Watched the 2nd leaders debate last night...
Or most of it anyway, I was caught by the early start and missed the first topic and Martin's 'notwitstanding clause' bombshell, but other than that I think I didn't miss anything of substance. Not that there is usually too much in terms of susbatnce in these things, the platforms and positions are for the most part there already and it's just a chance for the leaders to get across their talking points in an easy-to-digest 2 hour format. Still, must-watch material for a political spectator like myself.
Anyway, my thoughts on how the leaders performed, not so much on their platforms:
- overall it was a bit more interesting than the first debate, you could sense a bit more was at stake now that the election was in full swing and there has been some actual movement in the polls. The moderator (Steve Paikin) did a pretty good job of keeping the debate moving and had a good feel for the flow of the debate with follow-up questions. As for the leaders...
- Paul Martin looked pretty animated, at times impassioned but mostly flustered. He was being attacked from all sides and a few times looked like he just couldn't handle it. Main talking points were on the value differences between the Liberals and Conservatives; he did reasonably well with these. But man, he got hammered on ethics and the 'sense of entitlement' attacks and his responses were far from convincing. Grade: C-
- Steven Harper, on the other hand, looked very calm going through every one of his responses. Too calm. In fact, he looked as if he were under the effect of a mild sedative. Also the cadence of his voice is very measured and deliberate, I have to agree with a description I saw that indicated it was the same tone you might use when explaining something to small children. And that goofy smirk he got seemingly at the end of every answer, and occasionally when they panned over to him during other points... kinda creepy. But he did a good job of sticking to his points and sounded reasonably intelligent even though I don't agree with a lot of his platform. Grade: B-
- Jack Layton probably had the best delivery in his responses, and did a pretty good job of highlighting the NDP's accomplishments in the past session. Where he faltered, like in the last debate, was getting way too repetetive towards the end on his talking points - third option, OK, we get it, now just answer the question please? Still, did pretty much what he needed to with this one. Grade: B-
- Gilles Duceppe was probably the most entertaining of the leaders to watch, definitely worth having the guy in the debate even if a few of his points get lost in translation (Quebeckers aren't bitter? What the heck are you... oh, you mean better. Carry on then...). He knows he's not really talking to his target audience in the English debate so he's free to take shots, mostly at Martin's expense. Best moment was Duceppe making a point, announcing what Martin's response would be, then during Martin's response (as predicted) the camera angle shows Martin talking with Duceppe in the background in one of those 'I told you so' shrugs whilst mugging at the camera. Awesome. And even though he could've just taken shots all night, he actually made some decent points and contributed to the debate. Grade: B+
Overall, the debate didn't do anything to change my mind, probably didn;t change anyone else's, just solidified support for the people who heard what they wanted to from the people they were hoping to hear it from. For me, another few weeks of watching the campaign, probably won't change anything for me but always seems to be interesting to watch. I've pretty much made up my mind who I want to vote for but it could come down to some strategic voting in the worst case... I'll keep my eyes on the polls I suppose.
Anyway, my thoughts on how the leaders performed, not so much on their platforms:
- overall it was a bit more interesting than the first debate, you could sense a bit more was at stake now that the election was in full swing and there has been some actual movement in the polls. The moderator (Steve Paikin) did a pretty good job of keeping the debate moving and had a good feel for the flow of the debate with follow-up questions. As for the leaders...
- Paul Martin looked pretty animated, at times impassioned but mostly flustered. He was being attacked from all sides and a few times looked like he just couldn't handle it. Main talking points were on the value differences between the Liberals and Conservatives; he did reasonably well with these. But man, he got hammered on ethics and the 'sense of entitlement' attacks and his responses were far from convincing. Grade: C-
- Steven Harper, on the other hand, looked very calm going through every one of his responses. Too calm. In fact, he looked as if he were under the effect of a mild sedative. Also the cadence of his voice is very measured and deliberate, I have to agree with a description I saw that indicated it was the same tone you might use when explaining something to small children. And that goofy smirk he got seemingly at the end of every answer, and occasionally when they panned over to him during other points... kinda creepy. But he did a good job of sticking to his points and sounded reasonably intelligent even though I don't agree with a lot of his platform. Grade: B-
- Jack Layton probably had the best delivery in his responses, and did a pretty good job of highlighting the NDP's accomplishments in the past session. Where he faltered, like in the last debate, was getting way too repetetive towards the end on his talking points - third option, OK, we get it, now just answer the question please? Still, did pretty much what he needed to with this one. Grade: B-
- Gilles Duceppe was probably the most entertaining of the leaders to watch, definitely worth having the guy in the debate even if a few of his points get lost in translation (Quebeckers aren't bitter? What the heck are you... oh, you mean better. Carry on then...). He knows he's not really talking to his target audience in the English debate so he's free to take shots, mostly at Martin's expense. Best moment was Duceppe making a point, announcing what Martin's response would be, then during Martin's response (as predicted) the camera angle shows Martin talking with Duceppe in the background in one of those 'I told you so' shrugs whilst mugging at the camera. Awesome. And even though he could've just taken shots all night, he actually made some decent points and contributed to the debate. Grade: B+
Overall, the debate didn't do anything to change my mind, probably didn;t change anyone else's, just solidified support for the people who heard what they wanted to from the people they were hoping to hear it from. For me, another few weeks of watching the campaign, probably won't change anything for me but always seems to be interesting to watch. I've pretty much made up my mind who I want to vote for but it could come down to some strategic voting in the worst case... I'll keep my eyes on the polls I suppose.
posted by Druski at 10:18 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home