It was the yin and the yang of debates. The POTUS candidates were polarized forces operating out of shadow and light in paradoxical roles of interdependency. They needed each other in a bizarre way to make the drama of contrasting styles fascinating. Otherwise watch the Yankees. Style must have been the criteria because there was not much substance. You are wrong. No, you are wrong. And so on.
Despite excellent questions from the audience, neither candidate, with minor exceptions, answered the question that was asked. Unfortunately and almost as an insult to thoughtful Americans, professional advisers for both candidates, I am sure instructed the candidates to answer the question with a few practiced themes and do not be specific. This is SOP for national interviews.
Most listeners grade the candidate's style, but do not deduct substance points for a failure to answer the question. If listeners did, there would be few points awarded last night.
How can you help close the "pay gap" between men and women doing the same job? Obama- by following the polices I have laid out for my daughters. Romney - by getting the economy going so employers can hire more people. Then both launched into unrelated diatribes on the other candidate.
How can you change a negative characteristic of you that people believe? Obama, I did try to make things better. Romney, I am a nice guy. Then both launched into unrelated diatribes on the other candidate.
Robert Bauer, General counsel, Obama for America and Ben Ginsberg, General Counsel, Romney for president signed a 21 page document that enumerated with great specificity the rules for the debate including the requirements for a water glass and the backdrop colors. All the rules regulated form and style and none regulated or compelled substance. And style is what we got.
It would have been wonderful if one rule was that the candidates must answer the question posed or yield his debate time. That would have shortened the debate to just a few minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment