Time: The ‘Fevered, Unsolicited Advice Orgy’ for Barack Obama’s Debate Performance

I’m glad I wasn’t the only person thinking this.

Time Magazine writes:

All of which occasioned that most banal of modern journalistic ceremonies in the days leading up to the Oct. 30 Democratic debate: a fevered, unsolicited-advice orgy. None of the advice was substantive, of course. It was all about tactics. He had to attack Hillary Clinton. He had to make his move or lose — which, given the tendency of Iowa and New Hampshire voters to make last-minute decisions, wasn’t remotely true. Even his consultants got into the act, requesting an interview with the New York Times, in which Obama announced — pathetically — that he was going to be more specific in his criticisms of the front runner.

…

It was “journalism” at its most useless. The ability to eviscerate your opponents is far less important in a President than the ability to defend yourself. In the nine primary campaigns I’ve covered, the willingness to attack was a) a sign of desperation and b) a leading indicator of failure, especially if it became the defining characteristic of a candidacy. Four years ago, John Kerry wisely decided not to go negative on Howard Dean and won the nomination when Dean and Dick Gephardt slaughtered each other in a negative-ad shoot-out. Now that Edwards has taken the lead against Clinton, Obama might profit by staying aloof and presidential.

Read more.