It really was a very fine debate

I’ve watched debates for far too many years, over which time they’ve became more and more vapid, almost like campaign appearances.

I think this one was superior for four reasons:

  1. The quality of the questions
  2. The moderator’s success at keeping the candidates on track and on time
  3. The substantive nature of the debate itself
  4. The pace. It never slowed down. That alone made it compelling.

Most of all though, this debate was a success for the first reason. And that must be credited to Crowley; she chose the questions. Every single one was relevant, direct and well stated, and the balance of subject matter was meticulous.

The Benghazi ‘terror/act of terror’ kerfuffle aside (and that of course is taking up a lot of oxygen), this was a good debate and the moderator deserves a lot of credit for that. 

(Or did it just seem that way to me because my popcorn was especially tasty? )

9 responses to “It really was a very fine debate

  1. I agree, Moe. I was not at all happy that Candy Crowley was chosen — I find her CNN stories biased in favor of the GOP. Or I did when I bothered to watch CNN. Last night she kept a firm hand on the reins, chose good questions and held them to the task.

    Like

  2. Me too, Moe, including your opinion about the quality of the questions. I hadn’t known before yesterday how the “uncommitted voters” were chosen and was pleasantly surprised to find that they were sifted by the Gallup people from their polls without the prior knowledge of the subjects that they were even being considered for such a role. I don’t know if this has any precedents but I find it clever and productive, and the quality of the questions from which Crowley picked was likely higher because of that pre-screening. I hope this methodology can be preserved for future elections.

    Like

  3. Mitt Romney’s recent bounce in the polls has clearly energized conservatives, but it’s unlikely to break apart Obama’s re-emerging coalition. The coalition that Obama assembled in 2008–and is relying on again for re-election–includes minorities (not only blacks and Hispanics but also Asians and those of other races), professionals, the highly educated, singles, women (especially in the preceding two categories), seculars, and members of the Millennial generation. (It also includes a chunk of the white working class, albeit a distinct minority.) Prior to the first debate, Obama was matching or coming very close to his 2008 levels of support among all of these groups, and so far it seems that Obama is keeping most of that support.

    Like

    • @ silver account,

      Please add to your list of the Obama coalition aging ex-military professionals who have come, hopefully not too late, to appreciate the potential capability of paternalistic government which, with appropriate democratic support and the idealism of the founders, has the potential to redirect the resources of the world’s richest nation to complete a society which embodies the core ideals of the world’s great religions, albeit free of priestly authority.

      Like

  4. Where is that Candy Crowley on Sundays? She did great!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s