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.