Nick DiUlio

Archive for October 8th, 2008|Daily archive page

Debate Number Two: Dodging the People

In Politics on October 8, 2008 at 4:08 am

Here’s the problem: Another Presidential debate bites the dust and another night feels almost wasted. And here’s the question: Is it my cynicism that is making these two candidates seem so tedious when they’re together, or is the inherent tedium of these two candidates inspiring my cynicism?

Look, the sins of political apathy are all too apparent to me (and probably to you as well), and I have no desire to use this space to bemoan the negative cliches of American politics and its machinery of sociological boredom as it relates to our candidates’ inability to separate themselves from the repetitive nature of their mutual attacks. To a certain extent, I consider it a given that our politicians are going to pander, that they’re going to spin, and that they are going to express only a modicum of actual human qualities when they allow themselves to be washed clean of their pale, shallow, odious Washington aspirations. But there were too many times during tonight’s debate wherein I was overwhelmed by these sad truisms, and I thought it a shame.

To be sure, there were some bright spots in tonight’s debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. I thought McCain took an appropriately offensive (as in football, not body odor) approach to the debate, continually forcing Obama to react as opposed to attack, which has not been the case in the two weeks leading up to this melee. Because of the Obama camp’s continued attempts to link the McCain campaign to George W. Bush (and, by proxy, founded or otherwise, the current economic woes we are experiencing), McCain has been forced to play the defensive, and tonight it seemed the Arizona senator had every intention to turn that tide. Sure, many voters and pundits are going to make the case tomorrow that McCain came off with a slightly harsher edge than some may prefer, but if I were one of McCain’s advisors, I would consider that a victory, not a defeat.

For Obama’s part, I thought he once again showed a fantastic degree of both poise and charisma necessary for any successful leader, especially that of the so-called “free world.” In other words, Obama, once again, came off as quote-unquote Presidential, laying to waste any lingering anxieties (founded or otherwise) some may have still harbored that his inexperience is a detriment to his ability to lead. Obama’s poise was everything tonight, which certainly softened the blows McCain was making with his decidedly pointed attacks.

I also enjoyed the obvious tension that began to bubble up during the final quarter of the evening, taking particular joy in Obama’s insistence to counter McCain’s assertions that the Illinois senator’s foreign policy theories pertaining to Pakistan are dangerous, even though such a rebuttal was against the “rules.” There was a little bit of blood left in the arena, and it’s always more enjoyable to see our politicians bleed than sweat.

On the whole, however, I learned almost nothing new this evening, and that, I believe, registers as tonight’s greatest disappointment. The aesthetics of their respective presentations aside, neither McCain nor Obama succeeded in illuminating the finer points of their proposed policies or philosophies. Sure, McCain did bring up some important facts inherent in Obama’s proposed tax and health care policies, particularly as it relates to small businesses (50 percent tax increase, anyone?) and the right to choose one’s own health care provider (“Did anyone hear him say how much the fine would be?”). Likewise, Obama did manage to illustrate why cross-border health care options could be dangerous to Americans (see his cross-boarder banking analogy for evidence of that one) and also succeeded in further elucidating why his foreign policy approach is not, as some conservative pundits have asserted, dangerous and irresponsible.

But what was supposed to be a more down-to-earth, relatable town hall-style discussion at Belmont University tonight quickly devolved into each candidate repeatedly pointing fingers at the other, obviously twisting whatever question was asked of them into an opportunity to hit the campaign talking points (the same tired campaign points) as opposed to substantially answering the questions posed. Hell, the last quarter of the debate barely seemed to feature any questions from the audience at all, as moderator Tom Brokaw was repeatedly forced to remind the candidates not to exceed their respective time limits and thus ask many of the questions himself. I do not feel as though either candidate adequately answered any of the questions the audience members put forth (see McCain’s terribly politicized response to an early questioner’s petition to know how the recently passed bailout bill was going to help average Americans). Both Obama and McCain failed to connect with the American people tonight, instead coming off as repetitive and slightly petty.

I was really looking forward to this second of three debates, because I believe this county’s greatest strength is in its government’s supposed accountability to the people. That accountability should have been on display tonight, and instead it seemed we were once again presented with two men more adept at dodging it than embracing it.

Sarah Fey…For Vice President?

In Politics, Pop Culture on October 8, 2008 at 4:03 am

Trolling the Web on Sunday afternoon, I came across a peculiar headline in Yahoo’s news box. It read: “It’s starting to feel like Tina Fey is running for vice President.” Even though I had missed the previous Thursday night debate between John McCain’s running mate from Alaska and Senator Joe Biden, and even though I had likewise missed the Saturday Night Live sketch two nights later that parodied the debate, I knew precisely what the headline was getting at—and I wasn’t sure how I felt about the whole ordeal. So I went to Hulu and watched half of the equation (the funny half)—and I still feel kind of peculiar.

When Palin was tapped for the veep spot in early September, Lorne Michaels must have wet himself. The Alaskan governor’s resemblance to Fey—or at least her resemblance to a caricature of Fey doing a caricature of a politician—was almost too good to be true. It was comedy gold, a fusion of entertainment and reality that seemed divinely preordained, as though the gods of comedy took pity on us all and said, “Here you go America. You’re in for forty miles of bad road, but we’re gonna let you have some fun along the way.” I can even imagine legions of conspiracy theorists having a field day with this one, concocting theses that McCain chose Palin for little else besides her resemblance to Fey, knowing how much play his campaign would get on the parody circuit if he gave her the nod. That’s how eerily obvious the Palin-Fey connection is.

To be sure, Fey’s Palin is dead on. Not only does she have the looks to play the part (and the trendy glasses), but she also has a brilliant gift for imitation that takes the gag out of the kitsch gutter and into the realm of historically significant satire. It’s a blast to watch. It really is. But after sitting through all eleven minutes of the SNL vice presidential debate sendup, I felt a strange sense of discomfort, which I am only now realizing stems from the fact that Fey’s Palin is actually too good.

For my money, no Presidential parody is as enjoyable to watch as Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush. Not Dan Aykroyd doing Nixon. Not Darrel Hammond doing Clinton. Not even Dana Carvey doing Bush Senior. It’s probably become a cliche, but Ferrell is a master at portraying the arrested development man-child, a hapless chap with good intentions gone awry by way of his (endearing?) buffoonery. It was this precise talent that made his Dubya so watchable. He wasn’t trying to portray Bush as he actually is, but instead as so many of us saw him during our most critical moments of his presidency.

But this is where I fear the Fey impression misses the mark. Her Palin has too much Palin and not enough Fey. She is so good at mimicking the governor’s every mannerism, her every quirk and wink, that we might as well just be watching the “real thing.” In other words, what’s the point of Fey pointing out the already obvious? This became most apparent to me while watching the satirical SNL debate. Whenever the audience applauded a particularly absurd moment in Fey’s performance, I found it odd that the audience was cheering on Tina Fey but in doing so was simultaneously deriding Sarah Palin, for her impression was so spot on that it was hard to believe the people watching from the stands weren’t actually, in some way, cheering for Palin herself.

What hyper-meta machines we have become…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.