Obama Pummelled in Debate?

WaPo's Tom Shales nails it: (I wonder what debate David Brooks was watching.)


In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC
ABC News moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos seemed to be playing a game of gotcha at last night's candidates' debate.



By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

Trip out. I thought the journalist's job was to inform us as best as he could about what the politicians stand for and what they will do. Making them uncomfortable is just an added plus - it's the means, not the end.

Just like substantive questions without a critical approach yield meaningless commonplaces, critical questions without any substantive content just yield a succession of meaningless gotcha's. Neither does anything to inform people.

Funny thing is, I think Brooks really believes what he says - it's like a mindfart that allows us to look straight into the (lack of) thinking behind the reporting he and his colleagues do. In that sense, this sentence of him reveals volumes about how the media ended up in this rut of 24/7 scandalised trivia.

Post Debate: Was That the Worst Debate Ever?
By Denise Williams
Apr 17th 2008 1:27AM

It took me a bit to realize that what I saw tonight was the total meltdown of media moderation of a debate.

For 51 minutes tonight we heard nothing of substance. I know some readers will disagree here - some were very happy Williams Ayers was brought up and to hear about Reverend Wright just one more time. And somehow wearing a lapel pin or not wearing one is worthy of political discourse for this country in trying times. You know, you and we can go back and forth on these issues daily here and on other blogs and media. This debate was watched by millions - not just in this country, but around the world.

The only person who won tonight was Sean Hannity. This may make some happy, but for most of us it's a disaster. This has nothing to do with who I support for President. I sorely miss the League of Women Voters.

A quick quote from TPM Josh Marshall says all that needs to be said:

Looking around other sites, I guess I'm not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty.

I'll have more later today. But on a lighter note, on my way out of the spin room tonight I saw a small group on the corner holding Ron Paul signs. I went over and had a brief chat with this really nice group of kids. I asked them if they were the future of the Republican Party and the gave me an emphatic "YES". They expect to one day replace the neo-cons and paleo-cons that they feel are choking the life out of the party and erase the false choices of the two-party system. They raised my spirits and I'm glad I met them.

So... the fact that the candidates were made to appear "uncomfortable" seems to be the biggest complaint... whoop-dee-doo. I watched about 80% of the debate last night and it seemed that the moderators asked the questions that were on the minds of Pennsylvania voters and in the headlines. If that made the candidates uncomfortable, then they should realize that they are out of touch with the "man" on the street.

Umm... no. The complaint was that it was an hour of endless, tiresome gotchas on trivia, and hardly any time to discuss the real issues people are worried about.

You cant be serious that you think Wright, Ayers and Tuzla are "the questions that were on the minds of Pennsylvania voters"? Or the possibility of increased capital gains taxes on those earning over $200,000, for that matter? What about gas prices, the mortgage crisis, the economic meltdown, terrorists, Iraq?

The polls confirm, it's the talking heads that are out of touch with the "man" on the street on this one.

I'm reading Andrew Sullivan's live-blog...



I thought so!!! I saw that and was like, eh?? That can't be right. (Because it's NOT.) Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/live-blogging-p.html

That's a missed opportunity for Obama too though -- how sweet would it have been if he'd said, "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that was superseded by the 12th amendment <wry smile>"

Gaffes, Flag Pins and '60s Radicals
Please, PLEASE put the debates back under the authority of The League of Women Voters again so they are worth watching. I was so disgusted with the tabloid-type questions to Clinton and Obama. It was a waste of the candidate's time as well as mine. ---BBB

Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Gaffes, Flag Pins and '60s Radicals
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
Published: April 16, 2008

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.

Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end.

Yet David Brooks' review at The New York Times concluded: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gave ABC an "A."

But Tom Shales of The Washington Post had an opposite view: "Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political writer, declared in Salon, "Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon."

A reader of Marc Ambinder's comments:

"No direct questions about handling the mortgage crisis, no questions about handling a potential environmental crisis, no questions about China, nothing about Pakistan, on and on and on. You can ask difficult questions about these subjects, and make these candidates squirm, about stuff that matters, not just petty BS that really acts as nothing but high-fructose story fodder for political columnists and reporters writing process-oriented campaign stories. The questions last night were simply lazy, poorly written, of no consequence, and, in the end, just all too easy to dismiss for those two who may one day be leader of the free world."

See video and comments re idiotic debate questions
See video and comments re idiotic debate questions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html

We didn't have this sort of crap when The League of Women Voters ran the debates.

BBB

Where Is the League of Women Voters When We Need Them?
Where Is the League of Women Voters When We Need Them?
by Marty Kaplan
Posted April 16, 2008

Would someone please get the networks out of the presidential debate business?

The networks and the national press love their gotchas, their -gates, their "controversies," their heat. They, alas, are not the grownups in the political process. The grownups are the voters, who -- lamely, in the mind of the political class -- are troubled by the war, the economy and boring stuff like that. Stuff that networks think make for lousy television.

