Sunday Discussion Group

August 19, 2007

Depending on what part of the country you live in, the latest in a series of debates for Democratic presidential candidates is about to get underway in Iowa. ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos will moderate the event, which, depending on your definition of “debate,” will be the eighth Democratic debate of the campaign thus far.

And if Barack Obama’s campaign has anything to do with it, there won’t be too many more.

Tired of trudging from one debate to the next, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign is saying “Enough.” A Web posting Saturday by his campaign manager said that the schedule of unceasing debates and forums in the Democratic presidential campaign was proving a distraction.

Obama will decline new debate invitations until mid-December, the posting said, and after that, he will consider requests case by case. […]

“We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom-up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race,” campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in the posting on the campaign website’s blog.

Like Matt Yglesias, I feel a certain selfishness in applauding Obama’s decision. I watch all of these debates, in the hopes of catching something newsworthy, and routinely end up disappointed. Not only is the same ground is covered over and over again, but with eight candidates, even thoughtful answers are cut short by time constraints. I end up watching the events a bit like some NASCAR fans watch car races — waiting for a stunning victory or a spectacular crash. In reality, both are pretty rare.

As far as I can tell, Obama’s campaign isn’t exactly shutting down the debate calendar. There have been seven debates and 19 candidate forums thus far. Based on the statement from the campaign yesterday, Obama will have participated in 15 debates by mid-December, so it’s not as if voters won’t have a chance to measure his, or any other candidate’s, debating skills.

Is this a positive development or a negative one?

A few more angles to consider, for Discussion Group purposes:

* Will other top-tier candidates follow Obama’s lead? Rumor has it that the Hillary Clinton campaign hasn’t exactly been thrilled with the constant pace of these events either.

* Will interest groups planning to host upcoming debates/forums punish Obama for snubbing their gatherings? (The Plouffe memo touched on the campaign’s concerns: “Many friends and terrific organizations are sponsoring or planning to sponsor debates and forums. So this is not an easy decision for us to execute. But it simply won’t work to navigate this one by one. We felt we needed to make our approach clear and consistent.”)

* Are 15 debates and 19 forums between April and mid-December enough, or should there be more? Is there such a thing as “too many,” or should voters get as many chances to watch these events as possible?

* Obama’s debate performances thus far have been solid, but not dazzling. Did that influence yesterday’s announcement?

* Am I the only one watching these things?

* Do the performances really matter to anyone? Will debates actually affect anyone’s voting?

Discuss.

August 19, 2007 at 9:15 am

Trudging? Is he Kwai Chang Caine, walking barefoot from town to town to debate?

Gimme a break.

He’s ducking debates because he performs poorly in unscripted forums when pressed for specifics.

It’s a negative for him, because it makes him look scared. That makes it a positive for the rest of the field.

With the exception of about 5 minutes of the AFL-CIO debate, I haven’t paid attention to the hectic debate schedule. I think it’s ridiculous that the candidates are already announcing, advertising, debating, and even dropping out 20+ months before the ’08 election.

Doesn’t this hurry up and wait attitude only fuel the ever rising cost of political campaigns in the U.S.? Instead of comparing candidates who have the best ideas, we get candidates who have enough time and money to simply persist on the campaign trail.

If the candidates aren’t saying anything substantive, what’s the bleeding point of having them campaign all this time? The media loves the “horse race” for easy stories, but does it do the voters or the candidates any good?

In fact, because they have to campaign so long, I wonder if this only dilutes the message and the real policy debate. I feel for Obama and the other candidates. I’d be sick of giving the same damn stump speech for months before the first straw polls.

If there is going to be an effort to organize nationally the caucus/primary system, I believe there should also be some kind of moratorium for announcing candidacy to 12 months before the election. Let’s tighten up the whole process: announce, debate, vote. We don’t need the fashion show that currently masquerades as a campaign trail.

These number of these debates are ridiculous. If they weren’t televised nationally then they might make more sense as it would be focused on more regional/local issues.

Diogenes, could it be possible that he’s taking time to develop specifics? I highly doubt that with the number of debates that any campaign has enough time to develop major policy. This isn’t Whose Line is It Anyway where you can just pull shit out of your ass. Even the most “unscripted” questions involve lots of preparation. He doesn’t look all that scared to me from what I’ve seen.

I say great. It has really gotten kind of silly, with the “debate of the week.” If they were real debates, or if they pressed the candidates into more uncertain territory so we could watch them thinking (the YouTube format was best on that), then they might be worth it. Even with stronger formats, less would be more.

