First of all, to address my previous post...I think Gwen Ifill did a good job. I didn't notice any blatant bias on her part. Perhaps a closer look who establish something minor. I didn't keep tract of who got to go first more or which questions when to whom. On the surface it seemed fair and had I not know about her book, I would have never questioned her based on the debate itself.
On the canidates. I think the both did a respectable job with no major misteps. It was pretty uneventful and tame. No name calling and not much in the way of personal jabs...which would have been more interesting. I personally like Palin better (although I liked her better going in). I thought that Biden spun the facts (read:lied). I think that Palin talked straight to the American people and I think many people will really like what she had to say. I think she is on the money that people are tired of our government and the way it is run. I suppose it has to be called an almost even draw.
The most interesting thing was watching the recaps and analysts after the debate. I flipped back and forth between Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. It is amazing how much differnce there was in opinion among the different networks. If the damn media isn't biased, no one is.
2 comments:
I liked Palin better in the debate too! Really good to see a new slant on what a politician looks and sounds like. He has been doing this for 40 years or so - so why wouldnt he appear smoother but he was far more predictable and I didnt listen to what he said. Switched off because of his monotonous voice (although he seems like a very decent man). She was far more charismatic and interesting and enthusiastic. Also when he cried he was considered a strong man when Hilary cried she was trying to get attention. I hate the sexism everywhere.
Yeah, I know some people think it is gimmicky, but I really like that she talks to the people and not at them. She just seems so un-policitian like. It's refreshing.
Post a Comment