Until about three weeks ago, most Americans had never seen Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in a room together. That’s what made the prospect of their debates so exciting: After months of posturing, spinning, and sniping from afar, the two rivals would finally go toe-to-toe, stepping into the ring without a protective shield of advisers.
What actually happened when the candidates met, of course, was more posturing, spinning, and sniping, which is more or less how it goes every election year. Even in their best moments—and there are always a few—presidential debates end up telling us very little about the things we really need to know about our leaders. A president needs to make painful decisions under pressure, negotiate with those who disagree with him, find creative ways through seemingly intractable problems, and delegate with ruthless efficiency. Instead what we learn is how good the candidates are at redeploying their political talking points, or in some cases inventing new ones on the fly.
Comments
Never, have Chris Mathews, Candy Crowley, or David Letterman as Moderator.
The public discourse is dumbed down way too much already. Although the sentiment behind the suggestion is understandable, sometimes the world, and our country, deserve the benefit of substantive conversations and problem solving that everybody may not be able to understand. The problem, obviously, is that those people who really don't understand still get to vote. That's why we get the government we get.
What a dumb & inaccurate article: Candy Crowley drew immense flak for agreeing with and supporting Obama's LIE. Gov Mitt Romney had it RIGHT. OBAMA claimed the day after the Benghazi attack that he had called the attack a terrorist attack - then Obama, turned to Crowley and asked for her support. Obama asked Crowley, "Isn't that right Candy?"
Both Obama & Crowley were WRONG: Obama called the Benghazi murders of 4 Americans a "bump in the road" and for more than 7 DAYS he claimed the deaths were due to a protest over a YOUTUBE video.