Update [2007-12-13 12:56:14 by Ross Smith]: Lest you think we exaggerate, I just found this:
Charles Krauthammer: "That was not just the worst debate of 2007, that was the worst debate in western history, and that includes the ancient Greeks" ("Sprecial Report," FNC, 12/12).
But DebateScoop's criticism was muted compared to that elsewhere. The extremely harsh reactions might be due to the fact that the expectations and stakes were high. These debates are, after all, the last debates before the Iowa caucuses, races in both parties are up for grabs, and the results may well determine who the next President of the United States is.
Whatever the reason, this debate had the worst reviews of any we have seen since DebateScoop was founded in August of 2006.
The first problem was that this event had too little give and take to merit being called a debate. Even the Des Moines Register's David Yepsin did not spare his own colleagues on that score:
"The biggest problem with the debate was that it wasn't really a debate. Candidates got almost no opportunity to grill one another. Often they ran out of time and were cut off just as they started to probe an opponent.
The event would have been more nourishing had the format allowed for more back-and-forth."
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard is not as measured as the home town colleague:
I'm sure there are people in Iowa who could capably moderate a presidential debate. Unfortunately, and obviously, Carolyn Washburn is not one of them.
The bulk of the post-debate analysis will probably focus on how maladroit Washburn was at the job. She did the impossible--she moderated the last Iowa debate between the Republican candidates before caucuses and yet saw to it that none of the candidates engaged each other. In other words, the moderator ensured that the debate would be as lively as a 12 part PBS series on "How Grass Grows."
A personal aside to the Des Moines Register--"boring" is not synonymous with "serious."
The problems went beyond Washburn's lack of mad moderating skillz. From the outset, Washburn announced that the candidates would not be discussing either Iraq or immigration. Swell! It's the biggest debate of the season, so let's take the two biggest issues off the table. For what it's worth, Washburn brought all the charm to her assignment of a latter-day Nurse Ratched.
Whether from left, right or center, from blogger or mainstream journalist, the reactions to the format, moderator, questions, and resultant "debate" tended to be closer to Barnett's than to Yepsin's. "Highlights" are in the extended entry.
Not a debate. Chuck Todd: "This was not a debate, that we can agree on. It was a forum which for the PBS/NPR crowd who swears they don't like debate fireworks and gotchas and simply want candidates talking specifics, should love."
Marc Ambinder: "The debate format was not given to exchanges, and the moderator peremptorily took immigration off the table. The audience did not cheer, really, or validate, or boo. Romney and Huckabee were like two cultivars of fine Iowa maize."
Chris Cillizza: "In a debate that barely lived up to the definition of that word, the nine Republican candidates found far more common ground than disagreement during the 90-minute event."
Awful and made worse by Alan Keyse's inclusion. The New Republic blog: "The worst debate of the campaign--by far. The questions were boring, the candidates did not have enough time to answer, and Keyes was allowed to be bullying and obnoxious."
Tom Bevan: "The fact that Keyes will grab at least a portion of the headlines with his unhinged performance, in addition to the fact that no serious blows were landed in the debate, means today's event is unlikely to change a thing."
Worst. Moderator. Ever.
The terrible job, by the way, was made worse by the visual of her cast against a black background, almost like she was floating in space (as you can see in the clip below).
Townhall editor Jonathan Garthwaite: "Who won? CNN. Why? Because moderator Carolyn Washburn managed take the last debate before the caucuses, fall flat on her face and once again the post-debate discussion will be about how poorly moderated the debate was."
Erick Erickson, editor at Red State: "The moderator had no personality. I never thought I'd long for Chris Matthews."
John Podhoretz: "Moderator Carolyn Washburn has just made the worst demand in the history of debating: Offer a New Year's resolution for somebody else on stage. She is the editor of the Des Moines Register. It must not be a very good paper."
Townhall's Matt Lewis, "That debate was horrible. That lady actually made me miss Anderson Cooper. If she says, `Thank you' one more time..." (referring to her cutting people off by saying, "Thank you."
Made CNN Look Good.
This frequent refrain, coming as it did from the same right wing commenters who savaged the the CNN/YouTube debate, is as damning as can be.
The National Review's Jim Geraghty in his post, "Making CNN Look Good.": "Saying I hated this debate is like saying George Soros can spare some change. The retired brigadier general who was on Hillary's gay and lesbian steering committee was bad. This one was... egregious."
Summing up.
Give the last word to the best writer, James Wolcott, in his post, "Séance on a Wet Afternoon,": "It's like a men's club meeting in a funeral parlor, this Republican debate in Iowa, a row of dark suits forming a domino rank across the stage as they're quizzed by a strict schoolmarmish moderator who seems to have a stopwatch ticking inside her head."
The highlight.
When the "raise your hand if" game was rejected by Fred Thompson who explained after the debate that he would not engage in "monkey business." Even the audience, whose presence was indiscernible prior to that moment, got involved.
Other ridiculousness.
Bad, tinny sound. Bad lighting. Keyes. Keyes. Ancient videoclips of candidate interviews with the newspaper's editorial board. "Toot your own horn" segments where candidates had 60 seconds just to say something nice about themselves. Saying "time's up" with six minutes left in the hour. No follow ups when candidates evaded the questions. The transcript documents the disaster.
Advice for today's Democratic version:
Voters: Wait and watch on the web only if you first read that today was an improvement.
Candidates:
1)If you do not want to debate you do not have to. Just toss out a 15 or 30 second sound bite (as that's all the time you will get for most answers). Have a pretty little speech on why you are great.
If you want to debate you must name your opponent in your answers, but even then be careful because they will get the rebuttal, not you.
Go after the moderator. Great way to get good press!
