It’s amazing to me how unified the progblogs are in bashing ABC over the debate questions last night. It appears – remember, no TV in the house, so didn’t see it – that ABC did a pretty good job of asking the candidates the questions that the GOP will be asking the nominee.
That strikes me a good thing; given that the intention is to select a nominee who can win, I’d like to know who can stand up to the inside fastballs rather than just hit the hanging pitch over the center of the plate.
Who can bash Bush the loudest or hardest – or who has memorized the more exhaustive set of briefing papers – doesn’t tell us much about who the best candidate will be.
So while the bloggers are beside themselves that tough questions mean the media isn’t keeping it’s 15% tip going for the Democrats, in fact asking those questions was the most favorable thing the commentators could do.
Here is some free advice:
1) You can watch streaming video of the debates over the internet, like I did, so you don’t need a TV.
2) You can read the transcripts of debates afterwards if you’re interested in the content.
3) I would avoid commenting on debates (or any other events) that you did not personally witness, especially in the manner that you are doing here.
This post above all others is a clear indication that you have no friggin’ clue what the real electoral challenges are that Democrats, but not Republicans, face. You think Roy Edroso is a bigger problem than ABC News, fer chrissake.
And you’d be sorely mistaken to assume that only bloggers were put-off by this sad exhibit of the state of US news that ABC displayed last night. Lots of Americans have TVs, you know, and I’m absolutely certain that the bloggers scorn was matched by the viewing public. People have already weighed in on the Wright flap and others and said they do not care. Although perhaps something like this is not as apparent to an elitist like yourself who seems proud of the fact that they’re too smart or cultured to get their information from the TeeVee like the majority of Americans. These comments are a breathtaking display of elitism and snobbery from someone who allegedly disdains such attitudes.
You’re clearly out of touch with both the majority of Americans and the Democrats. However, I will say that a lot of people here will probably agree with you on this….
Actually, I did watch the highlights; sorry I wasn’t clearer – and I did read the transcripts and commentary. I didn’t watch the debate end-to-end. I’ll amend the post to make that clearer.
And I’m positive that a substantial percent of the 15% of the population that shares mindspace with you, Tbogg, and Edroso was outraged. And when the GOP hammers the nominee with those questions in a real debate and they fumble – because they’ve never been asked about the Washington DC gun ban, for example, and a bunch of the rest of the voters tip away from them, you’ll be outraged too because they Just Don’t See what you see.
I’m hoping Obama wins anyway, but I’m damn worried. I’m glad you’re not; I wonder if it’s because you’re overconfident, or – like a lot of the commenters I’ve seen around the issue – more interested in a “pure” Democratic Party than a winning one.
A.L.
It wasn’t the GOP hammering them, it was a News organization whose job it is NOT to promulgate Republican slanders and talking points.
I didn’t say I’m not worried about the elections, how can I not be after seeing how the Media are treating Dems and suppressing discussion on issues that really matter to a majority of the public, not just some imagined 15% that you have decided somehow that I am a part of.
I’m neither overconfident nor interested in a “pure” Democratic party and I have no idea where these accusations are coming from. What I am interested in is leveling the playing field, making sure voters are well informed about the issues, and promoting the free and equal exchange of ideas between candidates and the public without the MSM deciding what it is that they think is important for us all to hear. Like I said, this attitude is the very essence of elitism and it is decidedly NOT what the “progblogs” stand for.
These media people are trying to tell us what to think, what to worry about, what is important to know or not know, and you seem to think this is an exercise in “toughening up” or some such silliness. The striking think is how you don’t think this is a perfect example of elitism that you seem so keen on sniffing out among citizen-advocates and activists who raise their voices over the internet. Breathtaking, really.
(relying only on a transcript…) I’m disappointed that these questions were raised.
I don’t see a legitimate need for them to select the Democrat candidate, since 1. Obama is likely to be the nominee anyway, and 2. Democrat primary voters do not value the ability to answer such questions, rather they believe that such questions should not be asked.
Since the candidates evidently share that belief, neither of them was likely to do anything about their inability to answer questions, except under pressure – which has just been applied to them, for no good reason.
It would have been better if the eventual Democratic nominee had discovered his or her weakness too late to do anything about it, in a high profile debate with John McCain.
_People have already weighed in on the Wright flap and others and said they do not care._
So _that’s_ why Obama’s poll numbers are falling relative to both Hillary and McCain and why Hillary’s lead in Pennsylvania just about doubled. Here I was thinking it was because people _did_ care about it. I guess I was just clinging to that opinion out of frustration about job losses. Silly me.
Fred, you are being silly, because that is not what the polls say:
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Check yourself.
Excerpts from a FOX NEWS (!) poll:
36. Have you heard about the comments made by Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah
Wright?
Yes No (Don’t know)
18-19 Mar 08 72% 26 1
Democrats 70% 29 2
Republicans 76% 22 2
Independents 72% 28 –
37. Reverend Wright has made some controversial and unpatriotic comments about
America — do you believe Barack Obama shares his views, or not?
Yes, No,
shares views does not (Don’t know)
18-19 Mar 08 24% 57 19
Democrats 17% 63 20
Republicans 36% 46 18
Independents 20% 62 18
Whites 25% 55 20
Blacks 15% 72 13
38. Has Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright made you have doubts
about Obama, or not?
Yes No (Don’t know)
18-19 Mar 08 35% 54 11
Democrats 26% 66 9
Republicans 56% 33 11
Independents 27% 61 12
Whites 40% 49 11
Blacks 2% 90 8
Sepp: can’t read your polls numbers clearly. Can you just link to them?
Another interesting aspect of the reaction to the debate that is missing from your “analysis”…the glee of the Right Wing blogosphere with ABC:
“Read a summary here.”:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/17/debate/index.html
Alchemist:
Here’s a link to a “webpage”:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html where you can download a pdf file of the poll. (I didn’t want to directly link to a pdf file here.)
Sepp, you magnificent idiot (Patton quote), read what you posted and think about it. 35% of the overall population and 25% of the Democrats polled said yes to “Has Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright made you have doubts about Obama, or not?” What do you think Karl Rove and Mary Matalin and their peers are going to do with that? Can Obama write off 12% of the Democratic vote?
You wonder why I’m “concerned”?
A.L.
I’ve thought about it, AL, have you? Most people don’t care. That was my point. And “doubts about Obama” from Hillary and McCain supporters surprises you?
Sepp, read the damn polls. 25% of the self-declared Democrats had doubts. The issue isn’t whether a plurality of Democrats had doubts; it’s about whether enough of them had doubts that they could tip the election.
I’m presuming that matters as much to you as it does to me?
A.L.
….and how many of those 25% do you think might be Hillary supporters, AL? In fact, I’m surprised the number isn’t higher to reflect a majority of her supporters.
Your concern would be better directed at trying to understand why this is an issue AT ALL with the public. You know where I stand on this, that the MSM is largely to blame. Just for laughs, consider how many people are concerned that McCain has voted against extending Iraq war vets benefits or that he’s breaking campaign finance laws, for example? Or that he can’t keep the warring factions in Iraq straight? Or that he divorced his sick wife to marry a multi-millionaire? Or still think that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 for that matter?
You’re so far off the mark here I really do wonder what it is that you think you’re “Armed” with, because your aim is awful, awful, awful.
Nothing like demonstrating the conservative bias of the media by throwing out a bunch of half truths and ad hominem attacks.
So both Democratic sides have now found out what its like to have a hostile media that lobs softballs to your opponent. Now you know how it feels to be a conservative, congrats.
AL,
Not much to say about this post, other to advise you strongly, to retreat from the precipice.
To modify an old movie quote – that was in theaters before I started watching movies – This debate is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
I suppose you are looking at the whole “electability” thing again, and basing your “pretty good” on that.
Nevertheless, in terms of substance, this debate was a mockery of a travesty of a sham.
In terms of “important issues to voters”, Steph and Gibson didn’t have a frackin’ clue.
David_Blue:
Two points: One, I’m not sure you’re correct about “Democat primary voters” not valuing the ability to answer tough questions, because some non-zero percentage of them want to field a candidate that can, you know, win in November. Two, both Gore and Kerry seemed to think they could phone it in and be President, and that didn’t work too well for them; maybe it will be good for the Democratic candidate to get some serious sparring in before the Main Event.
It seemed that Gibson ended, with a similar tone to this other quote in the same movie. I’ll modify as we move along:
Charles Gibson[Howard Cosell]: I think we should leave the happy couple on that note. It’s hard to tell what may happen in the future. But they may live happily ever after. Again, they may not. Be assured of this, though. Wherever the action is, we will be there with ABC’s News [Wide World of Sports] to cover it. Now, on behalf of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton [Nancy and Fielding Mellish] and all of the others who have made this possible, this is Charles Gibson [Howard Cosell] thanking you for joining us and wishing you a most pleasant good night.
hypo – I’m genuinely puzzled here. How is it bad to hear how the candidates respond to ‘gimme’ GOP talking points? Don’t you want to choose based on who can knock those down?
I really don’t get it here…
A.L.
