Like a large number of Americans, I watched last night's vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden with great interest. And, like most Americans, I was interested in the debate for reasons other than finding out about each ticket's policy views. I wanted to see Palin and Biden screw up. Big time.
Unfortunately (heh), both did fine. Palin spoke in complete sentences that more or less made sense, even if they didn't answer any of Gwen Ifill's questions; Biden didn't ramble on or say that FDR was the president during the stock market crash of 1929. But I don't know if you can attribute this debate's gaffelessness on the poise of the candidates alone. The format of the debate was so restrictive, it didn't give either of them time to go off on screwy tangents.
Wouldn't it have been better if both could just sit in a couple of chairs and speak freely? You know, like on a talk show?
I've never understood why presidential debates aren't conducted this way. Think about it: no time limits, no restrictions as to who can talk. Just two candidates talking issues and responding in a fashion that isn't designed to elicit talking points or sound bites. It would make the candidates look more human and relatable to the American public.
However, over the years, the various presidential campaigns have been afraid that their candidates will hang themselves if given an open forum like this. So in even the more casual-looking town-hall-style debates, there has been time limits and very little in the way of cross-talk between the debaters. Viewers come away just as ill-informed on the candidates and the issues as they were going in, craving a debate where the candidates just talk like people, not quote machines. That's where a talk-show-style debate would help.
There is a precedent to this kind of debate: for years, Meet The Press has been conducting debates between Senate or House candidates in crucial states. The debates were always informative, because Tim Russert always asked his usual pointed questions to each candidate, tried his best to not let any candidate filibuster, and made sure both candidates were heard and could respond to the other. Even the debates during the primaries were in a much looser format, mainly because the sheer number of candidates left little time for one-at-a-time speechifying.
So who would moderate such a debate? Of course, Russert is no longer with us, and a format like this would need a similarly strong moderator (although one of the best of these sort of debates, the 1993 Al Gore / Ross Perot debate on NAFTA, was conducted by Larry King, of all people). Bob mentioned a number of good candidates in his list of his dream debate moderators; if you take the talk show format into account, I'd add folks like Brian Williams, Chuck Todd, Campbell Brown, Matt Lauer, and the entire panel of The View. Hey, don't laugh; they may be annoying, but they asked John McCain more pointed questions in a recent appearance than Jim Lehrer did during the entire first debate.
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
The TV Squad Podcast: The Prisoner, '80s TV, soap news and more
Let's talk about spoilers ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
10-03-2008 @ 12:29PM
amazo said...
they can just go on talk shows if they wanted to do a talk show format? debates have to be moderated or people will ramble on continuously. you give them more credit than they deserve.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 12:50PM
Dan said...
Palin was an embarrassment to the American people. Anyone who says different wasn't paying attention to the "debate". Biden actually talked about policy and issues, Palin avoided every question to recite her memorized talking points. When Palin stated a "fact" it was always a blatant lie and generally a cover-up of her ticket's own failings. When she claimed the Obama raised taxes, it was false, and by the same method she used to make that claim, McCain did it 9x more often! She didn't answer her questions on anything relating to her moronic religiously based beliefs.
Are people really this stupid? Is this country actually dumb enough to vote for a man who supported Bush 90% of the time? We're in a financial crisis and we're actually thinking about electing another war-mongering Republican (I would support a Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel style Republican)? Do you know that since 1918 there have been 7 recessions and all have been under Republican presidents?
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 1:07PM
Joel Keller said...
Dan, any comment on what I actually wrote about, or are you just content to give us non sequitur political screeds?
10-03-2008 @ 1:34PM
Dan said...
Really? You think I was being monotonous? This IS the only thread on the debate, so it should be a forum to discuss the debate and not just your lame opinion that a debate shouldn't be a debate at all. I thought TV Squad was going to actually be doing reviews and not just stupid articles that have nothing to do with anything. If anything was a non-sequitir, it would be your article, not my comment. And if anything was a screed, wouldn't it be your blog that had 6 paragraphs on one lame idea that we should scrap debates and turn them into interviews?
10-03-2008 @ 1:44PM
Joel Keller said...
That's more like it!
Seriously, I'm not in the mood to police an out-of-control flame war about the candidates' platforms and ideologies. You can talk about how they performed in the debate, which is applicable to this post. You can mention Gwen Ifill's performance, as well. But I don't want the thread to start going down the road of a pure political argument (and the second paragraph of your comment, Dan, looked like it was going that way).
