Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog
This is nearly word-for-word what I said to my brother (who is interested in, not to mention also directly involved in, politics) back when we had our elections in Australia, too.
Basically you just try not to make a dick of yourself and say something stupid, while attacking the other candidate as often as you are able, with any ammo you can get your grubby little paws on.
Maybe it's always been like this, but it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot worse the past decade or so.
|
for the VP debate, my wife and i mocked all the evasive answers and laughed at how much was not being said, and i did say "not for nothing, imagine having to stand up for 2 hours or so and have enough info to answer 2 hours worth of questions - all the while not stuttering or stammering and being able to speak eloquently, be engaging, most importantly *not mess up* with bad answers or ammunition for the other party to use against you". it's really hard, i know i couldn't do it. say what you want about how poor these debates are, but i don't think these candidates are looking to hit grand slams at these things. too risky. much easier to just hit bloop singles and get on base.
its an impressive quality to be able to speak at length at a debate, it's just unfortunate this is what most people are gonna base their opinions off of - "how much less did their guy mess up than the other guy".
and for the part about McCain being too stiff, i would think being a POW for 5 years would prevent anyone from auditioning for the lead role in Lord Of The Dance. give him a pass on that.