Here are a some good questions
“Do you think if Barack Obama had left his seriously ill wife after having had multiple affairs, had been a member of the “Keating Five,” had had a relationship with a much younger lobbyist that his staff felt the need to try and block, had intervened on behalf of the client of said young lobbyist with a federal agency, had denounced then embraced Jerry Falwell, had denounced then embraced the Bush tax cuts, had confused Shiite with Sunni, had confused Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army, had actively sought the endorsement and appeared on stage with a man who denounced the Catholic Church as a whore, and stated that he knew next to nothing about economics — do you think it’s possible that Obama would have been treated differently by the media than John McCain has been? Possible?
And — this is fun to contemplate — if Michelle Obama had been an adulteress, drug addict thief with a penchant for plagiarism — do you think that she would be subject to slightly different treatment from the media than [Cindy] McCain has been? Anyone?”
Davebo, if those are the supposed “good” questions, then I suggest ABC did the lefties a *huge* favor by ignoring that list and doing some better-late-than-never vetting of the two candidates.
Damn MSM, providing free campaign consulting for the Democrats.
AL,
Davebo has the answer above. The supposed Liberal Media in action, wouldn’t force McCain to answer the same questions again and again and again. IOKIYAAR.
Finally – yes, I really don’t think that ABC News should be doing National Enquirer based questions, simply because the rightwing screeches “It’s a character issue!!”. I truly do think these type of issues are vacuous, empty, Michael Jackson-esque things.
Maybe that’s what we have now – and all Democratic candidates have to go through this process, while the Republican candidates get a pass.
But absolutely, when the press mugs our candidates based on the National Enquirer, I’m going to screech about it.
Boy its gonna be a long trip to November.
Yeah Unbeliever, if I was in your position I’d dodge those questions as well.
We all know the answers.
bq. hypo – I’m genuinely puzzled here.
This is the first thing you’ve written in this thread that I agree with.
Even if your silly point is valid, that the promulgation of Right wing talking points and slanders by the MSM is a “good thing” for Democrats because it will help temper them by fire in preparation for a showdown with “The Republicans” in the fall, it doesn’t obviate or refute in any way the criticism of the bloggers or any other American who demands balanced access to information from their news sources.
I will reiterate: It is not the job of the media to “test” the Democratic candidates by hitting them with Right wing talking points, especially in the manner that they do so. They are not raising them as right wing talking points but as genuine issues of concern to “voters”.
It’s as if you’re trying to say they’re doing the Dems a favor by preventing them from discussing important national issues so they can have a chance to answer for the umpteenth time (and out of all proportion to its importance) these idiotic questions.
But furthermore, your contention that the reaction of the public, including (and represented by) bloggers is a negative for Democrats is utterly ludicrous on its face in light of the clearly demonstrable influence of the MSM on peoples access to information and the issues that they will base their voting decisions on.
And your complete inability to contrast this performance with the manner in which they treat Republicans during debates really places your views in a particular, and very odd, niche. Certainly not one that I think any rational candidate on either side would do well to listen to.
Davebo, why don’t you go have a couple of spinal surgeries and a hysterectomy before you go attacking _the wife_ of a candidate for having once been addicted to prescription pain killers. That’s just low class. Opiote addiction rooting from chronic pain isnt a character flaw.
At least she’s proud of being an American.
_”Even if your silly point is valid, that the promulgation of Right wing talking points “_
So why are the democratic candidates slinging these ‘right wing’ points at each other then? Hmmmm? Because just maybe they werent hatched in Karl Rove’s basement, and in fact are issues relevant to the country?
It’s interesting; the issue for Sepp and Davebo is ‘how dare the media publicize these claims’ and denial that the claims have any validity – either objectively or politically.
I see it somewhat differently; the claims exist, and because some meaningful portion of the electorate shares them it absolutely worth hearing what the candidates have to say about them. Why? Both because empirically it defines where the candidate is, and because the content is a contest of capabilities as much as of positions, and as such I want to hear how a candidate sounds when pushed hard.
When I hire people, I deliberately ask questions I think will be uncomfortable ones, as much to hear how they deal with them as to get the answer. We all get asked hard questions and have to respond on our feet – and a President more than any of us. Those skills and those responses matter.
A.L.
Mark Buehner plays the Limbaugh defense (although it’s unusual for someone to decide to take up the game of golf while they are experiencing horrific back pain, but regardless.
It’s not just addiction, it’s a multi millionaire stealing drugs from a charity. Couldn’t she just call Rush’s pharmacist rather than steal them from her charity?
And what about how McCain responded? Lying, using connections to get a frivoulous extortion investigation to intimidate the whistle blower.
The addiction is the least damning aspect of that story.
Then why don’t they “test” the Republicans with these same kind of questions?
Your argument falls apart because you completely fail to acknowledge the one-sided nature of the scrutiny.
The issues are manufactured; the “meaningful proportion of the electorate” that you refer to is largely comprised of the Right wing, Republicans and their media allies.
