Obama may have won town hall debate, but big loser may be Tom Brokaw

I have just one plea for Bob Schieffer, the next old-school TV anchor preparing to quiz the two candidates for president in the third and final presidential debate Oct. 15.

Please, actually moderate the debate. Please.

Because if there has been any clear loser in these presidential election debates, with a VP clash and two presidential candidate forums behind us, it has clearly been the moderators.

NBC's Tom Brokaw was the most recent eminence to fall prey to these "debates," in which the candidates talked over their time limits, disregarded questions they didn't feel like answering and were handed mushy queries like "Is health care a commodity?" and "Tell me what the Obama Doctrine would be regarding use of force in a genocide." (Um, would the doctrine be something like 'genocide is bad?')

To be fair, Brokaw had a little help. As usual with town hall-type debates in this league, the average-Joe questioners were a bit too intimidated to lean into their questions, which had all the spice of inquiries which had been carefully pre-chewed and reassembled by a staff of NBC News producers.

It's an old argument, I know: That negotiating over formats and the constant spin about media bias has helped defang the modern-day presidential moderator. But if candidates feel free to disregard the stated and unstated rules of the debate -- I mean, when has a candidate started one of these things by actually admitting they won't necessarily answer the questions, as Palin did last week? -- shouldn't moderators feel free to take off the gloves, too?

It didn't much matter what the questions were, anyway -- often they were just a springboard for John McCain and Barack Obama to launch into the answers they had prepared for their own specific goals. For McCain, the goal was to attack Obama while looking as if he is offering real policy alternatives, and for Obama, it was to stand up to Old Man McCain with a cool assurance that made the senior senator look like the impetuous hothead of the two.

Because both men largely succeeded in their efforts, Obama won -- both because he had inexplicably low expectations going into the debate (hasn't this guy been taking public questions during campaign stops for perhaps 18 months now?) and because McCain's increasingly erratic campaign has the 26-year veteran of Congress struggling to stay in the game. Don't believe me: CNN, CBS and MSNBC all polled or consulted groups of undecided voters and concluded Obama won.

   I didn't take much exception to McCain referring to Obama as "that one" or seeming to imply that a black questioner had never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac -- though I think McCain did himself no favors with those references. Instead, I think his increasingly personalized attacks on Obama made him look petty, while his opponent focused on looking presidential and above the fray.

My favorite moment came when Obama insisted on responding to McCain more directly, pushing Brokaw into bending the rules of the evening so they could have -- gasp! -- an actual debate. Circling each other like impatient used car salesmen, Obama and McCain tangled on health care policy and foreign policy in a way that felt less like two successive stump speeches; too bad that moment came more than halfway through the 90-minute debate.

I'm hoping Schieffer wil take a cue from that moment, and take every opportunity to remind each man when his time for speechifying is over, and push them to actually answer questions they are asked. It is possible to have a debate -- even under the mushy rules okayed by the presidential debate commission -- if the moderator takes his title a bit more seriously.

*

Comments

[David]

Let's face it -- regardless of who wins, we have two of the worst candidates possible running for the job of PRESIDENT.

Yes, one of them is probably past his prime, and is probably too closely aligned with the current administration.

And the other is someone who the MSM finds very little fault with, but has some serious skeletons in his closet. Nice to see that the Washington Post isn't like the rest of the Obama cheerleaders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902328.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

Neither of these candidates will be good for the country. McCain's age and choice of VP will be a distraction, and Obama's "Yes, I am a corrupt politician from a corrupt city" DNA will be wearing thin on all of us come March of next year.

It would be great if both of these clowns went away -- for good.

[Mark]

I wish the debates would be a direct engagementd to the moderator's questions. It seems to insult the viewers' (mind you, this is a global audience...)to see the candidates dance around the questions and issues to hammer their stump points. Palin going unchallenged upon her declaration to ignore the moderator's questions is mind boggling. Entertainment and advertising revenues are spinning the roots of our democratic process out of control for now -- so it seems.

[NewsKnight]

Brokaw a loser? You bet... he's only back in the high chair because Tim Russert went toes up and NBC's talent pool is a mile wide but an inch deep.

[RagsTTIger]

Tom Brokaw really got steamrollered. The candidates were allowed to go well over their time allotments, also demanding additional retort time.

In general, the same old lines, except for McCain's mortgage takeover comment. The end result was a tie and a snoozer.

[Bob H]

Why are newsreaders chosen as the moderators in the first place? Other than looking and sounding the part, what are their qualifications? Why not have a political science professor or a substantive journalist from the print media, like Thomas Friedman or George Will. Maybe then some real questions could be asked, and if the moderator had a backbone, the candidates wouldn't be allowed to revert to their stump speeches.

[DoctorDoom]

who won - who lost, whatever.

The issue here is the moderators. They suck, all of them. Either push the 2 parties into back and forth discussion or give the Gewn Ifill answer from (?)2004 to Checny when he said he could answer that question but it is going to take more than 30 secs. Her answer, "well, that's all you've got."

The questions were ridiculously dumb and sounded like the mdoerator of a sunday news show picked them, Oh he did, that's right. I'll bet there were more interesting questions out there but Brokaw thought them beneath the debate.

The questions that came close to be interesting - Would you attack into Pakistan as we did in Cambodia (illegally)? Would you defend Israel? What don't you know . . .

