The Smallness of Our Politics on Display at the ABC Debate
| Wed Apr. 16, 2008 9:00 PM PDT
The Reverend Wright controversy, the flag pin controversy, and the William Ayers controversy were all dying or dead. Now, they're back in the headlines.
In lieu of questions on education, the environment, trade, health care, or almost any other serious issue, the moderators of Wednesday's Democratic presidential primary debate on ABC chose to reinvigorate what Barack Obama called "manufactured" issues.
"Manufactured" issues are ones the media and the blogosphere believe should be a big deal, and treat as such, even if there is little evidence that voters really care about them. They are less frequently about a controversial position on a serious topic, since no mainstream presidential candidate ever dares to take one of those, than they are guilt-by-association situations that say little or nothing about the candidate him or herself.
William Ayers is a perfect example of this. Ayers was part of a domestic terror group from the '60s and '70s called the Weather Underground or the Weathermen. Obama knows Ayers and his wife, also a member of the Weather Underground, because they ran in the same Chicago political circles in the 1990s. Ayers hosted the event in which Obama was unveiled as a state senate candidate, and gave money to Obama's state senate reelection campaign in 2001. The men are not friends, though they have been described in the past as friendly. Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, declines to disavow his past, leaving Obama open to headlines like "Obama worked with terrorist."
Continues Below
Continued From Above
In Obama's response to questions about Ayers in the debate today, he pointed out the absurdity of the guilt-by-association game that so often captures the daily coverage of presidential politics.
…the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense...
The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.
So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.
There's no evidence that voters treat issues like the Ayers controversy with the importance that reporters do. There is no national polling to suggest the Reverend Wright controversy has affected Obama's standing in the eyes of the American people, and its safe to say that the Ayers situation is likely too uninteresting or too complicated or too fundamentally silly to cause many Pennsylvanians to switch their vote. But it looks, smells, and feels damaging (and the Clinton campaign will harp on whenever given the opportunity, as Senator Clinton did in the debate and her press team did on the networks afterward) so members of the press will cover it. But they will likely go from covering the non-story to covering the public's lack of serious response to the non-story, betraying their own inanity in the process.
In the end, the moderators' dissection of the "manufactured" issues of the campaign are unlikely to create a fundamental shift in the race. Most of the sniper fire (with the exception of one question about actual sniper fire) was directed at Obama, but for all his ducking and weaving he never really got hit. To use a different metaphor, there was no knockout blow that is going to send Pennsylvania voters and undecided superdelegates scurrying to Clinton. The big loser was the press, who was represented to millions of viewers by two moderators who insulted the public's interest in serious issues and who appeared to relish the worst campaign season has to offer. Is that guilt-by-association? So be it.
[Ed. Note: For a minute-by-minute liveblog of the debate, with only a moderate amount of snark, click here.]
Comments
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 5:30 PM PDT.
Judgment Day looms for Hillary Clinton the wrecker
[...]
For a month now, Obama has been pummelled by a Democrat in ways I have never witnessed in a primary campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton has directly argued that he is less qualified to be commander-in-chief than the Republican nominee, John McCain. She has said that she doesn't know for sure that he is not a secret Muslim. She has said his choice of church is unacceptable to her. She has said he deliberately wants many Americans to continue scraping by without health insurance.
Her campaign has insinuated that he was once a drug dealer. Her husband has equated him with the rabble-rousing preacher Jesse Jackson. The Clintons have publicly associated Obama with domestic terrorist William Ayers, with the militant Palestinian group Hamas, and with antisemitic demagogue Louis Farrakhan. And what is remarkable about all this is that most of it was not done by surrogates, but by a former president of the United States against a senator in his own party, and directly by Clinton herself. Every time you think: "Nah, they won't go there, will they?" ? they do.
Right now, in Pennsylvania, Clinton is running only negative advertisements designed to exploit Obama's gaffe a fortnight ago, when he described some rural Pennsylvanians as bitter, and as "clinging" to some traditional identities because they feel left out of economic and social change. It was a stupid offhand comment, easily misinterpreted, and Obama deserved a hit.
But this is what the Clintons' actual advertisement says, voiced by several unidentified Pennsylvanians: "I was very insulted by Barack Obama." "It shows how out of touch Barack Obama is." "The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said."
