I saw this video on the internet this morning, and it disturbed me a bit. Below is a link to the Youtube vid and below that link takes you to the filmmaker that took the footage. Truly scary stuff. Perhaps the rhetoric used by the McCain campaign is causing some unintended consequences...

McCain-Palin Mob

bloggerinterrupted

Lucky for me, I did not watch the Democratic Presidential Candidates debate on ABC last night. I've read from various sources (albeit, those that already prescribe to my worldview, mind you) that it was a waste of time.

I think we've known for a long time a large swath of the mainstream media outlets have been pretty lousy journalists; especially when it comes to national politics. The debate from last night (from my understanding) seemed to be an exercise in a "tabloid press-conference". Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were essentially asking Sens. Clinton and Obama the useless news of the moment (Tuzla, Wright, "bitter", lapel pin, etc.) and not addressing the pressing issues facing the voters and other interested parties. Furthermore, it appears that the questions on issues of substance were lacking in any evenhanded appraisal in its framing. Not, that I'm asking for a "liberal bias" in framing the question, but anyone with an 8th grade education and a basic understanding of the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq can come up with a question that doesn't sound like it was written by the DLC, DNC, RNC, William Kristol, or Michael Moore. Charlie Gibson demonstrated that he lacks one of those qualities.

Anyway, I think there are a number of things that we can learn from this cycle. "Inevitability", "star power", "public financing", and "tax returns" will be some buzz words that will be remembered once this is finally all over, but, given the number debates we've seen this cycle, can we think of a debate style, or serious of styles, that would best demonstrate a) a high level of understanding on the major issues facing the nation/world, b) an ability to forcefully make a point in face of opposition, c) to create logical arguments and defend them and d) give the candidates a brief opportunity to state their case to the American people? How should presidential debates be run/managed/handled? Should it be a series of debates on rotating topics? Should it mimic the style of parliamentary debate? What do you think the solution(s) should be?