This is not a Democracy, it is a corporate oligarchy.
A.L., i’ll go you one better- the candidates are hammering _each other_ on these issues. How can the moderators ignore that? If Clinton just spent a week on the trail calling for Obama to justify himself on the bitterness remark, how do they just not ask?! The Clinton supporters would go NUTS and they would be screaming about Obama bias.
I mean, you have to be DEEP in the fever swamps to believe the vast right wing conspiracy is responsible for _George Stephanopoulos_ asking tough questions to _Hillary Clinton’s_ opponents. What kind of mental gymnastics does that take?
I don’t have a clue how you reached that conclusion AL.
I’m just asking that the media treat everyone the same.
Sepp, if I was a Republican, I’d wish they had. McCain is vulnerable on aspects of his biography, on aspects of his character (temper), and on aspects of his judgment (arrogance). It would have eben a good thing for GOP voters to have seen how he dealt with those vulnerabilities rather than seeing what the 527’s do to him with them.
This ain’t bean bag.
A.L.
bq. Yeah Unbeliever, if I was in your position I’d dodge those questions as well.
My “position”? Perhaps I should have posted a disclaimer: I am not John McCain, and I am not his wife, nor do I believe either of them would get the reference of my chosen pseudonym. In fact neither me nor my spouse are running for any political office this year. I’m not even voting for McCain in the fall. What on earth do *I* have to gain by keeping ABC anchors from asking stupid questions off the latest laundry list of lefty grievances?
bq. We all know the answers.
Well then, why bother asking the questions at all?!? Seems the ABC guys are following your advice after all, and asked the questions we _don’t_ already know the answers to!
If the liberal blogs are going to get all up in arms every time a network fails to vet questions through the Daily Kos commentariat, it’s going to be a miserably long election year…
First the Dems didn’t want to have a debate on Fox because they are Repub shills. Now, obviously, ABC follows Rovian marching orders as well. By extrapolation, it’s clear that future Dem debates will be presented on the Comedy Channel.
_”If the liberal blogs are going to get all up in arms every time a network fails to vet questions through the Daily Kos commentariat, it’s going to be a miserably long election year”_
Its going to be a miserably long election year.
Just enjoy this moment, because its not often the left gets hoisted on its own petard vis-a-vis the MSM.
AL,
It might be the case that National Enquirer smears are “how the game is played”.
I still think it’s incredibly stupid, shallow, and an injustice to this great nation when there are serious issues, to decide elections based on giving lots of time to these fake issues.
Nevertheless, again, even by that standard, it simply is the case that, when an issue comes up for McCain – and before him, Bush – the media will raise the issue, it will run for 1,2,3 days – and then the issue is dropped, never to be heard from again.
But the Democratic candidates, have to deal with these faux issues, and for some reason, for Democrats, they are zombie issues. They keep getting asked again and again and again, played on a loop again and again and again.
That is the biggest difference. It’s not only a shallow media pool, not educating or concentrating on the issues that matter for the country, but the even in the shallow pool, these dumb-a&& questions never stop getting asked of Obama, Hillary, while they die off quickly for McCain.
Perhaps Sepp and Davebo were asleep for the earlier part of the year, before Romney dropped out, when the Big Deal was everything Romney said, everything McCain staffers did, or everything Huckabee could get past the editor’s desk for the 6:00 news. Or perhaps you didn’t hang out on the actual conservative sites enough, where Romney and McCain were minutely excoriated every day, or Ron Paul got yet another dismisal for touting the usual Libertarian rhetoric.
McCain has been in the news and the public eye for _decades_ now (I personally have been railing against him for the past 6 years or so). He has already been through the Presidential nomination process, had all the dirty laundry aired, and will face further scrutiny once the general kicks off.
So why all the angst without a legitimate complaint? Is your main grievance that a Democratic debate was not sufficiently GOP-bashing for you? When *is* the appropriate time for Democrats to stop hating on the right-winger bugaboo, and wonder which prospective candidate is better able to face a general election?
Err, pardon my confusion, but other than these ‘irrelevant’ little character issues, what precisely separates the two candidates?
From watching the debate, the second half, which did cover more substantive issues, was mostly them in general agreement with only the most minute variations.
A debate without any real or major disagreements isn’t actually a debate after all…
Yeah, of course McCain is vulnerable but NO ONE WILL ASK HIM these questions in a debate or anywhere else on network TV! Or if they do they will do it in such a delicate and obsequious manner that it will be useless, and they certainly won’t beat the crap out of it, even after it is long dead in the minds of the public, like they have been doing with Obama/Clinton issues. Instead, they eagerly explain away his gaffes and bring him donuts.
