Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
All night long, every time I'd think about the ABC "debate" (sic), three reactions rose up - 1) grind my teeth to an angry pulp, 2) let my head explode, or 3) type something to let the steam out.
This morning, I still can't believe I was able to make it through 45 minutes of the broadcast.
This was topflight journalism at its worst. This was ABC's old, flimsy history with threadbare sizzle packaged as news. It was a tabloid debate with tabloid questions. Matt Drudge come to life on a respectable stage. From what I subsequently discovered, they actually, eventually got around to real issues -- after over an hour. But watching it for a mere 45 minutes made me feel almost seedy. I wanted to shower to get the smarm off. I love news, I admire professional journalists, I cherish the Mainstream Media, even when they flounder, because it is the core of democracy. But this was embarrassing. This was pathetic. This was just a cheesy press conference with cheesy questions.
Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed. I'm sure they have all of their reasons wrapped nicely with a bow, explaining why they asked what they asked and why it was proper and good and noble. Sorry, it wasn't. They put this on in prime time across the nation, and turned it into a slimy, Fox Network reality show. A cross between Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? and Temptation Island. Something like, So, You Want to Be President?!
This was a disservice to America.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running for President of the United States. It's a job that really, seriously matters. There are critically important issues facing the nation, right now. Last week, 81% of Americans said that they felt that the country had pretty seriously gotten off-track. There's the five-year Iraq War with 4,000 Americans dead and trillions spent. A national deficit pushing the country to recession. The G8 nations have expressed their tottering concern about the dollar. Global warming has put the entire globe at risk. The president and his top cabinet advisor are discovered in a memo to have discussed how to allow torture.
And for the first hour, the very first things these moderators could think of asking the two people in line to become the most powerful person in the world was -- what one of their pastors said? Who else also sat on a community board with him? Whether he used the best syntax in describing anger in America?
This was shameless. Hurtful.
And for all the post-debate commentators saying how "on the defensive" Barack Obama was -- most of them should be ashamed, as well, not pointing out how ghastly the questions were. They failed, as well.
What I saw during the "debate" (sic) made me completely agree with Senator Obama saying repeatedly that these questions are about things that don't matter in the lives of Americans. He wasn't "defensive." He was right. There's a difference. He answered the questions - same as he'd answered the questions before. But --
What his pastor said...Does Not Matter.
Who he served on a community board with...Does Not Matter.
Whether he is elitist for using the word "bitter"...Does Not Matter.
What matters is that there are angry people in Pennsylvania, and in America. What matters is what issues Barack Obama was dealing with on that community board he was a member of. What matters is what Barack Obama himself says.
What matters is the Iraq War. Torture. The Economy. Education. The price of gas. Domestic spying on Americans. Global warming. National security.
If Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos felt so-deeply compelled to toss in some of their Questions Lite -- even though they'd been asked and addressed repeatedly through the past weeks -- that's fine, ask them, at least the ones that dance on the edge of substance. But have the decency to hold them to later, after you've established the gravitas of the debate. Because otherwise, when you start by throwing out chum for the first hour, what you establish is that these are the things that "matter." And what comes later, nah, that's just afterthought.
Republican pundits do themselves no good pushing these empty topics, which they do only because they have no platform to run on. And Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos bought into it.
And Hillary Clinton did herself no good either by repeating that these things matter -- saying that "the Republicans will bring them up." News Flash: the Republicans will bring up just as much about her. And those won't substantively matter either. Or even necessarily be true.
Hillary Clinton has much good in her abilities. She has qualities that could make her an excellent president. But we are watching a person disintegrate before our eyes, throwing out the quality of her past and risking her future.
But this isn't about Hillary Clinton. This is about Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulos and ABC "News." They were given a high responsibility to broadcast in the public interest. Instead, they spent the time in the empty gutter.
For the network of Lost and Desperate, they were both.
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
ABC News and its owners have demonstrated to their viewership that their own corporate interests make journalistic integrity, fairness, proper decorum with ABC News obsolete and no longer wanted.
Stephanopoulos was trained well by the Clintons! He is an enduring legacy of the Clinton administration. It's a clear reason for us to REJECT a second Clinton presidency. Let them go back to upstate NY and 'amuse'/'disgust' the people there. Let 'George' work off his 'debt' to them as their house servant (don't you know that EVERYONE who ever worked for them owes them the rest of their lives?).
