- “If you are the one being criticized and everyone is talking about your responses did you win the debate because nobody seems to be mentioning the other candidate?” MSNBC’s Keith Olberman, 4/16/08 10:48pm approximately 90 minutes after the debate
Barack Obama did win the debate tonight but not by doing the things you would normally associate with what it takes to win one. Neither Obama nor Hillary were really offered the chance to win it in a traditional way. This was a debate where as Howard Fineman put it (And I’ll paraphrase because I don’t remember his exact words), “Four people did their best to hurt Barack Obama. There were the two moderators, Hillary Clinton and by proxy, John McCain.”
The great damage that was done tonight to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that this hurricane was unleashed on Obama and he handled it with poise. Of course, with all of this negative attention focused on him, if you evaluate the debate by more traditional measures you would have to give a slight edge to Hillary. The problem for Senators Clinton and McCain is that their slim hope is that they can portray Obama as unready or out of touch. Not only did Obama not appear that way, but by handling this onslaught, he proved he is eminently ready and can handle and perform under a lot of pressure. Even worse for her, Clinton was forced to admit under direct questioning that Obama is electable and can beat McCain.
One of the major storylines after this debate is going to be whether ABC will change its three letter name to RNC which would stand for “Republican Name Calling”. Every thing that the moderators could think of that might hurt Obama was raised and asked from a number of different angles. As both Keith Olberman and Howard Fineman said afterwards on Countdown, the four main Republican talking points on Obama were the center of the debate, Pastor Wright, Bitter, Flag Pin and Ayers. To be fair, Hillary did not come out of this debate unscathed. The moderators zeroed in on her poll numbers that showed that almost 60% of Americans don’t find her honest and trustworthy. That statistic was mentioned in the opening portion of a question that centered on Hillary’s misstatements on her trip to Tuzla, Bosnia. Thus, even though Obama was the center of negative attention, Hillary supporters have a lot to be unhappy about here as well.
Almost not talked about at all were the economy, foreign policy (except for two minor exchanges on the Middle East), NAFTA, the credit crisis, housing foreclosures or any of the other things that most Americans really care about. The only thing that the moderators put out as a discussion point relative to the economy was taxes. Moderators spent what seemed like a third of the debate talking about what taxes Clinton or Obama would raise or cut. If people lose their jobs and their homes then there wont be any taxes for them to pay. Focusing on taxes is a Republican way of thinking about the economy.
I think after this debate, Democrats are going to be reluctant in the future to agree to any ABC (aka RNC) debates. Before the debate was halfway complete, the blogosphere was erupting in outrage at the lack of questions about substantive issues. Obama wins this debate because everyone and this includes Hillary and the moderators behaved as if he is already the presumptive nominee and for Hillary to have changed that dynamic, she needed a knockout. The fact that a knockout wasn’t scored and no real harm was done to Obama at all despite the best efforts of Hillary and the moderators all trying to hurt him is bad news for Hillary. This was the last debate and her last chance to change the narrative of the race. Since she didn’t do that, it underscores the reality that she has lost this race. Speaking of losers, ABC is going to receive a lot of criticism in the mainstream media for the way they conducted this debate but the news is not all bad for them. They could parley this effort into a real play for a share of Faux, I mean Fox News’ conservative viewing audience. Or, with their perfection of a television version of Page 6 gossip journalism perhaps they can create a new reality show called political survivor.
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
Wasn't it ABC/Disney's Michael Eisner that proudly aired the mini-series/revisionists' history of 9/11 blaming everything on Clinton sometime last year?
Is there any reason to believe a debate by the Democratic candidates on his network would have any credibility whatsoever? I expected as much pap and fluff with designs to make them both look bad... er, I mean -worse.
You could look at it as the moderators and Clinton trying to steer clear of anything that Obama might blow them away with... He's no Bill Clinton when it comes to addressing people -but he'll damn well come across better than most when given an audience!
The entire thing might well have been strictly laid out to not allow him an opening...
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 2:44:11 AM
As you all know, although I like Obama I think the Dems ( their elite) are working for the defeat. The best way to have that defeat in a controlled way is to offer Hillary as a candidate, lose 100% 'with honor' and rejoice. Obama as a candidate is unpredictable- he, for instance may actually get sympathy over McCain in the upcoming Pres. debates; something which cannot be acceptable to the dealmakers.
