|
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 09:42 AM by timeforarevolution
on the average, non-political-junkie viewer?
I firmly believe most people get their news information from MSM. Once they start showing an interest in the elections, they tune in to the debates. Beyond the talking heads on TV (and, sadly, probably RW radio), the debates are the one way they get a direct feel for a candidate.
Most people don't research to the degree we do online, nor do they get to see the candidates in person.
So, with that said, the debate performances are indeed very important to the candidates. And, even though it's unfair, it's often the only shot they have to connect with the average viewer.
I'll leave Edwards out of my observation.
I agree with what you said about Hillary (I'm female, BTW). On one hand, she tends to come across as strong and consistent which is a great trait; on the other hand, it can go a bit too far to the extreme as you described here very well. She certainly did come across as attacking Obama strongly last night. I don't have a dog in the fight between the two of them, but I can see how it would have been off-putting for uncommitted voters. For anyone against Obama watching (for whatever reason), it may have played well.
Most people agree Obama gives beyond awesome speeches. Yet his debate performances and TV interviews do not have the same quality. Obama supporters see his "pauses" as a brilliant mind reflecting on what he's going to say. The average person who isn't as well aware of his brilliant mind sees someone who appears to be "off" and not sure of himself.
His intensity in the first half of the debate was welcome for me. I was glad to see him angry; we all should display some anger about the mess we're in. But, like Hillary, he went a bit too far and his anger seemed a little out of control. I don't think he SAID anything out of line, it was just in his mannerism. He totally rebounded in the second half, in my opinion.
As always, this is indeed IMHO.
edit for effects of flu...lol
|