You really can’t see this, can you? This is not just the left talking either, believe me, its obvious to anyone who cares about issues. And as I said above, Right Wing websites are practically giddy about last night, but no one here wants to admit that because it kinda wrecks your arguments.
I don’t often agree with Mark B, but he has a point. The MSM tends to report from a particular Received View, and sometimes this viewpoint is unfair to conservatives (although I’d say at the moment it is more usually unfair to liberals). McCain was given a lot of slack in the Republican primaries because of some strange media unwillingness to examine his flip-flops, Keating scandal, etc. I can see why Romney or Huckabee would be displeased. My best guess is that it’s the herd instinct combined with McCain’s personal friendships cultivated with reporters. Did the other candidates remember to treat the press to a homemade barbeque?
On the other side of the aisle, though, the same reporters were dreadfully unfair to Al Gore while extolling the Ordinary He-Man virtues of the drunken bum we have in the White House today. His shoot from the hip certitude hasn’t served us real well, has it?
I also think that AL is missing the point that claims made by the Republican candidate are going to be evaluated differently than claims made by a presumably-neutral news anchor. When (not if) John McCain tees off on the flag lapel pin issue that’s so important today, it’s going to come with a large partisan discount. Last night you saw a former journalist ask a question that simply assumed this trivia was as important as the Republicans will say it is. Even the substantive questions were often framed in “When did you stop beating your wife” style.
Charlie Gibson and I shared a favorite history teacher and he must be rolling in his grave today.
No one invited McCain to participate in last night’s debate. He did get grilled during the Republican debates, though I think the tougher questions went to Romney and Giuliani. And if you think he skated by in the press without stupid questions getting asked, you must have been out of country during the whole “McCain might not be a naturalized citizen” idiocy.
The Wright issue, the “bitter clingers” gaffe, and Clinton’s ability to dodge imaginary sniper fire, all are things that came up _between_ the last debate and this one. Some of these questions just came up last week, and _the candidates themselves_ are the ones slinging accusations and playing word games through their campaign spokespeople. So the first time the two candidates are together on TV since the stories broke, ABC gave them their first opportunity to address each other face to face about them.
Or do you prefer the debate format where each candidate reads prepared speeches, plus a carefully scripted joke at the other guy’s expense?
bq. And as I said above, Right Wing websites are practically giddy about last night, but no one here wants to admit that because it kinda wrecks your arguments.
You have a strange idea of how logic and argumentation works. My argument is that ABC asked questions of interest to its viewing audience and to the voting public in general. Also that McCain has already faced the gauntlet when the GOP nomination was the big hot race, and will face it again once the general picks up. How does schadenfraude on the right disprove either one?
You’re basically claiming that the crowing on the blogosphere somehow illustrates that the MSM (or just ABC) is biased against the Democratic candidates, or merely biased in favor of McCain. I certainly think they have a soft spot for their favorite anti-Republican GOP maverick, but that doesn’t make your shrieks about ABC’s attempting to “promulgate Republican slanders and talking points” any less hysterical.
bq. My argument is that ABC asked questions of interest to its viewing audience and to the voting public in general.
Well then this is an exceedingly weak point in light of the fact that the Iraq war and the economy rank as issues voters care about the most but questions on these topics occupied only a small fraction of the debate.
The problem is that they have been complicit in allowing the current administration to get away with so many things both legal and stupid and illegal, so raising them in public only serves to make them look bad as well. Is this really so hard to understand?
This has absolutely nothing to do with what is “of interest” to the “viewing audience”.
And here are some number for you Unbeliever:
“link”:http://www.gallup.com/poll/103534/What-Voters-Want.aspx
Most important issues:
1. War in Iraq
2. Economy
3. Government Corruption
4. Terrorism
5. Healthcare
6. Energy
7. Education
8. Moral values
9. Social security
10. Budget deficit
11. Medicare
12. Taxes
13. Environment
14. Immigration
Topics of questions asked during the debate last night:
1.Process (VP running mate)
2. Bitter
3. Bitter/Process (can Obama win?)
4. Process (can Obama win?)
5. Process (can Clinton win?)
6. Wright
7. Wright
8. Wright/patriotism
9. Wright
10. Wright/patriotism
11. Bosnia/Clinton’s honesty
12. Clinton’s honesty
13. Flag pin/patriotism
14. Ayers/patriotism
15. Iraq (would you ignore commanders?)
16. Iraq (do you know better than commanders?)
17. Iraq (would you ignore commanders?)
18. Iran/Israel (Iran will threaten to use nukes)
19. Pledge no tax increases (with McCain attack)
20. Capital gains tax rates
21. Gun registration
22. Guns/ D.C. law
23. Affirmative action
24. Gas prices
25. Foreign oil
26. Process (how would you use GWB?)
27. Process (superdelegates)
[Bare link corrected, this time. –NM]
Now, please show me an equivalent list of media questioning to Republicans during their debates.
