Worst. Debate. Ever.
Over the last year or so, we’ve seen debates that were pretty bad. We’ve seen a few that were embarrassingly bad. But at least in this cycle, I’m not sure if we’ve seen anything quite as train-wreck, cover-your-eyes bad as the spectacle on ABC last night.
What may prove to be the last Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wasn’t just awful on its face, it was hard not to watch wondering if moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity. It marked a new low for the media freak-show. I was conflicted emotionally between anger at ABC for this travesty and pity for the network for having sunk so low.
It was evident very early on that we were in for a long night. The candidates, for some inexplicable reason, were given an opportunity to make opening statements — in previous debates, hosts generally want to get right into questions, not hear mini-speeches — which was followed by an immediate commercial break. Four minutes after getting started, it was time to hear a word from our sponsors.
When they returned, the first question pressed Clinton and Obama on whether they’d commit to taking the other as a running mate. The second was about the “bitter” flap. The third was about whether Clinton thought Obama was electable, and vice versa.
From there, in order, the topics were as follows: the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the Bosnia/sniper flap, lapel flag-pins, and William Ayers and the Weather Underground.
At one point, Stephanopoulos asked Obama, “[D]o you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” In fact, Stephanopoulos asked it twice.
In a debate scheduled for 90 minutes, we didn’t hear a question of any substance until the event was half over. Josh Marshall called it an “unmitigated travesty,” which is as good a description as any.
At one point, about 20 minutes or so into the debate, Stephanopoulos seemed to encourage Obama to go after Clinton on the sniper story. Obama not only took a pass, which was gracious, but actually tried to explain that there were more important things to talk about.
“[T]he fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we’re delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I’m — obviously, I make some as well.
“I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People’s incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we’re seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.
“In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this — these kinds of errors I think is a mistake.”
But it was a mistake the moderators insisted on making, over and over again. Put it this way: at 9:04 — 64 minutes into the debate, and with just 26 minutes remaining, Stephanopoulos said, “Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on Americans’ minds right now.” I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. If it’s the number one issue, why did Stephanopoulos wait so long?
To be fair, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to Gibson’s and Stephanopoulos’ challenge. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, so the hosts’ task was to focus on areas of disagreement in order to create some kind of television-worthy conflict. Regrettably, that’s precisely what Gibson and Stephanopoulos get paid to do.
But the result was as dull as it was pointless, with a discussion that tells us nothing about the candidates, their visions, or their ability to govern. E&P’s Greg Mitchell called it “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” The Washington Post’s Tom Shales called it “step downward for network news,” and noted that the moderators delivered “shoddy, despicable performances.” Will Bunch noted, “Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must . Stop.” Salon’s Walter Shapiro added:
This is the way it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. If Wednesday night’s fizzle in Philly was indeed the last debate of the Democratic primary season between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it will be remembered for, well, not much of anything.
Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon.
So, who won? I haven’t the foggiest idea, but I’m quite certain we all lost.
The intro to the economy question was pathetic, but what killed me was the statement that “Well, we’re running out of time, so we want to turn to a few issues quickly. In less than a minute, what would you do about gas prices?”
I’m surprised we didn’t get “In five words or less, how would you achieve peace in the Middle East?”
“[D]o you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” In fact, Stephanopoulos asked it twice.
That’s got to make the “All Time Lame List.”
And the fact that he asked it twice?
Makes you wonder if Stephanopoulos doesn’t double as a Clinton dead-ender troll.
it was hard not to watch wondering if moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity.
No need to wonder. They get paid to maintain the status-quo and that requires the public discourse to be empty and vapid.
Thankfully, i didn’t watch it (some things in life are easier without television ownership). I’m not a political junkie, but my recreational use is fairly heavy. I’m tired of this. Like the last snowstorms of April, these primaries/debates/campaigns aren’t funny anymore.
When the candidates finally talk about the “issues”, they’re just rehashing things that they’ve said thousands of times before. And most of what they say on the issues is no more than a promissory platitude for which they don’t have the power to deliver.
And all the while, we are allowed to ignore serious issues by focusing on the bread (promised) and the circus (delivered) of the campaign. The candidates aren’t asked about the near revolution happening in our southern neighbor. They don’t propound upon the bitterness of Haitians who are unseating governments because they are tired of living off of clay and vegetable shortening. And they say nothing of our millions of underprivileged living in flower pots under the light of 500 suns.
