Apparently, some presidential candidate recently made some very minor show of emotion, and the journalists are all wondering what impact it will have. Answer: it wouldn't have any if asshole journalists weren't intent on blowing it all out of proportion.
2 comments:
Agreed 100%. Although I do think it was manufactured (like the rest of her campaign) in response to what they think will help the campaign.
Dunno. I presume you're talking about a certain ex-First Lady. Well, if she were running as a Republican, then this would be no big deal, the Republican Party's goal being to reduce everything to emotion. But I'd like to think that a Democrat will keep calm under a heck of a lot more stress than during a televised debate where the really tough questions won't be asked by common consent, because everyone involved has been complicit in everything that's going wrong. If the candidates can't keep cool now, how will they react if, say, a revitalized Taliban assassinates Musharref, takes over Pakistan, and starts flinging nukes at Israel, a distinct possibility after 8 years of outright idiocy in American foreign policy regardless of who wins the election?
That being said, I'd really like it if there were no more broadcast (video or audio) of debates. In an ideal world, debates would take roughly the form of an online chat, made public in realtime. Then the public would be forced to stop talking about who looks more presidential or who they'd like to have a beer with and actually talk about positions and issues. Unfortunately, that would knock out all the current candidates at once.
Post a Comment