Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC) (chemoelectric) wrote,

How people judge sham "debates"

Reading through the blogs, I notice reactions to last night’s sham "debate" that are, to me, curious. Big Tent Democrat of says Clinton "whupped him good". You know what I think about that? I think that, if Hillary Clinton had shown up with a big rock and smashed Barack Obama with it, BTD would have declared that Clinton "whupped him good". In other words, Clinton lost her temper, really was angry throughout except maybe at the end, and this pushed Armando’s happy buttons.

Mind you, I only listened on C-Span radio webstream, didn’t watch.

I really doubt that very many media-related people were capable of comprehending the subtleties of Obama’s points, particularly on healthcare, where his key point was that it didn’t matter much what Clinton’s plan had in it, because she wouldn’t be able to make it happen, while Obama at least had a shot at making his happen, because he was focusing on the process of making it happen. Even media-related people who aren’t kind of dim (Paul Krugman?) will not be in the habit of considering the method by which to make a plan happen as a key, or the key aspect of that plan; this is engineering ‘thinking’, which few people get trained in, including engineers outside of their field.

  • Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded