Debate runs a bit too long
Observers say debate should be shortened
Victoria Pelletier
Issue date: 11/10/08 Section: Presidential debate
The presidential debate between Obama and McCain on Oct. 7 was interesting for a various amount of reasons. I viewed it with three of my roommates, and as we watched the full 90 minutes we came to realize several things.
The first thing noticed about the debate was that most people seemed to only notice the very beginning, and the very end, and pivotal comments that were replayed over and over after the debate had finished. The actual bulk of the debate lost its interest and appeal after a while, and though we watched the entire thing, our interest level only picked up in the minutes of the opening and the closing.
One friend, Danielle Kraese, who viewed the debate with me, stated, "I thought it was interesting, but debates should really only be like 30 seconds long. I think that'd be cooler. If each candidate had 30 seconds to say his/her piece, and then went on to the other person, and there were only 5 or so questions. I think when the candidates get into long drawn out answers, it looks like they're trying too hard."
My other two friends agreed, both stating that they would be much more interested if the debate was shorter, so it put more pressure on each of the candidates. Another thing we noticed was the overall dullness of the questions, the most interesting of them being "Why should I trust either of you", asked by Brokaw. Questions like that produced more of an answer from each of the candidates as you got to see their personalities come through as they tried to convince the public of their personality traits as well as accomplishments that would help them become a great president. Rich Towns, another person who watched the debate with me, said, "I think more question that dig into their personality as a whole would be more interesting. Yes, they can answer questions about what they will do about Iraq and how they will alleviate the war, but simple questions about them as people would be better too because you can really judge how they are as people, not just candidates." He also added that it would be a much more intense debate if questions were allowed to be asked from other people, coming at all angles, to show how they acted under pressure.
Kassandra Alex, another roommate who viewed the debate, talked about how she felt the debate made it even more difficult to choose a candidate. "I feel like they both had good points, but also they were both sorth of pointing fingers at one another, rather than going about to find a solution. The way that America is going to pick a president will not be based on who blames the other the best--it'll be moreso who can show that they can fix the problem, and which person has the best solution, and is poised under pressure."
The debate overall was interesting, but what I would have liked to see more of is the candidates owning up to not knowing how to do certain things, not just stating that they know how to gain votes -- I think America, and my friends, would much rather want an honest president who can admit when they do not know how to do something, but will take every step possible to find the answer. It was an intense debate, but there should have been more questions regarding the persona of each candidate as well as a shorter time period for them to convince America that they are the right choice.
The first thing noticed about the debate was that most people seemed to only notice the very beginning, and the very end, and pivotal comments that were replayed over and over after the debate had finished. The actual bulk of the debate lost its interest and appeal after a while, and though we watched the entire thing, our interest level only picked up in the minutes of the opening and the closing.
One friend, Danielle Kraese, who viewed the debate with me, stated, "I thought it was interesting, but debates should really only be like 30 seconds long. I think that'd be cooler. If each candidate had 30 seconds to say his/her piece, and then went on to the other person, and there were only 5 or so questions. I think when the candidates get into long drawn out answers, it looks like they're trying too hard."
My other two friends agreed, both stating that they would be much more interested if the debate was shorter, so it put more pressure on each of the candidates. Another thing we noticed was the overall dullness of the questions, the most interesting of them being "Why should I trust either of you", asked by Brokaw. Questions like that produced more of an answer from each of the candidates as you got to see their personalities come through as they tried to convince the public of their personality traits as well as accomplishments that would help them become a great president. Rich Towns, another person who watched the debate with me, said, "I think more question that dig into their personality as a whole would be more interesting. Yes, they can answer questions about what they will do about Iraq and how they will alleviate the war, but simple questions about them as people would be better too because you can really judge how they are as people, not just candidates." He also added that it would be a much more intense debate if questions were allowed to be asked from other people, coming at all angles, to show how they acted under pressure.
Kassandra Alex, another roommate who viewed the debate, talked about how she felt the debate made it even more difficult to choose a candidate. "I feel like they both had good points, but also they were both sorth of pointing fingers at one another, rather than going about to find a solution. The way that America is going to pick a president will not be based on who blames the other the best--it'll be moreso who can show that they can fix the problem, and which person has the best solution, and is poised under pressure."
The debate overall was interesting, but what I would have liked to see more of is the candidates owning up to not knowing how to do certain things, not just stating that they know how to gain votes -- I think America, and my friends, would much rather want an honest president who can admit when they do not know how to do something, but will take every step possible to find the answer. It was an intense debate, but there should have been more questions regarding the persona of each candidate as well as a shorter time period for them to convince America that they are the right choice.
Be the first to comment on this story