Thanks for perfectly capturing my thoughts and sentiments.
Today Barack Obama decried "Forty-five minutes before they talked about health care." Hell, you and I already know Obama's and Hillary's position on health care as well as the rest of his litany of topics that were forced to wait. Obama himself pointed out that at this point in the process, he can probably deliver her lines and positions as easily as she can deliver his
Last night's debate should be looked at as an effort to see how the candidates deal with a hostile environment. The presidential candidacies of Al Gore and John Kerry show that the Democratic nomination process has consistently delivered candidates with glass jaws. Here was an effort to meet that problem head on if only at a school-yard level relative to Kerry's swiftboating.
As Democrats, keeping our eyes on the prize means not getting caught up in the evangelical frenzy of preaching to the choir or the congregation. Both candidates need to be pushed on topics as mundane as flag pins if only we to see how the surrounding media footprint and blogosphere echo will treat their reactions and responses.
Last night's debate was a solid attempt to bring the back room mudslinging and perceived vulnerabilities of both candidates into the light of the formal arena. I believe history will show that it was very effective in helping the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination begin to plan for the general election.
Please, you can't be serious.
First, if you think that the 7 attacks on Obama against 1 attack on Hillary was a test how the candidates deal with a hostile environment, I can only conclude you already excluded Hillary for the nomination so she doesn't need to be tested.
Second, if you consider the 2 minute exchanges on headlines of issues really informative, you have a very distorted view on what a debate should be. I could also conclude that you just don't care about the details of the issues because you already made up your mind about the candidate.
It's a sad conclusion that you think it is ok for the media to spent 45 minutes of precious time of millions of viewers to test the candidates on media training instead of informing the American people on what their ideas are for what is best for this country.
I read the transcripts and the questions were about as dumb as they come. The first hour was a hit piece on Obama. I was surprised they didn't ask him if he had ever slept with white women.
Please Bedatcomber... I know you are joking, but there are some dim-bulbs out there that will start a rumor... and attempt to use it against him because the dont have much else. Thats why every new issue regarding him becomes a headline.
Nevertheless, he will survive it all and still become the pres. why? because the truth will prevail and I believe he is a hell of a lot more honest than the other candidates. They are too much when it comes to dishonesty!
lol
As a white woman I was hoping someone would suggest the same public lynching of Charlie and George. But the woman with the flag pin, the guy from Ohio on the 60 minutes interview and many others wouldn't get it.
I continue to be troubled by Sen Clinton's pandering to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al. and falling into their trap.
Clearly, she thinks she's just doing "anything to win" but does she not realize they are just setting her up as much as the rest of the Dems.
She is Carrie, being invited to the Fox Prom, and seems to not realize how this scene is going to play out
I would imagine that a great many Dems would appreciate it if she would stand up and express her disappointment with the Faux Tabloid Debate.
OMG, Carrie is so right on. She'll take that stage, and her corporate handlers will dump their buckets of pig blood on her, and all HELL will break lose as Hillary destroys the world. It's quite clear that's the neocon plan -- they can then declare martial law and all is as they hoped.
She is shoving and pushing for power. She is not "fighting" for democrats or anyone else.
She has nothing to lose and she doesn't care if democrats lose in the fall if she is not the nominee.
It is a simple as that.
But the win at all cost, lie at all cost, is precisely the media ratings short term thinking that got us into this mess. I would suggest moving out of the country, I think the baby boomers are all going to Costa Rica.
Seinfeld's Elaine kept screaming in my head, like her voice would scream in her head in the subway episodes. WE ENCOURAGE LIARS.
LIARS,
LIARS,
LIARS,
LIARS,
LIARS.
Taylor Marsh thinks the debate was wonderful. She thinks Obama was shattered and will never recover from the beating Clinton gave him. She thought the questions about the lapel pin were pertinant in that it goes to his credibility. Her blogs are stunning. Literally. She simply HAS to be getting boatloads of money from the Clintons. No one could be that dim to miss the repeated lies and 'misstatements' from Hillary and Bill. I am really, REALLY looking forward to when Obama gets the nomination and they all turn to McCain. THAT will show who they really are: Republicans with a mean streak.
