Intellect Schmintellect
The third commenter on Steve Benen’s debate wrap-up writes, “Rachael Maddow of Air America and a guest commentator on MSNBC called this debate a snooze-fest and I agree.”
Really?
My wife and I watched the debate together last night, from start to finish, the first time we’ve made it all the way through one — of either party’s candidates — without growing bored or frustrated. In fact, as we watched, we remarked to each other (several times) how riveting we found this particular installment in the series, how we just couldn’t bring ourselves to turn or look away.
Admittedly, the reaction of our two-person focus group might have had more to do with theater than substance. In Debate #20, it’s painfully difficult for the candidates to say anything they haven’t said 19 times before, nor are they likely to display some nuance in body language, style, cadence, or tone that they haven’t exhibitted several times prior.
What was new was the environment in which this debate was held, the contextual drama swirling around it. Sen. Obama is no longer the neophyte long-shot but the well-established leader, steadily closing the polling gaps in his rival’s final-stand states. Sen. Clinton is no longer the inevitable veteran but the evolving case study in how to lose a campaign when you have virtually everything going for you. Sure, the pulse of this narrative was evident in the Texas debate last week. But last night — after days of the Clinton campaign hurling accusations that failed to even scratch the Obamamentum — this narrative was no longer a pulse, but a pounding throb, an unmistakable, unignorable tell-tale heart whose beating could not be muffled or muted by the floorboards covering it.
And that beat permeated every exchange, as the cool, collected Senator from Illinois deftly swatted away each volley from the tense, tired, and perplexed Senator from New York. Even after what my wife and I agreed was Obama’s weakest moment — his Farrakhan waffle — he recovered with clarity, strength and grace, a point of view in which we are apparently not alone.
I confess: Two college-educated Americans should probably be more focused on substance than theater, but … what can I say? We’re human, as pedestrian as the next couple in the next home, as susceptible as anyone to the addiction of a good show. Maybe that means those individuals who found this debate a “snooze-fest” are more intellectual than we are, more capable of resisting the allure of the stage’s bright lights and sounds. Good for them. Meanwhile, I’m really looking forward to the next act, the one where the old war hero grapples with the young social activist. Grab the soft drinks; we’ll bring the popcorn.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Intellect Schmintellect”
Grinning one of those fake-looking Gloria Vanderbilt grins – er, um – I called it boring and I was in the audience.
I'll write more about that later but for me, the problem was the focus on “is this accurate” “how is not accurate” accurate inaccurate – that was driving me nuts.
Also, being in Ohio, NAFTA has been HAMMERED TO DEATH. Being in Cleveland and Jewish and in a synagogue run by a rabbi who attended the meeting with Obama, I've heard enough on all that. The health care conversation – NOTHING NEW.
I am sorry Pete – I really like your writing and I LIKE reading that you had a different feeling and affinity for the debate. But from the audience, during the portion before the first break? I was very, bored. But you are making me feel badly that I was! lol
No worries, Jill. I am feeling a little guilty for finding it so interesting — when I know well and good that it was a lot of “been-there-done that.” At least you have a sound, logical, adult rationale for your reaction. I have nothing more than the acknowledgement that I was suckered in like an adolescent by the promise of fake explosions and Jason-Bourne style fighting in close quarters.
They really need to have these debates on free tv. Not all of us have cable.
I hate to admit this, but Pete and his bride are right.
Even though Russert is a chucklehead of the first water, I thought the questions were sharp and the responses often engaging.
However . . . Thank goodness this probably will be the last primary-season debate.
I am going to try to find time time time today to write more about this – I cannot believe how much material I have to sift through from being there for 10 hours!!
But what is so fascinating is the very, very different sense of what's going on you get between being in the audience, live, and even just being in the media room watching it on a large screen or tv. The tv presentation is DRAMATICALLY different in effect.
I know at least one other blogger who said that she would be in the audience and would write about it – I look forward to seeing what she thought and I'll link to her post when it goes up – we can compare notes.
Nothing big and dramatic happened in this debate, but it was still interesting anyways. This is especially true in comparison to the CNN debate from last week.
And while I thought the quality of moderation was horrible, it did mesh well with the snippy exchanges between Obama and Clinton. There was a lot of interesting subtext in this debate, sort of like a Chekov play.
I thought the Debate was a high watermark for the USA and the best kind of diplomacy for bringing alignment to the world. We have an international audience who are on the edge of their seats to see what kind of people are competing for the leadership of the planets most influential society.
Either Obama or Clinton would be an inspiration to the world.
I'm with Pete here. In fact, Dear Husband and I both thought this was the best debate they've had.
Wow – this is blowing my mind. Well, I certainly owe it to myself if no one else to go read the transcript – but I still must say, when I saw them…sigh – I did not feel this love. lol
This was probably Hillary's last chance to stop Obama's momentum, short of some fatal gaffe, which seems ever less likely. She didn't draw blood and I think failed to land any solid punches (damn, sports analogy). May as well follow that with another. One of the commentators said “there were some field goals, but no touchdowns.” I agree.
I loved it when Obama cracked up both Hillary and Williams. Williams played the wrong clip apparently, but no matter. It was Hillary mocking Obama's lofty speeches, to which he replied, simply, “sounds good.” Great one-line dismissal of her dismissiveness.