Oh, boo hoo. My concern is not that Candy Crowley will be unfair to the candidates, but to the viewers. I’m concerned that she will either work to soften the questions (because when have you ever seen her conduct a truly interesting interview?) — or that she will simply spit out the same fact-free conventional wisdom as Martha Raddatz did re: Social Security and Medicare, or Iran:.
In a rare show of unity, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about CNN’s Candy Crowley, who will moderate Tuesday’s town hall forum.
The reason, according to Time’s Mark Halperin, is that Crowley has publicly said that she intends to play an active role in the debate, rather than just let the audience at the town hall ask questions.
Time’s Halperin got his hands on the secret debate contract — or “Memorandum of Understanding” — hammered out by the two campaigns for every debate. Many groups have long demanded for these contracts to be made public as a matter of routine, but the Commission and the campaigns have resisted.
According to Halperin, the MOU, which he said Crowley is “not party to,” calls for the moderator to play a relatively limited role in the town-hall debate:
“In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”
This does not dovetail in the least with Crowley’s public statements about her intentions. She discussed what she feels her role will be in detail with The Huffington Post last week:
I want to hear less from the moderator than I do from the candidate. I think that, in some ways, people go into it expecting that you’re going to mix it up with the candidates. And I’m not saying that at some point that won’t happen or that that doesn’t happen. I’m just saying that the idea is to get the candidates to mix it up with each other.
Huffington Post: So you see your ultimate role as being there to facilitate their conversation with each other?
Crowley: I think that’s one of the roles. The expectations are enormous from people. My inbox is filled with questions from people. You’re going to disappoint people, so I think the idea is to try to add to the body of knowledge that is out there in whatever way you can. I think it’s always best when these guys engage with each other, but that doesn’t mean I won’t engage with them if that gets us closer to what we need.
Crowley refused to sign off on the MOU. That’s when both sides tried to dump her. She wouldn’t exit, so they’re stuck with her. Unless Obama tears Romney a new one tonite he’ll lose the debate.
In order to add to the body of knowledge, dear Candy, you must first acquire knowledge. (I know, I know, what a novel idea.)
Remember the quality of those old League of Women Voters debates? Can’t have that, so sirree Bob. So, in addition to the abolition of any sort of independently run debates, we must have two candidates fully vetted and approved by Wall St, insurance companies, GE, telecoms, and other assorted giant corporations. (And, of course, the biggest corporation of all: the CIA.) Which is why both major-party candidates suck so bad. They do not represent us in any shape or form.
I won’t be watching it anyway. For one thing, I can’t stand to hear Romney’s lyin ass talk about anything for more than 30 seconds, and secondly, I never watch Candy’s boring bullshit on Sunday mornings either. Besides, I voted yesterday for Obama for whom I’ve never been undecided about.
Candy is not the problem. A negotiated “debate” format that calls on Gallup to cull from the voting public a body so disconnected that each member remains uncommited at this late hour, and then gives that group sole power to question the candidates, is an invite to insipid softball. The media had a professional obligation to refuse to broadcast this “event” on the campaigns’ terms. Obama’s need to show spine because of his no show last time will make him look rude and evasive in this format. I will spare myself the cringe fest and look to the blogs for feedback. Nothing to see here.
Think I’ll give this one a miss. Watching the last Obama-Romney debate was like watching the Rethug primary all over again. That’s why both campaigns object to thoughtful, relevant questioning.