Where are the questions about how a potential administration will deal with a structural recession in a nation that generates 2/3’s of its economic might from consumer spending…at at time when energy/food costs are rising and the dollar is falling? You can, in the worst case scenario, eat your pastor…but lapel pins aren’t very satisfying for dinner.
So as the American bus careens headlong towards a cliff without brakes, we argue about who should get to drive. Perhaps some of us should start reading the instructions for the emergency exit door at the back.
Tom Shales expressed my disgust with the so-called “debate”. I turned it off after about an hour and read some of Virigil’s Aeneid.
George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson were terrible. The frequency and timing of the commercials were terrible. The panshots of the audience (was Chelsea the only one there?) were terrible. It couldn’t have happened without direction from top management. ABC is off my already thin TeeVee list.
John McCain won.
Couldn’t possibly have been more slimy if they tried.
One positive (or at least potentially helpful) thing that came out of the night: Hon. Sen. Obama needs to be able to counter the tax issues that came up. This is not to say that the questions asked on this topic were of any higher calibre than the rest, but they were pretty much the same as he will likely face in the general and he needs to be clear and concise.
Incidentally, you can and should contact ABC about this here.
Lex at 4, that was a very nicely rendered post. I read it three times, savoring its workmanship. Would that its message were less appropriately grim.
If you can, do yourselves a favor and read the entire Will Bunch letter at Philly.com, which expresses the feelings of many quite well:
Even easier. ABC News Feedback is here.
It is of the utmost urgency that in order to instill competence and relevance in presidential debates, we no longer allow this present crop of personalities calling themselves journalists to serve as moderators. I suggest we replace them — all of them, including Gibson, Stephanopolous, Russert, Williams, Blitzer, etc. — historians such as Michael Beschloss, Douglas Brinkley, David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, and others who are knowledgeable about what is important for voters to know in this election. Leave the “gotcha” game to “Meet the Press” and other broadcast travesties. If extra-terrestrials should come to our planet to search for intelligent life on Earth, they won’t find any evidence of it if they observe anything like this year’s presidential debates.
CJ (#11), Thanks very much for the link. I sent Will Bunch a “bravo!” and everyone else should, too. His email is bunchw@phillynews.com
It’s too much to hope for, I know, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if ABC’s sewer performance last night was the beginning of the end for network TeeVee? I can imagine a conspiracy of bloggers and newspaper readers banding together to … oh, well.
Somebody mentioned it above.
The camera panned to Chelsea Clinton about a half dozen times throughout the course of the debate. I have it on Tivo, and it actually appears as if ABC had a spot light on her (the rest of the audience around her were under dark lights). They even panned to Chelsea in the middle of Obama’s response to one of the few serious question (it’s all relative) about Iraq.
What the…?
Was she a ratings opportunity for ABC? “Hey, look at the blond babe in the front row. If you want to see a lot more of her, vote for Hillary.”
Very annoying!
The League of Women Voters used to do a credible, substantive, and non-partisan job of hosting and moderating debates.
How can we get them back?
Everyone keeps saying this will be encountered in the Republican race….well we are not debating the Republicans. The debate was so one sided.. To go back to a flag pin or Larry Ayers why not also bring up Mark Penn, NAFTA, or Bill Clinton made the intention of the debate known. At one time I thought I could vote for Hillary if Obama did not win but there is no way I can do that now. I will do a write in instead.
Demos I am going Indep!
While I am no fan of the media, it was hardly ABCs fault that the candidates were unable to answer and dismiss simple and relevant questions. Obama was unapologetic and weak. Indeed, he was suprisingly unprepared to address topics that have been previous raised. The “train-wreck” was a product of two candidates unable to honestly address basic questions about their integrity. In any event, does anyone really believe that presidential candiates are going to set forth substantive policy in debates? They give a readers digest version that is more idealism that practical. Rarely, if at all, does the so-called policy espoused during campaigns translate to governing. We are electing a leader to make important decisions. As such, the integrity and judgment of the candidate is a significant issue. As demonstrated last nigh, both of these candidates are lacking in these catagories.
Thanks for the feedback form link, Ed.
