The Debate About The Debate

David Broder of the Washington Post recently wrote an editorial "Sound and Fury, Signifying a Debate," concerning the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas.  The thrust of Mr. Broder's article was that the debate moderators are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions.  As I've stated in the past, I agree with Mr. Broder on this issue.

 

However, Mr. Broder has the same problem as the moderators because when he appears on many cable shows, he speaks about candidates' positions but fails to tell the full story himself.  A prime example is promoting Republican talking points on national security as if they were fact, but not following up with any evidence to support his claims. Mr. Broder has done that several times just within the past few months.

 

Mr. Broder was also one of many journalists who never sought evidence to back up the claim that Iraq had WMD stockpiled and ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists as the President and other Republicans asserted.  Yet he says moderators don't seek evidence from candidates to support their opinions.  Mr. Broder is guilty of the same thing.

 

Mr. Broder ends his editorial in these words, "can't these debates be rescued."  The answer is of course they can, but they won't because journalists and the media put hype, spin, and show business first.  What Mr. Broder should be asking is when will the candidates face questions about the 20 years of record deficit spending by the Reagan-Bush and George W. Bush administrations.  Mr. Broder does not have to wait for the moderators to address that  and other issues.  He writes an editorial column; he can write about anything any time he wants to. 

Obama Wants You To Know That He DOES Have Foreign Policy Experience

It's no secret that the campaign is getting heated and possibly the most heated battle is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama's argument has been that Clinton is too "old school", while Clinton touts that Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. Well, Obama is going to put an end to the notion that he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. Here is Obama's own words on his foreign policy credentials:

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Yup, thats right, I guess all I have to do to be President is to go live in Indonesia for four years. Here is Sen. Clinton's response:

"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."

So, I guess the question is who is more experienced on foreign policy---someone who lived in Indonesia for 4 years when he was a child, or someone who has traveled the world and met with the leaders of dozens of countries? This is where I would normally interject to give my thoughts on who is most qualified to be President, but I think you can decide that.