The Debate
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- ukit0
here's the real issue that no one is talking about - next President will most likely have the chance to appoint (at least) two Supreme Court justices. If it's McCain appointing two conservatives you can basically say goodbye to women's right to choose...among other things...it would be ironic if by staying in the race and not allowing the party to unite around Obama Hillary actually set back women's rights by 50 years.
- mrdobolina0
I actually think it is good that clinton is pulling all the horseshit out now, it disarms mccain.
- mrdobolina0
jeremiah wright is going to be old news in august.
- OSFA0
have they mentioned the McCain 'family recipes' yet???
- Dr_Rand0
"The response to the awful ABC debate from various internet blogs and commenters has been overwhelmingly negative. Now, the MSM is getting in on the act.
From Tom Shales at Washington Post.
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
Wow, you can't really go anywhere from there, can you? Oh yes you can.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
Case in point, Ayers and Rev. Wright.
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
Preach it, Brother Shales! He makes no bones about the bias of the moderators.
To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
Couldn't have put it any better myself.
Update: Will Bunch get in on the action.
With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.
- TheBlueOne0
My in-laws are in town so we went out to dinner and I missed the debate. Sounds like I missed two hours of me throwing pillows at the TV...
- Dr_Rand0
"Going into tonight's debate in Philadelphia, the two millionth one we've had so far this primary season, I had one significant worry: that the bulk of the time would be taken up with process questions and media obsessions, and that issues of import would end up getting sidelined. As it turns out, I was depressingly, distressingly correct. In fact, there were times when tonight's debate ventured into territory so utterly asinine that I could scarcely believe what I was witnessing.
Twas not until the nine-o'clock hour drew nigh that a single issue-oriented question was asked. The entire first hour was dedicated to silly campaign queries and scandals both du jour and d'antan. Before a single question was posed about the War in Iraq or the economy was asked, the viewing audience had to wade through the following:
Any chance at a "Dream Ticket?"
"Bitter, much?"
"Do you think your opponent stands a chance against McCain?"
"What about Reverend Wright?"
"Wait. I have an even stupider question about Reverend Wright."
"Seriously. Who were you fooling with that Bosnia shizz?"
"Hey, Hussein! Why no American flag lapel pin?"
"Hey, Sean Hannity wanted me to ask you something, Barack! I got a question on the Weather Underground! Maybe later we'll talk about the Symbionese Liberation Army!"
All of these questions have been beaten to a pulp, grim death. And neither candidate really had anything new to add to the responses they've already offered time and time again. It was as if ABC News, left out of the twenty-four hour news cycle that spawned these zombo-droid queries, needed to get in their licks on the same matters, too, just so they could feel like they'd played a part in every last one of the primary season's glittering inanities.
Why in the world George Stephanopoulos felt compelled to ask Barack Obama if Reverend Wright "loved America" after he had already been made to give another recitation of his repudiation of Wright's remarks is a question that simply defies the imagination. What sort of sensible answer can be given to that question? It would require astral projection to properly gauge another man's emotional state. And if you want to ask Hillary Clinton to account for the odd contortions she advanced on the matter of her Bosnia recollections, just sack up and ask. Don't hide behind the additional, pointless cruelty of a random voter's scoldings that Clinton lost their vote. What a wholly superfluous pile on!
And the flag lapel pin question came with this admonishment from Charles Gibson: "It keeps coming up, again and again." Well, no shit, Charlie! It keeps "coming up, again and again" because the media resolutely refuses to obtain the necessary courage to stop doing so.
Gibson and Stephanopoulos did deign to squeeze in a few questions of substance, on the Iraq War, taxes, Iran's nuclear ambitions, gun control, and energy independence. But it was quite clear that the moderators could have cared less about the content of the candidate's responses. Instead, they concerned themselves with pinning Obama and Clinton down on a series of absurd "pledges," for the purpose, no doubt, of providing the "gotcha" questions of tomorrow.
To their credit, Clinton and Obama were thoughtful enough to broach the topic of the housing market. Good thing! It didn't occur to the moderators to ask!
The string of issue-oriented questions didn't last long. The debate concluded with a question on how the candidates would "use" George W. Bush in the future. (As a hat-rack, maybe?) And the invitation to make a closing statement required each candidate to imagine how they would win the support of a superdelegate. Process nonsense to the end.
Throughout the night, ABC returned from commercials with bumpers that featured random quotes from the Constitution, because something, apparently, needed to substitute for gravitas.
Like I said, there have been several thousand of these debates. Most, I've watched. Many, I've covered or liveblogged. A few, I have sat very still, and hoped for the sweet release that only the icy hand of death can provide. Tonight was the first time I would have dearly loved to see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama team up and turn the tables on their interrogators.
