As we watch the campaign season move into high dudgeon, scrutiny of every word each candidate utters and their up-downs during the debates has become feverish.
But does it follow that being a good debater means someone will make a good president? I am not convinced it does. It may tell you something about their character but what does it say about how a person will respond to the multi-faceted challenges of the presidency. What do people think?
Please share widely!
…is tell us how well they play the “gotcha” game that has replaced journalism in this country. How well they sense, parry, and respond to the traps asked by talking heads.
<
p>
This isn’t an invaluable skill, but hardly the most important part of being president. An hour on candidates’ websites is far more informative than a debate. At this point, all the questions are well anticipated, and it isn’t a debate as much as a series of short speeches.
at the least, it does what most of the rest of the media don’t: gives names exposure.
<
p>
i agree with sabutai that if you want issues substance, maybe better look at web pages. however, people like to get a feel for personalities (or whatever personality they think they can deduce from this format). for many it’s the closest they will come to interviewing a candidate. in short, it makes people feel they have a bit of power. for once, they get to vicariously question next most powerful person in the world. very few people have the opportunity to see the candidates in their own state. not everyone is across the border from IA or NH.
<
p>
too much pop psychology? well, that’s the level the ‘debates’ are presented at, so if the pop fits, wear it!
I was doing some surfing and found that bloggers have performed the due dilligence, regarding selection of “Undecided Nevada Voters”, that CNN failed to attempt.
<
p>
Interesting. Very interesting.
<
p>
[http://thecaucus.blo…]
<
p>
[http://gatewaypundit…]
<
p>
I remember when another questioner asked “Macs or PCs?” during the 2004 Dem “youth” debate, and later said she’d been stampeded into it by a producer.
<
p>
Hey — you have a live mike, a live event. What’s to lose by asking a real question?
When I read the Atlantic Monthly story about the planted ‘Diamonds or Pearls’ question (the young lady actually wanted to ask about Yucca Mountain), she was told to stick to her superficial ‘script’.
<
p>
And I have to ask – in addition to making Sen. Clinton look silly and superficial – what STOPPED her from asking about Yucca? Are tasers the enforcement tool at Democratic debate events? (JOKE!).
<
p>
It’s live – she had a real question – so what stopped her?
The only things that the joint campaign appearances laughingly referred to as “debates” are as follows.
<
p>
On the Dem side, whether sHillary can refrain from her annoying cackling. How many times Obama can use “folk”* in an hour. I’m not sure about the rest of them
<
p>
On the Rep side, how many times each of those miscreants can refer to 9/11, when none of them did anything about 9/11. And it is amusing to see how vicious their puppy-dog-like growls can appear.
<
p>
That’s about it.
<
p>
BTW, regarding *, I find “folk” about as annoying as Bush’s HeimatSicherheitAmt (“homeland security department”). “Volk”–sorry, “folk”–sounds very Nazi-like. Whatever happened to “the American people”? Or just “Americans”?
Yes, she did have a live mic at a live debate…
<
p>
The only thing I can think is (1) young and (2) her professor is the one who recommended her to be a questioner.
<
p>
I’m just glad that even though it was after-the-fact, she enlightened all of us to the process being used by CNN.
<
p>
Anyone have thoughts about the former political director of the Ark. State Party being an undecided voter in Nevada?