Et Tu, ABC?

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

For months, now, there has been an effort to frame the Democratic front-runner not just as a bad candidate, but as a potential violent threat to the American public.  It is the familiar politics of violent rhetoric, which are being used in this election to undermine the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Last night this violent framing took on a new and disturbing dimension when George Stephanopoulos, co-moderator of ABC's candidate debate, asked a series of questions insinuating that Barack Obama may be politically aligned with a radical group called The Weatherman Underground--a 1960s violent political organization responsible for the bombing of federal buildings:

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 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?

(George Stephanopoulos, Apr 16, 2008)

Of course, it is patently absurd to believe that Barack Obama or any candidate for President in either party has political allegiance to 1960s group of domestic terrorists.  But the truth in this situation did count for much, unfortunately.  Stephanopoulos question was the type of media stink bomb that fouls a candidate in the asking.  Obama's answer, no matter how quick or good, could not have changed the outcome.

On the surface, Stephanopoulos' questions seems to be about 'patriotism,' the supposed organizing theme for that particular round of questions.  In fact, it was not about patriotism at all, but was a trap. The question tried to put Obama in a situation where he felt the need to repudiate his connection with a man associated with political violence in the 1970s.  Obama responded not by taking the debate, but by showing what was at stake when questions like Stephanopoulos' are allowed to stand unchallenged:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I  have not received some official endorsement from.  He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestably acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and m y values, doesn't make much sense, George...

So this is the 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.

(Barack Obama, Apr 16, 2008) 

It was a good answer.  The issue is not whether he needs to answer for the past violent acts of one of his constituents, but whether or not the political debate can move forward in a productive manner in the face of this kind of effort to associate candidates with violence.

Hillary Clinton, for her part, should have said something very similar. She should have said that such questions are fundamentally debasing of the political system.  She should have said that asking Barack Obama to deny his allegiance to domestic violence is an offense to the very institution of civil debate on which our entire system depends.  Unfortunately, she chose to add to the violent framing, further implying that Obama was somehow aligned with The Weather Underground and implying, however vaguely, that Bill Ayer's violent views were somehow shared by her Democratic opponent for the nomination.  That moment--her response--was the low point in the entire political career of Hillary Clinton.

Obama, for his part, was correct to assert his belief in the aptitude of the American people and in their ability to look past such cynical questions as that from Stephanopoulos.  But even as the American voter is smart, they also look to their presidential candidates to help them articulate the issues more effectively than they might feel confident doing alone.   Candidates, in other words, do not so much speak for the voters as they speak in ways that allow all of us to express our views more effectively. 

In this respect, Obama forgot to emphasize why Stephanopoulos' question was so damaging to the debate, as well as why the general effort by the right to frame him in violent terms was damaging.

Obama might have said that, thanks to Stephanopoulos' question, the effort to convince voters that he poses a potential violent threat to America has taken on a third dimension.  He might have said that the first two smears have already been well-established as (1) an email whisper campaign implying that he--by virtue of his name--is a covert terrorist loyal to America's enemies; and  (2) in a media storm arguing that he--by virtue of some out of context statements made by his pastor--is an angry black man seeking revenge for the discrimination against African-Americans.  He might then have said that Stephanopoulos' question introduced a third level in this violent branding of his campaign: a level whereby Obama--by virtue of the past political affiliations of one of his constituents--might potentially be a domestic terrorist, too. 

Having said that, he could have paused and emphasized that all of it, of course, is lies.  But worse than lies, he might have told the American people, the attempt to frame him in violent terms is a sort of politics so ugly and so sickening that Americans with good hearts and open minds are loathe to even think about it. 

It is the politics of violent rhetoric, he might have said, the politics of convincing voters that your opponent is not just a bad choice, but a choice that may bring violence and suffering to the streets of America. It is the politics of winning elections by injecting false accusations and fear into the media that the very possibility of productive debate becomes impossible.  It is the politics designed not to strengthen civil discourse, but to shut it down--to use marketing techniques to re-brand one's opponent in menacing and fearful terms.

The choice we face in this election, Obama might have said, is between that politics of violent rhetoric and fearful smears, and the productive, pragmatic, truly American politics of working together, solving the problems we face, and achieving our future.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[flatus]

"Obama, for his part, was correct to assert his belief in the aptitude of the American people and in their ability to look past such cynical questions as that from Stephanopoulos."

I take it you've been out of the country during the last two election cycles?

[GoodwithWood]

I can’t wait to see John Stewart and Steven Colbert take on the lapel pin thing.

GWW

[pmorlan]

My primary in Kentucky is coming up in May. On the night of the debate I hadn't made a decision about whether I would support either Hilliary or Obama. They both had pluses and minuses in my mind. My actual plans were to write in the name of my preferred candidate, John Edwards, but I was still willing to listen to both of them in case they could change my mind.

But like Mr. Feldman noted Hilliary tthen ried to capitalize politically on the bogus questions that the moderators were asking Obama. It made me very angry that she would give those questions credibility by using them as a springboard to attack her opponent. I was so angry at her behavior that I actually went to her website and posted a comment to that effect. I then registered on Obama's site and told his supporters that while I may not vote for Obama that I would not under any circumstances vote for Hillary.

While I much prefer Hillary's health plan to Obama's I just can't in good concience vote for someone who places ambition above honor. What she did in that debate was ugly and told me a lot about her character. So in my Primary, while I may not vote for Obama (haven't decided) I most certainly will not vote for Hillary.

[PerryWhite]

Is Hillary going to require illegal aliens to buy medical insurance? What is she going to do if they don't?

[rmreddicks]

Why didn't Obama and Clinton (with Clinton buying in) denounce their interlocutors? Must they all be cowards in the face of buffoons?

[CrushInfamy]

When was the last time the media, or anyone, questioned a white Presidential Candidate's patriotism? It's sick and it's sad. Attempted character assassination, innuendo and bold-faced lies are always the clearest signs of desperation.

I am far less concerned about which politicians are wearing American Flag Lapel Pins, than which ones are sending my brothers and sisters thousands of miles away to die in the desert under false pretenses to satisfy the whims of a small group of wealthy draft-dodgers with more greed than common sense.

I question Hillary Clinton's patriotism. I question Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and George Bush's patriotism. I question Donald Rumsfeld's and Paul Wolfowitz's patriotism and any other politician that supported the abomination known as "George W. Bush's Iraq War."

[kinderworld]

I don't think Hillary wears an American flag lapel pin, and I don't think Charlie and George were wearing one either. I think the lapel pin "issue" is really "code language" to play on the fears of racists and xenophobics.

[GoodwithWood]

Bill Clinton’s patriotism was question in both of his presidential campaigns. He was a Vietnam war protester and he protested at rallies in England of all places.
The Neo-con’s questioning of patriotism is an old and worn out tactic.

GWW

[johntal]

Sober Canadiams laugh at you guys and when we have one too many of the best beer in the world , we feel like crying.

[Mojane]

Have we grown so accustomed to mediocrity that we expect nothing more, that when someone comes along who offers us excellence, we don't recognize it?, can't accept it, are afraid of it even? Have we so little knowledge of our history that we don't know what we should expect from a President? The examples of great leaders are so far back in our history that the closest we can come to it in our lifetime might be JFK, and at that, a flawed man. None of us remember FDR. Lincoln has become nothing more than an image, a symbol. We've had nothing in our lives but okay to mediocre to horrible for so long that when we see the real deal, when he's right there in front of us we can't believe it, don't quite know what to think about this guy? Is that it?

[ddlrid]

rich liberal, poor analysis.

[YY2H8]

Hey Georgie S--I hope you got a good scratching behind the ears, a nice belly rub and a yummy Begging Strip from Hannity. Who's a good, good puppy?

[RichLiberal]

By Obama's twisted logic he could be best friends w Charles Manson and we shouldn't be concerned about it because the bad things he did happened so long ago.

Obama, when under scrutiny, turns out to be an empty-suited airbag.

He is not even really the front runner, except based on the media lies about the state of the current campaign. i.e. there are 3 classes of delegates: SuperDelegates, pledged delegates elected by popular ballot box vote at a rate of about 20,000 voters per ballot box delegate, and pledged delegates elected by caucus vote at a rate of about 1,000 voters per caucus delegate.

The caucus delegates need to be reduced to 1/20th their current weight. i.e. it should require 20 caucus delegates to cast a vote equal to one ballot box delegate.

One this correction is applied, Hillary is ahead in popular vote, pledged delegates, and electoral votes.

[MrWinky]

Wow, you are a true zombie. Even Hillary's campaign admits they are behind in the popular vote, the pledged delegates and are fast losing their advantage with the supers. You should really seek some help if that is what you truly believe.

The irony of this is that Hillary has no problem condescending to the American voter, the ones she supposedly has so much respect for. Unmentioned in her smear last night, and her campaign's conference call this morning is the fact that Bill pardoned members of the Weather Underground. Yeah, that kind of kills her guilt by association argument.

It is interesting that McCain and Hillary are not asked about Hagee, Hsu, Parsley, or Peter Paul, but Obama should answer for Rezko, Wright, Farrahkan, Ayers, etc. Why the double standard?

[Mack20]

Give me a break. Obama has been handled with kit gloves by all the favorite liberal media outlets. He finally gets a few tough questions and you people are all to hell over it.

[austinobserver]

So that is how Hillary supporters think? I was wondering what was going on.

I am impressed that Hillary is so concerned about Obama losing the election for the Democratic Party in the Fall. She is such a team player! Well, since the majority of voters do not trust her and think she is dishonest, surely even Hillary and her voters recognize she has zero chance in the Fall, so she must keep herself from winning the nomination as well. So, as a devoted member of the party the choice for her is clear -- she must immediately pull out and urge all her pledged delegates and the superdelegates to support Edwards, who was always the most electable of the group, or Gore, if he is interested. And I am sure Hillary will do the right thing, as she always does.

[kenjisan]

BARACK gets the dirt off of his shoulders - a must see! ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yel8IjOAdSc

[AjicNYC]

and then give Hillary the sarcastic okie dokie when he scratches his face with his middle finger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No

[iWabiSabi]

I just re-read the debate transcript and was surprised since it showed there were ZERO questions on on schools, children, jobs, health care, the housing crisis, torture, Katrina and Osama bin Laden.

