Cycloptichorn wrote:It didn't benefit him. And I doubt that these debates will benefit him much either.
What about what benefits US politics, as a whole? You say that Obama is in any case a better debater than McCain. So isnt it worth considering to weigh up the potential harm for him, which would then be relatively small, to - you know - the benefit for American politics as a whole? For political culture?
I mean, jeez, do we really have to immediately limit ourselves to considering exclusively whether something is in the tactical benefit of Obama? We want him to win, but shouldnt the potential political cost for his candidacy of something not at least be balanced with its potential benefit for American politics overall? If the risk for him is relatively limited - as I assume you think it is, if you really think McCain is such a lousy debater - then doesnt that actually free us up to consider a broader interest here as well?
I also dont think your actual argument is very persuasive. You write:
Quote:it [..] gives McCain an opportunity to try and trap him in a gaffe. There are questions that when asked during a debate, are logically unsound, but to the untrained mind sound convincing.
Isnt that risk actually a lot
larger when you only have two or three, high-pressure, national network media debates moderated by a gotcha-chasing Russert or the like?
I mean, in this case you would have them squaring off in forum after forum, locally, in an environment that because of the sheer frequency alone will presumably be less high-charged. Forums organised by either the campaigns themselves or local media or some such. Compare that to those max three debates you see now, where the whole spirit is driven hysterically by the network media's need to score a quotable soundbite from this once-only opportunity.
The national debates now are defined by the ratings-chasing media's drive to get a "moment", a Bush Sr looks at his watch or Reagan says "there you go again" moment, that will go into history. If you'd have Obama and McCain debating at a dozen forums through the summer, the chances of some lethal gotcha moment dominating the whole experience would be a lot smaller, I'd think. A wrong impression in debate 7 could be corrected in debate 9. The stakes, I think, would actually be smaller. And at the same time, the audiences would be liable to hear a lot more from the candidates about concrete stuff, policy stuff - and the whole thing wouldnt be half as much focused on the whole freakshow that national pundits get off on so much, and most ordinary people dont give a F about.