Looks like everyone forgot to wear their flag pins, oops.
Taylor Marsh and Rush Limbaugh represent the worse of their parties and a pretty sick sector of American society. We throw out outliers in statistics, why not pundits?
Because people can't seem to turn them off and ignore them - hence the ratings are up. The MSM is all about the almighty $$, and so are all the companies buying ad time for these shows.
MSM = Middle School Mentality
Mean Kids Rule!!!!
The so-called "debate" was a set-up and ambush to embarass the Democratic party. Hillary bit the bait and excoriated Obama while he remained cool. Obama looked presidential while Hillary looked petty.
The tabloid journalism employed by ABC, Gibson and Stephanopoulos has damaged their reputation and destroyed the credibility of Gibson and Stephanopoulos.
Shame, shame, shame on the all.
Chelsea got some good air time along with her mother. Lucky she decided to show up.
This year we have the unprecedented opportunity to fire all the Bush-policy rubber-stamping & obstructionist Republicans in the U.S. Senate and replace them with Democrats who can get us out of Iraq, enact true election reform, and get big business out of our government. Many conservatives are so uninspired by McSame that they"ll either support Obama or just skip the vote. Meanwhile, new voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-15 new Democrats in the Senate. Unless Hillary is still running, of course. If she manages to win the Democratic nomination, she will inspire conservatives to vote as no one else has ever before. Right-wingers don't just dislike her, they actively despise her! They'll vote in droves to ensure she doesn't win the Presidency, especially during a time of war. Clearly, Hillary Clinton herself is the Republicans' best GOTV tactic, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. While at the polls, they"ll also reelect Republican Senators. Compare that to the millions of new voters that will vote Democrat if Obama wins the Dem nomination. That"s got to be scaring the financial interests that back people like Bush, McSame, Clinton and the Senators who keep giving tax breaks to the super rich and voting to "Stay the Course" in a war without end.
Yup, even rich people do things that aren"t in their long term economic interests.
Does ABC actually think Hillary Clinton is the best person to fix the mess our country faces? Or did they use distraction and misdirection to subvert the Yes We Can grassroots movement because their divisive approach increases advertising dollars?
Republicans already know that either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain. They knew years ago Clinton would run for POTUS. They have a well prepared "Anyone But Hillary" strategy that is designed to bring out their base regardless of whether or not their candidate can win. Their own pundits are telling Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primaries for Hillary, and Republican voters are doing just that!
So why did ABC"s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos subvert the debate? Maybe because networks realize they can pad their pocketbooks with advertising dollars if Hillary faces off against McCain and the conservatives jump back in the game with anti-Hillary ads. The networks will make more money between now and November, but McSame"s policies will eventually finish off our economy, our military and our security in the world. I guess even rich people do things that aren"t in their long term economic interests.
George Stephanopoulos last night passed the all important Clinton loyalty test. Will you debase yourself for the Clinton's ? Last night he put a large stain on his legacy.
I'm trying to get to the common sense here. When the MSM was attacking Clinton during the debates with questions were they related to actual issues or where they attacking her personal character or associations? Was it OK for the MSM to attack her in your eyes? Then why would it be OK that the MSM to attack Obama now? If it's wrong it's wrong and it doesn't matter which DEMOCRATIC candidate they are attacking with conjecture and regurgitated CRAP. They attacked OUR party. These networks cast doubt on our PARTY's candidacy for POTUS.
As a Democrat you should be outraged that the MSN smeared BOTH candidates. Does it really matter who was attacked more? I've been ashamed of the politics MSM has been playing from the beginning towards Hillary and Obama otherwise. McCain has the cakewalk not Obama or Clinton.
This is true,they don't call McCain "Teflon John" for nothing. The MSM has spoonfead the public for a long time now. The lack of resposibility that they feel they have to play their part in our country's system of "checks and balance" has been vacant for sometime now. But last night was something different, even more extreme, more blatant than even Fox News. It was if they didn't care at all about journalistic integrity or responsibility. They decided to activate the muddsling, indulge "silly season," and dared anyone to call them on it.
The moderators should at least have the appearance of objectivity. Due to George Stephanopoulos's relationship with the Clinton Whitehouse he never should have been permitted to moderate this so called debate.
