Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Biggest Debate is the Debate itself



在這次總統選舉辯論前,麥凱恩陣營演出了一場令人側目的「白武士」風波。麥凱恩高姿態空降華盛頓,誓言不逹成救市方案便不參加辯論。但在首都停留二十四小時,和總統開了一次會後,救市方案還未通過,麥凱恩又突然自圓其說,謂有信心可以達成共識,所以他可以安心辯論云云。

一連串奇怪的舉動,令人摸不清麥營葫蘆裡賣的是甚麼藥。有人說,是因為麥凱恩在經濟問題上落後,要找空位讓人民覺得他「有做嘢」。也有人說,最終目的是把辯論延遲一星期,再以此為藉口,取消下星期的副總統辯論。不論目的是甚麼,記者們普遍認為,那是徹頭徹尾的 political posturing。麥營這次可說是計算錯誤,得不償失。

昨晚的辯論,從內容和技巧來說,兩人是打成平手。民主黨形勢處上風,很自然地,麥凱恩是攻的一方,奧巴馬是守的一方。總的來說,我認為奧巴馬是太有禮貌,太著重逐點反駁,但能比較具體地介紹自己的政策。麥凱恩則是咄咄逼人地向奧巴馬的缺口進攻(earmarkthe surgeprecondition)。麥凱恩控制了辯論的節奏,但太過著重細節(連北韓人身高比南韓人矮三吋也提到),忘記了推銷共和黨的政策。

不過,總統辯論是大選的最後階段;辯論的目標對象,是猶豫不決的中間分子。能夠左右 undecided 的,是他們對候選人的印象,是候選人看來似不似一個總統,能不能得到他們的信任。再詳細的政綱,再尖銳的詞鋒,都沒有太大幫助。

單以賣相來說,毫無疑問,奧巴馬是輕而易舉地擊倒麥凱恩。一個半小時的辯論中,麥凱恩從頭到尾沒望向奧巴馬一眼,也沒有正視鏡頭。奧巴馬發言時,鏡頭又多次攝到麥凱恩在冷笑。因此,雖然二人表現相若,但辯論後的民調和評論,都傾向宣稱「奧巴馬小勝」。在餘下的兩場辯論裡,麥凱恩陣營要再次調整策略,才有反敗為勝的希望。但千萬不要再玩「恐嚇臨時缺席」的把戲了。

現在全國引頸以待的,是下週佩林和拜登的副總統辯論。在看了她僅有的數個訪問後,相信大部份美國人都熱切期待着,佩林如何在辯論台上展現她的「經驗」和「才智」。

這是數天前,CBS 的 Katie Couric 訪問佩林的片段:




Couric 問佩林,為甚麼七千億美元要拿去救市,而不是拿去幫助人民。這完全是一條開放式的問題,佩林有數不完的辦法避而不答,轉移視線,偷天換日……偏偏她卻選擇了很用心的解釋:

“But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh - it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”

「最終,救市方案是在幫助那些關注醫療改革的人,我們的經濟需要醫療改革的支持。Um,幫助,噢……那也和創造就業有關。支持經濟,把它引回正軌。所以,醫療改革,減稅,控制支出等,一定要跟隨減稅,和給美國人民的稅務優惠,和貿易,我們要視貿易為機會,不是一個競爭的,um,可怕的東西,而是每五份職業,便有一份是由貿易創造的。我們要把它看成更多的機會。所有這些東西都包括在創造就業之下。這個救市方案是其中之一。」

Katie Couric 是電視新聞主播中最「軟」的一位,竟也落得如此下場。拜登是參議院中的「名嘴」,佩林下週面對着他,這場辯論,必定精彩無比。

11 comments:

  1. Sigh.. Sarah Palin reminds me of some of the HK politicians in terms of her inability to grasp the nuts and bolts of the issues and tendency to waffle in answer to even the most basic of questions.

    I actually stayed up to watch the U.S. presidential debate live on CNN in the wee hours of Sat. morning. I was so disappointed, not so much because Obama was weak in getting back at McCain's frankly outrageous lies, but more importantly because his grasp of some of the key foregin policy issues frankly sound like a kid who's overcompensating on toughness just because he's not considered tough enough by his peers.

    Cases in point: (1) Pakistan. I was already wary during his debate with Hillary that he'd strike inside Pakistan without consent from the Pakistani government, at that time it was a very dodgy unilateralist position to take and that was when it was still the undemocratically-elected Musharraf who was in power. Now, given the newly-reconstituted democratic government there under the late Bhutto's party, which has repeatedly voiced serious concerns over the U.S. airstrikes as well as ground operations within its borders, the last thing a new democratic government needs are more boneheaded threats from the U.S wilfully disregarding its souvereignty.

