Living abroad has it's perks. For example, I ride a bike to work. It's a 10 minute bike ride. Pretty perky, eh? Also, there is a bakery in the department store that's about 5 minutes from my house. After work every Friday I stop by and get some sort of tasty treat, Japanese style.
Last week I got a pizza-like bread roll with melty cheese and green peppers. Very perky. But one of the biggest perks is the automatic media filter that living abroad is. If I want to stay abreast of latest campaign controversy, it's just a click away. However, If I had no fingers or toes I could count on my hands and feet how many political ads I have seen this election year. That's right, I have been able to completely miss the serious-voiced ads, with their misleading quotes and overt manipulation of the voters. Completely miss, I mean I haven't seen a one.
I stay informed however, and have watched both the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate as well as any and all media that comes across my desk (okay, there's my Palin jab, I confess). I usually catch some commentary in the wake of the debates, to find out what everyone else is paying attention to. More often than not, though, I find myself not just "paying attention to" what the media is covering but I also I find myself adopting the criticisms and observations of the media. In the presidential debate I really liked the way Obama would agree with McCain when he could. I saw that as him living out his beliefs of coming together as a nation, his beliefs about bipartisan politics. By the time I was finished watching and reading commentary on the debates I started thinking that maybe Obama was too soft, maybe he should have attacked McCain more. I didn't notice that McCain never looked Obama in the eyes. And yet, after enough New York Times pieces I began thinking that, hey, that must be indicative of something...weakness, timidity, contempt? I don't know yet, but it's got to be important if it's getting so much coverage.
So decided that after watching the VP debate I would take a moment and process my impression before being told what to think about each candidate. This is particularly difficult for me because I am 100% for the Obama/Biden ticket so my impressions are naturally biased. However, I want to disagree with McCain/Palin for my own reasons and not because of what Countdown's Keith Olbermann has so say. Here's a list of some of the things that struck me as I watched the debate:
- Palin used the rallying cry "Never again" to refer to our economic meltdown. This, to me, was incredibly creepy given that this same cry was heard after the Holocaust and yet genocide has been a constant in our modern times, from Bosnia to Rwanda to Darfur to the Congo.
- Speaking of the Holocaust, it was incredibly tacky of Palin to repeatedly say that we needed to be vigilant against Iran lest we allow, by our lack of vigilance, "a second Holocaust." As mentioned above, our world is rife with genocide, to single out the Holocaust seems to send a clear message that Africa matters less.
- Okay, I obviously agree that intervention is needed in Darfur, Sundan. But "boots on the ground," as the moderator suggested, was a tactic not questioned by either candidate. I appreciated Palin's discussion about Alaskan divestment and Biden's comments about his work in the Senate. What about international pressure, though? What about peacekeeping efforts? What about effective sanctions? What about China's interests in the region? Noisy silence was what I got from both candidates.
- Other Palin problems: suggesting that her position as a mother (not parent) put her in a special position to identify with the American public that's worried about their kids' futures (I'm glad Biden called her out on this gender stereotype, citing his experience as a single parent); her excessive use of the word "maverick" detached from any real meaning and in the face of facts contradicting it's applicability; rephrasing "inexperience" as being a "Washington outsider" as if it's a good thing our country could be run by someone who has no knowledge of/experience in national politics.
But really, that's all I that stuck out to me. Our hands off policy surrounding genocide is something that is concerning to me, so I picked up on that. Also, I think words--even coming from the mouths of politicians--have meaning and it upsets me when for the sake of manipulation or catering to a demographic words are divorced from their meanings. But Palin's winking or "Joe Sixpack" comments didn't really make an impression on me. I also didn't notice Palin avoiding questions as much as the media has highlighted.
So maybe I'm just a gullible everyday "Hockey Mom" who doesn't notice the details and elects people into office who are unfit to run. Or maybe I'm a voter, who just cares about the issues she cares about, interested to hear from the candidates an honest statement, a clear position. While the media frenzy works out which candidate was most likable and SNL works out their next sketch I'll still be here hoping our economy doesn't collapse and that when I come back home I'll be able to get affordable health care.
An average American "Hockey Mom" (minus being a mom, or liking hockey) praying it's not too late for honesty from the White House.
2 comments:
Wahoo for voting! The VP debates really weren't all that interesting. The second presidential debate, however, was interesting indeed. Especially since McCain spoke down to a young man asking about the economy and played up his tie with the vets (again). I think it's a pretty big deal that McCain couldn't even turn to Obama and talk to him during the first debate. I thought that was a big deal before the media even latched on to it. I also thought that it was a big deal that McCain blatantly called Obama "that one" in this last debate. He completely devalued him as a human being, or at the very least disrespected him. I call it blatant racism, but only one brave media anchor was willing to IMPLY that; he didn't even outright say it. It definitely was interesting. You should check it out! Miss you oh so much Brakel!
--Kim
so i'm all caught up on the debates!
ya know, kim, i'm not convinced what he said was racist. strange, indeed. but his words didn't sound intentional; it was like he was trying to use parrallel verbage ("which senator" and "that one") to pack a punch and the effect didn't quite come off. that being said, the mccain campaign is not in the least blameless of racism (linking obama to domestic terrorism, excessive use of his middle name at rallies, and on and on). i just think this time around, he was careless, not racist.
love you and miss you!!
Post a Comment