April 17, 2008

4/17: Worst. Debate. Ever?

Remember when righty bloggers were overwhelmingly appalled by the 12/07 Des Moines Register GOP debate? Well, that was nothing compared to the netroots' reaction to last night's ABC News debate, which is being described as the "worst debate ever," an "unmitigated travesty," and "an abomination." Liberal bloggers are furious that moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused on "partisan gotchas and frivolous points" and didn't ask a single issue-based question for the first 50 minutes. They also believe that many of the questions had a right-wing slant and were biased against Barack Obama. In fact, many bloggers are pointing out that at least one of Stephanopolous' questions did apparently originate in conservative talk radio. Bloggers are voicing their displeasure by urging their readers to call ABC News and complain. As of press time, over 14,000 comments -- most of them negative -- have been posted to the ABC News comments site.

Conservative bloggers, in contrast, were pleased by Gibson's and Stephanopolous' questions. While they think that Hillary Clinton came off looking better than Obama, most of them are convinced that John McCain was the real winner of the debate. The netroots agree with the latter point, which is why the criticism of Clinton in the liberal blogosphere is growing louder and louder.

DEM DEBATE: And We've Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers overwhelmingly thought this debate was the worst of the cycle:

• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Worst. Debate. Ever."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This debate was [an] unmitigated travesty."
• Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell: "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "[This debate] wasn't just awful on its face, it was hard not to watch wondering if moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were actually undermining the public discourse with their inanity. It marked a new low for the media freak-show. I was conflicted emotionally between anger at ABC for this travesty and pity for the network for having sunk so low."
• Firedoglake's Eli: "That was really, really horrible. Charlie Gibson and Mr. Snuffalupagus fed Clinton and Obama nothing but gotcha questions. Torture never came up, China never came up, unchecked executive power never came up, and it was 50+ minutes in before they asked any questions that could be considered remotely substantive or issues-based."
• Daily Kos' smintheus: "Let's tote up the colossal, the major, and also the very, very big issues that ABC's Gibson and Stephanopoulos have not deigned to bring up: Health care; the recession; Afghanistan; the mortgage crisis; deregulation; veterans' care; torture; restoring America's image abroad; the surveillance state; the environment. The Constitution."

Conservative blogger Jonah Goldberg predicted the netroots' angry reaction to the debate: "I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a 'fighting Dem' who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the 'real issues,' I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying."

DEM DEBATE II: Who Wrote The Questions -- Sean Hannity?!

Liberal bloggers are furious about Gibson's and Stephanopolus's debate questions, which they perceived as having an obvious right-wing slant:

• Daily Kos' DHinMI: "The questioning in tonight's debate -- mostly straight out of 1988 -- was an abomination. Gun control. 60's radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action. I'll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton and Piss Christ."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was a prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn't wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can't win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn't trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate."
• Marshall: "Not only were most of the questions on partisan gotchas and frivolous points. But more importantly the questions upon which the candidates were pressed the most were ones that presumed the correctness of Republican agenda items, sometimes explicitly so -- on taxes, capital gains taxes, gun rights, Iraq, etc. [...] If they'd wanted Hannity to moderate, I'm sure he would have made himself available."
• Atrios: "Aside from the lack of policy questions, so far this 'debate' has been played entirely on wingnut ground. If [Bill O'Reilly] and Sean Hannity hosted it the questions would've been the same. In a general election debate it would make sense to get questions from the right like that, but in a democratic primary it's just f*cking stupid."
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "I missed Tim Russert -- that's how bad last night's 'Michelle Malkin/Steve Doocy' driven non-policy based debate turned out."

