I suppose it's pointless to grumble again about presidential "debate" formats, since it's the preformatted 800-pound gorillas on parade who dictate them and disallow any that might actually allow debate. Their keepers know that spontaneity is for exhibitionists, dipsomaniacs and the suicidal. The real thing is just too risky, too dangerously real.
So grumble I must.
It was, however, with some sliver of some hope that some expectations might be upended somewhat, if only by sheer accident, in CNN's YouTube format Monday night. But the techno-novelty only reaffirmed politics' one universal constancy: Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- can dismember a script from its candidate. Whether it's Jim Lehrer or a melting snowman asking the questions about global warming, the answers will be the same, word for prepackaged word.
The only worthwhile viewing came during the post-debate "analysis." For example CNN's Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged some pre-debate reservations, but quickly -- and judiciously -- declared the event a success and that the YouTube variation is "here to stay." Jeffrey's contract should now be safe.
Flipping over to Fox, there was stealthy Dick Morris, sneering and swiping at even Hillary's earthly existence, let alone her stage performance. Back to CNN, where a sprinkling of reporters from around the country was rather pathetically detailing 24-person polling results on who won, placed and showed. All in all, though, the real race was the one to the journalistic bottom.
In the debate itself there were but two moments of potential -- both wasted, naturally.
One was Senator Obama's seeming eagerness to meet personally in his first presidential year with the various dictators and strongmen of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous" (which is redundant).
At which point Senator Clinton saw her opening. Obama had dropped his left, so Hillary came in hard with her right, implying that Obama possessed a profoundly unsophisticated diplomatic mind. "I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes -- I don’t want to make a situation even worse." (At which further point John Edwards saw his opening to achieve sophistication parity: "I think actually Senator Clinton’s right.... Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes." Good boy.)
Bam. Obama was hurt, bleeding like the public treasury. But did he have a chance to counterpunch? -- that is, actually debate the point? Silly us. Next question.
At any rate Dick Morris cleared it up for us afterward, saying Hillary's punch might appeal to the snooty, inside-the-Beltway crowd, but Obama was speaking for "the people." I, for one, and as one, was glad he cleared it up.
The other moment of sword-crossing hope -- quickly dashed, of course -- was Obama's patting of Hillary on the head for her Pentagon inquiry on troop-withdrawal plans. He noted, however, that "The time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in."
Frankly, Hillary looked like she'd been zapped by a cattle prod. But again, did she have a chance to respond? To counterzap?
No way. Because matters of manipulated war and a tricky peace can and shall be answered in 30 seconds, so that there's plentiful time to ask which environment-haters flew to the non-debate by private jet. The snowman wants to know.
I understand why the candidates crave these farces. What I don't understand is why I watch them.
