I think you both made good points when you pointed out how artificial and stilted these debates are. To be fair, there are still quality political debates in the United States, but they're rare; on top of that, this particular situation (the Kerry-Bush race) is a bad-debate perfect storm.Bikerman2004 said:
It's the most closely watched, emotionally charged and electorate-polarizing race in ages, so there's an exaggerated sense of high stakes. Presidential races are always high stakes, of course, but this is a new day.
Each succesive election year also sees greater and greater evolutions in the media, and in the information technology we respond to -- polling sciences, internet services, blogs, advocacy sites, fundraising techniques and news delivery methods are all more varied and extreme than they were 4, 8, or 12 years ago.
Throw into the mix a particularly unusual matchup of personalities and styles: could these two guys give off more different auras? It's such a odd missmatch that each side has feverishly over-strategized how to simply appear human next to the other guy. The Bush team has overworked the hell out of preventing the president from coming across as a moron who's too short; the Kerry boys have overworked the hell out of preventing the senator from looking like a wordy jerk with an enormous, wrinkled brow. Every word has been focus-grouped for offensiveness, effectiveness, stickability, toughness and sensitivity.
The lack of real interaction makes it feel like watching two guys play a video game about debating.
