I think we can all agree the "flag pin" question was a bit much. The media has focused on the Rev. Wright and "bitter" remarks ad nauseum, and this IS the first debate held since these issues came up. But the larger point is that of the other 20-something debates, many of them focused rather harshly on Clinton's negatives. This ONE debate was more focused on Obama's, the front runner's, negatives, and the whining is deafening - just deafening. Let's face it, if he had actually performed well, no one would be saying a word, other than to praise how he tough he is.
This entire argument highlights IMO a greater issue, the liberal media's overwhelming favoritism toward Obama, and that's actually the more substantive issue here.
When Clinton was the front-runner, that was the "excuse" for her getting the majority of the hammering. If Obama makes it to the general election, you can bet he's going to get roughed up plenty and that these issues are going to come up again.
I know Obama supporters and the Obamedia are angry about this debate - well take a walk in my shoes. This is how the frustraition feels when the media is unduly influencing this election.
Obama sure never complained about being the liberal media's darling for all these months. So . . . he can cry me a river. He's still way ahead on the media bias scale.
Worst Debate Ever? Demographics Anyone?
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
Paddy Chayefsky had it right of course way back in 1976 in Network. Entertainment divisions have virtually taken over news divisions at the networks. Entertainment was supposed to make the profit to sustain journalism. The news divisions weren't counted on to make money. Their thing was to get the story. It was deemed necessary back then to a country attempting to be a democracy.
Now that entertainment rules and news has to make money, are we surprised that a prime time, middle-of-the-week, over-the-air presidential debate would be conducted on an 8th grade level?
It's about ratings. You show advertisers better ratings; you get more money from them. ABC certainly got the ratings: more than ten million viewers. It was the most watched debate of the campaign.
Do you think ABC didn't know who their audience would be? Do you think this wasn't researched well in advance and that the questions fed Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos weren't geared to that audience?
This was not a debate on a Saturday night on MSNBC last summer when the audience would be vastly different: more political junkies with a serious interest in the process and the issues well before the lower-tiered candidates were weeded out.
This was a prime time audience on ABC on a Wednesday night that drew a larger, less sophisticated audience. They may have even been, dare I say it, a bit bitter about politicians.
ABC's market research apparently showed that keeping questions to the level of flag pins and what your pastor thinks would draw and keep an audience tuned in.
Hence, the worst debate ever.
If the news departments were independent, ratings wouldn't matter as much as journalism. The challenge should be to get audience numbers without dumbing it down. The aim would be to skillfully raise the audience to the level of the candidates, not the reverse; to explain to a broad audience how major events and issues directly affect their lives instead of pandering to ignorance to make a buck. We heard a lot about gasoline, because most Americans know gasoline, but was it linked to the war in Iraq, depleting energy resources or climate change?
We need to be diverted sometimes to refocus on what's serious. That's the value of entertainment. But when what's serious is treated like a diversion too, then we're in trouble.
TV news has been this way for decades. We shouldn't be surprised. But we should be very worried.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Its actually nice to see all these different opinions on everything..
This is Democracy folks..
Dont take it personally, just engage and enjoy.
ABC got great ratings for the debate because all the others were on cable TV. Many people depend on the networks for their news, not everyone has cable. Many families can't afford cable, which has gotten more and more expensive over the years. So when they finally had a debate on network, a lot of people tuned in. Unfortunately for ABC, a lot of people tuned back out when the first 50 minutes were spent on "gotchas". I lasted a little more than 1/2 hour, got disgusted because nothing of real substance discussed and went back to the ball game, with peeks back at the "debate" at commercials. i felt ABC largely wasted my time. I wanted to know what they were going to do about FISA, violations of the constitution the adminstrations's supposed to support and defend, plans to deal with Israel and the Palestinians, and a host of other things ABC didn't feel important.
Having George Stephanopoulos as "moderator" was like having Mirthala Salinas broadcast Mayor Villaraigosa's separation from his wife.
I fully agree with a prior post that If the point of the endless questions to Senator Obama was to address "electability," why wasn't Hillary Clinton asked about the mathematical impossibility of her getting the nomination?
ABC: "always beneath contempt."
Obviously, market research people know very little. Most people aren't looking for a product until they need it. Then we want a reliable one that works. This debate was none of those things. After twenty minutes I turned it off and watched "Into the Wild" on DVD. (Some marketing guy just wrote down "Into the Wild--DVD/ Not Blu-ray, yet."
Here's the last word on 'flag pins' and other symbols like the flag or the cross or what-have-you. When you go to Denny's and look at the menu with all the beautiful photos of the items to select from, YOU DON'T EAT THE MENU. It is a symbol of the the actual meal. Just like the flag or a flag pin is a symbol of patriotism. It is not patriotism itself. Heck, George Bush can wear a flag pin while trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Lauria could not have made a stronger case for de-commercializing the debates and returning them to the League of Women Voters.
Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Disney, Microsoft, General Electric. They control the news. Entirely. There is no alternative.
Ted Tuner? TED TURNER!!!! He has been out of the news business since he sold CNN. Keep up to date, for Gods sake. And BTW, CNN was once the most respected of these INFOTAINMENT sites.
Even Turner regrets the sale. another BTW, he didnt manage his news division. He just invented it.
Let the comic book store guy say "Worst debate ever" while he munches on a Krusty Burger.
Our focus should be on the fake Hillary Clinton we have seen for the past few months-- the one whose body is inhabited by either Kang or Kodos while the competent, thoughtful, progressive real Hillary Clinton is trapped in a glass tube on their spaceship.
Because the real Hillary Clinton would have responded: "You know, Charles, all this talk about Reverend Wright and bitter comments I'll leave to others to discuss if they want because I'm here to talk about the issues which are most important to Americans. Senator Obama is a talented, remarkable candidate and Democrats are lucky to have him working on our behalf-- but I'm running for President because I am better qualified to turn our country around."
Instead, the fake Hillary Clinton talked about church bulletins given to the leader of Hamas and shootin' guns with Pa.
At least ABC didn't create animated flames surrounding Obama's head, though Birch Barlow/Rush Limbaugh might as well as have written the questions.
Did you notice how that real Obama never showed up either? He's too busy making cracks about baking cookies and flipping the bird in that passive-aggressive manner he has. What a champ!
Typical that only the Guardian addressed the irony of the stark contrast between Obama's elevated, enlightened and honest speech last month on race from Philly, followed by the utter juvenile nature of this pivotal debate broadcast from the same town.
I lost brain cells watching that debate.
The questions were an assault to my intelligence. Can I sue ABC. . .? With every piece of legislation favoring corporations and not individuals, I seriously doubt that I can.
After Obama's speech on race, some were marveling over how he was speaking to us as adults and how utterly refreshing that was.
Though "mechanistic reductionism often masquerades as maturity," I'd totally like to see more of his gracious and informed tone, and less of these handsomely paid, superficial, bobble heads, masquerading as truth tellers exploiting dumb inconsequential crap.
Oh and "Stepontopofthis" is interviewing "McLame" this Sunday. I think I'll miss it.
Have a nice weekend.
Clinton, as president, said she would commit the USA ,under some Mid-East umbrella agreement that she thought up, to war with any country who attacked Israel or Saudia Arabia. Sounds alot like NATO or McCain's League of Free Nations idea. These two candidates, Clinton & McCain, are dangerous to the health of our republic. Peace
So true. What Clinton and McCain are proposing is a 'Team America: World Police' approach to foreign policy and national security.
Exactly. But policing only the Lands O' Oil.
Precisely why we dont give a damn about Haiti.
Bingo
ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding
Obama should have pointed out that no one else was wearing a flag pin. Not Charles Gibson, not George Stephanopolous, not Hillary Clinton, and not Nash McCabe. What kind of person asks "How come you are not wearing the flag pin that I too am not wearing?"
Ironically, Mrs. McCabe is precisely the type of bitter voter Barack was talking about. She feels overwhelmed by the hardships in her life, abandoned by her government, and is resigned to the belief that things will never get better. She thinks that her vote doesn't count, because no matter who she votes for she never sees any visceral improvement in her quality of life. To compensate for the feeling of being politically impotent, she latches on to absurdities like patriotism as the standard against which a candidate must be measured. What's worse is that the powers that be encourage such flawed political discourse because it ensures that the status quo that has empowered them remains unchanged. As long as they can keep the attention of voters like Nash McCabe diverted from the real issues they will be able to increasingly tighten their suffocating grip. Just like an athlete diverting the attention of the referee so that their teammate has an opportunity to cheat without being seen.
It's time the oligarchical sycophants know that they can't get away with it anymore.
Demographics or not, stick to the issues. Barack Obama should stop playing sociologist with his words and analogies and pundits, journalists and surrogates should stop playing psychologist with guilt by association. Relate to the people according to the issues that affect them such as the war, taxes and the economy, etc and continue to promote yourself as a strong candidate not influenced by outsiders such as PACS, lobbyists, pastors or past criminals.
It is not about the Ratings!!! I scream this every day to anyone who listens. It's about higher taxes.
In 2004, I worked for an African American boss, a CFO in a for-profit hospital. We talked about Obama's speech at the Convention. But when it came down to it, and this that CFO mentality out there, he voted for Bush because he did not want his taxes raised. This is why Gibson stayed on the Capital Gains Tax question. Now, raise your hands, you "bitter" hard working people out there, if you are worried about the Capital Gains tax this election???
You make very important point. While my experience has yielded three of four different arguments - the 'higher taxes' argument is manipulated through the working class as though their taxes are going up.
The Democratic Party - has a reputation for same ole' same ole in the country at large, but they always take the bait when it comes to taxes. I wish one of the potential Dem nominees would just say - hey - we're going to lower taxes. Just say it .... the Earth will jolt ... and then everyone will realize that the Republicans can't use that line anymore. Just say it ... and not a word more ... until the Republicans ask ---- How are you going to pay for all this debt ???? Are you crazy ???
I'm going to have a proposal of how - next week.
We had a few words about the debate:
http://binx101.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/debate-or-da-bait-abc-news-goes-springer/
Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
www.binx101.wordpress.com
I watched Barack Obama the next day, play to an audience that was pro-Obama and he made jokes about the whole experience, much as he had over some of the Clinton attacks on him in the recent past. Remember, when he called Hillary, "Annie Oakley?" So much for running a clean and dignified campaign. Now he is complaining about Hillary's attacks and her "twisting the knife."
Well, Barack, Welcome to the wonderful world of American politics. Put your male ego away.
I heard Obama say it took 45 minutes to get to questions of substance. That was because he danced around the questions that undecided voters want some answers to. They (and I) want to know this man's character. He's new, he's unknown, he has some baggage he needs to explain.
If he is going to make it hard on us, than we are not going to vote for him. The American people are becoming distrustful of taking chances on an unknown surprise package.
"Undecided voter". Is that the same as an "Enquiring Mind"? It seems like they both crave the same "substance".
"we"? who's "we"?
No it actually took 52 minutes to get to any questions NOT about the mainstream media's obsession with patriotism.....
It wouldn't have taken 52 minutes if Obama has answered in a clear and concise manner. But, he droned on and on trying to dance around answering it. He did this so much that Gibson even noted that they owed some time to Hillary because Barack had taken up more than his share dancing around the questions.
Dancing around stupid questions.
We want jobs and affordable healthcare. Who gives a rat's ass about flag pins?!?
Well, gosh, you had better tell Barack that, because HE SAID 45 minutes, in Ohio. But than his story about Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., changed as well. Now he says he disowned him, after a little, dare I say, "nagging" by Hillary.
She does seem to be a little tougher and that alone, is a plus.
As McCain looks older, Obama looks emptier, Hillary Clinton looks better. To bad she had to paint herself into a corner on some issues.
"Do you think this wasn't researched well in advance and that the questions fed Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos weren't geared to that audience?"
In fact I don't think the questions were geared for that audience - it was a debate between democrats. No, the questions were geared toward a republican audience. After they finished re-hashing the weeks old "scandals" from both candidates, they proceeded to lecture them on tax and military policy.