    (2) Georgia and Russia. Obama is still buying into the U.S. neocon line that the Georgian war an was "unprovoked" aggression from Russia, when it was anything but. Not that I'm buying Russia's line that it was acting purely in the interests of the renegade provinces either, but the Russian intrusion into Georgian territory was a calculated response to Saskashvilli (sp?)'s military takeover of autonomous regions within Georgia. Painting the Georgian war in simple black-and-white terms belies the complicated geopolitics of the region where there are populations that are much less pro-Western than the mainstream Western media made them out to be.

    Moreover, neither Obama nor McCain could answer Jim Lehrer's straightforward question about how the "mother of all bailouts" would affect their economic plans. Obama reiterated and reiterated what he would HAVE to keep, not what he would have to tell his fellow Americans to give up. I like his line that you can't do this using a hatchet approach a la McCain, but it was plain that he wasn't prepared to admit the painful truth that he as a President would become bound and trussed from day 1 if the bailout was to happen, and that perhaps he should have the courage to say that perhaps the "mother of all bailouts" dreamt up by the ex-Goldman CEO may not be the best approach to save the economy (pace an FT article by Martin Wolf: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html).

    So in spite of the post-debate spin in the media, I don't see Obama displaying much of his vaunted "nuance" and grasp of international affairs at all. Although, on balance of course, the Obama/Biden team is still the much, much better and saner choice for both Americans and the world than McCain/Palin. Frankly, the sight of McCain smirking when trying to claim the moral and intellectual highground during the debate made me queasy.

    But we have to remember that vast number of Americans voted for Bush in spite of his embarrassing debate performances the last time round against the much better debater John Kerry. I just hope that the Democrats won't rest their laurels on merely the performance of their candidates in the debates.

    (Sorry didn't meant to write a whole essay on here but I can't seem to be able to stop sighing when it comes to U.S. politics).

    ReplyDelete
  2. snowdrops: Wow! This is a record-length comment, and I need more time to chew on it. I must admit I don’t know much about international politics. Things like the subtlety of the Russia-Georgia conflict keep eluding me.

    Foreign policy is Obama’s weak suit. Given that McCain is a decorated war hero, I think Obama did OK in the debate. The Pakistan answer is just another talk point, aimed to contrast himself from Bush’s indifference in capturing bin Laden. As for the Georgia conflict, neither one of them can afford to deviate from the “Russia the evil empire” message, at least not this late in the game. The fact is, Georgians, Pakistanis, Russians, and Iraqis don’t vote in US election. Everything the candidates said is carefully calculated to move the poll numbers. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    I think we both agree that Hilary Clinton would be a more experienced, and certainly more combative candidate. However, after the silly aura of “hope” fades, I have grown to like Obama more over the past few months. Perhaps presidential debate, with its time limit and high stake, is not the best forum to gauge his appeal. Try watching some of his one-on-one interviews (even the one with the notorious Bill O’Reilly is quite enjoyable). Obama does exude qualities of a top-notch intellect and a first-class temperament.

    McCain is an outstanding Senator. Even though I disagree with the Republicans on almost everything, I still think McCain stands for the “right” kind of conservatism, as opposed to GWB’s suicidal neo-con mantra. Sadly, McCain allows his strategists to run a spineless and capricious campaign. I expect to see a few more jaw-dropping stunts in the coming weeks. Rumor has it today that the campaign wants to fast-track Bristol’s (Palin’s pregnant daughter) wedding, to exploit it as another distracting gimmick. That will be fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I still wonder if someone from Palin’s campaign has really made some effort to give her some kind of intensive courses on basic domestic and international issues. Forget about Iraq, Russia, social security... credit crisis is a hot topic, and there're no excuses not to know something about it. I just can't wait to see the VP debate; it's gonna entertaining...

    EA

    ReplyDelete
  4. I missed the debate... my God, it was Friday night, I had better things to do. :P

    (I think I'm pretty much have my mind made up so I don't really need to listen to those debates I guess... haha!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Wow! This is a record-length comment, and I need more time to chew on it. I must admit I don’t know much about international politics. Things like the subtlety of the Russia-Georgia conflict keep eluding me."

    Sorry I really didn't mean to be so long-winded! I promised myself to not blog about the U.S. politics and ended up writing treatises on others' comments pages instead!

