In the wake of last night's events, the real debate may be, "What should we call this sort of joint media appearance?" The consensus among commenters on ABC News' website, bloggers, and editorial columnists is, whatever we saw last night, it was hardly a debate.
Barack Obama and Hillary were there. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked questions. There was an audience, and the events were broadcast nationwide-- though, in many places, not live. On the surface, it looked like a debate between two presidential primary candidates. But it took 63 minutes for a question about policy to be asked.
Instead, we watched something resembling a press conference mixed with a water cooler argument. Obama's flag pin was covered. Of course, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was dragged into the mix. Hillary's Bosnia gaffe was also hauled up. So what, exactly, wasn't covered in the two-hour debate, crammed with commercials, including one break before the candidates were even asked a question?
A (very) partial list:
-Disability
-Afghanistan
-Torture
-The Environment
-Health Care
-The Housing Slump
-Social Security
-Tibet
-Terror
-Education
-Spending
-Palestine/Hamas
-Korea
-Crime in Working-Class America
-Outsourcing
-Unemployment
-The Falling Dollar
-Guantanamo
-The War on Drugs
-Medical Marijuana
-Pharmaceutical Companies' Fabricated Research
-Delegate math that says Hillary can't win
Maybe we're being unfair. After all, Charles Gibson was very concerned about the plight of those poor "middle class" families making $200,000, and the 100 million Americans who hold stock.
So what should we call that TV appearance? Time suggests "Trivial Pursuit." Andrew Sullivan might label it, "Barack Obama's Public Naptime." Obama's campaign emailed its mailing list calling the event, "Gotcha politics and disraction." The Political Inquirer might favor, "Subsidized health care for the Clinton campaign."
So far, I'm calling it a dreadful shame, and a missed opportunity.
