Reader Reaction To The ABC Debate

I'll post some of the more interesting responses from readers. D.W:

..And that's why it was a bad debate. 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, or what capacity he may or may not have for leading the free world. No direct questions about handling the mortgage crisis, no questions about handling a potential environmental crisis, no questions about China, nothing about Pakistan, on and on and on. You can ask difficult questions about these subjects, and make these candidates squirm, about stuff that matters, not just petty BS 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; neither candidate was ever really challenged.

Comments

I love this.

Obama has no record at all, so all he is left to run on is his judgment, but any question regarding his judgment is a "distraction."

This guy is just a terrible candidate. Just because a question makes him look incompetent does not mean it is a distraction. If he is supposed to be the candidate of infinite, unflappable judgment, he needs to be able to explain his many lapses in judgment. That is not a distraction, it goes straight to discrediting his self identified strengths.

Fanbois can cry all they like. Their guy is being exposed.

-Ben

Posted by Ben | April 17, 2008 10:57 AM

I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton would rather have the five supers (plus Springsteen) that Barack Obama racked over the last 24 hours than whatever scraps she gets from a cheap, unearned post-debate news cycle that will have worn itself out by the end of today.

To the degree that either candidate can be judged to have "won" last night's ridiculous charade, Obama will quickly be seen as having benefited the most from last night's ordeal.

A TPM diarist points out:

...there was no news.

Hillary Clinton needed news. On that fundamental level, Barack Obama won tonight's debate.

Another TPM diarist makes what could be an even more important observation:

...the attack "game" played for irrelevant issues like Ayers and Bittergate is where Clinton wants to take her campaign into these waning hours, as she feels the negative way is her only way to the GE.

Obama, on the other hand, facing a fellow Democrat with voters he will really need in November, holds back and doesn't drum us in Clinton-like fashion with snide remarks about her Bosnia gaffe, Penn's disgraceful Columbia activity, her campaign mismanagement, etc.

He had to stay above the fray because he is not facing a Republican. He is facing a fellow Democrat with an important group of supporters for whom he must maintain respect!

A debate of Democrats is not the same thing as a debate of a Democrat and a Republican, and certainly not when the end is so very near for the Dems and a frontrunner must keep an eye on the Big Picture. Obama did that last night and I think it was a very smart move.

Indeed, the reason why Obama is within a few weeks of the nomination is precisely because he consistently has respected voters by refusing to play the debased game with which Gibson and Stephanopoulos were trying to bait him.

Why should he start playing that game now?

Posted by horizonr | April 17, 2008 11:02 AM

ABC has been "Hillary TV" for months. My wife and I both watched their "coverage" get more and more biased as Hillary slid further and further behind.

It's slime over substance, and ABC has proven many times over that they are unprepared to handle substance. Perhaps this is a case of "substance abuse"? (Sorry.)

Posted by LFC | April 17, 2008 11:09 AM

I watched the debate online, on a feed which included a dial-test graph of undecided voters. This inevitably colored my judgment of how the debate went, so much so that I was stunned by how the emerging CW differed from my impressions.

Basically, the dial test showed that the undecided voters were unambiguously positive about both candidates. There were only two or three answers where the graph indicated net disapproval at all -- like when Obama was explaining Wright's comments, before he pivoted to a more favorable topic and got the needle moving upward again. There was only one answer where the graph stayed in negative territory for the whole answer, and that was when Hillary was whacking Obama on, I believe, Ayres.

But in general, the dial test showed that in first segment, voters were eager to accept Obama's explanations, even if delivered poorly, and tended to think poorly of Hillary when she pressed him on them. When Obama rose to Hillary's defense (and implicitly his own) on the Bosnia nonsense, he got the highest rating in the debate up to that point.

In the second, issues-based segment, Hillary got better scores in general, but not so much so that it looked like a rout.

