Much of the fallout from the Republican You Tube debate dubiously hosted by CNN this week has centered on either the incompetence or the bias of the producers who sifted through about 5,000 submitted questions.
There would seem to be a deeper issue, however. A couple of posts ago, when I reacted to the indictment of baseball star Barry Bonds for allegedly lying to a grand jury, I lamented how our culture had changed from one of striving for excellence to one of winning at all costs. That shift has come at a severe price, which is showing up in all sorts of ways.
The debate was a great example. The over-worked, low-paid and probably lightly experienced CNN producers just wanted to get the show over with so they can get back to what they normally do. They scanned through submissions faster than a speed-reader samples a lunch menu and picked out the ones that made sense to them as being representative -- which may lend credence to the bias claims.
They did not have as a goal putting on the best show they possibly could, or the most insightful debate. Instead, we got planted queries and front-runners pummeling each other over immigration. The CNN producers really didn't care, or they would have done better.
As you read this, they now care. Key word being "now." If CNN is going to have any credibility left, those tasked with sampling You Tube questions will have been given a dressing down by the big bosses.
Too bad they didn't care earlier. Like Barry Bonds, or the Enron heads, they didn't care about what they were doing when it mattered. There are consequences to your actions, good or bad.
We all have to remember that our actions do matter and they will have an impact at a future time. The more we think ahead, and think about performing the best we can, then those consequences will be good ones. It's a good rule of thumb for you and me and should be the rule of life for those in the public arena.
---
Does Iowa matter? I've always wondered why the caucuses mean so much to the primary campaigns other than the symbolism of being the first state to actually cast votes. It's not you and me out there casting ballots in a neighbor's garage. It's party officials and activists. They don't exactly represent the rest of us.
New Hampshire matters. That's us voting. New Hampshire residents are a pretty good sample of the rest of the United States with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, and only miss out on racial diversity.
The comments come to mind because, according to the polling, preferences in Iowa are changing rapidly.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton among party faithful by a half-point per the Real Clear Politics Web site's aggregate of polls.
For Republicans, Mitt Romney now leads Mike Huckabee by just 2 points after at times sitting on double-digit margins over Rudy Giuliani. The former New York City mayor is now mired in third place after leading in Iowa as late as May. The respected Rasmussen poll has the Arkansas governor up by three points.
Now check out New Hampshire. Clinton even after a bit of a drop following her debate disaster, still leads Obama by 11 points. Obama profited from Hillary's errors, but has even given some of that away in recent polls.
Romney is up by 15 points in the Granite State and is building his lead over Giuliani. Huckabee is still in single-digits in the polls.
Remember, in New Hampshire, it's real people who are voting.
Does Iowa matter? Or will New Hampshire? History tells us that on the Democratic side in 2004, they both mattered. For the Republicans in 2000, neither did. This time, it'll be a split, but it'll be the later primaries which tell us which direction is favored.
---
Keep in mind what I said about dog-piling on Clinton if her poll numbers fall more. It hasn't happened yet because she remains strong in New Hampshire. But if those poll figures go south on her, the attack dogs might start running loose.
---
If either Iowa or New Hampshire matter for Republicans as momentum builders, Romney is sitting pretty. In the states following, polling now has him leading in South Carolina and has about doubled his numbers there since the beginning of October. He's also close in Michigan.
This is huge for the Republican race because the Massachusetts governor has front-loaded his resources in hopes of catching a friendly breeze. It means nothing to win either of the first two states if you can't follow it up. Ask John McCain. With Giuliani holding a commanding lead in Florida, Romney needs South Carolina and Michigan.
---
Giuliani might be heading to where Hillary is. You won't find anyone who says he did well in that You Tube debate, plus the story came out on his use of publicly-funded security to take him out for trysts with the woman who is now his wife.
In some ways, the stuff about Giuliani mixing his personal and professional lives is water under the bridge. People who support him, or think they might, have taken such things under consideration already. But if his numbers slip in the next couple weeks like Clinton's, then he'll get raked over the coals.
