The main reason the debate was awful
EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images I heartily second Blake (and the rest of the country from what I can tell) in feeling infuriated with the questions in last night’s debate. In particular, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” was a low point in the history of political journalism. But in all ...
EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images
I heartily second Blake (and the rest of the country from what I can tell) in feeling infuriated with the questions in last night's debate. In particular, "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" was a low point in the history of political journalism.
But in all honesty, I have a hard time imagining that the 21st debate of the primary season could possibly have been useful or informative. After more than a year of campaigning, what new information are we possibly going to learn about these people beyond idiotic non-scandals like "bitter," Wright, Tuzla airport, or last night's underwhelming Bill Ayers bombshell?
I heartily second Blake (and the rest of the country from what I can tell) in feeling infuriated with the questions in last night’s debate. In particular, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” was a low point in the history of political journalism.
But in all honesty, I have a hard time imagining that the 21st debate of the primary season could possibly have been useful or informative. After more than a year of campaigning, what new information are we possibly going to learn about these people beyond idiotic non-scandals like “bitter,” Wright, Tuzla airport, or last night’s underwhelming Bill Ayers bombshell?
Andrew Sullivan writes:
No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran … but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I’m all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it’s not illegitimate as such – but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart.”
Amen. But are we really that unsure about Clinton or Obama’s positions on the issues he mentions? I fear that extended discussion of these topics would have descended into the pointing out of minor inconsistencies that characterized last night’s inane capital-gains tax discussion.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t issues that are under-addressed. A question about the relationship between biofuels and food prices or intervention in Darfur might have been nice, for instance. But I really can’t imagine either candidate going out on a limb by making a firm commitment or even saying anything of substance in response. At this point it’s safe to say that Clinton and Obama have made their respective cases. The longer this primary goes on, the more trivial it will become.
Readers, please prove me wrong. What are some substantive, non-gotcha questions that could have spurred some real debate last night?
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy
Lessons for the Next War
Twelve experts weigh in on how to prevent, deter, and—if necessary—fight the next conflict.
It’s High Time to Prepare for Russia’s Collapse
Not planning for the possibility of disintegration betrays a dangerous lack of imagination.
Turkey Is Sending Cold War-Era Cluster Bombs to Ukraine
The artillery-fired cluster munitions could be lethal to Russian troops—and Ukrainian civilians.
Congrats, You’re a Member of Congress. Now Listen Up.
Some brief foreign-policy advice for the newest members of the U.S. legislature.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