“Will other top-tier candidates follow Obama’s lead?” First they will bitch, then they will follow.
And yes, you are the only one watching these things (I’ve only seen two). I’m glad you watch them so I don’t have to 🙂
“Do the performances really matter?” Only if they screw up like Richardson did at the “gay” debate. Otherwise they are just background noise. Dodd’s rousing performance at the “labor” debate didn’t give him a bump – and if these were worth it it should have.

I think back to the times when getting candidates to debate was like pulling teeth. There would be these elaborate negotiations and calculations about which candidates would or wouldn’t debate based on whether they needed the exposure or not.

The debates are a great way to campaign from the “consumers” point of view–much better than the one-way communications of speeches and ads. In some small way it lets voters drive the process and gives them side-by-side comparisons of the candidates not based entirely on what the candidate wants to highlight or hide.

If Bush had had to debate Gore more than three times we might have actually learned something about him. More debates is better for the voters and that’s really who is important in elections. We need a marathoner more than a sprinter for president.

I’m not sure if there have too many, but it sure seems there’s been too many, too early. As for influencing anyone’s support? I tend to doubt it. The vast majority of the country isn’t tuned into the presidential race yet, leaving an audience of political junkies and/or potential contributors. These people likely have already picked their favorite, or will be happy with whoever wins the nomination.

In the early days of a campaign, these events are impossible to resist, but as the campaign picks up steam, I can see where they become a nuisance. The frontrunners don’t need the additional exposure, but for the lower tiers it’s likely to be the only exposure they’re going to get.

In terms of the overall theatrics of the race, I tend to think more is better. And this early I like to hear from the guys who don’t stand a chance. A couple less debates, starting up a few months later would be my first choice. OTOH, they could have 3 debates a day and it wouldn’t compare with the insanity of the primary schedule.

Agree with posters that these are strictly fodder for the lazy media and for maniacal political junkies (like me). That said, I also agree that after the first two or three (and the very interesting YouTube format one), even us political misfits are tuning out from hearing the same incomplete and predictable answers over and over.

Agree with Obama. Enough already! Start up again in December.

Oh, joy….glowing happiness…hurrah, hurrah, hurrah. Whoopee. Yip, yip, yip.

That about sums up my attitude toward these maniacal debate-sessions. As for Obama’s move being a positive development or a negative one, I’d have to go with positive, because all this “everyone-has-to-stage-their-own” is beyond silly. Get a collective group together that supports one specific issue, and then bring the candidates together at that location to discuss—in depth, and in detail—that issue. Someone who’s weak on that issue will either blow it off, or blow themselves back to the stone-age. A package like that could easily cover all the major issues of the upcoming primary by year’s end—which is about all the further things can go now, what with the primaries themselves starting in what—JANUARY?

As for the other queries, a special interest group who wants to “punish” a candidate for not coming to their silly little party deserves not one freaking dime from me. I will not contribute to “dot-org” temper tantrums that seek to compete with the whinings and kickings of a two-year-old. We have enough of that coming from the shrill little man-cub at FraudNews.

* Am I the only one watching these things?

Blast it all, CB, you’re the one that keeps telling us, “I watch all the dabates—so you don’t have to.” Of course you’re the only one watching these things! what did you expect?

Debates, in the end, will not contribute to impacting the vote unless there is substantive content. Without that, we’re destined to see another round of disjointed soundbytes and scary-thing/shiny-thing video clips….

I haven’t watched a single “debate” (beauty pageant? amen corner? get the guest? show and tell moment?). The only thing live TeeVee is good for is sports (baseball), and even that’s more exciting on on radio.

I might watch if there were a format which would permit an hour or two of uninterrupted give-and-take between a few true journalists and a single candidate. Trouble is the only true journalists I can think of are either retired or dead. And very few candidates these days would have the depth or breadth to last two hours (two minutes?).

There simply is no way to get depth and breadth in the current format. The mid-season Home Run Derby is no substitute for the World Series. A Saturday afternoon casting call at the community little theater says very little about the excitement of Shakespeare. And, as we prove almost daily, the chickenhawk neo-cons’ Plan for a New American Century is a far cry from the Iraq Quagmire.

I like John Edwards’ specific policy ideas, his commitment to traditional Democratic values, and his willingness to admit he made a mistake and reassess. I also like his wife’s brilliance and life-affirming attitude and the fact that both of them have overcome the kinds of family tragedy which make the political game seem shallow by comparison. I did not come to those conclusions by watching a snappy response to a gotcha question moments before a commercial break.

