  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Kate Butler Jun 10, 2007 |
Like many other North Americans, I tuned into parts of the Democratic and Republican presidential debates last week. I have to admit that I was not expecting much from either debate, so I was pleasantly surprised by certain highlights on both evenings. The media coverage of the two events was simply insipid though (again, I had expected this), and overall the experience barely met my rather low expectations.
The highlights for me came from the lesser-known candidates in both parties. We have seen Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama debate the same points time and again through statements to the median and on their websites (albeit not in the same room at the same time). John McCain is a well-known figure who doesn’t seem to be willing to go beyond his comfort zone. Giuliani mostly played it safe, and Mitt Romney has garnered considerable media attention in the past months, so he is also feeling relatively familiar.
The so-called ‘second tier’ of candidates has a number of fresher faces though, and offers voters a chance to see the real differences that exist between members of the same party. On the Democratic side, I find Bill Richardson a voice of reason and clarity: he is so much more credible on issues such as immigration and social security, as he has lived these experiences on a daily basis as governor of New Mexico.
On the Republican side, I found Tom Tancredo both incredibly interesting and completely distasteful: he openly criticized the President to the extreme, and basically said he wouldn’t be welcome anywhere near a Tancredo-led Whitehouse. Tommy Thompson was also a welcome voice in the mix, as his experience in health is something that the Republicans could certainly use.
The low points of the debate were myriad, but it was the media coverage that was most offensive. From the reporters in the field, to the incessant need to anoint a ‘winner’, the media covered the debate as if it were a tennis match. They called Edwards the early winner for the Democrats and McCain for the Republicans, but did not seem to be able to explain why this was in any understandable explanation. Commentators on CNN, the only station that co-hosted the debate, insisted on calling Clinton and Giuliani the respective ‘mediators’ of their party’s discussions, although, again, this seemed to be a somewhat useless statement.
There is no doubt that debates are an important part of the political process, in that they allow voters to better make up their minds. The problem, though, is that the debates which occurred last week were so formulaic, that they stripped the presidential candidates of any real sincerity, and showed the voters absolutely nothing.