The following article from Politico.com claims this debate was the "worst debate ever."
Read the article, and write a comment in which you a) explain what the article is saying in your own words, and b) explain whether you agree or disagree and WHY.
"With the country at one of its most interesting — not to mention terrifying — moments in a generation, John McCain and Barack Obama met in Nashville for what was surely one of the dullest and least satisfying presidential debates in memory.
There have been boring debates before, of course. Truth be told, probably only a fraction of these encounters, over the 32 years since general election debates became a fixture of presidential campaigns, actually delivered on their promise of great political drama. And even interesting debates are inevitably somewhat stilted affairs, as candidates cleave to their scripts and try to avoid blunders.
But the Belmont University showdown was something entirely different. Place the gravity of the moment next to the blah-blah-blah artifice of the rhetoric and overall insubstantiality of the evening, and this is what you get: The worst presidential debate ever."
Click here to read the rest of the article.
36 comments:
First of all I think Obama won the debate because he presented himself better.
a.)The article is basically saying that the debate was very bad. That's just about it in my opinion. It was very dull and all the candidates would do is say I'm doing this(and they wouldn't provide an example) and he isn't( with an example).
b.)well I've only seen three debates( the ones you assigned me) and i didn't think it was that bad it was pretty dull but i don't think it was the worst debate ever. I think it was more entertaining than the first debate I watched this year. One reason I think it wasn't the best debate is because they didn't have enough time to answer the questions and neither of the candidates would answer a question directly.
Also this has nothing to do with the question but I thought it was funny that whenever one of the candidates talked the other candidate would look at him in such a disapproving way especially McCain. He would go so far as to laugh when Obama said some things... anyway that's all.
Chandler Abbey period 7
a) The article is saying that the debate was not very good, that the candidates did not show much enthusiasm, that the debate was not set up well, and they did not give very specific answers.
b)I agree that that they were not being very clear, they were not showing much enthusiasm, and that it was a bad debate overall. I think that they were doing too much mudslinging for the listeners to really get an idea of the answer to the questions.I also think it could have been set up better, because the time limit seemed like it was getting on everyone's nerves.
a) The aricle is saying that the dabate was very bad and un-entertaining. The candidates were not very fluent with their answers, and they lacked enthusiasm and independence from each other. The dabate really was BORING!
b)Well, I agree that the debates were very dull with no enthusiasm, but I wouldn't be that harsh if I was talking about them. I think that the candidates in the dabates spent too much time answering questions and not enough time getting to the poin. Although, this recent debate was more entertaining than the first two.
Much Love, Kristen Ochoa Period 7
ALexander Lorenz
A.) The article was stating that the debate was dull, boring, and unsatisfying. Sometimes good debates are still a bit boring because the candidates normally stay to the scripts and try to avoid mistakes.
B.) I don't understand when it says that our country is in a terrifying and interesting time. and also, the candidates stuck to the script, they didn't answer the question very clearly because they only said what they were told to say by their consultants which were the most interesting facts going on at that time. because of these reasons I think the debate went poorly on both sides. See you all tomorrow!! -Alexander Lorenz : ) : )
a. I think that the article is stating that it was not an interesting debate. I agree. I thought both of the candidates were just restating what they have said earlier and they are not bringing up anything shocking and new that would really capture america.
b. I agree that it wasn't the most exciting debate, but i think it was more about the way it was run than it was about mccain or obama. I agree with chandler that they did not have enough time to finish their answer, and i also think that the "discussion" periods after each question were really poorly run by the moderator.
Yay, new blog.
I agree with Chandler that Obama won the debate.
a) All the article is saying is that this was a really bad debate and both of the candidates didn't do that well. I think that's it, and I personally believe that the author was a bit angry at the moment...
b) Out of all the debates I've ever seen, this one was shockingly boring. There was practically no enthusiasm from the candidates, and I really do think that "both men blew it." I was disappointed by all the dilly-dallying; practically none of the questions actually got a precise, clear answer. It really couldn't've (is that gramatically correct?) been worse.
uǝʌǝs poıɹǝd ƃuɐnɥ ʎuuɐ
Alexander-- they're referring to the financial crisis. It's one of the most challenging issues this country has faced in a long time.
