As a student who considers herself politically literate, I enjoyed the Vice Presidential debates for several reasons. The candidates were (relatively) direct, cordial, and stern with each other. In contrast to the first Presidential debate on October 3, I was not waiting for a “The real statistic is…” graphic to run across the bottom of my screen telling me exactly what was the truth. With the VP candidates, there was substantial back-and-forth, but they moved on when necessary.
Their mobility through issues was also thanks to Martha Raddatz. I think she did a respectable job. In the beginning she seemed biased towards helping Vice President Joe Biden, but she varied her questions to target specific points of each candidate’s statements throughout the debate. I am thankful that Raddatz asked the candidates to speak about religion, which then of course lead to abortion, from their personal viewpoints. I am even more thankful that she directly asked Congressman Paul Ryan if women should be concerned about the Republican abortion plans potentially affecting legislation in the future. I wish she had gone more into women’s rights and the media. For those of you who know me, you may think this is just because those are my two main focuses, but Raddatz is a decorated woman in the media with the title of ABC News Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent. She probably knows more about these issues than either man, which is why I think she did such a great job in keeping the boys in line.
While it was a little odd to see two men who could be father and son, in age (and religious affiliation), debating, it added a new dimension to the program. While Biden’s cutesy reference of Ryan as “my friend” was condescending, Ryan did not refrain from making facial expressions that displayed his disapproval for Biden’s projections. However, on the topic of facial expressions, I think Biden’s smile may have had some enhancements (included in ObamaCare?) but was more endearing than Governor Romney’s steadfast grin and altogether immobile facial features. Both VP candidates provided the audience with expressions that expressed a range of emotions, unlike Romney who had one smiley expression on his face the whole time and President Obama who was not keen on the audience seeing his face at all.
The VP candidates absolutely have more leniency in their language which may be why their statements were more colorful. Historically, the VP candidate has the flexibility to be more vicious in attacks against the opposition- especially when the incumbent President is running for reelection and has a statesman-like persona to maintain. While Biden took advantages of these moments, “With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey,” I think he was fairly respectful in his attacks. One of my biggest pet peeves, stemmed from my obsession with The West Wing, is when people, especially congressmen, don’t refer to the President as the President. Ryan should be referring to President Barack Obama with his earned title. Whether he believes the President will retain this title or not, he still earned it fair and square four years ago.
Who won the debate? I think both candidates were impressive. I was surprised with Ryan’s knowledge on foreign policy as a district representative from Wisconsin and think that he did an honorable job in keeping his cool. In some ways, I think Ryan was straying from the Romney platform, especially when talking about religion. Ryan said that he “can’t see how people can possibly separate their private and public lives,” when speaking about religion. This is interesting to me because Romney has almost disassociated himself from a religion that has played a primary role in his life during this campaign. While his personal anecdote about his first child’s nickname of “Bean” was endearing, it did not have a big impact.
Biden was animated, but also in control for the most part. Each candidate is allotted a certain amount of time and he was eager to comment during Ryan’s time. Thankfully, Raddatz kept him mostly in line, and I thought that he bettered the debate by expanding the topics. What really stuck out to me about Biden’s performance was his articulation of experience. By using phrases like, “I was in that room,” while explaining to Ryan that he knows what policies truly are and how they are shaped, he showed a lot of history in politics and unmatched experience. He also wished to “translate that” when Ryan started talking in tax code, which was another connecting point with the audience. I also appreciated the way he handled the abortion question by explaining that his Roman Catholic religion was his religion and should not be infringed upon the American public. I don’t think it was necessary for Biden to laugh as much as he did. A man of his age and experience knows how to express his emotions without letting out a chuckle between his opponent’s breaths.
All in all I think that Biden had an edge on Ryan, but that the entire debate was an educational experience. The candidates showed (unintentional) bipartisanship on some issues, but continued to argue about statistics. Hopefully in the second Presidential debate on Tuesday October 16, President Obama and Romney will lose the numbers and talk in concrete ways about the policies Americans connect with within the realms of foreign and domestic policy.
Photos from www.nytimes.com, http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/10/10/cartoons-day-vice-presidential-debate/26821/, and www.washingtonpost.com