7

A Clear Victory For Obama


 

Unlike debates conducted entirely on radio, televised debates reveal more than just policies and issues. They provide insight into temperament. Body language becomes an important ingredient as it often shows true sentiments and the capacity to deal with controversy or adversity by the participants.

If John McCain was undoubtedly competitive on content, he clearly lost — and lost badly — when it comes to body language and tone. Throughout the debate, the Republican seemed on the verge of losing his temper at any moment. Obama, by contrast, appeared cool and collected. He was reassuring even if he lacked some passion.

McCain needed a game changer. He needed to show stature and best his opponent on content. He had to counteract the perception that he is erratic and temperamental. He failed to do so. It was not a bad performance on substance, but he failed on style and was unable to undo some of the negative perceptions that have arisen in this campaign.

Obama had a solid, though not spectacular, performance as he has had throughout the three debates. McCain, on the other hand, has been uneven throughout the three debates. Obama did not hurt himself in this debate while McCain failed to improve his situation in the campaign. As a result, Obama wins.


 

A Clear Victory For Obama

  1. I thought McCain was abysmal. His body language said ‘cranky old man’ but his tone and behaviour said he was more worried about appearing collegial than he was about attacking Obama. McCain did not present himself very well last night.

    Obama’s body language said he was bored and impatient. He’s had enough of us earthlings and is ready to coronate himself. Can’t he just be president already!

  2. There was a moment there, and I can’t remember what the topic was, but Obama was speaking and for what seemed like a minute McCain was staring at him like he’d just been shot.
    Did no one tell him this was a two-camera, split-screen shoot? Because the expression on his face (and it was there for what on television felt like an eternity) was enough to lose him the election right then and there…

  3. I find it strange, distasteful and appalling how the mass media (which in my and many others’ opinion leans sharply to the political left) must resort to great irrelevance to smear right-wing conservative political figures, whether those politicians be Canadian or American.

    Will the news ever become objective, instead of always containing a leftist agenda of propaganda designed to make right-wing politicians look bad? Shouldn’t political candidates be judged on the platform they present, instead of on personal charisma and fluency of speech and non-verbal communication mannerisms? Why does so much of the media focus on any little irrelevant thing it can find to criticize right-wing / conservative politicians, and yet it does not do the same thing to left-wing politicians, but rather blissfully ignores any such traits when they appear on left-wing / liberal politicians?

    Is it possible that the media cannot find anything more substantial to report on or criticize that they must resort to this juvenille “nit-picking” which has no relevance to the suitability and competence of a candidate running for political office? Should voters vote for any politician using the criteria of how fluently he or she speaks, or the person’s general appearance, or any other shallow meaningless attribute? It is called prejudice and bias and racism when people vote for a candidate based on their gender or race / ethnic origin. So how is this any different than racism or bias if voting becomes based on a political candidate’s physical appearance, non-verbal communication, mannerisms, fluency of speech, etc.?

    Voters should not vote based on these traits, and how much less also should the media publish biased nonsense portrayed as irrefutable fact that this or that candidate won a debate based on the candidate’s non-verbal communication or other mannerisms? How prejudiced and biased. How unprofessional.

    If the media hopes for people to take it seriously, then report the news and allow the viewers to make their own conclusions for who won a political debate or political function. But don’t “spoon-feed” the viewers and impose your leftist views, leftist conclusions, leftist hopes and leftist propaganda on the viewers. I would like to see news that is unbiased and objective for a change, instead of this continual glorification of a single reporter’s paradigm and perspective and opinion all portrayed as unbiased objective fact and even worse as some sort of noble journalist duty exposing supposed truth for all to see.

    The title of your propaganda demonstrates my point: “A Clear Victory for Obama” – says who? Is that a fact, or an opinion? I wish someday the media at large would report on facts – and all the facts it finds, not just a filtered subset of facts either – instead of interposing the highly subjective views of politically left-leaning propogandists. This isn’t news; this is nothing less than propoganda uncleverly disguised as news.

  4. Niel the “media is a leftist conspiracy” argument is old. In my mind the media has both “left” and “right” elements and everything in between. Its funny but whatever side happens to be on the bottom of the heap they tend to cry foul of the media as lackies for the other side.

    I voted for NDP last time around if I was in Canada I would vote for Conservatives. I look carefully at how a potential leader displays himslef. You are wrong that it doesnt matter it always matters and will continue to matter. Personally I dont exclusively vote on party platforms for 2 reasons:

    1) What someone says isnt necessarily what they will do.

    2) Circumstances change and what a party espouses in an election might not be possible. Geroge Bush ran with the intent of not being heavily involved in foreign affiars. Sept 11 changed that. I am sure both parties had to tweak their economics platforms considering the current financial crisis.

    Flexibility and the ability to adapt is key to being political. One must master being political to make in it politics.

    The republicans have shown they are not able or more correctly willing to adapt and keep banging the same old tired beats. Considering what the average American faces today wouldnt you want a change?

    John Mac and Sarah Palin have noone else to blame but themselves. I mean come Sarah Palin indicating she might have foreign policy experience because Russia is “next door”. She would have been better off saying “no but I am willing to learn and surround me with the best in that field” as opposed to treating potential voters with contempt.

    As far as I can see the republican campaign has been nothing short of farcical.

  5. You’re kidding, right Neil?

    “Is it possible that the media cannot find anything more substantial to report on or criticize that they must resort to this juvenille “nit-picking” which has no relevance to the suitability and competence of a candidate running for political office? Should voters vote for any politician using the criteria of how fluently he or she speaks, or the person’s general appearance, or any other shallow meaningless attribute?”

    In the U.S. you might be talking about Senator John McCain. But this describes to a T what happened here in Canada with ‘Lefty’ Stephane Dion.

    So, either we have left-wing U.S. media and right-wing Canadian media, or we have both media willing to pounce on any tabloid type story, without caring whether its from the left or right. I think its easier to believe the latter. And I also think that, while that kind of media is the loudest, it doesn’t make up all the media.

  6. POO!!!

Sign in to comment.