This is a swing state. For the Clintons baldly to coopt exactly the kind of antielitist rhetoric used to marginalise Democrats by Republicans for three decades is to take the campaign warfare to a whole new level of earth-scorching.
(Andrew Sullivan)
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 5:30 PM PDT.
Judgment Day looms for Hillary Clinton the wrecker
[...]
For a month now, Obama has been pummelled by a Democrat in ways I have never witnessed in a primary campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton has directly argued that he is less qualified to be commander-in-chief than the Republican nominee, John McCain. She has said that she doesn't know for sure that he is not a secret Muslim. She has said his choice of church is unacceptable to her. She has said he deliberately wants many Americans to continue scraping by without health insurance.
Her campaign has insinuated that he was once a drug dealer. Her husband has equated him with the rabble-rousing preacher Jesse Jackson. The Clintons have publicly associated Obama with domestic terrorist William Ayers, with the militant Palestinian group Hamas, and with antisemitic demagogue Louis Farrakhan. And what is remarkable about all this is that most of it was not done by surrogates, but by a former president of the United States against a senator in his own party, and directly by Clinton herself. Every time you think: "Nah, they won't go there, will they?" ? they do.
Right now, in Pennsylvania, Clinton is running only negative advertisements designed to exploit Obama's gaffe a fortnight ago, when he described some rural Pennsylvanians as bitter, and as "clinging" to some traditional identities because they feel left out of economic and social change. It was a stupid offhand comment, easily misinterpreted, and Obama deserved a hit.
But this is what the Clintons' actual advertisement says, voiced by several unidentified Pennsylvanians: "I was very insulted by Barack Obama." "It shows how out of touch Barack Obama is." "The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said."
This is a swing state. For the Clintons baldly to coopt exactly the kind of antielitist rhetoric used to marginalise Democrats by Republicans for three decades is to take the campaign warfare to a whole new level of earth-scorching.
(Andrew Sullivan)
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Wed Apr. 16, 2008 10:14 PM PDT.
"There's not evidence that voters treat"
Should be:
There's no evidence
or
There's not any evidence
the mentality of the american people and press.
hillary wins debated obama wins speechs.
americans must look into a mirror and see the pitfalls of capitalism.
not based on universal principles but greed.
greed will self destruct karma demands it
Submitted by Leticia (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 12:46 AM PDT.
An idea of Reincarnation:
The election day ...
Who wants to die in bitterness?
Who wants to die in happines?
Then ... comes tomorrow ...
I avoided watching the debate because I knew it was going to be a rehash of Rev. Wright, "Sniper tall tales" and the like.
Guess no one really wants to give us a updated version of "Lincoln-Douglas." With these two candidates, that is the real shame.
Submitted by M (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 5:49 AM PDT.
It's sickening. Anything to stir up better ratings. I'd like to see all three candidates hold a press conference together and call for an end to the "manufactured" stories - and then they can move forward, challenging each other on policy and vision.
Of course, I'd also like to be able to fly. Like Superman.
While I'm wishing - can someone make little George S. go away? Who gave him a show? Or credibility?
I didn't get to see very much of the debate last night, but saw the part about taxes.
My comment is this: Why were they having a republican conversation about taxes? More specifically, why were the moderators asking the democratic candidates questions about taxes, that imply the republican spin about taxes is the "correct" way to think about taxes???!!!
For example, all that stuff about when the capital gain tax was lowered by Bill, and revenue actually went up - The reality is that unrelated to the lowering of the capital gains tax, the stock market (the internet bubble) took off at the same time, and so the amount of revenue increased, becuase investors were cashing in during the golden ninety's with returns of over 20%, 30%, etc...
Think of it this way - a 28% (the captial gains tax at it's highest rate) on an 8% return verses a 20% tax (what Bill lowered the capital gains tax rate to) on a 20% return.
For every $1000 invested, an 8% return brings in $80, at a tax rate of 28%, the IRS gets $22.40.
For every $1000 invested, a 16% return yields $160, and at a tax rate of only 20%, the IRS still gets $32.
Or, at the hight of the internet bubble, a 25% return would net the IRS $50.
