North Star Writers Group - Syndicated Commentary: Opinion, Humor and Features

September 29, 2008

Debate Was Serious, But America Wanted a Reality Show

Numbers, numbers, we’ve got numbers.

By now, you know who America thought won the big first presidential debate. (A draw, when party bias in the initial surveys is washed out.) You’ve learned about the breakdowns for men (favored Commander McCain) and women (swooned as usual for Barry O). About the ratings (so-so, it seems) and audience size (ditto).

And – ad infinitum along with interminable analysis by an unending parade of talking heads – you know who, if anyone, burst out of the confab to get a nose ahead in the horse race.

Still, there’s one number in particular relating to the momentous tête-à-tête that is sticking with me – or should I say, sticking in my craw. (I always wondered, by the way, just what and where one’s craw is.)

The good people at Associated Press and Knowledge Networks took a survey after candidate McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to attend to one really serious number – that $700 billion price tag for the mother, father, sister and brother of all bailouts.

News flash! Sixty percent of the American public wanted the debates to go on, nearly three times the number that wanted the candidates – who the last time I looked were still actually sitting senators – to be about the people’s business. It further proves a bitter truth that, deep down in my heart of hearts (or maybe it was my craw), I already knew: Given the choice between reality and a reality show, America will choose the show every time.

C’mon, let’s get really real. No one needs to be told by now that presidential debates are generally little more than the electoral version of America’s Next Top Model:

Hysterical scenarios (Bernie Shaw’s outrageous query about the hypothetical rape and murder of Kitty Dukakis).
Entertaining “defining moments” (“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”).
Style points reigning supreme (JFK’s Camelot cool versus Richard Nixon’s five-o’-clock shadow . . . Ronald Reagan’s avuncular “there you go again” versus Jimmy Carter’s advice from Amy . . . Bill Clinton’s “feeling our pain” versus Bush 41’s famous wristwatch peek . . . George W’s earnestness versus Al Gore’s pained sighs).
And no matter what happens on the stage, the real outcome determined Idol-style by the national audience.

While we’re at it, tell me John Q. Public doesn’t know who these dudes are or what they stand for. As if.

After 60-plus debates during a primary season that seemed like it started in ’07 – 1907? After one candidate got more media face time than Britney Spears on a bender? And the other guy? I think that Straight Talk Express has just burned out its third transmission.

So I’ve got to admit that when I first heard of McCain’s abrupt return to the nation’s capital to huddle with the brethren on the Big Fix, I believed that he had pulled off the political equivalent of a double-twisting, rim-bending, backboard-shattering, in-yo’-face tomahawk dunk.

If Obama goes along, it’s a “me-too” move – and McCain looks like a statesman. If the Democratic nominee balks, he’s just another hack putting politics above the people’s interests. It looked like a major lose-lose for the World’s Biggest Celebrity.

Except it wasn’t. Obama stood his ground, and it was McCain whom the public saw as pulling a political stunt. Seven hundred billion dollars, you say? Ho hum. We want our spectacle.

The irony of John McCain’s really, really bad week was that he actually did have a legitimate gig going under the Big Dome. The word in conservative circles was that Republican Congress-types were looking for cover from McCain, who, after all, is their party’s nominee and may soon have to deal with their handiwork in a certain large, roundish workspace down the street. Not to mention that the House GOP was having serious second thoughts about dumping the big banks’ problems on us taxpayers.

It contrasts rather sharply with Obama’s treatment at the hands of the congressional Democratic leadership, who showed their candidate all the deference one might offer, say, a coat rack. (“Stand there in the corner, Barack. We’ll call you if we need you. And can you hold our jackets?”)

Nevertheless, as the negotiating process cratered, the war hero caved and jetted to Ole Miss, tail firmly between his legs. And lo and behold, something wondrous happened. A debate broke out.

Yes, we saw some stretching – who knew that a first-term senator was so far out front on the dangers of government-sponsored enterprises and Russian peacekeepers in Georgia? Yeah right. And some silly stuff – McCain channeling Winston Churchill’s memorable “end of the beginning” in regard to the financial crisis. And your point?

But all in all, America saw two substantive, well-prepared candidates, a serious and neutral moderator, strong arguments and effective parries on both sides. We saw clear positions on a wide range of honest-to-goodness issues.

The reaction – a mighty yawn. “McCain looked old.” (Serious hint: When you see the word “curmudgeonly” being applied to a performance, it’s usually not referring to the young guy.)

“Obama called McCain by his first name.” “McCain wouldn’t look at Obama.”

And the most damning indictment of all: “No knockout punches.”

In other words, reality – not a reality show. What’s the fun in that?

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # RM005. Request permission to publish here.