Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Worst. Debate. Ever.

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 5:34 AM on April 17, 2008.


It was hard to top some of the previous ones for pure inanity, but ABC pulled it off.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Over the last year or so, we've seen debates that were pretty bad. We've seen a few that were embarrassingly bad. But at least in this cycle, I'm not sure if we've seen anything quite as train-wreck, cover-your-eyes bad as the spectacle on ABC last night.

What may prove to be the last Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wasn't just awful on its face, it was hard not to watch wondering if moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity. It marked a new low for the media freak-show. I was conflicted emotionally between anger at ABC for this travesty and pity for the network for having sunk so low.

It was evident very early on that we were in for a long night. The candidates, for some inexplicable reason, were given an opportunity to make opening statements -- in previous debates, hosts generally want to get right into questions, not hear mini-speeches -- which was followed by an immediate commercial break. Four minutes after getting started, it was time to hear a word from our sponsors.

When the returned, the first question pressed Clinton and Obama on whether they'd commit to taking the other as a running mate. The second was about the "bitter" flap. The third was about whether Clinton thought Obama was electable, and vice versa.

From there, in order, the topics were as follows: the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the Bosnia/sniper flap, lapel flag-pins, and William Ayers and the Weather Underground.

At one point, Stephanopoulos asked Obama, "[D]o you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" In fact, Stephanopoulos asked it twice.

In a debate scheduled for 90 minutes, we didn't hear a question of any substance until the event was half over. Josh Marshall called it an "unmitigated travesty," which is as good a description as any.

At one point, about 20 minutes or so into the debate, Stephanopoulos seemed to encourage Obama to go after Clinton on the sniper story. Obama not only took a pass, which was gracious, but actually tried to explain that there were more important things to talk about.

"[T]he fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I'm -- obviously, I make some as well.
"I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.
"In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake."
But it was a mistake the moderators insisted on making, over and over again. Put it this way: at 9:04 -- 64 minutes into the debate, and with just 26 minutes remaining, Stephanopoulos said, "Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on Americans' minds right now." I couldn't help but laugh out loud. If it's the number one issue, why did Stephanopoulos wait so long?

To be fair, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Gibson's and Stephanopoulos' challenge. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, so the hosts' task was to focus on areas of disagreement in order to create some kind of television-worthy conflict. Regrettably, that's precisely what Gibson and Stephanopoulos get paid to do.

But the result was as dull as it was pointless, with a discussion that tells us nothing about the candidates, their visions, or their ability to govern. E & P's Greg Mitchell called it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." The Washington Post's Tom Shales called it "step downward for network news," and noted that the moderators delivered "shoddy, despicable performances." Will Bunch noted, "Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must . Stop." Salon's Walter Shapiro added:
This is the way it ends, not with a bang but a whimper. If Wednesday night's fizzle in Philly was indeed the last debate of the Democratic primary season between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it will be remembered for, well, not much of anything.
Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon.
So, who won? I haven't the foggiest idea, but I'm quite certain we all lost.

Digg!

Tagged as: debate, gibson, clinton, obama, abc, stephanopoulis

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
THE MEDIA OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 17, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media cannot be allowed to reduce the election to just another dumb TV show. It was nonsense. Just an attempt at making both candidates look foolish while the moderators continue their control freak game. They didn't get to pull this crap when Bush was running. We need questions from the voters not from people trying to preserve their own jobs. There has to be a better way. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This time around
Posted by: pikaomega on Apr 17, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know (and I am sure that you all do), for at least the last eight years, we have bemoaned the absolute lack of substance promoted by political candidates and the media alike. They have dually shared the blame for distilling honest, issue-based discourse into caricature, and subverting the dissemination of relevant information in favor of salacious, easily edited soundbytes. All have criticised the deliberate attempt to dilute reality, and have done so rightly.

Regardless of which candidate you favor, however, the one factor that has unified this nation is the unfettered realization that we are faced with a set of choices that make the Gays/Guns/God platforms to which we have become accustomed seem justifiably trivial. No one can argue that this election cycle is wanting for substance. The bedrock principles upon which we were founded, the ever-elusive and rapidly deteriorating promise of the American Dream, the future of our descendants, our very survival-on a national and global scope-are very much in peril. For the first time in my life (I'm 28, so I was born a Reagan baby), I see a groundswell of citizens who hunger for answers, who call for change, who see that their futures are shaky at best and who, through ideal or necessity, are open to the idea that American exceptionalism is baseless without noble sacrifice and thoughtful action.