I dropped them a nice note.
I just want to qualify my comment above, by saying that I am not implying that Hillary was pimping her daughter. But this Democratic primary is good for ratings, and I can’t help but wonder if ABC was pimping Hillary’s attractive daughter (i.e. sex sells) by putting a spotlight on her and panning to her excessively and at the most inappropriate moments. (No offense, Chelsea). Call me crazy.
The question that surprised me the most was about capital gains taxes. Gibson pointed out that every time (twice) that cap gain taxes were lowered, revenues went up. I had never heard this argument made specifically to cap gains. But the details make a mockery of the question. In 1997 Clinton lowered the cap from 28% to 20. But it coincided with the boon cycle of the NASDAQ bubble. In 2003 Bush lowered the cap from 20% to 15. This coincided with the boon cycle of the housing cycle. It would be overly simplistic to blame these bubbles on the cap changes alone, but the revenues for cap gains are absolutely attributable to them.
And once again, I was frustrated by another debate that was aimed at Republicans rather than Dems. Orange juice and arugula scandals, tax hikes for the wealthiest, guns, religion, precipitous withdrawal, etc.
All that need to be said about GS & CG is summed up in “Billy Madison”:
“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
BarbinMD
Chris is right about the spotlight being on Chelsea last night.
This primary fight is good for ratings (Gibson: “Let every vote be counted. You contest every delegate. Go at each other to the — right till the end. Don’t give an inch to one another.”), and ABC did all they could to hand Clinton a big victory to keep it going. It was three against one last night, and yet again, Hillary disgraced herself by piling onto Gibson’s and Stephanopoulos’ right-wing talking points at every opportunity.
When the debate was over, I visited Obama’s site and made my first contribution. My Disney/ABC days are over too.
In my opinion, we need to do all we can to end this nonsense and turn our attention to McCain and the right-wing freak show that is the traditional media and the Republican Party.
This debate was clearly by design. ABC has been FOXifying itself quite obviously for a while now (It’s the ratings, stupid). I realized this morning that I was duped yet again by the right wing noise machine. I wish Obama and Hillary pointed it out rather than legitimizing it. There were plenty of opportunities (Obanma tried at some points) to demonstrate that questions were clearly right wing talking points and not how mainstream America is currently looking at things. Capital gains questions? Come on. Obama should have smelled that one a mile away.
Ed:
Thanks for the link to ABC. I left them a note, too.
After witnessing the travesty last night on ABC,I was reminded why I quit watching that mindless channel years ago. I felt as though I had been an acquiescent accomplice ,after it was finally,unmercifully over. Charlie Gibson is the embodiment of the now passe’ cliche of “anally retentive.”. What can you say about li’l Georgie Porgie-but a lackey, a lacking. It is abundantly apparent that last night’s debacle proves that ABC is indeed Mickey Mouse in the Disney Wonderland.
I won’t waste my time on debates anymore, same goes for network news. What a waste!
At one point, about 20 minutes or so into the debate, Stephanopoulos seemed to encourage Obama to go after Clinton on the sniper story. Obama not only took a pass, which was gracious, but actually tried to explain that there were more important things to talk about.
Obama passed when given an opportunity to rip into Clinton for her obvious lie about Bosnia and even tried to help her out a little. Clinton passed no opportunity to rip into Obama about stupid bullshit like Wiiliam Ayers.
Call it “elitist” if you like Clinton supporters and Republicans (is there any difference?). Or call him weak. I call it class. We see far too little of it in politicis, especially from the Clinton campaign.
ABC, Gibson and Stephanopolous are a disgrace.
Mattis (24): One point of disagreement. “It’s the ratings.” I don’t think so. I really don’t think Dems wanted a debate about Rep issues, and I don’t think Reps cared about it at all. Most of them are just plain sick and tired of politics. I think the right lean in the media is much more of a loss leader concept, where the corporations that own the major media outlets have bigger interests outside media. They don’t mind losing money here, if they can make more in tax benefits, FCC rules, and other political influence.
While I spent most of the debate (the first one I’ve actually watched) talking back to the television (wondering aloud if Gibson and Stephahoweveryouspellit were really that inane), I literally screamed at my television last night when the whole “Weather Underground” issue was brought up.
