Tim Russert moderated a democratic debate last night. I saw a clip, and left some comments about it on another blog.

He should have reacted by saying he wasn't going to answer and validate the question in the first place.

Or, he could have explained that candidates have never before been expected to explicitly reject the support of anyone in the past. They never have because they never felt the need, and they have never felt the need because the concept it irrational.

Same thing with the question about how to assure the Jewish community concerning Louis Farrakhan and Barack's pastor. It is simply unreasonable to expect candidates should have to single out any person that feels the need to support them, simply because they have no control over other's decisions for support. It was almost as if Tim were asking Barack to go on record demanding Farrakhan and his followers not vote for him. He could have said EVERY American has his assurance that he will listen to EVERY American as much as humanly possible, talk to his advisers, and make sound decisions after careful deliberations, while never following the agenda of any single person to the exclusion of all others.

Maybe he could have suggested that Tim was being a little unpatriotic there, insinuating that Barack should alienate an American in the first place, because that is in essence what he was asking. We are never going to agree with everything every other person says or does, but that doesn't mean we completely disregard someone when we do. The notion is absurd.