Does Douthat really want a "personality debate?" If it was fair (a big "if") how does he think the people on his side of the aisle will fair?

The "media" doesn't operate in a vacuum. The reason they have an appetite for scandal, is because their viewers have an appetite for scandal.

Past elections have shown this. What lost the election to Kerry... the idea he was a flip flopper, or that he "bought" his purple heart... scandalous!

And what about Gore... the idea that he exaggerated the value of his exploits, or that he was a brainy elitist... scandalous!

The media just reflects the desires of the viewers. It's the American people who have lost their souls and intellects, not just the media.

Four points: First, this was the 21st or so debate between these candidates. Did we really need them going round and round again on mandates? I think they've done the wonkery debates to death. So the idea that this should have been a policy debate yet again strikes me as unpersuasive.

Second, I think your proposals for other "soft" questions are perfectly reasonable ones, Ezra.

Third, I side with Sam Donaldson on the error of the Obama-fans critiques of this debate: when you focus on the questions, you basically admit Obama didn't handle them well, if unintentionally. Either he was saying good and impressive things or he wasn't--I wasn't watching to evaluate George S. or Charles G., were you?

Fourth, as one who vastly prefers Obama to Clinton, I do think he was dishonest in claiming that the Weatherman guy was "a neighbor"--his ties, as his campaign has earlier said, are stronger than that. Do I regard it as dispositive? No, but it certainly puts him much more in the realm of "normal politician who lies" than he had hitherto been. That was revealing.

"When people come to my house for party and I want learn a bit about them, I don't dig up some dirt and then confront the guest with accusations of past infidelity."

This is where the metaphor falls. Clinton and Obama are not party guests toward whom politeness would be top priority; they are job applicants. Recruiters do indeed attempt to gauge an applicant's behavior under stress.

What is this, like the 21st post on the 21st debate? It's over. Obama didn't do THAT badly. Can we move on now?

JimG: The media just reflects the desires of the viewers

NO!

The media does reflect those desires, but it also shapes them.

That shaping effect is partly feedback of audience desires (reinforcing those desires), but it is also a reflection of the habits, prejudices, desires, and interests of the individual journalists and the specific cultural, political, and corporate entities that surround each of them.

To say that journalists are only mirroring audience desires is both to give them too much credit for knowledge of their audience and to fail to hold them ethically responsible for their actions.

Let's take matt's point a little further. If Charlie Gibson had devoted forty-five minutes of a nationally televised debate grilling John McCain on his past association with Keating or his current one with lobbyists or on personal matters, such as his infidelity or the rat-bastard way he left his first wife or the rumor he called his present wife a "trollop" or a "c*$%", would Ross Douthat or David Brooks cheer and award ABC a grade of "A?"

I think it's pretty clear what was objectionable in the the ABC debate: Obama and Clinton were subjected to tabloid-y, gratuitous questions no one -- and I mean, no one -- would dare ask John McCain. The double standard prevails. Ezra, you would do your readers a great service if you would force Ross and his ilk to consider whether questions of a personal nature should be applied to McCain as well -- I suspect that many female voters would appreciate knowing more about the ways John McCain has handled his intimate relationships as a metric of his "character."

In other words, dude, you may like and respect Ross Douthat, but you need to get in his face about the double standard.

Recruiters do indeed attempt to gauge an applicant's behavior under stress.

Ok, but an interviewer could use personality and stress evaluation as justification to ask: "Some people say you look like an embezzler and your best friend has been fired 3 times. Why are you such an asshole?"

Wouldn't shareholders and management be right, and even obligated, to criticize the interviewing style?

Jim G-

Clearly there is A market for this sort of coverage. A niche of people with many similarities to the people reading this blog, probably. People who like to follow the horserace closely and feel like insiders. That's harmless, so far as it goes. Entertainment for people who have already made up their minds. And it's enough people to reliably drive ratings for cable networks and half-hour network shows.

