Political Polemic: the Aftermath.

Posted on February 23, 2008
Filed Under Opinion |

It was 11 p.m. Wed. night when I got three phone calls from my editor at the Daily Texan. She said she had a wild card pass to the democratic debate and that, since I was the Texan’s blogger, she wanted me to be there.Note: I blog about websites, not about politics. As a matter of fact, I try to not step in that ant pile for fear of bites and for signs of regret. Politics itch.

But–this is the biggest election of my lifetime, of my parents’ lifetime, and of the babies’ lifetimes that sit unknowingly in budding wombs. I could not resist; and I could not resist blogging it. I decided I would live-blog it–I would give constant updates of the inexplicit: the eye movements, the tones of voice, the hand motions, the facial expressions–These are the real reasons why I would vote for anyone. Sometimes politician’s words are the candy inviting you into a stranger’s car for a long unpredictable ride.

When I placed the press pass, decorated with CNN logos and democratic symbols, around my neck; When I walked up to the gate where hundreds of citizens flocked, grabbing the metal bars tightly to emphasize the names displayed on t-shirts–either unifying or contradicting the adjacent crowd-face–; When I passed the man with the list to get in, who gave me no second glance— The transition was complete: I became “press.”

Press Room #2

Obviously, I didn’t take it too seriously (I’m a blogger by trade…me on the left).

After lining up like a poor orphan for my share of no-choice-but-caffeinated coffee, I flipped open my laptop at the front table in press room #2 where the view was choice, and logged in to a blank screen waiting for HTML tag and succinct, cynical prose.

A quick flash forward

If you read the headlines post-debate, newsies argued that the two runts simply agreed too much. All right, so, I know it was a debate, but agreement between two good candidates might be a good thing (put down your pride sole-Obama or sole-Clinton enthusiasts…).

While live-blogging, I had many comments from people admiring the fact I had no bias either way. It didn’t show because I don’t.

The Kennedy-Nixon debate back in the 60’s reminded me a lot of this one in that, Kennedy won on TV and Nixon won on radio. In retrospect, I feel that Clinton won on TV and Obama won on radio.

Why:

Clinton:

  1. Kept her cool and stayed emotionally stagnant throughout the debate’s entirety. This does mean something in relation to a presidency.
  2. Has visual charisma rather than audio charisma. What I mean by this is, when Clinton makes jokes, her physical mannerisms complete her to present a whole charismatic persona (otherwise she comes off a little elitist).
  3. Uses language as a scapegoat occasionally: brings up the Bush administration, attacks Obama with verbs like “Xerox” to get a crowd reaction. All though the attacks show a sense of strength, it also resembles the same old dirty politics that Obama stays out of, and that also are irrelevant to the larger perspective (he used two lines from someone else…what does this say about his presidency?).

Obama:

  1. Although Obama is known for his way with words, sometimes he really fails on speaking on the fly–i.e. when it came to a question about English in America, he said he believed that “every child in America should speak English and should learn a second language.” Well yes, why not? He lacks the same spontaneous confidence Clinton carries.
  2. In regards to Clinton’s attacks, Obama is quick to show emotion, particularly through tone and facial expression. Clinton has obviously observed this and has used this as a tool to weaken him, showing a false sense of self-doubt for Obama.

This is the part of the debate where all of these points are most exemplified:
You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The Tools.

Sipping my coffee and quickly accommodating to the update/refresh computer cycle, the daze of agreeing on the Iraq war in my eardrums, I took note of the “tools” used in the debate.

  1. Bush. We all know President Bush sucks. Talking about it at a debate in the year 2008 seems a little irrelevant/unnecessary/obsolete/fatigued. Bush has become more of a lame-duck topic than a president.
  2. For Hillary. When responding to the question about what time of their life contained the most personal crises, I could have told you she would pull the Bill card. Hillary does this at multiple debates/events because it’s a familiar topic America can laugh about. I doubt she can be sincere in laughing that she is still married to an ex-president infamous for adultery.
  3. Geographic name-dropping. Believe it or not, fighting over who loves Barbara Jordan more does not impress anyone.
  4. QUOTING ________ (insert any name of a person famous for making “change”). Kennedy was quoted twice in 10 minutes. All though that American era is most comparable to this one, it’s over, and this is different. There may be a difference between “plagiarism” and “quoting,” but either way it doesn’t come from the candidate.

The Exit

Before making my final departure, I took my time taking photos of journalism friends in front of CNN posters and of banners held high in protest or rage. I participated in intelligent conversations about the topics covered, words used, who won and lost, who gained points and where. I walked down from the rec center where the same crowd still stood, only larger now, wondering why this tiny woman with a press pass was skipping out on the Spin Room.

Honestly though, I was so glad to get out of that ant pile. It’s Saturday, and I’m still scratching that itch.

Check out the Daily Texan blog site for my complete update list.

Comments

Leave a Reply