NR Coverage of the Debate

The National Review coverage of the debate was really substantial in my opinion. There were six articles online, all of which were extremely readable and not too long-winded or anything. They all said McCain was the clear winner, but they did not base this opinion on appearances of anything superficial. Instead, they went into detail talking about different positions McCain took that were strong, places where he actually could have had some good one liners because he was clearly right, and things Obama said that were not strong points or even right at all. 

The first article, "Missing at Ole Miss," was a question and answer with Debra Burlingame. She said right away that she would not vote for Obama, but in her answers she never mentioned as one of her reasons anything regarding their style, dress, expression, posture, etc. She instead said she supports less spending, which she would not get with Obama, and she thought McCain was better with foreign policy. One of the questions she answered was what she would ask Obama and McCain if given the chance. Her answer to this question was amazing, she put a lot of thought into it and said she would ask Obama what he thought Iraq would be like today with Saddam Hussein as a leader, and she would ask McCain how he would expect to get anything done if elected because he probably would not have control of the Senate.

I thought this piece was good to include, because she is not some big pundit featured all the time that gives cliche answers. She is the sister of a pilot killed on September 11, and she seems more average and like regular voters. She also did not include any judgments made on trivial matters, all her opinions seemed well thought out and based on important matters.

The second article, "The Editors: Round 1," was an editorial that claimed McCain had the better performance and passed up some shots to get Obama. It also criticized McCain a bit, and said he needs to do better next time connecting our budget with foreign spending. Even though they clearly supported McCain, it was nice to still see some criticism of him, because it shows that they do not simply just agree with him because of his political party, and that there are problems with him that we have to decide whether we support or not.

The third article, "Senator McCain is absolutely right ..." said how Obama said eight times that McCain was right. The author predicted that Obama wouldn't make that mistake next time, and that Obama did well enough overall, just not as well as McCain. Finally, he said that some might say Obama won merely by holding his own, but that if you really judge them straight, McCain won. I thought this was a good piece that showed evidence of Obama letting McCain call the shots. I liked how it acknowledged how so many candidates have "won" by merely holding their own, but that it actually did not take this stance because McCain debated better and had better arguments. 

The fourth article, "Higher Questioning," said that Obama tried to go after McCain, but McCain just towered over him on every issue of substance. There were not many one liners or gaffs, but instead it was a square-off between a young man of great charm and an old warrior who has seen much of the world' problems. I thought this was definitely an attempt to create a narrative and pick roles for these candidates to fill. Yes, we know that one liners often do control coverage of the debates, and that Obama is younger and McCain is older, but I don't think it was necessary for this article to spell out the stereotypes of the candidates for us to look at even more. 

The fifth article, "Saturday-Morning Quarterbacking," said McCain should have definitely won based on appearances, because he was energetic while Obama had a scowl and "plastic smile." But, the author said, it is not based on appearances. This again said that McCain had a bunch of chances to get Obama with one liners, like with his advisor that headed Fannie Mae, or all these promises Obama had made before that he didn't keep, or him going back and forth on the war issue. I thought this was interesting because it went through and spelled out a bunch of ways Obama was wrong or changed his opinion or could have been easily shot down. 

The sixth article, "Quick Points on Debate 1," was the notes of the author directly after the debate, without hearing any commentary or opinions of other people. I though this was a bit superficial at parts, including such things as certain tie choices being good, but it also included a lot of thoughts on Obama doing better on taxes and both seeming very moderate, not really so much about change. 

Overall, even though the coverage was obviously tilted toward McCain, there was still a lot of criticism of how he did during the debate. One thing I think could have been included was how McCain might have been wrong. So many times Obama said during the debate that McCain wasn't right and he didn't know where he was getting these numbers. It would have been extremely helpful for someone writing an article to spell out how McCain was wrong or why, at least, Obama claimed he was.

Palin is "gorgeous"

CNN last night included breaking news on the financial crisis fallout. It focused heavily on the candidates sharing opinions on how they do not want average people to pay for Wall Street's problems. One of their biggest concerns is CEO's pocketing the taxpayer's money instead of using it for the crisis. Obama and McCain even made a joint statement that "Now is the time to come together." 

After focusing on this for quite a while, they moved onto Palin and talked about how Pakistan's new president called Palin "gorgeous." Then, of course, it was time for the polls and information about the "key states": Montana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia. Obama's numbers are going up, partially because the economy was bad news for the Republicans, Obama has been spending more money on ads, and the boost Palin gave McCain is going back down. 

I think the coverage was over-emphasizing the joint efforts of Obama and McCain. This was just an excuse for them to "come together," even though we all know that this will hardly last and in a day or two they'll be back at each other's throats again. 