Crappy debate questions selected and I think that may have helped Obama because all he needed was a tie - which is what I think the debate ended up.

[Eric Deggans]

Wow. Then MCain really has no excuse, since he had the questions in advance!

Does this mean Brokaw is a space alien? Or he just hangs out with them enough that they had time to steal his debate questions?

[jpm]

It certainly didn't help that McCain used psychic aliens to get the questions ahead of time.

Uh huh yeah that's right: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/mccain-uses-aliens-to-get-town-hall-questions/

[Dave]

There's something increasingly disturbing about Republicans. Everything is a liberal conspiracy to them, and they seem unable to communicate in a logic, sane way to others.

[Helene]

I agree---the moderators for these debates have sucked. I don't know whether they've allowed themselves to cowed by charges of "bias" or what, but yes, they need to step up and start pressing these guys to cut the rhetoric and answer the &#@%ing question.

" I saw the debate, kept a score card on who actually answered the questions and who sidestepped.....Obama answered them directly overwhelmingly."

This has impressed me about Obama from the beginning, when I first saw him and McCain spar in that Saddleback Church forum. He sometimes strays into Cliched Democrat Talking Point Land, and his answers are sometimes vague and unsatisfying, but he at least attempts to answer questions directly in the spirit in which they are asked more often than McCain. McCain goes into "stump speech" mode more often.

[Steve]

I think most Americans are sick of our entire congress both house and senate. It's time for term limits on congress. The congress has done far more damage to this country than any president can do.

[mike]

Leatherneck, huh? Is the color of it red? Democrats may be haunted in the election, but it won't matter. Republicans are going down, for better or worse. Deal with it. BTW, I watched some Fox news last night. Their "objective" poll (from text messages of people who watched Fox) was 89% McCain. What a joke!!!!

[Eric Deggans]

Just for the record, Republican pollster Frank Luntz had a group of undecided voters grade the debate for Fox News, and they also felt Obama won the debate.

It's easy to blame the media when a candidate you like is faltering. But as far as evaluating this debate goes, I haven't found a reputable media source who calls it for McCain yet..

[JA]

They all make promises and when they get elected the promises are not kept.

[Fair and Balanced My @$$]

Ok Mike, I'm sure you think Fox News is the most reliable and bipartisan news source out there,especially since you say the three major networks are so one sided and liberal. As for the Republicans "taking care" of our families, I guess you could say that if you mean it in the same way Tony Soprano "takes care" of Johny the Rat. The republicans have driven this country into the ground and destroyed our economy, society, and international credibility. McCain can call himself a Maverick all he wants, but the fact is he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time and he will be more of the same. The United States Chamber of Commerce, a heavily republican group, said McCain's health care plan would lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system, so if you enjoy health care from your job, kiss it goodbye if you vote for McCain.

[leatherneck]

I have never seen the media so much in favor of a presidential candidate. McCain has not gotten a fair shake. This will haunt democrats in November during the election.

[Dave]

Decision08:

I would recommend you check the support for Kerry on October 7, 2004, vs. the support for Obama on October 7, 2008.

It's not even close.

[Sully]

Mike,

You are repeating Repub talking points. Repeb strategist Mike Murphy, said the exact same thing last night about focus groups on MSNBC.

Good job keeping on message!

[republicansforobama]

Hey Mike, I saw the debate, kept a score card on who actually answered the questions and who sidestepped.....Obama answered them directly overwhelmingly.

Although I did not agree with him 100% of the time, I respect a man who actually answers questions, and does not play the typical "politician" and sidesteps the issues just to look good.

Three Republicans in this house who were on the fence, are now on the Obama side.

Sorry, St. Pete times, CNN , CBS did not make my decision, as you may think.
I watched the debate and decided on my own.

[Decision08]

Well, according to the last two presidential elections, each Democratic nominee also had a large lead going into election day. From the previous two elections, no one thought the Republican candidate stood a chance. Democrats will keep yelling,blaming,complaining and implying victory is a foregone conclusion while Republicans will keep going to work, taking care of their own families and their own business and quietly going out to vote. Don't trust everything you read and hear in the media or in e-mails. See you on election day.

[Dave]

Mike, every single reliable poll out there has Obama FAR in the lead over McCain.

This is REALITY. You need to understand that. Most Americans are sick to death of Republicans and their inability to grasp it.

[Mike]

Interesting how you think Obama won. Oh that's right, you are in the tank for Obama. I wouldn't expect anything less. And to say "Don't believe me: CNN, CBS and MSNBC all polled or consulted groups of undecided voters and concluded Obama won." is so, so lame. You are spewing a one-sided view from the most liberal of the networks. With unscientific "polls" consisting of a room full of people with a camera in their face. Hardly a trustworthy process. Ooops, sorry, guess I was quoting GOP "talking points" as you like to say. Seems to me that any question, inquiry or doubt about lord Obama is considered to be an attack, hate speech or a talking point.

[Ryan]

There has been alot of discussion about how to get away from the parallel press conferences that modern presidential debates have become, but we're clearly not there yet. Stricter enforcement of the rules might be a step up--maybe the microphone should just cut out automatically and then the candidate might as well stop. Maybe, on the other hand, the rules should be more lax, with a trusted moderator empowered to make on-the-spot decisions about cutting off the candidates or forcing them back to the topic. Let the discussion continue.