Even though Romney and Huckabee did get ganged up on (and this does not prove that the media is pro-republican, after all they want McCain), I seriously doubt you can support your contention that McCain got “grilled”.
Sepp,
One of the reasons Obama and his supporters give he should be President is that his judgement is better than his opponents. Who one associates with is generally considered part of that. So shouldn’t his long time associations with a controversial preacher, who Obama considers a mentor, and a political “fixer” be fair game?
If a Presidential candidate makes a statement that could be considered belittling part of the electorate, can’t that be explored in a debate? Other politicians have made mistakes like that and it has ended or severly damaged their career.
Also, the Democrats have had over twenty debates so far. Many of the issues you considered important have been explored in many of these prior debates. As far as I know, the positions of the two candidates have not changed much since then. So what new thing would have been learned by rehashing something that has been discussed over twenty times before?
Sepp, those numbers show what voters might base their vote on, not what the audience of a televised political debate want to see. Obviously there is overlap in the two sets, but if you think there was no public interest in the top campaign stories of the past two weeks, you’re being being facetious (or worse).
And you might notice that even the highest ranking issues have % responding very close to the numbers of people polled who thought the Wright issue was significant when considering Obama. *The very numbers you provided* back in “#7”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/debate_baseball.php#c7 . Are you telling me there is no room in the debate for a topic that *35%* of respondants said “made [them] have doubts
about Obama”? Issues numbers 6-14 on Gallup’s list didn’t even make it to 35%!
bq. Well then this is an exceedingly weak point in light of the fact that the Iraq war and the economy rank as issues voters care about the most but questions on these topics occupied only a small fraction of the debate.
You should look at your own data before making unsubstantiated claims. On your list, I see 4 questions about ME foreign policy and 5 questions on the economy. There were also 6 questions about “process”, which has become increasingly important as the Democratic convention draws near; in fact these are _exactly_ the questions the superdelegates are pondering as the decide who to support.
Compare that to 4 questions about Wright and 4 questions about honesty/patriotism. If the War and the economy occupied “only a small fraction” of the debate, then Wright and character questions occupied *even less*, and you have no complaint.
And pardon my conservative bias, but I happen to think the matter of honesty and character are *hugely* important in a Presidential debate; in fact they are the main reasons I am not voting for McCain. You are, however, welcome to argue that honesty and such is just another irrelvant Republican talking point.
(Are you sure you know how to play the numbers game? You seem to be providing both an easy target _and_ the ammunition to sling your way.)
bq. Many of the issues you considered important have been explored in many of these prior debates. As far as I know, the positions of the two candidates have not changed much since then. So what new thing would have been learned by rehashing something that has been discussed over twenty times before?
Another silly argument. Do you think the voters of PA are fully informed about the candidates positions on all the issues? Is it up to ABC to decide that they are and move on to the trivia?
And are you saying that no significant events have arisen since the last debate? Or that once discussed an issue is closed forever to further consideration?
ABC broke a story recently about the WH being intimately involved with torture techniques at Abu Graib, for one example. Don’t you think people would like to know how the next president views this issue?
Sepp, you’re rapidly approaching the point of self-parody. Do yourself a favor and re-read the comments made thus far.
bq. are you saying that no significant events have arisen since the last debate?
Wright’s potty mouth, clingy Pennsylvannians, and the illusion of sniper fire were *all* stories that arose since the last debate. Yet you object to questions about them.
bq. Or that once discussed an issue is closed forever to further consideration?
Apparently you think once Obama delivers a single weasly speech on race, the question of Wright is closed forever. Why should it be any different for other issues on which the two candidates have already spoken endlessly about in 20+ debates?
It’s obvious you won’t be happy until _you_ get to control exactly what questions get asked to the candidates on both sides. You are in the wrong place to start commanding such power: head directly to journalism school, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
I love this election, particularly what it’s doing to the Democrats (whom I despise on a national party policy level). If only the Republicans (who annoy me on a national party policy level and whose candidate this year I despise) could lose, too. Oh, well, at least I can go enjoy another truckload of popcorn between now and the Democratic convention.
Hey Sepp, From USA Today:
_Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — an AP-Yahoo survey showed people preferred electing an unnamed Democrat over a Republican by 40% to 27%. Now, McCain gets about 10 percentage points more than the generic Republican got, while Obama and Clinton each get about 5 points less than last fall’s nameless Democrat._
Nah, that couldn’t possibly have to do with Obama’s comments and “Reverend” Wright, could it? Nobody cares about that exept evil Republican operatives, the small town booboise, and the (giggle) conservatively biased media.
