Stifling Debates

Last night, Clinton and Obama faced off in what I believe was the NINETEENTH Democratic debate so far this primary season. While having it narrowed down to two candidates made it far more watchable than the earlier circus act debates with multiple performers (including clowns), after I sat through a good part of it I had to ask myself what the point was. Did it or any of the many many debates that we've had so far for both parties really matter?

Looking back at the slew of debates, I can only come with two that were significant in any way. The first was Clinton's stumble on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in late October. Looking back on it now, you can view it as the beginning of her Great Unraveling. But would that unraveling have happened anyway if the debate had never taken place? I would think so. Maybe not in the same manner or at the same pace, but it seems to have been inevitable.

The other debate that likely had an impact was the Saturday night showdown in New Hampshire (January 5th) where Obama appeared snarky when he made a jab at Clinton's likability be saying, "They like you well enough." That and Hillary's emotional breakdown a few days later were probably what sparked her comeback win in New Hampshire. Looking back at it now, that win seems pretty inconsequential in the bigger picture. It kept her alive to fight another day, but hasn't stopped Obama from the verge of winning the nomination.

Did any of the Republican debates matter a whit? Offhand, I can't think of one that did. Some people have attributed Huckabee's rise to his debate performances, but frankly I was never really all that impressed. I think he gathered support from his work on the ground and would have risen in the GOP ranks with or without the debates.

So what's the point of having them? As far as I can tell, in their current format there isn't one. The questions asked are usually irrelevant or meaningless. Very rarely do the candidates ever answer the question asked anyway. They come in to the debates with these canned answers (and joke lines) and wait for a question that's even remotely related to unleash them. And rarely do the moderators follow up and make them answer the question directly. It makes for a very frustrating experience for the viewer. You get 90% talking point fluff and 10% actual content. Couldn't the time, effort, and energy of everyone involved be spent in a better manner?

One final debate point; the Obama applause lines are getting ridiculous.

On my way to the debate tonight

(Applause)

I stopped by the store

(Applause)

and bought some milk,

(Rising applause)

eggs,

(Thunderous applause)

and bread.

(Standing ovation--ear shattering, deafening applause)

You love him. We get it. Just try to be a little more judicious with your public adoration please.

UPDATE-- Jason e-mails to add:

Great post on the debates. But I think the bigger question is in regards to campaigning in general. Does any educated voter make a decision based on the fact that they saw someone in person or were able to shake their hand? The stump speeches are designed to be nothing more then a quick pep rally with no substantive information. I think Fred Thompson was probably on the right track with his campaign. People should base their voting decisions on a candidate's employment history, voting track record and stance on the issues none of which can be conveyed in a fifteen minute stump speech or 30 second debate clip.

I concur. But if you look at what happened to Fred, I don't know if that approach is workable either.