Putting it all on the table
The Democratic debate in Manchester, NH
Everyone gets pre-debate “jitters”, but as a viewer, sitting on my couch at home, I was not expecting to feel them myself. I anticipated the Saturday night debate would be significant, but I wouldn’t have guessed “cringe-worthy”. Die-hard political junkies feeling on edge before the debates got exactly what they wanted: a gloves-off free-for-all. If the trio of candidates hadn’t been clear about where they stood before, they certainly are now.
Many have noted the awkward timing of the debates, and it is critical to consider that many Americans may have had other priorities, at the height of the holiday season, 6 days before Christmas. I’m sure it’s hard to pick a perfect day and time, but I have a feeling that, even this close to caucus, the national audience was comprised mostly of active political participants deliberately tuning in.
Before I get to the candidates, I must address the massive role the media played in this debate, and many others. When did debate coverage start to seem like sports commentating? The “pre-game” coverage from ABC News felt very flustered and jarring. The graphics and soundbites were typical of those used by Fox or CNN in similar broadcasts: over the top. I’m waiting for one of the networks to use those CGI robot animations like the NFL. I never witnessed the first televised presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, or many debates after it, seeing how I've only been alive for 19 years and politically conscious for 10, but It’s not hard to see that debates have been commandeered by the media over time.
Almost every question asked seemed like a news headline. By this, I mean the panelists were glued on topical events and fear. The debate questions opened with Isis, the middle east, and our involvement with both of them. I’m curious how often certain buzzwords were mentioned, as I could tell early on they included: Isis, coalition, muslim, arab, attack, and destroy. Every candidate said them, multiple times throughout the night, sometimes even in questions that didn’t warrant it. It was stunning how much time was devoted to foreign policy. Two candidates, O’malley and Clinton, made it very clear that they indeed “war hawks”. O’malley did lay into Clinton, claiming recklessness in her foreign policy, yet he himself offered a very full-throttle approach to combat as well. Senator Bernie Sanders, however, stood out as the only candidate hesitant to go to war. Thank you, senator Sanders, for being the voice of reason and the voice of change.
The divide on foreign policy is deep in America, and all 3 candidates know this. Martin O’malley seemed to shift drastically into alarmist mode, much like any given republican, on the topic of war in the middle east. His tone of voice, body language, attitude, and rhetoric all seemed to say “war is at your doorstep”. He knows Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on the topic of foreign policy, so he did everything he could to appeal to Hillary’s voter base, then magnified it. Isis:gone, Guns:gone, Racism:gone. He even went rouge on the moderators on a couple occasions, trying to get a word in edgewise in what seemed like a stuttering match with all the intensity of a bullfight. I felt terrible for ABC news anchor David Muir, just trying hopelessly to get his ducks in a row. O’malley truly pulled out all the stops with his performance. And it was exactly that, a performance.
Half-way through the debate, moderators and candidates were finally able to pull away from the topic of war and terrorism to say a bit about the economy, something that is actually hurting Americans every day. If you are an informed voter, you already know there are stark differences between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to economic policies. Bernie Sanders is an outspoken supporter of campaign finance reform, and he walks the walk as well, having no Super Pac or corporate donations. Most of his money comes from labor unions and individuals. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has strong corporate ties and accepts large donations from wall street. Her promises of reining in financial institutions falls completely flat when you consider her history and her donors. This may be the single largest problem that Sanders supporters have with Hillary, but it’s far from the only one.
Two more things bother and confuse me immensely, and unlike the rest of my grievances, these are meaningless. If news organizations offer their two cents on ridiculous gaffes, I’ll jump in on the opportunity as well. Why, oh why, would you resume the debate while one of the candidates is still off stage (presumably returning from the bathroom)? Just as a courtesy, wait till everyone has returned from intermission to start asking questions again. It’s like they set themselves up for a “Hillary interruption” so she could humbly apologize and get a sympathy giggle. I mean, can we just be patient?
The real kicker was Hillary’s final words of her closing statement. I wish I were joking, but she really did say: “May the force be with you”. Can you say tacky? You are a politician, Hillary, act like one, or better yet, drop all the acting. This felt like a cheap laugh, and the cynic in me feels it was practically a nod to the fact that a ton of Americans would rather go watch the latest star wars movie than the 3rd Democratic Presidential debate. I really hope George Lucas is a Bernie fan.
