OTHER PLANS

I watched the recast of the Iowa Democratic debate on C-Span last evening. It struck me as having one thing in common with almost every other campaign debate I've seen in recent years: A preponderance of really stupid questions.

Some substantial ground got covered, but George Stephanopoulis seemed to be on a strange track. First he wanted Hillary and Obama to discuss the things they'd said about each other. Hoping in vain for some fireworks, I guess. Then, it must have been really entertaining for the rest of the field to be invited spend their face time reviewing the frontrunners, for example. I guess it was an opportunity to bash them, but mostly pointed up who was pretty much out of the running and who was completely out of it. Between the kind of tortured line of questioning and the fact that "disciplined" is the highest praise you can heap on a campaign, I doubt if we're going to learn much. Candidates must not stray from safe, thought out rhetoric because the press is always waiting for a sign of weakness which will signal the start of a feeding frenzy. This wouldn't be so bad if it was weakness in the unfortunate candidate's position or even background, but in fact, it's really just rhetorical weakness that gets the pundits worked up. So it's important to stay buttoned up at all times.

It's usually not quite as bad in the general election season as it is during the primaries, but even so, I wish those debates were still run by the League of Women Voters. They could run some impartial and sensible debates.