DEM DEBATE III: ...Actually, Yes, Hannity Did Write One Of The Questions

As Linkins reports, Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio show on Tuesday and started "taking notes" while Hannity dictated questions that he wanted Stephanopoulos to ask Obama. Democratic Underground's Emit was one of the first bloggers to report this:

"George Stephanopoulos was just on the Sean Hannity Radio show getting all chummy with Hannity. [...] Hannity asked George what kinds of questions they'll be asking at the debate tomorrow and they discussed a few things. When Hannity asked about the first question below about Ayers and whether George had plans to ask such a question, George replied, 'Well, I'm taking notes now Sean.' It did actually sound like he was pausing to take notes. And Hannity continued to feed him more:

1) Ask Obama about his relationship with [Bill] Ayers and WeatherUnderground and [David] Axelrod's comments, 'They're friendly'

2) Ask Obama why he attended the Million Man March"

NRO's Mark Hemingway passes along an email from a reader that seems to confirm this discussion between Hannity and Stephanopoulos: "You can thank Sean Hannity for that question. Steph was on his show yesterday and Sean really hammered the point that no one in the media had asked Obama about Ayers. Stephy said he was writing down all the info Sean gave him."

NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard reports that Stephanopoulos was also interviewed on Tuesday by WOR Radio's Steve Malzberg, who also suggested that Stephanopoulos ask Obama about Ayers (audio here). Stephanopoulos replied, "It's a damn good question."

Naturally, Obama's online supporters are furious that Stephanopoulos -- who, as many have pointed out, is a former Clinton aide -- was repeating questions given to him by right-wing radio hosts:

• Oliver Willis: "So ABC's debate moderator -- Stephanopoulos -- goes on Sean Hannity's radio show, and Hannity essentially hands him opposition research and the ABC 'journalist' just repeats it in the course of a presidential debate. Yeah, the media's liberal."
• Daily Kos diarist Billary Redux: "[On Tuesday], George was documented conspiring with TWO Right Wing Blowhards against Obama. [...] If this is his standard, why not let [Dick] Cheney moderate the debate, or McCain even!"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The [debate] questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Stephanopoulos was coached by Hannity? Figures...A former Clinton staffer -- someone who owes his entire career to the Clintons -- asks her opponent questions devised by Sean Hannity."

DEM DEBATE IV: How Does It Feel Now, Obama?

Not every liberal blogger was outraged by the debate. Pro-Clinton bloggers felt that Obama finally received the tough questions from debate moderators that Clinton had been getting throughout the campaign:

• Taylor Marsh: "Obama hasn't had this type of questioning before. No doubt his supporters will be upset, while Clinton's supporters likely feel it was long overdue. The truth is that Gibson and Stephanopoulos asked questions that have been on people's minds, but nobody else in the media had the spine to bring up."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Some journalists are outraged over the the questions. Of course, the questions in this debate were no different than those in previous debates that lacked substance and seemed designed to put a candidate on the hot seat -- the difference was that this time (for once) it was Obama, not Hilary getting the heat."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The biggest joke of the night is to watch Keith Olbermann of NBC say this debate was some travesty, which it was, as if NBC did not run the most offensive, most ridiculous, most unfair debates ever held. There is no doubt that the ABC debate tonight was horrendous and extremely unfair to Obama. There is no doubt that NBC's debates were all worse. [...] Surprisingly, for the first time, it was Obama who got the bad treatment tonight. Really bad. But no worse than Clinton got in every NBC debate."

DEM DEBATE V: Now, Those Are My Kinds Of Questions!

Conservative bloggers thought the debate moderators did an excellent job:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Wow. Charlie Gibson notes that when the capital gains taxes were cut under both [Bill] Clinton and [George W.] Bush, revenues went up. These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Obama isn't the underdog anymore, and Charlie Gibson isn't rolling over for him a la SNL. Gibson and Stephanopoulos have, on behalf of their colleagues, responded to the ridicule with, as Hillary might say, massive retaliation. [...] If Obama can overcome his terrible performance tonight, then there's nothing that can stop him. Because after the blowback from the left tomorrow, no debate moderator will ever dare to go after him like this again. William Ayers? If the Factor had moderated the debate I don't think he would have gone there."
• Michelle Malkin: "The left-wing bloggers are in high dudgeon over the Democrat debate. [...] How dare the ABC moderators ask questions about topics that are, you know, topical? How dare they ask questions that -- gasp! -- conservatives are asking. How dare they explore questions of character, truthfulness, and judgment? [...] Don't you know you're supposed to ask the same, old, recycled softball questions in order to allow the candidates to recite the same, old, recycled answers about their health plans, their housing plans, their Iraq withdrawal plans?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Democrats, especially superdelegates, are right now trying to determine who is the best candidate to face John McCain. It makes perfect sense to give Democrats the opportunity to see how each candidate responds to the type of attacks they can expect in a general election. You could even argue that ABC was doing the Democrats a favor, by allowing them to better prepare for the type of questions they'll be asked."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The winners were clear: Hillary and ABC. As for the latter, they laced into Obama again and again, forcing him to answer uncomfortable questions and revealing that he had very little to say that might put to rest the concerns of many Democrats, let alone any independents and Republicans. By questioning the premise of a key portion of the Democrats' tax plan (i.e. raising the capital gains tax decreases revenue) they did a public service. So if this was an effort to correct the generally fawnish treatment by the MSM of Obama they succeeded."

