Debating Electability
George Stephanopoulos has addressed criticism of his and Charles Gibson's conduct as moderators in last night's ABC-sponsored Democratic candidate debate, in the form of an interview with TalkingPointsMemo's Greg Sargent. And George went straight to the "electability" defense:
Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.Ah yes, "electability," which makes discussion of any criticism of a candidate, frivolous or serious, instantly relevant, on the theory that the opposition will hit the nominee with all this crap, so we might as well see how they handle its endless repetition today.
There are several problems with this line of "reasoning" that arrogates to journalists (not to mention the candidates themselves) the right--nay, the responsibility--to ape the nastiest hit tactics they can imagine emanating from conservatives later this year.
First of all, why is Stephanopoulos all that sure that "electability" is in the "forefront in the minds of voters evaluating" Obama and Clinton? Maybe he thinks that's the only significant difference between the two candidates, and maybe he's tired of hearing their substantive pitches, but that's not necessarily true of actual voters who have heard far less of their policy ideas lately than any manner of gotcha stuff or "symbolism."
Second of all, "electability" is a highly speculative concept at this stage of the presidential election cycle. Who knows how "electable" Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to look in October? I don't; you don't; George Stephanopoulos doesn't; and grilling the candidates on their alleged "vulnerabilities" doesn't cast much real light on that question, either.
Third of all, to the extent that we can measure "electability," there's a form of evidence that's a lot more persuasive than how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton answer nasty, contrived questions. It's called general election trial polling. And so far, both candidates remain highly competitive, in roughly equal measure, with John McCain, even though McCain is benefitting from (a) an early nomination win, (b) years of positive media attention, (c) a heavy media focus on Democratic infighting, and (d) relatively low levels of scrutiny of the relationship between his current platform and his record. Unless the entire general election is going to be fought out over Barack Obama's attitude towards flag pins or Hillary Clinton's experience one day in Kosovo, then it's hard to understand why such matters are the key to measuring "electability" for the Democratic voters of Pennslyvania.
And last of all, if "electability" was indeed the focus of ABC's moderators last night, did it occur to them that asking the candidates how, exactly, they'd criticize McCain and his platform and record on this or that issue might be relevant to the topic? After all, the general election isn't going to be merely an extended interview of the two candidates by the news media over their personal "stories." What do they think of McCain's new tax plan? How about his difficult-to-reconcile position on torture by the military and torture by the CIA? How will they handle his profession of being simultaneously a "maverick" and a rigorous foot-solider of the conservative movement? What if anything will they say about his foreign policy advisors? And on and on.
The more you look at it, the "electability" defense for endlessly superficial debates--and media "coverage" of campaigns in general--doesn't make much sense. If George just came right out and said his network needed "fireworks" to boost ratings, it would sound more plausible.
Cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist
Why is a former Clinton staffer moderating the debate at all ? It just boggles the mind.
April 17, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
April 18, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Of course ABC didn't ask about any Republican ideas. No way a MSM outlet is going to give two smart Democrats a free two hours in prime time to attack McCain and Bush. I wish they would. But ain't gonna happen.
April 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly, Mr. Kilgore, the argument of electability justifies any question. And since McCain's electability has never been raised (or if it was that is now forgotten) no questions need be raised (nor will they be) concerning his role in helping Keating bilk the public, or in calling his wife a c*nt, or his support for privatizing social security, or whether the pastor whose support he begged for, Hagee, hates Catholics, or his illegal abuse of the law governing public funding of campaigns, or his physical fighting with Renzi, or his abuse of his Republican colleagues or his vengeful pursuit of anyone who crosses him, or his ignorance of economics or his advocacy of war with Iran and North Korea, or his general doubletalk on innumerable issues. Gee, now I understand how deeply serious and thoughtful Stephanopolis and Gibson are. Thank God we have in this country a vibrant liberal mass media.
April 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Ed. Big recommend.
That wasn't a debate. That was a very boring reality show in which two very tired, very bored performing bears were taunted into making feeble swipes at each other for the moderators' amusement. I have a hard time seeing how either candidate won, when neither of them was ever voted off the island. Where was my secret ballot or text voting?
Hillary may have been attacked less and seemed more comfortable, Barack may have stood up to attacks and responded coherently to the few policy questions finally raised in the past bit of the program. But I don't think anyone could come out smelling particularly sweet when they've both been shat on for 90 minutes. Even the softballs were thrown below the belt.