Tax revenue didn't increase because the capital gains tax was lowered, revenue increased because the internet bubble was at it's peak!!!
Stephanopoulos and Gibson were revolting. All evening long they parroted Republican talking points, or focused on petty embarrassments involving Obama. And the mainstream media wonders why its news outfits are hemorrhaging viewers and ad dollars!
Both dem candidates exhibited grace and poise -- Clinton seemed especially strong. I'm more or less an Obama supporter, but at the end of the "debate" I couldn't help but think I'd support either democrat (preferably with the other as a running mate) -- on the condition they find a way to purge bozos like their moderators from the ranks of the mainstream media!
Question. Do working class folks,(i.e. the broad majority of those voting Dem in PA.) actually know who William Ayers is? Would they even know what the Weather Underground was? I only ask, because I tried to bring the topic up in conversation with some family members(whom I suspect are pretty similar to those PA voters) and they had no idea what the hell I was talking about. These are folks who were in their 'prime' in the 60's and 70's.
Is this just political sniping from a panel of moderators who obviously skewed conservative? Tell the voters William Ayers was a Weathermen. William Ayers is a terrorist. People who know the story couldn't care less, because they know the question itself is B.S. People who are hearing about it for the first time, and scare easily, may change there vote. Hillary wins big in PA and you get continued chaos into the convention. That's good for Republicans.
Thanks you former PA resident!!! The whole "Bill led the greatest economic expansion in US history" is crap. Right place, right time.
As for the article, "But it looks, smells, and feels damaging". Nope. You guys just need something to write about because last night was a non event. ABC hosted the political equivalent of People last night. Non issues, slander and BS. As PT Barnum said, "No one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" (or something like that).
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 8:16 AM PDT.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Somebody wrote a headline that this was the "baggage" debate. I put it to you that it was the garbage debate.
It's incredible that these two men had the opportunity to ask questions about matters that are of critical importance to the very survival of our nation and perhaps the planet, and yet they opted to talk about flag pins and sniper fire.
What an amazing disservice to the nation. What a blot on the already tarnished reputation of the "MSM".
What utter garbage. Neither of these "reporters" should ever be allowed near a camera and microphone again.
-Wexler
Submitted by sharon ash (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 8:49 AM PDT.
The debate was uncomfortable if you were an Obama supporter because it brought forth just a little of what the Republicans will be bringing a ship load of, if he becomes the nominee. Obama has many ties to the left of left radicals; his study of Malcom X and his support from Perry, the attorney for Malcom X; his endorsement early in his career by the Socialist Party; his association with the 'homegrown terrorists' Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who once hosted, in their home, a campaign event for Obama; his 20 year relationship with the radical Reverend Wright; his 17 year relationship with Rezko who has financial ties to Nahdmi Auchi, the billionaire Iraqi who sold illegal arms to Saddam; his participation in the Million Man March; his endorsement by Louis Farrakhan and there is more, but you get the picture. This all starts to become cumulative and as the African proverb says, "When deeds speak words are nothing." and those radical association deeds, in a general election, will negate his eloquent words.
"Ayers was part of a domestic terror group:"
Bill Ayers was not a terrorist. He (apparently) engaged in bombing government targets in the early 1970s (without injury, by the way). That's not terrorism. All agree that terrorism is the use violence for political aims against citizens, for the purpose of harm or engendering fear.
Ayers was a lot of things -- an advocate of the violent overthrow of the US government being the most notable -- but he was not a terrorist.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 9:22 AM PDT.
Politicians and criminals associating? OMG - next thing you know there will be corruption, greed then worse.
We have a torturer in the WH and some people worry about this kind of BS?
Seems the whole thing is just silly.
@sharon ash: I am an Obama supporter and the debate was uncomfortable to me because it was a slap in the face to the American public. People are DYING!!! People are losing their HOMES!!! Our kids are being OUTPERFORMED by foreign students, and gas is quickly approaching $4.00 a gallon. Instead of focusing on these issues, I had to sit through, questions about wearing a lapel pin, does a former US marine, who served with distinction in the army, love this country more than Obama, Bosnia gate, and the bogeyman/weatherman. That is insulting.
I am infuriated that this is what politics has become.
