ABC's awful debate.
I haven't seen the whole of last night's debate, only the highlights that I have managed to see on You Tube but, other than a question about landing in Bosnia to Clinton, the rest of the questions appear as if they could have been set by the Hillary campaign team.
And that's certainly the tone of the comments on ABC's own website, with a very large amount of viewers complaining. ABC eventually turned off the comments section such was the barrage of abuse towards them.
At a this crucial moment for our country we need a well informed electorate. Stephanopolis and Gibson could have really served this country, but they chose to be shallow and insignificant. They are traitors to our democracy and very unpatriotic. they are the loosers. However, maybe this hit job will turn on them and the blatant abuse will create sympathy for Senator Obama. To think a Network would turn on one candidate and abuse their power so grossly. I will boycot ABC untill they apoligize and make amends. I want justice!This was the worst debate I've ever seen. ABC "news" did a horrible job with mindless republican talking points questions. I want to hear grown-up questions! Americans are waking up and I suggest that ABC wakes up also. Just give us the facts! I'm so tired of republican taking points! I will only watch PBS or BBC news exclusively until our media grows up and quit "playing to" a VERY unpopular republican party! Just the facts... please. Sigh...Tonight, ABC News made even Fox News seem legitimate and that is no easy task. I'm shocked Gibson and Stephanopoulos didn't ask Sen. Obama about his bowling ability, or inability, and Sen. Clinton about what whiskey she prefers or pretends to prefer. No wonder the internet is now viewed as a more reliable and valuable source of information than the network news, for lack of a better word, organizations. The media often openly wonders why the public craves the irrelevant and then they give us a debate like this. The moderators set the tone of a debate and the tone of this debate was just slightly above The Jerry Springer Show. I'm shocked there wasn't a paternity test revealed during the debate. Getting an opportunity to question 2 out of the 3 people who may be our next president, ABC News spent little or no time on Iraq, the economy, the national debt, America's reputation in the world, or a host of truly important issues. Tell me how Rev. Wright's angry sermons are going to help stabilize our economy? How is the lack of sniper fire in Bosnia in the 90's relevant to the level of violence in Iraq? These controversies are not totally irrelevant but they are controversies and not issues. These are not topics to discuss when you have less than 2 hours to question these candidates. Bottom line, ABC News focused on controversies rather than issues and needs to go to back to Journalism 101 to learn the difference. I used to watch ABC News but I won't be watching ABC News for quite some time if ever.
Here, in a longer clip, Obama more than holds his own:
However, from what I can tell - and even the New York Times appear to conclude - Obama appears to have come under heavy fire with questions that could have been set by Hillary herself. From the New York Times:
It was the first time the two candidates had shared a debate stage in seven weeks, and it came six days before a primary in Pennsylvania that could determine whether Mrs. Clinton can continue her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. It could also prove to be the last debate between them.I've just visited Taylor Marsh's site and she's practically doing cartwheels, so I presume Obama was stitched up last night. Booman summed it up with this:
Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton did not let an opportunity pass as she repeatedly challenged Mr. Obama on his record and views — assisted, as it turned out, by vigorous questioning by the two moderators from ABC News, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous.
The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances.
Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos took a giant crap on democracy tonight and then had the gall to ask Barack Obama why he doesn't wear a flag-pin on his lapel, as if this were an issue of interest to Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania.I'm actually glad I couldn't find the whole thing online as it sounds simply awful.
UPDATE:
Lost in the noise about how one sided the questions were is the fact that Hillary has admitted that she simply lied when she was talking about Bosnia:
Q Senator, I was in your court until a couple of weeks ago. How do you reconcile the campaign of credibility that you have when you've made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tom, I can tell you that I may be a lot of things, but I'm not dumb. And I wrote about going to Bosnia in my book in 2004. I laid it all out there. And you're right. On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it. I've said it was a mistake. And it is, I hope, something that you can look over, because clearly I am proud that I went to Bosnia. It was a war zone.
She clearly didn't misspeak or whatever else she claimed at the time. She is now admitting to saying "some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case." That's the clearest admission which one could hope for. She's just admitted flat out lying.
UPDATE II:
Sadly, No has issued a number for people to complain to ABC:
UPDATE II:
Sadly, No has issued a number for people to complain to ABC:
Main ABC switchboard: 212-456-7777Tags:
Please be polite. Let the people at the ABC switchboard know that you are not upset at them. Ask them politely if they would convey to someone in charge how deeply displeased you were with the questions in tonight’s debate. Let them know that you are distressed that it took the “reporters” moderating the debate a full 45 minutes to ask one single question about substance.
Seriously, folks, I’ve just about had it with our pathetic, petty “press corps.” The people who ran this debate deserve to be shamed and humiliated. Please help out.
(Thanks to Atrios for the number.)
UPDATE: A little bird has informed me that when you call, you should ask for News, and then press 2 then 199. Then you can leave a message for “Other News.” Also, this is the personal e-mail complaint form. I’ve lodged a complaint here as well, and I urge you to do the same.