I don't blame news producers for doing what they think their job is, which is scoring bragworthy Nielsens. I don't blame political talking heads for being infatuated with the narratives that they themselves create and market. Blaming them would be like blaming babies for banging their spoons on their highchairs, or addicts for wanting their fix.

But I do blame the candidates, the campaigns and the parties for being complicit with the corporate politainment circus. The first ten people in the phone book could do a better job of asking candidates questions that voters care about. There is no freaking reason in the world to grant the networks a rotating monopoly on staffing and broadcasting these debates. The whole media political system we now suffer from is tilted entirely toward trivial combat, pathetic niggling over words, ridiculous sideshows, and inside baseball. Now that we know how awful it can be, are we really powerless to stop it from continuing to waste our time and turning our political process into a third-rate version of a condescending reality show?

Sorry, I've just got to get a grip on this bitter thing.

Amen to the League of Women Voters. The nearest thing to unbiased political coverage we ever had.

<groan>

[URL=http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/ten-million-tune-to-abcs-debate/]Ten Million Tune To ABC's Debate[/URL] More than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday's Democratic debate on ABC, [b]making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season.[/b]

The primary race is nearing its climax, interest ripples ever further out from us hardcore junkies who've almost already had enough -- and what do those first-time watchers get? The worst debate of the season, apparently. I'm sure that'll do wonders for people's views of politics.

Read your post and groaned too..

Maybe it's not that bad though? I don't know if I can find this back but I remember reading about one of those focus group thingies, you know, turn the dial to show how you react to a statement, and it seemed to indicate that for them, Obama did way better than Hillary.


Found it!



(Emphasis mine.)

http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/04/will-there-be-a.html

and yet twice as many people watched American Idol.... we do indeed have the government we deserve...

I do not watch TV, but I have heard the debate on the radio and am grateful for Obama's "elitist" comment because it shows a level of honesty, not to mention his ability to strike back since Clinton pounced. Obama does not miss an opportunity to explain himself well.

Shame on you, ABC


April 17, 2008 9:00 am

It's been building over the past couple of months, as we waded through endless cable talk shows about Obama's "pastor problem" and his "bitter" remarks and Hillary's Kosovo claims. Gradually, it's become clear to just about everyone that the American media aren't informing them or helping to sort through difficult issues in the course of this presidential campaign, and are instead focusing on the trivial, the silly, the truly insignificant, as though these kinds of effluvia constitute the reasons why we vote.

And we've had enough.

This trivialization of American political discourse reached a real nadir last night with ABC's handling of the Democratic presidential debate. The gossipy, absurd nature of the questions in the first hour were so obvious that the audience reacted loudly -- not to the candidates themselves, but to the questioners.

That booing you heard last night, ABC? It was for you.

Bad enough that the questions were trivial -- even more notable was that it seemed as though they had been concocted by right-wing talk-show hosts, since they all were built out of right-wing talking points. And well, whaddya know?

Hannity asked George what kinds of questions they'll be asking at the debate tomorrow and they discussed a few things. When Hannity asked about the first question below about Ayers and whether George had plans to ask such a question, George replied, "Well, I'm taking notes now Sean." It did actually sound like he was pausing to take notes.

There's no small irony in Sean Hannity demanding to know about Obama's supposed unsavory connections to people who once were radical terrorists. Sean Hannity, the onetime friend of Hal Turner.


Turner, you'll recall, has made something of an ugly name for himself in recent years with his frequent calls for the assassination of various figures, including judges overseeing the cases of white supremacists and various members of Congress. Max Blumenthal has all the details. And of course, it's always fun to watch Hannity lie and scramble for cover whenever Turner's name gets brought up on his show.

But Hannity is only one of many serial prevaricators working the dark mines of TV broadcasting these days. Indeed, it's become clear that they're all just one big circle-jerk, handling tips from one another and passing them along like they were nectar from heaven itself.

The rest of us, however, have a decidedly different view of the proceedings. And until it improves, we're going to keep booing.


Video: Crowd Boos Gibson

Heh, just saw the video... hit a good tone! The "brushing dirt off" gestures were great...

Partly true, partly not so much.

In short: yes, apparently the non-stop onslaught of trivia allegations against Obama in the long first part of the debate just made undecided viewers sympathise with him.

But in the second part of the debate, when at least some issues of substance were raised (taxes, social security, Iraq, guns, affirmative action) -- in whatever hapless way (including Charlie Gibson's extensive certified nonsense on capital gains taxes) -- he was clearly beaten by Hillary.

Someone at Kos, a diarist called Michael D, painstakingly tracked "the live chart that 6-ABC in Pennsylvania is airing of undecided voters' ratings of the candidates during the debate" ("for live video, paste this in Windows Media Player."):

Live Polling of Undecideds During Debate

He warns:


But nevertheless, it's pretty revealing which parts of the debate made those undecided voters push the dial down for one candidate, and up for the other.

Nick Beaudrot, the graph geek at Cogitamus, then took these numbers and mapped them out. Interesting!