And as for your other comments, I just don't understand. You seem to imply that if Obama gets an endorsement from a group or person you consider "radical" that it should reflect on Obama. I mean, how does that make sense? People hear and read about Obama so they speak positively about him, SO WHAT!!!! He is a well-read man, and as a result has read about one of the most important leaders in the civil rights movement, Malcolm X, SO WHAT!!! He attended an event that was a call to action for African American males to take responsibility in their own lives and their communities, *GASP*, Louis Farrakan spoke positively, but did not endorse him, GULP, he was in the same room with an Iraqi billionaire...must be a terrorist!!!, I mean, I could go on, but this is too ridiculous.
Although everybody accuses Obama supporters of drinking kool aid (funny, no one has problems with condescension when it comes to his supporters), I have no illusions about what he is. He is an imperfect man that is running for political office. If I wanted someone who walked on water, I wouldn't vote at all. I do disagree with him about some of his policy positions and actions that he has taken in this campaign, but in all, I appreciate that he wants to get people involved in politics again, which shows a departure from what I have seen from the other candidates.
Who knows what is going to happen in the next couple of months, but if the ABC debate is a preview of November, I fear for this election.
Obama(the magic Negro) is a divider, not a uniter because he is a hateful Black supremacist. Pastor Wright gave that anti-Semite ,the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan, the lifetime achievement award. Obama is just too extreme to win in November. If he is the candidate, McCain will win.
Hey People,
Why is it soooo hard for the left wing nuts to understand that the average American considers the whole person when making a political decision...? It might not be important to you that BHO won't wear a flag pin, or disassociate himself with terrorists/anti-semites, but to joe-six-pack these things matter..!!!
Maybe you lib's can pretend that this stuff doesn't matter, heck, you didn't think that it was shameful that bill clinton got his d**k slurped in the oval office, but guess what, IT MATTERS to 10's of millions of Americans.
Actions speak much louder than words, and BHO action over that last 20 yrs speak volumes to joe-six-pack.
You better listen, and learn or you lib's will be relagated to the trash heap of history..:-) You are alread half way there..huh?
Bill
???
Bill Ayers was not a terrorist. He (apparently) engaged in bombing government targets in the early 1970s (without injury, by the way). That's not terrorism. All agree that terrorism is the use violence for political aims against citizens, for the purpose of harm or engendering fear.
============================
Hey People,
Are you seriously mentally disabled..? Who in there right mind would NOT think that someone who is blowing up buildings be considered a terrorist..?
See, this kind of thinking is why you lib's are being relagated to the trash heap of history...!!!
Bill
What can one say, the EXTREME RIGHT WING owns the ABC Media Network, and when you're playing with their ball, they will play their way. The RIGHT WING EXTREME would much rather have a tried and true good DLC Republican Hillary; as an unknown Obama, who just may consider the rest of the nation, and not consider only the RIGHT as to how much money he can make off the RIGHT, as the Clinton's did; instead of protecting the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.
With Hillary, the RIGHT will not have to worm John McCain into power for a ditto of the Bush administration, DLC Hillary will cooperate and follow the RIGHT WING OBJECTIVES, like DLC Bill did.
But, since Obama is taking the lead, John McCain is having to be programmed to run against Obama, with the RIGHT WING'S EXTREME Bush "Compassionate Conservative" Scheme to dupe the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION into somehow believing that conservatives are compassionate and care about what happens to the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, NOT; never have --- never will.
We must NEVER forget that Bill Clinton, though a registered Democrat, was the best REPUBLICAN president, EVER; so says Republican, Alan Greenspan, and Alan Greenspan would know.
All the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION know is that all their good jobs have been outsourced account the good REPUBLICAN President Bill Clinton signed into effect N.A.F.T.A.; and Bill Clinton has not had a money problem since. President Bill Clinton did a good deed for the Conservative RIGHT WING EXTREME, by selling out the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION --- and, Hillary will do the same in whatever situation. Bill Clinton knew what he was doing, he didn't just fall off the turnip truck, but is an Oxford University Rhodes Scholar.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 12:02 PM PDT.
