Outrage Of The Day: ABC?

The outrage at ABC News is palpable from quarters high and low; even the usually temperate Josh Marshall calls the debate an "unmitigated travesty." One ought to be skeptical of public opinion pressure when it is anchored in the worldview of one campaign. Still, most of the ill-wind seems to be blowing from the Obama corner of the woods doesn't mean that the wind is artificial. My instinct, as a card-carrying member of the news media and a former ABC News person, is to defend ABC News, but I won't do that: ABC can defend itself. Some of the criticism seems warranted; a few key facts in the preamble to certain questions were wrong; the American Flag pin question seemed out of place (although there are many Democrats and independents who really do worry about that, even though Obama has explained it to the satisfaction of most others.). Bill Ayers is a toughy; some associations matter, and some don't. But it's a complicated question and one that is probably best explored in a forum that gives Obama more of an opportunity to respond. I can't help but wondering whether, if the debate had followed a more traditional path, and if there had been questions for Hillary Clinton about Mark Penn's association with Colombia or Clinton library disclosure or "screw 'em," the outrage would be as loud.

I personally have no problem with a "one-sided" debate, particularly one that focuses on the de-facto nominee, on the the guy who wants voters to elect him to the most powerful office in the land. It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up.

Comments

Marc Ambinder = Shill.

The only reason I read this blog is for the up to the minute news reports...this guys opinions pieces are so out of touch.

Posted by Mark | April 17, 2008 10:16 AM

This would made a bit more sense if you edited out the follow: "but I won't do that: ABC can defend itself."

Reads more smoothly that way, and doesn't leave me thinking, 'huh?'

Posted by gussie | April 17, 2008 10:17 AM

The debate WAS awful. This sort of nonsense should not dominate the first full half of the session, not when there are real concerns out there.

However, if I were in the Clinton campaign, I'd find it fairly problematic. People already have negative views of Senator Clinton and when she goes negative and assents to absurd attacks on Obama, it can only hurt her. It also takes her off her game where she does a fine job, i.e., answering policy-related questions.

Obama should figure out how to hit similar questions out of the park. They are bs questions to be sure, but he will get asked them again. The answer on Ayers was the strongest and Clinton pressing that further was her worst moment of the night.

But these questions to Obama reminded me of the famous "If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered" question of 1988. Obama missed an opportunity to hit what could be seen as fat pitches -- not only by sounding stronger about how these are distractions -- but by turning them around to argue that the Republicans are the ones who are weak on national security and care for our great country. He could have gone on the offense and I trust he will do so as the party's nominee.

Posted by pinestater | April 17, 2008 10:20 AM

one-sided debate --> how is that a debate and not an interrogation?

Posted by msjian | April 17, 2008 10:20 AM

"It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up."

But it's equally illogical -- not to mention destructive -- to assert that simply because Republicans WILL bring something up, Democrats and the media have to focus on it. If ABC, and presumably Hillary Clinton, agree that flag pins etc are absurd subjects on which to focus our political discourse, then why devote their time to pumping these issues up? They get traction in general elections precisely because the media treat them as serious.

Posted by portraitoffer | April 17, 2008 10:21 AM

"It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up."

But it is equally illogical for the Democrats and media to use the fact that the Republicans will bring them up AS AN EXCUSE to ask these questions. Especially when the questions are, in fact, Republican frames. Let a Republican do it then, but saying, "I'm only asking this because the Republicans will ask this in the fall" is very shady reasoning.

Posted by Dan | April 17, 2008 10:22 AM

The whole thing would be much less bothersome if instead of a debate with two people, it was designated a "grilling session" or something similar, focusing on one person. Obama did something like that when he sat down with the Chicago papers to answer every question they had about Rezko. Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I thought the point of a debate was to help understand the contrast between the candidates, not to ask any question that might be "newsworthy".

Posted by Alexis | April 17, 2008 10:22 AM

The problem isn't so much with what the debate was, but with what it wasn't. And it certainly wasn't a probing and in-depth discussion of any issues of importance to a potential president.

Obama definitely got flustered, but the questions were inconsequential and relatively easy, if you ask me; Obama was able to dismiss them as needless distractions (which they were) without ever having to be pressed on what type of president he would be.

No direct questions about handling the mortgage crisis, no questions about handling a potential environmental crisis, no questions about China, on and on and on. You can ask difficult questions along these subjects, and make these candidates squirm, about stuff that matters, not just petty bullshit that really acts as nothing but high-fructose story fodder for political columnists and reporters writing process-oriented campaign stories.

The questions last night were simply lazy, poorly written, of no consequence, and, in the end, just all too easy to dismiss for those two who may one day be leader of the free world. Voters deserved better.

Posted by Dave | April 17, 2008 10:23 AM

I think part of it is the perceived unfairness of the questioning (why, for instance, did Obama receive the Ayers question when Bill Clinton was the one who pardoned members of the WU?) and part of it, I hate to admit, is because Obama did not do as well as we, his supporters, had hoped. Part of that is because he is constrained by his own message of moving beyond this kind of politics. It is hard for him to address and rebuke these non-issues while he is trying so hard to ignore them and move past them.

I think that what we saw last night was a politician who still needs some practice. Obama is, unfortunately, just not as good at this kind of political theater as the Bill Clinton of 1992. Obama is definitely better than Carter, better than Kerry even. But Bill Clinton, in his prime, could deflect these kind of hard questions and throw them back in people's faces in a really impressive way - scolding and playing the victim at the same time. Obama might have that ability somewhere but it's hard for him to unleash it because of the narrative he's created for himself.

