Obama '08?

I'm going to do my Nation column this week about last night's debate, but one thing I found particularly offensive, aside from the atrocious questioning, was, from the standpoint of sitting in the audience, the way CNN producers purposely ginned up the crowd to cheer over and over, as if they were pom-pommed cheerleaders at a high school pep rally. This is a ridiculously immature manner in which to conduct an alleged debate on the nation's future, but it also interfered with the debate itself, as a bunch of rowdies in the crowd felt empowered to shout over the candidates' answers. Overall, it was an abysmal performance, but I'll have more ordered thoughts later in the week. I thought Joe Biden "won" the debate by the way, not that it matters... The loser was Wolf Blitzer.

This is a ridiculously immature manner in which to conduct an alleged debate on the nation's future

"Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans. But when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney.

"On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And [meaning but] she has said privately to people, because it's been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans. ."

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, I respect all of my colleagues on this stage -- (laughter) -- and, you know, we're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the very best person we can to win. [This was said with a very charming smile and excellent comic timing]. [At this point the camera angle took in Joe Biden laughing with what seemed to be a knowing attitude] And I don't mind taking hits on my record, on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook because what I -- (cheers, applause) -- what I believe is important is that we put forth what we stand for. I have been active for 35 years. The American people know where I stand.

You know, Senator Edwards raised health care again. When Senator Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn't for universal health care. I'm glad he is now. But for him to be throwing this mud and making these charges, I think, really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America -- (cheers, applause)

"What do you think -- Senator Biden, here's the question. What do you think about this exchange among Democrats? Is that good for the Democrats or is it bad?"

The boos were in response to the attack mode of Edwards and Obama. Which have been ongoing for months.

Biden would be okay and probably Romney although I don't care for him much. Huckabee might fall into the too religious category in the context mentioned above. Tancredo, Obama, Hill, Kucinich and Rudy are def off my list so far.

au1929 wrote:

The boos were in response to the attack mode of Edwards and Obama. Which have been ongoing for months.

Oh come on. For months they were just pussyfooting around each other. Obama weirdly refusing even to mention Hillary by name when trying to describe their differences. All mouthing consensual platitudes in the debates. These are primaries, we want to know how they are different from each other and why we should think one has better ideas than others. You need debate.

The things Obama and Edwards have said so far have all been substantive. Some I agree on (Iran), some I dont (social security), but they're all about something. And it sure cant hurt to actually see how Hillary deals with being challenged and criticized in a high-profile contest. So far it had seemed like she was going to just cruise through to the nomination without anyone even making it hard for her.

I do too.

The monkeys in the zoo are boring by the side of this show except for the occasional fracas.

I wonder what it all means come next November when the concerned and responsible US citizen walks into the curtained enclosure to help decide all our destinies.

Voting causes you to get bad leaders all the time. At least with an aristocracy you have a chance.

One supposes that the Bush/Clinton dynastic theories represent a deep urge for a type of aristocracy. A watered down one obviously.

So far she's doing pretty well, I'd say. I agree there should be debate on substantive issues, .......

Lola wrote:

So far she's doing pretty well, I'd say. I agree there should be debate on substantive issues, .......

Yeah, like diamonds and pearls?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312003,00.html

Question, was this another planted or pre-arranged question that Hillary knew was coming? Just curious.

No, I have no information. I just thought it was a weird question that Hillary seemed to not be surprised at and answered quickly. I just got the feeling the whole debate was rigged, thats all. I have no proof, but can anyone be blamed for being suspicious? After all, it has not been me that raised the spector of CNN standing for Clinton News Network.

Again, I could be wrong,

Paul Krugman isn't liking Obama's position on Social Security:

Paul Krugman wrote:

Played for a sucker

There, in a nutshell, is the lingering concern a lot of folks on the Left have with Barack Obama: his policies are suitably progressive, but his framing of those policies, from his constant invocation of bipartisanship to his occasional violation of progressive taboos (e.g., lecturing teachers about their opposition to merit pay, and bloggers about their "incivility", and consorting with anti-gay gospel singers), makes them suspect he's really talking past them in order to appeal to the David Broders of the political world.

