Making Lemonade From Lemons After Debate

Hey, what about the Democratic debate on ABC the other night? I know that Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are being raked over the coals in many quarters for their line of questioning which tended toward the muckraking end of the spectrum. To be fair, I have seen Democrats taking umbrage with them not just for the questions asked of Senator Obama, but also for some of the questions they asked of Senator Clinton, too. It's nice to see Democrats united about something again.

I agree that the time might have been better spent discussing real issues and delving into the actual nuts and bolts of some of the ideas that have been floated. However, people are people and if voters are genuinely concerned about a candidate's truthfulness because of repeated misstatements on the campaign trail; or if comments about small town voters need to be better explained for a large television audience, it may be uncomfortable for the candidates (and their supporters), but it is probably better to address those problems candidly than to let them lie around like unexploded IEDs.

Democratic partisans should also remember that the debate audience includes the entire American public, not simply people who by nature wish Senator Obama or Senator Clinton well. If there are rumors, even unfounded rumors, about someone's patriotism because of a ludicrous flag pin controversy, or other things circulating that could hurt a candidate in the general election, a candidate should address them at some point to put them to rest. Whether such rumors should have been trotted out in a national forum is, well, debatable, but they were. Some of the subjects brought up have probably already been thoroughly aired as well.

Certainly Senator Obama was roughed up a bit in the first 45 minutes of the debate. He seemed unaccustomed to hard questions from the press and unprepared when there were equally hard follow-up questions. Clinton supporters have been claiming for months that Senator Obama has been treated with kid gloves by the media. The gloves apparently came off Tuesday night, at least at the debate.

Since the debate Senator Obama has been making lemonade out of lemons. (My interpretation, of course.) He's been asserting that he and his campaign offer a better alternative to the harsh tone, the "attack" politics and trivial issues that were on display at the debate.

The Washington Post quotes him in "Obama Looks To Turn Debate Into a Victory":

"Washington hasn't gotten the news yet that people want something different," the senator from Illinois told an audience at a campaign rally in Raleigh. "Last night we set a new record. It took us 45 minutes . . . before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq. Forty-five minutes before we heard about jobs. That's how Washington is."

However, in classic Obama style, after talking about wanting to move beyond attack politics, he goes after Senator Clinton.

Again, from the Washington Post:

In Thursday's narrative, Obama saw Clinton's performance as a metaphor for the kind of politics he wants to move beyond.

He called Washington a town of "gotcha games," "anything goes" and "slash-and-burn politics." Clinton, he said, "looked in her element" on the stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia as he grappled with uncomfortable questions.

The crowd erupted. "That's her right, to twist the knife a little bit," Obama continued. "That's how our politics has been taught to be played."

It's this kind of sleight-of-hand that annoys Clinton supporters: when Senator Obama claims to be above the fray and goes on to take shots at Senator Clinton with exactly the kind of old style political attacks he claims to abhor. It's also a little disingenuous to blame Senator Clinton for the questioning he received from Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Certainly Senator Clinton says similar things during her campaign appearances but she is not campaigning on the idea of changing the political landscape or claiming to be a new kind of "post-partisan" politician.

I would also point out that it's fine to embrace the idea of a kinder, gentler campaign, but Republicans will not campaign that way, as Senator Obama surely knows. He told his audience in Raleigh that "If Republicans come at me, I will come right back at them." He will have to perform better than he did at the debate in Philadelphia. Likewise, should Senator Obama become president, the rest of the world is not likely to refrain from attack politics and trivial issues. If he thinks Gibson and Stephanopoulos packed a punch, wait until he has to deal with some real baddies.

Senator Obama and his supporters may believe with some justification that he was treated harshly during ABC's debate earlier this week. However, it is time that the media, in general, begins holding Senator Obama to the same standard it has for Senator Clinton. If he does win the nomination he will face what is usually called "the Republican attack machine." It will make the knocks he's taken from the Clinton campaign look like playground stuff. If he becomes president he can expect a press corps that will sooner or later ask tough questions -- even with George W. Bush the media eventually asked real questions. No candidate should get a free ride, not even Senator Obama.

Comments

[libran38]

carlotta, glad you mentioned the comment about "Senator Clinton was in her element". A very passive-aggressive attitude.