That Edwards doesn’t seem to be “getting through” to more Americans is further testimony to the bread-and-circuses shallowness of our current system (or lack of one). I wish it were otherwise, but then I’ve been wishing for a pennant for the Mariners since their first season (1977).

Am I the only one watching these things?
All I can say is that, at this stage, I’m not watching.

I think the multiplicity of debates and candidate forums, awkward as the format may be with so many people participating and tedious as it may be to try and watch them all, is a natural consequence of the front-loaded, nationalized primary election schedule. You can thank Terry McAuliffe for a lot of that although the trend existed before he came along and the situation has obviously gotten more ridiculous since — watching every state now trying to jump the line on every other reminds me of nothing so much as hogs at a feeding trough.

The thing is, not even the best funded primary campaigns have the wherewithal to run major campaign operations and do a lot of personal appearances in 25 states at the same time, let alone 50, and they can’t campaign in that many states sequentially, one or two states at a time anymore — that hasn’t worked in years. So given that the vase majority of us aren’t going to get a lot of quality time with the candidates before we go to vote in the primaries, on what basis are we supposed to make our decisions? How are we supposed to get to know them? Well for most people I’m afraid the answer turns out to be TV commercials. And I’m not sure that’s such a good thing either. So if having a lot of televised debates and fora aren’t the answer, what is? I don’t know the answer.

But whether the number of debates and fora this year is too many or too few, I’m finding it more than a little curious that Obama would be the one to call time. Normally the guy in second place is the one snapping at any chance to mix it up with the front runner and it’s the latter who tries to avoid debates. It’s going to be tough for him to spin this as anything but a strategic retreat. My guess though is that his reasoning is just what they said it was. It seems likely that he’s looking at what a third place finish in Iowa would do to his chances and thinking he needs to be spending shaking hands and kissing babies. Doing well in Iowa require a lot of retail campaigning. He hasn’t done badly at all in debates so far but if he needs more prep time than some of the others to avoid getting handed his ass on game day, then I can see how that drain on his time could be more of a problem for him.

Make that: “…thinking he needs to be spending more time shaking hands and kissing babies. Doing well in Iowa requires a lot of retail campaigning.” I need a proofreader.

In most election cycles, I have thought there were too few debates. But debates, I think, are quite subject to the law of diminishing returns. There have been so many, so early that it is easier than ever for people to tune them out. When joint appearances where you can evaluate the candidates side by side are more rare, they take on an “event” quality that encourages more attention. We are way beyond that in this cycle.

I also think that how the candidates choose to run a campaign, how they prioritize, how they schedule and strategize, tells something about the candidate and their team – how they analyze and overcome problems. Here, however, the constant debate prep and travel to the same places as your opponents at someone else’s demand is taking away the ability of the campaigns to execute their own campaign plans. (Ok, so thats really an inside baseball concern, but I’m a former campaign staffer. . .)

While the other campaigns – particularly those lower in the polls – will likely jump all over this, I’m with Obama’s team: lets give it a rest for a while. Sheesh.

The debates that have occurred don’t seem to be true debate. These events seem more like an open forum for the media to mine for the Whopper of a Response, the Fatal Flub or the even more thrilling Killer Retort. I get the feeling these debates don’t provide an opportunity for a candidate to really prove their mettle, but rather an opportunity for the media-celebrity moderators to throw out “gotcha” questions. Often the host of the debate sparks as much post-event attention as the candidates, and that is wrong. Look at any of the post-debate evaluations and the concensus always seem to be that the candidates are mostly trying to play it safe.

I’d like to see more professional debates staged not by the MSM nor by interest groups, but by as impartial an organization as possible that will run these as true debates. The debates should be about a single issue and I think both parties should have to each have a debate on the same issue so the public knows where the parties stand as well as the individual candidate’s take on the issue.

I’d like to better understand how a candidate thinks through an issue on their feet rather than how well prepped they were to throw out snappy lines about hot-button issues. Is Obama doing the right thing? I don’t know. But I have the feeling with the way state primaries are all trying to come earlier than everyone else’s, the dynamic of the campaign trial has changed this year and Obama may be showing he’s the smarter tactician by responding to the changing conditions with alacrity rather than being a sheep and doing what he’s told to do.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I don’t think Obama looked scared in the debates; I think ducking debates makes him look scared.

