 |
| Screen shot from the ABC News telecast of the debate. |
The first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump took place last night at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, hosted by ABC News and moderated by reporters David Muir and Linsey Davis. The debate was televised live with no audience in the hall. The Boston Globe gives some highlights of the nearly two-hour debate:
In case anyone who missed it wants to watch the whole debate, it's available from ABC News here.
What I Say: I was disapointed in Kamala's performance; I say that knowing she must have been under tremendous pressure to perform well, and no doubt prepared arduously for this debate. All the talking heads on the Left are jubilant this morning, saying she "cleaned Trump"s clock" and suchlike. She spoke well, and she got in a few zingers, true. But five minutes in, I was shouting at the TV screen: Answer the question, for God's sake!
To me, the whole thing was rather like watching Eleanor Roosevelt debate Al Capone. She was nice, and he was nasty. She came across as very smart, very articulate, and very high-minded, which warmed every Democrat's heart. She did not descend to Trump's level, which was right; but time and again I thought her answers were vague, evasive generalities that changed nobody's mind or vote. (Where is Joan Crawford when you need her?)
What would have changed minds and votes? I don't know, exactly. I just feel that Trump's rhetoric was simple, direct, and forceful - things any old shitkicker could understand, and many would cheer. Harris's approach, on the other hand, was to my way of thinking a bit abstract, a bit muddled, a bit lofty, a bit Elizabeth Warren-ish. That don't sit well with the plain folks, and there are millions of 'em.
Yes, Kamala said a lot of things to Trump's face that all of us sensible people have wanted to say for years; but what did that accomplish? Criticism rolls off him like water off a duck's back. What did Kamala say that made anyone want to vote for her, as distinct from voting against Trump?
Now, maybe I'm all wet, and she really did trounce him in the debate. But I was listening expectantly to hear something that would get the attention of the folks who live all over the very red state of Texas - and not just the rural areas, either. And I didn't hear it.
Perhaps I am too critical; I do dearly want Harris and Walz to win this election, and Trump to just blow away like the tumbleweeds far out in the West Texas nothingness. Maybe Kamala did do just fine; but maybe my down-home intuition is right. I guess we'll see what happens.
What did you think of the debate, my truckbuddies? I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
P. S. -- Whoa now. That David Muir is a fine journalist. Never heard of him before, but I sure did like what I saw: smart, smooth, strong, manly, and not too bad looking, either.
Actually, I thought both he and Linsey Davis did an excellent job as moderators, despite Trump's continual mike-hogging. They both fact-checked him a number of times, in a calm and dignified way. Excellent.
-----
%201954,%20Whitney%20Museum%20of%20American%20art%20.png)
5 comments:
We watched the debate with two other people. We did notice how both candidates often did not answer direct questions. But I think that is de Regor for debaters, especially in presidential debates when they want to take the opportunity at the microphone to make points other than what was asked. It is a bit frustrating for us as listeners/watchers Who are sitting there saying “answer the question!”
I wasn’t finished but hit the publish button. As far as appealing to the common folk, I would say that someone like Harris, who is using facts, figures, and logic and reasoning, may never get the attention of the common folk in the way that her bully opponent does. There is a YouTube video where someone explains how trump’s third grade rhetoric appeals to people who just cannot understand a complex issue. I’m not sure someone like Harris can stoop to the third grade level. Governing is a complex activity and it’s too bad that a majority of Americans just can’t deal with anything more complex than turning on Fox News.
Bottom line for us was that it was entertaining to watch Trump babble his utter nonsense. It was hilarious to watch him expound on the hoax about people eating dogs and cats in Ohio. It was also exhilarating to listen to Kamala Harris talk about complex issues with intelligence, poise, grace, and logic. I don’t think her goal was too convert MAGA diehards. Which she did very effectively was to portray herself as the competent adult in the room in stark contrast to the cartoon Looney Tunes character who is a pathological narcissist? If there are MAGAats who are open to reason and reality I do think they heard her. And for the small minority sitting on the fence I hope they will choose Harris now.
Please excuse the typographical errors and spelling errors as I am using voice recognition on my phone and it can’t help but messed things up
I too think that she was a bit vague with policies. And I agree with Frank's account of reaching for the common folk of America. I grew up in a very rural area of NY State, near the Canadian border in Northern NY. It is one of the poorest areas in the state, just north of the Adirondack Mountains. It is Trump country. When I was home a couple of summers ago, I noticed Confederate flags flying. What? Did Harris reach those people? I don't think so. For people on the fence (and I don't get that either), I am not sure either. As you said, I just want Trump to blow away like a tumbleweed.
It's been a distracting week here for us, sorry to be tardy in my reply, guys.
First, a couple of quotes from You Know Who today:
1. "I won the debate because it was three mentally challenged people against one extraordinary genius."
2. "Justin Trudeau is Fidel Castro's son."
The hilarity continues. And yes, Frank, Kamala certainly showed herself to be the adult in the room. Maybe that was all that mattered. As you said, there is a certain percentage of the population incapable of abstract thought, or of anything beyond their own immediate surroundings. Plus today we have a large number of fellow citizens who have drunk the Kool-Aid and bought into a nastry, brutish, irrational cult. It's very hard to make a dent in Unreason and No-reason.
Beyond all that, she was preaching to the choir, I guess. No doubt if she has a plan for her presidency, it will be pretty close to the Democratic platform - whatever that says. I've never read any platform statement. But we know that the choice now is not between one proposal or another, but between democracy and dictatorship - maybe even a twisted theocracy a la the Taliban. We have one chance to stop that at the ballot box, and Kamala's our gal.
Fortunately, she's smart, articulate, experienced, and fundamentally decent. She sidestepped questions about her change of mind on various points - because it would be embarrassing to say "I changed my views so I can win this election." But she's not the first, and won't he the last candidate to do so.
M.P. reminds me of Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC, which was sort of a cryptic message I thought - she did say Harris and Walz are "human beings - they will make mistakes," but not to be overly dismayed about that. It sounded odd to me when I heard her say that - but I think I get the point.
I'm not going to quibble over the details when the life of our country is in peril. Vote blue, no matter who!
And Michael - Confederate flags in northern New York? Well that's just silly. How absurd. Their gt-gt-gt-grandfathers must be rolling over in their graves.
Post a Comment