Thoughts on a Debate

Diana Butler Bass writes a God's Politics post today on last night's debate and compares it to what happened Sunday evening. She notes that both sides felt that the ABC moderators focused primarily on gossip and innuendo and not much on substance. It's possible that the debates have become meaningless, as on most issues Barack and Hillary aren't that far apart. The differences lie in temperament, style, and focus. So, perhaps that explains why we end up with tabloid style debates.

Diana compares what happened last night to the Compassion Forum. That event did have much more substance than this, though I've heard complaints from the Right that it was a Left Wing event. Last time I knew the SBC and the NAE weren't left wing, but what do I know?

She asks:
If American religious leaders—evangelical, mainline, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, and Muslim—could gather respectfully and ask probing, important questions, why can't ABC News? It may well be time for some soul-searching over at their network. I suggest they ask themselves a question: “What Would Peter Jennings Do?”


I agree!

Comments

That "debate" was horrible. The American people were not well served. But, at the least, Clinton can no longer say, nor can any of her surrogates, that voters and superdelegates should choose her because Obama cannot beat McCain.
Robert Cornwall said…
Michael,

Good to see you back. We've missed you during your blogging sabbatical!

As for electibility -- that "endorsement" from Hillary is important. Yes he can!

Popular Posts