Like many of us here, I thought most of the candidate field in the Round I, Part I Democratic debate last night did fairly well. I think it's safe to say that Corey Booker and Julian Castro's stars rose when it was all done. Tulsi Gabbard actually scored some points, though she may have derailed herself with a snotty "this is rigged"-style tweet from what was supposedly her sister. (She should probably just blame the Russians for that.)
And the ones who did all well did so in spite of one major hurdle: a dipstick of a moderator named Chuck Todd.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe adamantly, almost religiously, in freedom of the press. For anyone to say our mainstream media orgs are "the enemy of the people," a viewpoint that is almost always based on one's personal biases, is evil. If you don't like a media outlet, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. Hey, stick with your brother-in-law's FW: FW FW: FW mailing list if that works for you.
But it is absolutely vital for candidates to push back the mainstream media's penchant for classic right-wing bias in question framing. The first instance of that last night was seen the minute Todd opened his yap and asked the candidates about … wait for it … gun confiscation! "What do you tell a gun owner who may agree with you on everything else ... but says the Democrats, if I vote them in there, they're going to take my gun away?", he inquired.
FAIL. As Media Matters noted, "Todd's line of questioning was ripped straight from the National Rifle Association's playbook." Great, we got a serious debate going on here Chuck, and you frame your first question straight outta that domestic extremist organization. Aside from the fact that this scare-mongering notion has no basis in reality.
There were many other problem’s with Todd’s moderation, mostly centering around his desire to turn the whole spectacle into a raging pitbull fight, and you could see just how much fun he was having with that as he cut away for commercials. Rachel Maddow on her end was overall quite capable, but couldn’t restrain her co-pilot.
But this time, now that we've been handed the tip-off on Todd's behavior last night, candidates can come back at him. To prepare them, I've come up with a list of questions Todd might ask the candidates tonight that is consistent with his wingnutty, “some say,” false-equivalence approach:
- Senator Sanders, you are a self-described Democratic Socialist. How can you guarantee us you won't turn our country into a client state of Venezuela?
- Senator Harris, some say that you, like President Obama, don't look all that American and that you weren't born in the United States. What measures will you take to prove to the public that you are an American citizen?
- Mr. Biden, you seem to have a history of getting close and inappropriately touching women around you. So tell us, how exactly is your treatment of women any different from our current president?
- Mayor Buttigieg, please tell us, how long have you been beating your wife? Oh wait a second, now I remember, you don’t have a wife. Awright then. Forget it, I'll ask the next, uh, man in line.
I'm sure you all can come up with your own, so have at it. There is no guarantee Todd will ask those questions, but regardless of that, here's the tip to candidates. Find a way to turn this kind of a press treatment into a memorable moment of the debate. If a candidate can get in a zinger reply, one that at least hints at the stupidity of the question being thrown at them, it will help everyone going forward.
I'm all for issues and substance in our debates, but also some more accountability for the Fourth Estate this time around. Seriously, an appropriate pushback against Todd now could do wonders for the remainder of this election cycle.