HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Debating the DebatesJohn Dickerson chats with readers about how to fix the presidential forums.

Posted Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 5:16 PM ET

Chief political correspondent John Dickerson was online at Washingtpost.com on Thursday, May 17, to discuss and take ideas about how to improve on the format of the shallow and mostly boring debates the 2008 presidential races have produced thus far. An unedited transcript of his chat follows.

John Dickerson: Greetings everyone. I'm looking forward to the chat about the debates, how to fix them, or politics in general.

RSS

_______________________

Minneapolis: I'm really excited for the 2012 debates, which should be starting in January or so. How about you? Seriously, what's the point of having a debate some eight months before any votes are cast?

John Dickerson: I take your point. Politics is like Christmas sometimes—it starts earlier every year. But I'm a fan of debates. I think if they're done right they can be public discussions about our important issues. Not only can we talk about the issues that matter, but we can think through the qualities we want in a leader by watching debates—and I think that's great. Of course, the debates have to be done right.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Do debates matter at all in the era of the freak show? Won't it all come down to who Chris Matthews thinks is "strange," who "screamed" at a rally, and who you'd rather have a beer with? And won't we be told in 2008 that the Republican candidate—regardless of who it is—is more authentic anyway?

John Dickerson: It's a good point. The freak show can completely overtake the process, but you could argue that if we take the debates seriously—which means holding serious debates—they can break down the freak show by offering an opportunity for everyone to behave like calm and rational adults.

_______________________

Cherry Hill, N.J.: I think the format should be changed. Get rid of the folks asking questions, because they waste half the available time. Each person gets a 30 second opening statement, then we go down the line again and this time each candidate gets one minute to say anything they like, and so on. Candidates can do a better job with their jabs and barbs than the suit from FOX or anyone else. I would reserve five minutes at the end for questions from the audience—this way each candidate can summarize. Finally, I believe the voters are equally endowed with common sense, and represent more fully the TV and print audience. Thank you for your thoughts.

John Dickerson: All of those ideas sound totally reasonable. I'm not ready to chuck the moderators, though. I'm not just saying that because I hope to be one some day—I think the Fox guys this week did a great job making the candidates speak to the questions and not duck. They forced the candidates to be more clear and did a little fact-checking. That's a useful function.

_______________________

Anonymous: Last week's "Saturday Night Live" got it right: you want to get people to watch the debates? You include the fringe candidates, not exclude them. Who wouldn't want to watch Mitt Romney debating with the candidate of the Vampire Party?

John Dickerson: The fringe candidates certainly help. Congressman Paul certainly spiced up this week's Republican debate, and Dennis Kucinich pushed Barack Obama in the first Democratic debate to be more clear about his position on the use of military force.

_______________________

San Francisco: Why aren't candidates asked who they'd appoint to key positions if elected? We're certainly learning a lot about crony capitalism from the current crop—who's on the potential presidents' appointments lists?

John Dickerson: It's a good question. We've learned a lot about candidates from asking them the Supreme Court question.

_______________________

Los Osos, Calif.: Politics lite? How about stopping the money machines and having some hour-long, one-on-one interviews with the real questions being asked?

John Dickerson: When I wrote my story I got a lot of suggestions like this. Make the conversations smaller and also take them off the networks and air them on C-SPAN or PBS.

_______________________

Washington: It seems that each GOP candidate actually answered few questions. With that said, the format allowed a lower-tier candidate, such as Mike Huckabee, to propel himself to the top tier with his Edwards comment. What do you think can be done for the viewers to get more from each candidate?

John Dickerson: I think it's inevitable that there will be little quips like that. I think some number of them are okay—they tend to make things amusing and change the pace if they are offered in moderation. I think the way you keep people from acting like clowns though is by asking serious questions and asking candidates to get very specific. So in that case let Huckabee make his joke, but then say "okay Governor, tell me what specific ways you're going to take on non-Defense discretionary spending."

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: A direct question for Messrs. Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo:

"Medical advances are likely to play a key role in the solution of this nation's health care problems. Almost without exception, scientists and researchers who have brought us the life-enhancing and life-saving miracles of recent decades have used evolutionary biology as one of the central underpinnings and inspirations for their knowledge of how physical life works. Given that you apparently believe these people are misguided, would you prefer to see them abandon such concepts during the course of their work—for the good of the country?"

(And spank them when they dodge, please.)

John Dickerson: It's a great question. Some people might think it's a gotcha question but I like questions like this because it gets candidates to think out loud, and I think the more we can watch our candidates think out loud the better.