Debate was a Dud (No Surprise)

by Deb Cupples |   I saw last night's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.  It seemed chock full of the same tired talking points, so it was neither informative nor riveting.  Fortunately, I hadn't expected it to be.

It's no wonder that Josh Marshall devoted space to commenting on the candidates' handshake(s).  Mr. Marshall doesn't think the final handshake was adequate and doesn't seem to think that CNN or NBC adequately covered the inadequate handshake.

The New York Times' "analysis" begins with this:

"Tuesday night’s presidential debate was remarkable for the dourness of its mood, for the frequently subdued demeanors of the candidates even as they tore into each other, which they did with somewhat less vigor and venom than expected, given how little time remains until Election Day, given how nasty the campaign had recently turned."

Okay, so The Times had expected a death match at Thunderdome but came away from the debate disappointed.

Why?  It was a debate between two guys wearing ties on national TV, not a college football game attended by drunk frat boys ready to rumble with fans from the rival university.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrisey gave what seemed to be a serious attempt at analyzing the candidates' performances. He concluded that both men had improved, though he (naturally) thinks that Sen. McCain won.  Mr. Morrisey's considered opinion includes this bizarre nugget:

"McCain also improved, most clearly in the economic debate.  This time he hammered Obama on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and challenged the assumption that 'deregulation' caused the financial crisis."

Assumption?  Mr. Morrisey should try debating actual facts relating to that "assumption" with SEC Charmian Christopher Cox -- a deregulation guy who recently and quite unexpectedly admitted that our nation's economic crises resulted, in part, from inadequate regulation of investment banks and markets. 

Unlike Mr. Morrisey, Mr. Cox gives concrete details to support his conclusion.

Despite his anti-regulation roots, Mr. Cox has suggested a need for greater disclosure to investors, which will require regulations because corporate executives haven't been voluntarily disclosing as well as they should. Cox also criticized the largely un-regulated practice of short selling, which seems to create incentives for players to manipulate our markets at ordinary investors' expense.

Back to the debate: last night, each candidate had only one minute each to address questions.  Both candidates repeatedly took triple their allotted time, but even three whole minutes is not enough time to adequately explain to viewers such crucial issues as our nation's foreign policy, our credit markets, our securities markets, our economy....

Watching political debates never has rendered us viewers well informed on issues of national importance.  Even reading dozens of articles on a given topic is only the first step toward becoming somewhat informed.

I'm not saying that I got nothing at all from the debate.  I was pleased when Sen. McCain repeatedly drew the connection for viewers between corporate corruption and our nation's economic crises.  No, I don't mind that he may not actually want to do anything about it -- as long as viewers grasped the connection.

I was pleased to see Sen. Obama tell viewers about the specific example of AIG executives' re-distribution of shareholder wealth (to themselves).

I even got one solid chuckle out of the debate -- when Sen. Obama said this:

"Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible....

"Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of 'speaking softly.'"

I would have felt sorry for Sen. McCain if Sen. Obama had brought this up out of nowhere.  But he didn't.  Sen. McCain had opened the door by saying this just moments earlier:

"You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

"In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable." (CNN)

That's it.  I can't think of anything more to say about last night's debate. 

Frankly, I hope our nation's media will soon share my sentiment about campaign minutia and turn their attention to more important issues and problems that face our nation -- or at least devote a larger fraction of their attention to actually researching, understanding, and accurately reporting on substantive issues.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* AIG Execs Re-Distributed Shareholder Wealth to Themselves

* Nation Lost 159,000 Jobs in September

* Lehman Execs Re-Distributed Shareholder Wealth to Themselves

* Execs Took Millions While Driving Companies into Ditch

* Fannie Mae CEO Got $38 Million, Risky Buys Weren't his Fault?

* AIG Spent $61 Billion of Bailout Money and Plans to...

* Wall Street to Say "No thank You" to Bailout Funds?

* Bush Signs Bailout Bill, Taxpayers Say Hail Marys

*

Comments

[billkav]

I couldn't agree more. The country is bleeding from the economic arteries and these guys offered Band-Aids last night.

... and could somebody tell Tom Brokaw to go back into retirement or go write another coffee table book or something? Yeesh!

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Hi Billl,

How are you doing?

[Close Observer]

Ya know, there's something fundamentally wrong with the country when there's not a good baseball game on another channel to watch instead of the debate.

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Hi Close Observer,

How are you?

My point is that debates, like political speeches, tend to be relatively un-burdened by informative substance.

I tend to crave substantive info, which is why I spend a significant number of hours of free time every week researching political issues.

Don't get me started on False Claims Act stuff or securities regulation. :)

[Close Observer]

I agree with your point, Deb. I wasn't trying to be flippant. Maybe that comes natural to me? }-:

I think at this late stage, I doubt we'll see any attempt at substantive discussion by anyone. It's straight soundbites and gotcha slogans from here on out. So with that in mind, I'd much prefer a play at the plate in the bottom of the ninth!

[Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)]

Close,

You're too funny!