I guess William Ayers and Rev. Wright are greater threats than al Qaida?!

[SharonB]

Oh, absolutely! And, don't you know it is far more important to know whether or not a person has a lapel pin of the flag than to discuss what will happen if oil and gas prices continue to skyrocket.
And who cares if we cannot afford oil and gas for our cars????? We can push them down the road and smile through the pain...but be sure you have a yellow ribbon magnet on the rear bumper or someone will think you hate the military.

[WillBFair]

You guys are incredible. You fell like a ton of bricks for a media smear campaign of childish vulgarity. You never asked yourselves why the media was supporting your guy. It's because the Clintons are the most skilled, accomplished, and knowledgeable democrats of our time, and corporations don't want a strong president. You ignored Obama's weaknesses for months. Now you whine about the slight roughing up he got. Just wait. Once the Clintons are out of the way, the media will really start chewing on him, and you'll get a nasty dose of reality.
It's sad. we could have had progress in government like you cannot imagine. Instead, the media will either keep Obama out of office, or derail his administration in three minutes. We'll loose congress, then the presidency. Thanks guys. Be sure to tune into MSNBC for the latest shallow insults.

[mystery51]

Could you please clarify what "media smear campaign of childish vulgarity" you are refering to? I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but she ran a remarkably poor campaign. There is no way she should have ever let herself get in this position. I have been an active member of the party since long before I could vote and she did a lousy job. Why should that be rewarded with the nomination? And what does that say about the leadership she would provide as President?

[busybeez]

I agree. Clinton should have won this election easily with her husband campaigning for her and her rooted support across the country. She didn't just lose. She lost badly from day one. Her next book should be titled, "A thousand mistakes," because she has defeated herself with mistakes and miscalls. I would say the Clintons lost touch with the people by surrounding themselves with the rich and powerful for the last seven years, and only found out what was going on across America after Super Tuesday. By then it was too late.

[Tumult]

You do understand that Clinton was under 50% of the popular vote in both elections? He won because Ross Perot took something like 18% of the vote in the first election, and 8% in the second.
And that the Clintons lost Congress to the Republicans, and Hillary is the less liked of the two?
That his "weaknessess" are about mispeaking, butchered and incomplete quotes, and tenuous associates, While hers are outright fabrications endlessly repeated. I do not think that if she managed to get the nomination, suddenly the nation would find her more trustworthy and less calculating. For all that people say he "blew" the debate I never saw or heard him say "Yes. Yes. Yes!" like he was out of control. He was fairly consistent with his answers, and remained calm, something John McCain and Hillary Clinton both appear to have a problem with. The American people are smarter than that, Obama understands the need to connect with them, Hillary just keeps talking down to them.

[SharonB]

"the Clintons are the most skilled, accomplished, and knowledgeable democrats of our time"

Good god, man! Wake up and smell the coffee... the emperor's new clothes are fake... there is no there THERE!

If they are the best, then God have mercy on the rest of us.

[distant mirror]

It's not the media's job to start chewing on anyone. It's their job to report the news and in a debate question a candidate about their views.

[MrWinky]

Kool-Aid in action. Yeah, the Clintons are so strong and skillful that they lost the nomination to a black candidate with a Muslim name who is in his first term in the Senate. Wow, they are awesome! Those darn corporations, they must really hate the Clintons, what with all the money that they have been throwing their way.

And let's not heap all the trash on the media. While they have been dutiful lackeys, let's remember you didn't hear one smear or lie out of Stephie or Gibson's mouth that hasn't been hammered home by the Clintons first. The were disgusting talking points no doubt, but they were also Hillary's talking points.

[Amminadab]

You're right. Obama handled it all wrong.

Perhaps he needs more experience.

[InternationalObserver]

Obama has been attacked for some supposed 'link' to 60's African American radicals who blew up empty buildings (the only people who died were bombmakers). What about Hillary's links to Puerto Rican radicals who also blew up buildings but actually *tried* (and succeeded) to kill people? (Armed Forces for National Liberation - the FALN.) They were pardoned by Bill Clinton in 1999, after an approach had been made to Hillary's senate campaign office. It was felt the pardons would secure the Puerto Rican vote and help HRC's efforts to become Senator in NYC. So Clinton granted the pardons.

If you think I'm making this up then just google 'Bill Clinton Pardons Puerto Rican Bombers'

[factanonverba]

Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. He is green, inexperienced and wholly unqualified to hold political office. He has zero accomplishments in his legislative career and his only ability seems to be a gifted orator that enraptures those who wish to believe that he is some sort of messiah. He's not. He's quite human and a young who makes mistakes aplenty at that.

[mystery51]

And yet Hillary, who started ahead in every category, is being beaten by him. I certainly don't think he is a messiah and fully understand that he will make mistakes as all humans do, but the same can be said of Hillary. She has simply not run a good campaign and does not deserve the nomination.

[nomobull]

fantasize is

[nomobull]

referring to username

[MrWinky]

And Hillary has accomplished exactly what? Thought so.