Before ABC signed off for the evening, Gibson heard a reaction from the audience and observed, "The crowd is turning on me."
If only they'd done so sooner."
- Dr_Rand0
"The Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV?"
- JKristofer0
Circus.
I cannot believe these are the clowns we have to choose from.
Horrible.
- memo to Stephanopoulos and Gibson: go fuck yourselfDr_Rand
- Dr_Rand0
"The Collapse Of The National Press
After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths.
Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country.
What a contrast. Only a few weeks ago, we were presented with what was considered by many to be a historic speech by a presidential candidate on race in America -- historic for its substance, tone, delivery, and stark candor. Last night, we had an opposing, equally historic example -- and I sincerely mean that, I consider it to be every bit as significant as that word implies -- of the collapse of the political press into self-willed incompetence. You might as well pull any half-intelligent person off the street, and they would unquestionably have more difficult and significant questions for the two candidates. It was not merely a momentarily bad performance, by ABC, it was a debate explicitly designed to be what it was, which is far more telling.
It is certainly true that a case could be made that the moderators explicitly set out to frame even the supposedly "substantive" questions according to GOP designs. The implicit presumption of success in Iraq when, nearly an hour into the debate, the moderators finally deigned to mention the defining current event of this campaign. Gibson, as moderator, lied outright about the supposed effects of capital gains tax cuts, and dogged the candidates over it to a greater extent than any other economic issue: does he really believe that of all the economic challenges facing this nation, the most pressing of them is supplication towards a decade-long Republican bugaboo? Gun control? Affirmative action? These are the issues that are most compellingly on the minds of Democratic primary voters, in 2008? Or were the questions taken from a 1992 time capsule, insightful probes gathering dust for a decade and a half until they could find network moderators desperate enough to dig them up again?
But even slanted questions could be forgiven, of the press; what was more inexplicable was the intentional wallowing in substanceless, meaningless "gaffe" politics. It says something truly impressive about the press that a few statements by a presidential candidate's preacher bear far more weight to the future of our nation than the challenges of terrorism or war. It is truly a celebration of our own national collapse into idiocracy that we can furrow our brows and question the patriotism of a candidate, deeply probe their patriotism based on whether or not they regularly don a made-in-China American flag pin, but a substantive discussion of energy policy, or healthcare, or the deficit, or the housing crisis, or global climate change, or the government approval of torture, or trade issues, or the plight of one-industry small American towns, or the fight over domestic espionage and FISA, or the makeup of the Supreme Court -- those were of no significance, in comparison.
If a media organization set out to intentionally demonstrate themselves to be self absorbed and ignorant, they could not have accomplished it better. It was not just a tabloid debate, but the tittering of political kindergardeners making and lobbing mud pies. It was politics as game show. The moderators demonstrated that to them and their supposed "news" organization, the presidency of the United States of America is about the trivialities of_politics_, which were obsessed over ravenously, not about the challenges of American governance, which were fully ignored.
Certainly, as mere citizens we could ask little of the network that unapologetically brought us The Path to 9/11, a fabricated conservative pseudo-documentary laying the blame for terrorism at the feet of everyone loathed by the far right. But it is not simply ABC that bears the blame: surely, one could expect similar drivel from any of the other networks or cable channels who have so successfully and self-importantly dimmed the national discourse, these past ten years. For his part, the chairman of the written intellectual wisp, the New York Times' David Brooks, marveled at the "excellent" questions:
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
Indeed, how dare his peon readers whine about these things: this is how the political game is expected to be played by the grand masters of our discourse. Symbolic tours of flag factories! Checkmate! That is the elite idea of "issues" in our national debate. Piss on the war, and screw the economy -- somebody find a goddamn flag factory to tour! That is how our most elite media figures like to see political opponents "exposed" as... well, what exactly? What does touring a flag factory prove, other than the media in this country is so astonishingly gullible, tin-headed and shallow that you can actually tour a damn flag factory and get praised for it by our idiot press as being a bold, disarming move against your opponent?
Truly, we have become a nation led by the most lazy and ignorant. It seems impossible to mock or satirize just how shallowly the media considers the actual world ramifications of each election, how glancingly they explore the actual truth behind political assertion or rhetoric, or how gleefully they molest our discourse while praising themselves for those selfsame acts. And that, in turn, is precisely how we elected our current Idiot Boy King, a man who has the eloquent demeanor of a month-old Christmas tree and the nuance of a Saturday morning cartoon.