I thus consider a scenario that the Dems had offered Obama something now for his.. carefully tarnishing his own reputation. He surely won the debate above but that debate's goal ( and the thing that nothing important was discussed proves it) was to tarnish him in the eyes of all those Pennsylvanians which ( as we all) don't like that some black guy ( YES) somehow evaluates them as people. If Hillary wins now in Pennsylvainia it would be easy for the Dem elitists to push her through. Now, my version assumes Obama to be considered an SOB and selling his chance for the party perks. But as I have said and that is my belief that those Dem party pushers, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING when it comes to their goals. So I would not be surprised if they not only promised good to him but also promised bad if he did not comply.
I would love to be wrong. But as I said before, Bill Clinton compensated Hillary for his infidelity by giving her a gift- the Demparty. She will not let that gift go. I thus just follow the logic.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 9:07:03 AM
I, too, was furious w/ABC. Not only because they ganged up on Obama, but because they focused on such "tabloid" (as Keith Olbermann pointed out) issues. They shirked their responsibilities as keepers of the First Amendment.
The thing that made me maddest at Hillary was when she not only laughed, but thorougly enjoyed the joke McCain made at Obama's expense. Remember when she complained about a "pile-on?" She sure didn't mind the shoe on the other foot, did she?
by
Amy Fried (40 articles, 114 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 213 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 9:17:27 AM
There's no doubt that the focus on "Bitter, Pastor Wright,
Flag Pin and Ayers" was shameful & disgusting, but it's unrealistic to expect anything else from the US media. I suppose one could argue that this performance by the media was even worse than usual, but the terrible big-picture truth is that last night was a pretty good illustration of how our corporate media really operates. It's utterly rotten, from the "top" (NY Times, WaPo, PBS) to the bottom (FOX, NY Post, etc). These outlets differ mostly in terms of style & relative crudeness, but they all draw their lines at the same places. In some ways, the more upscale outlets like the NYT are even worse than the blatantly sewer-level FOX, because they deliver the same basic propaganda, but more artfully & insidiously.
Though I feel sympathetic to your points here, I fear some of them verge on wishful thinking. For instance, the notion that the Dem Party might make some protest against an institution like ABC -- it would be nice if it were so, but I don't believe we'll ever see such a thing, any more than we'll see the Dems impeaching Bush, or refusing to fund the war. The sad truth is that in most respects, the Dem Party & companies like ABC are all allies. The Dem Party is organically incapable of launching a serious protest against ABC, because it would require advancing a serious critique of how the corporate media in general operate. The Dems can't do that, because they're agents of corporate rule, not opponents or critics of it. (Try to imagine the Democrats launching a serious critique of the corporate media. They'd get the same treatment Obama got for Ayers, Wright & Bitter. The Republicans would chortle happily that now the Dems were showing their true colors, sounding like Chomsky, SDS & other pinkos.)
To return to the theme of possible wishful thinking -- did Obama "win" last night, by dint of his poise when faced with extreme pressure? Well, I'd certainly like to think so. I'd like to think that Hillary's Rovian tactics & dishonest posturing were obvious to everyone. (I happened to tune in, just as she was shamelessly portraying herself as a courageous principled populist "standing up for the little guy" against the big pharmaceutical companies. Ugh!! She is beneath contempt.) I guess we'll see on Tuesday how many voters saw through her, & how many were able to appreciate Obama's clear superiority in terms of thoughtfulness & dignity.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM
Finally, some transparency for the "Torch Bearer" OR:
Finally, some fair and balanced bashing aimed at the "Chosen One." OR:
OBAMA UNDER BOMBARDMENT: BARACK O'BOMBED ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES VULNERABLE TO VICISSITUDES AND VISCOUS VARIATIONS....
He tried to coyly rearrange facts to suit his past rhetoric and got busted!
How many fibs and outright fabrications has this guy told on his trips across America? They are legion. The flag pin thingy, for example. By his own words is he ensnared...said he NEVER said he would NEVER wear the pin but the nytimes.com site has posted his former comment on this issue. And the NY Daily News has a piece reexaming his old and new statements. He weasles out of every question that addresses veiled animosity to American values and what we deem important.
His arrogance is deftly controlled but it is there if you listen carefully. He instructs us he is from humble, Kansas roots, though he was raised in fairly well-to-do circumstances, the best education money could afford, etc. Yet, he panders to the poor and minority communities, poor-mouthing, rewriting his history.