As for his needing more time to develop specific answers, I’d like to know why. I don’t think more time for study is bad, but I’d like to hear his raw thoughts in the meantime. Fewer debates, later in the season, just gives candidates more time to memorize carefully crafted, bland, aphorisms that tell us more about their speech writers and coaches than they do about the candidates.

When it comes to learning about the applicants for national CEO, I want more opportunities to look behind the masks, not less. So it’s early, and the debates are frequent. So what? The American public are slow learners. It took 5 years for them to figure out that GWB is an empty suit, with an empty head. The earlier people can see a lot of their candidates, the less chance they’ll make another historic blunder like they did in 2000 and 2004.

If anything I’d like to see more variety of formats. Let’s have town halls, round tables, panels lead by a moderator, etc. Remember Fred Friendly’s series of panel discussions called The Constitution: That Delicate Balance (or something like that)? Imagine our candidates being asked to deal with hypothetical problems posed by a sharp fair moderator. I think we could learn a lot from that.

It’s also kind of cool to see narrower interest groups all getting their shot at the candidates. There’s a lot of potential there for people to get a better sense of where candidates stand on the issues that matter most in their own lives.

If all debates are infrequent, well advanced, high profile network TV events, as has pretty much been the case in the past, then yes, a lot more people will tune into any given debate but you can be pretty well assured that the discussion will revolve around only headline issues. That’s going to leave a lot of people feeling no more connected to the political rocess than before and still wondering, What about some of the other things that matter more to me?” But when labor, environmental and minority rights groups, et al, start getting a piece of the action then perhaps fewer people watch any given debate but potentially a lot more people might watch some debate and more of them could finally walk away feeling like they got their answer.

I’d still like to see a round robin series too. I’ll bet you could sell tickets.

Like Matt Yglesias, I feel a certain selfishness in applauding Obama’s decision.

No, it’s the right decision. They’re going to get overexposed, and they could be doing more for their other business or their campaigns.

That’s not to say that debates at this early stage and frequent pace couldn’t be turned to our advantage. But the candidates have to take as much control of the events as possible, at least by changing how they answer questions.

Think about this. It could be that there are so many debates planned just because people are so proud of their Democratic candidates and so excited about getting a Dem in the White House. Also, they’ve probably seen the candidates are willing to be cool at this stage and go to more grassroots type events, so, less prestitgious institutions (meaning more institutions) are trying to throw these events.

But, more debates could become tired (partlt because it’s all the same questions). And it is a burden on our people to have all of them have to come to all of these.

The best thing for the institutions to do, to help our candidates and still get what they want- a cool event- is to throw more of a joint event for two or three speakers, or just invite one (with the understanding that it’s not an endorsement- say, they invite someone else to speak a month later as well, and send both invitations at the same time). So since we don’t have so many debates all the time, it doesn’t get as tired and the candidates have more freedom to talk about what they want to talk about and maybe do something different each time. For example, at the historicaly black college, maybe it would have been a lot more telling about what the candidates thought about those issues if they had been allowed to present their own talk on those issues, instead of answering some kind of basic questions.

The best thing for the candidates to do (if they’re not going Obama’s route) is to acknowledge that these events are not doing too much for them right now, because no one is watching, and the better way to use them is to promote the background support for the whole Democratic party, to build the movement, instead of giving a during-11-months-preceding-the-election style responses to debate questions. They should try giving a lot less selfish answers, less answers that try to distinguish themselves from their opponents, and more answers that are about values (but the standard stuff is still good for later, when people are paying attention more). Now, take advantage of events to tell people what’s so right about liberalism and what’s so wrong with the country right now. Build the social movement. Become a leader. Don’t give the expected answer. Get people excited.

Mmmm. I still have to go with the conclusion that reaching (only) a million people in one shot is potentially better for the party, the country, even “the movement” in the long run the restricting one’s appearances as much as possible to retail campaigning in the early primary states. As for what the other candidates are going to do, they’re going to give Barack Obama a beating for this I’ll wager. The Clinton campaign already has a statement out I believe (damn they’re good) and the rest all know they have to go through Barack Obama to get to Mrs. Clinton. However much some of them might wish they could follow Mr. Obama’s lead, they’re unlikely to pass up the opening. These fora and debates are also one of the best ways going to get a little free TV time and help build up a some national name recognition on the cheap. So my guess is that people who aren’t swimming in money will find these events much harder to pass up.