It seems impossible, but we may yet have an election season in which we can be in a slogging, five-year-long war, and mention the fact only in glancing asides. We may yet have a series of Republican-Democratic debates in which the most pressing issues of the economy are entirely ignored, so that we can more adequately explore the "patriotism" of the candidates as expressed by their clothing. We may have yet another campaign season carefully orchestrated to leave all but the most glancing and hollow of themes untouched, while our press achieves multiple orgasms at every botched line, every refused cup of coffee, every peddled character assassination or character assassination-by-proxy peddled by the sleaziest of paid dregs. A campaign, in other words, perfectly suited to the bereft, rudderless, and substanceless self-pronounced guardians of our democracy.
Perhaps, if nothing else, it is time to take back the debate process and insist once again on moderators chosen for competence, expertise and neutrality, rather than network or cable network fame. The elites of our press have managed to botch the task time and time again; perhaps it should be left to someone with an actual interest in doing the job."
- utopian0
Looks like McCiain is now moving ahead in all national polls!
- utopian0
Does anyone really think that either of these multi-millionaire politicans really give a shit whether you can pay your rent or fill your car with gas?
Do NOT be brainwashed by all their rhetoric and bullshit!!!
I have been hearing the same shit for 15 years!!!- I've been hearing it for a lot longer than 15 years, and I believe Obama is differentDr_Rand
- utopian0
As is stands for now, I am voting for the "least corrupt" candidate ans that would be Obama!
Hillary and McCain with all of their collective experience share a few things in common: lobbyists, special interest groups, and K Street.
This is the core of all corruption in America, period!
- TheBlueOne0
But what about this DIRE threat to OUR COUNTRY!! Only FOX tells you the important stories!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2…
Where not the candidates grilled on this VITAL ISSUE!!!
- SigDesign0
I think that the media's obsessions are translated too immediately into the debate's questions. Actually, what the media obsesses about should NEVER become a debate question, because it's already all over the news every day. These tabloid things don't change my view of Obama, but it does make me more bitter towards Clinton, who seems intent on fueling false fires and lies.
- TheBlueOne0
It's just fucking hilarious, a media made up of elites grilling presidential candidates, themselves elites, over insulting the hoi polloi by telling them they are in fact poor, frustrated and bitter and no one in the elite gives a shit about them. Obama fucked up by letting the truth slip and they're all scrambling to cover it up.
- Iggyboo0
I am pretty annoyed by the media last night. They didn't let them debate, all they talked about was news stories that were irrellevent to both campaigns. NBC CBS, ABC, FOX all of them should be ashamed to publicly host campaign debates if they wont let the speakers get asked meaningful questions rather then their bloody hot press news article stories about whom knows whom and how whom mispoke about what.
- Dr_Rand0
"STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?
Not only is this a prime example of the facile, despicable questions asked at last night's assault on the whole idea of a presidential debate, it's really not fair.
Here's Daniel Schorr on NPR a couple of days ago.
Who is the real patriot, willing to service his country? One such man in 1963 served two years in the Marines, then volunteered to become a Navy medical corpsman. In that capacity, he helped to care for President Johnson after his surgery in 1966. ... And who was that patriot? A young, African-American man who went on to become the pastor of a church in Chicago. That's right, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Who loves America? Jeremiah Wright loved it enough that while Dick Cheney was getting his string of five deferments, Wright voluntarily gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps. Wright was valedictorian of his class in Corpsman School. When asked about the sacrifices he'd made, Wright said he was inspired by the words of John Kennedy that he should "ask what he could do for his country."
And he did that at a time where there were many restaurants in this country that wouldn't serve him food, hotels where he could not get a room, neighborhoods where he could not hope to live, and whole states where he could not obtain justice. That, damn it, is how much Jeremiah Wright loves this country. What Stephanopoulos asked isn't fair, because there are very few people who have expressed their love for America as clearly as Reverend Wright, especially when America -- then and now -- rarely seems to appreciate their dedication.
How about you, Stephanopolus? Does Jeremiah Wright love America more than you? How about you, Charlie Gibson? It happens that you started college at the same time as Wright, and graduated while Wright was attending President Johnson. From what I can see, the two of you love your country so much, that you're willing to go to any lengths to demean both the candidates and your own profession."
- 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."
- Dr_Rand0
"Philadelphia Daily News Endorses ObamaThursday, April 17th,
Paper’s ed board picks Obama, who has been trailing Clinton in the statewide polls but is expected to do well in Philly.
“The choice in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It’s a choice between the past and the future.”
Also discounts Clinton’s experience. “We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband’s administration and accomplishments were her own.”
Plus: The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that “prominent Pennsylvania supporters” will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity."