David Gergen on CNN thought both candidates were "pandering," Howard Fineman on MSNBC thought the debate was stale, and Patrick Buchanan, also on MSNBC, thought Barack Obama did not have a very good night ... but I thought it was the ABC-TV questioners who didn't have a very good night, and the candidates made this 21st Democratic debate the best so far. Hillary Clinton was her customarily clear debating self. But Barack Obama made some important progress in his continuing campaign to practice a new kind of politics in this election - one which respects the intelligence and rationality of the American.
Obama was hit with bevy of volleys about not wearing a flag pin, his friendship with Weatherman radical William Ayers, his relationship with Rev. Wright, etc.
And Obama pointed out that this is not what the election is about - and not what Americans are interested in hearing. These discussions do nothing to fix what is wrong with America.
There were some important questions mixed in with this trivia - about taxes, Iraq, soaring gas prices, and the like. Clinton and Obama both answered them well.
But as long as the media insist on harping on why a candidate does not wear a flag pin, the American people will have to work that much harder to get at the issues that count. (Hillary was hit by this harping too, when she was asked about her misreporting of her Bosnia experience.)
Obama has been staking his whole campaign on the Jeffersonian assumption that people are up to this task - on the view of John Milton, who thought that when truth and falsity, triviality and profundity, fight it out on in the arena of public opinion, truth and profundity will win.
It hasn't in the last two general elections, and the media aren't making it easy now, but I'm betting that even if truth doesn't prevail in the Pennsylvania primary next week, it will still make a good showing. And, whatever happens in Pennsylvania, it will prevail in August and, most importantly, in November.
11 comments:
I truly hope that this Jeffersonian ideal comes through this election cycle. Just as Bush took his re-election to mean he could try to get away with anything he wanted, I think the media would absolutely go to town with the nonsense reporting for every political issue over the next few years if they successfully distract voters this fall.
If people can actually dig through the insanity to learn about the real issues and make an informed decision this fall, maybe the media, if only in an interest to cater to the audience so they can sell more advertising dollars, will deal with real issues a bit more.
Of course, that might be too much to ask, but letting the mass media continue to get away with this is only going to lead to more problems in the future.
The best we can do is continue to call attention to what the media are doing wrong, Matt.
Your post on elites, by the way, was excellent!
Excellent post. You said it much better than I did.
Tonight ABC News showed themselves to be part of the problem. Barack Obama talked some tonight about how this type of silliness isn't what's really important and I think... well I'm hopeful that a majority of Americans will agree with him on that.
RE: Hillary --- The thing that most irritates me about the Clinton campaign is how she has stooped down to this level of Rovian politics and MSM tabloid "gotcha" nonsense. She always tries to hit Obama with whatever nonsense the MSM is running with... whether it's Wright or it's "bitter." That's really frustrating. I'd have so much more respect for her if she didn't stoop to those levels. I don't recall Obama's campaign ever saying anything about Bosnia? (if they have I'd like to see it pointed out?)
All we can hope for is that the good people of Pennsylvania wise up to Hillary's BS. I know it was awful for ABC to pull of this horrible stunt, but it was Hillary who jumped on and really took herself down with it. I hope she more than anyone gets called out for it. If she wanted to she could have really set herself apart and said I am here to talk about issues and stay focused. But her addiction to these kinds of negative attacks is what is going to sink her. And she loves it. She couldn't stop herself to be decent for one minute in that debate last night.
Paul -- I enjoy your political and cultural commentary every week. I find your forum full of very open, honest and knowlegable discourse. I too was disappointed with last night's performance by ABC news. I question the real purpose of the exercise last night (at least the first 50 minutes or so).
I equate the media's infatuation with political minutiae -- the flag pin, the nuances of "bitter", Rev. Wright (aka the old bogeyman), this Ayres character (aka the new bogeyman), elitism (aka playing with semantics) -- with sportswriters' obsession with steroids in baseball. The baseball writers have been stoking the fire of illegal substances in the game for quite a while now and frankly I don't think the average fan really cares. Baseball attendance keeps going up and teams are doing well. There is no groundswell of fan support to do anything about this. Steroids is primarily a media driven story; fans root for their players and teams. End of story. Similarly, these political non-stories seem to be the lifeblood of the media these days. The average American does not really care about this artificial drama. For our daily consumption of artificial drama, the average American prefers the flavor of the month reality TV series.