In fact, it went something like this:
Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!? How the holy fuck does who you lived next door to 40 fucking years ago matter one god damned bit? Dear lord … is this how we’re going to choose our next President — by who the he lived next fucking door to as a child? Sweet Jesus H. Riverdancing Christ … Shorty McMidget, Douche Gibson, and the rest of our media are clinically fucking retarded stains on humanity who should be kicked in the groin. Hard.
I’m feeling better now … not much, but better. And yes, it’s an unhinged rant.
But these assholes are helping to destroy our country.
They practice what I call “Paparazzi Politics” — when the sound bite or manufactured controversy trumps substance. It’s all about the mistakes and personality and the horserace, rather than on how effective the person may actually be as a leader. And they’re so eager for access, that they’re swayed and influenced by those who are simply nice to them or cook them mediocre bar-b-que.
Until the media changes, nothing will.
Chris (#15)
Chelsea was in the spotlight (amid all those dark blue zombies in the audience) EIGHT times.
I’m still thinking about bloggers and newspapers (i.e., writers and readers) banding together to save our nation by destroying that most dangerous of drugs, network TeeVee. I wish there were some way.
I also just realized that, in my anger at ABC and its minions, I failed to mention another aspect of last night’s disgusting show: the high-tech lynching of Barack Obama, at least during the hour I watched. For example, they went right from belaboring his non-wearing of a lapel flag pin to a head shot of Hillary, who didn’t have a lapel flag pin either. I don’t know that she ever has. They should’ve asked. That would’ve been news. There were many question like that. TeeVee was playing Maxwell’s demon, letting all the Hillary particles through while holding the Obama particles back.
PENNSYLVANIA DEBATE
In the debate last night far too much time was spent attacking Obama on trivial issues such as wearing flag lapel pins, one bitter misstatement, and remote associations. The two moderators and Clinton put him on the defensive for much of the night.
He did OK and Clinton was her usual competent self. About the only news was the conviction of candidates that each would set the strategy and mission for Iraq and not be necessarily bound by opinions of the generals. Also, each conceded that the other was electable in the November election.
Bad moderators, disappointing debate – mostly ho-hum. Where are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich when we need them?
homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
The candidates had a choice they could have both walked out. On the first break they should have both said if you have no substansive questions then we are leaving. Would have made America so proud of them.
Mark D (#30)
Thanks for that wonderful rant. Now I feel a whole bunch better..
And another thing (I keep thinking of things which make me mad), when the cables were carrying debates, they were live. Our Seattle ABC station ran it at 8, three hours llate, so they could their own crappy news broadcast at 8 EDT (5 PDT). Grrrrr.
Everybody, write ABC. Even a brief “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” will do. It’ll make you feel better, too.
#31———I noticed the same thing about Hillary not wearing a flag pin,and I don’t recall ever seeing her wear one. She may have-I just don’t recall personally seeing it myself. I was hoping Obama would point out the difference. He’s too much a gentleman on occasion,she not used to that,being married to Bill. The only grace last night was the disgrace of those two hack hosts-Tweedledumb and Tweedledweeb.Seeing those two was the equivalent of watching them both soil themselves publicly,on national T.V.-embarassing for everyone.
Mark D 30
The question about Ayers is legit. They work with each other on the Woods foundation in the 1990s and have attended many a fundraiser. Ayers is also a contributer to Obama’s Chicago’s campaign. They live in the same neighborhood and converse frequently. This ducking and minimizing a clear amicable relationship is typical Obama aka Revko. He is in bed with some dangerous folk and needs to own up to it or he is going to get his ass handed to him by the republicans
Before you make a statement, try looking it up first dipshit
I haven`t watched more than ten minutes of all the debates combined.i uaually read about it in the paper first then i go to the blogs ,both sides,to get a read on what happened.So far i have not missed anything significant by not watching live.Most of you people need a hobby or something to do when these things are on.All I read is angry analysis after every “debate”. The only debates that matter are between the 2 nominees.Wake up and get a life.
I didn’t watch the debate last night, but came in to hear a coworker (a Clinton supporter) rave about it because she said that for once the moderators didn’t let up on the questions. Sounds good, I thought —
— and then I read this, and found out what the questions were.