The poll numbers I was thinking about may have been Indiana rather than Pennsylvania. But I remember a news story (I will search for a link) about her lead in one state increasing from about 5% to 9%. Even if the jump wasn’t that high (I could be misremembering) any jump at all or even his rise stopping is evidence that while I stand corrected on my details, my point stands unrefuted.
Despite the desire of you folks on the left to label everything you don’t want to talk about a “distraction,” some of us morons out in flyover country actually do care about whether our president has contempt for us, what the fact of the Hamas columns in his church’s newsletter means for Israel if he becomes preseident, and whether his pastor’s anti-Americanism has more influence on him than he’s admitting. But then maybe I’m just bitter.
It appears that ABC tracked down the woman who asked about the flag lapel pin who had been quoted as criticizing Obama for it before and invited her to the debate.
Evidence that the debate was some sort of weird infotainment?
Armed L.
And now some cold water on the idea that the progblogs are a dangerous fringe that is unrepresentative of the general public.
“here”:http://bp1.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SAjIDQP-TyI/AAAAAAAAAqU/p9YURPLTEcA/s1600-h/poll.png
How would you rate ABC/s debate questions?
Excellent. Character issues matter as much as policy issues: 8%
Good. I want explanations from the candidates: 4%
Disappointing. The big issues were ignored for an hour: 28%
Terrible. All the “he said, she said” was a waste of time: 54%
Can’t say/don’t know: 6%
Total respondants: 7557
You’re so far out of touch with the public you don’t even realize it. Once again, the definition of a self-delusional elitist.
And a pole taken after the debate found:
The Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania is getting even closer. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Hillary Clinton with 47% of the vote and Barack Obama with 44%. This election poll was conducted Thursday night, the night following a nationally televised debate between the candidates. Last Monday, Clinton was leading Obama 50% to 41%.
Got that, Fred?
…as I predicted in the very first comment in this sorry thread.
So in support of the idea that blogs are not unrepresentative of the general public, Sepp refers to… an Internet poll done on a blog. I’m not sure if you grasp the concept of circular argument, but something tells me you weren’t on your high school’s debate team.
(And it’s not even a well constructed poll, either; if any professional pollster phrased the responses that way, he’d be fired for gross incompetence.)
I’m not sure what the Rasmussen poll is meant to prove, other than Hillary did worse at the debate than Obama. But I haven’t seen anyone here argue otherwise. Fred’s point was that _both_ Obama and Clinton were polling worse than the generic Democrat, which means the question of who exactly each candidate is actually *does* matter in this election.
Character questions? In a Presidential campaign cycle? The mind boggles.
Evidence that the debate was some sort of weird infotainment?
This was ever in question? Remember the youtube debates?
Of course the debates opened up with the tabloidy-ish character issues. Let’s face it, when it comes to ‘real’ issues, the distance between the two candidates is vanishingly small. The last half of the debate (the real issues part) was the two of them mostly agreeing with each other on the merits.
So they focussed on the part that would make for ‘interesting’ watching. As much as the fur is flying now, nobody was tuning out at the time, that’s for sure.
Of course it’s biased and provocative, why in heck would the media want to run a DEBATE that involved the two candidates reading policy papers? Boring. They want a political cage match, much better for ratings.
I’m not quite sure what confusion of mind expects a debate run by the media to focus on the dry scholarly stuff instead of getting to sweat the contestants, err…candidates, with awkward, embarrassing stuff that’ll hopefully get them in the mood for going for each others throats by the time they did get to the boring policy stuff.
No accident they lead off with the divisive stuff.
Why the parties have the media running the debates (covering sure, but running?) is a good question, but expecting the bears not to crap in the woods is just nuts. Welcome to reality folks, the media has ALWAYS been about entertainment over ‘journalism’ going all the way back to the Spanish-American war (and before likely), learn to use it and deal with it, or else die by it.
bq. Welcome to reality folks, the media has ALWAYS been about entertainment over ‘journalism’ going all the way back to the Spanish-American war (and before likely), learn to use it and deal with it, or else die by it.
I would tend to agree with this if it weren’t for the persistent bias in the material that they see fit to “entertain” us with…where the Democrats are typically portrayed as simpering unpatriotic wimps (or as Greenwald puts it, “Obama as an exotic, bizarre, effete, vaguely American-hating elitist who is out of touch with Regular Americans and plagued by a personality so unlikable that you can’t possibly vote for him even if you agree with him on all of the issues — just as was true for virtually every national Democratic leader before him”) while the Republicans are the Great and Heroic Defenders of Virtue and Justice.
Entertain my ass; this is politics, and you’re excuse does not wash.
If you’re building your bias axis entirely along the national security and culture war issues (the traditional Republican strengths), well, of course reporting is going to look skewed right. Try widening your view.
