Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

ABC News, the Obama-Clinton Debate, and the Pressing Issues of Our Time

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

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.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter




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

I totally agree with your commentary and the patience Barrack showed in this ridiculous excuse for a debate was exemplary. Only makes me more sure of my vote for him. From the very first question, whether the winning presidential candidate would accept the other as his/her running mate through the questions focused on Barrack's friendship with the controversial pastor, it was obvious that this debate was going to be meaningless. I turned off the TV after about 15 minutes and I can't comment on what followed. I am not surprised by all of this, however. For some time the institutions of our country have been dominated by "politically correct" people and commercialism, and that is particularly true of the media. The motivation of these people in the media seems to be to try to pander to the largest mass of people in order to sell advertising airtime at as high a rate as possible. Discussing real issues in a rational manner is boring, hence they bring out the hot-button issues hoping that a candidate will stumble and the other will score a "knock-out". Unfortunately, the state of our media is only a reflection of the American social and educational system, which is clearly ailing.

Figured out why Hillary is still running

In the movie Primary Colors, there is a segment of the film where the Clinton-like characters had to make a decision about whether or not to use information against a campaign rival that could destroy him both politically and personally. The Bill & Hillary-like duo from the film argued that if they didn't use the nasty stuff the republicans surely would. It's clear to me now that Hillary seems intent on serving as the one who'll "vet" Obama, she basically said that much last night. If Hillary is as smart as everyone says she is she has to know the math makes her chances virtually impossible and her only hope is to score a huge gotcha moment against Obama. I'm expecting that once she's gone from the picture she'll make the excuse that she had to be sure that Barack would be ready for the GOP attacks, in that way she'll try making her case for 2012.

vetting

Michelle Obama used that word on The Colbert Report on Tuesday night, suggesting that the two camps have agreed to let Hillary "vet" Obama. The word evolved from "veterinary", and it means to test an animal's pedigree to make sure it has no undesireable genes in it. Although Michelle claimed that the candidates were vetting each other in this long campaign, it is clear who needs the vetting before facing McCain. We already know that Hillary is a mongrel.

TRASH NIGHT -- IN BOTH SENSES OF THE WORD

Joan Wile, Grandmothers Against the War -- I don't know how Obama had the self-control to calmly stand there and answer their insulting, nasty and dumb questions. Anybody else would have either walked off or gone over and punched those two so-called journalists in the nose. Although it appeared as if the two-man Goon Squad was "exposing" Barack in the hope that people would turn against him, on the contrary I think they exposed instead the mean-spiritedness and dumbing down of both the media industry and the other candidate, Hillary, who participated gleefully in the merciless pummeling. She is like the overnight guest who stays on for weeks long after her welcome has worn thin. Barack showed his real class when he refused to engage in back-biting Hillary over the Bosnia lie, and by so doing evidenced her sleazy lack of class by comparison. Bravo, Obama. Boo to ABC, which I will never watch again (except for maybe "Boston Legal," which, ironically, defends progressive causes consistently).

Additionally

[I don't know how Obama had the self-control to calmly stand there and answer their insulting, nasty and dumb questions.] ~Joan Wile. It all brought back memories of John F. Kennedy's mannerisms ... graciousness ... disciplined tolerance ... above their intentions ... smiling and demonstrating HIGH INTELLIGENCE. When he is the nominee, it won't necessarily be John McSame who takes Obama to task ... it will be the corporately owned media. They are scared to death of an Obama presidency as they should be. Obama is an overwhelming challenge to the power of the corporates and their media machines.

You're Absolutely Right---Grandmother!!

In addition to demonstrating HRC's (and ABC's) slime level---he had, at least, THREE opportunities to blow her right back out of the water. Instead, he took the high road. EVEN if you were not an Obama fan---you have to recognize the merits of genteel classiness! Further, will Bill be out after THIS debate--crying about unfair tactics being deployed?---somehow, I doubt it. But, there are SOME VERY SERIOUS ASPECTS to last nights debacle----if WE, the American public--saw the despicable depths to which ABC sank last night....and the EFFECT of it----only raises the bile level among most of us (even before the polls come out)----WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE MUCH FEARED IMPACT OF THE REPUBLICANS "ATTACK PLAN" after August? ......UUUUMMMM......Food for thought.

What the....?

I spent most of the two hour mugging with my jaw dropped and eyebrows wrinkled. I now remember why I quit watching ABC's "news" programs. Note to ABC: if you want to be a serious news organization, quit letting right-wing talk radio blow ideas into the vacuous heads of your news-models.

Spring Training

Last night was a good example of what Obama will face from the GOPs machine this summer and fall. So while painful and distracting, it was helpful for Obama to face off these attacks this spring – and they were in full flower last night. But their “talking points” lack substance and won't stand up with repeated use, not with the majority of American voters. Just like a window smear that initially obscures vision, but is easily cleaned off. Of course, Hillary's thinly veiled Republicanism became less veiled last night. She and her friend George Stepha#^&@lus’s nuanced attacks actually helped Barack since his responses were, on balance, excellent. As much as I lost faith in American voters in 2004; 2006 and 2008 demonstrate that the majority are feed up beyond recognition. I bet voters likely saw through Hillary and ABC's tired approach of distraction through character assassination. ABC News has been in the shadows of their competitors since Brinkley retired years ago...last night's charade won't help them address that problem.

A slight correction, not meant to be difficult,

You said: Last night was a good example of what Obama will face from the GOPs machine this summer and fall. That WAS the GOP machine you saw. Let's not hold to any illusions about who's what.