If this is where the MSM is going to take the final so-called debates...well there's nothing we can do about it. Or is there? Anyone got any ideas?
April 17, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
People wouldn't be voting for Obama in such numbers if they knew he wasn't electable. And all those thousands wouldn't have complained to ABC if the elite had informed them sooner that the foremost questions on Democratic voters minds came from Sean Hannity's radio show.
Oh, and George isn't shallow. His viewers are.
April 17, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point is that if you want the candidates to address the electibility question, then why don't you just ask that.
Mr. Obama, how are you going to deal with the right wings attacks on your patriotism given your association with statements by Wright and their complaint that you don't wear a lapel pin?
You could maybe frame a couple questions like that.
But that's not what they did. They didn't frame these questions as merely questions about electibility as I just did. They didn't ask how he'd deal with perceptions.
They framed these questions as actual serious questions about Obama's character. The whole tone was an assumption of guilt and a requirement that he prove his innocence.
April 17, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although George S. is a former Clinton staffer, he's bent over backward to be as anti-Democrat as possible, to prove to his new bosses (Republicans all, if you go high enough in the hierarchy) that he is "fair and balanced".
And he let Sean Hannity feed him a question.
April 17, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok so you say it is superficial because Obama got asked some embarrassing questions. I suppose you want the debates to be about policy substance where the difference between the two is negligible. That would really bore everyone to tears.
No. We want to know how the candidates perform under pressure. To do that, you have to see how they explain things such as the Rev. Wright, the "bitterness" speech, and other things.
Obama does not do well. Therefore, at least in my book, he is not as electable as Hillary who fielded the questions thrown at her very well.
Electing the President is a serious matter. Americans want something to go on. Outside of policy wonks or political types such as ourselves nobody really cares or knows about the fine differences between their positions.
So my hat is off to Gibson and Stephanopolus for a pretty revealing round of questions.
To those of you who think that the questions were somehow unfair, it behooves you to point out in what way they are unfair? I do want to know what Obama's relationship is to Ayers and Dhorn and all the rest of the stuff that’s out there and will surely be an issue if he makes it to the general. I did not think any of the questions were unfair.
All you Obama supporters need to take a deep breath and come to realize that politics is not for the thin-skinned. Hillary has pointed out that she has been attacked in such a manner for over 15 years and survived. Indeed Obama attacks her on Republican talking points all the time through his surrogates. He should expect to get some tough questions if he wants make it to the White House.
April 17, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one time that Hillary has every been asked about the people she has associated with in the past: the McDougals, Webster Hubbel, the five people in the Rezko trial that have raised money for her campaign, etc.
Obama is being asked to not only defend his own record and statements but the statements and record of anybody he's ever associated with on the idea that he's supposed to choose his friends and associates based on their adherence to a particular belief system. Nobody does that, and it's not something being asked of Hillary or McCain.
You mention the Ayers thing as legitimate. The only reason that's legitimate is if you assume that it means he thinks what Ayers did in the past was legitimate and there's nothing to indicate that. So this is just an exersice guilty by association before proven innocent.
Ayers and Rezco both were very active in Chicago politics and nearly every Chicago politician came in contact with them. Ayers has been very active in anti-poverty efforts and Obama was trying to be active in that area too. It's dubious to me to say that Obama should have curtailed his efforts to help people because Ayers was involved and 40 years ago Ayers may have done some things.
And for the record, Ayers wasn't ever convicted of anything and no one suspects that he ever killed anyone. The Weathermen generally set bombs that did property damage as I understand it. There were deaths that occurred during the riots of Days of Rage, but it's not clear to me that that was intentional. My point is not to excuse it but to say that likening it to today's terrorism is a joke. They were nothing like Al Qaida.
By the way, do you know who Obama had to go up against in his first election -- Congressman Bobby Rush, former leader of the Black Panthers. Obama lost big.
April 17, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is not that these questions don't have a good answer. You yourself do a good job of explaining these relationships. But Obama did not do that. He seemed unable to answer the question in a forthright manner.
What will he do when he is across the table with Putin? See what I mean?
April 17, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Putin asks him about his absence of a flag lapel pin I think Obama would tell him to shove it up his arse -- something he can do across the table, but not on national tv.