But I think there's an argument to be made that there is a large "silent majority" out there who are turning on the tv in hopes of seeing some actual news. They either assume that what they're watching must be it, or get disgusted when they see it's not, and wander away. (Or write letters to ABC...)

I think it's very wrong to draw the conclusion that the typical horserace/gotcha fare is actually what the public at large wants, or, in the case of ABC, that it's in any way the best use of public airwaves.

Bill-

I think it's bizarre to say that wonky debates have been 'done'. Even if the ABC debate had been just a rehash of mandate questions or whatever, thousands of new people were tuning in who could have benefited. And of course it's absurd to think that even a fraction of all the wonky avenues have been explored.

I think the American People are as fallable as the rest of us poor colonials, no more or less, and as easily suckered by vapid sound bites.

The USA, through a combination of luck and a truly innovative culture, became the Rome of the modern era, but it doesn't follow that everyone in America evolved into some kind of Homo Superior in the last 100-odd years. As with most dominant societies in history, the vast majority of citizens are not exceptionally intellectually curious.

For a reasonably long time, the combination of idealism and a system that used to work quite well allowed the truly exceptional to rise to the top, be admired and shape the society. That era seems to have come to an end, although some of the excellent institutions and currents it established will continue to have positive effects despite the rise of movement conservatism (which to me represents the nasty side of human nature that the USA so successfully suppressed for a time, to its benefit).

I do think that one of the USA's original strengths, its strident individualism, is now transforming into a weakness. The altruistic, socialist side of human nature often fails in poor societies because it requires a degree of sophistication to be ubiquitous in order to avoid dragging the whole society down to the lowest common denominator.

In some European states I feel this homogenized sophistication has been achieved, allowing welfare states with 35-hour working weeks to flourish, in defiance of decades old predictions of imminent failure by Chicago-school economists.

While in the USA the individualist, libertarian streak has, IMHO, become destructive, contantly working against efforts to get people to think of the greater good as much as they think of their own welfare.

I'm a white guy living in South Africa and I frequently find myself colliding with unrepentant white South Africans who see only ruination in black government (especially since the ANC's current crop of leaders are a sorry lot after Mandela's inspired leadership). I'm always struck in local debates by the selfishness, the me-and-mine undertone of South African discussions where race is an issue.

What is also notable to me, however, is how there seem to be three distinct streams of thought: Whites and blacks who think of themselves as South Africans first and foremost, Black nationalists, and white nationalists. Those of us in the first group are mutally dismayed by the latter two groups.

It seems to me that the USA is in a similar position, with a sizeable proportion of the electorate viewing politics through a slightly more diverse variety of single issue lenses and even willing to reconstruct history to suit what are essentially just justifications for their own selfish ethnic/economic/gender-informed motives.

An advocacy-oriented fourth estate in some countries acts as the altruistic conscience-pricker and informed comment. But it strikes me that the USA's mainstream media has abdicated its role as conscience, advocate and illuminator of alternative perspectives and instead tries to speak to each individual with the same self-centered voice as their inner dialogue. An inevitable consequence of consolidated, purely profit driven media.

And that, I think, is why personality debates and discussions in the US media will fail. The media will not try to elevate itself above the selfish perspective of indivudal interest groups and go to universal issues of character. Instead, it will try to emulate each and every selfish and ill-informed perspective it perceives in its target audience.

Forgive any spelling or grammar errors, as I am fairly deep in my cups and trying to help a nephew out with a computer problem on the phone.

"Ok, but an interviewer could use personality and stress evaluation as justification to ask: 'Some people say you look like an embezzler and your best friend has been fired 3 times. Why are you such an asshole?'

Wouldn't shareholders and management be right, and even obligated, to criticize the interviewing style?"

Straw arguments. Obviously, no one is going to ask questions like that in an interview, nor, more importantly, did they any like that in the ABC debate.

Jack,

I have no sympathy with the idea that debates should continually rehash material because some people haven't tuned in.

It's also true that one can go to the websites of the candidates to find out their policies, whereas one can not go to Barry's website to find out the sorts of things that were asked of him, nor to Hillary's to find out about her "misremembering."

