Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DEBATE WRAP-UP, II.
The Democratic Party has had some issues, to put it mildy, this year when it comes to keeping control over its own voting schedule. Last night's debate in Philadelphia showed that it's having some trouble keeping control over its debates as well. It actually does a disservice to Democratic voters when a moderator like Tim Russert becomes a debate participant and makes a show of only pressing one candidate severely. Part of the point of these debates is to show how the various candidates respond to pressure, and to learn about their thoughts on various issues. If only one candidate is being pressed about differences with other candidates, it is unfair to the voters who are also trying to evaluate the rest of the pack. For example, it would have been interesting and illuminating to have heard from John Edwards and Barack Obama on the Peru trade deal, given how hot a topic trade is in Iowa, and how they clearly disagree with each other on this issue -- and also since Hillary Clinton is still on the fence about the deal. But Peru didn't even come up, because the course of the debate questioning, at least in the first hour, was dictated by and echoed the course of various candidate attacks on Clinton over Social Security and Iran, and then a G.O.P. one on Obama, rather than by questions that would illuminate policy differences between any of the other candidates. After that, the questions were an odd-mix of open-ended softballs to the non-frontrunning candidates and attempts to press Clinton over things other members of the New York delegation support.
Additionally, it's unfair to some of the less well-financed candidates like Joe Biden when they get so little air time, especially at a moment when there's less of a polling gap between Biden -- or Bill Richardson -- and Edwards in the lead-off state than there is between Hillary Clinton and Edwards there. Edwards led Richardson by 8 percentage points in the most recent American Research Group poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers (and Biden by 10) while Clinton led Edwards by 17 percentage points.
Overall, where early debates showcased the Democratic candidates in such a way that the entire field seemed strong, this was a debate that cast a negative light on them all. Clinton looked brittle, Obama looked unready for prime-time, and Edwards looked so impressively pugnacious that it was ultimately unattractive. And then the whole thing ended with a focus on Dennis Kucinich's claim to have seen a U.F.O. Only Biden came out of the debate looking better than when he went into it.
Here's the "Dodd Talk Clock" showing how much airtime each of the candidates got:
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (6)
"Edwards looked so impressively pugnacious that it was ultimately unattractive."
Huh???
Posted by: Clark | October 31, 2007 11:43 AM
I like the fact that within the span of 5 minutes, Obama was asked if he believed in life on other planets and what his Halloween costume would be. I swear, Ryan Seacrest could moderate a more serious debate.
Posted by: Steve | October 31, 2007 11:54 AM
I would agree with you that Tim Russert should go. But it was entirely appropriate that Clinton got most of the attacks; that's the price one pays for being the front-runner. And why is she on the fence about the Peru deal? It's not like it's news to her; rather, she always hangs out on the fence as long as possible when there's a conflict between what the party base wants and what her wealthy backers want, and she gives the impression that she's still weighing the politics before she reveals what she "believes".
As for Edwards looking pugnacious: good for him, we need someone who believes in something and will fight for it, and will say so before it's been focus-grouped to death. It's the fact that he's a fighter that gives him a chance. Obama, I fear, is much too passive to come from behind.
Posted by: Joe Buck | October 31, 2007 5:13 PM
It's worth asking why these debates need moderators at all. Lincoln and Douglas managed without one, why can't these candidates do likewise?
Granted, there are more than two candidates needing to be heard in this race. And in any case attention spans and the rhetorical arts have both eroded to the point that speaker's turns of between 30 and 90 minutes each are almost unimaginable today.
But a 90 minute debate could easily accomodate 12 minutes of air time for each of the seven candidates, divided into some agreed-upon number of rounds--say 4 rounds of 3 minutes each, with the call-on order in each round determined by lot.
That would leave 6 minutes for procedural business (introduction, calls for the next speaker, sign-off). The latter could be carried out by some neutral party whose time is paid for in equal measure by all the campaigns, and who has strict instuctions not to editorialize.
Who would then set the agenda, and pose the questions? The candidates themselves would. We would gain, at a minimum, equal time for all the candidates and an end to biased agenda-setting by unelected media figures like the execrable Russert. We might also get better-quality, more revealing debate in the process. And ask yourself this: would anything, anything at all be lost?
Posted by: Amileoj | October 31, 2007 5:51 PM
Realistically in the Democratic contest there will be AT MOST one serious opponent for Senator Clinton. With Edwards fading in the polls and having to accept federal matching funds, it's Obama or Clinton. A vote for Edwards or Richardson or Biden or Kucinich or Dodd is really a vote for Hillary. She is thrilled to keep the opposition divided. Obama would win the general election in a landslide. Clinton would probably squeak through, but would unite the Republicans and kill Democrats down ticket.
Posted by: Andrew March | October 31, 2007 7:08 PM
""Edwards looked so impressively pugnacious that it was ultimately unattractive."
Huh???"
No, I agree with this. It wasn't what he said so much (although I could have done without "neocon") but that he got this snide, snarky look on his face in this debate. In the past, he could get critical while nevertheless coming across as reasonable and even congenial. I thought this was a stregnth. I guess in this debate he came out to attack and it did show up on his face. It was distracting from what he said. A lot of people, who might even agree with him, will stop right there. He needs to fix that.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 11:17 AM