Apr 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM by David Pleasant
It is a well established fact by now that the Democratic debate on ABC last night was one of the worst ever — not just this election cycle. It wasn’t a debate, it was a Right-Wing smear strategy fully engaged in assassinating Barack Obama’s character. How successful they may have been in damaging Obama remains unclear, but the damage Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopuolus inflicted upon themselves and ABC is unquestionable. What little journalistic credibility they may have had before the debate was dealt a serious blow.
Who won the debate? The Republican Party and its talented new recruit, Hillary Clinton. What is important about this debate is not the single victory they scored last night, but instead recognizing this is a strategy the Republicans, in concert with the media, have employed for many years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Glenn Greenwald’s new book, Great American Hypocrites, focuses on the long-standing partnership between the Republicans and the media, and accurately illustrates the forces behind and within this hypocritical machine. After the jump is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Great American Hypocrites, which perfectly parallels what took place on center stage last night.
Although I recommend reading the entire excerpt (and the book), I have highlighted several parts that I believe are insightful and applicable to the debate last night. And unfortunately, what we can expect to see from the Republican Party and Hillary Clinton in the months ahead.
Continue reading ‘The GOP’s control of the Democratic debate’
Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM by David Pleasant
The Philadelphia Daily News endorses Barack Obama. No ambiguity in this endorsement. The headline for most newspaper endorsements are some version of "Why we chose XX" This headline is direct, "Vote for Barack Obama."
Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.
Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.
We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband’s administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.
THERE IS a way to match Clinton’s and Obama’s performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.
A candidate’s campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It’s the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It’s the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.
An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they "own" a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.
Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that’s for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Obama’s unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It’s also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.
Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.
Apr 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM by David Pleasant
The Huffington Post broke this little gem yesterday afternoon at 2:21 p.m. Since ABC was running the best "gotcha" debate I’ve ever witnessed, why did George Stephanopuolos not drill Clinton endlessly on this issue? Since Sean Hannity was giving Stephanopuolos questions before the debate yesterday, timing cannot be an excuse.
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw ‘em," she told her husband. "You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them."
The statement — which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" — was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.
Apr 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM by Political Chase
Statement issued last night from David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager:
“Tonight we saw a real choice between the old politics of point-scoring and distraction and a politics that focuses on bringing us together to actually solve the challenges we talk about every single election. Continuing the theme of her campaign, Senator Clinton used every single opportunity she had to launch misleading attack after misleading attack against Barack Obama, which is why polls show that most Americans think she’s running the most negative campaign and don’t believe she’s trustworthy. Barack Obama spoke about the issues that actually matter in people’s lives, like how he plans to end the war in Iraq, cut middle-class taxes, help people stay in their homes, and provide a secure retirement for our seniors. That’s why more Americans are putting their trust in Barack Obama to bring about the change we need in Washington.”
Apr 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM by David Pleasant
ABC’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia was absolutely awful. It might as well have been a Republican Party sponsored event with Sean Hannity and Brit Hume serving as interrogators and Hillary Clinton as their cheerleader and No. 1 fan.
For 40 to 50 minutes, Charlie Gibson and and George Stephanopuolos hammered Barack Obama on: the Wright controversy; bitter-gate; Weather Undergound activities when Obama was eight years old; and an American-flag lapel pin. While the two interrogators drilled Obama, Clinton seized every moment to further the character assassination.
During the same time period, Clinton was asked about Bosnia sniper-fire. She dismissed it as a mistake. The interrogators accepted the answer and moved on to the more important issues of eviscerating Obama. I cannot recall a single substantive question during the first half.
Moreover, in spite of all the claims Clinton has made that Obama can’t win the general election, she would not repeat her allegations on national television. After being pressed to give a yes or no answer, Clinton eventually said, “Yes. Yes. Yes.”
The debate surprisingly managed to lightly cover substantive issues — Iraq and the economy — that did not reveal anything excitingly new, with the exception of Israel and Iran. In my opinion, this is the debate’s take-away.
When Obama was asked if he “would extend our [NATO] deterrent to Israel” for protection from Iran, he appropriately gave a supportive, but mindful response. No knee-jerk reaction.
Hillary Clinton pressed the red button.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Dick Cheney in Democratic clothing, indeed. In her rapid-fire response, Clinton declared war and committed the U.S. to treaties that do not exist, all without even considering she would have absolutely no constitutional authority to do so, much less any determination of facts before launching a “massive retaliation.”
If that is Hillary Clinton’s reaction at 9:00 p.m., voters are supposed to believe it is better at 3:00 a.m.?
