The consensus is it wasn't even close. I agree she has a very good crisp delivery and certainly is impressive with her intelligence. I give her credit on style though I didn't think a heck of a lot of her substance but then this is a GOP debate so why would I? She did sound like she knows a lot about everything that was discussed.
Rick Perry on the other hand wasn't all that impressive.
I've got some mixed feelings about Paul Waldman's post here warning the media not to get carried away in the reaction to the first debate. Again, just like with his Plum Line buddy, Greg Sargent, I don't always appreciate his delicate sensibilities.
This morning I disagreed with Sargent.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/i-have-to-disagree-with-greg-sargent-on.html
Now, I have to sort of disagree with Waldman.
"By my count, there have been approximately three zillion articles and TV news stories on the question of which candidates will make the cut. And the presumption is always that if they don't make it into that debate, then they'll be forever consigned to second-tier status, ignored by the media as their campaigns sink even lower than they already are."
"Which might well be true. But it doesn't have to be that way. That's a product of choices that we in the media will make about who we pay attention to. There's no law that says we have to ignore somebody because they didn't appear in that first debate. (Fox will be airing a kind of consolation debate with the other seven, which is being referred to as the "kids' table." Unless one of them strips naked and performs a sword-swallowing act, don't expect reporters to care much about what goes on there.)"
http://theweek.com/articles/570170/ready-raw-lunacy-medias-2016-debate-coverage
I have noticed previously that he seems to worry a lot about the media somehow creating self-fulfilling prophecies. He's so worried about the media injecting any of itself in the debate it's a wonder why he's a journalist at all-rather than just a photographer or reporter.
Yet, why can't the media have some level of discretion? With all the kvetching about the unfairness of some GOPers not making the adults' table looking at the list, I'd argue that only one person clearly deserves to be there based on tonight's performance and that's Fiorina.
Rick Perry has shown yet again that he's just not a good debater. Santorum and Huckabee are way past their expiration dates. For the media to show no awareness and just treat every candidate as just a number between 1 and 17 is foolish and counterproductive.
It will be interesting to see who in the Top Ten tonight will lose their seat to Ms. Fiorina in the future. My hope is it's Chris Christie-the most unpopular politician in the country which is saying something.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/everybody-hates-chris-christie/
Rick Perry on the other hand wasn't all that impressive.
I've got some mixed feelings about Paul Waldman's post here warning the media not to get carried away in the reaction to the first debate. Again, just like with his Plum Line buddy, Greg Sargent, I don't always appreciate his delicate sensibilities.
This morning I disagreed with Sargent.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/i-have-to-disagree-with-greg-sargent-on.html
Now, I have to sort of disagree with Waldman.
"By my count, there have been approximately three zillion articles and TV news stories on the question of which candidates will make the cut. And the presumption is always that if they don't make it into that debate, then they'll be forever consigned to second-tier status, ignored by the media as their campaigns sink even lower than they already are."
"Which might well be true. But it doesn't have to be that way. That's a product of choices that we in the media will make about who we pay attention to. There's no law that says we have to ignore somebody because they didn't appear in that first debate. (Fox will be airing a kind of consolation debate with the other seven, which is being referred to as the "kids' table." Unless one of them strips naked and performs a sword-swallowing act, don't expect reporters to care much about what goes on there.)"
http://theweek.com/articles/570170/ready-raw-lunacy-medias-2016-debate-coverage
I have noticed previously that he seems to worry a lot about the media somehow creating self-fulfilling prophecies. He's so worried about the media injecting any of itself in the debate it's a wonder why he's a journalist at all-rather than just a photographer or reporter.
Yet, why can't the media have some level of discretion? With all the kvetching about the unfairness of some GOPers not making the adults' table looking at the list, I'd argue that only one person clearly deserves to be there based on tonight's performance and that's Fiorina.
Rick Perry has shown yet again that he's just not a good debater. Santorum and Huckabee are way past their expiration dates. For the media to show no awareness and just treat every candidate as just a number between 1 and 17 is foolish and counterproductive.
It will be interesting to see who in the Top Ten tonight will lose their seat to Ms. Fiorina in the future. My hope is it's Chris Christie-the most unpopular politician in the country which is saying something.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/everybody-hates-chris-christie/
No comments:
Post a Comment