I enjoyed the portion where they had the candidates debate each other. Of course, NBC further managed to screw this up even, as, in the middle of Edwards question, they suddenly cut the two questions down to one, and then proceeded to short change Obama out of his prepared question(and/or question for Hillary) when he asked Edwards a follow up within his, Obama’s, answer. I would like to see more debates like this, where the moderator is actually that and less of a talk show host, and where the candidates get to actually debate each other freely, questioning and critiquing each other’s actual policies. Hell, Miller Lite could sponsor it: “Less Pagent - More Debate”
As a big Kucinich supporter, I was thoroughly pissed at the appeal and court’s decision, but thems the breaks I guess.
The fact that Russert passes muster with the terminally uncritical doesn’t mollify me. I judge him by the job he should be doing, and the fact that he’s a little bit better than most of the other mopes out there doesn’t make him good.
Also, as others have pointed out, he generally makes no attempt at serious, critical follow-up. If you’re going to ask tough question, but then let the candidates get away with whatever answer they want to give you, then you’re no better than someone who doesn’t ask the tough questions in the first place.
ETA: The fact that you can point to an example or two of his tough questions doesn’t mean that these example are representative.
What criteria would the OP use, if any, to limit the number of candidates in a particular debate? Who should make the criteria and decide? It can’t be unlimited or else every debate would have 15 candidates…
Thanks, especially to Billdo and mhendo for helping articulate the best points of this situation. I now have to admit that I am rather naive in the way things work politically, and want it to work always to best process. I do think that all candidates should be allowed to speak, and to my mind, it seems too soon to cut off the more marginal candidates, like Kucinich.
I’m not an avid supporter, but would like to hear him speak more. I thought the way a media network could swiftly go to the Supreme Court of Nevada was undue, and questionable.
But, reading this thread, and seeing that Fast is the way things are run, that’s business as usual. I really hope business as usual can change soon. It tends to be crazy nasty, and excluding.
Do you know how many debates Kucinich was allowed to participate in? I’ll make you a deal. If Kucinich said anything new and significant in the 12th debate he didn’t already say in the first 11, I’ll support your position.
It simply means that i have watched Russert enough to have based my opinions on more than a few examples, and that your single hand-picked example is not sufficient to outweigh an opinion that i have formed watching Russert many times over an extended period.
Like a stopped clock (and like you, apparently), even Russert appears to be right a couple of times a day.
You could say exactly the same thing, though, about the leading candidates. If originality if your criterion, you’d better give up on presidential election races.
I’m suddenly reminded of the SNL Presidential debate sketch that featured candidates from all the fringe parties: the Vampire Party, NAMBLA, the Whig Party, the Wig Party… and Dennis Kucinich.
Riiiight. This coming from the guy who says Kucinich’s views are “in line” with many Democrats, and yet virtually no Democrats support Kucinich, as demonstrated by the fact that he’s never broken out of single digits in any non-caucus primary, either in 2004 or 2008.
Send word when your opinions have basis in reality.
I fully concede that Kucinich, taken as a package, is far too radical for most Democrats. I said that Kucinich has opinions on some issues that are well in line with what many Democrats think, and this remains true, even while most Democrats don’t want him for President.
Polls consistently show, for example, that Americans in general, and Democrats in particular, are far more interested in universal health care than the mainstream political debate would ever indicate. Even if people don’t want to vote for Kucinich, when it comes to issues like this, we should be having national conversations that go beyond the bounds of what the leading candidates and the corporate media find congenial to their own interests. If Kucinich can help with that, great. If the media grow some balls and start asking the hard questions themselves, also great.
Originality is not my criterion. Like NBC, my criterion is popularity after all the candidates have had 12 debates of exposure. I was responding to the notion that the reason Kucinich doesn’t get more than 1% is because he hasn’t had sufficient exposure, and the debates will give him that exposure. That is empirically false. None of the previous 12 debates increased his support, name recognition, or allowed his possible supporters to learn more of his positions.
I do so love the view, so often expressed here by the fringe types on both ends, that the *inability * of their candidates and positions to attract widespread support is somehow evidence of their superiority. That’s even better than the related view that the problem is with their not having been communicated well enough, as if the public would certainly agree with that particular brand of ideology if they only *understood * it. Granted, we do get more of that from the self-styled libertarians, but ideologuism and impracticality are not characteristic of any particular view.
Kucinich has had his say. It’s been rejected, and I’d suggest further that he’s already performed his service to the plausible candidates by making them look more centrist (that works on both sides, btw). But now his presence is a distraction. Thanks, Dennis, now go home, but leave some pix of that wife behind for us, willya?
I don’t know whether or not that’s aimed at me, but if it is, you can go fuck yourself.
I’ve not once stated that Kucinich is superior by virtue of his lack of support. Hell, i haven’t even said that i consider him superior for any reason whatsoever. I merely pointed out that, if you examine his actual policies, in many areas he is quite firmly in line with a relatively large segment of American opinion. It’s the case with health care; it’s certainly the case with the war.
That’s just what we need; all the candidates looking even *more *like one another.