Electing a president is an important thing, but Americans don't want to parse policy positions. And yet, they want something to go on... like a desire to have a beer with a dry drunk and things like that. I guess sad but true. We get what we deserve.
April 17, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah cuz presnit george is doing such a GREAT job with Putin
so I can see how those "likeability: questions that george was good at are REALLY important
if you're auditioning a plumber, you don't ask if the plumber can sing
can ANY of you idiot hillary supporters or trolls figure that out ???
April 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that the multiyear investigation by Ken Starr was not enough? That maybe we need to revisit the issue of whether Hillary was having a love affair with Vice Foster and killed him in a jealous rage?
Get real
The Clintons have taking the most brutal pounding any President/First Lady ever have in the history of our nation.
The end result: (depending on your sexual mores) either Bill Clinton should have been more careful vis-à-vis blue dress, or Bill should not wagged his finger at us but fessed up : I had sex with Monica, but it was not the best in my life.
April 18, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of crap. I'm sure you were the picture of doe-eyed curiosity listening to Obama answer the questions about Wright, bitter, Ayers, blah, blah, blah. He's never answered those before and damned if the internet, newpapers, tv, talk radio, etc. have said a word. You want to be entertained and see poise under pressure then how about the moderators ask policy questions while firing paintball guns at the candidates. We get answers we care about and you get your entertainment under pressure.
April 17, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you really don't know the candidate’s positions on the bread and butter issues?
My point is that there is a point in asking these type of embarrassing questions. This is not finishing school for etiquette and manners. We are going to elect a President of the United States and s/he better be tough and capable of operating under pressure. Obama did POORLY under the pressure he was put under. THAT IS GOOD FOR THE ELECTORATE TO NOTE. It is not entertainment. It is information.
Whoever gets elected better have some balls. Kennedy was trounced by Nikita Sergyeyevich Khrushchev on their first meeting during the height of the Cold War, Some say Bush Jr. got trounced by Putin in the (“looked into his soul moment”
So it is RELEVANT how they perform under pressure. Discussing policy minutia is less relevant since basically all bets are off when s/he steps into the White House.
April 18, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds kind of elitist.
On the question of "electability" I think any true Democrat would prefer to hear how the candidates would go after McCain and his policies.
Saying the most important question about electability is how a candidate responds to Republican attacks is to willingly cede the agenda to them. It is choosing to fight on their terms.
It is that kind of forward thinking strategy that has done so much to bring about the current sorry state of affairs.
April 17, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point about not letting the Republicans and Senator You-Know-Her (their stalking horse) dominate the discussion in an intra-party Democratic Primary under the disguise of talking "electability" in the upcoming general election. The voters determine "electability" by electing candidates to office. In the most recent elections (2006) the voters delivered to the Republicans a brutal ass-kicking across the board. After the voters vote in November of this year, we will know that they also prefered to elect the Democratic candidate Barack Obama as President over the Geriatric Old Poop's John "senior moment" McBomb. In short, the terms "electability" and "Brand Republican" don't belong in the same sentence this election year.
So, why should any voter in a Demoratic Primary give a shit about the rancid, rabid Republicans? Everyone knows they have nothing to "offer" America but more divide-and-rule fascism. Everyone knows they will just try to slime the Democratic Party and its candidate, so the Democratic candidates should just stipulate that they'll get around to John McBomb, the Republicans, and their sewer-boat-sailors-for-slander tactics in due time -- and it won't take long after the Democrats nominate Senator Obama as the party's standard bearer.
Democratic Party primaries don't involve Republicans or the Republican owned-and-operated Mainstream Media. And after the Keystone Cops farce of a "primary" the the Repugnant Ones held when they had a chance, what the hell would they know about picking an "electable" candidate? They couldn't even find a credible candidate who even much wanted the job. Sacrificial Scapegoat doesn't sound appealing to most professional politicians.
Let the general election wait for the general election, and let the Republicans do their own foaming-at-the-mouth snarling for themselves. The Democratic Party has better and more important issues to discuss with the American people who demand change -- Now.
April 18, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the flag pin question, an honest answer would have been something like this:
"I don't wear a flag pin because most people who wear the flag pin are phony, stupid, or murderous imperialistic bigots. I don't want to be a member of that club."
So what's the point of the question? To entice Barack into insulting tens of millions of Americans? To test Barack's BS skills? To make Barack look bad?
