Reflections on the “Debate”

I listen to the Thom Hartmann show – not every day for sure, so I could be wrong about this. He has tried throughout the course of the campaigns to have all of the candidates on. He says, however, that certain of them refused to come on unless they could control the format. They wanted control over which questions could be asked. He doesn’t do that. He would not say who set these conditions, but Hillary or Obama, so far as I know, have never appeared on his show.

It reminds me of another show I saw during the 2004 campaign. It was called a “Town Hall Debate”, and the premise was that Bush and Kerry would be fielding questions from the audience, rather than the reporters who usually act as buffers. But there were ground rules, which were accepted without question: People had to write out their questions in advance, and the questions the candidates wanted to answer were preselected. People would be allowed to read their questions, but if they deviated from the way the question was written and accepted, the mike would be cut off. The normal journalist-buffer was replaced by censors.

Bush one time (I think he was in New York) decided to accept questions from innocent bystanders. I can imagine his aids scurrying, the phone calls behind the scenes, the raw panic. And sure enough, right away, a woman asked him how many civilians he had killed in Iraq. “Oh, I don’t know – twenty or thirty thousand?” It obviously was not something he thought about much. But more importantly, it was not a question any self-respecting journalist would have asked. That’s why they are chosen to moderate these debates – they protect the candidates from the public.

Democrats have debated twenty times now, and we’ve come to accept the format. There is always some famous journalist moderating. And to become famous in journalism, a reporter has to establish with the politicians that he is dependable, that he won’t ask any hard questions. The big names – Brokaw, Jennings, Russert, WIlliams, Blitzer, Cooper – are all dependable. Dan Rather was once dependable, but got uppity one time and lost his job. They form a club of sorts, a protective shell around the candidates. Sure, they supply a little heat now and then, but we’re used to that – they make a big deal out of little things. They don’t talk about the big stuff.

Last night’s debate was no different. I found very little that Obama and Clinton disagree on – they both accept the woefully inefficient private insurance model for health care. Neither will do anything about NAFTA. (Well, they’ll study it – another way of saying it.) Both offer unqualified support for Israel. Both will keep troops in Iraq, committing only to a drawdown that will likely never happen. Both agreed that Bill Clinton did a good thing when he illegally attacked Kosovo in 1999. Both agree that the Russians are now officially a bad actor, now that they have dissed the U.S. (On a humorous note, Obama was spared having to answer a question about Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin’s likely successor. Clinton fielded that one, and Obama meekly agreed with her comments. Phew!)

Anyway, these candidates do not disagree on anything that I can discern.

So it comes as no surprise that the journalists in the aftermath find themselves analyzing minutia. Was Clinton out of line in complaining about getting the first question? Did Obama land any punches? Was she churlish? Peevish? Why doesn’t his charisma come through like it does when he has an audience all to himself?

And, of course, the questions that are not asked. Who’s paying for your campaign? Senator Clinton, how can you say you’re going to fix our health care system when you take more money from the health care industry than any other candidate? Senator Obama – what’s with you and the Wall Street financial houses? (Campaign finance reform is never discussed – ever.) What are your plans for Social Security? Will either of you attack our inequitable tax system which punishes working people? Scale back the tax cuts for the wealthy? Go after the USA PATRIOT Act? Fight immunity for telecoms? Attack Iran? Privatize Iraq’s oil?

The list goes on, but that’s why the journalists are there – to make sure these questions don’t get asked.

I’d like to see a debate some time where they open up the floor to the audience, uncensored, and no planted questions, please, Hillary. But that will never happen – we saw what happened when Bush so foolishly did it. He got real and hard questions. He was embarrassed. And so too would our candidates be embarrassed as people held their feet to the fire about Iraq, single payer, NAFTA and outsourcing and immigration. That’s why we pay these journalists – not to ask these questions.

PS: Washington Rule #8: You can agree with any concept or notional future option in principle, but fight implementation every step of the way.