A political debate is a back-and-forth argument or discussion about matters up for decision, about policy. The ABC-TV event was not a discussion and mostly not about America's problems, policies and leadership. The show was not a debate.
It was framed as a job audition, to help choose a fighter.
The "job" (the party nomination), in this frame, is to be the Dems' champion in upcoming fight, against the GOP rival already chosen.
The criterion: find out which of them was least vulnerable to the next opponent.
It took the form of public interrogation, a trial, an ordeal, to judge which candidate could best stand the gaff s/he would face if selected.
Rather than having Hillary and Obama fight it out, the trial format tests and compares how well each individual candidate can stand up to the blows expected from the definitive opponent, McCain.
More on this peculiar contest format below the fold:
The two Democratic rivals, Hillary & Obama, were interviewed, challenged, tested on ABC Wednesday. Opportunities for debate were so brief as to restrict them to sniping. Nor was the point for them to show their strong points against McCain, or demonstrate leadership ideas for America.
The ABC show (more so than other "debates") was set up like a limited martial arts trial in which each fighter, in turn, is subjected to a series of unannounced feints and blows administered by a designated master. The candidates are to parry his advances, demonstrate that they can retain their equilibrium, poise and fighting capabilities, no matter what. But not to strike back at the master.
At best, the format is a public audition, in which the network (the journalist) assumes the role of impartial, undisputed and disinterested master, supposedly representing the significant doubts and questionings of the voting public. But such doubts are deemed significant insofar as they may expectably be chosen and spun by the Republicans.
So, the journalist's role, as supposed impartial master, is to faithfully represent GOP tactics, even to presenting them as spontaneous doubts in the mind of the voting public.
What's wrong with this picture?
-That was no debate. Certainly not between the candidates, who's interaction was restrained. And the journalist questioner wasn't sparring: there's no real dialogue when the questions are presented as spontaneous doubts in the mind of the undecided public. Campaigns train their candidates by privately debating oponents' surrogates, but this was more like presenting new GOP ads and calling on the candidates to improvise responses. With the Republican candidate already chosen, the show provides privileged exposure for their contentions.