| Page 2 of 2 < |
Super Tuesday's Shallowness
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Some would argue that even the glut of states voting Tuesday are not being shortchanged by the candidates, thanks to the volume of campaign news filling cable TV channels and the Internet.
But these media are limited in their reach. Even when they bring the candidates directly into homes, as CNN did by televising two debates last week, the information that voters can get is limited.
In the Republican debate, Romney and McCain squabbled over fragmentary quotes that the senator said showed Romney equivocated on Iraq -- while Romney angrily accused McCain of distorting his position.
One night later, Obama and Clinton did a buddy act, feigning fellowship and suffocating their differences on health care and Iraq in a blizzard of trivia.
The middle range of real policy choices -- how to proceed next in Iraq or wrestle with runaway health care costs -- remains largely unexplored.
It is a strange and awkward way to pick a president. Still, considering the fields that began the race, one can be grateful for the quality of the candidates that remain. The weeding-out process has left some of the most talented on their feet.