Sigh. I’m used to media incompetence by now. What worries me is the response’s from people like my coworker who seem to like it — or at least liked last night’s debate. (From this thread, though, she may be the only person who did, so perhaps I shouldn’t take it so seriously.)
#37—What you are seeing are the reactions from many”bitter” citizens who are rightfully disgusted with their LACK of government. Including myself. It’s called participating in public dialogue.
Just wait & see what Fox does with the Dem convention feed. I would allow them in the building. Maybe the thugs are right…maybe the dems are just a bunch of Chamberlains.
I have to wonder if Goerge and Charlie meet behind closed doors with Hillary before the debate. Hillary seemed to know what questions would be asked and when. Her answers also seemed prepared. George stephanopoulos must have been promised a position with Hillary, let’s see maybe speaker of the house?????????? And for Charlie,I’m ashmed and dissapointed. ABC just sunk to and all time low, and veiwers opionions do matter. From reading the other comments, ABC should be worried today, because they lost a lot.
I looked it up weeks ago, dipshit, and my rant still stands, dipshit, since it has NO FUCKING BEARING WHATSOEVER ON HOW HE’D BE AS PRESIDENT … dipshit.
So keep trying to make something out of nothing, dipshit, and keep acting like Karl Rove’s retarded cousin, dipshit, by ignoring the substantive issues and grasping at anything, no matter how petty, just to win, you dispshit.
Just make sure to keep your dipshit mouth closed when McCain gets elected, we head into another Great Depression, and he starts yet another war and destroys our country for good.
Fucking dipshit.
(Note: I usually don’t respond in kind to ignorant remarks like Manny’s, but I’m in no mood to deal with ignorant, personality-politics-loving assholes this morning.)
Danp #21 – The other point to make is that whenever dramatic reductions are made in the capital gains tax rates, there’s a rush of selling to take advantage of those gains. Investors convert their paper profits to real profits.
This tax fairy nonsense is maddening, and it’s so easy to expose as a fraud, but the game goes on anyway, and somehow Republicans always win. All you have to do is point out that if tax rates are reduced to zero, tax revenues will be reduced to zero. But somehow, that point is never made, and Americans go on believing in the Republican tax fairy.
By the way, have you looked at how McCain is doing in the latest poll? It’s looking like a November shocker. Americans overwhelmingly want change, so they put McCain in the White House. Unbelievable.
Dipshit in Miami,
The question about Ayers is no more legit than is the question about the sucky made in China flag pins. Questioning Barack’s patriotism, or trying to paint him as a consort of terrorists is for trolls, repugs, and right wing sites. Pick your category punk.
It has no place in a nationally televised debate. And if the moderators were worth a damn that crap wouldn’t have been there. Just because various low life groups are going to 527 that nonsense, doesn’t mean it should be elevated into national debates. Quite the contrary. I don’t want questions about UFOs or Vince Foster or 9/11 conspiracies. Suggestion, get a different nick. You are doing the city of Miami an injustice with your displays of overt stupidity.
I agree with Someone (#6) & Pug (#28).
The larger context of this debate is that the Democrats are getting caught up in silly stories and details, the media coverage is “Both Obama and Clinton addressed recent controversies and had to give regrets over recent statements”, and many voters are drifting off to weak support of McCain because they haven’t heard anything bad about him for a while.
Obama was overly apologetic, which seemed weak. I was hoping he’d defend Wright more aggressively, saying something like, ‘Look, Reverend Wright’s message was what you’ve all learned from your parents and in church, do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. If we don’t want to reap terrorist attacks, we shouldn’t be sowing the seeds of oppression and discord.” An attack on Bush’s policies on invasions and torture wouuld be good too.
Obama also passed on quite a few opportunities to go after Clinton. At first, I was hoping he’d take a few shots, but throughout this campaign he has been remarkably consistent about staying on the high road, and I’m finding that very impressive. It remains to be seen if voters in general actually want this.
On the face of it, Clinton did fine. I’m getting less and less happy with her campaign, but she probably didn’t come out of the debate any worse than she went in with respect to Obama. However, both of them will probably continue to slide relative to McCain until the spotlight starts shining on his ongoing nonsense.
I should note, however, that there’s missing text in my rant (shoulda checked the preview as I was editing). It should read:
Manny’s still a dipshit, however, as is Stephashorty for getting the question from Sean Hannity.
