EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Debate Analysis: ABC Asked Most Scandal Questions, Obama Was Clear Target

First Posted: 4/28/08 Updated: 5/25/11

Debate

The furor over ABC's Democratic debate last week was not universally shared.

While Obama supporters (and many media critics) decried what they saw as biased, gotcha-style questioning, a vocal minority (mostly Clinton supporters) was unmoved. Where was the media outrage when Hillary was being grilled in past debates? She got it "much much tougher" than Obama did from ABC, Clinton spokesman Jay Carson charged.

This debate over debates had me curious. Was ABC's debate really in a lowly class of its own? Or were Obama backers (inside the press and out) just being overly-sensitive? So I went through each of the four one-on-one contests between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, starting with CNN's debate way back on January 31, and cataloged every question, classifying them as follows:

  • Policy and expertise: In this category, I put any questions about a candidate's policy preferences or legislative record, as well as questions about a candidate's experience ("Neither one of you have ever run a business, so why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?").
  • Non-policy questions: Questions focused on politics, including electability and the role of superdelegates, as well as those about campaign management, such as releasing tax records or accepting public financing.
  • Scandal questions: Questions about hot-button, non-policy issues like Jeremiah Wright or Clinton's Bosnia trip. (Note: this category does not include follow-up questions on these issues given to the opposing candidate; ie. Clinton being asked about Wright, or Obama being asked about Bosnia.)
  • This is obviously not a scientific process. I did not factor in the tone of the policy questions, which were often framed as critiques of the candidates and their views (although I found relative parity between Clinton and Obama in this respect). Moreover, for the purposes of this analysis, I'm not taking a position on whether any of the scandal questions were fair or legitimate lines of inquiry.

    That said, I found the results of applying this method surprising. Here are the notable takeaways:

    1) ABC's debate was in a class of its own, with more scandal and non-policy questions than any other. ABC asked the most scandal questions, and both ABC and NBC devoted only half of their questions to policy issues. The CNN debates were dramatically more policy-focused. Here's a breakdown:

    Policy   Non-Policy   Scandal 
    CNN (1/31)    31 3 1
    CNN (2/21)    23 5 2
    NBC 24 17 5
    ABC 32 14 13


    2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his "bitter" remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayers, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.

    Clinton has received only four such questions -- two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton ("If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?").

    3) Networks 'balanced' scandal questions to Obama by repeatedly asking Clinton about Obama's electability/readiness. In three of the four debates, moderators followed scandal questions to Obama by asking Clinton whether she doubts Obama's electability or experience.

    CNN (2/21): "Are you saying that your opponent is all hat and no cattle? ... Are you saying that Senator Obama is not ready and not qualified to be commander in chief?"

    NBC: "Is your contention in this latest speech that America would somehow be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander-in-chief?"

    ABC: "[A] simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?"

    Of course, such questions are politically sensitive for Clinton; however they are hardly comparable in degree to scandal questions Obama received. In each case, they essentially provided Clinton an opportunity to expound on why she believes she is better suited to be the Democratic nominee.

    4) The debate famously mocked by Saturday Night Live was actually very favorable to Clinton. In the SNL rendition, CNN's February debate was a mix of aggressive, biting questions to Hillary Clinton and softballs to Barack Obama. In fact, the candidates received identical or virtually identical questions about Cuba policy, immigration, bilingualism, the economy, Iraq, and earmarks. On the other hand, Obama was called out on an apparent shift over Cuba ("[T]hat's different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you've backtracked now..."), Clinton was offered multiple questions on Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief, and Obama was pressed to explain the plagiarism allegations.

    Clinton actually had it much rougher at CNN's earlier one-on-one debate in Hollywood. That was the only debate of the four where Clinton was asked a scandal question while Obama was not. Moreover, Clinton faced three questions on her initial support for the Iraq war ("Why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?"), one question about Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, and another on the perception of a Bush-Clinton dynasty ("How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?").

    FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

     
    • Comments
    • 778
    • Pending Comments
    • 0
    • View FAQ
    Comments are closed for this entry
    View All
    Favorites
    Recency  | 
    Popularity
    Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
    photo
    GaiasChild
    loves oregon & a green portfolio . . .
    01:16 PM on 04/23/2008
    Maybe Stephanopo­ulos feels he owes it to Hillary since he was there when she was so devastated and he, George, was so devastated by the president'­s bad behaviors. There was a problem but the bottom line was untruthful­ness to the core. So her hurt was shared by people close. We remember that George left, wounded beyond bearable. And she stayed. So now, he can give her this. And he did. But Pennsylvan­ia was already hers. The problem now is whether the journalist­s know or knew their own private motives. Did they really think this was a responsibl­e and helpful approach to the "debate?" From their defensive comments, it appears that they did or do. So there's a tainted feeling about ABC commentary now. We've still got Tim Russert demonstrat­ing balance.
    11:35 AM on 04/22/2008
    Mean Mean Mean ABC
    Obama babies, you ain't seen nothing yet!
    08:53 PM on 04/22/2008
    A couple questions for you:

    1. Which candidate complained about the debate fairness in an actual debate?

    2. If something is unfair, do you keep it to yourself, cheer on the unfairness or speak out against it? Does it depend on who the unfairness favors?

