There isn't much of a substantive difference between the two candidates except on what they'd do w/ the Dept of Education (Murphy wants to reform it, Gibson wants to morph it back into the Health, Education, & Welfare Department like it was back before 1980 to reduce the bureaucracy).
There was also big difference between "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Gibson wanted to wait until after the results of Gates Commission due out in January but was inclined to see it go, which I can certainly understand. Murphy wants it repealed immediately citing what Truman did w/ integrating the military, which I also agree w/.
Considering the Obama administration's little-publicized policy changes, granting same-sex health benefits to federal employees yet challenging a judge's order that bans "don't ask, don't tell", its a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda thing. The President probably just wants to do it on his terms as opposed to making it ballot fodder for the Republican base sending them to the polls in more numbers than his own (like they did all throughout W's administration did in reverese). But I'm digressing at the moment.
There were some telling differences between the two candidates from a political communications standpoint.
The speaker system was an early challenge. It didn't work & EVERYONE had to pass a small clip-on microphone to be heard. Even when the speaker system was fixed, there were some differences. Gibson left his microphone in its holder, forcing him to hunch & lean into it, blocking part of his face for the cameras. Murphy took his out of its holder, allowing him to sit erect in his chair, leaving the microphone low enough to be seen clearly by the cameras.
Murphy appeared to be more apt to take notes during the debate. Gibson considerably less so.
Gibson early on seemed to use filler words like "uhm" & "uh" a lot more in the first half of the debate. He also wasn't great w/ his time management being cut-off twice (out of 10 questions) by the moderator & ran long over on another. However he did seem to improve the longer the debate went on. Murphy was clear & concise & was only cut off once toward the end.
The tactical difference in sound bites was interesting. Gibson tried to link Murphy to "Speaker Pelosi" about a half dozen times during the night while Murphy mentioned the local "CR Bard" plant (they make medical catheters for those not in the know) usually in reference to some sort of policy plan of his.
The red cards were something each candidate could use to extend their time. Gibson used his as a rebuttal points to whatever Murphy would attack him w/. I was confused why Gibson choose to use them under those circumstances because A. he burned through his two w/n the first 4 questions but more importantly, B. his rebuttal statements didn't provide anything new to the discussion. He would just reiterate the same exact points he made in his original statements. Murphy waited to use his red cards at the end. One was answering an education related question. The other was during his closing arguments.
I really felt Murphy had the better grasp of the overall facts, rattling off facts & numbers quite easily. W/ the exception of what to do in Afghanistan where he descended into military jargon, Gibson struggled w/ his command of the facts & stuck to his talking points.
I was a mightily annoyed the Gibson supporters raised a ruckus while walking out on the middle of Murphy's closing arguments but at the same time it wasn't THAT surprising. I was also a little disappointed that Murphy in his closing arguments took a direct shot at Gibson, as opposed to the more subtle indirect approach he used throughout the debate. But again, that was not entirely unexpected either.
Overall, the debate was about what I expected. Aside from the microphone issue, it wasn't anywhere near the farce that the recent NYS gubernatorial debates were.
**********
In other news...
**********
This here is Elizabeth participating in my Breast Cancer Awareness project. The "RIP" & picture are in reference to her deceased Mom.
Feel free & comment away, if you dare.
Posts
3 comments:
I have to admit, I feel this photo would be much better without the "RIP" because it's sloppy and distracting. I think the subtlety of the photo + pink things would have gotten the point across just fine.
The incumbent usually comes across better than the challenger in these debates. Incumbents can dazzle people with lots of numbers just because they have easier access to those numbers and are more familiar with them (it having been part of their job for at least the last two years, as compared to a few months for the challenger).
A correction: the challenger's name is Chris Gibson, not Charles (current/former? ABC News anchor).
@ Brian, thank you. It has since been corrected.
Post a Comment