I’m always a bit baffled by the reaction from the blogo-pundits following Democratic debates.  They always hate them, and always expect a 120 minute discussion on carbon caps, or health care, or something.  As I’ve argued in the past, this reveals a serious misunderstanding of what Tim Russert does.

This was a Democratic primary debate, one in which all of the involved candidates were perhaps all too content to sit back and have a lovefest.  Senators Obama and Clinton in particular are coming off of a rough week, and seemingly wanted nothing more than to let the surrogates and contorted statements go under the bridge.  It’s a Democratic “family,” after all. 

But this is crap.  Both of these campaigns put their supporters–along with the Democratic “family”–through a week of petty back and forth bickering.  They made this the story, not Tim Russert.  The idea that Russert can dramatically sway public discourse, or good grief, “harm the republic,” is simply ridiculous.  This was a forum for these campaigns to air out what happened over the last week or so, and to do it before the voters of Nevada.

The candidates clearly wanted none of that.  But they were given the chance to get their canned responses out on the matter, break bread and declare a truce.  Good for them.  I’m glad they want to put an end to the racial matters, but let’s drop the niceties.  For Clinton, it’s about political survival.  For Obama, it’s about being more than simply the “black candidate.”  They both have a vested interest in putting out the brush fire they started.  Russert and Williams wanted to pick at the scab, and they apparently failed.  But let’s not get this backwards–they’re playing the game that these campaigns want to play.  Stirring up racial nonsense made sense for Clinton a few days ago, when Bob Johnson alluded to Obama’s drug use, or when Rep. John Lewis did his best Llyod Bentsen by telling us that Obama ”is no Martin Luther King Jr. I knew Martin Luther King.” 

Same goes for Obama, who may have been the real winner in Michigan yesterday following Senator Clinton’s poor showing with the African-American community.  Something tells me he doesn’t regret the MLK kerfuffle all that much today. 

The real problem here is that the campaigns want to control the spigot.  They want to let the mud flow like wine, up until the point it begins to backfire and possibly raise their own negatives.  Is it Russert’s responsibility to play along with these whims, or is it his job to follow up on what was the real story all week long?  I know the pundo-sphere loves the word nuance, but how deep into policy must we go to appease their wonkish appetites?                          

Trackback URI | Comments RSS