Speeches For Pundits Versus People - Is It The Same Thing?

[Median Democrat]

One thing I notice is that the pundits never really seem to be satisfied unless the speech has a lot of one-liners and "red meat" attacks. Conversely, discussions of policy and proposals tend to be ignored. During the DNC convention, which was not heavy on attacks on character and patriotism, the pundits widely criticized the convention until the very end, when no one could argue with the success of Bill Clinton's speech and Obama's acceptance speech. (CNN attacked Hillary's speech).

On the other hand, the RNC speeches have been light on proposals and issues, and largely consist of calling Obama and Biden liberals and elite, and attacking the media with the RNC delegates cheering wildly. The pundits are swooning, and gave Rudy's speech and Palin's speech higher marks than Obama's speech!

Is this something to really be worried about despite the obvious bias? Do pundits represent real people and real voters? Are voters likely to make their election decisions based on who lays down the most insults?

My only real concern is that people do not listen to the actual speech, but rely on the pundits to tell them what to think, in which case, we may be hosed. On the other hand, if the American people actually listen to the speeches, care about the issues, and make up their own mind, then I think we are fine.

[Median Democrat]

1. Bump - Anyone? Pundits versus People?

Does impressing the pundits equal impressing American voters? Are the pundits themselves out of touch?