What else can't you handle?
This sort of preparation has been done before (apart from the examples in the first link, the article reminded me of a documentary that, IIRC, included WWII-era presidents; one who spoke off the cuff, the other who needed questions submitted beforehand), so I'm not as shaken as others might be. Not surprised either, though. (Today on The Spin...)
Setting aside questions too heavy for those employed to answer them, here's my focus for today. "While neither man embraced the other's worldview, each respected the other's right to hold it." What I've seen and continue to see is the opposite of that quote, and while I appreciate seeing the sort of effort made in the first link in this paragraph, sure would've been nice to see that sooner. (Ah well, best time to plant a tree and all.) It's the second half of that quote that's lacking here - if these politicians and newspeople expect respect, withholding and manipulating information and then condemning people for disagreement isn't the way to earn it. (How are those numbers coming at the junction?)
I'd be more sympathetic to traumatic experiences if I hadn't seen the not-a-parking-lot-photos and the not-a-peaceful-protest-videos and the not-caring-that-was-condemned-elsewhere. (Considering that last echo, is this such a good idea?) I reserve my support for those who don't need to reconsider defunding and socialism, and who are now faced with a case study on conventional economic wisdom. If a politician's talk about compounding trauma helps citizens who are dealing with their own, have at it - otherwise, it's not a balm, but fuel on a fire.
Also also, piece from someone who has no need to lie about her blood, birthplace, or language speaking about someone who did, and who does so more mildly than I have on the matter.