Raising the cap on Social Security was a "tax increase" - nevermind the solvency of the program; it would cost more money for INDIVIDUALS making over 100k per year.
Lowering the capital gains tax supposedly raises the tax revenue - another republican myth. The increased tax revenue obviously has nothing to do with the fact that the elite wage earners - CEOs and hedge-fund managers - have seen their earnings rise at the highest pace since the Gilded Age, while the wages of ordinary workers have been stagnant. But nonetheless, we should shift more of the tax burden away from the elites, and onto the backs of the middle class.
We're supposed to let the "commanders on the ground" decide whether we should pull out of Iraq. Subsidizing Israel's military is not enough - we should let them join NATO, and treat any attack on Israel as an attack on the US. We cannot allow Iran to produce fissile material, and we should bomb them if they do.
What that debate showed is the media is out of touch with the public. The backlash alone backs that up. I get where you are coming from. News organizations are under entertainment divisions now. To me, that means they are no more relevant than the WWE.
Three reasons not to wear a flag lapel pin:
1. You are not supporting the US by putting money in the pocket of a corporation which uses cheap foreign labor to make a profit which is sent to a foreign bank to avoid US taxes.
2. Don't you find it offensive that symbols of your patriotism to your country are not manufactured BY your country?
3. Lead poisoning.
Here's a nice twist. The Wall Street Journal just posted an article called "Obama's Tax Evasion", which, by a strange coincidence, is the same day that the Obamas released their own 2007 tax returns... but the article turns out to be about some no new taxes point in the debate... cute, huh? How many people do you suppose read the headline and thought it was about the Obamas not paying their own taxes?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html
One of the many disgusting moments in the debate featured the abc toads baiting the candidates into "read my lips" promises. The "gotcha" debate did as much to try to set up future "gotchas" as it served the current ones. Pathetic.
The favorite sport of the repug turd machine is to parse and label things as "taxes." For example, both candidate's health care plans (I don't like either one - anything shorter than single-payer is a bandaid on a bullet wound) will be run by mccain as new taxes on the middle class. They'll be "lyars" and "flip-floppers." And wsj will be a vocal supporter of that crap.
Candidates need to offer much, much more detail to the public. That's the only way to turn around the discussion and mute the constant drone of taxes, taxes, flipflop, taxes, taxes from imbecile repug candidates.
In local campaigns we ran, we tied the taxes to behaviors. In other words, 'if we continue doing x, you can't avoid increasing taxes... we need to change x to y, saving $z in future taxes, while investing $a to make y happen.' Most people respect candidates who at least give them the dignity of being told what you want to do, why you want to do it, and how you'll get it done - even if it means a tax increase.
An example in PA are taxes for preserving open space. They normally require referendums and the referendums over the last 4 years have passed by a margin of 15% or more about 70% of the time.
If candidates are chickensh*t to openly, honestly discuss/detail tax matters, the repugs will always win votes (a lot of votes) by going their usual low road. When you shoot straight, people will at least give you some consideration. That is, when you give enough properly framed information to the voters, most are far less likely to accept simplistic name-calling as a reasonable alternative.
And it forces your opponent to answer the question that is the basis of your policy. 'Do you not believe that this is costing a lot of tax money and isn't effective? What is YOUR plan to fix this problem?' In fact, the debate starts to shift away from the solution and toward the verification of the problem (e.g. the global warming debate), but I digress.
Funny how kindergarten rules like 'honesty is the best policy' are all you need to use to run a campaign... what does that say about the bob shrums of the world? (don't answer that)
Gee, and in February you claimed Obama was "your man". Now you claim "we don't know this man". You'll say anything to make yourself sound serious, won't you? The only thing you've been consistent about is defending the president.
Too bad ABC and the media never gave this much scrutiny to your man - George W Bush. Of course, I'm sure you were demanding they ask him the tough questions about his cocaine use, too. Because, after all, you're not a hypocritical Republican who would say anything to win.
Flail all you like, the Obama steamroller is coming, and nothing you do will slow it down.
Loading comments…
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Posted April 18, 2008 | 12:56 AM (EST)