Henry-- what could the moderator have done that would have been better?
a)The article was saying that the debate was boring and predictable, when it should have been dramatic and inspiring.
b)Yes I do agree, I almost fell asleep. When we have both economic and military wise problems, they weren't saying what they should have said which would be how they would fix the problem.
Kady Smith
A) i thinksd that the article is saying that the debate was boring and a waste of time.
B) i think that the debate was very boring.
a.) Basically what the article is saying is that according to them the debate was one of the more boring debates in history.
b.) Yes I agree the debate was boring, and it was hard for me to follow and want to keep watching. Both candidates just stood up and avoided the question they were asked most of the time, and to make things worse the moderator who is normally a good news cast anchor man I thought was talking very fast and it was hard to follow him (trust me if I am having trouble following someone because they are talking fast then they are talking fast!)
Nan Ash period 2
I agree with what Chandler said and that Obama answered the questions better and presented himself and his answers better.
a.)The blog article is saying that the debate was a very boring debate. The article also said that the candidates were not enthusiastic at all.
b.)I thought that this debate was more exciting than the other Presidential Debate and about the same interest level as the VP Debate. I do not agree that this was one of the worst debates ever, in terms of being dull. I think that the setup of the debate made it more interesting than the first, but mostly the same topics were discussed. I also think that the candidates where getting on each other more than in the first debate, which made this debate more interesting.
Parker Lawlor Period 7
SOCCOM
I also agree with all you guys obam won the debate because he was so much more well spoken then Mccain
a.)The article was saying that the debate was poorly set up, lacked enthusiasm and was unsatisfying
b.)I think it was better than the first preidential one but one thing i could say is that i could fast forward a couple of times when the same person was saying their answer and were saying the exact same thing that they were saying in the beggining
a) I think that the article was saying that the debate was boring, they went over the same things as last debate (Energy, economy, etc.) and that the rules of the debate were too strict and made everything boring (2 min. each to answer question, 1 min. each to follow up). They never went away from their scripts, which contributed to the dullness. The candidates didn't show ANY enthusiasm or humor!
b)I do agree with the article because it was VERY boring, they did go over the same things, and they did NOT do a very good job answering the questions
I agree, Obama did won the debate overall.
I think that the article is trying to explain that despite how important this election is (due to the economy's state and how a black man is running), both candidates have been very disappointing during the two debates.
I personally agree with the writer because although I had not thought about it very much before reading the article, I now see how much depends on this election and how much these debates matter. And, just like the writer said, I also now see how poorly the candidates have been acting during the debates. For example, both candidates have been drastically avoiding the questions and have not stepped out of their comfort zones. Instead, they have only talked about what they are well-educated on and what the other candidate is supposedly doing wrong.
I agree with Eric, especially the point he made about avoiding to the questions. There was a certain feeling that they just kinda stuck to their script the whole time, not even having the enthusiasm to answer a supporter's question.
A) The article is saying that the presidential debate wasn't exciting and informative.
B) Well yes, because no offense to people who love politics but in my opinion politics are kind of boring but sometimes they are kind of interesting. But its boring for me because i cant really understand it completely so i end up getting lost in my thoughts but when my dad is around to explain it is slightly more interesting.
A. The article is saying that the debate was dreary, boring, and uninteresting.
B. I agree strongly with the article, mainly because they would not answer the questions and I do not like the fact that they had audience members ask questions. They would only say the same things over and over again. Basically, it was.............awful!
I seriously LOL'd at Keane's last sentence. ;)
a)The article is basically saying that this debate was dull and boring.
b)I was actually hoping that I wasn't the only one who thought so. I don't think that it was a very good debate because the candidates didn't say anything that really stuck in my memory. I also agree with Kristen that the candidates lacked enthusiasm.
Also, I agree with everyone who thought Obama won the debate.
Touran Fardeen Period 2
In my opinion the article meant excactly what was written in the article itself.The article was boring ,too formal, and dry. It was definetely not something people were raving on and on about in a good way, and some of the time the candidates didn't even look each other in the eye and made absolutely no contact.From what i could see it kinda felt like a fight and McCain and Obama were angry at each other and , (translated) said,"Pass this note to Obama." and Obama was sitting right next him. I think they acted very childish.I most definetely agree with all the article statements, because i feel they arern't lies about the candidates and they stated extra bulletpoints i hadn't noticed during the debate that i can definetely see being an important thing to know in the future.
thanks anny!
