« Action Alert: Environmental Issues at Monday's ABQ City Council Meeting | Main | Celebrate Emerge NM Class of '08 at Friday Reception »
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Worst. Debate. Ever.
Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher pretty much about tonight's prez debate:
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.
Not one question was asked about:
- health care
- the worldwide economic crisis
- Darfur
- China
- Pakistan
- worldwide rioting over food
- the housing market collapse
- massive trade deficits
- inflation
- Afghanistan
- torture planned in the White House
- FISA
- collapse of the U.S. dollar
- education
- trade policy
- renewable energy
- global warming
- immigration
- job losses
- unions
- civil liberties
- government checks and balances
- infrastructure collapse
- where the trillion dollars for the Iraq occupation will come from
- Supreme Court appointments
- repairing damages to U.S. Constitution
- Guantanamo
- Geneva Convention
I could go on. But what we did learn was that pompous Charlie Gibson is incensed at any hint that capital gains taxes may rise even a smidgeon. In an odd move, the moderators abandoned playing off the results of their network's own polling. The just released ABC News/WaPo poll barely came up, probably because the numbers almost all amounted to devastating news for Hillary's campaign. Only one question on the polling, having to do with Hillary's trust numbers being bad, was broached during the two-hour "debate."
The questions were mostly trivial "gotcha" attempts that had nothing to do with the challenges that face our nation and our planet. Way too many focused on Obama and his alleged a) lack of patriotism, b) dislike of the U.S. flag, c) former pastor, d) serving on a well respected board with an ex-60s radical. Dead horses beaten some more. Nonissues raised to prominence. Near total neglect of anything that matters to ordinary people facing rising challenges from every angle.
Of course when you have the questions being asked by the former happy talk co-host of Good Morning America and one of the Clinton administration's senior advisors, you have a scene ready made for disaster. What we got was a video version of the National Enquirer. We all deserve better.
Last point: What I wanna know is why Hillary is never asked why she doesn't wear a flag pin. She has lapels just like Obama. And they're bare!
UPDATE: Apparently I'm not alone in bagging ABC's handling of this debate. Truly scathing:
Technorati Tags:Democrats, presidential debate, ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, Charlie Gibson, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Philadelphia
April 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM in 2008 Presidential Primary, Media | Permalink
Comments
I have to agree...worst debate ever. It served no purpose other than give Charles Gibson and George Stephonopolopolis....polisusplos some extra overtime money to spend on their "capital gains" of wealth.
Posted by: JD | Apr 16, 2008 11:46:44 PM
I don't know how anyone could watch the debate and not notice how awful it was. Obama made this point several times...and they still would not go to the actual issues.
Posted by: Marjorie | Apr 17, 2008 7:53:10 AM
I only heard coverage on NPR of the debate this morning--didn't hear the debate itself--and was completely disgusted.
Posted by: Laura | Apr 17, 2008 8:57:26 AM
What's laughable is that the usual suspects in the media are spinning that the questions had to be of the trivial gotcha variety because there's no difference between the candidates on policy.
Clinton's campaign is spinning that the debate was a turning point now that Obama has been nailed on not wearing a flag pin I guess.
We had a three way barrage at Obama for the moderators followed up by Hillary. It was so obvious it almost looked rehearsed.
Posted by: Old Dem | Apr 17, 2008 10:23:16 AM
I'd like to see O take this issue on. In a stump speech Obama could ask the audience which is more important the idiotic questions from the debate or the real issues. Let the audience choose with their applause which is more important and then replay that video on ABC.
Posted by: | Apr 17, 2008 10:55:45 AM
good idea suz.
it makes me bitter.
more bitter than usual.
Posted by: mary ellen | Apr 17, 2008 4:57:07 PM
As a fellow Dem....I think some folks are having sour grapes here.
ABC's job is to discuss issues that my have an impact on the "electability" issue that concerns a decent amount of UNDECIDED Dems like myself and General voters for the Novemember election.
ABC made an effort to dig into valid concerns that is important when evaluating one's charcter. I have no doubt that Obama and Clinton have my confidence when it comes to policy issues and that they will fulfill their promise to pursue a progressive agenda. That is not my issue since the two candidates have discussed policy issues at nauseum in numerous prior debates in the past. I know where they stand on policy issues.
This debate IMHO was a clarification on character. Charcter is very important to me. I want to be able to evaluate the charcter aspect in making a final decision in whom I will support.
Come November.....voters like myself may have a tough decision if the charcter issue is not resolved.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 17, 2008 7:35:43 PM
Barb,
Thought I'd come on over and leave a comment :)
The debate was pretty bad. No doubt.
I sense that daniel relishes being part of the tyranny of the 6%!
Yet he's right that this race has long passed being about policy differences.
I mean, had it been about hearing them recite their talking points one more time on the same old stuff - that too would have boring.
(But I will say that at least it wouldn't have the potential to suppress voter turnout like what happened last night on ABC. They should have to go before the FCC to keep their license after that one...)
Yet it's possible to talk about character and authenticity without resorting to the worst common denominator of all that is crappy, sensationalist, gotcha, and insider corporate news.
It's also possible to have a debate about strategy for victory, vision and rationale for change, and the feelings behind the numbers and statistics. Damn, they could even talk about big ideas and new solutions - you know...given unlimited resources, how would you make democracy work for everyone.
BTW - I think that comes from what has historically worked - race, gender and class based solutions to disparities, economic gaps and democracy divides in the service of the common good.
Ingredients for a social movement that fills the gaps:
1. Media, and blogs like this one. (As Marjorie has implied on m-pyre, we do have to think about how "new media" gets the credibility it needs to be a cornerstone of any given social movement.)
2. Community institutions that build working class base
3. Policy organizations
4. Service organizations
5. Think tanks and Leadership schools
6. Labor and Union Orgs that really represent workers
7. Grassroots Electoral Strategies
8. Cultural workers and artists
9. Students and young people
10.Traditional Media Transformation
Whew. Had to get to ten to at least make it somewhat comprehensive. But it's just off the top of my head...
karlos
Posted by: | Apr 17, 2008 8:24:03 PM
Both candidates have neglected a very important policy area with their refusals to participate in the Science Debate 2008.
Organized and endorsed by scientists and science educators the country over, this debate was snubbed by Clinton and refused by the Obama camp. They had time and inclination to talk about faith and lapel pins, but not about vital issues of technology, environment, energy, science education, cloning, health research, stem cell use, space exploration, etc.
Three Green party candidates seeking the nomination were willing to debate, including one scientist. While one doesn't expect the average politician to be a science wonk, I'd like to at least hear that they regard science as important to our nation's well-being and success. Important enough to have engaged science advisers within their campaigns even.
With NIH funding cuts looming large in local scientific endeavors, I think this is no time for candidates to decide to ignore such a debate. Organizers are looking to reschedule the event so I hope supporters of the two candidates and delegates to the Dem convention urge their candidates to RSVP positively. And I further urge the organizers of ScienceDebate 2008 to admit the Green candidates, if only to make it shameful for the 3 bigwigs to dismiss the event yet again.
Posted by: Michal | Apr 27, 2008 10:16:28 PM