At one point, Stephanopoulos asked Obama, “[D]o you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” In fact, Stephanopoulos asked it twice.
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.
After all, nothing says unbiased like a former employee, right Hillary?
Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton’s communications director.
How did we come to a point with our media where ethics didn’t dictate Snuffleuphagus decline to moderate a Presidential debate featuring his former employer?
I sat on a board once with a lot of people I never liked nor respected. Unfortunately, boards are messy democratic forums and I don’t get to hand pick everyone I interact with. I guess I should have decided that being in the same room with dispicable people would have tarnished my reputation too much to stay. Instead, I stayed and fought hard for the nonprofit to be the best that it could be doing things that I thought counted. Silly me!
C’mon, Always hopeful — don’t you know that doesn’t matter?!
All that matters are the comments, beliefs and problems of anyone you have ever had a relationship with at any time ever.
The rest — what you actually said or believe — means nothing.
:On April 17th, 2008 at 10:37 am, Mark D said:
Before you make a statement, try looking it up first dipshit
I looked it up weeks ago, dipshit, and my rant still stands, dipshit, since it has NO FUCKING BEARING WHATSOEVER ON HOW HE’D BE AS PRESIDENT … dipshit.
So keep trying to make something out of nothing, dipshit, and keep acting like Karl Rove’s retarded cousin, dipshit, by ignoring the substantive issues and grasping at anything, no matter how petty, just to win, you dispshit.
Just make sure to keep your dipshit mouth closed when McCain gets elected, we head into another Great Depression, and he starts yet another war and destroys our country for good.
Fucking dipshit.
(Note: I usually don’t respond in kind to ignorant remarks like Manny’s, but I’m in no mood to deal with ignorant, personality-politics-loving assholes this morning.)
********************************
go for it dude …. go for it ………… and amen
ABC’s complaint line: 818 460 7477
Hey, Manny @36,
If the President of the US and the Dem Icon of Florida (Bill Clintoh himself) could *pardon* the damned Weather Underground, why should Obama’s being in a room with one of them count as something dark and dangerous? Your brain has turned into Deep $… and can’t reason anymore…
I believe I warned the Obamaphiles a couple of months ago that they were going to regret applauding the MSNBC biased bashing of Hillary because it was going to come back to haunt them when the media turned on Obama as of course they were going to eventually do. At that point in time, they screamed about how much all these types of trivial character and Gotch issues mattered -as long as the target was Hillary- and berated her and her supporters as whiners.
Well look whos whining now. As predicted those hypocrites who never worried about media bias before are now in a screaming tizzy now that they see that people might actually question Obama hard as well
Worse, is the complaint about the focus on character issues. Obama and his campaign have relentlessly pushed these issues against Hillary, and indeed is presently trying to push the “screw you” comment as news (Per Josh Marshall) so there is no basis for complaining when similar character issues are raised against him.
What the obamaphiles should be concerned about is how BADLY Obama answered these questions. Hell even his biggest admirer Andrew Sullivan admits he looked bad. I was watching with a undecided Pa. dem last night who hadn’t been paying that much attention previously and her response to his answer to the Rev. Wright questions is “well either he is lying about not hearing the comments or he isn’t a very religious man since he has very little knowledge about what happened in his church in the last twenty years and so is lying when he says he is a man of faith.” The fact that the focus group meters dropped on those answers also shows that alot of people aren’t buying what he is sellling and this issue isn’t as dead as you falsely proclaimed.
But of course I’m sure the regulars in this blog will do their usual stamping of their feet and blaming of everyone but their candidate for his mistakes.
It really is laughable. And I have no sympathy for it- reap what you sowed.
It really is laughable.
Your argument or your attitude?
Both? Sure.
You could get a feel for the “quality” of the debate even if you had the sound turned off, if only you’d had it on for the segues into the commercials. It was like a boxing match, with that stupid WWF-sounding (I’m assuming, I’ve never watched WWF) announcer saying something like, “Clinton and Obama, head to head!!” or some such bullshit, I don’t recall it precisely. Just abominable!
The intro did have a Monday Night Football feel.
All they needed were images of the candidates’ heads butting into each other and exploding, as Hank Wiliams Jr. screamed “Are you ready for some utter bullshit?!?”