A word on elitism: Not too long ago (1990s) the Clintons ran for the White House with yuppies (i guess you would call them the nouveau elite at the time) as a major constituency. Hillary has lived all her life in the higher echelons of social life (attending the best schools including Harvard, followed by prestigious lawyering). Post-White House, the Clintons have benefitted tremendously amassing over $110 million dollars in revenues (I would say "wages" but that's a term for you and me, mere working-class types). Exactly who is the elite in this race? The word "elite" has been hijacked -- "liberal" now has a new school yard buddy to play with in the "words that have lost their original positive meaning" playground.
BTW, I have no problem with an elite vying for the highest office in the land. I would actually prefer it. To me to be "elite" is to be the best, a cut above -- extraordinary comes to mind. I don't want someone just like me to be president. I want someone who is better -- way better. The office calls for someone above-average, extraordinary -- do I dare say it, maybe even "elite." Anything less than that and you end up with George W. Bush ... a below-average priviledged one who has supremely misled this country in every whichway for the past 8 years. My next door neighbor (very much like you and me) could do a better job in the White House than the current occupant.
A word on bitter: I guess that the Clintons would sidestep this characterization with a claim that the meaning of the word "bitter" really depends on what "is" is .
My hope is that regardless of who you support, I beseech everyone to go out there and just VOTE. If we all did that routinely, we wouldn't be in this fine mess.
/jimy_max
I thought Clinton was a dive as usual. At least Obama made what appeared to be genuine attempts to answer the questions. I unfortunately only caught the last 20 minutes of the debate- so maybe Hill shined early on.
Obama on energy/gas I thought was better than Hill- emphasizing the need to improve efficiency and not ignoring the international demand will not be going down anytime soon. That kicked the snot out of Hill's one liner about oil dependency and 9/11
Obama was almost palatable on guns as well- Hillary didn't even bother to answer- and no one seems to remember that the 1994 assault weapons ban was a big ol' waste of time that did nothing to influence guns in crime. Yet she's still spouting her 'assault weapon (media made up phrase by the way) rhetoric. But hey- no one ever voted for Hillary based on results.
BO-2008 - Thanks. I agree that Hillary's jumping on media-nonsense to attack Obama is disappointing and irritating, to say the least. It's a significant part of what makes her a proponent of the old politics, however much she might say otherwise.
Scandalous - but I don't share the severity of your condemnation of Hillary Clinton. Obama's the better candidate, no doubt. But Hillary Clinton is far superior to John McCain.
anon: Excellent analysis - especially the steroid-in-sports analogy.
MikeSpot: You got lucky - the last 20 mins were the best :)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Keep 'em coming!
Mike-- You may know something more about this than I do, but isn't the "Our Lady of Peace Act" the tipping-point of a gun incident in NY? I was slightly confused when Hilary not only neglected to mention this... but pretend that it doesn't exist. I know Chuck Schumer takes the brunt of the attacks from 2nd Amendment supporters, but this did happen under Hilary's watch as well.
Paul: Tom Shales of The Washington Post wrote a great critique on Wednesday's debate ("In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC",
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html
Good reading material to go along with your morning coffee. Enjoy,
/jimy_max
why is ABC News skating on their miserable performance on Weds. debate. if you are going to question (more like skewer) Barack Obama on choices he made in his twenties (Rev. Wright, the murky shadow figure Mr. Ayres), it is also appropriate to ask the same questions of Hillary Clinton.
whereas, there may be some redemption in the Trinity United Church of Christ choice ... Hillary's successful quest to secure an internship at Truehaft, Walker and Burnstein, arguably the most radical law firm in the country at the time, is even more questionable and "Anti-American" -- that firm was the counsel of record for the Communist Party and Truehaft and Walker were members.
why did she pursue that association? So, that she could continue to defend the Black Panthers! when Black Panther leader Bobby Seale was on trial in New Haven for murdering a fellow Panther, Hillary and her friends were in the courtroom every day where she assisted his far-left lawyer, Charles Garry.
through Garry, Hillary met Communist Party activists Jessica Mitford and her husband, Robert Truehaft, for many years the Communist Party USA's attorney.
fascinated by the possibilities inherent in the Communist Party agenda, she actively pursued an internship at Truehaft, Walker so that she could "kill two birds with one stone". Carl Bernstein researched this issue ... but it hasn't gotten much traction!
About ABC: they also performed poorly last year in their dissing and worse of Ron Paul supporters - see my Rating the Networks from September, and related posts, for details...
This latest poor handling of Wednesday's debate continues to make ABC the worst major media organization in coverage of the Presidential elections.
Post a Comment