That, in part, explains some of the frustration of his supporters. Because they like him for not playing by the old rules, they are mad when the old rules are forced onto him, and as a result he is a bit hamstrung. The other explanation for the outrage, of course, is that the questions were extremely inane and a representation of the further decline of the media in this country. And don't give me the "this is what people want to talk about" line. It's garbage in, garbage out. So long as the news media covers every single gaffe, be it bittergate or Bosnia, to the exclusion of more pressing issues, like Clinton's ties to Colombia or Obama's dedication to getting out of Iraq, then the people will of course only want to talk about the gaffes and the gotchas - that's all they will have heard/read about.

Posted by Craig | April 17, 2008 10:24 AM

I disagree with Mark that you're a "shill," but I do think that you're being a bit too nice to your former employers. It took them 50 minutes to get to a single substantive issue. A single question about Obama's past associations would have been fine, but the hour that was devoted to the "gotcha" questions kept the candidates from talking about the financial crisis/recession, health care, trade, education, government surveillance vs. civil liberties, immigration, energy, China, Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on.

As a commenter on the ABC boards said, I don't have health care--do you think I give a fuck about a flag pin? The debate was a sham. You need to forget your old loyalties and call it for what it is.

Posted by Marc | April 17, 2008 10:25 AM

Marc:

I have been scanning the comments on the blogs since the debate(that is really going into the weeds I'll tell ya) and it seems that the outrage is not about Republican talking points...I think it is essentially Obama's argument..That this is a serious time and that there are forums for the kind of questions that were thrown at Obama last night..The Sunday shows..press avails..etc...

Also the obvious commercialization of the debate played to these abuses...The number of commercials..the timing of them(one after 5 minutes) certainly underscored an appearance that the moderators were asking the types of questions in order to generate buzz as opposed to a serious debate about what problems the country faces...

The media and Hillary harping about the Republican attack machine might turn out to be the usual "fighting the last war" mentality that most commentators fall victim too.. In the fall after a summer of rising gas prices..more deaths in Iraq and any number of serious problems that we can't envision...the Republican machine making mention of the lapel pin might seem as silly as not eating french fries..

I would not be suprised to see Obama's numbers go up after this even though I personally was rooting for a little more of the "annie oakley" Obama...

Posted by John Allen | April 17, 2008 10:26 AM

President Barack should revoke ABC's broadcasting license. American MSM is incredibly racist. That's what they showed yesterday: they're anger because Obama is a brilliant black man, who'll get us rid of them.

Posted by as | April 17, 2008 10:26 AM

ABC Ambers and his "non problematic one sided debates" ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 17, 2008 10:27 AM

Marc, I recommend that you don't.defend.ABC.

Posted by LIZA | April 17, 2008 10:28 AM

Marc, the outrage is not that the debate was one-sided; it's that it was completely inane.

Almost an hour before the first policy question? Repetition of questions the candidates have answered before?

My favorite question: "Who loves their country more, you or Reverend Wright?" Sounded like a question from Stephen Colbert's mouth.

ABC didn't do anyone any favors. It spent two hours dumbing down America.

Also, as an aside, I noticed Hillary had lapels on her suit, but no flag pin. So, frankly, who gives a damn.

Posted by Jack | April 17, 2008 10:30 AM

The debate didn't seem unfair at all. these two haven't been asked questions at all for the past 50 days in a debate and since then the wright stuff and the elitegate and bosnia stuff deserves coverage.
Questions aren't attacks. Rather they were opportunities for each to bat it out of the ball park. That mr. O and miss C. were able to do so to varying degrees can't be blamed on charlie or george. If they weren't ready for hard questions they should blame their handlers.
Are they only supposed to get beauty pagent questions?
The Ayers guestion now post 9/11 is facinating. There is a memorial to Bobby Sands in my town. I pass it on my way to work every day as it is in the middle of a traffic circle.Would anyone approve the same memorial now?
I remember reading Trinity again the summer before 9/11 and routing for the terrorists against the establishment but I also remember right after 9/11 that i felt a bit of shame at that.
A lot of us smugly thought the weather underground and SDS were okay because the war was so awful. We taught our kids about Ghandi and MLK jr but we kept alive this thrilling grey area.

Post 9/11 I don't think association with Ayers is okay. His comments post 9/11 certainly aren't okay. And even for a leftie like myself the rules and grey areas are different now.
Obama's ducking the question goes hand in hand with his denials about ever hearing Wright say his dumb shit, or wright giving awards to Louis F last year. I do believe in liberation theology even though I am not religious but wright is on the other side of it.
I read and loved cone's books years ago and still hold to some of their ideas and yet the effect of wright jumping up and down and going for the applause lines and spewing hatred is very different than reading cone's reasoned constructions and ideas.
And Obama's once extolled judgement deserves examination in light of these two profound lapses in association.

Posted by Michael C. | April 17, 2008 10:32 AM

The debate didn't seem unfair at all. these two haven't been asked questions at all for the past 50 days in a debate and since then the wright stuff and the elitegate and bosnia stuff deserves coverage.
Questions aren't attacks. Rather they were opportunities for each to bat it out of the ball park. That mr. O and miss C. were able to do so to varying degrees can't be blamed on charlie or george. If they weren't ready for hard questions they should blame their handlers.
Are they only supposed to get beauty pagent questions?
The Ayers guestion now post 9/11 is facinating. There is a memorial to Bobby Sands in my town. I pass it on my way to work every day as it is in the middle of a traffic circle.Would anyone approve the same memorial now?
I remember reading Trinity again the summer before 9/11 and routing for the terrorists against the establishment but I also remember right after 9/11 that i felt a bit of shame at that.
A lot of us smugly thought the weather underground and SDS were okay because the war was so awful. We taught our kids about Ghandi and MLK jr but we kept alive this thrilling grey area.

