A note about debating
I think I can speak for every political junkie out there when I say that I love to watch and participate in debates. It's hard to resist a debate, especially when the debate is one which you believe to your core is yours to win, just based on the facts.
The problem is -- when the opposition presents you with such a debate, it's usually because they want to you in it.
An example that comes to mind is the 2004 shiny object that George Bush waved in front of John Kerry: Global Test. Really, who cares what Kerry meant by "global test." It was obvious to anybody paying attention what he meant, but instead of debating about a hypothetical war in which Kerry would have to argue he would behave exactly like Bush, he would have been better served to point out that we were fighting an actual war at that time and it was based on bullshit.
Every Democrat on television or answering questions by the press should ask themselves first before every question What is the point of staying on this topic and is there something better to talk about?
If the answer to that is "There is no point in talking about this when I could talk about that," then they will control the conversation and win the day.
I just watched Michael Smerconish explain to David Gregory that McCain selected Palin in part to make people talk about Obama's experience. David responded by turning to Rachel Maddow and asking her about... Obama's experience. Perfect example.
When anybody talks about her experience and compares her's to Obama's, every single Democrat on my TV should laugh it off as a joke and stick it to McCain for his recklessness. I don't want to see one second wasted talking about Obama's experience.
McCain doesn't think he can win unless people are talking about Obama. Let's keep the spotlight on McCain. It's that simple.
Not every debate is worth having, even if it's winnable.
The problem is -- when the opposition presents you with such a debate, it's usually because they want to you in it.
An example that comes to mind is the 2004 shiny object that George Bush waved in front of John Kerry: Global Test. Really, who cares what Kerry meant by "global test." It was obvious to anybody paying attention what he meant, but instead of debating about a hypothetical war in which Kerry would have to argue he would behave exactly like Bush, he would have been better served to point out that we were fighting an actual war at that time and it was based on bullshit.
Every Democrat on television or answering questions by the press should ask themselves first before every question What is the point of staying on this topic and is there something better to talk about?
If the answer to that is "There is no point in talking about this when I could talk about that," then they will control the conversation and win the day.
I just watched Michael Smerconish explain to David Gregory that McCain selected Palin in part to make people talk about Obama's experience. David responded by turning to Rachel Maddow and asking her about... Obama's experience. Perfect example.
When anybody talks about her experience and compares her's to Obama's, every single Democrat on my TV should laugh it off as a joke and stick it to McCain for his recklessness. I don't want to see one second wasted talking about Obama's experience.
McCain doesn't think he can win unless people are talking about Obama. Let's keep the spotlight on McCain. It's that simple.
Not every debate is worth having, even if it's winnable.
Labels: David Gregory, McCain, Obama, Palin, Rachel Maddow, Smerconish
