We're living in an impatient, impulsive, instant gratification world. Interrupting, interjecting and talking over others has become the new norm. Seems everybody wants to get a word in edgewise.
After the first presidential debate, which gave Romney a four-point bounce, nobody is doubting the debates' importance. But as we ready for tonight's round two, I'm wondering: What exactly are the debates teaching us about the candidates? As they're presently constituted, they don't give an accurate idea of what a candidate might be like as a president. Take the prohibition on notes -- when is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he's going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? It's fun to see how a candidate responds to a zinger, but it'd be much more instructive to see how a candidate goes about seeking information that he doesn't know. So what about at least one debate that is structured to resemble the decision-making process a president would actually go through in office?
The president has big shoes to fill, with much riding on his ability to shed the urge to stay above the petty fray that is Washington politics.
Both parties believe they win every debate and, without exception, try to make the best of spinning the results to influence the voters. But, spin was not necessary to explain the first two debates nor could it change what occurred.
As the American public's disillusionment with fighting the war deepens, the precarious support base in Congress and mainstream policy circles is dwindling. The administration cannot afford to dawdle any longer.
So many people today watch TV with a second screen around and we are giving them something fun, related, and meaningful to do with extra energy; we have enacted the promise that is interactive television with the hope that it will lead us towards the future of information aggregation.
Should we have a greater integration between church and state? Which is more important in terms of public policy -- abortion control or ensuring social justice?
Two reports reveal that immigration is not a top issue for immigrant communities. Nonetheless, politicians and political parties should not take these numbers as an indication that immigration is not important to communities of color.
We've got a real slobberknocker for you tonight, folks -- the long awaited rematch between the heavyweight champion of the free world, Barack "Bam Bam" Obama, and the challenger, Nature Boy Mitt Romney.
While there were indeed things that Raddatz did right, this debate could have been much more useful for voters than it was. Her performance as moderator, and the debate's overall structure, deserve further scrutiny.
At a time of crisis, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan make claims and counterclaims, and fail to address the issues facing America honestly.
Mr. President, this is a grand performance that means something; it is much more than a policy debate where most people won't understand or remember the fine details of the policies. We need you to show America what real moral leadership is.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's foreign policy and military stance is taking us in entirely the wrong direction. We need saving from a Romney-led repeat of George W. Bush's disastrous military forays into a Middle East.
Each party sees what it wants. Ron Reagan and Torie Clarke, for example, differ on who won Biden-Ryan - the smiling steamroller or the blue-eyed boy scout? Was Benghazi a tragedy or calamity? Then: let Obama be O'Biden!
Biden's triumph was only partly about personality. It also had to do with strategy. He knew exactly what he was doing on that stage. Was he over the top? Absolutely. But for the most part Biden drew the response he had been seeking.
Paul Ryan stepped into the vice presidential debate prepped with a cadre of misstatements to confuse voters. But he didn't get away with much, what with Vice President Joe Biden giving him a drubbing and moderator Martha Radditz repeatedly holding his feet to the proverbial fire.