A day has passed since the ABC Democratic debate. The hosts have taken their well-deserved knocks, and George Stephanopoulos has lamely tried to defend them. But there are still a few things I haven't heard anybody say, and the right is already cuing up ABC's next line of questioning.
First, though, take a look at these two pictures from recent news stories and consider: What's significant about them? (answer is below)
Here's the gist of the Stephanopoulos defense, especially of that wacky William Ayers question suggested to him by right-wing radicals like Sean Hannity: "What finally tipped the balance on whether to ask it or not was that as far as we could tell, Obama had never answered the question."
But that rationale can be used to justify repeating (and thereby promoting) any vile smear. Extremists on both sides pose "questions" that are nothing more than wild conspiracy theories, innuendos, or outright hate. You could just as easily justify asking President Bush if he really did blow up the Twin Towers, or pressing Sen. Clinton on whether she didn't really murder Vince Foster.
Because, as far as we know, they never have answered the questions ...
Stephanopoulos also argued that people care about "experience, character [and] credibility." These are these issues people care about, we're told. But why do they care about them? Because the press hammers them morning, noon, and night.
Stephanopoulos is like the kid who murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. As veteran pollster Daniel Yankelovich has observed, the press may not be able to decide what people think ... but they can certainly decide what they think about. (Here's a great list of topics that weren't covered by ABC.)
And, with so many questions about Jeremiah Wright and "bitterness," why wasn't Sen. Clinton asked about her remark - now confirmed by three observers, one of whom was taking detailed notes - that she said "screw 'em" of Southern working class voters? And why wasn't she asked whether she "repudiated and denounced" spiritual advisor Billy Graham's anti-Semitism? Doesn't that speak to "experience, character, and credibility"?
That said, Sen. Obama should have known that the questions were coming. It's a rigged game, and the sooner he understands that the better. The gist of his response was the right one, which was to challenge the validity of the questions. But he'll have to do it more forcefully than he did on Wednesday night if he is going to defeat the Republicans and the media - and that's looking more and more like an uphill challenge.
(By the way, did you know that Obama's not a bad bowler? I didn't either. The press told me otherwise, and I believed them.)
For a sneak preview of the radical right's next line of attack against this uppity showboat, read this piece in Human Events. Obama's upbraided for his scandalous rap supporters, his meeting with thugz like Ludacris, and his refusal to return Jay-Z's campaign contributions. You know what that means, don't you? Despite his condemnation of rap's lyrical content, Obama's actually a gangsta. Because they're all, you know ... black.
How long will it be before George Stephanopoulos is asking Barack Obama whether "you stole your flow from the East Coast school or the West Coast school"?
Absent from Human Events was any condemnation of George W. Bush for accepting concert services and campaign support from Kid Rock, who notably advertised himself on MTV on the toilet defecating. Or Lynyrd Skynyrd - a great band - who boasted (in "What's Your Name") of seducing underage girls. But then, those artists aren't ... you know ... black.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson also clearly bought into the Bush/McCain dodge that a President must "defer to his commanders in the field," and therefore bears no responsibility for decisions of war and peace. Neither Democrat pointed to the Cuban missile crisis, where a young President overruled his commanders and all the other "experienced" experts - and by so doing prevented World War III.
Petraeus says he won't run for President. Why should he? Under Bush and McCain he's already President - and without undergoing the humiliating ritual of being upbraided and scolded by mediocre human beings like Charles Gibson, who felt free to mock his distinguished guests with comments like "don't all answer at once."
ABC will consider this debate a success, of course, because ratings were great and controversy sells. They don't care that this kind of course may well result in a Republican victory come November, despite the fact that Americans yearn for Democratic policies.
My spiritual challenge in the upcoming days is to remain compassionate toward Stephanopoulos and Gibson, who don't appear to understand the damage they're causing. But it's tough not to give in to anger. Wrong as it is, I find myself hoping their nights will be haunted by those who will die if they - and others like them - engineer another GOP victory.
_____________________
And now for the answer to the McCain and Clinton photo question:
Neither of them is wearing a flag pin.
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
FROM EVAN GAHR:
So I'm a racist because I criticized black rappers. What about when Stanley Crouch and Al Sharpton criticize rappers? Are they racist also?
You object that I omitted Kid Rock and Lynard Skynard performing at the 2004 GOP convention. The piece was about Obama, not Bush. For whatever it's worth I don't think, if what you say about them is accurate, either should have been allowed to perform at the GOP convention. (Although Kid Rock would make an ideal NEA grantee.) And John McCain should renounce support from John Hagee.