Haha, no problemo.
a.)the article is basiclly saying the debate was not good and the canidates wern't clear on their answers
B.) i disagre and agree i think that the answers werent very clear and the could have painted a better picture on their plans for change but i liked the diffrent kind of debate better because they were questions from the people and what they are wondering about
i dont get it, where are the questions??
-rebecca
i dont get it, where r the questions??
sorry, i didnt realize i had posted 2 of the same thing
First off, I thought that the town hall style debate was the most exciting debate of the 2008 elections.
a)The article is saying that the debate was boring not only because of the questions and answers but because of the moderator.
b)I disagree with the article completely. I thought the debate was exciting because the canidates were only allowed a short period of time to answer the question and it was interesting to see how they answered directly to the people.
a}The article pretty much or basically said that the debate was the worst of all of them.because when someone from the audience asked a question the cantidates would not answer that question specificly,for the most part,I hated when a canditate would laugh at the other when he would asnwer a question,then he will make a smart remark
b}But in my opinion it was'nt the worst debate ever .by far I have seen worst and more nasty debates in my life.
First thing's first... Obama won the debate. He seemed more comfy in the town hall style setting.
Onto the questions:
1) The article is being very critical of the entire debate- the canidates, the moderator, everyone. It said it was worse than the first two (which it was in some ways.) I wouldn't go as far as to be so blunt and harsh about it but what it says is pretty much true.
2) I agree that it was pretty boring and the moderator SUCKED. I have seen other debates besides these three and it has to be on of the most boring. I think after two debates they have pretty much said everything they will be doing and they just restate it in the next ones... the moderator didn't let them talk!! I think each debate should focus on a different topic... it would be much more interesting.
Also, I agree with chandler that I noticed the other canidate smiling like the other person has no clue what they are talking about. Both debates, McCain sits there when Obama talks with this smug, cheshire-cat grin on his face. I like McCain but I have to admit it is pretty funny.
P.S.
Sorry I said pretty a lot
P.P.S.
Happy halloween! hence the dog costume.
Delaney, I love your description of Obama's facial expression when he waits for his turn to speak.
By the way anny, it is mccain's facial expression... it is true watch him!
Riiight~
That's what I meant, sorry. It's so funny though!
Like Parker and Chandeler, and whoever else said this, I think Obama won the debate. McCain was constantly trying to make Obama and his campaign seem like he didn't care about the contry for little things, and then saying how he would do those things better. Obama, on the other hand was keeping his head and just saying positives about his side.
Mostly, the article is saying that the town- hall debait was bad, dull, and not anything like the other two. The candidates were not cheerful, rather kind of listing the things I'm sure they have said many times. McCain never made eye contact with Obama. It wasn't how a debate is supposed to be. Sure they where going back and forth, but it was more of a "I'll do this and that while he's sitting clipping his fingernails." or "Oh sure I didn't support such and such, but I thought (excuse) and besides, while I was thinking (excuse) HE was just going on and on about this and so forth." It was horribally...dull. I agree with the article to that sence.
It was as if their grown up statis had been reduced, they were suddenly college students still studying the art of the debate. Never makeing eye contact as I said before... and if one happened to look at the other it was a rolling eyes, Oh-sure-that's-what-you-think look, as if they where our age once again! No offence to us, I mean we are pretty mature...sometimes.
Anyway, they wern't debateing to their full extent. Mabie they both thought they had the election in the bag, I don't know. But they wern't doing very well.
I thought that both candidates could have done a much better job, and I agree that it was a more boring debate than the first one. The main points of the debate were foreign police, energy, health care, and entitlement issues. They went on about the health care issues for a long time, and almost all of the answers to the questions asked in the audience usually had to do something with those four categories. The time limit was very annoying as well, because it seemed that as soon as the conversation was getting interesting, they moved on to another topic. On thing that I noticed during the debate that interested me was that when John Mccain was asked which issues would he address first during the first year of his presidency--health care, alternative energy, and social security entitlements--and he said that he would do them all at once. If he does them all at once, then how would he fund programs to fix those issues if he is cutting so much taxes? Another thing that interested me was that Mccain called Obama "that one" when he was referring to people who voted against a certain idea. Overall, I think that Obama did a bit of a better job, but I hope that both candidates will do better in the third and final presidential debate.
Post a Comment