Furthermore, a Presidential candidate's engaging in fine-grained policy debates is not a goal of mine; some can do it (Clinton could) others can't (Reagan comes to mind). Such ability does not indicate much about their relative ability to enact the broad policy goals they have in mind, much less the kind of judgment they will exercise when faced with the enormous complexity of their job. So I'm just not much for the president-as-wonk model.

It is no rejoinder to say, as you might be tempted, that Clinton was a better president than Reagan. In some ways yes, in some ways no. But nothing about Clinton's success or the lack thereof turned on his wonkery; if I like GOP Policies I will prefer Reagan, and if I like Dem policies, I will prefer Clinton. The wonkery doesn't make much difference. Much less so as between Clinton and Obama, where their policy differences as against each other are rather minimal compared to any legislation likely to reach their desks.

Finally, I would note that McCain was grilled on his Pastor Hagee connection by the same George Stephenopolous this very weekend. I have yet to see TPM, or Ezra, or MY, complain about it. As a Catholic, I'm glad he was grilled on it, and glad he admitted (more or less) that he had made a mistake in seeking Hagee's endorsement. That association is far less than what Obama has been indignant about having to explain, and about which he has dissembled again and again.

Indie, how would you characterize the question to Obama asking him to compare his love for America to that felt by Rev. Wright? It doesn't necessarily use the word "asshole" but it's a pretty useless and aggressive question.

Either he was saying good and impressive things or he wasn't--I wasn't watching to evaluate George S. or Charles G., were you?

The old sporting cliché comes to mind: if you notice the officials, they're having a bad game.

There's already a kind of 'soft' debate environment, albeit not a head-to-head one, in venues like The View.

I don't see why that couldn't be used, with smart and unintimidated moderation, for a meet-the-candidates session where, in essence, you get a time penalty for 'talking campaign'.

The 'recruiter' analogy, though, is misleading and sorta kinda bullshit. Last time I checked, the jobs with those kinds of interviews aren't awarded according to popular vote.

Now, you can argue that 'perform under stress and let the public decide' has become the preferred method of national selection after the model of reality TV, but even American Idol portrays itself as a singing contest.

"I think it's pretty clear what was objectionable in the the ABC debate: Obama and Clinton were subjected to tabloid-y, gratuitous questions no one -- and I mean, no one -- would dare ask John McCain."

Egg-freaking-zactly. David Brooks managed to simultaneously defend ABC's performance and decry similar "tough" questioning of McCain on the NewsHour on the Friday following the debate.

And props to Farren for an excellent comment.

"The 'recruiter' analogy, though, is misleading and sorta kinda bullshit."

I'd be willing to say it's a limited analogy, with voters standing in for hiring managers, but it certainly has more validity than Ezra's original "party guest" metaphor.

"Indie, how would you characterize the question to Obama asking him to compare his love for America to that felt by Rev. Wright?"

As a trick question.

Get ready for the stream of Hillary supporters to start trolling, because they aren't interested in illuminating anything. They are only interested in making Barack Obama look bad.

But is forcing Obama to defend vague associations with an English teacher who was once a radical leftie, or demanding that Clinton answer how she misremembered a decades-old trip to Kosovo, really giving us insight into the personalities of the candidates?

OK, with the caveat that I am in the tank for Obama, I think Clinton "misremembering" the Kosovo trip really does give us insight into her personality. It tells us she's willing lie, to create a story out of whole cloth, so that it aligns with her campaign narrative. After the past 8 years, do we really want to hang our hat on someone who has such a casual relationship with the truth?

Now, whether that should have been the topic for a debate to the exclusion of others is another issue.

Heh, maybe I should have read Bill JimG's comments. They are apparently already here.

Soullite,

Yes, it would be a good idea to read before posting. You might even want to read carefully, since you would then see that I am no supporter of Hillary. Indeed, I wonder which of my critical comments about Obama you would disagree with. Do you think he has been forthcoming in describing and explaining his associations? (Quite apart from whether you think those associations are relevant; for me it's a clue that something is relevant that a person chooses to dissemble about it.)

