Debate the debates> Town hall meetings enough?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I personally think the town hall setting would be nice for a debate or two but imo there is still a need for journalists to press the harder questions as well. I'm not saying let's spend half a debate on religous leaders/past associations, but... Come on both Mccain and Obama need to face such a challenge.

 

[Excel]

I'd def. go to one...

 

[Matt]

It allows supporters of certain candidates to ask incredibly biased questions. I'd simply settle for a debate from a truly neutral journalist, who does not play politics, but instead has the balls to ask tough questions that aren't pre-approved by the campaigns.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'd like to have a bit of both traditional and town hall styled debates.

 

[lazur]

Hopefully Obama doesn't keep avoiding Town Halls with McCain. I'd really like to see the two go toe to toe...

 

[The Senator]

It allows supporters of certain candidates to ask incredibly biased questions. I'd simply settle for a debate from a truly neutral journalist, who does not play politics, but instead has the balls to ask tough questions that aren't pre-approved by the campaigns.

Same with me.

 

[StorminNorman]

It allows supporters of certain candidates to ask incredibly biased questions. I'd simply settle for a debate from a truly neutral journalist, who does not play politics, but instead has the balls to ask tough questions that aren't pre-approved by the campaigns.

Your never going to get that though.

Honestly, and I am going to get bashed for this, but O'Reilly may be the closest of giving us that.

 

[The Senator]

Your never going to get that though.

Honestly, and I am going to get bashed for this, but O'Reilly may be the closest of giving us that.

No, you're not going to get bashed for it.

Laughed out of existence, maybe, but not bashed

(Personally, I think Jim Lehrer would be a good, fairly non-biased moderator. Tim Russert would have been my first choice, but since he'll probably still be dead by October, I think he's out of the running.)

 

[rdh007]

Zombie Russert for Mod! (Is it too early for that?)

I liked Lehrer when he's done it in the past. Though I felt bad for him having to try to take our president seriously. Though Kerry wasn't all that more substantive, at least he udnerstands the language. Speaking of Kerry, I think he'd have made a pretty good president. He was a horrible candidate, though.

 

[StorminNorman]

No, you're not going to get bashed for it.

Laughed out of existence, maybe, but not bashed

(Personally, I think Jim Lehrer would be a good, fairly non-biased moderator. Tim Russert would have been my first choice, but since he'll probably still be dead by October, I think he's out of the running.)

I would point to O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary and McCain as proof that he handles those in respected roles with different gloves than he gives others. His overbearing, aggressive demeanor is exchanged for something that borders on professionalism.

O'Reilly moderating a debate would be great, IMO.

I too would of preferred Russert, and assumed the same thing you did.

 

[DACrowe]

I think 10 was an excessive number and far too long of a lock for both campaigns for ten weeks.

With that said I was hoping Obama would agree to doing 3-5. One is not enough and if they had multiple sparrings, we could get a better sense of them as they learned to react off of one another and adapt. Unfortunately, Obama only agreed to one. I suppose I understand his campaign's fear that he is not nearly as good a debater as McCain and is far better in scripted environments. However, I would suggest that he is good at swaying audiences and with the proper prep time his goal would be to appeal to the audience's emotions with his rhetoric and it could have made him look good compared to a very uncharismatic McCain.

Still, I understand his hesitation. But they should have realized they are playing right into McCain's hands by not debating. Because of this McCain can ridicule him that he wants to hide behind his podium and scripted speeches (which is somewhat true). I say Obama should agree to do 3 and that way there is a fair number of opportunities to get them next to each other in an old Americana type of way, before doing the traditional three press debates in September/October.

But McCain is now pushing for it to be a fight in front of constituencies like hispanic voters. That could work, but it is no longer a "town hall" meeting then and loses its appeal, somewhat.

 

[DACrowe]

I would point to O'Reilly's interviews with Hillary and McCain as proof that he handles those in respected roles with different gloves than he gives others. His overbearing, aggressive demeanor is exchanged for something that borders on professionalism.

O'Reilly moderating a debate would be great, IMO.

I too would of preferred Russert, and assumed the same thing you did.

Maybe. But he also is extremely biased and would play softball on McCain while trying to run Republican talking points over Obama's head. The reason he was nice to Hillary was she is on her way out and Fox News has been attempting to court angry Hillary Clinton supporters for John McCain. You go to Clinton blogs it works, because the only network news many of the mwatch is Fox News because "they criticize Obama," but also they were uncritical of Clinton by the end of April, because it was over.

I agree that Tim Russert would have been the perfect pick for this, but unfortunately the man has left the building. People as openly biased as O'Reilly and Hannity on one side or Olbermann on the other should not lead any of the real debates.

If it falls into NBC's court at all (which I'm sure one of them will) I would pick either Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams.