Tonight’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia was the worst I’ve watched, and that is saying something. The blogging consensus, not to mention the furious comments clogging up the ABC post-debate comment thread, has it right. The “moderators” were evidently bored by most of the policy issues at stake in this election—small matters such as comprehensive health care reform, the war in Iraq (eventually mentioned), the economy (mostly ignored). They preferred to dwell on American-flag lapel-pins, and on a variety of silly ambush questions intended, I don’t doubt, not to elicit information and discussion, but to wrong-foot the candidates and produce some “good television”. The whole thing was so phoney and dreary, even by the standards of these events, that I wonder how many people not being paid to watch managed to stay with it to the end.
As for the candidates, it was a night both would prefer to forget. They were not so much uninspiring as anti-inspiring. Hillary scored points but, as is her way, in a fashion that probably bumped up her disapproval rating as much as Obama’s. Having said that, Obama definitely had the worse of it. He looked tired, demoralised even, and was often as faltering and hesitant as in the first debates, way back when. Dealing with Wright (yes, that again), he squirmed, returning (to my astonishment) to his first, failed, and totally non-credible line of defense—namely, that he was not present when his pastor said those things, so it all came as something of a shock. He was that bad.
It couldn’t have gone better for the GOP if they had scripted and stage-managed the entire event.
« When you pander, don't admit it | Main | The race goes on » The Philadelphia debate16 Apr 2008 11:57 pm Comments (35)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.
ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change.
Clinton was questioned about her positions on Wright and Obama's bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his "campaign" was hammering on it, "of course," yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it - HE is. I'd much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don't match the perception they're trying to falsly portray.
I don't know what debate you were watching. But in the one I watched, they actually asked Obama:
"Does Reverend Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you do?"
I'm an independent leaning democrat and it was clear from the get go that this was a well-orchaestrated hit job on Obama. It seemed like the two moderators were on a personal mission to redeem the media for its "bias" against Clinton, and they had traded their fancy suit for "Team Clinton" jerseys five minutes into the debate. Didn't really get much out of this debate to sway my vote one way or another. It was largely a complete waste of my time and I'm sure many will probably voice similar sentiments in the coming days. ABC should think twice about who they let moderate if they get the chance to host another presidential debate.
Contact ABC about the disgrace to all Americans by Charlie Gibson and George
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346
If the debate was dreary, it was more the quality of the questions than the candidates' responses.
The moderators are the third major participants in any debate. And once again the media has managed to interject itself so deeply into the process that it has made itself the main story.
Tonight, ABC did a major disservice to the public.
I found the post-debate poll (see below) on ABC's own website, so it's still in progress. Note how ABC's overtly biased and inane 'interrogation' of Obama seems to have backfired on both ABC and Billary, due to Obama's ability to show such presidential composure even with these two truly elitist, incompetent, and impotent has-beens (Rose and Snuggle-up-agus, or Billary -- take your pick) -- pompously and cynically ignoring REAL issues concerning PA voters and instead pandering to the lowest common denominator (read: Billary and their mindless ilk) by focusing almost exclusively on NON-ISSUES, focusing instead on those pseudo-issues involving only Obama (what about Mark Penn? CAFTA-gate? an endless list if Clinton was subjected to the same lines of attack). This tranparent exercise in attempted character assassination would have made Billary weep, lash out, and/or cry "foul" in real time -- yet Obama remained both dignified and graceful and stayed WAY above the fray -- voters are not suckers, ABC, as evidenced by their overwhelmingly positive review of his performance below.
WHO WON THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE?
Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off ahead of next week's crucial Pennsylvania primary.
Who won the Democratic debate?
Sen. Barack Obama: 20,750
Sen. Hillary Clinton: 7,265
It was a tie: 2,179
Total Vote: 30,194
I found the post-debate poll (see below) on ABC's own website, so it's still in progress. Note how ABC's overtly biased and inane 'interrogation' of Obama seems to have backfired on both ABC and Billary, due to Obama's ability to show such presidential composure even with these two truly elitist, incompetent, and impotent has-beens (Rose and Snuggle-up-agus, or Billary -- take your pick) -- pompously and cynically ignoring REAL issues concerning PA voters and instead pandering to the lowest common denominator (read: Billary and their mindless ilk) by focusing almost exclusively on NON-ISSUES, focusing instead on those pseudo-issues involving only Obama (what about Mark Penn? CAFTA-gate? Screw'Em-gate... an endless list if Clinton was subjected to the same lines of attack). This transparent exercise in attempted character assassination would have made Billary weep, lash out, and/or cry "foul" in real time -- yet Obama remained both dignified and graceful and stayed WAY above the fray -- voters are not suckers, ABC, as evidenced by their overwhelmingly positive review of his performance below.
WHO WON THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE?
Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off ahead of next week's crucial Pennsylvania primary.
Who won the Democratic debate?
Sen. Barack Obama: 20,750/
Sen. Hillary Clinton: 7,265/
It was a tie: 2,179/
Total Vote: 30,194
Teri B is in a fantasy world
The “moderators” were evidently bored by most of the policy issues at stake in this election—small matters such as comprehensive health care reform, the war in Iraq (eventually mentioned), the economy (mostly ignored).
In fairness, they've talked about comprehensive health care reform and Iraq in what seems like at least ten debates already. In several of the debates both candidates repeated the same talking points, especially about health care, where we've seen the "forcing people to buy coverage covers X million more people and avoids moral hazard" vs "if you structure it right, you don't need to force people to buy coverage" discussion so many times.
It certainly did seem like they were asking the candidates how they would respond to possible Republican attacks. I would hold that that could be a useful bit of information for Democratic primary voters and superdelegates.
They did discuss the economy somewhat, however. Sen. Obama's response apparently granting that even if lowering capital gains taxes increased government revenue, he would raise them out of a desire for fairness and in preventing inequality provides insight into his mindset. Both candidates promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year, and I believe Sen. Clinton went so far as to say that she'd cut their taxes. Those vows make it near-impossible for either to actually come close to balancing the budget while engaging in their already promised spending programs. That vow combined with a follow up question also forced Sen. Obama to claim, if I understood him correctly, that he would eliminate the payroll tax cap (curently around $95k of income) but then rebate the payroll taxes paid on income between $95k-$200k. That strikes me as a ridiculously inefficient proposal.
Still, I would have preferred gotcha questions to discuss things like both candidates' apparent hypocrisy and trade agreements. on trade agreements, or our dumb biofuel mandates (and tariff on sugar and sugar ethanol) and how they're causing higher food prices and food riots throughout the world, etc. Some of the questions did rise to the insipid nature of some of the Republican debate questions. (In the latter, I'm thinking about some of the obscure theology questions.)
I see looking at the transcript that it was Sen. Clinton who said she was "absolutely committed to not raising taxes on those making less than $200,000," while Sen. Obama went so far as to say he would cut taxes for those making less than $200k, somehow while subjecting their income between $95k and $200k to payroll tax but then rebating it later.
The gun questions were interesting, if just to see them both sing paeans to local control and claim that they did not know the details of DC's gun law at all.
About that last line,
You hit the nail on the head.
Who owns ABC? NBC? CBS?
Who owns Wall St. Journal? Fox News?
Anyone expecting "fair and balanced" reporting is bound to be dissapointed from here to eternity. Most "news" today is propaganda.
Also, I see that this was actually the 23rd broadcast Democratic debate. Wow; I was going to say it felt like twenty-some debates, but I couldn't believe that number. I'll have to check on how many debates featured only these two, but it's certainly not like the "ignored issues," especially health care reform and Iraq, haven't been done to death in prior debates. Once their prepared responses reached a steady state, I didn't care about those topics anymore. Of course, not everyone has seen all the debates, certainly.
It was a sappy debate with stupid questions. Obama looked tired, Hillary looked like a robot who doesn't know when to shut down, and who the hell thought 21 debates was a good idea in the first place?
Lincoln-Douglass, where are you when we need you?
Finally, some real questioning of Obama for a change! At last night's debate we got to see a level playing field between the two candidates and the contrast could not have been starker. Without a teleprompter, with speeches written by others, and FOR others, he can't string two sentences together without hesitation and stuttering. I’ve always been taught “you are who you associate with”, and Obama finally has to start addressing this. My only frustration is that it came too late for the caucuses. I would love a national poll to ask the question: Would you have voted for Obama, now that the truth is starting to come out? I voted for him in the caucus, but now wish I had my vote back. I’m sure many others feel the same way. If that’s true, then it is now abundantly clear that cable news and the mainstream media have gone to great lengths to affect the outcome of this election by hiding or not reporting earlier on those issues now surrounding Obama. Their behavior is not so much an endorsement; it’s a canonization! The parodies on SNL are right on! I laugh when I see Obama supporters now complaining about tough, unfair questioning; the very thing Hillary Clinton has had to endure since this campaign began. I guess they assumed the free ride would continue. Last night proved that he is untruthful, has flaws, does poorly under pressure, and is simply not ready. He’s a media generated phenomena, nothing more.
Shame on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos! Do you call this a debate? This was an inquisition. They both belong to the tabloid news or FOX News. They were supposed to be impartial. The real losers are these two then Clinton. She lost my vote. I am switching now to Obama. He may be a little flawed, but she deserves no respect nor does Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos or ABC in general. You lost me as a viewer unless these two apologize publicly for their flagrant bias.
One question ABC News:
An opening 45 minutes of "Jerry Springer" is presidential in what way?
Frank Reynolds, Howard K. Smith, and Peter Jennings were surely wathching with disgust and shame...as was our entire nation.
Pathetic.
I think that some of the issues that have been floating around were brought up and righly so - check out http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/04/14/3385673.htm go to the bottom of the article to blog/discussion by Alex Johnson or go to google type Larry Sinclair/Barrack Obama and view the video - this is now all over the radio talk hosts.
This was a disgraceful display by a clearly incompetent and biased pair. I would not dignify them by calling them reporters, much less "moderators".
The proud tradition of ABC News has been permanently besmirched by this egregious focussing on non-issues such as flag lapel pins, and guilt-by-association about someone who served on a board with a person.
ABC owes an apology to everyone in this country, and especially to the memory of people like Harry Reasoner and Frank Reynolds.
For shame, ABC
Check out the article “Barack’s “Underground” Friends” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=291
http://www.savagepolitics.com
brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!
Shame on you ABC and your two moderators that were totally classless. I used to enjoy George S. on Sunday morning. No more. Not a shred of fairness did I see. You owe the American people an apology.
Hillary did it again! She is very knowledgeable about the issues and made a lot of good points. Obama did worse than I 've seen him do over the last few debates. He looked unsure, lacking direction, and at a loss for words. Definitely, Obama is not ready for the big leagues and he's not the candidate to debate McCain. Obama should support Hillary for the nomination to make sure we have a Democrat who can win. Obama came up short against a very competent and well prepared Hillary Clinton.
I was actually disturbed by what I saw last night. I've made the conscious decision to show my concern and discontent by boycotting the station for an undetermined amount of time. It's the only way that I can feel I can show my disapproval. ABC should be ashamed of themselves and I've spoken to 12 of my friends, all of whom watch Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Dancing with the Stars etc., who have all come to the decision to stop watching as well. Too bad for their sponsors and advertisers.
The debate in Philadelphia was an insult to my intelligence. It is quite possible that a team of poorly trained monkeys could have written more intellectually stimulating and politically pertinent questions than the goofs at ABC were able to druge up. The American People are not as dumb as the major news outlets think we are. How about a discussion of real issues instead of this bread and circus horserace charade? I want to see a debate that actually pertains to real tangible issues and outlines the candidate's plans for addressing them. Instead we are fed crap answers from crap questions about who is more patriotic. Nobody cares about flag pins, and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Nobody in the United States wants their national debates to be presented as boxing matches or football games. It misses the whole point. The whole thing was closer to an episode of Jenny Jones than a national debate hosted by a major news network. What a joke. ABC is at least parially responsible for the dumbing down of the political process in this country and it is ABC's responsiblity to rectify the situation.
Hillary lost my vote last night. The whole thing was a complete waste of my time. The weather underground? wtf? She knew more about it than the moderators. Flag pins??? Affirmative action? God help us all
Did you know that Obama's crazy church requires you to give
your social security number in order to join and become a member?
You cannot go through their membership classes unless you give your
social security number on their form. This is extremely weird!!!
Why would a church require you to give your soc? To perform "holy
identity fraud"? Or to see if you can afford to give more than 10%
tithes as the bible requires. Or is it to just track you once you
decide to leave, and depending how you leave they may decide to
stalk you and destroy your credit if you leave with a "beef"? I
don't know. All I know is that you guys need to get someone in
Chicago to pay a visit and pretend they want to join and be a part
of the church and join an auxiliary. Then see what they require.
I visited back in 2005, 2006 and spoke to a member in 2007
and the member told me that was a requirement or you cannot serve
in any capacity. Wright claims that Jesus and Moses were black,
when historical and biblical documents support otherwise. And
Wright states that it is in the bible to "damn America" when
actually it is not. I Tim 2:1-4 and Romans 13:1 states that we
should pray for our leaders first because they are "ministers of
God or ministers of righteousness, and that the government is an
ordained institution set up by God himself". Exodus 22:28, Eccl
10:20 and Acts23:5 tells us "thou shall not curse the ruler of thy
people." Jesus even said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. And
give to God, what is God's."Matt. 22:21
Rev. Wright is way off with his heretical and false "Black
Liberation Theology Doctrine" which is a false gospel with its own
false "black" Christ, which advocates hatred of whites and the
government. Again, God tells all true Christian believers to "love
your enemies and forgive those who trespass against you, and to
love your neighbor as yourself". Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27; Mark 11:26,
Mark 18:28-35; Matt 6:12.
