tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16974359.post116061486993094128..comments2023-10-18T07:38:07.062-05:00Comments on KY3 Political Notebook: Discuss the St. Louis Debate hereKY3 Newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199853676307099084noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16974359.post-1160656140517650552006-10-12T07:29:00.000-05:002006-10-12T07:29:00.000-05:00I thought this debate really exposed the weakness ...I thought this debate really exposed the weakness of this kind of debate. By the end of the night, you realized one hour isn't nearly long enough, even the best journalists can ask poor questions and if given the opportunity, candidates will steer clear of actually answering the question posed to them.<BR/><BR/>The eminent domain question seemed very out of place and from the response of the candidates, they apparently felt the same way. Both essentially said no, there is no more to be done on the federal level - it's a state issue. Then Talent and McCaskill completely blow off the question AND the questioner by talking about something completely different.<BR/><BR/>Having watched this debate, I don't think anyone ever wins or loses something like this. Someone may have a better performance. <BR/><BR/>In this case, I thought McCaskill gave a slightly better performance. Talent kept going back to the four pillars of his accomlishments (meth, medicine, energy and predatory lending.) That's fine and dandy, but I heard you the first time. He disrespected the eminent domain question by talking about something else. Then when asked what decision he's made he'd like to undo, he twisted it into something about changing the rules of the Senate. Why is it so bad to admit mistakes and bad decisions? (McCaskill didn't directly answer the question either, but she did have an original moment talking about her confrontational attitude as a young woman.) Talent also failed to answer McCaskill's opening remarks about saying nothing during those Armed Services Committee hearings. <BR/><BR/>And from a performance perspective, McCaskill always addressed the camera when giving her answers. Talent addressed the questioner. I don't which is right, which is better, which is more appealing to viewers. Just an observation.<BR/><BR/>I thought the best question/answers of the debate were about who's best for minorities. Both candidates rattled off their records on the issue. I learned something from those responses and heard something I had not heard before. (Although I was struck by the fact that the question came from all-white panel of journalists.)<BR/><BR/>If I were a former TWA employee, I wouldn't feel any better about what either candidate could do for me. "I sent a letter." "We need to take a stand." Sounds like lip service.<BR/><BR/>I said I'd give the performance edge to McCaskill, but she didn't close the deal. Talent came off as a competent, conservative lawmaker who's gotten some stuff done during his time in the Senate. He's positioned himself stronger on national security and that still means a lot.<BR/><BR/>I'd give the debate a B. Noticeably absent where the two bastions of the St. Louis media: KMOX Radio and the Post-Dispatch.<BR/><BR/>We'll do our best to make Monday night's event better.Brad Belotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130112765553405348noreply@blogger.com