Debates are only helpful to those who aren’t front runners. I could wish that hillary, obama and edwards would take things into their own hands and schedule a real debate, without moderators, where they debate the things that divide them. But I’m sure their people would persuade them that, aside from the trailing Edwards, this wouldn’t be to their advantage. All to lose, but nothing to gain.

As for the American people, December is probably about right for picking up the majority of Democratic viewers who will only get interested when the primaries get closer.

Obama isn’t ducking the hectic debate schedule because the debates make him look good or bad but because primarily it makes the so called “lower tier” candidate look to damn good. Without the funds of a Hillary or an Obama, Kucinich can’t get his message out there enough except through these debates and forums and every answer he gives on every issue so far outshines the other candidates that this is one way of keeping him from being heard.

Thanks to these debates and forums Kucinich has shot up in the polls, a trend Obama and Hillary would like to see reversed. He beats them in the debates everytime but doesn’t have the funds to compete with them for local ads.

I think the whole campaign issue came on us way too soon but the media are drooling for the money they get from the campaigns and so try to get them going strong as soon as possible. Organizations also promote themselves by sponsoring these forums. but there are still far too many of them and they go on for too long.

George Stephanopoulous is a hitman for the GOP. He tried desperately to smear Kucinich on his Sunday talk show. His moderation of a Democratic debate will undoubtedly contain the hypothetical scenario which will produce the question of using nukes “Therefore, would you take nukes off the table…blah, blah, blah… using nukes as a deterrent…blah blah blah….dirty bomb…blah blah blah.” Questions like, “when you stopped beating your wife did it make it easier to stop supporting the President’s Iraq policy?” George moderates by ambush. He thinks he’s so smart but Kucinich made him look like a fool when he attempted to smear him. George eve pulled up a couple headlines from local Cleveland papers as if this were how all of Cleveland thought referring to the papers as “your constituents”. So here come the “hypotheticals” Democrats, as well as questions with an agenda. Let the debates begin George.

CalD, I see your point but I think there is a downside risk: the R’s have successfully painted the D’s over the years as the party beholden to “special interests” (defined, of course, as any group you don’t personally belong to). So if the candidates start entertaining every narrowcast debate, it makes it easy to cherry-pick comments made there to say “the Dems pander to the gay/black/feminazi/union/save-the-snail-darter, jobs-be-damned special interest group – does that include you?” and for a majority of Americans, the answer for any one of those groups will be “no.”

Sadly the converse attack – that R’s are beholden to Coulter/Dobson/Reed/Robertson/Norquist et al do not seem to have stuck, but I have some hope that is changing.

Just to clarify a couple things:

In my previous comment, by talking about values, I mean liberal values- I don’t mean the kind of nods to tolerance of traditional social conservative values that, say, sterotypical Kossites consider pandering. I mean talking about affirmative things, not just how we’re going to get govt. out of everybody’s life except for welfare and when it’s time to pay taxes. I mean talking about how govt. is going to be a positive force in people’s lives and do things people hadn’t dreamed of when Democrats are elected, for example is going to stop global warming, etc. But frame it the way I’m framing it.

Talk optimistically and about how great it’s going to be when the Democrats are running the country, but still get people excited about the work they’ve got to do ahead of them.

By not distinguishing one’s self from one’s opponents, I don’t mean abandon traditional advice about how to run a campaign. I mean, for now, say things about how it’s better if any Democrat gets elected than a Republican, how you respect the other Democrats running, etc. Like in other situations where what we’re faced with is different from what we’ve seen before- like how the media is totally different- I’ll advise acting a little differently, because the conditions are different (this is a different kind of campaign). Build the background respect for the party and for liberalism that will be political capital for you to work with when it comes time for you to switch gears and criticize the other Democrats (or later, the Republican candidates) and distinguish yourself more from the Democrats (or the Republicans).

Obama may want to rethink his position: David Yepsen just declared Obama the winner of this morning’s ABC debate in Iowa.

Five in that pack — Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Obama — are “working stiffs” of sorts, as welll as presidential candidates; 4 in the Senate and one in the House. While all of them have been much better at fulfilling their duty there than McCain (ie they show up for votes), I still would rather see them spend more time at their “day jobs” than running around the country, “debating”, aka giving 3-minute answers to a variety of questions — some pretty silly.

So yes, I applaud Obama for pulling the reins in some on this debate-madness. I just wish he gave work in the Senate as one of his reasons.