When they did get to the substantive questions, it was abundantly clear that Hillary knows way more than him. He either re-iterated what she said or reverted back to his message of hope/divisive politics. Lucky for him that the entire debate was not focussed on policy issues...

[SanDiegoBill]

Cooper's article has too many errors to fully address.

The moderators' questions might fairly be characterized as "digging dirt" in sleazy tabloid fashion, or "swiftboating" in the sordid Republican manner, but certainly not as "muckraking," which implies honorable investigation of corruption or other serious injustice.

In one multiply incorrect remark, Cooper said Obama "seemed unaccustomed to hard questions from the press and unprepared ..." "Unaccustomed" is absurd - this is the thirtieth, not first, time he's faced these questions. "Unprepared" is a mischaracterization to cover her third error: failing to note that he chose to attack the attack, rather than to dignify it with a substantive response.

In regard to:
"... sleight-of-hand ... : when Senator Obama ... take[s] shots at Senator Clinton with exactly the kind of old style political attacks he claims to abhor."
Specious attacks in regard to flag lapel pins, Ayers, and bitterness were *initiated* against Obama. He *defended* by challenging the attacks and the attackers. Intelligent people agree with him: the attacks are silly distractions and reflect poorly on the attacker. Cooper fails to distinguish a fair *defense* from a specious *attack,* a distinction even a 5 year-old would understand.

With those and many other errors, Cooper demonstrates that she, of all people, shouldn't be throwing around big words like "disingenu­ous." She either doesn't know what they mean ... or she's being extremely disingenuous.

This error-filled article should embarrass the Huffington Post.

[carport]

Neither Obama, nor his campaign, nor his supporters have complained that Obama was treated harshly. The complaint is that the initial questions were irrelevant to Americans. Americans want to learn during the debates about the candidates' positions on important issues: economy, war, gas prices, environment, education, strategic vision for repositioning our country as a respected world leader.

Around here, folks have been impressed by Obama's calm demeanor and presidential style in the debate, despite the tabloid-style questions.

[mesuki]

Cooper it sounds to me like you're in bed with the Clintons too. I don't see why people keep saying that the media has given Obama a pass..That­'s Bull Shit!.....­..I think Hillary is the one that has gotten a pass.If she didn't why aren't more negative things bought out about her. Hillary has so many negatives,but none of the media talks about them,and if they do it's for a few minutes. I'm a housewife and I've been following this race very closely . The pass that they give Hillary,they sure as hell don't give them to Obama. So give me a freakin break...th­at's what you would like for people to think.When the Rev. Wright story came out,that's all I heard for two weeks,but yet her Bosnia story lasted maybe a week,and the fact that she attends that weird church,there's been little coverage of that story.I can go on and on. You could take this story of yours and shove it,cause its a damn lie!....go tell it to a two year old,that don't know any better.

[Neef]

A lot of people are tired of the filth spewed by the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the Right. They've been bashing us "godless" liberals so long that a fair degree of resentment has built up (to put it mildly), and it runs deep.

Obama is Left of center, in many ways, and he serves as a rallying point for people who's previous defender was the likes of Alan Colmes. You are seeing the Liberal Voice finding it's strength, and Obama happens to be at the focus.

Hillary could *easily* have been the focus of this new awakening, but she has aligned herself with what many perceive to be The Enemy. It's unfortunate, but she's made her own choices.

November will be interesting. The RIght is used to owning the message. They may be...surpr­ised, this time.

[Americanium]

I don't know who is advising Obama..but he needs to get his head out of the clouds and stop reading his own press reports.

He has managed to screw up his campaign without any real effects as yet.

That said he and his wife and advisors need to winging it and stick to script.

Obama is beginning to remind me of Bush in several ways. He needs to drink some humility milk and get back to basics.

[generationyes]

What the hell are you rabbitting on about?

[IndependentTogether]

I was wondering that, too.

[zenobiadarcy]

Who is advising Obama you ask? You are joking right? Thanks for the laugh. Obama 2008.

[Suprshrink]

It is about time that Obama had to answer some questions but he was still evasive. He is not forthcoming and sometimes I think he does not know the answer. He stumbles, he bumbles, and he mumbles his responses and when that fails he yells, "foul." I have not seen him in any of the debates appear to be a statesman, a leader, or a communicator. I get that he gives good prepared speeches and that he wants to inspire people, but I think he might be better off in a different profession. Perhaps he would be best suited as a preacher.