Bill Nigh: Since you are presently having a one-way conversation with yourself, let me make a response to you. You are probably like most Americans and your care a great deal about this country and want to see us on a better course. But the name calling you use, such as 'left wing nuts', does nothing to bring us together to solve our problems. And yes, those on the left have just as many degrading names for those on the right. We must find a way to learn to respect ourselves, respect others and start to pull together. Obama is not the one to bring us together because he carries too much anger himself, and moreover, he truly does have his entire political career steeped in the left of left culture of South side Chicago, and Americans are not going to rally around that. Perhaps we would all be better served to turn off the 24/7 news and the pundits, and listen to our own self and talk to each other, without using negative labels.
Bill Nigh:
You have really got propaganda down. Nothing you have said is anything other than RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA to try and hurt Barack Obama.
Of the three candidates the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION have been allowed to vote for, Barack Obama is the better of the three. Hillary will appear to be a less cruel cooperating RIGHT WING yes person as Bill was, and John McCain will be more of the same compassionate conservatism we have endured from the Bush administration.
I think at this point, Democratic candidates could possibly write off ABC news as nothing but "Fox II."
These are not debates, these are Republican grilling sessions. And perhaps they should call the 'debate' hoax what it is, baloney.
To Sar Silverman,
Have you checked the polls? Have you heard of the Iraq War? Are you aware of the condition of the US economy? McCain loses regardless of the nominee and he loses in a landslide to Obama becuase he will steal all of the left leaning Republicans and Independents that gave McCain the nomination. Right Wingers do not like McCain and he is sooooo weak as a candidate. Can't speak, can't separate from Bush, can't win.
Mr Idiotic,
I thik it is YOU who have not been paying attention to the polls..:-) McCain wins aginst both, doesn't matter who. You don't seem to understand how many republicans have been voteing in the democrat primary... huh? There has been a concerted effort by reps to NOT vote in rep primary, since we already knew who was going to win the nomination after a certian point. Ever since then, MANY people have been voteing in democrat races and when general election comes around about 30% of those voters will vote McCain..!!!
You are like a bunch of children fighting over a scrap of meat, since no one trusts you to eat at the adult table..:-)
Guess someone had to tell you..
Bill
Bill secretly wants to be a left wing nut, that's why he spends so much time chatting with us. That's why he's always sniffing at our door, mauling our garbage, pressing his nose to the window. Now don't deny it, Billy, you want in the Leftist House, don't you? Yes, you do!
The whole thing about republicans voting in a massive and organized attempt to get the theoretically weak Obama in against the insuperable McWalker is just too funny - and sad. Bill sounds like his friend, Hillary, with all this talk of a right wing conspiracy. Too funny - what if Bill Nigh is actually Hillary Clinton on a trolling rampage? I think that must be it.
Noam Chomsky has commented that if candidates positions on the issues that mattered most to the average American were really known, NO ONE would get elected. We have become such a vacuous, American Idol-obsessed, sound bite-driven society that we really can't think about serious issues. When less than 20% of Americans read a book in any calendar year, it becomes clear that we have become a nation of knuckleheads.
Mr paul,
You wish... hahaha, and yes i do love reading the liberal rants. My minor in college was political science, so i do enjoy a good argument...:-) But you guys make it almost too easy, since most of the assertions are soooo far out there.
I am almost surprised that you have not heard of the organized effort, it is called operation chaos. It was started much to the consternation of the left. Since you guys have open primaries..:-) You might have heard of it refered to as vote stealing.
My choice for the dem's would be Billary, and only for the entertainment value. Can you just imagine, during the general election, her appearing at a speech and having a bunch of college young republicans throwing cigars up on the stage.. AHHAHA.. OMG, or to hear them start chanting monica, monica, monica... and her running off the stage crying.. WOW...
Bill
The most noteworthy thing about the infamous Bill Ayers is that he's from a rich family - which probably explains why he's a Professor at a college and not a smoldering cinder like Nancy Ling Perry et all from the Symbionese Liberation Army. Patty Hearst didn't fare all that badly either. The point is, Obama should have turned the tables on Charlie/Georgie and pointed this out. Perhaps a little populism might have titilated the PA voters even more than a lapel pin made in China.
Submitted by Dave Larson (not verified) on Thu Apr. 17, 2008 2:34 PM PDT.
Mother Jones' take on the debate is spot on as usual. The media has an obligation to the public to address the issues and instead, these two moderators dwelled in the land of the National Enquirer and gossip. If ABC is hurting that bad for ad revenue, or to pump their ratings, this is sad. Personnaly, I have begun to take a serious look at companies who advertise with ABC to consider if I can do without those products and services. I don't know how else to send a message to mainstream media that they need to clean up their content and message. I would encourage Media buyers to consider the quality of the ABC debate when purchasing TV spots.
Bill Nigh you had better get some professional help before you "hurt" yourself.Perhaps you can get a group rate with Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Rielly.They go to bed laughing every night at the way they lead you "guys around by the nose. Seriously get ahold of youself.
Hey Guys,
No one is being led around by the nose...:-) We have always wanted to do things like this, but untill the conservative tide came about , we were not organized.. Now we can accomplish anything when we try..!!!
Who would have imagined a couple of years ago that the dem's would put fourth two sub-par candidates as these.
1.) An enableing, shamed wife of discraced former president.
2.) An inexperienced black activist who can't seem to stop offending middle america.
Aginst a 25+ yr senate standout, war hero, ex-pow, independant conservative middle of the road, fatherly type..!!
I think you better start getting your blog posts ready for how we are going to "steal" the election again...
How can you be soooo lame and still look at yourselves in the morning..:-)
Bill
Bill ... the whole person? As in conservatives walk on water and liberals are evil and godless. And you say liberals are drinking the kool-aid. A disgraced former president? You mean Bill Clinton the most popular president in modern history ? John, I'll do or say anything to be president, McCain is a war hero? He was a prisoner of war ... oh, I forgot, Paul Miller is right(folk proverb). So was John Stuart Mills ... not all conservatives are stupid people but all stupid people are conservatives.
Debate was pathetic so why even add to it.
Here is my response to a really lame Clintonite comeback.
This is the type of attack Obama will face from the Republicans.
Let me answer with all the creativity it deserves. DUH
You think anyone over the age of 15 would not know this.
I knew it before he announced. And I am from Illinois. You think the Republicans here are Shirley Temple.
You think the Chicago media doesn't pound Obama on a daily basis.
We get it, ok. So please find another comeback.
war hero?
anytime a country calls their soldiers war heros for fighting in illegal wars that is the very definition of imperialism.
mc same has flip flopped more than kerry wind surfing.
his real reason for wanting to bomb iran: to win the respect of his father and grandfathers.
sad day in america. most americans are imperialists and many are out and out war mongers.
mc war is of the last definition.
Submitted by Leticia (not verified) on Fri Apr. 18, 2008 12:54 AM PDT.
How does the song goes?
".... it is time to make a change ... take a look and take it easy ... look at me ... I am old ... but I'm happy ..."
It is just like the popular WORD:
"LOVE BEGETS LOVE"
Life is so simple!
I identify with people who feel that the debate was late on focusing on the issues. But I found it ironic when Obama complained about it in North Carolina given his tendency NOT to talk about the issues in his speeches. In addition, he waffled a bit on the tax question whereas Clinton was specific, had done her homework ... when it came to issues later on in the debate.
The debate also gave Obama one last chance to clear himself on the Wright issue. And he didn't. And he will lose votes in the primaries because of it and his 5-to-1 outspending of Hillary Clinton on cable tv during this last week will actually hurt him in Pennsylvania. And if he gets the nomination, many people will vote Republican purely on the Wright/Farrakhan issue and the Democratic party will lose votes on it and possibly the election. So the journalists were justified in insisting on that issue.
But people who say that the questions were slanted against Obama should get checked for Alzheimers. Clinton got hit with Bosnia and well she should have. Clinton got pressed into an endorsement for Obama and her triple yes was picked up in subsequent headlines in newspapers. Hardly helpful for her campaign.
As for Obama's supposedly superior courtesy, my reading of his behavior is inevitably influenced by the presidential election in France whose aftermath I'm now living through. As I watch Obama is his impeccably tailored suit and observe the way he drowns the voters in a media barrage, I can't help thinking of the then male candidate Nicolas Sarkozy who-- like Obama -- "played it cool" in the debate here in France last May. He let his female opponent be critical and demanding while he very calmly refused to assume responsibility for his record.
