Madeline
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
PBS's Charlie Rose had Nancy Pelosi on last night, in a one on one interview that actually dealt with the substance of some of today's issues. I had not planned to watch, as I despise Pelosi and had thought her one of the most inept, arrogant and unpatriotic people ever to hold a national public office. Dun worry, I still do, but.....
I have to admit, Pelosi looked and sounded alert and well-informed. I had a glimpse at the woman who is said to be a world-beater in behind-the-scenes negotiations, and her discussion of the filibuster rule was cogent and incisive. I won't bore you with all the rest. I'm sure you can watch the program on PBS's web site if you like, but.....
It got me to thinking. So many of the politicans and candidates we've been discussing here are known to us only through their ads -- slogans and soundbites -- and the comedic sketches they lead to -- thank you, Christine O'Donnell. Most of us would not show to our best advantage in a tweet-sized world, and this may shock some of you -- it was not always like this.
When I was in my 20's and 30's, local and statewide politicans running for office usually held a series of debates that the public could attend, to get an idea of their views. National candidates, especially presidential ones, certainly did...and these were actual debates, not stage-managed performance art.
We allow ourselves to be jerked hither and yon by attack ads, PACs, corporate campaign funds, political art, etc. I think some of us -- myself included -- lose sight of the fact that packaging is not the product. If you care to know what a candidate thinks, listen to them in debate or with an interviewer who is not there just to softball them questions. And if your candidate has done neither, mayhaps ask why that might be?
Preferable to hearing them debate for the first time on the floor of Congress, methinks.
I have to admit, Pelosi looked and sounded alert and well-informed. I had a glimpse at the woman who is said to be a world-beater in behind-the-scenes negotiations, and her discussion of the filibuster rule was cogent and incisive. I won't bore you with all the rest. I'm sure you can watch the program on PBS's web site if you like, but.....
It got me to thinking. So many of the politicans and candidates we've been discussing here are known to us only through their ads -- slogans and soundbites -- and the comedic sketches they lead to -- thank you, Christine O'Donnell. Most of us would not show to our best advantage in a tweet-sized world, and this may shock some of you -- it was not always like this.
When I was in my 20's and 30's, local and statewide politicans running for office usually held a series of debates that the public could attend, to get an idea of their views. National candidates, especially presidential ones, certainly did...and these were actual debates, not stage-managed performance art.
We allow ourselves to be jerked hither and yon by attack ads, PACs, corporate campaign funds, political art, etc. I think some of us -- myself included -- lose sight of the fact that packaging is not the product. If you care to know what a candidate thinks, listen to them in debate or with an interviewer who is not there just to softball them questions. And if your candidate has done neither, mayhaps ask why that might be?
Preferable to hearing them debate for the first time on the floor of Congress, methinks.
