Watching the rerun of FOX's New Hampshire GOP debate, I was mixed a bit last night. While the format was great, giving the candidates a chance to interact with each other about topics in a more casual manner, there were aspects that might make it harder to elect any of them.
Chris Wallace is a good interviewer and moderator - he asks the tough questions, but that is essentially the problem. He attacked Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani on tax cuts, John McCain on Immigration and Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy . Not that he shouldn't - it's his job, but not all moderators are doing it. I saw a few minutes of ABC's Charles Gibson with the Democratic candidates the day before, and it was a bit softballish. If the Dems don't get hit hard, and the Republicans are, who will look worse??
I don't think Barack Obama is a real agent of change, Hillary Clinton isn't as experienced as she says she is , and John Edwards has surely profited off of poor people more than he has helped them, but the MSM doesn't seem very interested in picking the candidates apart. Republicans are more willing to dissect them in order to choose a favorite. However, if this keeps up, voters will have more ammo to vote for Democrats.
.
2 comments:
Givne that my perspective is a bit skewed, the Dems tend to stick to fora that are friendlier to them. Then again, the GOP was the opening act Saturday night, not the tired changeless closer.
correct
Post a Comment