In this, a seminal moment as a people, last night simply reinforced the helplessness that has allowed these events to fester for too long. Instead of addressing the sentiment of Sen. Obama's "bitter" comment, he was asked if Rev. Wright "loved America as much" as he does. Instead of addressing the issue of Health Care mandates as proposed by Sen. Clinton, enabling an intellectually honest debate on the best way to provide health care for the 47 million Americans who are uninsured (of which I am one), the moderators decided to take the low road.

I worked on the ground in 2004 as a program director in St. Louis, MO, which just happened to be one of the key battleground states. I worked as a field director for the 2006 primary elections. I have NEVER seen the kind of hunger and anger and willingness to consider real issues and foment real solutions. That said, I got about 45 minutes into the debacle last night and had to leave the room.

This illustrated the lag of the media behind what the electorate wants and needs to hear. I posit that the 4th estate is well aware that their lifeblood is reporting issues that they have manufactured, if for no other reason than they have dismantled their news staff in favor of a 24 hour "Britney/Lindsay/Paris" watch. They do not have the resources to cover real news, and seek to keep the Soma of trite fodder coming, and to keep the populace uninformed and mentally neutered.

I apologize for the length of this rant, but I am honestly asking all to consider efective means that can put an end to this nonsense. I am pleased to report that the response to last night has ranged from tepid to venemous.

Calls/emails to ABC decrying the sheer idiocacy of this specatcle? Calling for an advertizer boycott? Bombarding the other networks with ultimatums that demand true discussion, least they receive the same cold shoulder?

Think, think, think.

Then, act, act, act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This time around Posted by: fbc21ca
» RE: This time around Posted by: pikaomega
» RE: This time around Posted by: pikaomega
» RE: This time around Posted by: Bozwell
I thought
Posted by: aogfc on Apr 17, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it was just me for a while.. wondering when the actual debate was going to happen... talk about a ridiculous ploy for negative soundbitess.. why not just give the presidency to McCain now instead of the joke of an election we have coming up...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I thought Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I thought ~ too Posted by: Sissy
jake page
Posted by: jake page on Apr 17, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sexist quibble: why is it that only Obama was knocked at the debate for not wearing a flag pin, when I didn't see one on Clinton's lapel?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jake page Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» RE: jake page Posted by: Sissy
» RE: jake page Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: jake page Posted by: VZEQICVA
No worries, peeps
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 17, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this marginal - at best - nonsense is the best they can do at smearing Obama (I actually felt a bit sorry for the moderators), he's a lock for the presidency.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No worries, peeps Posted by: hermjo
Did anyonew notice: "Democrats Debate"?
Posted by: olita on Apr 17, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it just me or is ABC picking up on the right wing petty smears with the "Democrats Debate" title on the screen? I'll bet when ABC did the debates between Rudy, Mitt etc. it wasn't "Republicans Debate"!!

Remember GWB constantly (on purpose) referring to the "Democrat Congress"? It was petty and now ABC is doing it too! Maybe those guys from TEAL (see alternet story today about the guys going across the country and correcting grammar and spelling) should pay a visit to ABC headquarters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal media, my ass
Posted by: QQOblivion on Apr 17, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry that I have been blissfully unaware lately at how far the MSM has been pushing a McCain presidency on us all, since I don't bother to watch the television any more.
But by the sounds of it, I guess ABC (and the others too) has made up its mind about whom it wants to see in the White House, and it ain't Barack, and it ain't Hillary.
Liberal media, my ass! This is why people are turning to the internet for news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a case to be made
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 17, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the moderators did exactly the right thing, since the debate wasn't really for the benefit of the Democratic electorate, but for the super-delegates.

At this point even the most fanatic Clinton supporter must admit that she is not likely to pass Obama in pledged delegates. If you follow that line of thought and believe the super-delegates will ultimately choose the nominee, then a debate on the issues is worthless - the super delegates are well aware of the issues and stance of each candidate.

However, slinging mud and talking guns and taxes goes to electibility against McCain, and that is very important for super-delegates to see. At the end of the day if the super-delegates are doing the job they were created for, they will choose the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning the general election, full stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's the comment that ABC wouldn't allow on their blog:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 17, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a better title for this article would have been "ABC attempts to brush of criticism of George Stephanopoulos' and George Gibson's perfomance"

See Obama response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4

"It does not get much more fun that these debates. They are inspiring events. Last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. . . 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs. . ."