Mid-Season Form....

I agree,...to a degree..the problem with jejune debates like last nights is, Obama's policy of staying above 'gutter politics' raises his stock tremendously when standing next to HRC's slime; but it also allows the media (in the intervening days between the event and when the public's poll results kick in), to argue a false narrative of what THEY think happened, instead of what we KNOW happened---(in other words, don't believe your lying eyes). In addition, HRC feeds off this type of narrative----she knows that if Obama attacks her with an equal amount of zeal and ferocity--the NEW narrative then becomes, sexist, (HE's picking on me), racist, (the Black HE is picking on me), and one of victimization (THEY'RE ALL picking on me). Only a media with an ulterior motive would set the stage with a former Clinton minion (Press Secretary) allowed to conduct a 'debate' with one of the Clintons involved. You're right--Obama should certainly be prepared for the 'real deal' after August; but what does it say about us----that we're preparing more for the mud-slingin' to come from the Repugs----then, setting a standard of behavior that FORCES them to rise to a higher level? Their tactics most certainly will work when WE give them a tacit reality, rather than, much like Obama's example, we FORCE them to put the ball back in center court...and play the game fairly.

Hillary's Israel Plan will play out in the next few days

She sounded absolutely looney. Even Pat Buchanan thought this plan was sheer lunacy. She of course was playing to the right wing American Jewish vote. I get to say it: I'm an American Jew. Believe me, we have more right wing nuts about Israel in this country than they have in Israel. But her plan for some kind of Nato-esque militaristic protectionist plan came out of left field. She is a neocon -- hasn't anyone noticed?

this is actual news!

This was the only actual news that I saw come out of this latest dog and pony show. True to form, the press has largely ignored it. I'd really like somebody to ask some follow ups on this issue - like - would she ask Congress for a treaty or would she pull a Bush and unilaterally do whatever she likes? This is HUGE in terms of the policy implications.

Summation of the ABC

Summation of the ABC debate: Obama is bad because he knew somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who did something 20 years or so ago.

Even stupider

It was 40 years ago. Twice as ridiculous..

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?

Did anybody else catch Mrs. Clinton's Iran/Israel policy - that an Iranian attack on Israel would see a "massive retaliation" or something like that? I am unaware of any treaty that makes this statement viable without her seeking congressional approval. Is Mrs. Clinton going to continue in the vein of the imperial presidency? Obama was more measured in his response - staunchly defending Israel - but within the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch. I know it's not as fun as lapel pins and aging 60's radicals, but I thought it deserved at least a follow up. Of course, I'm not a professional journalist so what do I know about what's important?

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

Here's the phone number to call ABC News and let them have a piece of your mind on the disgusting sham of a debate: (212) 456-7777.

public service

Thanks - this phone number will be dialed today!

If you want to watch a real

If you want to watch a real debate you can probably do so at your local high school when debating teams square off. What I saw last night from ABC Disney was just a button down mugging, a high stakes version of the Jerry Springer Show with Obama as the punching bag.

Bitter in Florida

The good news is that I can delete "This Week in Washington with George Stephanopoulis" from my Sunday mornings, with Three Stooges Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson airing their out of touch views on the celebrity status of Washington insiders. I've been lured there by the rare visits by Robert Reich, but no more. When the former press secretary of President Clinton is the moderator of a debate between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, we see just how likey the debate turns into a hazing event. Still, it will no doubt help Obama to gird his loins against future Rethuglican attacks, AND it has pulled back the curtain a bit more for those who think the media (MSM) is so very LIBERAL.

Amen...

...took the words right out of my mouth.

President Obama

The asinine aspect to the debate was only a surprise to me because it all seemed to be right out of the Republican playbook. They are famous for focusing on things like lapel pins and guilt by association. What I found revealing was Clinton playing right into the moderators' bullsh1t and Obama's refusal to do as much. There was one exchange where the moderators slimed Hillary, she responded with a dig on Obama and when they gave Obama the chance to get back at her he wouldn't take the bait. Instead he defended her! I thought the debate was a brilliant opportunity to give Obama a preview of what's to come and an excellent showcase in his ability to drive home the fact that those matters are really trivial. The moderators and their ilk are truly out of touch with America. Capital gains tax? The Weather Underground? Lapel Pins? It's hard to believe these people breath the same air as the rest of us. I aprreciated his mentioning that he has confidence in the American people and that the American people are too smart to let crap like lapel pins be the deciding factor in choosing their president. Thanks for not treating us like idiots and thanks to ABC and the like for treating us like idiots in order to magnify just how out of touch they all are.

Tit for Tat

I agree and the republicans and corporate media will continue the got'cha format when Obama becomes the democratic candidate for the presidency. I am particularly amused at the guilt by association strategy. And if that continues to be a rotten ploy of the republicans I'd enjoy seeing Obama turn the guilt by association on their own disaster, Bush. The guilt by association? How about GW Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush breaking the law in WWII, by trading and supplying the Nazi enemy. I'd go as far to say that Bush's grandfather was a traitor. If I were Obama, I would keep that in mind to slap down the the association strategy. It is called fighting fire with fire or a tit for tat strategy.

debate

thanks to trenchant comments on the baseness of so-called journalists, those talking heads with air between the ears. Where indeed are the burning issues? Obama does rise above to level of Lincoln.

Burning issues

Let's see, what ARE those burning issues? Mortgages going up in smoke, the Constitution, the social safety net, dried-out male leaf?