Presidential debates - Style Vs Substance

“Contrary to popular belief,” historian Daniel J. Boorstin once wrote, “Barnum’s great discovery was not how easy it was to deceive the public, but rather how much the public enjoyed being deceived. Especially if they could see how it was being done. They were flattered that anyone would use such ingenuity to entertain them.”

I read the above somewhere and I agree that when it comes to presidential debates, the candidates are certainly ingenious when it comes to entertaining us. They understand that debates are about theatrics and not necessarily content. No wonder Bush, under the baton of Karl Rove, sneaked into the White House. Sure, we can not discount Al Gore’s “I will bash you up” look and gait at the debate. But I shall not digress; I shall stick to the present – the 2008 Presidential debates. I am looking forward to the 1st presidential debate on Friday, September 26th at the University of Mississippi. I wonder which candidate shall hone his act to perfection, or will any? I am looking forward to each question asked and the response, which of course, would have been rehearsed several times, thanks to the anticipated list of questions and answers created by their campaign staff. But the showmanship will be revealed in each pregnant pause and each pondering look the candidate will project to reflect spontaneity and sincerity.

This debate will be about foreign policy which apparently is McCain’s sweet spot. This automatically makes Obama an underdog who needs to hold his own and not necessarily serve a blow at each response McCain gives. He has to win by not losing. But I am disappointed that this debate on foreign policy will not include the vice presidential nominees ‘coz I am so keen to hear Sarah Palin’s foreign policy record and her response to each question with a smile that Tina Fey so appropriately donned on the SNL sketch when she uttered the golden words “I can see Russia from my house”. On the same note, she might state that she has great economic policy record because she can NOT see Wall Street from her house.

I am also eager to track the various channels that will analyze the debates. I can already visualize Bill O’Reilly of Fox News praising McCain and badgering Obama for any response he gives. He will differ with the latter for the sake of differing. And MSNBC’s Keith Olberman contributing several hundred dollars to each lie uttered by grandpa McCain (yeah, I know he actually donates a 100 for each lie mouthed by Palin but then they are the same i.e. Bush, Palin, and McSame … err …. a Freudian slip … I mean McCain). Just a word of caution, and I do not underestimate your net worth but Mr. Olberman, at the rate at which Sarah Palin is going, I hope she does not empty your coffers by the time this historic race gets over.

But then this is politics and stretching the facts is a part of the game. Sure, raising millions for campaign finance, a big chunk of which is going towards advertising aimed at making people scared of a certain candidate, his credentials and policies/plans makes this election different from the previous ones in the scale of “nastiness” but for the undecided there are non-partisan organizations such as factcheck.org which, as the name suggests, only provide the facts as they are. Yet again, logic is a poor weapon against fear. So all I hope for is “May the best man win” and my definition of a best man - Barack Obama. Go Obama GO!

Comments

Pooja said…
Bravo!
Your points have merit, but I do feel that a big contributor to Obama's own success has been his eloquence, as was for Kennedy and FDR.
In an ideal world, we would have style AND substance. Great quote from Boorstin, btw.
Nidhi said…
Agree with you, Pooja, on style AND substance. But can't stop wondering that how could we, as a nation, fail so terribly, in voting NEITHER style, NOR substance in the past 8 years.
Pooja said…
Lol, those are million $ words.