DEM DEBATE VI: The Real Winner? McCain, Baby!

Conservative bloggers thought that Obama had a worse performance than Clinton, but that McCain was the real winner:

• Morrissey: "The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they're speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight."
• Hemingway: "And the winner is...McCain by a landslide! [...] My prediction? The debate will be received so badly there will be increased pressure to kick Hillary out of the race. But since Obama was clearly the worse of the two in the debate, Hillary will win PA as expected and the goat rodeo will continue for the forseeable future with even more acrimony between the two candidates. Which only helps McCain."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Hillary wasn't on her best game tonight, but she did successfully manage to stick the shiv in Barack's back (figuratively speaking) several times -- without seeming as nasty or aggressive as she might have. Not that it will matter, probably...she did less to win herself any votes than she did to see that Barack loses them. If I were part of John McCain's team, I'd be clinking a champagne glass with somebody tonight.
• Rubin: "This [debate] only seems to confirm Hillary Clinton's argument that Obama is unprepared to take the scrutiny which will come with the nomination. The more they holler 'Foul!' the more Clinton will say 'Told 'ya so.'"
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "If there's even a marginal impact I have to think it's bad for Obama. He got tough questions for a change, muddled through his answers, and generally got his clock cleaned."

Philip Klein disagrees with the conservative consensus that Clinton had a good night: "Barack Obama undoubtedly had a bad performance in last night's debate, but I've been surprised to read how many people thought Hillary Clinton did well. [...] If some conservative commentators think she did well, it's only because several of the criticisms Clinton lobbed at Obama -- on [Jeremiah] Wright, on guns, on 'cling gate,' etc. came from a conservative perspective. It's kind of like in the wake of the YouTube debate last year in which pundits on the right praised Clinton for attacking Obama as being naïve for wanting to meet with foreign dictators. (Clinton was being the grown up, Obama wasn't ready for primetime.) But to liberals, Obama's stand reinforced the fact that he was the candidate who represented a true break with the Bush foreign policy. Obama may have been pummeled last night, but there's a lot of liberal rage against ABC, and Clinton will be seen as a collaborator who spent the night doing John McCain's dirty work. That may earn her kudos among conservative bloggers, but she needs the support of Democrats to win the nomination."

DEBATE CLINTON: I'm Just Showing You What The GOP Will Do

Liberal bloggers were disgusted by Clinton's conduct during the debate:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn't sink any lower, but thus far she's really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she's making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she's the one doing it now."
• Marshall: "Hillary: The Republicans are so bad that I have to become one to save the Democratic party."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It's like she's determined to show that however low the moderators go, she'll beat them out."
• Sudbay: "For Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. [...] She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason -- just to say it. Give me a break."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Gibson and Stephanopoulos spent more than half of their time playing 'gotcha' on subjects that only the idiot pundit class obsess over. But Gibson and Stephanopoulos weren't the only two participants playing the game, because Hillary Clinton was right down in the mud with them."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Geraghty praises Clinton's performance: "I don't like Hillary Clinton. But I respect her as an adversary. And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to 'go there' in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I'm tempted to say, 'I like the cut of your jib, Senator.' [...] Tonight, she had her stumbles. [...] But she tore into Obama on all of his weak spots. Relentlessly. For the most part, she avoided looking nasty while she did it. [...] After about forty-five minutes, David Axelrod probably should have thrown in the towel and stopped the fight."

