-
sponsorship
After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet.
The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.
NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers?
This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.
I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.
-
sponsorship
Another Democratic debate is taking place in Iowa right now, but this one is camera-free. National Public Radio is broadcasting the debate, moderated by Michele Norris, Steve Inskeep, and Robert Siegel.
Politicos expected the debate to be relatively low-key, thanks to the predominantly liberal NPR audience, but the candidates are already making distinctions. NPR was wise to make Iran one of the three debate topics, given yesterday's release of the National Intelligence Estimate.
Clinton's Revolutionary Guard vote sank into the background after the media got caught up with horse-race politics, but the NIE has pushed it into the spotlight once again. As Clinton notes, the vote wasn't about what Iran was doing inside its own borders, but rather how it helped Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist forces in Iraq. But no matter how much justification she gives, the candidates can always use a variation of John Edwards' counter: "Among the Democratic candidates there's only one who voted for the resolution; and that's exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."
Earlier, Clinton said critique of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment has gone "too far."
Listen to the debate here.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?