Kiplinger.com Multimedia
Subscribe
Starting Out Investing Your Money Spending Wisley Your Retirement
Kiplinger.com Channels
Tools
Columns
E-mail Alerts
The Kiplinger Letter
Online Forum
Basics
Site Map
Kiplinger Store
Customer Service
Corporate Sales
About Kiplinger
Give A Gift

ABOUT THIS ENTRY
This page contains a single entry by Mark Willen published on April 17, 2008 12:53 PM.

An Ill Wind for Hillary? was the previous entry.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

About this blog

Subscribe to this blog's feed

EMAIL
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US

DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN
Disappointing Democratic Debate in Philly

Comments (1) |

philly debate.jpgLast night's debate left a bad taste in my mouth and probably in the mouths of a lot of other viewers. Was that event really the best we can do in the way of a presidential-level dialogue?

 

We did learn something from last night's debate, including:

 

--Barack Obama still doesn't have a good explanation for what he meant when he said that voters cling to religion and guns because they're bitter. His answer yesterday was weak and unconvincing. In fact, his whole performance was unsteady -- nervous, unsure,  defensive and lacking the stature we expect of a real leader. In some ways, the debate was unfair. The first 45 minutes was a pile-on, with the two moderators and Hillary Clinton throwing everything they could think of at Obama, but he should have been ready for that. And he didn't do a whole lot better when they finally got around to policy questions.

 

--Clinton was smoother, but she didn't do anything to appease voters who think she's too negative, too dishonest and too willing to do whatever it takes to get elected. And she must be kicking herself for agreeing that if Obama's the nominee, he can beat John McCain in Nov. That undercuts her main argument with superdelegates.

 

--The moderators, ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, were also a disappointment. They came loaded for bear against Obama, hitting him on everything from the Rev. Wright to flag lapels, but they asked Clinton only one question about the Bosnia sniper fire fracas, with no followup. And their policy questions lacked the specificity and follow through that would have made for a more interesting debate.

 

If either Obama or Clinton chided the moderators for focusing on the small and almost trivial and missing the large national policy questions that deserve discussion and answers, I bet the crowd would have applauded.

 

I wouldn't give anybody a high score on this one, and though Obama looked the loser (and McCain the winner), I doubt it changed many minds. There's growing evidence, as Nicholas Kristof pointed out today that voters look to the debates for validation of what they already believe. That could be because they're not really debates at all. Last night's was the 21st, if you were counting, and maybe the last. That may not be a bad thing.

 

0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Disappointing Democratic Debate in Philly.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.kiplinger.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/112

1 Comments

WorldWeary said:

George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson ought to be 'out on the street' after the hatchet job they put on Obama last night! One would have thought Stephanopolous was still on Bill Clinton's payroll and Gibson could not have been more vitriolic in his questioning of Obama.
One wonders what Clinton was thinking in trying to tar Obama with his past associations. Ahem, might we mention John Wu, her big contributor who was convicted of fraud in his fundraising. And then there's Whitewater and Mark Rich and big Saudi contributions to the Clinton foundation and, oh well, I'm sure the Republicans have a nice list all made out.
People who live in Glass Houses might want to pause before throwing stones.
Your point about the lack of any substantive discussion is the salient one; it's about time journalists stop trying to create controversy over what are at most "side issues" and make an effort to force candidates to explicate their policies and plans in concrete and comprehensible terms.

Leave a comment


RECENT BLOG ENTRIES

MORE POLITICAL COVERAGE FROM KIPLINGER