Pinstripe Politics: In Defense of ABC News
What's the big deal? At the Democratic debate last night, ABC News asked tough questions of Obama because he is the frontrunner.... and he handled them poorly. Clinton was on her game with those answers, probably her best performance thus far.
The debate about the debate is nonsense. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did a great job in moderating that debate. Critics have said that it focused too much on issues irrelevant to the campaign, such as the "bitter" comments and who Obama associates with. I say, great job!
Finally, after weeks of the two campaigns attacking each other, they finally had a chance to confront the accusations. Some say there should have been a bigger focus on policy - nonsense! - after 20 previous debates, I think we all get the picture... they aren't that dissimilar... I want to hear about the character issues; about whether Obama thinks Rev. Wright loves America as much as Obama does. Ultimately, the general election is going to be won or lost on these kinds of issues; those that are going to vote based on policy will have a very distinct line between McCain and Obama or Clinton... the undecided voters will be swayed by the kinds of issues Gibson brought up in last night's debate.
But don't just take my word for it. Here's David Brooks of the NY Times:
As a side note, I'd like to strongly condemn Philadelphia's ABC Affiliate WPVI for their horribly amateurish reporting of the debate. Right after the debate ended, they announced that they had an interview with Governor Rendell (a well-known Clinton supporter). They asked him how the debate went, who he thought won, etc. He very obviously spinned for Clinton. WPVI made no mention of his support for Clinton and acted as though he was an impartial source. After that interview, the anchors threw the coverage to the spin room for more analysis... as if Rendell's interview wasn't spin. Give me a break WPVI, I've seen better reporting at my old High School newspaper.
The debate about the debate is nonsense. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did a great job in moderating that debate. Critics have said that it focused too much on issues irrelevant to the campaign, such as the "bitter" comments and who Obama associates with. I say, great job!
Finally, after weeks of the two campaigns attacking each other, they finally had a chance to confront the accusations. Some say there should have been a bigger focus on policy - nonsense! - after 20 previous debates, I think we all get the picture... they aren't that dissimilar... I want to hear about the character issues; about whether Obama thinks Rev. Wright loves America as much as Obama does. Ultimately, the general election is going to be won or lost on these kinds of issues; those that are going to vote based on policy will have a very distinct line between McCain and Obama or Clinton... the undecided voters will be swayed by the kinds of issues Gibson brought up in last night's debate.
But don't just take my word for it. Here's David Brooks of the NY Times:
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
As a side note, I'd like to strongly condemn Philadelphia's ABC Affiliate WPVI for their horribly amateurish reporting of the debate. Right after the debate ended, they announced that they had an interview with Governor Rendell (a well-known Clinton supporter). They asked him how the debate went, who he thought won, etc. He very obviously spinned for Clinton. WPVI made no mention of his support for Clinton and acted as though he was an impartial source. After that interview, the anchors threw the coverage to the spin room for more analysis... as if Rendell's interview wasn't spin. Give me a break WPVI, I've seen better reporting at my old High School newspaper.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pinstripe Politics
| Permalink | 
