A heated disagreement has ruptured the calm of the Democratic campaign season after Monday's debate. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are exchanging words and accusations over whether the next President should meet with rogue foreign leaders. At the debate Obama said he would meet with such leaders because opening a dialog is important. Clinton chastised his answer saying she would refuse to be used for propaganda purposes.
Actually, in my opinion, they're both right. The President does have to be careful he/she isn't manipulated by rogue states and their leaders for propaganda purposes. Obama is right that it's critical we open dialogs and discussions with these countries. But isn't this why we have a State Department?
I think this controversy illustrates the problems with sound bite debates. How one earth do you, running for president, reduce highly complex issues to one minute of TV time? You cannot and that's one of the downfalls of our system. We expect all of these candidates to answer a complex question about a critical issue by raising their hand as if they're in kindergarten or respond in 60 seconds. It's really impossible and leads to spectacles like this.
On this issue it is imperative, as Obama says, to speak and negotiate rather than wage war. Hillary is correct in that the President must be careful not inject themselves into those discussions until it's clear real progress is being made and there aren't other, nefarious motives behind the talks.
Once upon a time presidential debates took hours, maybe half a day and those were between two or three candidates. The hopefuls spent an hour answering complex questions and they were real debates where they responded to one another, not these contrived, ridiculous "staged for television" productions. Isn't it time to scrap these awful things and resort to a substantive, extensive discussion of the issues? Maybe then we'll elect someone who has a firm, deep, comprehensive knowledge of things and who can best deal with them?
Meanwhile let's quit this bickering and accept that both candidates answered the question well given the parameters of the event.
Comments