The Wasted-Chance Debate Last Night

I'm not bitter, I'm livid.

I didn't bother watching the debate last night, because I knew what was coming. Each and every time we have our candidates in the same place at the same time, it's one big game of stupid. Flag pins? Tuzla? Who the hell cares? Distractions like this are what got us into Iraq in the first place -- a media unwilling to do the tough reporting or ask the tough questions, and instead getting caught up in the emotion of the moment.

Yesterday a major new report was released by Rand Corporation. It found, according to USA Today:

Roughly one in five U.S. troops is suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an equal number have suffered brain injuries, a new study estimates.

Only about half of them have sought treatment...

Rand described this, rightfully, as a major health crisis among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Where was the question about that? You think that ABC could nix one question about pointless stupidity, and ask the candidates what they would do about this crisis. I know we veterans would have sure appreciated it.

The excuse from pundits stepping up to defend ABC is that, well, we've had 20 debates and we've gone over all the issues, and people don't want to hear it anymore.

Oh really? I don't remember any debate where we talked seriously about when it is proper and not proper to deploy our military. Are we going to continue preemption and nation building? Is there any situation where that might be called for? I haven't heard that question asked in a debate.

Have we talked about the GI Bill in the debates? What other benefits for veterans would they increase or decrease, and by what amounts?

How do they propose, with the budget crunch, to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is fully-funded?

There are, literally, dozens of hours of debate that we have not had on troops' and veterans' issues alone, because no one wants to ask the questions. ABC had a chance to, last night, in what could be the final Democratic debate. They could have run the gamut of issues that haven't been talked about in any debate, but are critically important to Pennsylvania and the nation.

Instead, we're stuck with an hour on pointless games, and no answers. Thanks a lot.

Comments

[MNfreeze]

Let me see if I've got this straight.

1. Obama serves on charitable a board w/Ayers; Ayers gave $200 to Obama's state senate campaign and held a "meet and greet" at his house in 1995. They live in the same neighborhood and are "friendly".

2. Hillary regularly attends a small secretive religious group known as "The Family", headed by a man named Doug Coe. In his preaching, Coe repeatedly urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ by encouraging his followers to have the same blind devotion that Adolph Hitler, Mao and Lenin demanded from their followers.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/857959.aspx?p=1

3. George Bush Sr. has extensive business connections with the Bin Laden group, owned by the Bin Laden family. One of the members of the Bin Laden family, a guy named Osama, is responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 American citizens.

You see where the guilt by association can get you? Do I think Bush Sr, Jr. or Jim Baker condoned or were connected to the actions of 9/11? No. Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton supports the Nazi leanings (or at least ambivalence) of the person she calls her "spiritual mentor". Of course not. Does Obama support Weathermen ideology? Ridiculous!!!

The leading of Obama has been Sean Hannity. Has anyone asked him about his "friendly" relationship with a leader of the Aryan Nation?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

[Stirner]

If people wanted (which they really don't) a political debate then how about having Ron Paul moderate? At least he, unlike Hillary or Obama, knows that the policies of the Federal Reserve are more important to the nation that whether or not Obama wears a flag pin in his lapel or Hillary ducked sniper fire. Expectedly, the "debate" was the usual clutter of superficial fluff that we have been hearing since the end of last year. The talking heads, controlled by such media hustlers as Rupert Murdock, have steadily debased the quality of our political life -- so the Hillary/Obama debate was quite in order -- and quite mediocre. Perfect for ratings.

[standforpeace]

The low point of the debate (and that's saying a lot) came when George asked Obama if Reverend Wright "loved" America. It had to be the most asinine and complettly irrelevant question I've ever heard asked of a presidential candidate by a journalist (sort of a mean spirited version of boxers or briefs, which as you'll recall was asked by a talk show host not a journalist). I personally have no idea whether Wright "loves" his country; what I do know is that I'm sick and tired of the attitude that equates criticism with hatred. I also wonder how a slickster like George could question the loyalty of a veteran who has spent his life improving the lives of some of the worst off Americans on the South Side of Chicago. Most of all, I wonder how that question could possibly hep the voters decide who would make the better candidate for president.

For George and all the rest, how about you do your damn job which is to investigate and report and ask the hard and relevant questions so that the American people can make informed choices about our next president?

[mayzee]

Why is it that no one is mentioning what Hillary said during the debate...that with her at the helm, US will be at the ready to intervene in any and all conflicts in the Middle East.

[Paratus]

If Hillary and Hussein cannot handle ANY type of question then perhaps they should rethink their candidacy. I don't know where the idea comes from that Democrat candidates are releived from a certain "type" of question, perhaps ABC should have sought approval form both parties before the debate that way they can look stronger and not so foolish.(sarcasm intended). I listened to the entire debate on the radio. I was not impressed by either Hillary or Husssein. I was glad these questions were asked. Interesting to see how both of them react and think on their feet.
The debate reinforced my feeling about both candidates. HIllary is a genectically hardwired marxist incapable of telling the truth. We don't need a marxist in that office. Bad for the country. Bad for freedom.
Since Hussein seems to like voting "present" in in the Senate and also when he was in the state legislater in Illinois, has no real experience in the international arena, doesn't really have a legacy on Capital HIll we need to look at his cosicl background to develop a profile. The good reverend Wright is a looney. No other way to put it. He is as nutty as Louis Farrakhan. HIs positions on legislation, his communist associations in his past and his stance on the Bill of Rights lead me to believe that he is a great danger to this country.