Nothing but happy idiot talk from ABC...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

attack
Posted by: sirios on Apr 17, 2008 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only, or should i say could only stomach the first hour, due to an apparent one sided set up on obama which allowed pit bull hillary to attack. I thought obama played the cool card well , allowing hillary to play her only card left in the deck, demonize! then when the press chose a woman to ask Obama if he was patriotic , because she noticed he wasn't wearing an american flag on his lapel. OMG ... LOL , must be first time on two legs for ABC and lady lucid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Score keeper
Posted by: When In Doubt on Apr 18, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not a matter of who wins.
The end result was America LOST.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Score keeper Posted by: Sissy
One Mo' Time-Or Ten Thousandth Time-An Exercise in Silliness
Posted by: blackie4aces on Apr 18, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, what could anyone expect? Take a look at the two moderators. George Stephanopolis owes his entire very highly compensated career to the Clintons. How could anyone expect him of bias? I have no doubt he learned how to manage conflict-of-interest situations from his mentors, the Clintons. And then there is the super lightweight, flyweight actually, Charles Gibson, who learned his chops on the Good Morning America show. Gibson is a pompous idiot and a blowhard. Stephanopolis is sharp and knows this stuff inside and out. His blathering resulted for a reason. You can guess what it might be.

Personally, I thought the CNN-Wolf Blitzer debates were absurd-damn sure Wolfie, former PR guy for AIPAC, wasn't about to ask any questions of America's strategic relationships vis a vis Israel. Nor was he about to ask dozens of other pertinent questions. As bad as CNN was, ABC surpassed them by leaps and bounds.

Why should political debates be any different from newstainment? Do you think the American public wants to listen to a lot of policy shit? These are, at least 51.5% of them, the people who elected Bush to the Presidency after he obviously cheated and stole the election of 2000, the people who believed the Swift Boat ads, the people who were so afraid of terrorists they were quite willing to elect a man who had invaded the wrong country. With their money!

Substance! Goddam, that would be so boring. Much more fun would be rehashing what Obama meant by the word "bitter." Or whether Obama's minister loves America. And, of course, "loving" America has everything to do with wearing a goddam pin. George Bush never took his off, the same George Bush who made damn sure he didn't go to Vietnam for the war he fully supported for the country he loved. But a flag pin does separate the patriotic men from the boys, doesn't it?

I guess these flag pins mean so much to the insider Washington war hawks and their lackeys in the media like Limbaugh and Hannerty, Brooks and Goldberg, et al (the list is way too long to include all of the guilty), is because they don't have any medals from their military service. I realize Rush had hemorrhoids or some such thing-he hadn't become a dope fiend yet-and Cheney was busy doing "other things", likely dreaming up how to get his next deferment, and they must feel kind of inadequate, so they have come up with wearing the flag as well as wrapping themselves in it.

The politicos themselves, I am sure, would rather not get into a policy discussion and have little or no wiggle room on these issues if they are elected. Substantial debates can come back to haunt.

Let us not forget it was this echelon of the press, big time broadcast and print news organizations, that fully supported, if not colluded in, Bush's Folly. These are the same assholes that broadcast or published Administration handouts as hard news, the same assholes who never saw a "terrorist threat" story they didn't like, no matter how ridiculous or inconsequential it might really be. These same networks are the folks who decided that television news should be a profit making enterprise as opposed to the public service it had traditionally been, a kind of thank you for the use of public air waves for free. That is why we have a Katie Couric instead of a John Chancelor or a Charles Gibson instead of a Howard K. Smith.

Unlike beer, it could get a lot better than this, but I am afraid it won't. In fact, in all probability major network news will continue to degrade to the point of meaninglessness, which will be a good thing. Citizens who are aware and involved don't pay any attention to it now. All it does presently is poison that segment of the population that is less than enthusiastic about politics and current events. The sooner that ends, the better.

Satan's Neutral Corner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Debate!
Posted by: deatonfl on Apr 18, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thoroughly enjoyed the debate and am greatful that the moderators had the courage to ask the tough questions. It amazes me how everyone including the press has piled on Hillary (and Bill) throughout the campaign but when they question Obama, all they can do is whine and cry about it. This is not leadership. These questions deserve to be looked into and in my book they are very important in making my decision who I will support in November. I have liked Obama all along but all the negativity of his supporters on the blogs and his recent arrogance is turning me away. I'm thankful these things came to light so that I could see through all the rock star hype to the real person; I must say I'm very concerned at this point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politically Outraged
Posted by: Veteran1974 on Apr 21, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This debate was another example of today's political tabloid trash and dagger drama format that produces no valid political dialogue. It provided no platform to voice concerns about the real problems and issues we face in today's world. We don't need dueling celebrity moderators interrogating our political candidates. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos failed as moderators and they failed the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]