You wanna talk about train wrecks? Well then, let's get real

George Stephanopoulos

(Credit: ABC News)

"I can't remember a debate in which the only memorable moment was the audience's heckling of a moderator."

That's the opening line of Frank Rich's eminently entertaining essay in Sunday's New York Times on the recent Clinton-Obama debate.

Rich obviously missed the ruckus over Sarah Lacy's ill-fated interview of Mark Zuckerberg last month at the South by Southwest conference. That episode was well-chronicled elsewhere. Suffice it to say that Lacy wasn't at her best that evening and a crowd of nerds jumped ugly when their patience ran out. What followed was a week full of phony "bitchmeming" with the usual suspects flapping almost nonstop about the horror, the horror of it all.

Well, the world survived somehow (though really, some of you guys need to get a life). I still think Lacy got a raw deal. What's more, I wonder how many of those tut-tutters from the blog commentariat pushed away from their computers to pay attention when ABC co-anchors, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos turned the recent presidential face-off into an unadulterated idiot-fest?

It was some kind of spectacle. The day after the debate, Obama rightly noted that it took 45 minutes before he and Clinton even began talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. "Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices," he said.

Gibson and Stephanopoulos were so out of touch with what's going on in America that the post-debate reviews skewered their fatuous line of questioning. (Truth be told, I was this close to tossing a slice at the screen in disgust--but no way was I going to waste good pizza because of those clowns.)

Anyway, it's too bad that neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos are geeks. In the aftermath of the Lacy-Zuckerberg encounter, there also was constructive discussion about how best to engage an audience. And that's where Twitter commanded recognition as a real-time tool of two-way communication.

Based on what the respective camps are saying, this is likely going to be it for the Clinton-Obama road show. The next televised debate will be between McCain and whoever gets selected at the summer Democratic convention. The anointed interviewers for that occasion will have an opportunity to include the public as part of a two-way conversation. If Gibson and Stephanopoulos do get another crack at prime time, they can redeem themselves.

At least the technology is available to help if they bother to log on.

[soggy0]

More tech-free grandstanding by Charles Cooper. Spare me your political preaching, Charles, if you could!

I think David Brooks in the New York Times, with his much more positive view of the ABC debate is correct:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/

We'd had over a dozen debates before this one, and we'd heard many of Clinton & Obama's takes on "issues that matters to the American people," which in Charles' case means issues that reflect well on his candidates. It was time to look at some issues that have been in the news recently.

These issues were quite relevant, and I was glad to see them aired. Read the Brooks piece for more perspective...

[marcsj]

You know Charles Cooper, some of us over here in Pennsylvannia were actually very interested in the first 40 minutes of the debate and were quite pleased that these questions got aired. We've already heard both Hillary's and Barak's positions on the so called "important issues" and will get to hear more on these after the conventions. We wanted and needed more information on Barak's anti-American associations and Hillary's exaggerations (or lies). Those first 40 minutes happened to be important windows into who these two clowns really are. While Hillary is up to her old antics, I recently got an inside view from Barak's security detail and the Secret Service and have come to understand how 'scripted' all his speeches are and how hollow this guy really is. Heaven forbid if Obama wins the Whitehouse, just like on the 1972 movie "The Candidate", I can just see Obama escaping into a private room at his victory party, only to turn to his staff or family and ask, "What do we do now?"

[dheckman]

I agree with the first two comments. There have been over 20 debates so far. I think we all know what the candidates will say (their positions are less clear to me). I think many Americans would like to know more about the personal opinions of someone that would be president. These opinions matter to many people in the mainstream that want to elect someone that reflects their opinions and attitudes. I still can't understand the Rev. Wrong positions. They say this must be taken in "context". Well I would like someone to place it in some kind of context other than the hateful comments that I have seen to date. While the questions were asked in the first 40 minutes, I didn't hear an answer that placed them in any kind of context that was new.

[jamesrileyjr]

So hold up a second - you mean you didn't want to know why Obama's going to raise capital gains taxes, when historically lowering them means more government revenue?

I don't know, I think that's a very good question for the American people to ask - especially considering it looks like either A) Obama's really stupid and didn't bother to look up information on the tax and its history or B) (far more likely) Obama's doing this on purpose and knows exactly what he's doing, in which case I'd be afraid for an America under Obama.