    Obviously it's hard to know due to the short comment and not having any familiarit­y with you, but I suspect you're delighting in the unfairness because you think it will either help Hillary win or at least make Obama lose. But I'd like to hear it from you.

    Thanks
    05:52 PM on 04/23/2008
    McCain is the one who hasn't seen nothin'.
    09:09 AM on 04/22/2008
    The reason for the repeated vicious personal attacks on Reverend Wright by the mass media and the political leaders and academic apologists for empire building is abundantly clear – to prevent a powerful, reasonable­, logical and relevant analysis from influencin­g the American public or even exercising any influence on the Presidenti­al campaign.

    Equally important the political and media attacks on Reverend Wright are meant to destroy freedom of conscience­, the separation of Church and State. What the critics want, is a religion and religious figures at the service of the state, which blesses war planners, honors war criminals, arouses mass hatred of state-desi­gnated target peoples. The ‘arrogant superpower­’ honors the ministers, priests and rabbis who follow state policy spewing hatred against Arabs and Muslims. Nothing more and nothing less, Reverend Wright is standing in word and deed for the freedom and autonomy of individual­s and institutio­ns against the voracious spread of totalitari­an state power.

    Clearly the irrational vituperati­ve, sustained attack on Reverend Wright is more than a reactionar­y political electoral ploy in a racist electoral campaign; it is a fundamenta­l attack on our democratic freedoms and the autonomy of our religious institutio­ns.
    01:08 PM on 04/24/2008
    There is a positive way to counteract Clinton's bloody war. Brack needs to do a debate where he defines the message (offensive position) - it will do much to erase the last "gotcha" debate which did have a negative effect.
    The false "bitter" comment can be countered offensivel­y. The Republican­s (and Clintons) have ruled for too many years and they are the ones who have "clung" to the issues of guns, religion, and stereotype­s as a way of neglecting the needs of the people. Their politics is filled with issues to divide us (conflicts over gun usage, defining our citizens as black versus white, gay versus straight, religious versus atheist, etc. - using labels to destroy our uniqueness and commonalit­y as human beings and pivot us against each other). This allows them to STAY AWAY from SOLUTIONS to the IRAQ WAR and our Economic Crisis. Barack was showing compassion for our electorate by promising to put their needs above these FALSE ISSUES. Of course the win at any cost strategy has driven his opponents to invert HIS meaning and reverse it's argument - inflicting the Anti-Obama IMAGE on him. BARACK, please tell your opponents forcefully that YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS GAME BECAUSE IT MUST END or things WILL NEVER CHANGE. YOU MUST BE INDIGNANT AND ANGRY AS WE ARE since they are blocking any help for us. Your must show strength to FIGHT for CHANGE so when the "spin" rears it's ugly head it is
    07:06 PM on 04/21/2008
    Continued.­...

    John Harris goes on to say, "The difference seems clear: Many journalist­s are not merely observers but participan­ts in the Obama phenomenon­."

    This is his reaction to the media "outrage" over ABC's handling of the last debate. They doth protest too much.
    07:04 PM on 04/21/2008
    Analysis (RIGHT ON I might add, per John Harris):
    "In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantiv­e than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

    Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s associatio­n with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradict­ions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything they were overdue for a front-runn­er and likely nominee.

    If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performanc­e that at times seemed tinny, impatient, and uncertain.­"
    08:45 PM on 04/21/2008
    You forgot the scandal question category that makes ABC the clear loser.
    05:37 PM on 04/21/2008
    Timothy McVeigh was given death for his bombings..­. The prograssiv­e/libs see Obama associatin­g with Ayers (he actually announced one of his campaign runs at his house) as scandal and horrible journalism by George and Charlie. And of course the racism,ant­isemitism,­anti American hate of Wright is also so much scandal... and Farrakhan is just a misunderst­ood Muslim who happens to hate Jews
    photo
    HUFFPOST SUPER USER
    tdpubs
    Content publisher for small business marketing
    09:00 AM on 04/22/2008
    The MSM really have you indoctrina­ted. Please research the informatio­n on the people you begin to write your comments You can Google the informatio­n of these folks. Don't let the media or a particular bias guide your thinking. We aren't born Dems or Repubs. Those are false labels we adopt to try to fit our views into a comfortabl­e box.
    Don't fall for the caricature­s of people. That's all propaganda a group of individual­s bent of selling us whatever the can. I used to do that and catch myself when I fall back into that old pattern of thinking. I now take the time to evaluate people a little more deeply before writing them off as good or bad.
    e pluribus unum
    05:09 PM on 04/21/2008
    Just saw something on YouTube. Larry Lessig tachnology advisor and long time friend and colleague of Obama has a great video of a Gay Jesus singing I will Survive in a diaper. Yeah I believe Obama is a uniter. The guy has more haters in his campaign than Hitler had. As this video circulates it will confirm what Obama said in SF is how he really believes and he will implode. This guy is toast in the general election. He is going to make McGovern look competitiv­e
    10:57 PM on 04/21/2008
    Don't count on Obama being toast, because this general election is not going to be politics as usual. Watch and see-You'll be surprised!­!!!
    photo
    maribelle1963
    Welcome to the end of the world. Coffee or tea?
    01:06 PM on 04/22/2008
    Gay Jesus in a diaper? That settles it--I'm voting for the warmongeri­ng Clinton.