[generationyes]

Examples, oh mighty one?

[mojomagic]

Jon Stewart showed last night some of the so called trivial questions the moderators asked of Hillary and Obama. But then in a second segment he showed Obama being asked a substantive question, followed by maybe two minutes of ers, das and those other sounds he makes when he doesn't have the answer to a question. Obama has routinely followed Hillary's response with a "I agree with what HIllary says......­..and then rambles on with some big words to try to make it sound like he knows what the hell he is talking about. I call it the doppelganger syndrome. It is one of the reasons Obama likes getting the second question on an issue, and one of the reasons he has improved in the debates as time went on. He became better at "doppelgan­dering"...­......assu­ming others' ideas and presenting them as his own.
'

[kgb999]

You misrepresent Obama somewhat. He never criticized Clinton for the questions asked by the moderators. He criticized her for "twisting the knife". She could have chosen to be gracious - as Obama was with the Bosnia issue - but instead decided to mount her own attack. The moderators didn't force her to do that, it was her choice.

It's this kind of sleight-of-hand that annoys Obama supporters: ignore the valid criticism, invent a premise out of thin air, and then criticize the questioner based on a made-up premise - magically never actually answering the original criticism at all.

[mojomagic]

When the Bosnia question was on the table, OBama quickly said he hadn't used that against Hilllary, and the moderator said, "BUT you campaign has." That is Obama's idea of running a new kind of political campaign..­........di­rty by surrogates. He sends his campaign out to do all the hatchet jobs and he sits back and polishes his halo; so it shines for the media.

[Petey]

We're heading for a media sea change if people keep portraying this debate as simply asking "hard questions.­" These were swiftboat attacks. The rationale being that swiftboating will occur anyway, so we should see how Obama reacts to it.

Nonsense. When ABC News participates in swiftboating they are legitimizing it. They are abdicating their role of helping prioritize which stories/issues are fair and relevant. This was a huge error in judgment, and if we don't hold their feet to the fire we will witness a permanent quantum leap downward in the mainstream media's ethical standing in our culture.

[mojomagic]

The media has been making these kind of attacks on Hillary throughout this campaign, and the Obama Campaign has been leading the charge. They have been piling on the "Bosnia" story for weeks saying HIllary is a Liar......­...how many times have you Obaminations made these charges in blogs. The Obama pushed media story is that Hillary should get out of this campaign because she is doing Mccain's work for him. How arrogant those cries have been.

In the first place, neither of the candidates can get the needed number of delegates. There is one big issue for the Convention and that is seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida. As long as Obama is able to block their seating he holds an advantage, and it has given him a "false" lead in both the delegate count and popular vote. DON"T THINK FOR A MINUTE, if Obama had won those primaries, he wouldn't be using his $MILLIONS in lawyers fees to get them seated.

[justobserve]

Of course if he had campaigned there then the primary was legitimate but in this case, he was not a well-known name like a Clinton so without campaigning she certainly had the upper hand. As for her winning in FL, apart from its illegality, how can you count the voters who didn't vote because they knew their vote wouldn't have been counted? Same thing in MI and also his name was not even on the ballot. Why did Clinton agree to votes not count when she was the inevitable then?

[Javalation]

McCain is the one getting the free ride, and the press won't do any homework on this guy then it will be up to someone to pop his balloon, unless he blows up at an inopportune time, and gets caught on tape. That would be sooo cool.

[Yansher]

The only one that has gotten a free ride is Hillary. If Obama has done and said the things that Hillary is guilty of, this race would have been over a long time ago.

[Terriac]

Well said. And there are two points that I feel are worth remembering. Obama can't win no matter how he responds to these attacks. If he does nothing, they say he's weak or a wimp. If he responds to the attack, he's said to be using the same gotcha politics that he doesn't want to resort to. Also, I firmly believe that once he's the nominee, he will respond much stronger to the Republican attacks and those of John McCain. I feel that he refrains from such strong attacks against Hillary Clinton so as not to further damage the party. Something she should think about. Wait until he is the nominee. He won't have any trouble dealing with the Republicans.

[wwsword]

Nice to see an article at the Huffington Post with this point of view. Cooper is much closer to reality than a lot of the stuff I read on here.

[Amathyne]

Finaly! A note of sanity - Thank you!