Post 9/11 I don't think association with Ayers is okay. His comments post 9/11 certainly aren't okay. And even for a leftie like myself the rules and grey areas are different now.
Obama's ducking the question goes hand in hand with his denials about ever hearing Wright say his dumb shit, or wright giving awards to Louis F last year. I do believe in liberation theology even though I am not religious but wright is on the other side of it.
I read and loved cone's books years ago and still hold to some of their ideas and yet the effect of wright jumping up and down and going for the applause lines and spewing hatred is very different than reading cone's reasoned constructions and ideas.
And Obama's once extolled judgement deserves examination in light of these two profound lapses in association.

Posted by Michael C. | April 17, 2008 10:32 AM

Why didn't the moderators ask Hillary how, if she were to become President, she would keep White House interns from giving Bill blow jobs in the Oval Office?

The Republicans would certainly go there; therefore, it's okay for Democrats to go there. Right?

Posted by BR | April 17, 2008 10:34 AM

I am embarrassed to be an American today.

So should you.

The world is laughing at us.

This is Democracy?

no thanks

Posted by Jon | April 17, 2008 10:35 AM

I'll agree with the commenters above. It isn't that the debate was one-sided. It's that the questions were utterly without substance. And even the substantive questions were about 1988-era issues like gun control and affirmative action. The moderators couldn't think of a question about the recession or health care? This was a Democratic debate. Why ask all these asinine questions that Democratic voters don't care about?

Marc, you are circling the wagons for the big media and you know better. One or two gotcha questions would have been fine. Even the Bill Ayers question would have been fine in isolation. But 51 minutes of crap to start off the debate? That's not fine. That proves Obama's point about what's wrong with our politics. And the media is a big player in this.

Posted by Elrod | April 17, 2008 10:36 AM

My God, Ayers did "bad" things when Obama was 8 years old. Are we all, as Obama said, to apologize for every person we associate with who has said or done something we would not do?

Give me a break! We do not live in a perfect world and some self righteous right wingers, obviously ABC, conservatives, Republicans and Clinton supporters think we do....look who's calling the kettle black? Typical smear politics. Shameful. It will blow back.....to all who profess to be sinless.

Guilt by association is a sin and Hillary (and Bill) needs to be "vetted" for all their questionable associations.

Supers.....stop this nonsense!

Posted by Peg | April 17, 2008 10:41 AM

All questions asked were easy to predict, and good answers could have been easily given by a reasonably-prepared candidate.

The flagpin became an "issue" because Mr. Obama did not wear one, an easy preemptive measure against "inane" questions.

Mr. Obama is not a good debater. This could be seen in the previous two debates, and it became more than obvious in this one. Mr. Obama has no court experience, Mrs. Clinton has, and it shows.

Posted by Andrew B. | April 17, 2008 10:43 AM

Wow - Marc you are so wrong, here. Please ask yourself a basic question - What is the purpose of a Presidential Debate? Here's a history assignment: Go back and read the transcripts of the Lincoln/Douglass Debates. Geez, go back and read the transcripts of the Ford/Carter debates! The media has taken us down this road. The public's reaction is in part why you have a job as a blogger - because people who want to keep informed have been trying to go elsewhere from the Freak Show.

Un-bookmarked.

Posted by MikeO | April 17, 2008 10:43 AM

In the first half of the debate, the highest instant-dial response was when Barack Obama stood up for Clinton on the Bosnia question. The other high responses were all when Obama pointed out that the American people are smarter than many in the news media take them for, and can understand that Obama doesn't take his marching orders from Ayers or even Wright.

It's true that Obama has, in previous debates, had better "don't hate the players, hate the game" moments, but viewers seemed to respond to his latest iteration even though the commentariat panned his performance as lackluster.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 17, 2008 10:46 AM

I think this has been said above, but Marc, you missed the main source of my outrage which wasn't the one-sideness but rather the fact that it took 50 minutes before we got to a substantive question. There was no discussion of healthcare, the environment, taking care of soldiers after returning from Iraq, and barely a mention of the housing crisis. There are plenty of cable talkshows for the trivial stuff, the whole raison d'etre of debates is for substantive policy questions not to spring a series of gotcha questions.

I should also all goes back to Russert's success on Meet the Press, I think he does an equally bad job, but NBC at least evened out with the occasional policy question.

Posted by Greg | April 17, 2008 10:47 AM

I certainly agree with your take. There's nothing fair in politics, and its our nominee's job to show that he or she can handle the ALL questions, even the ridiculous ones. Its not like nonsense questions don't come up during an election.

I, for one, am happy that Obama was allowed to address the topics of Ayers, flag pin and other inane trivia in a forum where he can respond. While I was disappointed by his poor responses last night, it beats the hell out of fighting these bogus charges through a paid media war. I'm also really starting to wonder if he's ready for the kitchen sink. He wasn't yesterday and it might be time for him to finally 'saddle up'.

p.s: Hillary Clinton will not win the election if she manages to claw her way to the nomination. She will bleed a lot of Democratic support because of her rather craven performance last night. I'm not sufficiently petulant to not vote for her, but as Bill Clinton said - Obama's supporters are people who don't 'need' a president. Sounds like they're the exact kind of people who can AFFORD to vote out of petulance (for McCain).

Posted by Nathan Avinb | April 17, 2008 10:48 AM

Most people, including Obama supporters, don't mind a tough debate and questions. What they do mind is this endless obsession by the beltway bubble crowd on the trivial and tawdry.
most people think the media is stuck in the 90s and still acting like it's the Clinton wars.
And they only talk about created controversies that no one cares about.
A poll today show that 60% in Penn agree with Obama's comments and 29 with Clinton that he's elitist.
This is the total failure of the press to read the mood of the country and what concerns them and instead focuses on the shallow and trivial things.
They are sick of the politics of the past 20 years and want the gossipy stuff to stop and focus on what is really important. And people are tired of the rightwing view of things.
The press is totally tone deaf.

Posted by vwcat | April 17, 2008 10:52 AM

sorry I posted twice.

These were not 80's issues. They talked about gun control because Hillary and barack have been sound-biting each other to death on guns since the bitter/elete comments from Barack.
Abc asked those questions because both have strayed far out beyond their long time positions and both needed to own up and reaffirm their real position. Meaningless to many of us but not at all meaningless to penn and NC and IND or to the match up in NOV with republicans. Also not meaningless to ask both where they stand on the DC case before the supreme court as that is a monumental case. Sadly both pandered on these gun/DC questions and avoided being transparent.

the cuomo guestion about supporting each other and picking VPs was a great question because it gave both the chance to throw the other under the bus and neither did. On the other hand both were complete phonies the way they refuse to talk about the other as VP. And Cuomo remains a very important elder in the party in his way. Rather they said they would work hard to support the ticket and this set a tone in the debate that constricted both and it is genuine news.

The taxes question was predicated on the days news. MacCains positioning himself on taxes begged the issue. And news was made here as well.
Abc gave them both a chance to position themselves beautifully against the reps and hillary did and barack hemmed and hawed and got lost.

The Iraq withdrawal question asked for a yes or no question but did not play gotcha with the comments by Samantha powers weeks ago, so this was another great opportunity for each to affirm their committment to get troops out.AbC news gave both the position to hit it out of the ballpark and I think they both did.

They could have been tougher with the wright stuff by a long shot and even being tougher would have been legitimate. Hillary could have been tougher with the wright stuff and didn't.

The flag pin stuff seems meaningless to so many but with the new pin tuesday, the elitegate stuff and Barack's bizarre recent outburst about pandering, it was a fair totally predictable charlie gibson question. Think about charlie gibson for two secionds and tell me that wasn't a totally predictable question.

Posted by Michael C. | April 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Marc -
You had me until you implied that Obama is the "de facto nominee" and that's why it's OK to harsh up on him and not on HRC.

If that's the way the media's going to play it from now on, then they've got a duty to call on her to get out of the race. You can't have it two ways: pretending there's still a campaign going on and with HRC as a legitimate candidate, yet also saying Obama's the de facto nominee and thus subject to higher scrutiny.

Posted by dem. | April 17, 2008 10:57 AM

Where is the evidence that "there are many Democrats and independents who really do worry about [the flag pin]"? Where? Show me one poll. Seriously. This is the kind of pathetic and false excuse that is used as justification to bring back issues that have convincingly been ignored by real voters. Rezko? Didn't affect polling, or results (see, e.g., number of delegates won.) The Wright issue? Obama responded with the race speech, and his Gallup numbers are higher than ever. Over and over and over again, polls show that the issues of most concern to real voters are Iraq, the economy, and health care. Yet this "many voters really do worry" concern somehow validates these questions. Really? Well I bet I can find a voter that is concerned that Obama is a lefty. Should we ask him about it? What about the fact that he enjoys basketball, a sport (gasp) popular among blacks?! Surely that is of some concern to some voters out there.

If you're going to use the justification that these trivial issues "really worry" voters, you better show EVIDENCE that it's a concern of many voters. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that these trivialities are really necessary only for the chattering class as their lifeblood.

Posted by south side | April 17, 2008 10:58 AM

Shorter fat boy #1: I'm not going to defend ABC, except to defend ABC.

Shorter fat boy #2: the media's job is to get McCain elected, and last night it performed its job very well.

God, Ambinder, to think I once had an ounce of respect for you. You disgusting bag of puss.

But the joke's on you, fat boy. The media narrative coming out of this debate has been on the whole quite favorable for Obama, and rightly so.

Posted by LarryM | April 17, 2008 11:00 AM

"It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up."

True, but let's turn this around. It is *equally* illogical to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats *ought* to bring up those issues and associations.

Here's some illogic for you: Hillary claims that she can attack Obama republican style because the presumptive democratic nominee will be facing the republicans. But she also argues, quite forcefully, that Obama is not the presumptive nominee. Square that circle for me.

Posted by alex | April 17, 2008 11:03 AM

Yes, the outrage would in fact be louder if HRC got as many silly questions a Obama because then there would have been even LESS time devoted to questions that were remotely relevant. I didn't want to hear about Bosnia any more than I wanted to dredge up the over-blown Wright crap again.
Flag Pin??? A 40 year old controversy?? Really??
Is this what passes for politics now? Not the war? not the economy? not $4 gas prices? not jobs? Un-effing-believable. I can't believe you would defend this. I agree that a one-sided debate is okay, but it was the substance not the style that was objectionable.

Posted by carrie | April 17, 2008 11:05 AM

The audience booed the moderators. Do you remember any prior debate where that happened? I highly doubt the PA audience consisted of nothing but Obama supporters; it consisted of increasingly pissed-off voters whose time was being wasted on lapel pins over energy, Ayers over Iran, Tuzla over health care.

In terms of long-term effects of this debate: Neither candidate provided a 7-second flub or stinger that could be replayed endlessly; ergo it won't matter. The only lingering effect is likely to be ratcheting weariness with the neverending campaign to higher levels, and simmering resentment toward ABC, perhaps splashing over onto other networks.

Posted by Deborah | April 17, 2008 11:05 AM

Also: I really don't think we Obama supporters should attack or insult Marc. He does an excellent job, and it's to our benefit to read a slightly pro-Hillary take on our nominee. He gets stuff wrong, but he's more or less fair-minded. I don't think journalists come much better.

He's certainly a lot better than Ben Smith!

Posted by alex | April 17, 2008 11:06 AM

You and David Brooks, baby. Elite company.

Posted by norbizness | April 17, 2008 11:06 AM

Someone please inform Marc that a "one-sided debate" is, or should be, a contradiction in terms.

That he thinks there is "nothing wrong" with one is a testament to how he--and other mainstream pundit types--construe political discourse in this country: as a means for news agencies and corporate media outlets to generate viewership and ad revenue for themselves by providing a good "product."

Unbelievable.

Posted by wj | April 17, 2008 11:06 AM

Marc,

Usually I find myself in agreement with your analysis, but on this I think you're way off.

It's irrelevant to wonder whether the response would have been different if HRC had faced any questions which attacked her character (e.g. - Penn,Bosnia,NAFTA,"Screw You",etc.) because the simple fact is: she didn't. Those questions weren't there and, as such, the tone and content of the debate were framed in such a way as to be a singular attack on Obama. We can speculate on why this was the case but, regardless, this framing was chosen and carried out by the two moderators (with G.S. getting talking points from Hannity?)

To even continue to refer to this as a debate would be a travesty in itself. This was a partisan journalistic hit piece cloaked in the mantle of a non-partisan disucussion of the issues. To be fair to ABC, this is something we've seen all to often from both cable and network news over the 20+ debates which have transpired. ABC, just encapsulated all of the fundamental problems with the current process in one horrific example.

The discussion we need to be having is whether, given the decline of tele-journalism's objectivity, the public and the democratic process are truly served by debates moderated by commercial entities.

Posted by Jon | April 17, 2008 11:07 AM

Gee, thanks for that clarification on what we witnessed last night.

If you just had said, "ABC News might have been wrong to ask certain questions but probably not" I would have been just as confused in much less time.

Posted by Tim | April 17, 2008 11:08 AM

Mark, I have to disagree. I thought the debate was horrible and ABCNews (Gibson & Stephie) hit rock bottom. There was a certain innuendo in all of the early questions that I found very offensive. And, I have to ask why the question about Ayers was pertinent. I know a lot of people that I don't necessarily like and even sit on boards with several. But they don't inform my actions. In other words, I think it is only appropriate to discuss those people who might inform a candidate's possible presidency. Anything else is digging for dirt.

Posted by Marty | April 17, 2008 11:11 AM

Greg: please.
it was substance all the way through starting with the cuomo question. Whether these two support each other in the general is a huge issue and how they talk about each other is a huge issue.

Obama is lucky this wasn't another debate that focussed on Health care because that's now a losing issue for obama: Mrs. Edwards coming out for Hillary's plan would have the decisive point in any exchange over healthcare.

taxes and the withdrawal of troops is a huge f-ing deal and that was talked about.

Taking care of troops when they get home is a non issue in substance because they both say they will try and cut the red tap and both will brag about what they've done or who they've met on the trail: it becomes phonier than wearing a flag pin.

Climate change? better for dems not to talk about it last night after Bush's total B>S announcement yesterday: they would've had to denounce Bush's plan as too little too late.

When the republicans went to michigan and had a debate both McCain and Romney said all kinds of crazy BS about jobs back and the auto industry: aren't you glad we didn't have those phony kinds of pandering answers about lost jobs in PENN last night?

Posted by Michael C. | April 17, 2008 11:11 AM

"It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up."

I completely disagree. George Bush and crew and some Republicans by extension have thrived off creating non-issues, things that have nothing to do with the person's policy making decisions, etc.

If you want to examine the man's character and legislative ideology, shouldn't his years in public service, his numerous votes in the Illinois legislature and the senate give enough information.

This smear by association stuff is predicated on the idea that Obama, once he enters office, is going to allow 60s radicals, racist pastors, and all other sort of evil to overrun the whitehouse. It's just a ridiculous notion and the inane questions about Obama's relationship with people like William Ayers is just giving bonafides to an incredibly tangential and worthless accusation.

I think Hillary Clinton and crew have succeeded in one measured way - convincing the general public that to win against the republicans, you have to adopt their mindset, their concerns, for all intents and purposes become them. That's exactly what she has done, and I as a Democrat, don't want to win that way.

Posted by Zora | April 17, 2008 11:16 AM

Why media goes on all four in front of McCain? They have not asked him anything like what idiots like Gibson and Stefanapolus asked Obama. Can Marc give me an example of McCain getting same treatment from media?

This debate and its defense by Marc is not only absurd but also poronographic.

Posted by Frank | April 17, 2008 11:25 AM

Marc

I think you're being intentionally obtuse about why Democrats are mad about the way that Hillary Clinton does certain things. When she makes one of the Rovian criticisms towards Obama it lends it credibility. It makes it more acceptable for McCain or Republicans to make the same accusations and harder for Obama to call them out of bounds or to respond in kind, when the immediate and automatic response is a clip of Hillary Clinton saying the same things. It will make her an impotent surrogate for him in the general election, if as seems inevitable he is the nominee. These things are going to come out and he will be attacked, but it should not be her, on that stage, giving these accusations credibility.

The fact that you're choosing not to acknowledge that (and "not" defending ABC News - yeah, right, way to throw away your own credibility) makes one question if you retain any objectivity in this issue or if you're just being willfully naive.

Posted by Ed | April 17, 2008 11:31 AM

I am now removing your blog from my favorites. I had thought you were better than this.

Posted by Justin | April 17, 2008 11:33 AM

I don't get HRC's argument about how she is vetted and the Republican's have already slimed her so now it's Obama's turn now and if he gets elected it will be even worse. Does she think that if she gets the nomination the Republicans are going to say "well, we've already done her and there's nothing else to bring up so we'll give her a pass?" If she's the nominee, every single thing, from Whitewater, to Lewinsky, to impeachment, to the latest gaffes like Tuzla will be brought up and rehashed over and over again. New angles of every story will be examined, new pundits will have their say, and it will be Clinton sliming ad-nauseum until November. And instead of saying, like Obama, that the American people are sick of this crap and want it to stop, she eggs it on by saying how tough she is. And by then, no one will care because she'll deserve it ten-fold.

Posted by S | April 17, 2008 11:39 AM

Zora: you seem to feel that we should hand it to Obama, and applaud him.

If he wins the nomination, he will be under not one microscope put thousands. If he wins the presidency he has to re-win the presidency almost everyday with every move he's ever made and every move he makes from there on out.
The news media obsessed for weeks in Bill's early days as president whether he would be credible saluting the military. Weeks. because he didn't serve. You don't think obama and Hillary will have the same kind of weeks in office?!
And we on the left want to pretend it is all nonsense, that it is all bs but it really isn't. America has a lot of symbols and symbolism that matters to a lot of people. We want the president to adhere to a lot of arcane rules and symbols just as we expect each other to do in our family lives and work lives.
Obama didn't do well last night in a lot of ways.
he failed a lot of different smell tests.

I am a hard core democrat who has never voted republican and never will.
But in recent weeks Obama has bombed out a lot with wright and elitegate and I just don't think he can succeed. I don't think he can hold it together. Last night was bad. Would you hang with Ayers if you were trying to win?
remember the symbols are really important.

Posted by Michael C. | April 17, 2008 11:47 AM

I have put your blog on my favorites, and I don't expect to always concur with your opinions.

I was surprised to discover your blog, but I'm sure you would not mind if I continue to read the paper edition of your magazine.

Posted by Andrew B | April 17, 2008 11:53 AM

You're missing it, Marc.

The issue is that the mediots at ABC News asked non-substantive questions at the expense of ones about the credit crisis, Maliki's support for Iran (in fact, nothing about how we have handed Shia Iraq to Shia Iran), climate change, and you know, things that actually matter.

Posted by Rich | April 17, 2008 12:14 PM

Marc, I like your blog and I'm definitely not going to unbookmark you. But last night's debate was not OK. As many have said, there was way too much time spent on trivialities, and the trivialities that were presented were heavily one-sided.

Moreover, at least one of the missing anti-Clinton trivialities -- Colombia -- points to the substantive question of conflict of interest within the Clinton household. I, for one, would like Clinton to be pressed further on just how much money her husband has made in service of advocating positions she purportedly disagrees with. They've refused to release the donor list to his library. I think the public has a right to know what interests have financially supported interests so that we can have some idea what sort of internal pressures there might be in a Clinton white house. If we are to believe that Clinton is a serious contender for the nomination, these are questions that need to be addressed before the nomination is decided, not after. If she's not a serious contender, then why are we bothering with this debasing three ring circus?

Posted by Maggie | April 17, 2008 12:17 PM

Michael C., I definitely don't want to see Obama have a cakewalk to the nomination or the presidency. And you make a good point about the obsession with Bill's past and the tangential issues there.

My issue is this, if we are going to hold this high of a standard to the candidates, the same should be said of John McCain who has just as many suspect associations as we could try to pin on Obama.

This whole thing smacks of the success the republicans have been able to have with making their ideology mainstream. Why does it matter that Obama does not wear a flag lapel pin? Why does it matter that he has had a casual association with someone who is arguably a relic and currently a professor at a major university? Why does any of that matter? It only matters because republicans say it should. It has nothing to do with his legislative philosophy (you need only look at his record to find where he stands on that) or his personal views. Why is it that the underscoring thought of this question is that he is somehow lying to us about wanting to unify this nation and move past the divisions of the past? If you could help me Michael C. and tell me where this line of questioning leads, other than to a gutter full of secret fears that the man is going to let terrorist rule this country, then we can talk about the validity of the interrogation last night and why, in my very strong opinion, it is problematic.

Posted by Zora | April 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Actually, Josh Marshall has been much less "temperate" since he climbed on Obama's bandwagon (in tone, if not officially). He sat by while Hillary was savaged for months, but now he speaks up when Obama gets his "due." All those Obama fans who enjoyed watching Hillary squirm can't claim a high-minded desire for fairness when their guy is suddenly in the squirm-light.

Posted by Sue | April 17, 2008 12:31 PM

"It also is illogical for Democrats to assert that simply because Republicans are likely to bring up certain issues and associations in certain ways, the media or other Democrats ought to be prohibited from bringing those up."

This is the most ridiculously backward distortion I've seen in a while. No one is saying that Democrats should refrain from bringing things up because the Republicans will. They are saying that the fact the Republicans will slime the Democratic nominee is not a very good reason for his Democratic opponents and the supposedly objective news media to start the party. Bringing up Bill Ayers is not wrong because the Republicans will do it; it's wrong because its a malicious smear.

Posted by really | April 17, 2008 12:37 PM

Sue, I wish people would stop referring to people who support Obama as fans. By attempting to belittle genuine supporters of the man, you undermine your point.

But here's my issue. Let him squirm on the issues! Sue, did you get any clarity last night on where Obama stood on issues facing our country? Matters of the economy? Our relationship with China and their crimes against Tibet and Darfur? Our current housing crisis and the fact that Greenspan has declared the US in a recession? What issue that matters to you got addressed last night? None of mine did. And those capital gains and Iraq withdrawl questions were framed in a republican mindset.

Quiz Obama! Quiz him definitely, but don't quiz him on BS! Quiz him on the issues.

This is not a game where we can play, who'll make them squirm the most. I don't take comfort in that and neither should you.

Posted by Zora | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM

Sue,

Your post actually seems to ask a good faith question, unlike 99% of the pro-Hillary (legit and pro-McCain posing as pro-Hillary) posts in this and other threads, so I'll get out of rant mode and try to answer it.

I think many Obama supporters are against any negative attacks, and would agree with you about the attacks on Clinton. For better or worse, those people don't tend to be very active on these types of forums.

But in my view, some negative attacks are legitimate, some aren't. Both candidates have had to face some legitimate negative attacks, both have had to face some non-legitimate attacks. Many people such as myself who ... aren't too fond of Senator Clinton would say that the hits Hillary has taken over the past few months have, for the most part, been entirely fair.

The problem last night ... it really wasn't so much the "bitter" questions to Obama. It may surprise you to hear that I think that those questions were legitimate (though Clinton crossed the line in the over the top way that she tried to exploit the issue). While at the end of the day I think Obama has a perfectly valid defensefor those remarks, I won't pretend that it isn't an issue.

What really steamed Obama supporters were the bullshit negative questions, and Hillary piling on on those non-issues. I'm talking about Ayers, and the flag pin obsecenity, and Rev. Wright (which might have been a marginally legitimate issue a few weeks ago, but isn't now, especially in the way that it was used by the moderators and Hillary).

The proper analogy isn't last night versus the past few months and the legitimate questions that Clinton has had to address, but rather last night versus... well, let;s say that the moderators had asked Clinton about those lesbian rumors? Would that have been outrageous and vile? You bet. But Obama had to put up with the equivelant.

Posted by LarryM | April 17, 2008 12:53 PM

Folks, why is everyone surprised that Ambie is defending is fellow MSM journalists? Dweebs always defend there fellow dweebs.

It's probably best to think of DC as high school, in a way, but with the roles reversed. Just look at our current crop of establishment Washington journos and ask yourself, is there a cool kid among them?

Ambie, like Georgie and Charlie, as well as Matty, Megan and alter boy Ross (might as well be fair and throw in the rest of the Atlantic nerd squad) were not cool kids in high school. They are neither athletic nor good looking nor particular charming, there are insecure, unattractive geeks. Have you seen the Atlantic videos?

In short these folks are dweebs.

Back in high school, they wrote for the school paper, or they became mathletes, chess club or dungeons and dragons members, they took AP courses (excelled primarily in English and other non-hard science course, since if they were truly talented in math and science they wouldn't be journalists in the first place) and they won scholastic awards, teachers patted them on the heads and told them they were good, smart boys and girls. But in the larger social landscape of high school they were still outsiders, few people other than fellow dweebs hung out with them, mainly out of default rather than choice (no one else wanted to be seen with them).

They played by the rules of high school and they, for the most part, succeeded, particularly be acing one of the most important rules, they got good grades, but were still without any power or prestige. They were not cool.

Cut to the Ivy League/highly rated small liberal arts school of choice. Finally, they think, I'm in a place where everyone is like me, and finally I'll be cool. Nope. Even at Harvard, social awkward, unattractive and unathletic kids are, amazingly, still dweebs (read Douthat's book about going to Harvard, where he complains that even at Harvard he's still a dweeb).

Fast Forward to Washington DC. Finally, a place where twirpy, professorial looking men in bow times are considered cool and sexy. (Certainly they are salt-of-the-earth men, right George Will?) Where clever, insecure but flat-chested women get attention and a make-over and, may even seem to some, as hot. (I'm checking you out, Gloria Borger.) They have money, have have power, but finally, finally, within the weird alternative reality that is DC, they are cool. Oh, to be a short, pudgy, squeaky-voiced journalist in turn-of-the-millenium Washington D.C.!

City of Dweebs.

So it's no wonder Ambie rushes to the defense of the status quo (Brookie's too). Without it, where is he? Have you seen the man? He's disgusting, he's a troglodyte. Without D.C. he'd be a Wells Fargo branch manager in the Antalope Valley.

So, no longer will I read an Ambie article and engage him on substance. It's all personal issues, from now on.

So, her e is a start: Dude, lose weight."

Posted by Shine | April 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Shine: right on target.

Ambinder, after all, it's our job as readers to demand a better product from you. So please tell us why you refuse to lose weight.

Posted by bakum | April 17, 2008 1:39 PM

Whatever, Ambinder.

Anything you say about this is tainted because as we all know you are a hack journalist in the bag for Hillary.

So we should care how you parse a bullshit debate?

Uh, no.

A Clinton shill is a Clinton shill.

The Onion could have written your response, because it was so expected and pre-programmed, and such a joke.

The Atlantic deserves better. Is Stephanopolous really that different than Ambinder? One is a former Clinton campaign hack, and the other is clearly campaigning to be one in the future.

Fire. Ambinder. Now.

Posted by Jimmy James | April 17, 2008 2:01 PM

Uh, Marc, you do know that there are like 15000+ comments and counting on the ABC website already that disagree with you?

Posted by former deaniac | April 17, 2008 2:05 PM

Yea, Ayers, the flag pin- definitely debatable. These are the kind of things that put food on your family.

I'm sure it's never occurred to you to wonder how a President who had started a disastrous war under tenuously if not out and out false pretenses, not to mention a whole litany of other policy failures from deficits, to jobs, to eyesores in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib, could be reelected? I know, I know. John Kerry is a flip flopping elitist. That's how you sleep at night. The truth is that George Bush was able to have a disastrous second term because of all the 'fair' questions you people advance and make story-lines out of. Righteous malarkey.

The bottom line is that for the first 50 minutes, every story meaningful only in how it can decide the election in favor of Republicans was discussed. THEREAFTER, all serious issues were framed according to Republican talking points or given 1 minute or dismissed entirely. The capital gains badgering was an abomination was wrong both with respect to the underlying argument and with respect to the number of Americans that are subject to it (the VAST majority of Americans who hold stock do so through tax-deferred accounts where capital gains does not exist). There were no questions about the housing crisis- gasoline prices were given short shrift- Iran was 'building nukes' in spite of a National Intelligence Estimate that says otherwise- the Iraq War that McCain would have us fight ad infinitum was reduced to which candidate will be less irresponsible- and the moderators were VERY concerned if Democrats were going to be big time tax and spenders.

You don't want to defend that? Congratulations on a wise choice. Why don't you try opening your eyes now, have a glance back the scene of the accident and sift through the detritus for the flight data recorder. It's LONG past due time for your lot to do some serious introspection.

Posted by Majorajam | April 17, 2008 3:22 PM

First of all, for many people ABCNews and its staff hit rock bottom last night with the types of questions they ask both of the candidates. I truly have watched their evening news program for years but won't be watching any more. Secondly, Obama is correct. To focus on the issues the moderators brought up is not what we as consumers of the news want to hear. We want to know how their presidencies would affect us - ie, economy, social security, Iraq, and the US presence on the world stage. Almost none of this was discussed. What a waste of time and resources.

Posted by marty | April 17, 2008 4:26 PM

I don't think it matters who you are supporting in this election--the question about whether or not Jeremiah Wright really loves America was ridiculous. Period. And the word around the watercooler today about that is unanimous.

Posted by CJ | April 17, 2008 6:17 PM

A tough debate is great, even a fairly one-sided debate is perfectly fine if there is a presumptive nominee. But only if its primarily on things that matter (i.e. the War on Terrorism, Iraq, the Economy, housing issues, health care, etc) as opposed to the same gaffes (for both sides) that have already been repeated ad nauseum.

The fact that it took almost an hour to get past the process questions and towards the policy questions was unacceptable. Yes, the process questions should have some coverage since they will be brought up in the General Election, but it shouldn't take up almost half of the debate.

Posted by LC | April 17, 2008 7:41 PM

There is a flaw in the notion Hillary Clinton's background has been vetted more thoroughly than Barack Obama. Or that her past comments, deeds and associations should be ignored by the press.

Simply, she has not been fully vetted In Public During Her PRESIDENTIAL Run.

As in - 'we wrote about her, but all that was years ago.'

What is known of her exists when she was first lady, or running for Senate. She is open to a different scrutiny now, as well as open, sunshine coverage of her past at this time. The press is not speaking about what she has done now - it's simply referring all of us to google her and see if we find something.

I was surprised to hear she advised Bill to 'screw 'em' about white southern males who did not support her. Yet we hear about Obama's comments and deeds. Even Margaret Warner of PBS NewsHour described it as "Obama was battling not only Hillary Clinton, but also the moderators from ABC News." So you know it's not just the Obama supporters parsing these events.

On 'Political Radar' at ABC, I see a list of Obama did this, Obama did that. Yet many of the others taking ABC to task are pointing the Clinton ommissions out. What's wrong with ABC.

Ratings?

If that's the case, when Obama gets in, we need to openly discuss how to challenge and remove the license for ABC to operate a broadcast outlet in the United States of America. Because the company's motives do not serve the public.

Posted by kravitz | April 17, 2008 8:44 PM

ABC violated the cardinal rule. The "Golden
Child" must not be impugned by the unwashed.
ABC is now a pariah....just ask that MSNBC
poobah, K. Olberman....he, formerly of sports
casting fame, must be apoplectic...but
I wouldn't know for sure. I watch the news.

Posted by hombre | April 18, 2008 1:52 AM