You nailed it! I couldn't have said it better myself. ABC's golden boys turned into Fox mouthpieces on an agenda to prop up Clinton's dead campaign. I just hope the people will decide to put Clinton out of her misery. She cannot catch up. She cannot win. It's over, so what exactly is her point?
Republicans already know that either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain. They knew years ago Clinton would run for POTUS. They have a well prepared "Anyone But Hillary" strategy that is designed to bring out their base regardless of whether or not their candidate can win. Their own pundits are telling Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primaries for Hillary, and Republican voters are doing just that!
So why did ABC"s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos subvert the debate? Maybe because networks realize they can pad their pocketbooks with advertising dollars if Hillary faces off against McCain and the conservatives jump back in the game with anti-Hillary ads. The networks will make more money between now and November, but McSame"s policies will eventually finish off our economy, our military and our security in the world. I guess even rich people do things that aren"t in their long term economic interests.
Quick, let"s put together a contact list for all the advertisements aired during ABC"s debacle debate. Then let"s slam the advertisers for supporting such shoddy journalism. Use your flag lapel pin to stick ABC where it hurts.
That makes the argument that we the people should DEMAND that debates are run by people with far less financial stake in the outcome. I'm all for blackballing ABC, CNN, and FOX from running presidential debates.
Do we really know everything about these candidates?
To HRC: How would you enforce your health care mandate?
To both: How would you instruct our intelligence officers to interrogate terrorism suspects?
To both: do you support protecting telecoms from prosecution for participating in warrantless wiretapping?
To both: How would you convince China or India to agree to binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
To Obama: how do you plan to reach out to evangelicals given your abortion record?
To both: how would you begin to pay off the national debt?
To both: what would be your strategy to support development in the third world?
To both: how can the U.S. best promote peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?
To both: how can the U.S. best promote democracy in China?
To both: what is your plan to control the spread of nuclear weapons, especially from former Soviet states?
To both: would you join the International Criminal Court?
To both: what steps would you take to promote human rights internationally?
To both: do you support increased regulation of the internet?
To both: do you support legalizing medical use of marijuana?
To both: what is your plan to improve inner city education?
To Obama: how has living in a Muslim country as a child affected your understanding of America's role in the world, or in our relationship with the Muslim world?
To HRC: can you name some specific ways that your administration would differ from your husband's administration?
WOW... Now here are questions with substance! I think ABC, FOX, MSNBC & CNN should take a look at you for any future debates. EXCELLENT QUESTIONS!!!
it's too bad you weren't a moderator last night, i would like answers on these questions too.
BRILLIANT questions. I would die to hear them answered - it's incredibly depressing to read those after the drivel we were subjected to last night. Journalists take note.
Senator Obama appeared to be the only one with enough dignity and sense to seem put-out and annoyed with the cheesy quality of this "debate." As I've commented before, why is it that Senator Clinton seemed absolutely aglow in the vapidness and trashiness of the night? Her best performance yet. hmmm....
Well Said. My brows are still knitted....cant believe what I witnessed last night..
Lol, after the way Campbell Brown sucked Obama's toes, and Tim Russert looked like a vicious troll ready to leap over the table at Clinton, I think it's pretty rich that Obama supporters and the Obamedia are crying over this debate. This is far from the nastiest questioning in a debate, but for a change some of it was aimed at Obama. The problem wasn't the format or questions, it was Obama's performance. If he'd handled his responses really well, y'all would be rejoicing and showering him with praise. He didn't.
For the record, I still think the flag pin crap is nonsense. And I'll concede that MAYBE because I've seen so much bias against Clinton, a little bias against Obama isn't visible to me. Either way, she's faced the firing line in these debates numerous times, and the bias was obvious - it's a little late, and lame, to be crying fowl now, and the media uproar coming to his defense just makes that more obvious.
This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.
ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, the way journalists should handle debates. Anyone remember
You're missing the point completely. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with bias, and everthing to do with sh-tty questions. Did you really learn anything of importance?
Debates should not be about what is fair - it should be about what MATTERS. Hillary suggesting she'd nuke Iran was the most important thing to come out in that debate, and no one is covering it.
Posted April 17, 2008 | 07:24 AM (EST)