I still vastly prefer Obama to Clinton; apparently for you it would follow from that that I would simply salute the "consensus" that Obama did well last week and the moderators did badly.

It does not follow.

To check Pitney's work, as Ezra suggests, is much more difficult than it should be because Pitney didn't say how he classified each question; he just gave totals. That said, his results match my impressions, so I see no particular reason to doubt them.

(His claim that the Saturday Night Live sketch was "famously" a parody of the February debate on CNN seems highly doubtful to me, since the claim he makes is not famous enough that I've heard anyone else make it. I did read this NYT article seems to imply that the sketch was a parody of how the news media was treating Clinton and Obama, rather than a parody of any specific debate.)

Now: I understand the argument made that the questions about the Weathermen and inflammatory pastors are important because they reveal the character of the person in office. What's more, I accept that these things are important to people.

But I've spent enough time in newspaper and television newsrooms to know this: The story you put above the fold, or at the beginning of your newscast, is the most important story of the day. And even if it's not the most important story of the day, it becomes the most important story because you're telling your audience it is.

So: By filling the first third of the debate with questions about lapel pins and Jeremiah Wright, ABC News was not merely acknowledging that these issues are important to some voters. They were effectively saying that flag lapel pins are the most important issues to focus on -- more than dealing with terrorism, civil liberties, the economy, health care or a host of other issues that will actually affect people's lives. And that's why ABC deserves every bit of criticism that it's getting.

"Get ready for the stream of Hillary supporters to start trolling..."

Hence, Soullite is officially dubbed, "Trolllite." It's simply time.

I wasn't watching to evaluate George S. or Charles G., were you?

No, I wasn't, and that's why I'm upset with ABC. If ABC had promoted the show with lines like, "Can Stephanopolis and Gibson moderate a presidential debate? Tune in tonight at 8 PM to find out," I wouldn't be complaining. But ABC specificly promoted the show as being about the candidates rather than the moderators. Having done that, they had an obligation to find moderators who were sufficiently competent that the failings of the moderators wouldn't overshadow the contest between the candidates.

What did Hillary mean that we should extend our nuclear umbrella to some arab countries in the region. Does this mean the Saudis?

I think the debate was a disgrace, and I'm glad we've finally started to make the crap job the press has done into a story of in and of itself.

However...

The Bosnia lie matters to me. It tells me she hasn't learned from her Iraq vote and is still willing to do something stupid to prove how "tough" she is. She's not as dangerous as McCain, but she's far more dangerous than Obama.

This item on HuffPo actually looks at all four debates between HRC and Obama and compares the questions. I found it informative.

Yes, I'm no Huffpo fan but Pitney did a good job. I hope more people will see it.

Sure, there's an argument that the topics during the first 50 minutes of the debate help illuminate the "character" of the candidates. But seriously, the questions asked about those topics were ridiculous. "Who loves America more, you or Rev. Wright?" That's just pure vapidity. And here's another one, "Can you pledge right now that if one of you was elected President the other would be the Vice President?" That's a non-question. If ABC wants the candidates to talk about topics like Ayers, Tuzla, Wright, and flag lapel pins, then fine. But at least come up with some questions that are reasonable.
And by the way, yes, health care mandates have been talked about to death, but I would've like to have heard the candidates views on topics that haven't seemed to make it into some of the other debates, like education and trade. But left up to the ABC idiots, Obama or Clinton would've gotten a question on education like "John McCain has said that his High School teacher was most influential in his life. So, who loves teachers more, you or John McCain?"

"Let some smart folks sit in a room and come up with questions that will allow the candidates to go off-message in illuminating, rather than confrontational, ways."

Yeah, but you keep wanting them to be able to present themselves in the best light, whereas the "gotcha" crowd is trying to figure out "what's this lying sack of shit going to do when X evil cabal gets them in a backroom and works them over?"