I was stunned when I came here and saw that you thought Obama couldn't have done worse. Maybe you just have a higher opinion of his skills than I do. It seemed to me before the debate, and was quickly confirmed after it started, that Hillary's best hope was to knock him off-balance and get him to say something that they could use as a closing attack over the next week. And he didn't give her anything at all. The forum was ridiculous, but it did provide a great showroom for his argument about representing an end to this sort of politics.

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

Stephanopolous and Gibson should be censured by ABC and the FCC. The "show" director was also at fault with all those Princess Chelsea cutaways.

ABC is a broadcast network, unlike the cables. It is provided our airwaves with the public's trust. Last night, they broke that trust.

Revoke!

Additionlly, the shameful stoking of candidates hasn't met that low watermark before, even by Fox.

ABC News must take action. Ax Stephanpopolous -- he's a Clinton-ite, and last night convicts him. Gibson too. To do nothing would be the bigger crime.

Posted by AgentZero | April 17, 2008 11:21 AM

Stephanopolous and Gibson should be censured by ABC and the FCC. The "show" director was also at fault with all those Princess Chelsea cutaways.

ABC is a broadcast network, unlike the cables. It is provided our airwaves with the public's trust. Last night, they broke that trust.

Revoke!

Additionlly, the shameful stoking of candidates hasn't met that low watermark before, even by Fox.

ABC News must take action. Ax Stephanopolous -- he's a Clinton-ite, and last night convicts him. Gibson too. To do nothing would be the bigger crime.

Posted by AgentZero | April 17, 2008 11:21 AM

I think Barack Obama should have counterpunched much harder because Team Clinton and a large portion of the media have decided that his political manhood is in question, but the questions and moderating at the debate were definitely a disgrace.

Posted by jbentley | April 17, 2008 11:22 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 11:24 AM

Marc:

If you truly believe that all the esoterica in Obama's life is fair game, then why haven't you applied the same standards to McCain? Why haven't you commented on McCain's adultery, the abysmal way he left his first wife? Why haven't you written on the allegation that he called his current wife a "trollop" and a "cunt?" Instead we're treated to reams on Wright and bitter-gate and now the Weathermen. Horrifying.

You owe your readers better than this -- fine to think what you think about Obama or Clinton, but you must devote equal space and attention to McCain. Period.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | April 17, 2008 11:42 AM

Outraged over abc “news” Stephanopoulos and Gibson’s pitiful performance last night?

Call, write, email and FAX them:

Call the Switch Board: 212-456-7777 and Ask for the Voicemail of George Stephanopoulos Directly.

Also: dial 818-460-7477 press 2 then 6 then 639

And BTW - DNFTT

Posted by Angellight | April 17, 2008 11:52 AM

Your dem. debate sucked...the first 50 minutes had nothing about the issues,it's pretty sad if you think the people of this nation only care about tabloid matters, if anything I feel Obama came out even more ahead of the game. All you did was gang up on Obama...but in my eyes he came out ahead....you blew a great opportunity to show a possibly the greatest debate so far...but you blew it...I will no longer support or watch abc again or purchase any of the products you sponsor...and plan on getting a list of your sponsors and letting them know how I feel....

Thank you, Joan Bartow

Posted by Joan Bartow | April 17, 2008 12:03 PM

Your dem. debate sucked...the first 50 minutes had nothing about the issues,it's pretty sad if you think the people of this nation only care about tabloid matters, if anything I feel Obama came out even more ahead of the game. All you did was gang up on Obama...but in my eyes he came out ahead....you blew a great opportunity to show a possibly the greatest debate so far...but you blew it...I will no longer support or watch abc again or purchase any of the products you sponsor...and plan on getting a list of your sponsors and letting them know how I feel....

Thank you, Joan Bartow

Posted by Joan Bartow | April 17, 2008 12:03 PM

Letter to ABC:

"Thanks for wasting my time, ABC News. What a joke of a debate. I'm watching this hoping to be further illuminated about the candidates' positions that ACTUALLY MATTER, not flag pins and Weather Underground. It seems like your moderators are just asking questions that they hope will turn into juicy soundbites for the post-game, er, post-debate coverage.

Wake up, Charlie Gibson. Wake up, George Stephanopoulos. America needs to be a serious country and for that, we need a serious media."

Posted by Scientific | April 17, 2008 12:35 PM

Anyone else notice that Hillary Clinton had lapels on her suit but wasn't wearing a flag pin? So is she a dirty America-hater too?

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

Indeed, the reason why Obama is within a few weeks of the nomination is precisely because he consistently has respected voters by refusing to play the debased game with which Gibson and Stephanopoulos were trying to bait him.

Why should he start playing that game now?

Posted by horizonr | April 17, 2008 11:02 AM

Exactly. He did not need to attack, he just needed to defend. I wonder why the media narrative today is not that Obama neutralized Clinton with his defense against a ridiculous assault of questions?

You owe your readers better than this -- fine to think what you think about Obama or Clinton, but you must devote equal space and attention to McCain. Period.

Posted by: BryklynLibrul | April 17, 2008 11:42 AM

And I could not agree more with this. I look forward to the tawdry investigations of McCain "because they are necessary for democracy" or something. Sadly, I think I will be waiting a long time, considering the display we saw this past week when he spoke at the National Press Club. He got his favorite donuts and his coffee just the way he likes it. Then he got a bunch of softball questions which he responded to with tripe. I saw that live on MSNBC and although I was "invited on the back of bus", I got motion sickness and wanted to throw up.

And now let's consider Obama's week. Non-stop "bittergate", which is not catching any traction on the polls. Having the Chairman of AP call Osama Obama right in front of him. And now this.

Posted by Bubba | April 17, 2008 12:43 PM

Funny that Marc Ambinder doesn't disclose his background with ... drum roll ... ta-da! ... ABC News! Who'd-a thunk it?

Posted by Watched It | April 17, 2008 1:58 PM

The lesson here is that the Democratic candidates have to start viewing their 'moderating' inquisitors as the partisan water carriers they are, and challenging them. There's really no other way. Otherwise this is going to continue to happen. They need to be publically challengend and shamed so that they get the message that they cannot pevert the politics of this nation with impunity. This is what I wrote on Ambinder's other ABC debate thread:

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 3:37 PM

The ABC debate moderators were reminiscent of schoolyard bullies taunting other kids to fistfight for their own selfish delight. It appeared that ABC was seeking to pervert an American Presidential debate into a sleazy fake reality TV show. ABC, Stephanopolous, and Gibson should be ashamed enough to apologize to American citizens for wasting the public franchise they enjoy and ABC ought to give both candidates two hours each of free airtime.

Posted by Bruce Bourgoine | April 17, 2008 4:25 PM

Worst moderators ever. They might as well have just turned it over to Hannity, let him ask Hillary if she was a lesbian who killed Vince Foster to conceal her affair with him, and ask Obama why he's a Muslim and about the inner soul of his Christian pastor.

Posted by JoshA | April 17, 2008 4:41 PM

Here's a point that might strike fear in traditional media. People are tired of the way things have been done the last 20-40 years. This idea that pundits are brighter or have opinions more worthy than common folk, I think is being challenged by the democracy of the internet and blogosphere.

What last night's "debate" showed, is how seriously out of touch the media elite are with the bulk of American citizens.

George S claims he raised the stupid issues for 50 minutes of debate because Obama would face this issues from the GOP. Well, as an independent voter, I hope the GOP doesn't try and win an election based on flag lapel pins and Rev. Wright.

Rome is burning folks, and China is on the verge of owning us. This election better not be won or lost on political drama that is about as relevant as whether or not Brittney Spears is wearing underwear.

Posted by PetraK | April 18, 2008 5:41 AM

It does not matter if you are a Clinton supporter, an Obama supporter, or even a Republican. ABC's presidential "debate" was a freak show. ABC should fire these two jokers, Stephanopoulos and Gibson pronto!

And I'm switching to CBS.

Posted by SD | April 19, 2008 5:29 AM