DEM FIELD: The Electability Debate...Part 12,583,457

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers continue to compare Obama's electability argument with Clinton's:

• Big Tent Democrat: "It so happens that I think, because of his Media Darling status, Obama remains the more electable candidate. I think he can expand the electoral map in the West especially. But I am not foolish enough to deny what should be obvious to any person able to view this contest objectively -- Obama is a much bigger risk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. [...] That is not to say Obama can not win in Ohio and Pennsylvania (he can't in Florida [in my opinion]), but rather it is to say that Clinton would be more likely to win in those states (just as Obama is more likely to win in Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, etc.)."
• Marshall agrees that Clinton is stronger in FL: "In general, Sen. Clinton's claims to be the stronger general election candidate are belied by most available evidence -- polling, favorability ratings, quality of the campaign each candidate has run so far, etc. The one exception is Florida. And Florida's no small exception. You can see a list here of all the polls of Florida. And Sen. Clinton consistently does better than Sen. Obama against Sen. McCain."
• Marshall goes on to make the same point that Yglesias made yesterday: "One related point is that I believe both Clinton's and Obama's number vis a vis McCain are depressed by their bashing each other and McCain's waltzing around with no one attacking him. A lot of Dems are fretting at the moment. And I'll admit to a touch of fretting myself. In fact, Florida is a major fret for me. But one also has to keep this point squarely in mind. McCain is now in his ideal environment. He's getting a bump from securing the nomination. And he has essentially no opponent. No one is attacking and thus there are no attacks for the media to churn through. Meanwhile, both Democrats are getting hit right and left. And attacks on each are the media's regular diet. And with all this, both Dems appear to be running essentially even with McCain. That's not a good sign for McCain."

OBAMA: Winning The Coveted Hamas Endorsement

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about comments made by Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef about Obama:

"'We don't mind -- actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,' Yousef said in response to a question about the group's willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates."

• Philip Klein: "It's pretty clear what's going on here. Hamas wants an American president who they can manipulate, Arafat-style, into believing they seek peace, while they continue a campaign of terrorism and hang on to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. They know they have an easy mark in Obama."


• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Yousef said, 'We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election.' Why? 'He has a vision to change America.' Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to 'change.'"


• CBN's David Brody: "Obama does have some ties to the pro-Palestinian crowd. I think it's fair to say that the vetting of Obama is in full force. More to come I'm sure. Can he withstand it?"

CLINTON: All Negative, All The Time

Liberal bloggers are discussing TPM's Greg Sargent's report that "[Clinton's] TV ad campaign is now 100% negative in most Pennsylvania markets":

• TPM's David Kurtz: "Just to give you an idea of how much of an opening the Hillary camp sees Obama's bitter gaffe giving her in Pennsylvania, her 'small town' ad is the only spot she has running in most of the TV markets in the state."
• Sudbay: "This should make all the Clinton staffers, consultants and supporters very, very proud. They can't win the nomination, but they are willing to participate in the effort to destroy the Democratic nominee. Thirty-five years of public service and experience, yet all she can come up with is an ad twisting Obama's remarks, which are remarkably similar to things her own husband said. Wow. It's not only destructive, it's sad and pathetic. And, again, it must make all those Clinton staffers so proud. So proud."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Modest Proposal

Yglesias:

"How is it that we can't have our Republican primary debates moderated by conservatives and our Democratic debates moderated by liberals? Doesn't it seem like a panel of progressives might have a better sense of what Democratic primary voters want to hear about? The Republican Presidential Debate with Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, the Democratic Presidential Debate with Harold Meyerson and Katrina vanden Heuvel -- something along those lines."

LEST WE FORGET: Chinese Class Clown Executed

From The Onion:

"BEIJING -- Known among schoolmates for his spirited antics and ability to make light of almost any situation, classroom jokester Wei Xiang, 11, was put to death by the Chinese government for drawing a mustache on an image of Education Minister Zhou Ji in one of his textbooks, sources reported Monday. 'An enemy of the state has been dealt with accordingly,' government spokesman Xu Qi said following Wei's execution by firing squad. 'Let this be a lesson to other children considering wising off or otherwise wasting valuable class time.' The fifth-grader previously served a six-month term in solitary confinement at Qincheng Prison after referring to the Tang Dynasty as 'the Stank Dynasty' during a history lesson in 2007."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at April 17, 2008 01:03 PM