    If you're interested in international politics like I'm, you may want to check out news sources other than the Anglo-American outlets (cos even the BBC can be quite biased at times). We have Euronews (euronews.com) and France24 (france24.com) here also. The latter's reportage on the Georgian-Russian war was particularly instructive.

    "The fact is, Georgians, Pakistanis, Russians, and Iraqis don’t vote in US election. Everything the candidates said is carefully calculated to move the poll numbers. Nothing more. Nothing less."

    You hit the nail on the head in terms of how much it sucks that a vast majority of people affected by the U.S. presidential election (basically the world over) do not actually have a say at all in the decision. And that's what makes the presidential debate even more disappointing for me - the level of political discourse is so low and detached from global realities even when the world urgently needs mature leadership in the U.S. Coupled that with a generally politically-apathetic / wilfully-ignorant / wildly nationalistic U.S. populace who would vote AGAINST a candidate if the person is considered popular overseas, and you can perhaps begin to appreciate the level of despair of non-U.S. world citizens.

    We really can't have another "I'm sorry I tried" apology from the U.S. citizens to the world if they screw it up again this time and continue to toe the neocon line.

    "McCain is an outstanding Senator. Even though I disagree with the Republicans on almost everything, I still think McCain stands for the “right” kind of conservatism, as opposed to GWB’s suicidal neo-con mantra. Sadly, McCain allows his strategists to run a spineless and capricious campaign."

    I can't believe you said that McCain IS (and not WAS) an outstanding senator. McCain's so-called maverick status has been seriously called into question ever since the Iraq war started. Whilst I do thank the lucky stars that it is McCain and not any of the other Republican candidates who clinched the nomination to stand for presidency (Guigliani and Romney's speeches at the Rep convention were frankly the stuff of nightmares), I do not think he is at all fit for the highest office in the land. Not by a long shot. Especially not when he thinks Palin represents women's rights, and especially not when he is leading a party that chants "drill baby drill", and especially not when there is a serious economic crisis going on.

    Of course, there are plenty of Americans who won't mind being screwed and would even ask for more as long as the person doing the screwing is wearing Uncle Sam's hat and an American flag lapel pin. American jingoists are not that different from Chinese jingoists in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. EA : They change the format of VP debate to make it less interactive. She may end up memorizing enough empty words to survive 90 minutes, but I highly doubt it.

    yun : I don’t understand why they had it on Friday this time. The VP debate will be on Thursday this week.

    So you have decided? Please….don’t break my heart! However, you live in the bluest of blue states, so your vote probably won’t count.

    snowdrops : (I can’t believe I’m defending McCain!!!)

    Many People supported the war. Both Clinton and Kerry voted to authorize the war. Ultimately, it’s the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield-Wolfowitz-Rice gang who are most responsible for this tragic mistake.

    I agree that the self-proclaimed maverick image is hype, but John McCain is way above your garden variety corrupted Republican trolls. McCain-Feingold is a good bill, which I think ushers the era of Internet donation and benefits the Democratic Party enormously. He did fight earmarks (though he repeatedly exaggerates its effectiveness), came out against torture, and played an important role in architecting the surge (I think that, ideology aside, the surge was at least an honest attempt to salvage a nightmarish situation).

    You are absolutely correct. The longer I live in US, the more similarities I find between American and Chinese people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't worry, your effort was not wasted. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Orangutan: Glad to see that all the achievements you have listed of McCain are in the past, and in fact, in the DISTANT past. I never deny the fact that he WAS a great senator. But his approach to the future is anything but sensible (as evinced by his statement during the debate that, when push comes to shove, the only spending that he sees as being key to the Americans is military spending. All the rest can go hang).

    As the saying goes, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

    Yun: The world thanks you! Please please do turn out to vote even when you live in a solidly blue state!

    ReplyDelete
  9. yun : good to hear that! I feel I’ve paid my due even though I can’t vote in US.

    snowdrops : OK, I concede. McCain WAS a good Senator.

    You are preaching to the choir. You don’t need to convince me that McCain is unfit for the Presidency. We don’t need another war-mongering CIC after what have happened last 8 years, and the Palin pick says volume about his judgment and priority.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is there a newspaper named "Most of Them"?

    Sarah Palin Can't Name a Newspaper She Reads

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

    "When it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?"

    Palin replied: "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media."

    ReplyDelete
  11. ceiling cat: She has made so many gaffes, I’m losing count. My co-workers and I are planning a “debate night party” in office. Politics has never been so much fun!

    ReplyDelete