But the aftermath comes, and what we elect is what we get. The French-- disenchanted after yielding to the media blitz -- have voted very heavily in the other direction during their recent municipal elections. But the damage is done and all the striking and demonstrating and parading in the world will not repair that damage as our own experience with the War in Iraq has proven.
It's too late for France but it's not too late for the States. Look at the debate again and if you think on your own without anybody holding your hand that Obama is "waffling", then act on it. We don't need any more improvisation in the White House.
To Bill Nigh or Ben Stein or whatever,
Once upon a time some corporatist war mongering traitors stole the weaker of the two political parties and made a run at facism. Too bad for them, they picked a bumbling idiot to lead the way. The neo-con movement failed almost as badly as the neo-con policies. Now they have a recycled political loser who can't even attempt to separate himself from the worst President the country has ever had. Do you remember way back in '06 when the Democratic party had twice as many seats up for re-election. They won all of those seats and took half of the Republican's as well. The progressive movement is here to stay. You can thank us after we save the country.
Hey People,
like i have said many times before, when your simple blind logic fails you, start name calling, or better yet, be dismissive...huh? Boy, i would have LOVED to have you on the opposite side in poli sci class..:-)
Your arguments are specious, at best, and most of the time don't really address the points i am talking about. You should stop thinking yourself the fool, i will walk you through this, in little baby steps.
For some reason you think that the country, as a whole, agrees with your socialist leanings. Maybe this is just yoru hope dreams for the day, but it will be a long time till they come to pass.
It REALLY bothers you that you are not allowed to just converse with other liberals and stroke eachother, that you might actually have to support your radical assertions with people who are diametricaly opposed to your ideas. But guess what, in a free country you can't just stand on your soap box and preach to the choir. You will have opposition and be forced to show yoru true colors. Which the majority does NOT agree with. Conservatives now have a voice, and we are marching fourth...huh?
Bill
Bill,
Give me some substance. Not a sigle idea or viewpoint in that last posting. I love thrashing conservative ideology, so instead of whining and bragging, give me some ideas to work with. Do better next time or I will not waste any more of my time with you.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Fri Apr. 18, 2008 10:35 AM PDT.
Yes, Bill Nigh, the voice of the conservatives, i.e. neocons, has been heard loud and clear during the Bush Administration. They spoke lies and used them to attack Iraq. They spoke tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans as another 6 million Americans fell into the ranks of poverty and the ranks of the uninsured swelled to 45 million. They failed to speak to the growing rates of violence in our country. They spoke to borrow, borrow and borrow some more, from other countries. (Can you say $10 trillion debt?) This administration borrowed more from other countries than the other 42 administrations combined. They spoke to the unspeakable, 'torture', and said it is okay, so long as they are doling it out. They were silent as all the government agencies with the power to access our private records, did so, illegally. They spoke non-stop on the conservative talk venues to promote hate and division in this country. This is, of course, the short list, of 'they spoke', and the reason that our country is now despised and regarded as one of the most dangerous countries on the planet (and no, Bill, contrary to the spiel from the right, they do not hate us because of what we have, but because of what we have not, and that is an honest appraisal of our actions toward other countries). And, perhaps America owes the Bush Administration a small debt of gratitude for speaking to the consequences when we fail to pay attention to what is going on in our government. I guess we will see in November of 2008 if we have heard.
letica: "life is so simple".
Yes Letica but it is the simple that eludes us.
I spent 6 years on one question. What is the origin of our ignorance? The Buddha discovered correctly that the source of most of our suffering is ignorance why not try to find the origin of that ignorance. God knows the repubs have plenty of it.
The answer was so simple but to this day I find it impossible to pass on to even one person that they understand the origin of our ignorance.
Simple but almost unknowable. Eluded me for six years. Now I find it unbelievable it eluded me for six years.
Has anyone considered the idea that maybe neo conservatives (repubs) are new souls on this planet and have not yet learned much love and compassion for all people even the Iraqis and the Vietnamese during that illegal war?
I mean 47 million people without health care? Says it all about the state of mind of most Americans. And we call our soldiers war heroes for fighting in these wars for profits. This is the very definition of imperialism.
