Another debate tonight. A lot of folks who tuned in the vice-presidential match-up were disappointed that neither candidate set some new high watermark for saying stupid things. It was supposed to be Gaffe-a-palooza and while it yielded enough silliness to keep Tina Fey in business, it wasn't like Lloyd Bentsen knocking Dan Quayle into the laughingstock category from which he never quite returned. (Then again, he did get elected…)
I suppose a lot of people are tuning in tonight to see if John McCain is going to explode and start cursing and screaming. They'll probably be disappointed, too…as will anyone expecting to hear the issues debated. Lynn Sweet explains what seem to me like very silly rules for the match-up…rules that seem calculated to minimize the chance of either candidate having to defend anything they say. (Although Ben Smith says that contrary to Sweet's report and others, moderator Tom Brokaw may be asking follow-ups.)
To me, "town hall" format debates are a sham. They're a way to make sure that tepid, pre-screened questions are posed by people who seem like they're representative of the population. But the population wants candidates to answer hard questions and for those answers to stand up to a little cross-examination and questioning…and the "town hall" construction doesn't lend itself to that. In fact, tonight, the questioners are forbidden to say things like, "But you didn't answer my question" or "But isn't that a total contradiction of what you said six months ago?"
Grown men and women who want to lead us should be able to stand or sit on a stage for 90 minutes and discuss the issues and defend their position without "rules" that limit how long they can talk, whether they can address one another directly, etc. Sarah Palin is a pretty good example of why follow-ups are needed. She sounds relatively informed and coherent until someone asks one.
I may or may not be live-blogging tonight, depending on how a script is going. Big week for deadlines around here.