She has become a basic, imposed, inescapable character.
I’m talking about the debate about the debate: Who “won” and who “lost”?
This is a somewhat useless exercise for three reasons.
everything is OK
First, because everyone judges according to their own criteria.
Then, because everyone tended to think that the one he actually liked before the discussion was especially good, and the one he didn’t like very much before was especially bad.
Finally, you are only obligated to question your initial bias if there is a real knockout, final judge exit.
However, there was nothing yesterday.
In terms of exclusion, nothing equals an exchange that occurred during an old debate today that is completely forgotten: the 1988 debate between the two candidates for Vice President of the United States, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen and Republican Dan Quayle.
To counter criticism that he was too young and inexperienced, Coyle says he was the same age and background as John F. Kennedy when he ran for president.
Bensen looked at him as if one was looking at a poodle and sprayed it with a simple sprinkle, “Senator, I knew JFK, JFK was my friend, you’re not JFK.”
bubble! The lights had just gone out and the healers entered the ring. It’s over… which didn’t stop the Bush-Quayle duo from winning.
Nothing like last night.
Traditionally, discussions favor who is least known, who starts from the furthest.
Honestly, after Thursday night, who would deny that Paul St-Pierre Blamondon is running a great campaign, and that this calm and balanced young man is involved in politics for the right reasons and in the right way?
But the other four were also excellent, each dragging, inevitably, his party utensils.
Dhaimi defined his ideological area by placing the other four in the same left field.
The prime minister logically played the role of the wise, reassuring, moderate and responsible person who understands that action is more difficult than words.
Nadeau-Dubois concealed the QS radicalism well and projected a positive image of his party.
Dominic Engled was quarrelsome, flamboyant, and combative. It was a tribute to Pauline Marois for creating CPEs of rare elegance.
We can argue about form, the occasional cacophony, and lack of time to develop, head-on between two chefs on a subject they think the same.
But the perfect formula does not exist, and this is the best so far.
I have seen that I do not know the number of televised debates in the United States, France, Spain, and Great Britain, the countries whose political scenes I follow most closely.
We are wrong to maintain an inferiority complex.
Thursday’s debate was on par with the best I’ve seen elsewhere.
“Evil thinker. Music scholar. Hipster-friendly communicator. Bacon geek. Amateur internet enthusiast. Introvert.”