Softball #1: What did the voters say in the election?

To this question, a usual beginning point for Meet the Press, each man was allowed to reiterate his campaign focus. Webb said the voters spoke for a change in Iraq, economic fairness, and governmental accountability. Tester said he agreed with Webb. (He said that frequently during the show since Russert seemed to go to Webb first with most of the questions that he would eventually pose to both men.) Tester followed this agreement with a laundry list of issues (fiscal responsibility, health care, energy, foreign policy, and ethics) that he said he believed concerned the voters. Normally, Russert would follow this opening salvo with some data from exit polls showing a narrower and more challenging focus, or he would contest the list as too vague and unfocused, perhaps citing the guest's previous statements about needing to focus on a specific agenda, but in this case, he let both men go with no real follow up.

Softball #2: You said, "Democrats will from day one demand a real way forward in Iraq." What is it?

This question should not be a softball. It demands a plan, and Webb and Tester are hard pressed to articulate one. Webb's response sounds like a plan (diplomacy), and in truth it has more substance than most of the answers Russert has been getting to this question. Tester's response (after saying that he agrees with Webb) is to say that there is no easy solution, but we need a plan to get the troops home. These answers leave juicy openings for pressing the two men on the question of a plan, and Russert would usually press very hard in an area like this one. Instead, he asks two follow up questions. To Webb he asks if Syria and Iran are included in the diplomacy Webb proposes. Webb says absolutely, and Russert leaves it at that. Russert follows Tester's ramblings about Iraq by asking directly whether it is fair to say that neither side has a plan, and Tester says, "Possibly." Tester then tries to refocus the question (obviously and without much subtlety) on his observation that we lack a plan right now. This attempt at blame shifting is almost never allowed on Meet the Press, but today, Russert let it go almost completely.

Softball #3: What if the situation deteriorates?

This question, directed only at Webb, gives Webb the opportunity to articulate the parallels that he sees as possible between the diplomatic initiative that helped to stabilize the Karzai government in Afghanistan and the diplomatic measures he hopes to see in Iraq. Webb points out that Pakistan and Iran were included in the Afghanistan solutions as a way of implying that Iran would be a necessary player in an Iraq solution.

The single serious challenge to Webb (who is obviously well prepared and has a relatively clear, albeit lightly scrutinized, vision of the approach he would like to see in Iraq), occurs when Russert runs a 1985 clip of Webb, then Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. In that clip, Webb said, "You cannot simultaneously fight a war and debate it." He says this is the lesson he learned from Vietnam. Russert challenges him directly about doing that very thing with the Iraq war. Here, Webb's answer is less satisfying than his answers on his plans for Iraq. He draws a distinction between Vietnam and Iraq by saying that he can justify the reasons for entering the Vietnam conflict, even though the strategy failed. He says, on the other hand, that he has always opposed the Iraq War on strategic grounds prior to its beginning. This is a tough hair to split, but he does it and returns to his plan for a diplomatic solution with no further pressure on the question by Russert. Amazingly, Russert follows this exchange with a question about Webb's son, who is serving in Iraq. Webb is able to humanize himself while also saying that as hard as it is for him, he has to separate family and policy for the sake of all the others with family in the war.

Issue #2: The economy

This section, albeit brief, was very interesting. Webb took a very strong, almost populist tone about income inequality and class stratification. Russert read a long passage from a Wall Street Journal editorial by Webb on the subject and allowed Webb to lay out a three-point argument about the disappearing middle class. Rather than following up to look for specifics or solutions to this problem-centered litany, Russert turned to Tester, who (surprise) said that he agreed with Webb. Russert spent the rest of his time with Tester asking him if he considered himself a "New Democrat." Tester said, "I don't know," and returned to the need for defense of the middle class. He said he was a Democrat because they fight for the middle class.

Overall, this week's episode was more interesting for the pieces of the debate that were missing. Where is the rigorous insistence that saying the other side has no plan be followed with a plan of your own? Seldom does Russert allow the debate to be as one-sided as it was this week. Where is the press to force these men to articulate concrete solutions to the "war on the middle class?" As we follow the debates on MTP over the next few months, let's keep an eye out for Russert's larger argumentative strategy. Is he biased? This week's show does seem less aggressive than last week's, but does that mean Russert is biased? Not necessarily. I imagine that Russert understands the experiences and position of these men. He slants his tougher questions toward Webb who has greater national political experience and savvy than Tester because of his previous service in the national government. Russert does not harangue either of them to the point that they will be unwilling to return to the show. He protects Tester so that obvious failures to answer the questions are left almost entirely without challenging follow up. It is almost as if Russert is cultivating these men. He is building a relationship with them so they will trust him and give him the stories he needs. He has done this over the years with McCain and Lieberman, so they understand and trust Russert when they are on the show. They know what they will get and even seem willing and eager to answer tough questions when he asks them. Perhaps one day, Webb and Tester will be the experienced politicians no longer seeking the free spotlight that a challenger's campaign is forced to seek. Perhaps they will be in a position to choose the journalists they will meet, and perhaps, they will be involved in a significant policy issue or scandal. At that time, having been well cultivated to trust Russert, we will be more likely to see them on Meet the Press than we would if he had embarrassed them this week.