10-03-2008 @ 3:10PM
rick cokely said...
lol Joel. You can't open a can of worms an not expect them to crawl out. It's what, 32 days before the election and you post a topic about the debate (which was watched by 42 million people from the numbers I saw) and then try and limit the discussion to a rhetorical question. If you're not in the mood to police a hot political topic, then don't post anything to do with politics.
10-03-2008 @ 6:01PM
Jussup said...
So Dan... have you figured out who you are going to be voting for? It appears that you have a pretty open mind, so I was just slightly curious if you were leaning one way or another...
10-03-2008 @ 7:27PM
Dan said...
Except that I am a registered Republican (supported Paul in the primaries because the Democrats I actually like, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, all had no chance) and that I have NEVER voted for a Democrat in my life as a voter. I generally will vote Libertarian, though I am not sure if I can support Barr after he's completely changed from being a right-wing Republican to a Libertarian. That's not to say that I don't think the Democrats are far superior to the current crop of Republicans. Comparing Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin is like comparing a BMW 760 to a Chrysler 300. Those who have no understanding of the BMW assume that the American car is better because it is more familiar to them, but those who've driven the BMW know that there is no comparison. Those who actually understand politics and study the actual policy opinions and not just the sound bytes of the candidates would realize that a vote for a Republican since 2000 is a red flag of stupidity. You don't have to vote for Obama, but a vote for McCain-Palin is unpatriotic because you're voting against your country's best interests. Facts trump opinions, and the facts are that McCain supported Bush on 90% of his decisions, and considering that Bush is now officially the worst president in US history, that doesn't bode well for a McCain administration. Palin's lack of anything even remotely close to intellect just makes it scary. But if you want to have another 4 years like the last 4, go right ahead. If you hate Obama, look at Barr, or the other 3rd party candidates...except maybe Ralph Nader.
10-04-2008 @ 2:56PM
LC said...
"When Palin stated a "fact" it was always a blatant lie and generally a cover-up of her ticket's own failings."
Instead of looking at the debate as a partisan and ignoring their own candidates "facts, how about acknowledging that both candidates played with the truth a little.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
10-03-2008 @ 12:50PM
MacGuffin said...
I'd like to see these debates be more like a boxing match.
This would channel our inner pugilist where we could see these candidates actually debate each other, rather than spew talking points.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 1:00PM
0megapart!cle said...
I definitely agree they should move toward a much looser style.
As far as the debate itself, Palin did fine, and didn't make any major mistakes if you didn't think too long about her answers. (This was to be expected, if you watched any of the youtube clips of her performance in debates during her governor's run). But Biden was just fantastic. He attacked her and John McCain in nearly every situation where he saw a chance, but without appearing to condescend or unfairly attack the woman. He was unbelievably knowledgeable, and confident, in a way that makes even Barack Obama appear flatfooted. (I have to say, there were a couple minutes during the debate where I half-wished the ticket was reversed, especially thinking back to Obama's rather uninspiring performance last week).
So yea, she was fine, but Biden absolutely wiped the floor with her. And Ifill was fantastic as well, and completely answered any accusations towards her objectivity.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 1:43PM
const said...
Dan, you seem a bit unhinged and a bit unstable. Are you okay? All will be well when the Obamessiah is elected. The stock market will rise, jobs will be plentiful, everyone will own homes...Oh wait, that's how we got into this latest mess. Nevermind.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 1:49PM
Elf said...
No, a debate should not be like a talk show. The point of a debate is for a candidate to present his/her position in contrast to the position of his/her opponent(s). The idea of having the candidates address each other directly is strange to me, because the participants should be addressing the voters and the viewing public. Having the two candidates speak freely sounds liek a good idea in theory, but in the spirit of fairness there must still be a moderator and a clock. Oratory styles have changed drastically since the days of Lincoln and Douglass, and neither of them would recognize what went on last night in St. Louis as anything resembling a debate.
One of the unfortuante drawbacks of the Presidential and VP debates of late is that because they are indended for very large audiences they tend to be very high-level discussions. Whereas the senatorial debates mentioned in the writeup tended to be far more detailed and specific. The moderators for the national debates have been rather weak when it comes to pressing candidates for their particular views, and it certainly is fair game to ask them to defend statements they've made. For instance, it would not be unfair had Ifyll last night asked Gov. Palin if she relaly believed her gay friend chose to be gay or was born that way. Similar quesitons could have been asked of Sen. Biden. (Ignore the clear mental errors such as Palin referring to Gen. McKiernan as McClellan or Biden putting FDRin the White House in 1929. Everyone makes mistakes like that and you can not expect a candidate to never make a single mistaken statement.)
Making the debates less formal would not serve to make the process any more informative or insightful than they are now. Instead they must be made more formal, more exacting and more detailed. These people are vying for the most important jobs in the world and merely meeting lowered expectations should not be a criteria for determining who won. The bar should instead be set so high that only the most spectacular of candidates could hope of reaching it.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 7:15PM
J said...
“nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet.”
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:12PM
reason said...
While I think that Palin's performance was pathetic and Biden's was too tame, I don't think either of them are to blame for the disappointment in the debate.
I will blame instead the DNC and the GOP for their unwillingness to let their representatives speak outside of their 3 or 4 hardline messages, which are ultimately meaningless anyway. I will blame the moderators, who despite having ample opportunity to ask questions that dig into what is said during the debate decide that it's more important to stick to the scripted questions that they prepared before hand. When Palin said that all countries with nuclear technology (it's "nuclear", not "nucular" damn it!) should not be trusted because they are dangerous, someone should have asked her how America fits into that statement.
These debates should be our best chance to find out about our candidates, their policies, and their personalities. When everything is so strictly structured and there is no allowance for improvisation, all we get are the Party Lines. Regardless of what anyone is saying about who won or lost last night, no one who watched it learned anything new about either of them. All the debates accomplish at this point is to further muddy the waters of information.
Having a talk show format might be interesting, but I'm not sure it would really change the way the candidates approach it. What is needed is for real, hard-hitting news people to moderate, and for regular American citizens to ask the questions that really matter to them. Someone should be asking Palin about the evolution (science) vs. creationism (not science) education in schools. Someone should be asking Biden to explain how the government can cut taxes when there's already not enough money for vital programs.
If a talk show format would accomplish this, then I'm all for it. Maybe Charlie Rose is available.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:16PM
segsig said...
Debates don't have to be like talk shows to get back to a true debate format. Lehrer wasn't horrible as a moderator, but Ifill was atrocious! Maybe she got spooked that they would call her biased, but she had no control. As the moderator she should have requested that the candidates answer the questions that were asked. The time spent just reading notecards that had nothing to do with the topic should have to be paid for commercial time.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:16PM
scott said...
I just think Gwen was restricted in the format which both parties did agree to. She couldn't really get in any follow up questions, which was a shame.
Biden was fantastic, he shone. I'm glad Palin managed to step over the bar that had been lowered and lowered and lowered for her over the past couple weeks, but she was in no way presidential at all.
Once she said this:
"And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people", it was over. She didn't answer any question she didn't want to, didn't play by the rules, and just proved that she's simply not competent enough right now to hold the second highest office in the land.
The word "Maverick" was used so often I was waiting to hear from Iceman.
The talk show idea is decent... I'd say Charlie Rose and his set might be an ideal place for that.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:21PM
nick said...
Joel, you should look into the history of the Commission on Presidential Debates to help understand why the debates are done they way they are. The format is carefully constructed by the Democrats and Republicans to provide a format to explain their views to a large number of people IN THE GUISE of an actual debate about the validity of those views. They restrict thrid parties and alternative points of view (including moderators abilities to call them out on glaring inconsistencies in their policies) to prevent meaningful political discussion and keep the major two parties in control.
Sorry, if it sounds ranty. This is about as mild I can get on this subject...
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:22PM
khia213 said...
This is why I miss the Phil Donahue show. Back in the day, Phil would have guests on and he would just sit and talk with them. He was warm and fuzzy but he was all about getting a straight answer to his questions. He wasn't afraid of his guests and amazingly, the guests weren't afraid of him. In his way, he was like Tim Russert. He listened to the guest and even if he disagreed, at the end of the show there was civility and respect.
In today's political climate, where it's all about managing the politician's image, that kind of free flowing chat isn't going to happen. Everyone has a list of what they will and won't talk about. It's sad.
A big part of the problem last night was that the terms of the debate were negotiated by the political teams. That's why there were no follow up questions and no challenge on the facts by the moderator.
Reply
10-03-2008 @ 2:39PM
WATCH US EXPLODE said...
Mildly entertaining political theatre. I had my hand in my bag of popcorn the entire time, laughing at how false the entire thing felt. These "debates" are pointless. Biden completely ignored Palin and went right after McCain. Palin looked like she was just reciting facts and figures she'd crammed in previous nights. She read right off her notes more than a few times.
It was all just silly and pretentious, hence my laughter.
Reply