Here we go again.
Newsweek is out with its "How He Did It" series which offers these insights:
All of these nuggets were gleaned by deals journalists cut to be embedded, as long as there was a promise that none of it would be used until after the election. OK, a naked candidate, an apparent violation of privacy by a campaign, a foreign threat, a phony sincerity from a former rival may not be bit deals to a lot of people, but what if they provided insight to the American people of the character of the people they were about to elect? What if there had been an actual race-changing nugget? What is the value of this information if people can't know it until after the point at which people can do something about it?
One can easily make the claim that these aren't a big deal, but when you make a deal for secrecy, you don't know the importance and value of what's coming.
Politicos Michael Calderone, without actually saying so, seems to hint at the question of whether the relationship between embedded reporters on the campaign trail is a little too cozy.
I like this nugget about the debates:
"When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."
It shows that we, the public, aren't the only ones who think that the debate questions are ridiculous.