How about the moderation protester in the audience, anyone catch that brilliant moment?

Yeah, but I didn't hear what he said. Anyone hear it?

Absolutely the worst I've ever seen. Also terrible? Andrew Sullivan's interpretation of the debate.

Great observation. Yglesias's take-down is superb.

Imagine one of the candidates armed with Yglesias's piece. He/she could turn on Russert, something like: "Time, you're such a fucking asshole, trivializing this process so you can make some news. You dick, why don't you go back to the National Enquirer, where you belong?"

The obscene language would be necessary to make the point.

I would love to see someone pount on Russert. God knows, it'd be easy enough, for a prepared candidate.

But none of them will, will they? Because they're afraid of him.

He alludes to it but doesnt really say it. Just like Oreilly.. Russert's show is entertainment, not news. 'We' treat it differently so we can appear dignified and complex by watching it, keeping up to date on the latest pol's slip of the tongue.

Thats one reason I like blogs like this. I often dont agree with many of the political views here. But at least their stated, defended, maybe even occasionally studied.

There could be interviews of substance, but it takes time. Thats why I think we should lock all the candidates in a room for a few days.. and on webcam watch them respond to real questions from the people. No aids, no speeches. Lets see how these people work under real unscripted, substantive pressure.

I think the candidates should get together and prepare a list of substantive questions for one another. Whenever one of them feels like they've been asked a stupid question by the moderator, they could say, "Why waste the nation's time on such a stupid question? Hillary, how would you address the increase in costs in Medicare? Barack, how would an Obama administration address global warming? John, what are the first steps an Edwards administration would take to address the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Obama, what are the first five Bush policies you would reverse once taking office?"

What dm__ said: there's an unwritten rule that while you always stray from the question, you can't say 'that's a stupid question'.

I don't know exactly what the protester said verbatim but the gist was what we were all yelling at our television "stop asking such stupid fucking questions" at that point he becomes muffled because i assume security is dragging him out...I wonder if it will be in the transcript?

nice

Yes, it was awful. Just awful. Tim Russert should win and award for most inane questions ever.

I thought that all of the candidates did well. Note to moderators-people who sit through these debates are not looking for gotcha questions. Most of us want to hear a serious debate about the issues that matter to us all.

More gravitas, less National Enquirer, please.

Nope, sorry, read the Yglesias piece and it didn't horrify me; in fact it's not as quickly biting as yours is.

He/she could turn on Russert, something like: "Tim, you're such a fucking asshole, trivializing this process so you can make some news. You dick, why don't you go back to the National Enquirer, where you belong?"

Better yet:

Russert asks inane "question." Candidate looks down and sighs with exasperation. Candidate calmly rises from their chair, buttons the top button of their jacket, walks over to Tim, and punches him right in the face. Just once.

Candidate then returns to their seat, unbuttons the jacket, folds their hands, and waits for the next question.

The moderators were horrible, maybe the worst we've seen yet.

We need one of the candidates to call Russert on his beltway navel-gazing. "You know, the only people who care about the horse race and catfight aspects of the race are people like you, Tim. The American people want to know about how we're going to end the war in Iraq, how we're going to fix the economy and provide people with health care, how we're going to fix all the problems that confront this country."

The audience would give that a standing ovation.

Insofar as the inanity helps people to see just how intellectually bankrupt the Beltway Kool Kids are, it's a good thing. But it's a heck of a way to run a democracy...

Can someone help me out? I seem to remember that Russert and Williams rooked Obama out of asking the question he wanted to ask by imposing some goofy "Uh uh uh, you started to ask a different question of Edwards now you have to complete it" rule....goofy

Now, are any of you still so naive as to think that any of the Stalin-Lite Democrats being subjected to the full 28 minute Russert walz wanted to talk about anything that might have been, well, substantive? He feels their pain. He would never put any of them on the spot by asking them to respond to a question that might unmask them as the buffoons they truely are.

nice

very good