Kudos to Gibson and Stephanopoulos for doing their jobs.

Oh by the way, last I checked this was a technology blog on a technology site (or it's supposed to be, at least). If you want to discuss politics, set up shop on a political website or start your own.

[thenet411]

Politics are so last century. Politicians don't have a clue about whats really going on in America. All politicians so is sling mud at one another. Candidates spend millions on their campaigns to get a $400,000 per year job. Obviously, they plan to steal the rest back in the form of slush money from special interests. We need to dump career politicians and get back to regular citizens traveling to Washington with the needs and wants of REAL PEOPLE on their minds. Not their own needs and wants.

[c|net Reader]

I'd love to see that happen. Unfortunately, the cost of campaigning, even with the help of the Internet, is tremendous and the current finance laws make it hard for folks of limited means to compete. I'd hate to move to D.C., even for a few years, and I'd hate the effect such a job would have on my family. Sadly, then, it would be hard for a normal person to get elected and I think it would be hard to get many to make the change.

[pbg3445]

These things are not 'debates', nor are these people 'moderators.' These are just dual interviews, and, as must always be, the media figures are in charge. They accuse, they attack, they force them to talk about what they want. The opponents do not get follow-up questions, they do. As was very obviious, the two sides in the debate are really between the candidates and the 'moderators'--and one side chooses the questions, governs the time and oh, Lord help us no, can never be questioned themselves.
You realize that you equated the 'debates' with a bad interviiew, don't you, Charles?
soggy0 implicitly recognizes these events' true nature. The whole point is the questioning by the 'moderators', not the (nonexistent) back and forth between the candidates. And marcsj criticises Obaa for being 'scripted'--which would certainly come out if the candidates were allowed to actually, you know, debate.
A real debate would give us a real picture pf who these people really are in ways that matter--how they think on their feet, how informed they are on things that can't be prepped, how each of them deal with somebody with opposing views like, say, another head of state. But that would take the control from the hands of the media--and, like a soccer game, where the hell could they put the commerciials?
This is just a particularly egregious example of the bankruptcy of our system's news filter--because the media clowns were so stupid. The old trilithic filter system, if it ever was necessary, is not now.
Have the candidates get up onto the platform, have Vince McMahon announce "LWV Smackdown: Terrorism and National security!" And have some guy in a striped shirt blow the whistle and send them to their corners.
We'd learn more about the candidates, both in policy and in character, than we'd get from this manipulative reality show the networks have been running. Andwe'd also learn just how unnecessary our Paula Abdul/Simon Cowell media bozos are.

[CanadianGeezer]

Mr. Cooper is "On the Money" .... and apparently several million Americans are of a similar opinion .... as stated on the Colbert Nation it is time to put all 'Manufactured Distractions' "ON NOTICE" ... The War, The Economy , The Constitution and the plight of the poor in America and abroad are more worthy topics to address ....

I wouldn't trust Gibson and Stephanopoulos to even do a review of why Intel has slashed prices on its quad-core processors!

[sbwinn]

I've said it before. . . "the presidency" should be divided up into two jobs: The President and The Head of State. Then you pick your candidates with two game shows: Jeopardy (on economics, history, constitutional law, etc) to determine the presidential candidates, and American Idol, or some other "reality" show, where preference can be given to candidates with charm, poise, and oratory skills to pick your Head of State. Then the general Presidential election can focus on matters of leadership and policy rather than the stupid beauty contest we currently have in place.

[inachu]

They will really never debate why is OIL so really priced up there and it has nothing to do with Iraq.
Oil prices tied to Iraq is like telling me the reason the oil is so high because you grandmother cooks too much!
Why not tell the public why the world bank does not allow OUR own oil to be used in USA.
Is it because they forgave 3rd world nation debit and Americans have to pay for that debit relief?
I say get the WORLD BANK and IMF out of the oil business 100% and you will see gas prices go down to $1.50 a gallon. I am so sick of this non emergency news about oil prices and the lack of availibility of it.
IT IS ALL LIES!
AND I AM SICK OF IT!
Do not even try to cry BS to me as I used to work at the world bank and have seen first hand proof.