Political Haberdashery

October 16, 2008

I watched the debate last night. This morning I’ve been reading a lot of the same thing, saying that this third debate was McCain’s best. After the first debate I was at a bar on the Lower East Side when a stranger asked me who I thought won. At that point I didn’t feel either candidate had done anything to change my opinion of himself or of the other. I already had developed an allegiance to one of the senators, and nothing in their debates really stirred me until last night.

The McCain campaign aimed to attack on every question, not as much because that’s what they’ve been doing all along, but more likely because they were slipping in the polls and key republicans were calling for it. I’ve never seen a political debate be more one-sided in my life. Every attack that McCain made only gave Obama more time to describe his position in great detail. But I guess this strategy has been exciting (inciting in Palin’s case) people at their rallies to yell increasingly antagonistic and categorically racist slurs. If I didn’t know anything before this debate, I would now know all of Obama’s major positions; McCain, wasn’t he the guy that tried to make Obama angry on Wednesday?


I’ve spent the morning regrettably reading the WSJ, something I haven’t done as much ever since Rupert Murdoch took control. I never imagined it would change the publication, but it may have changed the readership. I have yet to hear a single logical defense for McCain from anyone. As far as I can see (into New Jersey on clear days) I have yet to hear a sound argument for the red ticket that doesn’t attack the blue ticket. How will you win when there is no one to beat? Who will these mavericks fight then? I’m disappointed that WSJ readers, whom I thought to be intelligent well-informed people, choose to stand behind the guy who was most poised when he wasn’t talking about himself or his own policies.

Politicians at this level have the same core values as their party. What I mean is that someone who is anti-choice (as opposed to anti-life as McCain repeatedly referred to it) to the core, can soundly argue for a candidate of the same belief. I’ve always believed that there is never a right or wrong candidate, that there can’t be, but for once, billionaire investors (Warren Buffet), CEO’s (Google’s Eric Schmidt), major publications (Esquire, Rolling Stone, Alaska’s own Anchorage Daily), conservative writers (Kathleen Parker), conservative former Secretary of States (Colin Powell), celebrities (Matt Damon, Spike Lee), and foreign countries (EU, UK, London Mayor Boris Johnson) all endorse the same candidate. It’s as if they all share the same choice not because they are all politically the same, but because it is the choice of those with information. It’s finally the choice of those that don’t condemn information, and that don’t pride themselves on mediocrity or elusive small-town values. It’s satisfying to think that even when our values are different, information could lead us to consensus.

Advertisements

One Response to “Political Haberdashery”


  1. […] in either village. Huh, interesting how celebration and riot can be so similar… Here’s the list of Obama supporters […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: