Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this.
Posted by Redstar at April 17, 2008 01:14 PMGreat comment. Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
Posted by easyE at April 17, 2008 01:16 PMWell said, thank you.
The debate was poorly done, the question being asked is why? ABC chose to waste its audience's time, even to the extent of getting booed. The simple answer is that McInane is incapable of debating either of the potential Democratic nominees, they will pulverize him. So ABC set the debate standard so low that McInane will have a chance. If last night's debate had been on a level that would have engaged the American electorate, it would have put McInane in an impossible position. Ask not how stupid are the pundits, ask who controlls them.
Posted by jimbo at April 17, 2008 01:36 PMthis is a load, Turk. bitter.
Posted by T2 at April 17, 2008 01:38 PMThe questions asked in that debate are a love-letter compared to what will happen if Obama gets the nomination (probable, but not a foregone conclusion) and the republican swift-boat machine starts in on him. And never doubt that they will.
Posted by jwrjr at April 17, 2008 01:45 PMt2,
i'm not clinging to any hope that such balance will be forthcoming. but i will take solace in my religion and guns.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 01:53 PMI'm not so sure that the new Obama supporter fixation with "the bitter Americans" is really the best direction for them to go in supporting the guy.
But run with it if you like.
Ok, tables turned. Now what? What are we DEMOCRATS going to do about the MSM and Republicans attacking OUR candidates? I'm fairly certain that nothing will change after last night. Everyone will go back to their little corners with Hillary banners and Obama "Hope" stickers and lob grenades at each other while McCain and the Republicans coast along, unscathed, into the summer.
The issue is...how do you support your candidate and the opposing candidate in your same party while also realizing that either choice is better than McCain?
Posted by Mike P at April 17, 2008 02:00 PMAss.
Posted by FUK at April 17, 2008 02:03 PMThan you, Turkana. Just to emphasize what you said: The VRW media took John Kerry, a veteran decorated by the US Navy for bravery, and turned him into a wimpy liar.
They have at least as much material to use against Barack Obama - and they are licking their chops over it right now.
I am appalled that Obama's campaign seems to have bought their own hype to the point that they did not prepare their candidiate for an attack of this type. It makes me very apprehensive about November. It's great to have hype. Any campaign that does should always use it. But it must not believe its own hype; that way lies destruction and loss.
And yes, we Democrats should focus our fire on the media. They are the enemy - always.
Posted by clio at April 17, 2008 02:04 PMThank you thank you thank you, Turkana. You are a courageous one.
Today Kos frontpaged a Kossack's remark that Hillary is no longer a Democrat.
And Kos pronounced his agreement with it. Stupid, vindictive man.
This is his "civil war," more than it is any others. But, then, it is now apparent: it's his m.o. to try to make his hot-headed pronouncements self-fulfilling.
Posted by Joelarama at April 17, 2008 02:06 PMInterestingly enough, more than 10 million viewers tuned into Wed's debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season....
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/top-ratings-for-penn-debate/)
David Brook's comments today are right on the mark:
"I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault."
(http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp)
Posted by PaulieB at April 17, 2008 02:07 PMThe journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities.
So I guess John McCain has some latent fear of donuts that the media is aware of?
The good news for both Clinton and Obama is that debates, even 21 of them, really don't matter. Short of a spectacular gaffe, I don't think they don't affect how people vote. I don't think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) we've seen any poll movement in the primaries attributable to any debate.
In the general election debates, the substance doesn't matter either. It's all about the post-debate spin, like the first Bush looking at his watch or Gore sighing. Kerry cleaned Bush's clock on the substance in the 2004 debates, but the polls didn't budge.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 17, 2008 02:13 PMjoelarama,
given his earlier post, adding to the post-parsing of bill clinton's comment, as i wrote about yesterday, i'm sure many are wondering if kos is still a democrat.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 02:15 PMI have always been an Obama supporter, however you seem to see only the hatred from the Obama people (at least in this commentary). My experience is different. Up until January I was happy simply supporting Obama, until I dared to question a Hillary supporter that, I felt, was attacking him unfairly. I asked why (she) was attacking Obama like this? I was surprised after all we had both been supporting Democrats in a letter writing group for years. The response I got was swift and brutal (and I might add educational), I was: "what is wrong with our democracy,” “stupid,” “un-informed,” “a closet Republican” (I loved that one), and finally told I “…should just not vote if I could not see how much better Hillary was than Obama.” Needless to say the day after this was the first time I dipped my pen in poison and responded in kind not only to Hillary supporters but towards Hillary herself – I am not proud of it and have since gone back to just supporting Obama. But the anger lingers on.
Posted by Chris at April 17, 2008 02:17 PMcapj,
debates matter in how the media spin them- as gore found out. as i've made clear, i'm most worried about what the gop 527s will do with this same stuff, come fall.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 02:17 PMchris,
many prominent supposedly left blogs have been unrelenting in their smears of clinton, and have piled on whenever the media smeared her. we must defend her and we must defend obama.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 02:19 PMTurkana,
At this point I completely agree with you, I will not be attacking anyone - which is why I come to TLC to read the posts - I can only take Daly Kos and Talk Left for so long (full disclosure: I do post diaries on Kos)
Ok, tables turned. Now what? What are we DEMOCRATS going to do about the MSM and Republicans attacking OUR candidates?
Hilarious. Now, suddenly, we're in this together. Fuck you and the hypocritical horse you rode in on.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 17, 2008 02:25 PMchris,
i stopped even commenting at daily kos. i like and respect a handful of the fpers, and some of the regulars, but some of the fpers, and many of the regulars, are neither honest nor credible. kos's posts today were typical of what he's become.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 02:27 PMI cannot blame Kos for writing what he does, any more than I can blame BTD at talk left for what he writes - they have been blinded by this primary season and that is the most damaging thing of all.
Posted by Chris at April 17, 2008 02:31 PMChris--Comparing Markos and BTD, throwing them in the same category is just dishonest.
BTD is an Obama supporter, but doesn't put up with misogynistic crap. He ia about as fair an observer of this primary as anyone could possibly be.
His take on the debate was about the same as Turkana's...since you didn't cry foul when it was done to Clinton, don't expect any sympathy now!
Chris, Kos is not a victim of the primaries, he's a victim of his own hubris. Stop apologizing for him, he did it to himself. Sadly, his loss of credibility affects all of us.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 17, 2008 02:59 PMChris is right. It's come from the Clinton people, too. Seems to me, too, that she has personally joined in bigger and more personal shots at him than vice versa, at least recently, although he's launched a few he shouldn't have. Both campaigns have been stupid that way, but I really don't expect the harried candidate to control something as ad hoc as a political campaign army.
Overall, though, Left Coaster is certainly right: Hillary has been the media target most for a long time, and all Democrats should counter-attack no matter who the target is. And, by the way, a media barrage has nothing whatsoever to do with who's in front -- other than who the Republicans want to undermine at the moment and pass that imperative on to the media. Somerby debunked that self-serving media chestnut with his Gore-Bush analysis in 2000.
Posted by urban legend at April 17, 2008 03:06 PMExcellent post, Turkana, that pretty well lays out why I became a Hillary supporter when it came to the final two Dems.
Regarding this: "For many, it would require a cataclysmic psychological paradigm shift to suddenly be capable of honesty and fairness, and to feel protective of two people who are, and have been for their entire adult lives, loyal Democrats", I feel the need to give props to Brad at Sadly, No (since I couldn't figure out how to leave comments on that site) for this post.
Yep. The traditional media is as big an opponent of ours as the Republican'ts--and (slightly) more trusted.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 17, 2008 03:12 PMObama's people can complain all they want about ABC, but they really should complain about their candidate. He's not getting any better. The rationale for his whole campaign centers on his "judgment"--as it must, since he's never done anything. He has to be prepared to answer questions about his choice of associates (Wright, Ayers, Rezko) and about his rhetoric ("Don't tell me words don't matter"--B. Obama). The questions might sound trivial to Josh Marshall, but they go to the heart of Obama's candidacy.
Posted by cygnus at April 17, 2008 03:13 PMI wonder if there will be the CBS debate in NC now?
Posted by Kefa at April 17, 2008 03:26 PMi watched the debate last night. every minute of it. it was by far the longest visual presentation of these two candidates i have seen since they became opponents.
normally the only teevee i watch is the weather channel and sports. i never watch political commentary; it's an intolerable boor and a complete waste of time.
but
what i saw last night did not bother me at all.
in fact, i found myself fascinated for the entire two hours.
i wriggled uncomfortably when my candidate, clinton, was asked why she had lied. i watched with some satisfaction as obama squirmed uncomfortably about the rev wright.
i loved clinton's civilian authority, commander-in-chief comments.
but i did not see anything that i thought merited the great outpouring of pious nonsense about the questions that the newsmen asked
that has poured from the media today.
beginning with an editorial in the nytime , written in the prissy, mincing style common when gail collins was editorial editor.
then i read wapo's tom shales review, wringing his hands in anguish and sounding like the head of boy scout troop #78 in 1959.
i ran across an unintelligible comment by nicholas kristoff. i am not sure what his beef was.
there was the person who kidnapped josh marshall sounding like pravda in 1974 - i think "tpm" should change its name to "trud".
then there was arachne huffington, her headlines little different from those of the national enquirer - her content as well.
and, of course, i read steve Soto's hand-wringing cri de cour of this morning - cry the beloved party.
i waded thru all this hysteria,
and i still don't see anything objectionable about the questions or the answerers in last night's debate.
personally, i do not want to listen to two hours of policy debate.
i want to get a sense of how these two candidates think on their feet
and sense of how internally honest, not how formally honest, they are,
and a sense of who well they communicate with others.
the great keening cry of anguish that arose this morning regarding abc's gibson and stephanopolous strikes me as just loony.
the behavior of the times editorial writer, and wapo's shales, and the person who kidnapped josh marshall, and arachne huffington, and markos zuniga, et al.,
remind me of drunks at a christmas party who,
when this nominating process is over,
will be horribly embarrassed by what asses they made of themselves.
why this collective, lemming-like hysteria?
i'm not use.
mostly i would guess, anxiety.
but the folly has been wondrous to behold.
"lord, what fools these mortals be" said puck to oberon, speaking of human lovers -
maybe that's the deal.
Posted by orionATL at April 17, 2008 03:44 PMNo debate in NC. Obama decided he doesn't want anymore debates unless they promise to go back to being nice to him and mean to the girl. There's a double standard to uphold, you know.
Posted by Arnold in Pacifica at April 17, 2008 03:55 PMI am asking an honest question (so please no attacks)...I know its been cited that Hillary has been ganged up on in past debates. Can you please refresh my memory on what the commentators attacked her on? What "gotcha" questions she's been asked in the past? Thank you!
Posted by JA2006 at April 17, 2008 04:14 PMGreat post. When Hillary supporters saw that other Democrats and their supporters were willing to just let the media attack her and some "progressive" bloggers impale her , maybe that's when their resistance hardened to Obama. His message that I voted against the war and Hillary didn't was the entire crux of their support. No voter is stupid enough to think that that is all there is to a nomination. Stop believing polls. They are "mini-election" meant to distort and degrade the electorate, much like the MSM. I do not feel bad for Obama. I feel bad for all those people who thought that this would be a walk in the park for anyone. They enabled the media, and often joined in.
Posted by jeter at April 17, 2008 04:25 PMChris;
Sorry to hear about your encounter. Was this before or after Edwards dropped out?
If before, again my condolences. Perhaps the Clinton supporter had encountered an especially virulent set of anti-HRC people? (The only example that I could give were / are at dKos. The anti-HRC and anti-HRC supporter cliques had some strength there before Edwards suspended his campaign.)
If after, welcome to the world of the HRC supporter. Given that even pro-Obama supporters get attacked for even the slightest criticism (check which supporters attack BTD here for instance), push back is to be expected.
Posted by linnen at April 17, 2008 04:31 PMHillary. Obama. Hillary. Obama....(ad nauseam).
Watching Leftists tear each other apart over the subject of two identies (re: identity politics) -- as manifested in two people absolutely unsuited and unqualified to be President of the United States -- is very, very entertaining.
Hey, someone make more popcorn: this is going to last awhile.
Posted by Bagley at April 17, 2008 05:08 PMja2006,
one of my links goes to a very detailed post by dhonig, at mydd.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 06:06 PMchris,
btd has never posted anything as mendacious and inflammatory as kos's "blacker" posts, or even his garbage today.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 06:08 PMYou speak for me! Exactly what I've thought and how I've felt about last night's "debate!"
I've long said that most of the battles we fight are hindered and held back by Corporate Press. At one time it was a fight we were all in together. To watch a large portion of the so-called progressive blogosphere gleefully cheer them on through this primary has been heart wrenching.
Posted by jen at April 17, 2008 06:54 PMI for one done care what the media does, but now BO is whining that Clinton was mean to him. Bad move.
Posted by Prabhata at April 17, 2008 07:42 PMTo: iamcoyote
LOL
I agree. BO made that clear first in NV, then in SC and at every opportunity that it is all about BO. Cry baby.
Bagley, suck it, beeyotch. McCancer's going down faster than your ReTHUGlican family values, faster than Cindy with a headful of Percodan and a mouthful of her then married boyfriend.
Turkana, the only hypocrite I see is you.
Anyway, I think orionATL is closer to the truth than any of the other reviews I've read. However, that said, Arnold in Pacifica, what's wrong with Obama telling the Republican-controlled networks they've had enough? If I'm Obama, what does he owe any network or media outlet?
Posted by Brian Bell at April 17, 2008 07:55 PMI'm an Obama supporter but some of the nasty comments coming from both sides have done nothing but benefit McCain. I've been caught up in it myself as I know many others have. I just don't remember a primary in which each side has a significant percentage that claim they won't vote for the other candidate should he/she become the nominee. I know at the convention there will be some healing, but right now I wouldn't bet on our chances in Nov.
Posted by Upton at April 17, 2008 08:10 PMI favor Clinton and I agree with Upton about McSame being the primary beneficiary of the Democratic differences of opinion. To borrow an old quote - if we do not hang together we will all hang separately.
Since the Pope is in the US, shoule we not report the miracle (an Obama supporter and a Clinton supporter agreeing on something)?
And many of these Obama supporters have behaved every bit as deplorably towards the Clintons as have the corporate media.
I followed the link in Turkana's original and found quoted one sentence from one person. This seems to be a rather broad interpretation of "many of these Obama supporters".
but to those hypocritical Obama supporters who have been party to the outrages directed at the Clintons, I can only say that you deserve what you're now feeling.
I am an Obama supporter and obviously know other Obama supporters. None of us has directed any outrages at the Clintons. We just happen to prefer Obama as the nominee. I wonder if those so-called "hypocritical Obama supporters who have been party to the outrages directed at the Clintons" are in fact no more than hyperventilating bloviators in the blogosphere. Lord knows it is trivial to find--on this blog--Hillary Clinton supporters who have made obnoxious comments directed at Barack Obama. But I do not conclude from that fact that there is such a thing as a mass movement of generic "Clinton supporters" who think bashing Obama is some sort of fun sporting activity.
There are rude people everywhere, but concluding from this fact that everyone is rude is a bit of a problem in logical inference.
In closing, a question: why the reference to "the Clintons" instead of to the single Clinton who is actually running for the Democratic nomination? I'm not basing my vote in 2008 on anything that Bill Clinton did when he was president, or anything he has done campaigning for his spouse. I'm also not basing my vote on anything that Michelle Obama has said or done.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 17, 2008 08:28 PMjoel,
because both clintons are routinely slimed by the obamabots. and if you think that one link to the owner of one of the most prominent ostensibly liberal blogs is trivial, you really haven't a clue about the shrillosphere. markos, his minions, huffington post, aravosis and josh marshall slime the clintons on a routine basis. if you don't waste time at any of those sites, good for you.
Posted by Turkana at April 17, 2008 08:38 PMWow, all this whining over here. I suppose there are no Democratic 527s. MoveOn.org is unaligned and didn't print that ad in the NYTimes. George S. is now a Republican. Charlie Gibson is now a Republican. I'm sure both would be surprised by that. Seems Clinton, both of them have been getting pummeled on a regular bases. Bill's approval rating has fallen from his presidential exit number of 70% to the mid 40's. Many here are actually starting to revise the history of the 90's towards what Republicans thought of the 90's.
The telling line for me was the "Disowned" line. "He disowned him." George caught it and asked for clarification and got the response..."The Comments, comments I disowned them." He could have let that one sit there and fester. I believe that one will fester still. No George gave him the opportunity to fix his statement. Yeah, he had it out for Barry...not.
There's no need for swiftboating now...he's done it himself.
Posted by peter at April 17, 2008 09:06 PMiamcoyote,
Please take your holier than thou pose somewhere else. I have agreed with posters here and elsewhere that Clinton has gotten a worse deal than Obama has in regards to press coverage. You strike me as one of those very folks you claim to hate. I wonder if you'd actually go out and vote for Obama should he get the nomination. I highly doubt it. If Clinton wins, I will happily pull the lever for her in the general.
The problem with far too many people (Clinton and Obama supporters) is the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude towards the rest of this election season. Is Clinton my preferred candidate? No. Have I fought hard for Obama? Yes. Have I gotten heated during the campaign and said things I wish I could take back? Absolutely. But, as things progress, I realize that I can put aside my reservations about Clinton and vote for her. She and Obama are MUCH better choices for our country, but the party (again) seems ready to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. We can't afford to have that happen. But if you want to call me a hypocrite and to tell me to fuck off because it makes you feel better, by all means, be an e-thug.
Posted by Mike P at April 17, 2008 09:10 PMI can't get too worked up over your sense of outrage, Turkana. Joe Bageant has it right: the fuss and furor over "the bitter" comment is that someone needs to bring the smelling salts, when it is suggested that perhaps white people have become bitter over life in the Rust Belt, where a state of economic decay has continued for decades. There is enough bitterness to go around.
As a friend of mine often says, "It all depends on whether you're pitching or catching."
The argument over hypocrisy cuts both ways, and would be less problematic; if Clinton had not taken the opportunity in the debate to fire off all the little pissy shots at Obama, that don't amount to a hill of beans, such as the Pastor Wright hysteria, and a passing acqaintance Obama has with someone who was in the Weather Underground, back in the Day. It's a wonder she didn't round it all out, by weighing in on the god-cursed lapel pins.
Let's honestly admit that Clinton didn't help herself with those little digs. But perhaps we should welcome, as a sign of progress, the admission by both candidates that their opponent is fully capable of beating McCain in the November election.
Posted by Copeland at April 17, 2008 09:26 PMActually, BTD is a remarkably fair and polite supporter of BO. Wish we had him on Hillary's side. If everyone on both sides were like him, this would indeed be a walk in the partl.
But they're not. So to those OS who gleefully joined the right-wing assault on the Clintons, and now say "We've got to support our candidate when he's being attacked!" when it's BO's turn to get it from the GOP-mediaocracy, I say;
"What do you mean "WE", Paleface?"
Posted by Blue Jean at April 17, 2008 09:40 PMbecause both clintons are routinely slimed by the obamabots.
You have to admit Turkana Obama is battling two solid opponents. A powerful Democratic Senator and a former President. He should really be given his props for doing an outstanding job and holding up well under the pressure.
If he makes it past the Clintons he will cake walk against McLame!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 17, 2008 09:41 PMTurkana,
I respectly disagree on couple of points.
The question about lapel pin was absurd, but apart from that all of the others may not have been pleasant, but they were relevant.
If the media had done its job in 20 prior debates, there wouldn't be a problem like this. As I said before at TalkLeft, ABC asked many questions that were on voters' minds, but had NOT been asked of Obama BEFORE, and in prior debates. So if they were to choose new questions (on topics which hadn't been covered), is it any surprise that most of them were uncomfortable for Obama? Note that they didn't even touch Rezko.
Lots of policy issues had been covered before.I liked the moderators' manner of following up on a question. Yes, that may be tough on both candidates, but that's the way it SHOULD be done. Otherwise, politicians ramble and avoid answering.
Charlie Gibson was the ONLY moderator who said in a prior debate, "but food consumed standing up is not banned" and got Obama to own it.
I agree that the press give Republicans a pass, and treats Democrats like nothings. Some of the contrast between R and D debates have been despicable. However, questions and followup are the what the debates are all about.
Nice to read someone talking common sense for a change. Thanks. Nice post.
Posted by dark1p at April 18, 2008 09:12 AMI have always believed that getting good press is not a matter of conspiracy but rather good campaign strategy. Campaigns need to create the narrative which gives them the right media exposure. Obama was ambushed at the debate, but the next morning he was saying how the distraction of the first half of the debate was part of the typical Washington that he was working to change. It's classic and well-executed political jiujitsu, and it started a long time ago when Obama formed the theme of his campaign.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 18, 2008 09:15 AMjoel,
because both clintons are routinely slimed by the obamabots. and if you think that one link to the owner of one of the most prominent ostensibly liberal blogs is trivial, you really haven't a clue about the shrillosphere. markos, his minions, huffington post, aravosis and josh marshall slime the clintons on a routine basis. if you don't waste time at any of those sites, good for you.
Actually, I do occasionally read Daily Kos (say) and other blogs besides this one. I like to see a range of opinions. And of course I talk to friends, neighbors, and co-workers. I have no problem distinguishing the "shrillosphere" from the real world. BTW this website is no less a part of that shrillosphere than is Daily Kos. Why do you suppose looking at Daily Kos, say, is by definition a waste of time, but looking at this website is not? I can find thoughful commentary at both websites...and I can find silly stuff, ad hominem attacks, hip self-referential irony, and outright BS at both sites. It's up to me to try to sort the wheat from the chaff.
What's that trite old line we tell our children? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Putting it another way: Schadenfreude is never an attractive response to someone else's problems.
Turkana, some questions for you. Look again at what you wrote:
"because both clintons are routinely slimed by the obamabots"
What exactly is an "obamabot"? Am I because I prefer Obama to Clinton as the nominee? Is anyone who prefers Obama to Clinton? Is it only that short list of bloggers you listed? Please clarify.
More on "Obamabots": I have to say it is pretty tiresome and irritating not to be taken seriously. Am I permitted to say that I prefer Obama to Clinton on the basis of something other than drinking Kool-Aid? I accept that you have a rational basis for preferring Clinton. Can you accept that I have a rational basis for preferring Obama?
The "cult of Obama" meme has made the rounds of not only the blogosphere but also the editorial pages for several months now. The "cult of Obama" meme has been promoted by partisans of other Democratic candidates, by GOP partisans, and by so-called respected members of the commentariat. (Seeing Paul Krugman flogging the "cult of Obama" meme a couple of months ago was especially distressing to me, because I think Krugman is generally a pretty insightful guy.)
Obama has been (reasonably enough) criticized for saying that people "cling to" certain values and behaviors. He has been (reasonably enough) taken to task for stereotyping. Guess what? People who flog the "Obamabot", "cult of Obama" meme are no less engaging in stereotyping. They are no less failing to acknowledge that people might actually have a rational basis for their choices.
Note that I wrote that I prefer Obama. I will without hesitation vote for Clinton in November if she is the nominee. Fact is that neither Clinton nor Obama was my first choice.