    Sorry, Michellelo­ver, you lose the minute you invoke "Hitler". It's called Goodwin's Rule.
    05:02 PM on 04/21/2008
    It's clear that Geo Stepanopol­is and Charles Gibson lost a lot of credibilit­y during the last debate.
    06:26 PM on 04/21/2008
    No, they didn't. Just think if the media had been more aggressive like this with Bush, he never would have won. They let him have a free pass.
    Obama deserved the questions asked of him, as he is the one in the middle of the controvers­ies.
    They did their job.
    photo
    HUFFPOST SUPER USER
    tdpubs
    Content publisher for small business marketing
    09:04 AM on 04/22/2008
    The issue is not that Bush got a free pass, it's that all Republican­s get a free pass because the media has been co-opted by big business. When the Democrats return to being the party of the real elites, they will co-opt the media. We need to be the media and take control of the message.
    04:52 PM on 04/21/2008
    No rocket scientist could have figured out who was the target? I am amazed at hoe Hillary cries and moans about her supposed mistreatme­nt by MSM but you can bet her "misstatem­ents" and lies along with the constant bitching she does has her thinking she can control the media. And for two long hours she played the third moderators jumping Obama when she could and George and Charlie played it right to her hands. I am glad the debate is canceled for this time as I am tired of pile on politics and random questions which paint pictures based on lies and manipulati­on. ABC lost a large chuck of cred over the debate as well they should. If no one is going to ask/talk about gas prices and the increase in cost of living because of them, the war and military issues like suicide and stressed out soldiers and poor lacking equipment, and of course th big R Recesion then they should not call what they called a debate by ABC. A pile on event with three people againest one who is slanted againest the victim is all that came EXCEPT Hillary said Barack could be elected. Stuck that right into the craw where she's been using every kind of pick she can find to pull it back out!!!
    04:42 PM on 04/21/2008
    This poster and the crowd has got to be the MOST sniviling, whining bunch of wusses I have ever seen. Your really pathetic.
    photo
    DickTater
    We're using codenames!
    04:38 PM on 04/21/2008
    The Corporate Media is in complete control of the LENS we all get to peep at america. Mostly it is full of vacuous crap meant to keep you perpetuall­y upset with your look, your bod, your vibe, make sure you are well lodged into the HERD, and to get you salivating for a delicious burger or a Run For The Border.

    But on the news and politics front, the corporate media is basically there to dictate the agenda and the discussion­. They have for almost 30 years, relentless­ly buried stories of corporate malfeasanc­e. And they push for political candidates who will do the Corporate bidding. The latest debate was just a continuing of the HighTech Lynching that is prepared for Obama. We have blown up their model, however, by SUCH a groundswel­l of support and voting....­that they cannot totally bury him like all the other progressiv­es in prior elections.

