Comments on Questions for Tonight's Debate

Isn't Gwen moderating the VP debate?

Those are excellent questions... I would very much love to see how they answer them.

I think Obama's answer would have to be something along the lines of "votes with Bush 90% of the time", without being overly harsh. Potentially make a joke about how he's not sure how things could have been worse than they were under Bush. But, drive home the Bush = McCain thing, and say something like it the nation would probably be in the same place it is today.

McCain's question is trickier to answer. I think he'd have to lean towards a "yes" on this one, which would distance himself from Bush and potentially endear some independent or right-leaning Democrats. But he doesn't want to sound too positive about Gore... I would love to see him squirm while trying to answer this...

Uh, dude, those questions suck. Neither one of them is stupid enough to fall for that bait. It's practically asking them to talk shit about their opponents party. Not to mention that "better off" is way too vague, you're just gonna get some crappy "we need move forward, not look back" answer anyways.

What I want to know is would they appoint a special commission to investigate whether the Bush administration used national crisises for political or corporate gain. Or what kind of ideas they might have to increase government efficiency, or remove politics from the justice dept., or if they plan on filling positions with academics rather than revolving door executives.

Jim Leherer is moderating this debate.

I think Gwen is the next debate. Tonight is Jim Lehrer. And it's the foreign policy debate.

you think they would fall for, would they appoint a special commission to investigate whether the Bush administration used national crisises for political or corporate gain?

I like where he's going with this, but I think the execution falls off. Here's why. The question to McCain is “Would the nation be better off if the Democrats had been in office and faced the issues and crises that this Republican administration did?” The question to Obama is “Would the nation be better off if the different Republican had been in office and faced the issues and crises that this Republican administration did?” That's a totally different question, and an unfair one.

It's unfair because it totally absolves the Republicans, Bush, and McCain of the past 8 years and the disasters their action and inaction wrought. The Democrats would have approached things differently. The Republicans had a chance to do what they wanted. The question addressed to Obama amounts to an absolution and a do-over.

Obama's question should not pretend that the Republicans have not been in power for 8 years. It should be as hypothetically pure as the question asked McCain. It should be more like “Would the nation be better off today if Senator Kerry rather than George Bush had won the Presidency in 2004?”

No one should ignore the fact that we are in this mess because of the policies of the Republican party.

@6 - Not really, but their dance around the question would be more interesting than for the two questions Dan posted.

I think the debate would be better served by asking the candidates to analyze real, rather than fictitious, events.

what a bunch of sourpusses and sophists! You people are no fun! The question for Obama wouldn't absolve the GOP in the least. Obama would answer "Had McCain remained true to what he was in 2000, I do think we'd be better off than with what we got--the worst Presidency in the history of this Republic. However, the Senator has NOT remained true; he's become a cheerleader for this Administration and put aside any difference that he might have once had with George W. Bush. He's voted with this President 95% of the time. That is why I have been saying all along that voting for McCain is the same thing as voting for 4 more years of George W. Bush."

And in answer to his question, McCain would indeed have to say something anodyne and useless about looking forward rather than back. Even if he said "Look, I do have differences with President Bush, and I have been forceful about them. But those pale in comparison with my differences with the Democratic Party. We would not have been well-served by Al Gore's brand of big-spending, big-government, anti-security Democratic government through the crises this Administration has gone through," it'd come out wrong--first, it's not honest and everybody knows it; after all, he came close to switching parties a few years ago and lobbied to be selected Kerry's running mate. Second, saying positive things about Bush is not something he wants to do under any circumstance.

Can we drink yet?