I think the failure of ABC news to come up with some interesting policy questions is what’s really telling about this debate.
A good question I’d like to know is “What are your priorities after your sworn in?” I think this is a good question on so many levels.
First of all, it gives the candidates a chance to differentiate themselves. Second, the candidates have been promising so many different things, but this shows where there priorities are. Third, of course the withdrawal of troops from the Iraq Occupation is going to be a top priority. But once that’s rolling, what’s next? Osama bin Laden? Mortgage Crisis? Healthcare? Environment? There are a ton of issues facing our nation? What are the candidates priorities?
Another good question I’d like to have answer is “What are you looking for in a VP candidate?” A Dick Cheney type? An Al Gore Type? Or Dan Qualye type?
Come on ABC News! Coming up with substantive, interesting and entertaining questions is not all that difficult to do! I’ve come up with 2, and I’m not even a journalist. Though I’m probably more of a journalist then Charles Gibson and George Stephenopoulos. Instead you lowered yourselves to Faux News standards. ‘Tis a shame.
The two “jounalists” last night are embarrassments to the profession. After hearing the sophomoric questioning by these two ABC personalities, I had to check my programming guide as I thought the only appropriate encore to ABC’s debate spectacle would have been televised singing and flying lessons for pigs. But alas, ABC seems to have no expert programmers on staff to segue into further irrelevant viewing choices. What dopes over there at ABC! -Kevo
That was such an unfair debate.
Snort!
I think they focused on Chelsea for a couple of reasons. She was sitting next to the Governor of Pennslyvannia. She’s an adult.
Senator Obama’s kids are just that, kids. And I think I saw one of them. Once.
Like I said, so unfair.
As for unfair attacks, which Senator Obama repeated that Washington has failed America for DECADES. I found the 1990’s pretty good for America. Barack doesn’t seem to agree. He points out the lose of income among the middle class over the last seven years (about $1000 in real income) and then implies that this lose extends back to Reagan’s administration, while in fact the household income of middle class Americas rose about $7000 in real income during the Clinton Administration.
But the Obama Campaign seems to think they can’t win without tearing down the last Democratic Administration. Then they whine when they get counter-attacked?
Like I said, so unfair.
Lance,
Income inequality rose during the 90s. Admittedly not as fast as it did in the 80s or the 00s but it still rose. As a liberal, I see that as Washington failing America for decades. Do you not? If so, why not?
The ABC debate moderators were reminiscent of schoolyard bullies taunting other kids to fistfight for their own selfish delight. It appeared that ABC was seeking to pervert an American Presidential debate into a sleazy fake reality TV show. ABC, Stephanopolous, and Gibson should be ashamed enough to apologize to American citizens for wasting the public franchise they enjoy and ABC ought to give both candidates two hours each of free airtime.
Stephanopolous’s and Gibson’s moderating of the debate was quite tacky. Pretty irresponsible actually. I have to say I have never been that impressed with Charlie Gibson as he is pretty mundane, but I had never until last evening viewed George Stephanopolous as such an unoriginal status quo media whore. I sincerely believe Obama, and even Clinton to a lesser extent would prefer to transcend mudslinging politics as usual. The media just doesn’t seem to want to allow it. And at the end of the day what they are doing is not really even that entertaining.
Can’t we just excecute the MSM and replace them with clones of Colbert and Jon Stewart?
Edo said: “Income inequality rose during the 90s. Admittedly not as fast as it did in the 80s or the 00s but it still rose. As a liberal, I see that as Washington failing America for decades. Do you not? If so, why not?”
Maybe because I don’t focus on single statistics like income inequality. More people worked, many got off welfare, which is only the generational transfer of poverty, median incomes rose in real terms. Revenue went up and deficits went down. We never had a real surplus, just a Social Security and other trust fund surpluses masking a general revenue deficit, but that’s still better. More people had health insurance.
We won a few short successful wars. Somalia was a disappointment but it gave us so many Republican’t quotes we don’t use nearly enough.
Maybe I’m just not liberal enough to attack the Clinton Administration even though it was unquestionably opportunistic and DLC, since they were the last successful two term Democratic presidency since Roosevelt (or maybe Truman if you don’t mind Korea).
