Tom Brokaw goes nuclear

Wed, 10/08/2008 - 12:49pm
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In my bored stupor, I totally missed this question during the debate last night. In retrospect, the way it's phrased seems designed to tell us more about Tom Brokaw's energy plan (or Thomas Friedman's) than that of John McCain or Barack Obama:

Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

Hmm... Silicon Valley or a nuclear bomb? Tough choice.

Still, while it's an absurdly loaded -- and probably flubbed -- question, the candidates at least had answers for it. When Brokaw pushed them to name their Treasury secretary in advance or call Russia evil, I have a hard time believing that he actually expected them to respond to what he asked.

At this point, perhaps he just expects them to ignore the question and go straight to talking points anyway, so he decided to have a bit of fun.

( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Brokaw was all about Brokaw

If the moderator is not going to point out when questions are being ducked or press with meaningful follows, what is left? S/he can keep the participants from interrupting each other, sure. What else?

If we know that candidates are likely to ignore questions entirely ("pivot") or twist them towards a related but not quite the same particular, what can a a moderator do?

Brokaw demonstrated what was left. He could whine about time limits being exceeded. He could whine about previously agreed upon rules being broken.

Each of these took time away from the candidates. Each of these took attention away from the candidates. In fact, each of these constituted attempts to limit depth, limit substance and limit direct responses from one candidate to what the other had previously said.

What a waste of time. What a waste of space.