You object to my guilt by association with Obama and rappers. When liberals attacked George Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University that was guilt by association. Do you object to that also?
Finally, it's rather curious that you accuse me of singling out blacks for criticism when any cursory Google search would have revealed that I was fired by one conservative institution and blacklisted by two others for breaking with the neo-cons and being the only one to have ever criticized a white Christian Right leader for anti-Semitic remarks. http://www.chimpstein.com/2004/09-26-whois.php
RJ REPLIES:
My response is here -
http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2008/04/bush-supporter.html
About the Soviet Style Real ID act which goes into effect soon
How about rolling back the illegal power Bush, Cheney have declared for the Executive Branch.
The new electronic world have opened up a host of questions about Freedom in America.
Big Brother has been creeping up and soon we will be no better than China as regards Freedom if the American people don't stand up.
The old media is a disgrace. They wonder why people are no longer reading newspapaers or watching TV news...its because they are no longer reporting news.
Charlie Gibson is an effete preening sissy
George Stephenopolous is a flaming douchebag who wants to be Hillary's cabana boy
Nash McCabe is a knuckle dragging neanderthal and a drooling idiot
Hillary Clinton is a lying sack of excrement who will say anything to deceive or hoodwink voters and will try to destroy the Democratic party if she becomes convinced that she can't succeed in stealing the nomination away from Obama
If we want to stop nuclear proliferation there are better ways to do it.
I would suggest sponsoring joint development with Israel and other middle east nations to build significant solar capacity. This would create jobs in America and the middle east, combat climate change, and give people something to work towards other than war. Clean, affordable energy would help lift people out of poverty. It would increase the profits for oil producing nations so they can invest in the future now rather than waiting until the oil runs out. These are the types of carrots we should be offering. Offering to spend US taxdollars in ways that will probably yeild nothing but waste down the line makes no sense. It's time to start investing in the future rather than wasting money on short sighted, short-term solutions.
Obama did quite well for the three prong attack, and it shows in his poll numbers, which went up. And check out how he filled a stadium in PA with 35,000 people that wanted to hear him speak. Clinton has a hard time getting 10 thousand in an auditorium.
What you don't get is that the "debate" was a set-up by ABC to elicit a cat fight between Hillary and Obama. Hillary bit the bait and excoriated Obama while Obama caught on to what ABC was doing and remained cool. Hillary looked petty and Obama, who did very well, looked presidential.
And the polls show that when Hillary goes negative on Obama, her favorability ratings in national polls plummet.
Obama's a wonderful young man. And he might have what it takes to run the country in ten or twenty years. But Hillary's got it now.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You have a very cool style when you're doing those town meetings where you're out on the campaign trail, and I wonder, how much of that is tied to your race?
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: That's interesting.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your friends told "The New Yorker" magazine that the mainstream is just not ready for a fire-breathing black man so do you turn down the temperature on purpose?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05182007/transcript1.html
I don't know how much of Baracks so-called 'church voice' is normal for him, but its kindof insulting to ask such questions.
No, the real response should've been - "Yeah, and in Iraq, all the generals who spoke truth were replaced".
It's okay, we're outsourcing the military anyway...........
Timma is no better....guess it's the web from now on.....or, maybe, the Washington Post.
I've got a bit of a different take on the 'half-debate' on ABC. First, let's look at it as half-interview, half-debate. The question keeps getting asked, "were the questions in the interview-half valid? Yes, they were. The real question should be: Were they appropriate?
For a debate, they were not. The idea of a debate is to see the candidates, (especially 1.on.1), present their position on an ISSUE, and defend it. Just by the nature of the questions, it should be blatantly obvious, even to high-priced cue-card readers like Steph. & Gibson., that the questions were not appropriate for a presidential debate.
But here's what I saw: Neither Gibson or Steph. are known as brave and daring journalists. If they were to setup a 1.on.1 interview with Obama or Clinton for ABC Nightly News or This Week and then asked the questions, they would be valid AND appropriate. The problem would be in a 1.on.1, it might well be the last interview with Obama or Clinton.
These cowards used the American voters and candidates to 'look' like 'real' journalists, well, it made Gibson look like Chris Wallace and Steph like Russert, now that I think about it.
I've got a view of the half-debate, as well, but 250 words don't g
On the subject of Obama's bowling skills, David Brooks, in one of the dumbest columns I've ever read in The New York Times, said that working-class voters won't support Obama when they find out "he bowls a 37 for crying out loud." Brooks wasn't joking - he was serious.