haven't even discussed what he actually said, which may have been worse - McCain came across as desperate and bitter. He didn't do "well'. It was a disaster. Yet there were the CNN analysts praising his performance. Luckily, the public agrees with me that Obama pretty overwhelmingly won the debate. But it wasn't because Obama was so great. It was that McCain was so petty and awful. Why couldn't the people who get paid to discuss these things see that?
Why do I see things so differently than the pundits? The easy answer is that I'm biased. And I am. But most of them are too. You have your Begala's, your Castellanos', et all. It's not like they are not biased. Like them, I try to view the debate in a detached manner. Apparently I fail. In 2004, Kerry absolutely wiped the floor with Bush, yet the pundit consensus was "draw". I was completely baffled then, too. Kerry lost, so maybe I shouldn't trust my debate-watching skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment