Comments on: Who Lost – Obama? Clinton?

By: too many steves

too many steves — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:43:20 +0000

Exactly right. A debate is not a policy speech, it is an argument for a specific point of view and/or action. That would be valuable to the task of selecting our next president.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:08:41 +0000

Well, no, but it takes at least a half hour to lay out an actual policy for dealing with Iraq. “Get the troops out in 18 months” and “leave the troops in for 100 years” don’t actually give us any sense about how those things are going to work. I’d like to hear a Democrat discuss how you safely move the troops out, marshalling evidence of what we can expect to happen as they come out and how we should think about it. I’d similarly like to hear a Republican actually lay out some arguments about the relationship between continued troop presence and the political improvements necessary to turn Iraq into a functioning state. Obviously I think the Democrat’s job is easier because it’s possible to do it, but I am more than willing to listen to a Republican make his case in an intellectually honest, in-depth fashion. Anything we can do to make both sides more serious and concrete would be a step forward in my opinion.

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:49:00 +0000

Why don’t we make them travel by train and make whistle stops too? Or sit on their porches and wait for delegations to arrive? Those were good in their time but their time has passed.

The current debate style is on the whole good in my opinion. It tells us more about the candidates real beliefs and personalities than the speeches you propose.

Especially in the case of two candidates with no really policy differences, how they handle multiple questions on multiple topics is far more useful than 1/2 hour on Iraq, for instance. Does it take 1/2 hour to explain your views on Iraq? Doubtful.

By: Crawlinkingsnake

Crawlinkingsnake — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:30:22 +0000

Where would they fit in the commercials? Maybe they could do 7-10-7, recapping on the way in and out of the breaks. Anyway, that kind of debate would be much more informative but it has no chance with the msm. Our only hope is with the new media.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:29:13 +0000

I don’t watch the debates, they are not worth my time and serve no useful purpose. Provocative Innovation and Television News are oxymoronic. I would support almost any change to these torturous, staged events. Peter recounted, in another thread, Jay Leno’s joke about this race being more like American Idol than not, which reminds me of the old phrase “The Truth is often first spoken in jest.”.

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:33:57 +0000

“But nobody would watch it”. That’s the excuse they would give. Really though, if you tuned in half-way through, would you really watch the rest? With a debate that is 20 questions or so, at least you can hang out ’til the next question.

Still, I would at least read the transcript.

And would it kill the media to actually refrain from talking about the debate until they’ve actually had time to digest what was said or actually fact check what everyone said? God forbid.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:31:33 +0000

Wouldn’t that be great, but I’m thinking “if wishes were horses…”.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:35:16 +0000

I don’t know if anyone would watch it, but I would thoroughly love that. Even if we shorten the format and go 10-20-10 or 15-30-15, it would still be great. Then you could do two or three topics in two hours. It would be really horrible for major news networks, though. Soundbites would be very hard to come by.