Print This Post Print This Post

Feb

27

Post-debate post


Will not be long – I have many more videos and pictures and notes and thoughts for tomorrow.

I’m glad I went – very glad.

But you know what? The moderators do not ask the right questions or ask the right questions in the right way. And we have GOT to demand that they do a better job. We have to and they have to. More on what the better way to figure this out is tomorrow.

For other coverage, keep an eye on Lefty Blogs and BlogNetNews in Ohio.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:27 am February 27th, 2008 in 'Roots News, Barack Obama, Blogging, Campaigning, Debates, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Ohio, Politics, Primary, WH2008 

Comments

13 Responses to “Post-debate post”

  1. 1 Ben on February 27th, 2008 1:46 am

    The job Williams and Russert did was terrible. No doubt.

  2. 2 Carole Cohen on February 27th, 2008 10:22 am

    Hmmmm I thought Russert did a good job of trying to keep on topic; I do agree there were areas missing from questions but am I in the minority thinking this was the first in depth discussion on the issues that WERE discussed? If all the debates had been like this then we’d know more now. I did not like any of the debates when so many candidates were in the race; we need less topics per debate then. But with the exception of questions on economic growth in cities and education and the mortgage crisis, I’m happy with yesterday’s debate. And I really liked Russert’s style. I hate soft pedaling.

  3. 3 Daniel Jack Williamson on February 27th, 2008 11:20 am

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but I felt that Russert and Williams had to be firm in steering the questions because instead of 16 minutes about health care, we’d have had 90 minutes about health care. Bo-ring!

    So, to prevent the candidates from hijacking the debate and rehashing what’s already been rehashed, we had a chance to hear more detail on the candidates’ thoughts about Russia, more exculpatory explanation of Obama’s “bombing of Pakistan,” and the oversight role that Senator Obama COULD play as Europe subcommittee chair on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In other words, some new territory was covered.

    I think Russert and Williams did what they needed to do to reveal something we wouldn’t hear in a stump speech.

  4. 4 John Michael Spinelli on February 27th, 2008 3:50 pm

    On point with concerns over the herd-style questioning that Russert has honed to a fine art, one comment received on one of my OhioNews Bureau posts at ePluribus Media is in line with those above:

    I watched the debate and was more disappointed with Russert and Williams as moderators than anything that the candidates had to say. There were so many important issues they could have hit upon instead of playing the same old sort of “gotcha” type journalism that Russert has perfected. I hope the public will wake up some day and decide we should not let the press be choosing our elected officials for us. The press, with the exception of a few outstanding organizations like McClatchy and Christian Science Monitor, have failed this country by choosing to ignore their role to inform the citizens and act as a check against the abuse of power of the government.

  5. 5 Carole Cohen on February 27th, 2008 8:14 pm

    I agree John, it would have been great to have some issues that affect cities like jobs and foreclosures… that part surprised me. I still say they kept the discussion going and we got more in depth answers than previously; well, from Obama anyway.

  6. 6 Jill Miller Zimon on February 28th, 2008 8:45 am

    Wow, Carole – you surprise me once in a while. I think that’s good though. Makes sure I’m reading when you write. ;)

    Well, I really really did NOT like Russert’s style. But part of what I’m learning in these days after the debate, in talking to others, esp. those who watched it at home is that being in the audience, you really really hear things differently. I’ll be writing more about that in a long review post.

    Thanks very much Carole.

    And I’m still undecided.

  7. 7 Jill Miller Zimon on February 28th, 2008 9:07 am

    Ben – That last comment by me was for you too re: the not liking Russert.

    But what’s really interesting is what you all didn’t get to see – this total Abbott and Costello thing that Brian Williams and Russert did before the show began. It’s like Jekyll and Hyde for Russert – very, very odd transformation. That’s not to say that many news people aren’t like that – I think I’m a bit like that – different when I’m doing my journalism thing than even when I’m blogging or in person.

    But with Russert, the transformation was really creepy, to be honest.

  8. 8 Jill Miller Zimon on February 28th, 2008 9:13 am

    Daniel – nice to see you. :) I hope you are doing well.

    I’m going to push back here a bit – I agree about new territory and that the moderators needed to keep us from listening to 90 mins of the same five sentences.

    HOWEVER, please think about this and why some of us feel that the moderators are culpable for the very situation they then had to control:

    they set the whole thing up. They KNOW the news. They KNOW what’s in the blogs and the rumor mills and on the ground.

    They knew EXACTLY what they were doing – it’s like revving up dogs at a dog fight or prepping the bulls for the bullfight. Come on.

    And so – if they wanted to have a different kind of debate, they could have – around any issue.

    So – they are not faultless at all, imo.

    What do you think about that view?

  9. 9 Jill Miller Zimon on February 28th, 2008 9:16 am

    John – that is a comment that perfectly captures how many people feel – although not everyone, right Carole? :)

  10. 10 Carole Cohen on February 28th, 2008 11:19 am

    Jill from browsing the web, I think more of the posters seem to agree with you. And I do hear you; if we agreed all the time it would be boring no? lol. I didn’t realize until I watched the debate that I really dislike the soft approach of past moderators. I agree totally that the news media shapes what we hear and that sucks. But that isn’t going to change no matter if it’s a seemingly soft approach to questioning or badgering Nat’l Enquirer style or hard balling (which is what I saw happen at our debate). I suppose if I was a staunch Clinton supporter I might have been pissed on a different level. I was surprised that Brian Williams didn’t participate more. But I guess it’s all those years on the East Coast, I just liked Russert’s style. It said to me ‘don’t give us any BS, don’t try to get off topic, this is the question now answer it.’ One thing you and I agree on totally is the lack of additonal questions.

    But the tone got set somewhat by Clinton who did the silly attack on Obama’s literature. She went after character so that had to be part of the questioning I guess. I still really believe it was the best debate of the year. So yeah, I guess we differ!

  11. 11 Carole Cohen on February 28th, 2008 11:20 am

    And you still have five days to decide lol

  12. 12 Daniel Jack Williamson on February 28th, 2008 12:59 pm

    OK, now I have a better idea of what you mean. You feel that Russert and Williams tried to make the debate as confrontational between the two candidates as they possibly could. Yes?

  13. 13 Carole Cohen on February 28th, 2008 9:35 pm

    I had to add this link; I admit I’m not sure where it comes from for sure but it’s a very thoughtful podcast about what was missing in the Cleveland debate.
    Phillip Morris is (I think) the person whose thoughts are on it. http://www.audio-newsstand.com/pod/eca3addf-89f2-4168-b33f-6729a064de37.mp3

Leave a Reply




"));