The Debate
Out of context: Reply #39
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- Dr_Rand0
"A lot is being made of the absolutely despicable performance turned in during tonight's debate by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. One only needs to visit ABC's own discussion board to get a taste of what people thought of their performance. The fact that two people who purport to call themselves journalists spent the first half of a 2-hour debate conducting what was effectively a right-wing hit job on Barack Obama was bad enough.
But what's not being highlighted is the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for Hillary Clinton to put her foot down and tell Gibson and Stephanopoulos that enough was enough - and to focus on the issues instead.
But she didn't do that. In fact, she goaded the moderators on to continue their birdshitting. She didn't stand up for her fellow Democrat; she chose to embrace those right-wing talking points to use against him.
When Gibson and Stephanopoulos continued to press Obama on the issue of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, to ridiculous levels - "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" - Clinton was given the opportunity to move on from the issue. Did she?
No; instead, she sought to sink in even more inflammatory matters into the issue (quotes taken from this transcript):
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I think, in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard. And it is something that I think deserves further exploration, because clearly what we've got to figure out is how we're going to bring people together in a way that overcomes the anger, overcomes the divisiveness and whatever bitterness there may be out there.
It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds.
And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
The Farrakhan remark is particularly disturbing, given that Obama already denounced him in the last debate, held way back in late February. The Hamas mention, which is an obscure reference to this right-wing hit job, was even worse. There was absolutely no previous instigation for bringing it up; by doing so, Clinton was making something of a dog-whistle appeal to Jewish voters.
In short, instead of using her surplus time to tell the moderators to shove it, Clinton decided to try and stoke the embers of a nearly-dead controversy.
But that wasn't all. When Stephanopoulos asked a question of Obama that was suggested to him by Sean Hannity, Obama dismissed it out of hand in the proper fashion. Again, Clinton had the opportunity to simply dismiss the matter and focus the debate back on relevant matters. But, as is her wont these days, she saw an opportunity to go on the attack once more:
Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.
First of all, Clinton decides to go about and smear the good name of a foundation that provides services for those in need in Chicago. Next, she tries to exploit 9/11 shamelessly - in a style Rudy Giuliani would be proud of - to score more political points. Never mind that Ayers had actually made the above statements before 9/11; the publication they were printed in just happened to be released that day. Lastly, she justifies any further discussion of Ayers by saying that the Republicans will bring it up.
One thing should be abundantly clear: Hillary Clinton is arguably doing a better impression of a cutthroat Republican than John McCain will do in the general election. And while tonight's debate was an unmitigated public relations disaster for ABC, it could've been staunched had the two Democrats on stage taken a stand against the petty politics that the moderators were engaging in.
But one of them didn't - and decided to engage in reinforcing the same right-wing frames that were being thrown out there. It let Gibson and Stephanopoulos continue the train wreck of a debate that ensued.
Hillary Clinton could have stopped it before it began.
But she didn't.
Remember that."