And maybe I just think Senator Obama should stop his sly little digs at the Clintons while he’s proclaiming himself the prophet of the ‘New Politics’ ’cause he seems to be using the ‘old politics’ to me.
Americans have lost ground in real terms since the Supreme Court gave Boy George II the Presidency. Americans not being as successful as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or the Obamas in the 90’s doesn’t quite measure up.
In short, I no more think Obama should conflate Boy George II’s administration with Bill Clinton’s then I think McCain should conflate al Qaeda in Iraq with Iran.
Obama wants us all to get beyond the kind of slimy politics which everyone since Carter has given us. Carter predicted global energy crises and provided a program to deal with it. Big oil said no. Once you get past that it’s all petty partisan bullshit.
I am sick and tired of the Bush Crime Family and the Clinton Crime Family and their petty gotcha games. This isn’t 15th century Italy. It’s 21st Century America and Obama’s the one for this historical moment. He’s uniquely qualified to make race an “old politics” issue. If he picks a female governor as a running mate, which I hope he will, they will make gender an “old politics” issue as well. Bring on Obama and whatserhame (for the moment). Goodbye to old politics.
Is that naive? Well, so were the Founding Fathers and Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and JFK and MLK and RFK. And me. So what?
Ed Stephan wrote “It’s 21st Century America and Obama’s the one for this historical moment. He’s uniquely qualified to make race an “old politics” issue.”
No he’s not. He’s practicing exactly the same style of politics.
You just mean he’s going to change the players.
Well, of course, Lance. Politics is politics. Read some Roman history, or Greek.
But every once in while you need to turn to a whole new group of players. The Italian economist and political thinker Vilfredo Pareto called it the “circulation of elites” – abandoning the established people and trying out new ones.
According to him, people with talent are kept out of governing by those who are already there. At some point those in power (the Bushes and the Clintons) aren’t addressing problems anymore; they’re simply “holding on” to power. At that point those who want to solve problems enter and being doing things. After a while, they of course get more interested in holding on than solving problems (solving problems is risky; you might lose power in the process). Rather than solving problems, they simply say they are (i.e., lying with rosy reports). Further still they lie about the existence of problems (George Bush now). In the end, if they’re allowed to, they give up problem solving altogether and hold on by force alone. Every move along this inevitable course makes it more likely that “new people” will succeed in replacing them.
At this time we need Obama. Not Bush III or Clinton III. Obama.
And I thought we fought taxation without representation 200 years ago….and won? what? Just another monarchy with a figurehead called president.
Perhaps it is time for a new tea party….desperate times desperate measures and all the tea in China. And now the middle class makes $200,000 a year? That alone should tell you how out of touch these reporters are. Talk about your elitists.
BOYCOTT ABC AND DISNEY NOW. Considering the likelyhood that this was a planned hit by George S and/or the head of Disney who’s clear his vote goes to Clinton. Considering the questioned Obama about trivial crap for 45 minutes and Clinton only eight. Considering how lightening fast she was with her answers, like she knew the questions in advance….. THIS IS LIKELY THE BIGGEST STORY OF THE CAMPAIGN SO FAR.
When the fourth estate so clearly abdicates it’s responsibilities to inform the American people of what’s IMPORTANT…. considering the mess we’re in after eight years of bush…. WE BOYCOTT any news agency that either continues with this tripe at such an important moment in history, and the ones that ignore this, the very biggest story of this race…. cause they can’t ignore it in reality. If they pretend too, that means they’re corrupt too.
It’s true, we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. Flag pins!!! I’m 55 with no health insurance. I’ve got a 15 year old grandson who will turn 18 and be old enough to die in Iraq or Iran before this next presidential term is over…. and those chickenshts proudly call themselves journalists while they have a Christmas party of election ratings on the backs of so many of us that can barely get by??
Enough. Enough already. Any news agency who doesn’t stay on point, delete them from your tivo list. Find another source that will ask tough questions about things that ACTUALLY MATTER.
WE START WITH ABC AND THEIR PARENT COMPANY DISNEY. The fourth estate has screwed us long enough. Now we begin to boycott. If the fake journalist will remember it’s more fun to be real journalist quickly, then the boycott dies out. If they don’t, it grows. Power to the American People. We pay the media’s bills. When we stop, they’ll straignten up. BOYCOTT!