Obama may want to rethink his position: David Yepsen just declared Obama the winner of this morning’s ABC debate in Iowa.

Always leave ’em begging for more.

OT, one of the Dems should make When Rhetoric Dies by Boy Sets Fire the theme song of their campaign.

Here’s the lyrics.

we raise the flags and statues to our mission we’ve spoken out
in slogans and in campaigns
talked and talked on almost every issue
where oppression of the masses is the constant theme
but what does this mean to a little town in iowa
where the jobs have gone downstream down south down and out
where their fingers used to work to the bone all day
profits rise and fall and starvation is a game
where is the food that used to cover their table
where is the sense of pride at the end of the day
to the face of a thriving corporation what could a dying family
possibly say
on the face of every american worker
is the constant fear that their job will not remain
as the c.e.o is planning his vacation
to kill or be killed is the nature of the beast
stand in line take a number you sell your soul
then watch it crumble
into a pile of rubble that used to be
your job
your life
your family’s daily bread dry and stale malnourished kids
the house is sold for a degrading bid
do we continue to talk or do we take a hammer to their chains

It’s a lot better with the music. I’d post a link, but there’s not YouTube video. I’m sure there’s probably an MP3 download but I don’t know anything about MP3s. Whoever uses this will win because he/she will automatically have the most rock ‘n’ roll campaign.

What if Mrs Clinton announces she will withdraw from some of these debates? Can you imagine the firestorm that would create? Obama and his handlers are realizing that he is not doing well at these debates so his advisers are pulling back and hoping to keep the buzz going.

That is my take. The bloggers would savage Mrs Clinton if she did the same.

I agree with 15. Obama is bored and tired and so am I — I am tired of a candidate with so little experience who doesn’t want to let people know who he is. If the other candidates can run around so can he. That is if he really wants to be president. So he is going to change the culture in Washington but he is frightened of the debate format where the candidates might pick on him. Obama is not worth the trouble. To all the fat cats who gave him all that bread — too bad so sad.

I think Obama’s handlers have pulled another boner. Remember their clumsy handling of the MySpace takeover? That lost him some goodwill among his netroot activists. Now they’re trying to protect their candidate by keeping him out of the game. Dumb.

This will only give the trailing candidates even more face time, and it gives Clinton a great talking point: “Where’s Obama? Is he off studying for the big leagues?”

I’m afraid he’ll have to reverse his decision and get back in the fray. Otherwise he’ll fade like McCain.

I think that any candidate not willing to jump through as many hoops as I’m willing to put in front of them isn’t worthy of the Whitehouse. Sure, nobody watching these things is going to make up their mind based upon what they see, and the ability to debate pre-scripted points is probably the least important job requirement for president. But irregardless, I want to see the dog show.

In fact, I think we should take it up a notch by making the debates more of a Jeopardy meets Fear Factor sort of event. You know, if Hillary can’t answer a question to the audience’s satisfaction, she has to eat a leach. That kind of thing. That’d be awesome. I don’t really want a president anyway. I just want a geek show. Sure, a candidate’s website is likely to have more details and accuracy than anything they might say in a debate, but that’s not good enough. I want a president who can dance. I want to be entertained.

I’ve come to the decision there is little point in watching the debates any longer anyway. If there is a pointed question that could make a difference, the candidate avoids answering the question anyway and launches into a stump speech to get a round of applause from the audience. The best example I saw of this today was Edward’s putting Billary on the spot today about not taking lobbyist’s money and she went into a 2 1/2 minute long speech that didn’t even touch on the subject she was asked about.

Doc Brain,

So you’re saying you’d rather learn about a candidate from his p.r. brochure, i.e. his website, than from hearing him answer questions and defend his positions? Isn’t that how we got Rovebush?

Sounds like maybe some folks are struggling to rationalize their chosen candidate’s inability to compete on under pressure. Perhaps that’s why you liken it to Fear Factor. Personally, I’m very leery of any candidate who fears debates. We’ve got one of those in office now. I want to hear from the candidate, not his webmaster.

The frequency of the debates might have offered enough air time to get an inkling of the views of Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel and to a lesser degree Richardson if they’d been given equal time, but the front-loading by the MSM makes most of the debate irrelevant to a decision making process because the same MSM already covers the front runners who they cover exhaustively.

I’d like Comedy Central or another irreverent network to cover the debate and keep score for folks who don’t recognize dodged questions, gaffes, and outright mistakes.

Comments are closed.