Most Americans are not ready for honesty, and the moderators know that very well. So their intent was to test Barack's BS skills or make him look bad. How does this help inform our voters? Do we care only about how well our leaders lie?
Stephanopoulos is a weasel whore, and Gibson is just clueless.
April 18, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like we've heard a lot this year about why it's ok to torture. The logic for torture is about as credible as the logic for enhanced interrogation in the guise of a "debate." It simply doesn't wash.
Naturally those who have already tortured or battered candidates are going to rationalize what they've done.... to try and make up an ex post facto excuse that seems to cover the territory.
abc has basically now joined the bush administration in rationalizing bad behavior.
Both of these things make me fear for the fate of our country. If presidents ignore the Constitution and the media simply goes for "entertainment" instead of trying to provide information for the public, then we have already headed down a path which is very dangerous for a free society.
I intend to vote for the only Candidate who has taught Constitutional Law for a decade and the only one left standing who has pledged to uphold the Constitution. Additionally, we have stopped watching abc, starting tonight. Each of us can vote once in the ballot box but daily on the TV. Every action counts. Unfortunately the moderators of last night's debate fail to see that instead of covering the news they have become part of it!
April 17, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. The "electability" defense is an empty bit of circular reasoning: Stephanopolis and his ilk justify their dismal coverage and superficial predetermined narratives about "character" on the grounds that future media coverage will be equally dismal, so we have to see how the candidates fare in those conditions. They define down "electability" to their own pitiful standards--then inundate us with lame coverage, then claim that the public is demanding this to see if the candidates are electable. Asinine.
April 17, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
joevan, well said youself.
You hit the point that's been bugging me the most about last night. I really wonder why most Clinton supporters don't seem to get that. I don't mean that as a slam, just that their views about politics don't even let them see it the way you just spelled out.
April 17, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, doesn't this "argument" essentially boil down to this:
"Karl Rove and his ilk exist in the universe. Therefore I must raise whatever issues they would raise."
That's journalism, apparently.
April 17, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the Clinton campaign apparently.
April 17, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If electibility is of such a grave concern, and deserves to be talked about for 50 minutes, then why weren't the biggest questions about electibility asked?
Namely, will America vote for a black man or a woman for President.
April 17, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's channel Andy Rooney.
Did you ever notice that people who have been made millionaires by corporations are quite often amenable to framing questions agreeable to the very same corporations that sign their paycheck?
April 17, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except I doubt Rooney would have the courage or be allowed to say that, even if he wanted to. He's also on the payroll of a transnational conglomerate that profits enormously from "free trade" and whose board members also serve on all the other major transnationals from Big Oil to Big Pharma to Big Insurance.
That's the problem in the MSM. They're all paid, hired, and fired by a small number of hyper wealthy executives whose hearts belong to Wall Street and international finance. You'll never hear a corporate news shill talk about the problems of transnational corporations having vast power and a small number of elites essentially ruling the developed world.
A small international claque of hyper wealthy business people. The Davos crowd. That's who rules the world now.
April 17, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you remember Jon Stewart confronting the Crossfire gang on CNN a couple of years ago. "You are hurting America," he accused them. Why is no one saying this to Stephanopolus now? The media are dirtying politics, which is hard to imagine given that one can define politics as dirty to begin with. So now we have a competition between politicians and the media as to who can dirty our public discourse more.
April 17, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The questions were very relevant. Sentiments expressed by the candidates when they committed their gaffes will manifest themselves in their future actions and decisions. Campaign promises and political conditions change but sentiments are durable.
I didn't really want to hear what have been debated in the past or found in their websites. I like to hear them talk about what's uncomfortable to them or stuff they may lie or spin, or bullshit about or stuff they don't want us to know or hear. Those are better indicators of what kind of President she or he would make than what we hear from stump speeches.
Right on ABC!!
April 17, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I have to say that Hillary's "massive retaliation" comment alone reinforces my decision that there is no possible way she will get my vote. People worrying about an 80 year old preacher or a radical 40 years past his youth better focus on Nellie Neocon.
April 17, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other piece of crap from the 'debate' was the references to their 'polls' about how people felt -- just how large a sample were they; how carefully was the sampling done, etc., etc. We just have to take it 'on their honor' (hah!) that the polls had any validity at all.