The Rev. Wright brouhaha is less about religious freedom than freedom to bite the hand that fed the good pastor. Last night, Obama's contrite recognition of how America opened its arms of opportunity for him didn't ring true. His "pulled-up-by-my-own-bootstraps" invention is hollow.
He is excellent at spinning and dodging direct question, which up this point have come few and far between. But caught between Hillary and a hard place, he was't so glib. And the ABC moderators, for whatever their reasons, cut him off at the pass. About time!
A question to Obamaphiles: how do you like them apples? Turn about is fair play. Oh, and I loved the way he retrenched to a "these are trivial issues" gambit. They aren't trivial to blue-collar citizens who are one pay check away from foreclosure and hanging on to a vanishing dream. He may have grown up in paradise but the state of Pennsylvania is Americana in a microcosim. Welcome to the real world, Senator.
Yes, we should move on to more important dilemmas--such as ending the nomination of Barack Obama asap.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM
for you to believe, as you obviously do, that the people of Pennsylvania are wearing the same sort of blinders that Hillary has distributed to her devotees.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 1:24:05 PM
Talk about bitter, just look at the supporters of Hillary
people who like you are so bitter and angry that their candidate is losing that they confuse a bad thing happening to Obama as a good thing happening for their candidate.
Very sad indeed.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 1:24:09 PM
In my research notes I got facts jumbled. The notation on "Obama Woe" comment referring to a New York Daily News citation is in error...no excuse proffered--I goofed and I am sorry.
What the NY Daily News story referred to was several OTHER issues in the debate last night: one was the Ayers Weather Underground question which Obama skirted by saying he was only a child (8 or 9?) when the Ayers movement was in progress and that Clinton's pardon of two movement menbers was worse. Someone pointed out that no, those two members repented their sins, whereas Ayers has not. Also, when Obama and Ayers met and broke bread at a political rally for Obama, the Senator was a great deal older and, therefore, was of accountable age.
Then there was the issue of gun control, where Obama claimed he never took the position of banning handguns, whereas Clinton staff passed out a questionnaire with his signature and writing which verified he had; the Obama people said he never saw the relevant page or another similar questionnaire.
Well, that's clear as mud and the beat goes on. But I aim to get it right.
Simply stated rebuttals to the fibracations (not a misspelling) Obama proffers routinely as reason to vote for him are usually met with "so sad; bitter; poor loser" epithets.
I recall the same phraseology was applied in the SCOTUS decision to adjudicate Bush into the White House in 2001. "SoreLoserman" was one of their infantile inventions, displayed proudly on signs around D.C. during the inaugural festivities. Oh, My Lord; I do hope we don't live to regret these little homilies of song and praise to the omnipotent one, Barack Obama, savior of our American dreams ( though he apparently has nothing but contempt for we lowly peasants out here in the heartland or those washed upon the shores of adversity).
I might laugh at these soulful expressions of devout faith, if I were not crying for the country.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 11:01:09 AM
here. This is a great opportunity and I want to use it: please, consider my scenario above (see my comment above) even if you think I am total nuts. Please, consider the possiblity at least that what you and me see is a theater, the the Demparty elite rulers ( BTW, did you notice that ALL the pundits never analyse WHO actually really backs Hillary, Obama or McCain. I mean not the populus but the powerful groups) had already decided and that the orchestra is just following the conductor with.. slight offsets to make sure that people are fooled just enough. I am an engineer, I recognize the usage of the perturbation theory when I see one: from one small perturbation to another we are led to the predefined nominal result where GOP is guaranteed the Presidency and that warranty is issued by the Dems. I encourage you, folks, to tear me apart if you wish ( I am by no means thrilled with my perceptions) and prove to me and to yourself that what we see now ( enormous noise as far as I see it; no substance, no value, no importance, all real issues avoided by all costs, total disregard of the election fraud and Diebold and media playing nonsense 25 hours a day) is a real democratic process and we really play a role in the upcoming Presidency. I severely doubt that, folks. The whole activiity of the Demparty so far had proven at least to me that my point of view has merit.
But, if any of you, folks would be able to revive my hopes I would be eternally greatful because I really like Obama and even Hillary, no matter how I personally dislike her is surely much better than McCain or Bush. It makes me really sad to feel like I feel as I described above. You seem to have hopes. What are those hopes based upon, I wonder?
