* How ironic that the Trump campaign should accuse the Clinton campaign of wanting to “rig” the upcoming candidate debates. As in trying to limit their prime-time appeal.
Several points.
First, a one-on-one debate surely should play to Clinton’s advantage. She’s uber experienced, better informed and absolutely wonkish about key details. Her primary objective is to look presidential and, in so doing, out Trump as a pop culture, fact-challenged fraud in over his pompadour when it comes to issues such as national security and the U.S. and global economy.
Second, the onus is on the media to actually “moderate” an actual “debate.” Follow-up–yes, gotcha–questions to ambiguous, incorrect or bluster-filled answers must be at the ready. This is about assessing a candidate for president–not enabling a ratings bonanza for a network.
Third, viewing voters–who aren’t hard-core hero-worshippers who will always see what they want to see–can’t be lulled into grading on a curve. Exceeding low expectations worked for George W. Bush. History must not be repeated. Common sense and the common good must prevail.
* Fox’s coverage of the Democratic convention included a couple of prominent omissions. The well-noted presentations of Khizr Khan and Gen. John Allen were not carried live by Fox. Both, interestingly enough, were emotional, direct, patriotic outreaches to more than Democrats. The obvious begged question: What would Roger Ailes have done?
* While the subject of Russian hackers was a Democratic Convention story line, there was also a literal Russian presence in Philly. RT, the state-run, Moscow-headquartered news agency, was among the myriad media outlets covering it. Its U.S. arm has about eight million weekly viewers and features familiar American TV personalities such as erstwhile CNN icon Larry King and former CNBC talk-show host Ed (“The Ed Show”) Schultz.
* When you get right down to it, isn’t the DNC hacking about sausage making? Political plotting is never nice. It is, by definition, big-stakes, partisan politics with winners, losers and whiners.
Imagine the RNC when Tea Partiers were challenging the Romney establishment. Or the push-back when John McCain signed off on Sarah Palin as his running mate. Imagine what was being said about George W. Bush’s veep choice–who happened to be the guy who was doing the VP vetting. Or those weighing in on how to handle Bill Clinton’s “bimbo” problem. Or go back to the John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson subplots before the 1960 convention or to Barry Goldwater vs. the GOP establishment in 1964. It’s all ugly insider stuff. Only now–there’s a hackable trail.