Yeah, it's cynical but voters are cynical. Voters have good reason to be cynical, and so the "gotcha" beat goes on.

Maybe you just don't like the "gotcha" topics, and maybe we ought to devise some new, more relevant ones with regard to policies and other things that matter.

You make it sound as if Bill Ayers (and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn) had nothing more than a youthful flirtation with leftie politics.

In fact, they were participants in a terrorist group, a group that set bombs and engaged in other illegal acts. Both are unrepentant about that, and of course Ayers himself penned an op-ed piece in which he said he wish he'd planted more bombs -- one that appeared on September 11, 2001.

I do agree that Obama's associations with Ayers and Dohrn are vague, and if he had said that his response would be perfectly adequate. Instead, he went with a mush-mouthed defense of the guy, and an analogy to Tom Coburn, who, so far as I know, never bombed any abortion clinics.

I suspect that if John McCain consorted with far-right terrorists -- however vaguely -- you and every other leftie blogger would have a lot to say about it.

I felt that the questions were important and gave us insight into Obama and Clinton by their answers. Also, I don't think a guest in your home is a fair comparison. Asking a guest in my home about their past indiscretions, lies or associations with questionable people is very different than asking those same questions to a person I will vote into the highest office of this country. I do think those are important questions we should be asking now as opposed to later. Maybe if more of those questions were asked of Bill Clinton when he was running for President, we might have gotten more insight into his womanizing.

I suspect that if John McCain consorted with far-right terrorists -- however vaguely -- you and every other leftie blogger would have a lot to say about it.

But would ABC News, or any other major media outlet, give a rip?

So, cheerful iconoclast, do you think that perhaps Bush should answer some questions about his vague associations with the bin Laden family? After all, the bin Ladens floated his Arbusto mess - and you know what? some of the stream of bin Laden money went to somebody who didn't just dream about blowing up the Pentagon, but did it.

Now you might think this is wacky guilt by association. And yet, there is something weird, you will grant, in the Bushian disinclination to, like, capture Osama bin Laden. I don't know, maybe I'm just confused, but I don't understand how the U.S. could spend four trillion dollars on the great war on terror, and Osama's group could spend, like, 10 million dollars, and OBL seems to be in fine shape. In fact, given the rise of the Taliban, once again, in Afghanistan, Bush will be leaving office about the time Obama is returning to his happy hunting ground in Afghanistan.

Now, you don't think the impulse not to embarrass the Saudi oligarchs in any way influenced this policy, do ya? And you don't think fifty years of solid spending by the Saudis has so influenced D.C. media that, when Bush makes a friendly stop in Riyadh, not a question is raised about the fact, oh, that Saudi Arabia officially encourages the most rancid form of anti-semitism in the world, and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is often the stuff for state tv dramas.

Hey roger, thanks for the question. Are you mistaking me for a Bush partisan?

The cases aren't precisely analogous because Ayers was already a known terrorist when Obama started hanging out with him, whereas the bin Laden's were just a bunch of rich Saudis when Bush's alleged business dealings took place. Moreover, as I understand it, Osama is sort of the black sheep of the family, and I don't know that the folks that Bush dealt with approve of Osama's activities.

That all said, OF COURSE it's fair to ask questions about Bush's relationship with the bin Laden family and his generally chummy relationship with the Saudis. In fact, I find it implausible to think that the failure to capture bin Laden is intentional, given the obvious political benefit of doing so. I think that failure, like many others can be explained by simple incompetence.

But yes, I think that the Saudis are a pernicious influence on both the world in general and American policy in particular. I'd really prefer our President not go around holding hands with the Saudi Ambassador.

While Heads of State are often picked based on nothing more than "how well the candidate connects with voters," I would view that as an unfortunate reality, not, as Ezra Klein would have it, something to be encouraged/exacerbated.

I don't care what book Obama's reading (unless he borrowed Battlefield Earth From Romney). Clinton's feelings are not what's relevent about her conversion from Goldwater Conservative to "Brave New World" Progressive. I'm also not interested in what McCain thinks about his messy divorce.

