Both the Washington Post's wording and its placement -- buried at nearly the very bottom -- said it all: "The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action."
There was scarcely time, you see, to discuss the Iraq war or the collapsing economy, because ABC News was more interested in the primetime programming of a political passion play than some dull, dry distraction of a substantive debate.
"So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person’s statement, if it’s not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death," observed Sen. Obama last night. "And that’s what Senator Clinton’s been doing over the last four days."
And if Sen. Clinton isn't available, we always have Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous.
I'm going to assume that these two watchdogs of the public interest huddled before the debate and, as an exercise in at least feigning professional pride, asked themselves: "OK, which do we want here? Responsible broadcast journalism or tabloid pandering?" -- followed by several minutes of uninterrupted, knowing laughter. "Right. Silly question."
What an odd little show that was, and what a recurrent sucker I am. What with a couple wars going on, and going south, and an economy accompanying them, I thought Charlie and George just might devote the mother lode of their time to ... oh, let's see ... war and economics? How foolish of me.
Instead we were treated to network reruns of fallen pastors, clinging citizens, rehashed sniper fire, flag pins and 1960s bomb throwers.
No, I didn't expect a graduate seminar on macroeconomics or a Brookings Institution symposium on geopolitical strategy, but something perhaps midway between those and an abridged campaign press release would have been doable -- if only we didn't first have to ponder at length the presidential ramifications of Barack Obama having once encountered the obscure personage of a William Ayers.
"The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense," observed Obama with a befuddlement surpassed only by my own.
But ah, retorted Clinton, joining in on the good fun at the Charlie & George Show, the English professor had said something that was "deeply hurtful to people in New York ... and I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising."
The Republicans? Will be raising?
Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopolous must have suspected that they might run out of irrelevant steam at some point, so, waiting in the can were taped irrelevancies straight from Booboisie Central, such as one lady's searing question posed to Sen. Obama: "I want to know if you believe in the American flag."
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard it with my own ears, and I have no idea how the Illinois senator suppressed what I would have found to be the unsuppressible urge to guffaw in disbelief. But that's just one of the many, many excellent reasons I would never in a sane moment even consider running for public office in this tribalistic freak show of a democracy.
Clinton was subjected as well to a piercing man-on-the-street question. Tom wanted to know how, after demonstrating her knack for racking up Washington Post Pinocchios with unequaled abandon, she could possibly win back his trust. "Well, Tom, I can tell you that I may be a lot of things," Clinton responded, "But I'm not dumb" -- however I am hoping and clinging to my religious faith that you and millions of others are.
Now that was a cheap shot, was it not? I'm sorry. And like Mrs. Clinton, "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" the mattresses to squeeze it in before feeling obligated to apologize.
Well, damn it, there I went, delivering another cheap shot. But I do have a collective excuse. And this time, I'll let Sen. Obama speak for me:
"If it's not [the Wright thing or the 'bitter' thing or the sniper fire thing], then it would be something else. I promise you, if Senator Clinton got the nomination, there will be a whole bunch of video clips about other things. [But] the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again ... I think doesn't give the American people enough credit."
Color Charlie and George and ABC News guilty. And may Pennsylvanians and the inspirational founders of the National Constitution Center forgive them.


I Forgot The Mute Button
For a long time I have been watching political debates by muting everything but the candidates' answers.
Somehow I forgot to do that last night. Perhaps the Charlie and George performance was such a train wreck that I just could not pull my ears away.
These guys are masters at asking questions that have no satisfactory answers. "Would you be stupid enough to continue troop withdrawal in Iraq if this would produce a disaster or would you instead go back on your promise to the voters that you would withdraw troops?" And , by the way, when did you stop beating your spouse?
The other technique that Chuck used was to state a whole bunch of fiction about capital gains taxes and then ask a question based on his faulty premise. Most of what he said was completely wrong. The fragments that might have possibly been true were stated in a misleading way.
I was there when they lowered the capital gains tax. You could hardly find a company that paid a decent dividend anymore. Companies shifted to focusing on producing capital gains. It wouldn't surprise me at all if capital gains tax collections went up because of this skewed corporate behavior.
The secondary consequence on this emphasis on capital gains instead of dividends was to disfavor the one financial action that a corporation can't fake. Paying dividends uses real money, not just bookkeeping entries. Do you suppose Enron could have continued its fraud if it had to pay actual dividends?
debate
Figured out why Hillary is still running
vetting
TRASH NIGHT -- IN BOTH SENSES OF THE WORD
Additionally
You're Absolutely Right---Grandmother!!
What the....?
Spring Training
A slight correction, not meant to be difficult,
Mid-Season Form....
Hillary's Israel Plan will play out in the next few days
this is actual news!
Summation of the ABC
Even stupider
You really ought!
"... I would never in a sane moment even consider running for public office in this tribalistic freak show of a democracy."
Try it, you'll like it.
I've done it for no other reason than to inject the matters that all other candidates and their media usually hide from public purview.
It's a whole lot of fun, even if in the long run, posturing tribal freaks prevail anyway.
and what about Mrs. Clinton on Israel?
This is why I never watch the MSM for news!
They wouldn't know news if it bit them in their asses! It is amazing that with so many truly smart people in America, this is what we get as "talking heads". They are talking heads with no brains in them.
Thankfully, online polling after the debate showed that Obama won by 72% to Hillary's 28%. She should have taken the high ground and demanded a fair and balanced questions. But no, she does not understand that American's do believe in fair play.
It was just slimy. I know I took a shower after watching it and I am sorry that I wasted that 90 minutes on it.
I am writing ABC and those dunderheads and giving them a piece of my mind. I can spare it and they could use it!
Seems like they might think that Obama might be the next President and that they might have a problem getting access to him. I would certainly give first choice to those who have been fair through the whole process.
ABC/FOX News
public service
If you want to watch a real
Bitter in Florida
Amen...
President Obama
Tit for Tat
debate
Burning issues