April 17, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of talk makes it frustrating to be a Democrat.
Electability is everything.
It was not "highly speculative" for the Republicans in their primary. Republicans know how to win, and they know electability is everything, and that's why they chose McCain. Remember, this is a guy who got swiftboated by his own party back before it was a household term."Exectability" is the only reason he's their nominee this time around, since they knew Bush has goofed so badly that any of the usual suspects wouldn't have a chance against Obama and Clinton. Franky the way the Bush campaign treated McCain way back is probably working to McCain's advantage now, in their eyes.
Whether McCain is more electable than one of our Deams remains to be seen, but The Republican Machine chose McCain largely on electability, despite never having liked him.
Whether it is Obama or McCain who is more electable compared to McCain should be THE biggest issue for us. I don't mean to say I have the answer to this question, and I'm not sure anyone else does either, but since the two lack huge policy differences, it should be our biggest concern. We all have our preferences (mine's Obama), but it's all academic if a guy who doesn't even have a plan for health care wins in November.
April 17, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have HUGE policy differences because they have a HUGE difference in how they view the world. Obama sees a diverse world in which we are one of many nations. Hillary has just committed us to massive retalation in the mideast. Don't kid yourself that the stakes are not just as high in the primary as they are in the general. You don't get health insurance with flag pins. You don't even care for veterans with flag pins.
April 17, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republicans know how to win." ???
Not in 2006 they didn't. They got their assess royally handed to them in the Congressional midterm elections. They will get an even worse beating in 2008, including a loss of the White House to the Democratic Party's candidate Barack Obama. The Republicans had nothing more than a bizarre Keystone Cops primary in their own party, and settling for a Bush butt-kisser like geezer McBomb only shows what a weak field of sacrificial scapegoats they had to pick from.
The deluge of nasty attack innuendo desperately aimed at Senator Obama from McBomb and his surrogate You-Know-Her only confirm this understanding and fear on the part of America's Seizure Class and their bought-and-paid-for Republicrats. Change will come soon; and it will take no Republican (or Republican Lite) prisoners. As one depressed and resigned Republican Congressman admitted recently: "George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Brand." Oh, yes, he has indeed. And completely disgraced brand names never sell -- or "win."
April 18, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Excellent post. That pseudo interview by greg sargent was almost as bad as the so-called debate.
April 17, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity what did you expect? The debate questions are exactly the same crap that is posted here day in and day out - who is electable, who said what and what did he/she mean by it, who is the candidate associating with, who did the candidate associate with, who is supporting whom and why, what is the ulterior motives behind every single move the candidates make? So why would you expect these debate moderators to be any different? That's all people discuss here.
April 17, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Noble post.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson are, to put it bluntly, full of shit. I ceased watching any and all network news programs in March, 2003 due to the content of blatant and shameless propaganda.
April 17, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that anyone who understands "electability" as some mysterious quality apart from issues that actually matter (like the war and the economy) is hopelessly confused. As long as the media defines who's electable in terms of stupid gaffes and half-truths, and as long as we let them get away with it, then yes, that matters. But if you think we aren't doomed as a country when we start electing people based on their lapel pins, you need a reality check. When the media does a decent job providing information about actual ideas, then the candidate who is most qualified will be most electable. Period. There are differences between these candidates that matter--plenty that isn't hair-splitting on health care, but isn't bogus either. How will they clean up after Bush to restore the Constitution? That hasn't even been asked. And on and on. So here we are, in the dark.
April 17, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people in the broadcast media are just deeply, deeply, deeply out of touch with the real world. They face no serious personal economic hardships. Their kids aren't in Iraq. They have fixed rate mortgages with plenty of income. They have terrific employer-provided health care with relatively low co-pays and premiums. They can absorb rising food and gas prices with a shrug of the shoulders. They are recognized wherever they go. Nobody is shipping their jobs overseas, and if they ever do lose their jobs, they will just bounce their pretty faces and recognized names to another good one somewhere. Nobody is telling them they need to go back to school to be re-trained so they perform a miserable lower-wage job when they get laid off.
For them, politics is just a stupid game. It's entertainment. It's "Hardball", and they say, "Let's play". It's the "War Room". It's melodramatic music with crashing drums and brass. It's talking heads ranting on with sound and fury, little moderation and no real thought. It's just a nihilistic world of pure crap.
