Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DEBATE WRAP-UP.
Going over last night's debate in my head one more time, I can't help help but focus on Tim Russert's oddly confrontational and, as I said last night, rather inane moderating style. From his repeated, failed attempts to trip up Hillary with references to her husband's administration, to his harping on John Edwards about his hair and expensive house, to his wrong-headed question about bible verses, to his obvious personal obsession with making Social Security "solvent," I came away from this debate feeling like very little policy was addressed.
The conversation on residual troops in Iraq was important, as was the interlude about Iran. But overall, this was a debate more about style than substance. Hillary proved again that her charisma and delivery shine in the debate format, while Barack Obama can hardly muster 10 percent of the energy for a debate that he puts on display at events such as the SEIU candidates' forum. Edwards won some points for being the most aggressive front-runner toward Clinton on foreign policy, but he didn't deal well with Russert's haranguing about the hair. I wish Edwards had simply replied, "Of course I regret that expensive haircut. I would never have gotten it if I thought it would have distracted people so much from the really important issues we're debating tonight: ending the war in Iraq, providing universal health care, and restoring America's place in the world."
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (9)
Edwards *seriously* needs to have better replies about the haircut. It's obviously a big issue to the media (what's "The Politico" up to, eight stories about it?), so he's either got to be ready to kick it back at the interrogator ("Tim, you've got great hair; can you recommend a cheaper stylist in DC?") or deflect it at a Republican ("I was just following Mitt Romney's recommendation; I might tip a little better, though.").
Posted by: Chris | September 27, 2007 11:11 AM
"I came away from this debate feeling like very little policy was addressed."
Shocking! Shocking!
It's almost like the Beltway Media prefers to focus on trivia! Who could have seen that coming!?!?
Seriously, were you expecting anything different? If so, you might want to go to, say, the Daily Howler and immerse yourself in the archives.
Posted by: JMcG | September 27, 2007 11:47 AM
These "debates" are never about informing the voter; they're always about the moderator(s) trying to capture a "gotcha" moment.
Posted by: frank | September 27, 2007 12:17 PM
Note on formatting: it would have been better if you have kept all these posts together -- rather than run them individually across the whole front page.
That's how "live blogging" usually works.
Posted by: leo | September 27, 2007 12:39 PM
This was Edwards' best hair response to date -- he used it as an opportunity to tell his story and deepen the Edwards narrative that he wants to present to the country.
It's what I wish Kerry had done in 2004 in response to the Swift Boaters -- not merely release factual stuff to show that they were lying, but treat it as an opportunity to boast about his own war heroism in Vietnam. (I didn't like that the convention was all about that, but as far as GOP attacks go, I'm from the lemonade-making school of lemon use.) He told his populist story and told it well.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 27, 2007 12:51 PM
If TAPPED seriously wants serious debates, perhaps they could put aside partisanship-based fears and back my proposal.
Imagine, if you will, Bob Kuttner and Grover Norquist being allowed to grill both John Edwards and Ruuudy about healthcare. Not just ask him, "what's your position on healthcare" as Russert would, but really dig into their proposals trying to point out flaws.
Alternatively, TAPPED could suggest that people go to campaign appearances and ask the questions Russert wouldn't ask, then upload the responses to Youtube.
If TAPPED wants real questions to be asked, get behind either of those two.
Posted by: TLB | September 27, 2007 12:58 PM
Sorry, correct link.
Posted by: TLB | September 27, 2007 12:59 PM
For instance, TAPPED could encourage people to go to campaign appearances and ask these questions.
For Ruuuudy:
youtube.com/watch?v=ElAvo8EM4uk
For Huck:
youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo
If those questions were asked and then the responses were promoted, it could reduce their popularity. Of course, what TAPPED would then fear is that similar questions would be asked of the Dems.
What we have is a bit of a standoff: both parties have tacitly agreed to avoid asking each other real questions.
So, once again, perhaps TAPPED would care to put the country's best interests ahead of partisanship and try to get some real questions asked.
Posted by: TLB | September 27, 2007 2:54 PM
Russert is a sociable, warm presence in person. But one would hope a former speechwriter for erudite pols like Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynihan could move past luxurious haircuts, expensive homes and spousal policy differences. Then again, Mr. Russert, a law school graduate, did not know that taking an attorney to a grand jury appearance is forbidden.
Posted by: Inspector Oh | September 28, 2007 12:32 PM