One problem with Rev. Wright and Farrakhan is that they teach
blacks to continue to wallow in hatred and unforgiveness and then
mix it with scriptures to justify holding onto the hate. And this
is deceptive, dangerous doctrine to teach to blacks because it
keeps them bound to the spirit of hate, so they are blinded to
getting rid of their own demons and bettering themselves. Instead,
the hate is misplaced on whites who never did any evil to them and
could possibly and may be very willing to help them. Black's enemy
is not the whites or the government, but the evil that perpetuates
itself in themselves and any agent it can take advantage to use
against them, which could be any willing human host, black or
white. Martin Luther King recognized this, that is why he advocated
love over hate, and peace over violence. He fasted and prayed alot
and recognized that racism was more an evil spirit, which was not
specific to the white race or the government and that the only way
to overcome evil was to not let it overcome you. Romans12:21. In
black communities we have more black on black crime. If whites and
the government are the problem as Rev. Wright rants, why aren't
they are main killers?
We, on this planet, the next 4 years, are going to be faced
with some unprecedented challenges the world has never seen before,
cataclysmic world changes are in store and these can be even
verified by astronomists and NASA. For instance, 2011 and 2012. It
is projected that a traveling orbiting planet named by NASA, Planet
X or Niburu, is going to make a very close and dangerous crossing
with us. And to make matters worse, there is a huge black hole in
the middle of the Milky Way that we are supposed to be in direct
alignment with, which scientist are very concerned, because they
think both may cause the planet to go into a radical polar shift,
which periodically happens to the planet every so many thousands of
years. Do you think it will matter what color a person is when we
are facing mammoth tidal waves and multiple earthquakes? I think
not. Rev. Wright is a idiot and doesn't know scripture. He is false
and his church is a "black separatist cult" that requires your soc
to join and needs to be exposed, so his type can disappear.
Obama will never get my vote. He is a eloquent windbag that
lacks common sense and good judgment then to sit under such
heretical and unscriptural teachings. He draws big crowds because
he manipulates naive college students and encourages them to badger
their parents to vote for him. Obama used to be a great college
lecturer, so it is no surprise and he is tied to slumlord, Tony
Rezko, who is fighting federal indictment charges of corruption.
Obama is an elitist and a Ivy League snob, even State Illinois
Representative, Bobby Rush (D-IL) recognized this, which is why he
beat him when he ran for State Senator. Senator Clinton would be
wise to follow his methods at this late stage. This country and the
state the dollar is in and the dramatic earth changes we are going
to face in the next few years (which the government is staying
strangely silent about as not to panic the population) requires
someone with more than just a "goofy smile and big ears", but
someone with experience. Not someone from a crazy church that
requires your social security number to join and teaches people to
"damn the country"!!!
Sincerely,
Michelle Young
It was the shame for ABC News and Gibson and Stephanopoulos. She/He said for 45 minutes, it was waste of time.
Shame on ABC. Your moderators are monsters!
chuck, you are such a liar. why do you have stretch the truth against Obama's church. Here we are - our country turnung fascist, constitution being shreded, human rights trampled upon etc. etc. and you prefer to be distracted by thid kind of nonsense. Grow up, get smart
chuck, you are such a liar. why do you have stretch the truth against Obama's church. Here we are - our country turnung fascist, constitution being shreded, human rights trampled upon etc. etc. and you prefer to be distracted by thid kind of nonsense. Grow up, get smart
chuck, you are such a liar. why do you have stretch the truth against Obama's church. Here we are - our country turnung fascist, constitution being shreded, human rights trampled upon etc. etc. and you prefer to be distracted by thid kind of nonsense. Grow up, get smart
Buy the Eagles new CD and listen to "business as usual"
Its about Bush, but Hillary is an easy substitute for the subject of the song.
It is time for the "60s" generation, of which I am one (born 1947) to get out of the way for truly new blood.
The Obvious media bias with the moderators is symptomatic of the ridiculous, ridgid dogmatism of both the extreme left and right of my generation, and the pure focus on conflict rather than cooperation, will only be cured by replacement.
I want to Vote for Obama, congratulate him on being elected,wish him good luck and tell him "its your world now!"
Michelle seems to be under the reichwing delusion that anybody cares. It must be really lonely when you are not relevant. All I know is I paid $4.08/gal for gas yesterday and I'm pissed!!
This 'whatever it was' was the worst I have ever seen. ABC wonders why no one looks to network television for news anymore? The moderators and ABC should be ashamed of themselves.
It's just entertainment tv, not journalism, just tabloid stuff, and not entertaining, just stupid, like some broken down comic telling jokes everyone's heard a hundred times before. Peter Jennings must be spinning in his grave.
He keeps saying that he didn't hear the particualr comments because what the hell else can he say -- it's true! If you say it's not, prove it.