I'm desperately trying to wrap things up at work before I take two days off for Rosh Hashanah, so I ended up leaving work late, so I had to drive home, Sober listening toe the Vice Presidential debate.
When I got home, I just wasn't up to catching up on the booze, so I listened to the whole thing while I went through my blogroll for interesting stories, again I was Sober.
The horror ………
My overall take is that Vance was glib but evasive, and, yes, kind of weird, and that Walz appeared very sincere.
The moderators were crap, but not as bad crap as the white hot dense neutron star of awfulness that was Jake Tapper and Dana Bash at the CNN debate between Biden and Trump.
In terms of providing a summary as to the effect, I'm probably not a good person for this.
A lot of people seem to find the candidates telling their personal life stories to justify policies to be a positive thing, and I simply find it contrived and meaningless.
Vance did this more often than Walz, but they both did it a lot, and it pissed me off.
Also, I found that they were far too solicitous toward each other, and so they minimized the policy differences between them.
That being said, even while Vance was more disciplined than Trump (So are my cats in the presence of catnip) I think that you still got the Opus Dei adjacent weirdness that has been a feature for him for a rather long time.
Who won?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0 comments :
Post a Comment