Joe Biden did everything Barack Obama needed to do last week and didn't. He was forceful, he didn't miss a single important point, refuting Ryan's lies, distortions and confronting his lack of details about their tax plan.
Some say Biden was rude, grinning condescendingly, interrupting Ryan and making it difficult for him to finish his points. I found out later I was wrong, after they released the actual speaking time each used, but my distinct impression was that Ryan just wouldn't ever stop talking. Biden had to interrupt to get a word in. That was the impression -- and it came from Ryan's speaking style, which was exactly like Romney's last week: fast, furiously spilling out facts (many wrong), and leaving no space between sentences for moderator or opponent to get into the discussion.
So my subjective feeling about Ryan's speaking style (perhaps shared by Biden) was that "this guy just won't shut up." I felt assaulted, and it was exhausting just to listen to him. It was so similar to Romney that it must be a debate prep common decision: hit them fast and furious with so much that they can't respond to it all; be aggressive in your style.
That's style seems to count more than substance with some TV commentators. However, the ones I watched on ABC (2 Dems and 2 Repubs) said by 3 to 1 that Biden won the debate. He was right most of the time on substance, he seemed to speak more from his heart, and he was forceful in his own way -- which is more measured and insistent rather that bombarding. Immediate audience reactions also gave it to Biden.
But, in my opinion, the real winner was Martha Radditz, the moderator, an ABC correspondant who has spent much time in recent years in battle zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Far more pointed in her questions, better in asking follow-up questions to try to get the candidate to answer something he had dodged, and far better at controlling the time.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both candidates were so much better than their running mates last week. Biden was more forceful and didn't miss a point that should be made. Ryan seemed less frantic than Romney, and despite some mistakes and lies and evasions, far better at presenting their case.
ReplyDeleteHere's an example of Martha Radditz's followup to Ryan about the lack of details in the Romney tax plan:
ReplyDelete"You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?"
Ryan stuck to the talking point that they want to work with Congress on the details of what loopholes will be eliminated. Yes, but isn't that an invitation to provide yet more wiggle room for the tax experts to find other creative ways for the millionaires to avoid taxes?