The main reason the debate was awful

Thu, 04/17/2008 - 10:51am

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

I heartily second Blake (and the rest of the country from what I can tell) in feeling infuriated with the questions in last night's debate. In particular, "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" was a low point in the history of political journalism.

But in all honesty, I have a hard time imagining that the 21st debate of the primary season could possibly have been useful or informative. After more than a year of campaigning, what new information are we possibly going to learn about these people beyond idiotic non-scandals like "bitter," Wright, Tuzla airport, or last night's underwhelming Bill Ayers bombshell?

Andrew Sullivan writes:

No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it's not illegitimate as such - but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart."

Amen. But are we really that unsure about Clinton or Obama's positions on the issues he mentions? I fear that extended discussion of these topics would have descended into the pointing out of minor inconsistencies that characterized last night's inane capital-gains tax discussion.

This isn't to say that there aren't issues that are under-addressed. A question about the relationship between biofuels and food prices or intervention in Darfur might have been nice, for instance. But I really can't imagine either candidate going out on a limb by making a firm commitment or even saying anything of substance in response. At this point it's safe to say that Clinton and Obama have made their respective cases. The longer this primary goes on, the more trivial it will become.

Readers, please prove me wrong. What are some substantive, non-gotcha questions that could have spurred some real debate last night?

Joshua Keating | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Questions to ask them?

by BGwynne on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 11:51am

Are either of you concerned over what impact this Democratic nomination process could have on the chances of the Democratic Party winning in November?

Why do you think John McCain is gaining support in nationwide polls, especially from Conservatives who didn’t want him to win?

How would you feel about a former Senator from your party (Lieberman) possibly giving the speech at the Republican Convention?

Do you want me to keep going?

Much of the world,

by sashenka on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 2:45pm

Much of the world, governments and citizens, are divided over how best to deal with the Olympics in China in the face of Tibet's protests and the subsequent crackdown. How do you view the strategies of engagement with an undemocratic government, such as China, and isolation as alternate means of promoting human rights and democracy? How does your response to China compare to policies you would advocate toward Iran or Cuba?

As Russia enters a new phase of politics with many speculating on the role and power of both Medvedev and Putin, what do you believe the main obstacles for closer Russian-US relations? How can the US engage effectively with Russia on issues of mutual concern, and on areas of joint but opposing interests such as gas & oil pipelines, NATO, and conflict in the caucuses?

While much has been made of the Bush rollback of civil liberties in this country, what specifically would you do to strengthen civil liberties and privacy protections in office? What will you do to address and redress issues of torture, rendition, and Guantanamo?

Should I also go on?

Did the DailyKos take over

by markljackson on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 3:21pm

Did the DailyKos take over FP?

You sound "bitter", maybe time for Church and some huntin' later on.

And really who cares about the affiliations of the liberal party's candidates? What could those possible tell us about them? Character, morals, values, ethics, and honesty; only we bitter God-squad, gun-toting clingy types care about that.

Let me sum up the candidates position on the issues you and Andrew Sullivan (is he the best you can do for a quote?) want to know about:

1. Health Care: Government run, and forced enrollment. This means more government control, and more Union votes (as the jobs will all be Union controlled).

2. Iraq - run as fast as possible for the exits. Does not matter what kind of chaos this causes, moveon.org has spoken and we must obey.

3 Environment - more government control, higher taxes on anything or anyone the left does not like; this of course creates more Union jobs and more money for Dems in elections.

4 Torture - all investigations are torture, even those done by police. If we don't give terrorists a 4-star hotel and meals, we are abusing them.

5 Education - more government control, more spending, more Union jobs, more money for Dems for elections etc...

As with all things "Democrat" it's always: higher taxes, more government control which means more spending, more Bureaucrats (aka Union members) to regulate those "bitter" minions who just don't get the superiority of FP/libs/DailyKos/Dem Party et al, and a 'head in the sand' mentality on all things Foreign. Just what is it that you don't get about this 75 plus year formula?

The policies of the current two "contenders" are only different from their predecessors in size and scope; bigger and wider. They of course will fail none-the-less.

~ Mark
http://markljackson.net

Social Security

by Sam on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 4:20pm

The break down of the social security system as the age histogram will move its density toward older ages and there would simply be not enough young tax payers for old social security users who themselves have paid taxes for previous old when they were (and still are) young.
This is for sure the most important problem that has no magical solution and will be a big problem in 20 year!

The others would be:
1- what would you do about the food shortage crisis, yes the time for revolution of hungry people will soon come back to many parts of the world

2- Energy shortage, please don't tell me about bio-fuel and such crap, nothing in the foreseeable future can replace oil

3- The population growth in the world and the increase of human life span, which would really be an issue, it its already not.

4- The future of internet! security, sovereignty and virtual immigrations, and if you don't know what I am talking about I can not explain it more

5- Internationally Connected financial systems...

shall I say more?! In fact non of the candidates have said anything about these things, I honestly wonder if even have an stance on them or even understand what they are, but one thing is for sure and that is Television Showmen know much more about cosmetics than any of the above issues

let stefi put on that dukakis tank helmet

by kingofithaki on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 4:28pm

my goodness, how petty are these questions...and are we now going to start asking mc cain about the last S&L crisis when he was one of the Keating Klowns...and is hillary going to have to rehash whitewater...or even uglier questions about vince foster...urgh...to be a politician is to have many unsavory buddies...no one spends millions of dollars to get a job paying so little because they care so much about america...it's about the spoils...what goodies they can pass onto their comrades...oh well, where is that crossword puzzle I had sitting around...