I also think it is inappropriate to talk about how Pakistan's president called Palin "gorgeous." It was a sexist comment that he should not have said, you would NEVER hear a female leader calling Obama or Biden handsome. And CNN's coverage of it did not mention once how inappropriate this was or anything. If CNN would have turned this into a package about sexism in the election or something like that, it would have been better. But it did not. Instead, it just mentioned what Pakistan's president said and talked about the talks and did not talk at all about how this may have made Palin uncomfortable or anything like that. They could have suggested how what he said was inappropriate, but instead that just wanted to reinforce that Palin is only a pretty face and avoid talking about anything that goes in depth to her policy decisions and ability to lead. 

If Obama wins .....

Jim Geraghty did an article for National Review where he imagines what it would be like if Obama won the election. He says it does not seem like that crazy of a concept, considering the Republicans have all the negative spotlight while the Democrats have not and can say "our ideas would work perfectly, if we could just get it past those obstructionists standing in our way!" So, he explores what the "spotlight" has missed, and all the problems the Democrats have had and would most likely continue to have if elected. 

He discusses how unimpressive the Pelosi-Reid Congress is, with a chairman of the Ways and Means committee that doesn't understand the tax laws and a House Judiciary chairman who speculates about "retroactive impeachment process." He questions whether Obama will really have all the troops out of Iraq in 16 months and meet with the rulers of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran in his first year. He also questions how well the markets will perform with top effective tax rates hitting 50 percent and how gasoline will be without offshore drilling and what effects there will be in the economy.

What I liked about this article is it brings up some key questions that need to be answered before people can make their decisions. These are all really important issues to voters, and if they do think Obama can do all the things he has said and Geraghty questions, then they will probably vote for him. Thus, I think it's good that these questions were raised, even if the article does doubt Obama can do these things. At least the questions were put out there and real issues were discussed that voters need to know about. After reading this, people can decide on their own if they think Obama can or cannot do these things, and they can base a decision on important issues and not slips of the tongue.

Wolf Blitzer focuses on poll numbers

Wolf Blitzer began the CNN Politics podcast for yesterday by discussing McCain's and Obama's responses to recent economic woes. He said that McCain "tweaked" his stance on the bailout and is trying to bring across his zero tolerance for Wall Street. He was shown visiting Michigan and trying to erase the perception that he's out of touch with the workers. 

Obama was visiting Nevada and discussing "what voters care about" there: healthcare, mining, and the economy. It was nice to see real issues included in this segment , with Blitzer mentioning Obama's 6-point blueprint for the economy that wants greater law enforcement for trade deals, more government oversight on banking, and more cooperation between regulatory agencies among other things. 

This part lasted for the first half of the 13-minute segment. The rest of it, however, focused almost completely on poll numbers.

Blitzer discussed how some states are surprisingly becoming battleground states although they were won fairly easily by the Republicans in the last election. Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan are all surprisingly more Democratic, partially because McCain hasn't focused efforts there because they were not battlegrounds before. 

The first half of the segment was a decent effort at good journalism. The economy was discussed at length, and specific plans for Obama were mentioned (although nothing was said of how McCain would solve the problems). I think they could have had even more air time for the candidates themselves, but overall it wasn't too bad.

What I did not like was the focus in the second half on the race itself and all the poll numbers. I don't see why this had to take up some much time when there are much more important matters that can be discussed. They kept talking about percentage point differences in the states, many of which were extremely small differences, and I think it would have been much better to have spent all of the segment focusing on the economy and the candidates' plans. 

Anderson Cooper on Economic Issues

On Anderson Cooper's podcast for September 16, the first story he discussed was how McCain and Obama want to improve the economy. He actually discussed the issues fairly well, and he went over ways they agree, questioned how they would pay for their "grand economic plans," and gave each candidate fair amounts of air time before bringing in the pundits. 

The second story also had to do with the election, this time he showed scenes from the View, where McCain openly lied about how Palin didn't support earmarks. The hosts, including Barbara Walters, call McCain out on lying, and Anderson cues the pundits who question if McCain has gone too far stretching the truth. David Gergen says McCain went "way beyond normal bounds" and says journalists are getting angry and not putting up with it any more. 

Anderson further says McCain said today that Obama didn't in fact call Palin a pig, although last week he approved the commercial saying he did. 

A pundit from Time explains these discrepancies by saying that McCain is clearly uncomfortable with the campaign they are running. By having to partially go back to the truth and explain himself, he is revealing how uncomfortable he is lying and running these messages. 

The pundits also go into how many of McCain's quotes are run out of context, including remarks about the recession and the middle class being at $5 million. 

A couple things I noted from Anderson Cooper's segment are that first of all, the story about the economy and issues voters may care about was substantially shorter than the second story about McCain lying in the campaign. Although it is important to call McCain out for not telling the truth, I think it is far more important for voters to see how each candidate plans to solve the economic problems of the country. 

Second, I think they should have interviewed McCain himself in the second story and asked him why he has stretched the truth so much. I don't think they should have pundits on making excuses for him, such as saying that he is "clearly uncomfortable" with the campaign and that he is, in fact, a good person who really doesn't want to lie that much. They just seem to be making excuses for him and making voters feel sorry for this poor candidate that is being forced by his campaign to say things he really doesn't mean.