Noonan, begrudgingly on the debate

[question everything]

(She covered a different topic but ended with these observations)

As to Monday’s debate, Hillary Clinton won. The story leading up to it was that she was frail, her health bad. Instead she was vibrant, confident, smiling and present.

Mr. Trump’s job was to leave you able to imagine him as president. You could have, but it would be a grumpy, grouchy president with thin skin.

Since the debate Mr. Trump is angry and is going straight into junkyard dog mode, which won’t work well.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-the-shallows-1475192583

[ColemanMaskell]

1. Thanks for posting that

[shenmue]

2. I'm surprised she admitted it

[Blue Idaho]

3. Peggy may be a tool

But she doesn't want to look like a fool.

[jcgoldie]

4. Too Late

She makes a fool of herself on a weekly basis.

[emulatorloo]

5. 'Romney will win, because I see many many Romney yard signs'

Paraphrasing, but that's essentially what she wrote right before Election Day 2012.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. She's about 40 yrs. too late on that one. nt

[hedda_foil]

7. Most of us can't read this op-ed because it's from WSJ.

Could you please post the four most relevant paragraphs?

[question everything]

8. Often, you can google the title and get it

but, as I posted on top, most of it was about different topic - The Politics of ‘The Shallows’

with this first paragraph

What impact has the modern media environment had on the 2016 campaign? I know that’s a boring sentence, but journalists and politicians talk about it a lot, journalists uneasily and politicians with frustration. The 24/7 news cycle and the million multiplying platforms with their escalating demands—for pictures, video, sound, the immediate hot take—exhaust politicians and staff, and media people too. Everyone is tired, and chronically tired people live, perilously, on the Edge of Stupid. More important, modern media realities make everything intellectually thinner, shallower. Everything moves fast; we talk not of the scandal of the day but the scandal of the hour, reducing a great event, a presidential campaign, into an endless river of gaffes.

(snip)

This year I am seeing something, especially among the young of politics and journalism. They have received most of what they know about political history through screens. They are college graduates, they’re in their 20s or 30s, they’re bright and ambitious, but they have seen the movie and not read the book. They’ve heard the sound bite but not read the speech. Their understanding of history, even recent history, is superficial. They grew up in the internet age and have filled their brainspace with information that came in the form of pictures and sounds. They learned through sensation, not through books, which demand something deeper from your brain. Reading forces you to imagine, question, ponder, reflect. It provides a deeper understanding of political figures and events.

[ColemanMaskell]

9. Wowie zowie that worked. Thank you for the bizarrely effective technical tip.

The article itself doesn't seem particularly interesting informative or enjoyable, but thank you for the tech tip.

[SaschaHM]

10. Hmmm...

I'm just surprised that she didn't throw herself into Schlafly's coffin weeks ago.