These kinds of questions might be interesting, but would only serve a purpose if McCain, Obama and Clinton were running for, say, Tila Tequila's mate. Since Obama, Clinton and McCain are running for President, tangents like this are nothing but potentially costly distractions.

For voting purposes, I don't feel I need or want to know anything about a candidate beyond what he or she has done, plans to do, and will be likely to both accomplish and screw up. Anything else is just white noise.

While Heads of State are often picked based on nothing more than "how well the candidate connects with voters," I would view that as an unfortunate reality, not, as Ezra Klein would have it, something to be encouraged/exacerbated.

I don't care what book Obama's reading (unless he borrowed Battlefield Earth From Romney). Clinton's feelings are not what's relevent about her conversion from Goldwater Conservative to "Brave New World" Progressive. I'm also not interested in what McCain thinks about his messy divorce.

These kinds of questions might be interesting, but would only serve a purpose if McCain, Obama and Clinton were running for, say, Tila Tequila's mate. Since Obama, Clinton and McCain are running for President, tangents like this are nothing but potentially costly distractions.

For voting purposes, I don't feel I need or want to know anything about a candidate beyond what he or she has done, plans to do, and will be likely to both accomplish and screw up. Anything else is just white noise.

Actually, by the time Bush was getting that money, Osama was a paramilitary in Pakistan - and you don't have to watch the movie about Charley Wilson to realize that a lot of texans knew about how money was being shuffled to Islamic guerillas to buy arms. In the same way, the Bush family has established a very cozy relationship with Bosch and Carriles Padilla, who between them carried out the blowing up of a Cuban airliner conveying, among other passengers, the girls fencing team from Cuba.

As for the issue of intentionality vs. criminal neglect - the case for intentionality is pretty simple. You say Bush would get a tremendous benefit from capturing Osama bin Laden. I say, George Bush saw his father's poll numbers drop from the nineties to the thirties after the one time benefit enjoyed from winning Gulf War I. Now, what is more beneficial - having a terrorist on tap or capturing a terrorist? Furthermore, if you don't kill this terrorist, if you actually have to put him on trial, he might spill a lot of beans about who has financed his group over the last decade or so - and those names might be Saudi friends.

After all, we know that the Saudis financed the Sunni insurgency in Iraq in 2003-2006. You might ask, why wasn't this covered more in the papers - as every spurt of money from Iran is covered? Why was not a single question asked by the press contingent that followed Bush to Saudi Arabia this winter?

All of which argues that if we hypothesize intentionality, it would not be punished in the newspaper environment. The media, and the governing class in general, would be very gentle on, say, not trying very hard to capture Osama bin Laden. But of course there has to be a tacit quid pro quo. And I, with my little eye, have noticed that though al qaeda has effected operations in Britain, those directed against the U.S. have ceased. Another hypothesis leaps to mind - that Osama might be willing to trade the joys of martyrdom for the chance to stay in the game. And so, on the one side, a U.S. in which there seems to be more anger on the right about, say, the hostages in Teheran than there is about Osama bin Laden's video strewn "hiding out", and, on the other side, you have a pretty qualified cadre of paramilitaries who can assist Islamicist parties, like the Taliban, and expect some favors.

In the U.S., it is always exceptionalism or conspiracy. Always American leaders are exceptionally patriotic (but sometimes so stupid, like Bush) - or they are conspiring behind our back in grainy black n white. The more usual agency of cynical power - the manipulation of threats, the interlocking of interests between oligarchies, the elbow room allowed to the sons of the wealthy to pursue quixotic quests, within limits - seems to me to apply here. Bush's defense department made a good faith effort to pick off second tier and third tier Al qaeda members, without a doubt. And they just were systematically "neglectful" about the inner circle.

In any case, these questions are so much more pertinent than any question about Bill Ayres that it seems to me Ayres is your usual red herring issue, since what is the issue, after all? That Obama is going to promote Weathermen to cabinet posts? Or that he wants to be president in order to declare a soviet? It is all completely silly.