Republicans are portrayed as fat cat corporatists, screwing the poor to help the rich, destroying the environment, and Machiavellian masterminds running rough shod over the poor and oppressed of the world. Or alternatively as Bible thumping, backwoods, imbeciles too stupid to tie their shoes without assistance. Sometimes, amusingly, both at the same time.
Caricatures are easy and profitable and fit well in short sound bites. After years of ‘Chimpy’ you can imagine why no one on the right is exactly leaping to your defense.
Speaking of filthy lucre, the strategy is apparently working. The debate scored very strong ratings and the furor is likely to drive the ratings for the next debate higher still.
The prime-time debate from Philadelphia on Wednesday was seen by 10.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. That’s the most of any debate this election cycle — topping the 9.3 million who watched the Democrats on ABC Jan. 5
“Link”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189180/
So expect more of this in the future…
And in further, and according to some commenters here completely unrelated, news, Obama’s nationwide favorable/unfavorables have flipped in the last week going from 51/47 on 4/11 to 47/51 on 4/18, although his support among Dem primary voters hasn’t changed.
“Rasmussen Poll”:http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/overall_favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates
Apparently, questions about a subject which triggered a rather large national opinion change are off limits?
He had a chance, in front of 10 million people, to make like Nixon and talk his way out of trouble and blew it. He’ll get further chances, but how avoiding the issue is supposed to help him is quite beyond me.
This smacks of ‘if we control the message, we control reality’ wishful thinking.
And to follow up from AL’s #11 and the general concern troll issue…
from the same source
“Rasmussen”:http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_pollhttp://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Just 68% of Democrats say they would vote for Obama against McCain. Twenty-three percent (23%) would vote for the Republican, 5% for a third-party option, and 4% are undecided. Clinton attracts 71% of Democrats. In that match-up, 21% would vote for McCain, 4% say they would vote for some other candidate, and another 4% are undecided. McCain attracts 85% of Republicans against Clinton, 82% against Obama, and leads both Democrats by double digits among unaffiliated voters.
Granted it’s still way early in the election cycle but still, 20% of the Democrat party crossing over?
Another interesting tidbit from in there was the McCain’s very unfavorables from within the Republican party were only at 4%, which I expected to be much higher. I think the Obama-Clinton lovefest may have taken the McCain-Republican base issue out of play…
Sepp (#53) – somehow I don’t think that poll was taken at Redstate or even CNN. And if you’re going to compare gamed Internet polls with real ones, I have several parcels of choice land I’d like to talk to you about in Glengarry Glen Ross…when can I stop by and show you the brochure?
A.L.
Treefrog (#59) The progblogs are ballistic over this (see the petition today?) BECAUSE it opened the door to people running from Obama – as if the weaknesses it exposed wouldn’t become apparent in the general.
So it’s good news, we’ve found the broken component in pre-flight testing, and Obama can do some serious damn work on getting it fixed.
A.L.
AL:
As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado…
Second prize is a set of steak knives.
Third prize is you’re fired.
Go get ’em.
By the way, A.L.: do you believe Barack Obama never read or wrote on a questionnaire about gun control? The 1996 one where he said he supports a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? This one, with his handwriting on it, as you can see in the picture? (link)
If the answer is “no, I don’t believe him, but I’m going to hold my nose and vote for him anyway”, fine. We all have to do that from time to time.
bq. Treefrog (#59) The progblogs are ballistic over this (see the petition today?) BECAUSE it opened the door to people running from Obama – as if the weaknesses it exposed wouldn’t become apparent in the general.
Oh really? So you can read their minds now?
You are entirely missing the point of the progblog opposition. SInce you do not seem to care enough about this issue to try to understand it better, or (worse perhaps) are incapable of doing so, I think your views are clearly not informed and should be completely dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of a bitter blogger.
As most of the blogosphere has already done.
Sepp, is that ‘most of the blogosphere’ by traffic or blog count??
Look, this is astoundingly dull to pretty much everyone except you. Please check “my comment to Chris”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/010186.php#c54 for my take on it.
A.L.
Sure, it’s dull. Nevertheless, I hope you will now be paying a bit more attention to the way in which the media report on John McCain. Every day it seems there is additional evidence of their positive bias.
Try walking a mile in your neighbor’s shoes just once and honestly and try to evaluate why so many good and intelligent and honest people can see this but you cannot.
I am not angry about this because I am a partisan who views all information through the filter of my political biases, rather I have become increasingly partisan because of the recognition that the people providing the information are themselves partisan and biased and working to promote a specific political agenda either purposefully or unwittingly because, maybe like you, they just don’t really care all that much anyway (it’s dull, isn’t it?) or don’t see it as quite the threat to Democracy as many others do.