The Debates
Dear Readers,
During this election cycle, I have refrained from comment although there has been much that is relevant to our work in Woman's Voice. I have been reading the commentary, however, and watching as much of the debates as possible. Also, I have been writing in response to a number of essays published in the "New York Times." I have decided to copy those responses to this blog in order to share my thoughts with you.
I begin from an Op-Ed piece in today's NYTimes entitled "Too Nasty" by Ron Klain. His main point is that the "harsh attacks" exchanged in recent debates are necessary to the process of creating strong candidates. He is responding to the concern that recent heated exchanges among the Democratic candidates hurt their images, hurt the process, and distract voters from the issues.
My response to the hoop-la is to remember how debates were conducted up-and-through the 2006 elections--by having the candidates address and respond only to the questionner and never to directly address or respond--much less truly debate-with each other! Do any of you recall, with me, the countless Op-Ed pieces that inevitably followed those events opining the necessity of "real" debates? Well, judging from the way so many have jumped in to criticize our candidates and how they conduct themselves, it seems to me that few of us really appreciate what we have been given in these great public events. So, I wish to share my thoughts with you, my readers, as well. Here are my comments as printed on the NYTimes website:
What seems to be forgotten is how TV debates were conducted before–the staged question-and-answer with each participant taking turns to respond to the questionner–and, virtually no exchange of views, no disagreements, and no dialogue among the participants. The complaint even in the last election was that the voters were not allowed to see the real candidates and to compare and contrast–because the debates were not true debates but stilted presentations of each candidates platforms.
At long last we have been given the opportunity to hear our candidates truly participate in great debates. We are able to see and hear them, compare and contrast, not only their feelings and their styles, but their actual views of the issues. And, as a result, we are hearing an elaboration of the issues, not just on how our candidates differ, but on the many possibilities there are to view what the issues are. In each of the past debate cycles this is exactly what we have wished for–real, open debates with the candidates addressing and responding to each other.
I am so grateful to the networks and to the candidates for being willing to risk so much to give us voters the unvarnished truth. I appreciate the fact that we are watching our finest debaters communicate directly with us with skill and, often, in inspiring oratory. Having access to this art form of communication can only enrich as well as enlighten us. The fact that so many voters are expressing views formed from watching these debates attests to the effectiveness of these programs.
I, for one, appreciate Senator Clinton’s dogged persistence in insisting that we voters are informed about what action, what support, what knowledge and experience are necessary to make our clumsy government work. I appreciate the fact that Senator Obama has his work cut out for him to participate in that discussion. I also appreciate the fact of John Edwards’ commitment to staying in the debate and keeping the focus on public welfare issues of such grave concern in the coming years. In my opinion we are the more empoverished by the loss of Bill Richardson’s practical and hands-on governing experience.
And, because Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have bravely faced each other in front of the nation, issues which influence how we voters choose--yet are never spoken of–are now out in the open: bigotry and misogyny.
With the scabs torn off these issues, perhaps we voters can finally move on to face the truly harrowing issues before us, perhaps as we compare and contrast feeling, style, experience, records of accomplishment, as well as the issues, we might thank all concerned for allowing us to approach the election of our next president as a truly-informed electorate.
That's it.
My dear readers, regardless of your party, regardless of your choices, let us all be grateful to those individuals who listened to our call for more transparent debates. Let us be grateful to all the participating candidates who put themselves and all that they so passionately believe in before each other and before us. With each debate they have given us all great demonstrations of the art of voice--to inform and to persuade--and often with great and stirring eloquence.
Well, from my own soapbox today, I thank you all again for joining me here and, of course, I thank my special helpers for their many contributions during my time of struggles and challenges. I have more writing to share with you on these vital matters and I look forward to returning soon to this space that I share with you.
During this election cycle, I have refrained from comment although there has been much that is relevant to our work in Woman's Voice. I have been reading the commentary, however, and watching as much of the debates as possible. Also, I have been writing in response to a number of essays published in the "New York Times." I have decided to copy those responses to this blog in order to share my thoughts with you.
I begin from an Op-Ed piece in today's NYTimes entitled "Too Nasty" by Ron Klain. His main point is that the "harsh attacks" exchanged in recent debates are necessary to the process of creating strong candidates. He is responding to the concern that recent heated exchanges among the Democratic candidates hurt their images, hurt the process, and distract voters from the issues.
My response to the hoop-la is to remember how debates were conducted up-and-through the 2006 elections--by having the candidates address and respond only to the questionner and never to directly address or respond--much less truly debate-with each other! Do any of you recall, with me, the countless Op-Ed pieces that inevitably followed those events opining the necessity of "real" debates? Well, judging from the way so many have jumped in to criticize our candidates and how they conduct themselves, it seems to me that few of us really appreciate what we have been given in these great public events. So, I wish to share my thoughts with you, my readers, as well. Here are my comments as printed on the NYTimes website:
What seems to be forgotten is how TV debates were conducted before–the staged question-and-answer with each participant taking turns to respond to the questionner–and, virtually no exchange of views, no disagreements, and no dialogue among the participants. The complaint even in the last election was that the voters were not allowed to see the real candidates and to compare and contrast–because the debates were not true debates but stilted presentations of each candidates platforms.
At long last we have been given the opportunity to hear our candidates truly participate in great debates. We are able to see and hear them, compare and contrast, not only their feelings and their styles, but their actual views of the issues. And, as a result, we are hearing an elaboration of the issues, not just on how our candidates differ, but on the many possibilities there are to view what the issues are. In each of the past debate cycles this is exactly what we have wished for–real, open debates with the candidates addressing and responding to each other.
I am so grateful to the networks and to the candidates for being willing to risk so much to give us voters the unvarnished truth. I appreciate the fact that we are watching our finest debaters communicate directly with us with skill and, often, in inspiring oratory. Having access to this art form of communication can only enrich as well as enlighten us. The fact that so many voters are expressing views formed from watching these debates attests to the effectiveness of these programs.
I, for one, appreciate Senator Clinton’s dogged persistence in insisting that we voters are informed about what action, what support, what knowledge and experience are necessary to make our clumsy government work. I appreciate the fact that Senator Obama has his work cut out for him to participate in that discussion. I also appreciate the fact of John Edwards’ commitment to staying in the debate and keeping the focus on public welfare issues of such grave concern in the coming years. In my opinion we are the more empoverished by the loss of Bill Richardson’s practical and hands-on governing experience.
And, because Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have bravely faced each other in front of the nation, issues which influence how we voters choose--yet are never spoken of–are now out in the open: bigotry and misogyny.
With the scabs torn off these issues, perhaps we voters can finally move on to face the truly harrowing issues before us, perhaps as we compare and contrast feeling, style, experience, records of accomplishment, as well as the issues, we might thank all concerned for allowing us to approach the election of our next president as a truly-informed electorate.
That's it.
My dear readers, regardless of your party, regardless of your choices, let us all be grateful to those individuals who listened to our call for more transparent debates. Let us be grateful to all the participating candidates who put themselves and all that they so passionately believe in before each other and before us. With each debate they have given us all great demonstrations of the art of voice--to inform and to persuade--and often with great and stirring eloquence.
Well, from my own soapbox today, I thank you all again for joining me here and, of course, I thank my special helpers for their many contributions during my time of struggles and challenges. I have more writing to share with you on these vital matters and I look forward to returning soon to this space that I share with you.
posted by Knowing Woman at 3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home