The bonfire of the ABC
 |
|
Taint |
In the best of times, South Asia rarely gets interjected in presidential debates. Pakistan gets all the attention because its border is teeming with Al Qaeda and its leaders come with hands outstretched. China gets vaguely mentioned as an economic threat, and sometimes India alongside, the new hyphenated relationship.
So when a presidential debate comes off like the one last night, where 65 of the 120 minutes were spent on questions for idiots like, ‘Are you patriotic?’ and, ‘Why don’t you wear a flag pin?,’ when more than an hour was 100% policy-free water-carrying for Rovian smear houses, when it looked for a very long time that the Iraq war would not even be discussed, when the moderators, claiming to be serious pundits, introduced questions so gossamer, they would embarrass the National Enquirer, where ABC introduced its own stain upon the blue dress of American political history, you know that the world’s largest democracy will not make even a token appearance on the transcript.
You know that what little mention of Pakistan arises will come from Obama’s camp, not Clinton’s. You know that ABC just wasted 10 million viewers’ time. You know that the staid Gray Lady deign to mention what an inane train wreck it was.
But every other viewer with a brain, and even a few MSM columnists, will not make that mistake.
on Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 11:59 pm in Barack Obama, Debate, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
sad. i think i have debate fatigue…
and the preoccupation with the lapel pin does my head in. but yea it seems to be a major issue for so many. like the old lady i sat next to on a flight to minneapolis sunday. she also had a “cute little nickname” for obama (ali baba), and wondered aloud whether he was a “mohammadan.”
she’s totally my new bff
The best question was by George S. : “Sen. Obama, Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do??”
- How pathetic!!!
- Jon Stewart’s take On the debate
I think the post compared Stephanopoulos to an over eager intern which I thought was funny. There were no questions about trade deals, Colombia, Mark Penn and Geraldine, but there was lapel pin, Wright’s love of America, Weather Underground. I think Gibson and George were close to asking Barack if he was a secret Muslim.
Sorry for multiple posts, I don’t believe there was any follow up to Hillary’s assertion of a Middle East security umbrella and her position on a serious retaliation in case of an attack on Israel. The best part for me was Barack’s comeback in response to serving on the some charitable board with Ayers.
ABC’s a tool of Disney, so their vapid content should come as no surprise.
Or about the Clintons’ fundraising and speaking fees cesspools, which may be skirting the edges of the bribery laws.
Wow, someone in a debate got asked some tough, some inane, and some silly questions. Quelle horror. That’s never, ever happened in the history of our Republic before, and I’m sure democracy will end.
You do realize all the outrage makes your candidate look weak? Everyone gets asked bad, off-topic, and loaded questions in a campaign and every side is convinced the media is a) biased to the left, b) biased to the right. If, indeed, it is biased, shouldn’t the little lambs seeking the decider crown prepare for the inevitable roughing up?
Colbert was sharper than Stewart on this.
It wasn’t biased, Obama is the vote leader. It was trivial, unprofessional and disrespectful of 10M viewers’ time.
And, uh, given the, uh, answers, to, uh, the capital, uh, gains tax question, are you so sure you want a lot of questions on substance? I mean, if you think the capital gains tax should be raised, shouldn’t you be able to explain why more clearly? It wasn’t all just the bad questions, you know….
*I am actually sort of enjoying this election silly season because I don’t really have an all abiding love, or even tepid like, for any of ‘em - all three, I mean. Meh.
**There have been over 20 other debates where health care and Iraq, etc. was discussed, often to stultifying, boring and at times down right unedifying detail. Get over it.
***I feel like a Hill-blogger. This is fun!
I just know you spend more time here than at Power Line.
I agree with Manish in number 8, Ed Rendell who is a Hillary supporter thought the early questions of the debate were unreal.
Huh? I never read Powerline.
Realclearpolitics and Instapundit, but never Powerline. It’s not my kind of thing.
Seriously, let me put my ‘for Obama’ hat on. First off, the guy is looking good today - he’s funny and, at least in his prepared pieces, makes light of the controversies in a way which make him seem cool and unflappable. “Oh, he’s good,” I thought, seeing him dust off his shoulder in that clip everyone is talking about. “He’s good!”
Second, his advisors need to get him ready for a rough general and he has to learn how to take any question, fair or not, and handle it well. All this stuff is gonna come at him, and hard. So this debate let him have an early look at what he will face. If he uses it to prepare more effectively, it is a net plus.
:) See, I can be nice and not just a wingnut!
Oh, nevermind. I clicked the link. No, I hate TMZ with a passion. Plus, I don’t even know half the people they are talking about.
It’s not just ABC– this gets better. Today’s CNN Situation Room segments:
- Hillary’s outrage over Obama’s outrage over the debate questions being silly and trivial. Seriously, these guys don’t even listen to themselves.
- A look at the Weathermen, a 50-year-old historical incident which has tremendous relevance to today’s domestic issues because one of the candidates may have been on the board of an organization with someone.
These guys should either give up their spectrum or just read print media on air. With all the advantages of video and the fiscal advantages of accepting megacorp advertising, the fluff they put up is beyond pathetic.
I mean, this is the crap that circulates sub rosa via email or hastily xeroxed smear memos stuck under wiper blades in church parking lots, and they’re claiming it’s worthy of national discourse.
That a handful of bloggers are putting our far more substantive (though column-like and opinionated) political discourse than these stuffed shirts is just sad. Gibson discredits the intrinsic authority of old men in suits. You can never again spot them any age-based gravitas when this is the sort of inanity they’re spewing.
Best response so far.
The capital gains tax was a substantive question? In what economic policy universe?
Gotta agree with the big Man(ish)…. It reminds me of India 10 years ago when the
politicians were falling over themselves to rename British-based streets/cities… as
if that accomplished anything.
Classic tactic of trying to distract the populace with “manufactured” controversies.
Look at the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. they can’t even vote and 1/2 the population can’t
drive, but their government distracts with the state of Israel.
Haha, No Von Mises. Yeah, no one cares about capital gains tax or any of that jazz. It’s just a manufactured issue of no importance to any person in the US. You know, Obama’s still gonna win, but if he does lose in the fall (unlikely), it will probably be because his supporters are so glass-jawed, and think the big O’s so glass-jawed, they’ll prevent him from toughening up for the general. Quite Alannis Morrissette ironic, no?
I have nothing useful to add to this thread. Nothing. NOTHING, I tell you… except that alanis morissette is anagram for sinister oatmeal, and that i wish that my beard will grow long and beyond my tubers so i could stand around swami like, busking in the yonge and bloor subway stop going ‘thank u thank u toronto’. i leave you with these meaty thoughts. thank u … yaaa yyy yaaa yyyy