Debatescoop.com is designed to convey an informed, sometimes, academic voice to the understanding of political debate, an element often missing in the age of punditry, but sometimes you can't resist. So what follows are impressions, perhaps imprudent, but nonetheless have a bit of truth about them.
Debates are not just about issues and formats, but impressions and subtle moments have political consequence. I missed the gendered judgment when John Edwards turned on Hillary in New Hampshire, more intrigued by the "whatever-it-takes" gaming than the "piling on" that Hillary had unsuccessfully tried to instill after the Philadelphia debate. I heard Obama's comment, "You're likable enough" as kidding humor, not the creation of a victim, but . . . . We're all captive to our gendered viewpoint.
In past Fox debates the productions were comparatively superior in shedding light on the unfolding contest. In this one they slipped, looking more like the hype of their regular program masquerading as news. Three conventions took away from the professional substantive pattern of earlier Fox efforts.
1. The debate was framed with the same busy screen/sensationalism of regular news, including the interpretive new crawl at the bottom of the screen. Candidates appeared to speak for themselves but were not privy to the sometimes contradictory statements scowling across the screen.FirstRead's Chuck Todd noted instances of questionable editorial decisions, including continual reminders of how many times Rudy has been married. By chance?
The format of the FOX News debate last night, 90 minutes, eight candidates, 60 second answers, 30 second "rebuttals" has been criticized as not really a debate, more an extended forum.
Last night a debate broke out:
How refreshing. Does it not leave you (whatever side you are on) wanting more? Does it not reveal the principals and the abilities of these two better than the regular format does?