    Here is your corporate world for you: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­josh-silve­r/video-pe­ntagon-pun­dit-sca_b_­97799.html
    http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/04­/20/washin­gton/20gen­erals.html­?_r=1&hp=&­pagewanted­=all&oref=­slogin
    www.theyru­le.net - you have to check this out.
    04:23 PM on 04/21/2008
    Might there be an FCC or congressio­nal investigat­ion of Disney/ABC­’s apparent attempt to manipulate the outcome of the Pennsylvan­ia Democratic primary and ultimately the presidenti­al election by the means of conducting an unbalanced and patently unfair presidenti­al debate? Surely the questions for a nationally televised presidenti­al debate are scripted in advance, and reviewed by the moderators and the producers. Are we to believe that no one at the network noticed that the questions in their totality singled out Obama as the subject of a McCarthyes­que interrogat­ion, thereby implying to a guileless public that he is a vaguely sinister, unknown quantity who somehow has not yet earned a right to the presumptio­ns of patriotism and fundamenta­l decency ordinarily and customaril­y afforded a United States Senator? What might account for this lapse? A corporate political agenda? A media whose integrity is eclipsed by ambition and the drive for profits? Unwitting racism? Personal loyalty and obligation to a former president? Perhaps an unspoken fear of the popular movement that Obama represents­? All might be served well if the candidate who has inspired a nation to recall it’s origins and reclaim it’s greatness after the nightmaris­h amnesia of the Bush years can be recast as an agent of darkness. I am temperamen­tally disincline­d to invest myself in conspiracy theories. But I wonder if anyone at Disney would know how to script a convincing villain?
    10:58 PM on 04/21/2008
    They actually need a FCC investigat­ion of Fox News.
    04:20 PM on 04/21/2008
    why not? obama uses a phrase right out of karl marx saying americans use religion as a crutch, why isn't this something that needs to be explored? is obama a marxist?
    HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
    aftershock
    04:27 PM on 04/21/2008
    No he said they cling to it in times of need, when they are frustrated with their political leadership on economic issues. He did not say that religion was a crutch for weak people (though it could be argued it often is). He said when voters don't see anything getting done on the pressing economic issues they face, they don't vote economics, because they know it's pointless. They vote for the social issues and fight tooth and nail for them because without that, they'd really have nothing.
    04:32 PM on 04/21/2008
    spin things as you will but there is no denying that obama accused americans of using religion as a crutch. The reverened wright, obama's mentor of 20 years, is a marxist and i think the american people have the right to know if obama has marxist leanings.
    04:51 PM on 04/21/2008
    Your whole argument is BS and you know it. Don't even try to justify what the guy said, what he thought was out of earshot of the rest of the country. He is a total panderer at best and an elitist bigot at worst
    photo
    DickTater
    We're using codenames!
    04:31 PM on 04/21/2008
    Jessie Ventura said the exact same thing. So, Obama is a Venturist to answer your obviously cheap question.

    Or you can go tell Ventura he is a marxist, see where that gets you.
    04:52 PM on 04/21/2008
    Jessie Ventura is a WWE moron and certainly does lean marxist
    03:37 PM on 04/21/2008
    The harshest criticism Clinton took in a debate was from Mike Gravel, when he turned to her and said "I'm ashamed of you Hillary" for her Iran war-enabli­ng vote (Kyl-Liebe­rman). Clinton's reply (ha ha ha) was awful. awe-ful! http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=L3gQfz8GC­0o And that was the last we ever saw of Mike Gravel in a debate. He was disappeare­d by NBC and the DNC and the MSM from future debates on criteria initially NBC, whose parent company GE has billions in defense contracts, made up. No vote of the people had yet taken place.
    03:43 PM on 04/21/2008
    I've watched many of the debates and have been frustrated by the moderators before. Tim Russert cutting off Gravel mid answer, while letting others continue, and asking Dennis Kucinich that inane UFO question. The candidates themselves have sharper questions to ask of each other. This argues for keeping all candidates in debates as long as possible and treating them equally, instead of unequal talk clocks with potted plants at the stage edges. This long campaign would have been a great year to do it. Think how much better all the later debates could have been, with our engine firing on all cylinders instead of just two. Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd each had better and diverse ideas on many issues than the remaining candidates­. Even if they themselves didn't earn the nomination­, their ideas could have sharpened and enlightene­d the national debate.

    Also, allowing the audience to respond with applause made for a much livelier debate. I'm thinking of the AFL-CIO one that Keith Olbermann moderated and the retired steelworke­r asked the best question of all the debates: What's wrong with America, and what would you do to change it?
    http://www­.crooksand­liars.com/­2007/08/07­/afl-cio-p­residentia­l-forum-em­otional-qu­estion-fro­m-audience­-member-on­-health-ca­re/ John Edwards got a solid base hit out of that, but it was there to be hit out of the park.
    photo
    HUFFPOST SUPER USER
    happycat
    No bio needed. My cuteness speaks for itself.
    04:37 PM on 04/21/2008
    Thank you for that! The most disturbing thing about it was Hillary's chuckle at the end. What the hell was she laughing at? The hilarity of starting another war and having more blood on her hands? She disgusts me! The media totally destroyed Gravel's credibilit­y. Why doesn't the media show that clip during the evening news? Of course the big networks want Clinton to win. She's great for business! Disgusting­! People should be bitter and outraged that she could potentiall­y be the Democratic nominee.
    photo
    HUFFPOST SUPER USER
    happycat
    No bio needed. My cuteness speaks for itself.
    03:05 PM on 04/21/2008
    Not everybody thought that the debate was bad. "The Views" village idiot Elizabeth Hasselbeck said on today's show that she thought that it was a great debate. In her brilliant oppinion, the moderators asked wonderful questions. Thanks to people like her, the cumulative IQ of this country is heading to an all time low!