Fodder for the masses

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.

  1. Well, all of the debates have had substantive issues in them. What I don’t like is the idea that Russert approaches candidates as if they’re guilty. And what excuse is there for cutting somebody off when they’ve barely even started to answer the question? I know this is his schtick, and it makes for good television, but it prevents real discussion because it puts a candidate immediately on the defensive.
    One last point, who knows if the majority of the voters have actually seen any of the recent trivialities. My guess is that they haven’t so they’re being shown this stuff for the first time and having the candidates respond to it. That’s not giving a 360 degree view of the situation, so it ultimately creates a superficial assurance that they now know all there is to know about this stuff. Personally, I think that’s a bad thing.
    Also, let me ask you, what was the point of brining up Farrakhan? How was that any sort of controversy?

  2. I disagree. While I do think the moderators pressed far too many trivial points in search of gotcha moments, I don’t even think the supposedly substantive portions of the debate were really all that substantive. The health care debate consisted of Clinton saying experts liked her health care plan more, then Obama claimed the opposite. The debate about mandates and punishments for health care is substantive, but it is one that I’ve seen before plenty of times this cycle.
    After 20, these debates are just trivial moments and rehashed pseudo-substance. That may be what society likes, but that doesn’t mean its best for us.

  3. “what was the point of brining up Farrakhan? How was that any sort of controversy?”
    Justin — Farrakhan is not even remotely acceptable to the VAST majority of America, and although I don’t know that it’s a controversy at this moment in time, I think it’s potentially a huge problem for Obama in the general election.
    In fact, many of the questions asked last night appeared (to me) to be geared toward a much broader audience than the Democrats. It may be “their” primary, but it really is the only ballgame in town right now…. and one of those two candidates will almost certainly be onstage against McCain soon.
    I saw the Farrakhan question as being targeted toward that later election campaign.

  4. Honestly, I don’t think any of this stuff is going to stick to Obama, and for Russert to press the point with the “gutter religion” comment was suspect. Why inject that phrase into the conversation when we all know Obama clearly would never accept support from Farrakhan nor anything Farrakhan has said on Judiasm?
    Frankly, Russert’s comments feel like an argument looking for an audience, instead of giving voice to a genuine concern from voters. And that distinction is important because it turns it into a media-created meme. So to that point, why didn’t Russert bring up whether or not Obama will pledge he is not a hidden Muslim? And don’t tell me the two things are unrelated, because they’re both being pushed with nothing more behind them than innuendo from the far right crowd.
    Again, at the end of the day, I think this stuff will only help Obama because it’ll push independents and moderate Republicans away from the GOP in disgust at the use of these obviously dishonest tactics. And after 8 years of Bush and company, I honestly don’t think McCain can convince them he’s different if he has a bunch of hacks behind him spreading this garbage. To be clear, I’m not saying McCain would support any of this in the least, but if he can’t control the smears coming from his base, it could seriously doom his campaign before it even starts.

Read Next

Sliding Sidebar