Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

The Post-Substantive Debate

Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend at 4:02 AM on April 18, 2008.


One of the best reviews of a terrible debate from someone who didn't initially watch it.
400apdebate080416

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

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

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

I didn't bother turning on the presidential debate held in Pennsylvania tonight; thank goodness I didn't. Based on the blow-by-blow, the majority of it involved ignoring actual issues -- oh, say Iraq, health care, the economy. Apparently ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos thought it would inform viewers more about where either candidate would take the country if they dredged up the various bloody political battles/scandals/bloopers of the campaign for deeper analysis.

For those who did watch, did they bring up the latest flap over Hillary's 1995 comments about lunch-bucket Dems (the demo she's cozying up to these days):

Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

That surely would have given George and Charlie an on-air woody.

Think about this -- ABC News has millions of Americans watching, the economy is in the sh*tter, Iraq is a mess, healthcare is in shambles, and you have 2 hours to discuss the issues of the day with the candidates. Look at the selection of topics and framing of questions. This is journalism?

**********

Dredging up the dumb running mate question...

GIBSON: There have already been many votes in many states, and you have each, as you analyze the vote, appealed disproportionately to different constituencies in the party, and that dismays many in the party. Governor Cuomo, an elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, look, fight it to the end.

Let every vote be counted. You contest every delegate. Go at each other to the -- right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other will agree if they lose, to take second place on the ticket.

So I put the question to both of you: Why not?

The whole "bitter" blue collar worker BS (btw, it hasn't hurt Obama in polls, so what is the point of this framing?)...

MR. GIBSON: Talking to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, you got talking in California about small-town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years. And you said they get bitter, and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them.

Now, you've said you misspoke; you said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

***

Yawn. The "electability" question

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pick up on this. When these comments from Senator Obama broke on Friday, Senator McCain's campaign immediately said that it was going to be a killer issue in November.

Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it. But a simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?

***

Rev. Wright AGAIN

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And you said subsequent to giving that speech that you never heard him say from the pulpit the kinds of things that so have offended people.

But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." I'm quoting the reverend. But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation?

***

More time frittered away on Wright...

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton, let me -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Senator Clinton, let me follow up, and let me add to that. You have said that he would not have been my pastor, and you said that you have to speak out against those kinds of remarks, and implicitly by getting up and moving, and I presume you mean out of the church.

There are 8,000 members of Senator Obama's church. And we have heard the inflammatory remarks of Reverend Wright, but so too have we heard testament to many great things that he did. Do you honestly believe that 8,000 people should have gotten up and walked out of that church?

***

O...M...G...

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?

***

Here comes a question on the economic crisis..oh damn, first we need to learn more about Clinton's Indiana Jones fantasy in Bosnia...

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, we also did a poll today, and there are also questions about you raised in this poll. About six in 10 voters that we talked to say they don't believe you're honest and trustworthy. And we also asked a lot of Pennsylvania voters for questions they had. A lot of them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.

***

Great Caesar's Ghost -- why doesn't Obama wear a flag pin!

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look.

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November. How do you convince Democrats that this would not be a vulnerability?

***

The clock is ticking on the 2 hour debate...will the questions turn to global warming...NO, it's time to talk about radicals from the 70s!

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

The full transcript of the debate is here.

Digg!

Tagged as: election, debates

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 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:
Get Real
Posted by: When In Doubt on Apr 18, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sound and fury about sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Rehas of rehash

sustance, please

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

Earl Callahan
Posted by: earl on Apr 18, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One wonders where the questioners, those who call themselves journalists, were actually coming from. Officious bastards without an ounce of pride is actually being journalists. This debate was not a debate. I watched with my wife who found herself, uncharacteristically, saying blah-blah and again blah. Whats wrong with ABC?

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

AN INSULT TO THE VOTERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 18, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The moderators were a disgrace. Clinton and Obama did their best to elevate the discussion but the control freaks wouldn't have it. This is not a time to work on ratings. They discourage people from listening and trying to get informed. It was a waste of everyone's time and if anything gave points to the Republicans. McCain must have enjoyed it, if he stays up that late. ANNA

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

HEY PAM-DON'T WRITE ABOUT SOMETHiNG YOU DIDN'T WATCH
Posted by: maribelle on Apr 18, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't bother turning on the presidential debate held in Pennsylvania tonight; thank goodness I didn't.

Excuse me? Then why on earth are you blogging about it? As someone who "bothered" to watch because this election is so freaking important to our country, I deeply resent your cavalier attitude.

Your post amounts to posting quotes and eyerolling, snarky O.M.G. comments. Pointless waste of time; I expect better from Alternet.

There are thousands of insightful words being written about the debate; I'm now off to find and read some of them.

Don't step up to the plate without a bat and a ball, sis.

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

An Exercise is Silliness-One Mo' time-Or Ten Thousandth Time
Posted by: blackie4aces on Apr 18, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [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 means 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]

ABC News...the stuff of the supermarket tabloids
Posted by: jimidee on Apr 19, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABC news has gone the way of pushing the sensational and gossip to the level of "news". You've got to sell this "shit" so you have to package it like shinola...the lowest common denominators out there in John Q Public land demand it.

And while ABC is at it, throw in a shit-pot-full of commercials to boot.

Isn't is ironic that the real news is now on Comedy Central from
11:00 AM to 12:00 and the fake news in on ABC?

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