ClumsyMonkey.net

I find that American politicians are pontificators rather than debaters; Canadian debates tend to be a lot more back and forth (though whether or not the questions ever get addressed is a different matter). I think I prefer debaters, myself, because you can see who gets riled, who calls names, and who is trying to play both sides. With the American debates you tend to get more actually said about the platforms, but nothing too crazy ever happens, so you don't get to see the candidates under pressure or dealing with the unexpected as much.
(Also I was pissed off at the CBC holding the Canadian English debate at the same time as the American VP debate. Jerks.)

Yeah, I'd love to see an actual DEBATE happen, rather than such an obvious display of soundbites, which is what we usually get. It'd make things a lot more interesting.

Though, again, I haven't watched either of these yet. I plan to at some point.

Gwen Ifill did a fantastic job and was impartial. She called out both candidates several times for not directly answering the questions. Her book is entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and really seems to be a critical examination of race in modern American politics, based on the title. I don't believe someone who is on the board of the Harvard Institute of Politics is really going to be a biased moderator, anyways.

I agree on the point that I think she did a good job and most of the speculation was unnecessary. I disagree that just because she works for PBS or whatever her credentials are that she is unbiased. Do you think her book would sell better if Obama or McCain won? She therefore has a vested interest in helping Obama win.

Henrietta wrote:

Gwen Ifill did a fantastic job and was impartial. She called out both candidates several times for not directly answering the questions. Her book is entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and really seems to be a critical examination of race in modern American politics, based on the title. I don't believe someone who is on the board of the Harvard Institute of Politics is really going to be a biased moderator, anyways.

I agree on the point that I think she did a good job and most of the speculation was unnecessary. I disagree that just because she works for PBS or whatever her credentials are that she is unbiased. Do you think her book would sell better if Obama or McCain won? She therefore has a vested interest in helping Obama win.

Have you actually read the book?

How is it possible to have read the book? It hasn't been released yet. It's just common sense.

So you are judging a book by its cover. That all leads to the point, that you haven't read it, and judgment should be reserved until you, or anyone else, has.

I disagree with you. If it was a book promoting the changes in McCain's "era" then I'd think the same. Titles DO actually give away the topic. At least, it should. Regardless of whether not I've read it anyone else has, the book WILL sell better if Obama wins simply BECAUSE of the title.

Cass wrote:At least, it should.

It doesn't always give away the topic of the book. Obama's name in the title is not suggestive of the content. It could be a completely condescending book about how black people should stop trying to break into politics, but no one would know that until they read the book. Just because it can be inferred that the book is in support of Obama doesn't necessarily mean that the book is in support of Obama. I know I'm reaching, I'm just trying to explain how titling works. Especially with just having the title of this one (since I haven't heard anything about it), it could certainly be taken either way.

I still have to disagree. If the book had McCain's name in the title that moderator would have been thrown out.

I highly doubt that.

Henrietta wrote:I disagree with you. If it was a book promoting the changes in McCain's "era" then I'd think the same. Titles DO actually give away the topic. At least, it should. Regardless of whether not I've read it anyone else has, the book WILL sell better if Obama wins simply BECAUSE of the title.

Still, the fact remains that you haven't read it and you can't fully say that it is "clearly biased."

Is your opinion biased toward McCain?

What do you mean? I just said that if the book's title had "McCain" in it then I would assume it biased toward McCain.

No, you said that the moderator wouldn't have been allowed to be the moderator if that were the case, which is ridiculous to assume.

Also, there are plenty of books out there with Bush's name in the title that are complete disparagements of his administration, personality, family, etc. The old phrase you can't judge a book by its cover, and in this case by its title, applies just as much now as it ever did. Wait until you read the book before you pronounce judgment on it and the person who wrote it, and the circumstances surrounding it.

I think it's fair to say the book is probably about Obama though, whether its for or against. And Obama being elected would probably help the sails of a book with his name on the cover more than him losing the election would, either way.

Of course it has something to do with Obama, but I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily have much to do with the fact that this person was chosen as the moderator for the debate. Lots of people have written books about Obama, but they weren't chosen...I just don't think it's fair to accuse bias on the basis of a book that hasn't even been released yet.

I did say that they wouldn't have been allowed to moderate the debate if the situation had been reversed and I believe that is a fair prediction.

As far as what I'm trying to say about her book, well this sums it up and I stand by my belief:

I think it's fair to say the book is probably about Obama though, whether its for or against. And Obama being elected would probably help the sails of a book with his name on the cover more than him losing the election would, either way.

Oh my the debate is boring. McCain keeps saying 'my friends' it is driving me crazy, and Obama keeps saying teh for to/too. Why do these things get under the skin.
McCain is very stiff and both of them are terrible at keeping time, and are big on pointing fingers. I am not sure that either came out very well.

I was pretty disappointed in both of them.
Plus, McCain's whistling when he said his s's really bugged me. It might just have been exacerbated because I was sitting in a lecture hall watching with a bunch of other students, but still, it was like nails on a chalkboard.

And Obama's "One final point I want to make here Tom" comments really grated on my nerves too. Say what you're going to say - stop dressing it up, give us the facts and the plans, and stop trying to smooth-talk your way into office!

They both suck as far as political posturing. Neither of them are real people.

I'm becoming disenfranchised. I have absolutely no faith left in this government.

I'm getting Ralph Nader lawn signs if anybody wants one