Perhaps Singer just thinks it's a framing problem, or perhaps he doesn't. [M]y problem, though perhaps not Singer's, has nothing to do with framing. There just is no crisis. Obama actually acknowledged this when he transitioned somewhat disjointedly under Singer's questioning to modify his statement about a crisis to instead say that Social Security has a 'long-term financing problem' instead of a crisis. Kilgore may or may not understand the financing model of Social Security, [..] but it's pretty clear that Obama's implicit desire for a 1983 style bipartisan commission is simply a regressive move to raise payroll taxes and cut benefits. That commission simply allowed a tax hike on the working class to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy, all in the name of dealing with the phony Social Security crisis.

The problem, of course, is that Clinton also believes that Social Security needs to be made more solvent, so there's not really a great contrast here. The DC Villagers want to just do bad things to Social Security, and they gin up crisis and solvency lingo to justify it. It's actually what they are very good at in general, ginning up crisis rhetoric to justify things they want to do anyway.

I agree there should be debate on substantive issues, but subtle accusations and grasping at straws for evidence is pretty boring to me too, not to mention insulting to our intelligence. Let's hear some real debate on the issues.

The fireworks seem to be getting the headlines this morning, and the general consensus is that Hillary Clinton did what she needed to do to stop the bleeding. But this was also the debate that did the best job of clarifying some distinctions among the candidates on the issues. For instance, the exchange between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the pros and cons of the so-called "individual mandate" in health care reform--really the only substantive difference between his plan and hers--was clear and sharp on the tradeoffs of each approach. And the back and forth over raising the $97,000 income cap on Social Security brought into focus the fundamental question that could drive the politics of any reform effort: Is it going to be an insurance program or a welfare program?

Everyone seems to have been complaining that there are far too many of these debates. Maybe the problem has been not the number of them, but rather, the timing. It is really as the candidates go into the home stretch that they finally feel the need to spell out what the real choices are.

Question, was this another planted or pre-arranged question that Hillary knew was coming? Just curious.

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened? Writes Luisa:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."

[..]

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

CNN Spokesman Confirms Network Chose "Diamonds And Pearls" Question

Okay, we've got some more detail for you on the controversy surrounding CNN and the girl who asked Hillary whether she prefers "diamonds or pearls" at the close of last night's debate.

Specifically, a CNN spokesperson confirmed to me that the network chose that question and asked her to ask it.

But in the network's defense the spokesperson also says that the girl wasn't "forced" to ask it. She submitted the question in advance -- it was her question -- and voluntarily agreed to ask it. CNN selected the question and asked her towards the close of the debate if she wanted to ask it. She said yes.

As you may have heard by now, the girl said on her MySpace page that she was forced to ask this question and that she would have preferred to ask one about Yucca Mountain. She said this in response to the storm of criticism and ridicule the question has since received. [..]

Hillary's rivals are accusing CNN of going soft on the frontrunner, and they're pointing to this question, among other things, as proof of this.

Here's how the whole thing unfolded, according to the spokesperson. Questioners were told in advance that they didn't want duplicate questions to be asked on topics that were already covered. The spokesperson argues that Yucca Mountain had already been discussed for some time as the debate wound down last night.

According to the spokesperson, as the debate drew to a close, CNN wanted to ask one last question. A CNN employee (it's unclear who) asked the girl if she wanted to ask the "diamonds and pearls" question. She said yes.

A CNN official is already on record telling Marc Ambinder that she chose the question. But as the above makes clear, CNN's spokesperson is confirming that the network in fact chose it.

So this is both better and worse for the network. On the one hand, it's better because the question was originally submitted by the girl, and it's obvious that the girl was hardly "forced" to ask this; rather, she was offered the opportunity and took it. The network wanted to close on a light question, and they chose this one.

On the other hand, the network is confirming that it did in fact choose a question that quizzed the first credible female Presidential candidate on her taste in jewelry. That's confessing to some pretty questionable taste.

I think it's finally started. I think Edwards is doing a great job highlighting real, substantive differences.

Okie wrote:

Again, I could be wrong,

Say it ain't so, Okie. You're always right and never wrong. Of course you're not paranoid. I got an email from Hillary tonight telling me she staged the question specifically for your benefit and she hopes the $20 it cost her won't be in vain because she is betting that you will take this item and post it everywhere because with your reputation it will make her look more the victim of a vast right -wing conspiracy of wing-nuts.