4 comments:
I watched the debate, and as someone who can't stand either candidate (thus making me as impartial as you're likely to find around here on this subject), I can tell you that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did a fine job. It was nice for just once in these democratic debates to see the moderators throwing hardballs and hitting the candidates where they are least comfortable. They did it to both Obama and Clinton and I certainly didn't detect any bias. If anything Obama seemed to have been given a bit more time to speak than Clinton.
A major difference in this debate was that the moderators were not fawning over Obama. He was clearly uncomfortable at times and even flustered, such as when he stated that he disowned Wright (a blatant misstatement) and then backtracked when Clinton nailed him on it and said he meant that he disowned his words. The moderators did their job by raising the issues that have been making the news and giving the candidates an opportunity to address them.
I would have rather heard more on the relevant issues, but what I heard was enough to know that under no circumstances do I want either of them to become President. Quite honestly, they are so close together on issues such as healthcare, the economy, immigration, and foreign policy that the only way they can probably draw any major distinctions between themselves is to go after each other on these character related issues.
I watched the debate, and as someone who can't stand either candidate (thus making me as impartial as you're likely to find around here on this subject), I can tell you that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did a fine job.
I simply love how you think that not being able to stand either candidate makes you impartial. In what way? That you loathe them both with equal measure? That's impartial?
And I have read enough people saying that it was a disgrace to think that it probably was as bad as they say it was. Certainly, judging from the reaction of the viewers, your reaction was not a common one.
It all was so severe that even Jonah Goldberg admitted:
"I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying."
I simply love how you think that not being able to stand either candidate makes you impartial. In what way? That you loathe them both with equal measure? That's impartial?
As impartial as you're going to find. Certainly not any of your Obama man-crush cheerleading. I could care less for either one of them.
And I have read enough people saying that it was a disgrace to think that it probably was as bad as they say it was.
Of course the Obamatons such as yourself thought it was bad. It was the first time that he had to defend himself and looked quite uncomfortable doing so. Some luster came off of the sheen and his supporters don't like that. Even when he was complaining the next day about the debate he came off more like a whiny little bitch than anything else. And when she called him on being the whiny little bitch that he appeared to be, she came off like a hypocrite.
I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far.
Yep, he was put on the spot. Of course so was she about her Bosnia lies.
Nothing on any issues.
Actually they did talk about issues. They talked about foreign policy, income tax, and capital gains to name some of the issues addressed. And to be quite honest, they both came off horribly when discussing these issues, and couldn't adequately address the moderators when they challenged them on their positions. Neither did well when discussing foreign policy, although Obama, possibly already flustered, came out worse. While I detested both of their positions on raising taxes, I at least felt I knew where she stood better, whereas he came off like he was trying to dodge the specifics (at one point he said something like "it depends on how you do the math"). And his response on capital gains, when challenged by the moderators, was ridiculous. They stated the fact that revenue increased each time capital gains taxes were lowered, and when they challenged him on the reasoning for him wanting to raise capital gains taxes, reiterating the fax that revenues increase when that tax is lowered, he said regarding that fact, "I don't necessarily see it that way". Even on the issues he sucked, as did she.
Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall.
Certainly important since the RNC is going to throw far worse at him. The electability of the candidates is relevant.
But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.
Of course a "fighting Dem" would think issues that make their candidate of choice look bad are nothing but despicable distractions. But as the commentator states, they are valid. And as for Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos being "Republican water-carriers", that's just crazy talk. Both are considered liberals as even a cursory examination of their records will indicate.
But of course, you didn't see the debate, so you have no choice but to take the word of those who think just like you.
Of course the Obamatons such as yourself thought it was bad.
Jonah Goldberg, who I quoted, could hardly be described as an Obamaton.
Actually they did talk about issues. They talked about foreign policy, income tax, and capital gains to name some of the issues addressed.
I believe that they finally addressed some issues 45 minutes into the debate.
Certainly important since the RNC is going to throw far worse at him. The electability of the candidates is relevant.
I understand that the Republicans will prefer, come the election, to debate anything other than the issues and will concentrate on Reverend Wright and lots of other rubbish rather than debate the issues, we are used to this garbage from your side. But there really is no need for a Democratic debate to be filled with such nonsense, which is why ABC have been inundated with complaints.
But as the commentator states, they are valid.
As is the age of John McCain and the fact that he left his ill wife after numerous affairs. Would you rather discuss that for the next few months or the differences between Obama and him on policy?
And as for Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos being "Republican water-carriers", that's just crazy talk.
Goldberg did not call Gibson and Stephanopoulos "Republican water carriers" you are being disengenous now. He called the debate "Republican water carrying". What you seem to regard as important points which are valid in an election, most of us regard as Republican talking points. As I say, this kind of muck can be thrown by Republicans later, there was no need for ABC to throw it during a Democratic debate.
But of course, you didn't see the debate, so you have no choice but to take the word of those who think just like you.
I think the complaints have been pretty widespread and the fact that someone like yourself, who loathes both candidates, enjoyed it only reinforces my feelings that what I am reading was probably a correct summation.
Post a Comment