Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Presidential election’

I don’t know who won the debate last night. I’m not certain at this point who’s going to win the general election. To be honest, I don’t know what I know anymore. Is it supposed to rain tonight ? How long will I have this headache? Are my health insurance premiums going up? Exactly what percentage of my savings have I lost and if it’s all on paper, does it really matter? Damned if I know.

Uncertainty is a state of mind I’ve been examining as part of the research for my book. Humans, particularly Americans, don’t like to be uncertain. We want to know who won, who’s winning, how much we’ve lost, how fast we can make it up and, occasionally what it all means. To not know is to be in a position of weakness.

Or not. Accepting uncertainty as a more or less permanent condition can be liberating. It allows you to consider possibilities. Whatever it is you don’t know for certain you’re free to imagine. Why not imagine the best of all possible worlds? Doesn’t mean it will happen, just that it might. It’s that glass-half-empty, glass-half-full point of view.

It’s one thing to not know something absolutely and another to not make up your mind with the information you have at hand. Most people I know (myself included) have pretty much settled on a candidate whose vision we feel is most in line with ours, which is why I was so fascinated to listen to the comments of the undecided voters being grilled by various commentators last night. As Gail Collins pointed out in today’s New York Times, these undecided swingers in unpredictable states are the voters on whom the candidates are now focused like laser beams. They claim to be examining the positions of the candidates, which have remained largely unchanged for some time. Clearly, if they admit to making a decision before November 4th, they won’t be as interesting to either the press or the politicians. Which begs the question: are those oh-so-unsure but ever-so-popular independents really still undecided? I don’t know for sure – but I tend to doubt it.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

After watching last night’s debate, I tried to come up with a word to describe it and remembered one my sister used as a little kid whenever she was frustrated: stoopy. Stoopy means stupid and that’s the best description I have right now.

What was so stupid about the debate last night? Let’s begin with the restrictions, which went a long way towards making it as boring as can be imagined. It’s one thing to tell the audience not to make any overt noises or gestures but I’ll tell you what: if you get a small crowd and admonish them to behave and subject them to harsh lighting, roaming cameras, close proximity to candidates and national exposure, what you’re going to get is an audience of automatons. Which is what we had.

What about the format? The town hall-style was supposed to favor McCain but with an unresponsive audience asking, well, mostly stoopy questions, no one was much served. I’m not familiar with all the restrictions agreed upon by the candidates but if you believe the frustrated and all-too-willing- to-show-it Brokow, the candidates were happy to dispense whatever rules were supposed to apply.  I looked up the word “debate” and it’s supposed to be “…a formal method of interactive…argument” Given how resolutely McCain refused to interact with Obama, I wouldn’t describe it as a debate. As for whether it was truly a town hall meeting, I can only say it wasn’t a tenth as interesting or fun as the ones I’ve attended. Dumb decision and/or dumb execution.

Then there were the questions: Call me naive, but I think the American public is smarter than the questions seemed to indicate. How’s a candidate supposed to answer three variations of “Why should we trust you with our money?” except to say something almost as inane? What kind of format doesn’t allow for follow-up questions from the audience? Why did Brokow ask the candidates who they’d pick as Treasury Secretary when he must have known they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer  except in time-wasting generalities? Although we didn’t spend forty minutes talking about whether a flag pin symbolizes patriotism (remember the ABC debates last April?), there was little to compel the candidates to get substantive, except, I will admit, when it came to health care issues.

Speaking of time-wasting, I stayed up to watch a little post-debate analysis. I even switched between Fox, NBC and CNN. Apparently McCain didn’t do what he needed to do, although it’s completely unclear what it was the talking heads wanted from him. I may surprise some people here but his use of the phrase “that one” to describe Obama  was way over-analysed. McCain is thinking on his feet, he’s clearly ticked off to be sharing the stage with a man he views as a young upstart (as was Hillary) and both candidates have shown flashes of real disdain for each other, although McCain’s gotten worse at hiding his and Obama’s gotten better. Give it a rest!

I was disappointed with some of the candidates’ answers. McCain is going to buy up bad mortgages but how, what with his proposed tax cuts and his “win at all costs” war? Obama is going to end the war in Iraq responsibly and promptly move troops over to Afghanistan and how does that help stretched-to-the-limit servicemen and women? I was also disappointed in Brokow, who wasn’t able to keep it together or add any spark to the proceedings. And let’s not get started on the questions asked by we, the people.

The debate was certainly not what you’d call terrific entertainment. Maybe the candidates are tired; I’ve read somewhere Brokow is. I know I am. This entire campaign has gone on too long and, as much as the outcome matters to me, I’m ready to have it over with so we can end all the stoopiness.

Read Full Post »