[wolf58]

Its a sad state of affairs when people care more about flag pins over those soldiers who fight and protect those who worry about flag pins.

[ProgressiveBum]

Thank you Jon!

[hopelessobama]

distractions? let me ask you if john mccain had befriended a radical who used to bomb abortion clinics and said he wished he had done more, would it be an issue? would it get brushed under the rug? your side is growing more ridiculous every day. its to the point where barack acts like 'how dare they ask me, saint barack' a question. who do you people think you are? you think you are above answering for your decisions, associations, advisors, mentors, and friends? barack may be the next president, and most people can't name a single accomplishment this man has made in government. that is astonishing. and it is the result of reporters to scared to question the sainted one. well free ride is over barry, buckle up, because you will have to answer these questions sooner or later.

[Safire]

You don't care to know what Senator Obama has accomplished. Period.

You know, regardless of our biases, we can find something good in everyone!

Saint Barack? How about St. McCain? I for one, setting aside the many FLIP FLOPS this man has
made, any man, who would treat his ex-wife the way he did, well, I guess he is not perfect either. But what about Mr. McCain's associations? Oh, I forgot he is a Saint! He will save us!

My bottom line. Any Veteran who has walked in the shoes of his veteran brothers, should NEVER consider, yet vote against BENEFITS for his brothers in arms. Keep 'em down to keep 'em in!

So, whatever, Barack is not perfect, and he has not spent 25 - 35 years mired in the slime of Washington, that if at one point seemed objectionable, he has flipped to whichever stance will appease the Right Wing and make him acceptable to them.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Your argument is lame, period. Any, yes ANY association that Barack has, or has had, PALES in comparison to what is already known about the McCain and the Clintons.

So, keep on voting against your own economic interests.

Barack 08

P.S. Who do you think you are? Remember when pointing one finger, 4 are pointing right back at you!

[simplify]

Hopeless you are, but you sound bitter as well. Maybe the candidate of your choice isnt winning. Now go cry in the corner.

[jsinclair]

Why doesn't anyone ask Stephanopoulos if anyone in the Clinton campaign fed him questions in advance?

He is buddies with the sleazy James Carville (who, with Stephanopoulos, masterminded Clinton's 1992 election). And he served with Bill until 1996--first as press secretary, then as his "senior policy advisor".

DID Carville, Bill, and/or any other Clinton surrogates urge George to ask those questions? Seeing how they operate I would be SHOCKED if they didn't.

[Soothsayer08]

Yesterday a tape of George Stephanopolos was played in which he was talking to Sean Hannity about the Ayers question and George told him he was taking notes.

[fizzwizz]

Clinton or Obama should have been strong and said something like, "You are talking to the next President of the United States. Ask me a SERIOUS question." Imagine the effect. I would have changed my vote if one of them had stood up for reality like that. Hell, I might even vote for McCain if he did. (But probably not!)

[shades3]

Thank you Jon for reminding us that the Presidential Election is not a reality show with lovely parting gifts and questions about..................................................nothing important.

The economy is tanking. The dollar is dropping. Over 4,000 American soldiers have died, many times more horribly wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens dead. Lies, lies and more lies have been foisted on the country by the Bush Administration, and the war that was predicated on lies and greed continues.

Meanwhile, the moderators of this "debate" care about flag pins, preacher's words and other fringe issues.
How can anyone call what happened a DEBATE???
PITIFUL.

[lboucher]

Just how bad was Barack Obama's debate performance last night? Not as bad as Britney Spears' song-and-dance routine at the MTV Awards. Not as bad as Bill Buckner's legendary error during the '86 World Series. Not as bad as Bob Dylan's music during his God phase. Not as bad as John Travolta's Scientology cinema experiment in Battlefield Earth. Not as bad as Mike Dukakis' fateful ride in a military tank.

In other words, Obama could have done worse.

[OttoF]

Actually, what got us stuck in Iraq was that America fell for the games and elected the wrong President. That's why the games are so important. That's why millions and millions are spent on playing games. If you believe the games, you have one candidate who will bring a new kind of politics that is without games, and people will find it so attractive they will elect him. Or if you believe the other game, you have a candidate who is able to play the games as they exist, and is so tough, and so good at it that she will be elected. As I've yet to see the first candidate actually play a new kind of politics without games, I've decided I like her game better.

[NelsonR]

The debate was a farce. Did anyone else notice the continuous T.V. coverage of Chelsea Clinton in the audience? It occurred so often I thought she was going to address how she landed that job on Wall Street that pays a mere 160,000 dollars a year. Glad everybody on this blog makes that amount. It's called, cronyism, elitism and having parents that are owed loads of favors for favors given at America's expense.

[deminmo]

Questions like:
What will you do as President if we end up in a war
with Iran?
Why can't we get the new GI Bill through?
Why are injured soldiers rotated back into active duty?
Why aren't you both pushing for impeachment hearings?
Why aren't you both pushing for investigations into what
was known about al Qaeda cells in the US before 9/11,
and why information was not shared?