Wish you all the best, whether Obamacons or Hillarians:)
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3605 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 1:22:51 PM
It was clear from last night's proceedings that although Obama was the primary target due to his perceived strength, Hillary was not let completely off the hook. She could barely contain her glee at witnessing the smearfest directed at her opponent, but dispensed with the glee quickly enough when questions of her own probity came to the fore.
Last night's debate revealed nothing about the candidates, but it revealed everything about the Fascist agenda that was driving it.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 1:31:46 PM
Is Diebolt in control of the 2008 presidential election?
Yes, Mark Sunshine, I share your concern about what you state as total disregard of the election fraud and Diebold. I call it two stolen presidential elections and no assurance that the same capability is not still in place. The Republicans must realize that John McCain is a weak candidate: his age and the fact he is McSame for a 3rd term of the failed Bush presidency, whose approval ratings are in the cellar.
Are the Republican party officials unconcerned because they expect a repeat of the shenanigans carried on in Florida in 2001, and Ohio Governor Black’s assurance to Bush in 2004: “ I will deliver...”. Bluntly, does Diebolt have the 2008 presidential election all sewed up for McCain with enough preprogrammed touchscreen voting machines in place in swing states?
Insanity is to do the same thing over again (depend on faith in honest elections) and expect a different result.
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 3:39:17 PM
The public is tunned in on the war of words between the HRC and BHO camps; and it is high camp, don't you think? Even I know that, though I am pulling for Hillary. It's part of the process we call American politics. It goes on elsewhere, of course, but Americans have more free time to dabble in politics, more TV channels to dispute, more celebrity endorsements to ponder, etc.
I fought the good fight against Diebold (I was sitting in Ohio when Kerry went down--another dismal episode in modern governance).
But lend me your ear; I just read an article on stop-obama.org and suddenly had an epiphany...Obama is being promoted because he is seen by the elites, of which you so earnesly speak, as an INTERNATIONAL figure. He will be presented by the globalists as Our Man In America...he will then pursue the agenda to prop up transnational conglomerates and global orligarchs. http://stop-obama.org?p=649 Jeff Gold says "Obama Has Contempt for America." It's about the New World Order, people. I posted a comment over on the site stating this thesis.
That just hit me squarely, though the thought had been gestating in the back of my mind for a long time. It finally was born and now I am putting it out for discussion...Obama is going to win, not because he is qualified or honest, but because he has a certain image. In politics image is everything.
Forget about Diebold, it is no longer pertinent. The die is cast. The decision has been made at the top of the food chain. OMG!
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 5:06:47 PM
With his diverse background, Obama realizes that we are all citizens of Earth first, and his wider outlook has nothing at all to do with Corporations or the "elitism" you speak of.
(and yes, people ARE angry, and some are downright bitter, and justifiably so!)
It is the narrowly provincial dumbass "Americanism" of Bush that has gotten us where we are with the REST of the world these days.
HIS kind of elitism, promoting his "Base" of rich pigs and corporations , all deceptively dressed up in his "Aw Shucks" folksyness (like when Hillery's accent magically changes depending on what part of America she's talking to) is what we should worry about.
I think Obama is as genuine a thing as our present system could possibly cough up. THAT's why they're trying so hard to neutralize him.
by
Bia Winter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 419 comments)
on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 6:08:56 AM
What is genuine about your candidate? He is genuinely ambitious; he is certainly egocentric and is sincerely lobbying for power.
On what do you base your observations? His lofty, well-rehearsed and canned stump speeches? His newbie assertions that he is outside of mainstream, Beltway politics? His claims to black voters that is one of them and feels their pain (also delivered in a dialect they recognize) when he has hobnobbed his entire life with the crusty money class and is now being propped up by them with funds and perks and handshakes?
Please...are you really that naive or so yearning for a quick fix you will swallow the bait whole? If so, you are beyond my reach. Hillary is far from perfect, but she is a step up from Obama creators, Rezko and Auchi and the Chicago machine that promotes mediocrity.
If she can undo NAFTA and stop the bleeding of the American economy, she will have done the best for the country. It is powerful Democrats in league with the globalists who are sinking her campaign. Under an Obama administration, nothing will change.
Gene Lyons has an insightful article on Obama that may open some eyes. His article is called: "Obama Remarks Feed Class Resentment." Now what do you suppose that is all about?
