Comments on: “Why Obama and Paul Newman won the Debate”

By: DEE

DEE — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:33:15 +0000

We are too intelligent to fall for McCain and Palin’s tactics! There is too much at stake for us to let the Hate mongers in this country win, not this time! Do not become complacent or overconfident! Barack Obama CAN lose this election! Don’t worry about what anyone says! Don’t pay attention to the polls! People have had big leads in the polls and lost on Election Day! Just get out and VOTE! Vote early! Don’t wait until the last minute! Don’t become overconfident! When you are VOTING there will be extremely long lines, but be determined and vigilant! Obama must win this election! Vote! VOTE! VOTE! The world is watching!

OBAMA/BIDEN 08-12!

By: movie fan

movie fan — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:27:40 +0000

it’s hard not to admire Paul Newman for putting his money to work in such productive ways, such as his Newman’s Own line–high quality stuff and the proceeds go to good causes… very smart.

By: SSR

SSR — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:28:35 +0000

I really liked this post, and I agree with it. The sports metaphors never worked for me. Typical talking head guyspeak. Both of my kids study acting and I often help them with their audition pieces and I have learned alot from them. I agree – the debate was an audition, and Obama knew his character’s intention and motivation, and his audience, through and through. Its always so nice when someone gives you a new framework for seeing politics. Thanks for that.

By: Mitchell Aboulafia

Mitchell Aboulafia — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:21:10 +0000

Stephen Dolle,

Thank you for your comment.

I should have been more explicit, and I will be. I am referring to presidential debates, which have held a unique place in the American system for decades. They cannot be judged in the same manner as one would judge a college debate, for example.

Regarding actors: the idea here is that an actor must be aware of the audience the he or she is trying to reach. This does not make acting less real than a sporting event. Just different. The ball player is primarily interested in winning the game. The actor/debater is interested in winning over the audience. Of course winning over the audience does require a show of knowledge. I never denied this. (In fact, I mentioned it as one of Obama’s achievements.) But a presidential debate is more than this. And this is why the “winners” of the debates never seem to just win on points.

By: Stephen Dolle

Stephen Dolle — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:30:43 +0000

I disagree with this blog’s point about what a debate should accomplish, and the comparison to theatre and sports. Leadership comes from knowledge/ experience and from following one’s GUT or HEART. Thus, a debate has more in common with a sports performance, where one plays from the gut, than a threatical one that is “pretend.” Certainly, if you care enough as an actor, your performance can APPEAR real, but we still do not know the INTENT of the actor. Whereas in sports, the INTENT and performance ARE real. Debates should be a REAL discussion on topics of leadership, not “acting” of same.

I followed this blog over from today’s LA Times Top of Ticket discussion on the debate.

Mr. Aboulafia writes in this blog:

“And debates have more in common with acting than they do with sports contests. Or let me put this another way. Debates are like auditions, and if you are going to be successful in an audition you’ve got to be able to have a sense of what the director is looking for and the possibilities of a role.”