As Michael Berube noted earlier, the word for this is "decadence". When is this moribund, demented and dysfunctional remnant of a passing media era going to collapse for good?
April 17, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
TAIL GUNNER JOE McCARTHY - STILL ALIVE AND WELL?
Wonder if Charlie Gibson has been hitting the old Tail Gunner Joe Mc Caaaaaaaarty (R)Wisc.'amber colored liquid' for he sure sounded like an incarnation of that evil drunken US Senator from Wisconsin.
Half expected to Gibson and his diminutive sidekick, George, to utter the famous guilt by association phrase of Tail Gunner Joe...."Mister Chairman....Mister Chairman....point of order. I have a document here...." Or better still," Have you been or are you now a member of the Communist Party Mister Obama...." And they were not much less tabloid in their questioning of Hillary Clinton. Almost expected Charlie Gibson to ask Hillary whether or not she thought oral sex was really sex... Maybe Charlie and Georgie ran out of time for that one.
Charlie Gibson's performance was a disgusting tabloidization of the presidential debate format. It is a good thing that there was a Red Sox/Yankee game on and Dancing with the Stars as well as American Idol on opposite this travesty. So, I am sure it must have had the lowest rating of all the past debates.
ABC must be desperate to put on such trash.
April 17, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And last of all, if "electability" was indeed the focus of ABC's moderators last night, did it occur to them that asking the candidates how, exactly, they'd criticize McCain and his platform and record on this or that issue might be relevant to the topic?
Right On!
April 17, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If this is where the MSM is going to take the final so-called debates...well there's nothing we can do about it. Or is there? Anyone got any ideas?"
Yes: No more Democratic participation in network- (cable or broadcast) sponsored and run debates. Bring back the League of Woman Voters. They did a superb job in the past, and there's no reason why they can't again. Just as individual Democratic politicians have refused to participate in Fox News-sponsored debates or "news" programs, so the Democrats -- either collectively or individually -- can announce that the current debates are NOT serving either the public or the parties, and indeed are only serving to trivialize politics and prevent the honest debate of meaningful issues, and that therefore the Democrats will turn to other sponsors.
April 17, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Electability" means one thing only: how the speaker thinks someone else will vote. The information that such a question gains is meaningless, and it's a disingenuous question because it allows the speaker to obscure his/her own agenda under the fog of "some people say...".
April 17, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what really gets me is the whole elect-ability thing is alright with Kucinich or Huckabee or even Gravel, but hell....Obama has received more popular votes than any of them, Clinton is almost 1M behind and she would have the record for all previous nominations.
This is bull crap.....
They are electable by the very definition of getting votes.
April 17, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having done some recent canvasing in Philadelphia for Obama's campaign, I must agree that "electability," slippery devil that it is, actually has been cited by a number of voters. Several have told me that they are hamstrung, trying to figure out which Democrat has the best chance of winning. So to some extent, I agree that it's fair for debate moderators to highlight questions that address candidates' likely vulnerabilities. HOWEVER, there was a way-f***ed up assumption that Obama had several vulnerabilities to address but Clinton only had one. She should have been asked about Bill and Penn and Wolfson's shilling for Colombia -- isn't THAT guilt by association? She should have been asked about stiffing numerous business people -- isn't THAT out-of-touch with ordinary folk? ETC. So it's fair to ask the candidates to address their vulnerabilities, but there was an outrageous imbalance last night.
April 17, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephanopoulos should be gagged for trivializing the political process, for his parisanship, for ad hominem attacks and for mercilessly boring to death ten million people.
Gibson should be reassigned to doing weather reports in an ABC local affiliate -- Little Rock, anyone?
April 17, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virtually all the MSM pundits are clowns unworthy of spit.
Look at them all. Is there a phonier group of vapid pandering tools on earth? Is there really a big difference between commercial broadcast news and the supermarket isle tabloids? The only difference is one is hypocritical and pretentious.
The bigger idiots they are, the more willing they are to put profits and sensationalism above any sort of journalistic ethics, the less spine they have and the bigger whores they are, the higher they rise in the corporate culture of commercial TV.
April 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ridiculous to pretend that electability is a measurable quantity. Sure, there's probably a floor on it -- our candidate shouldn't have a severe drooling problem, or advocate feeding Christians to the lions, or be in the habit of waving a piece at his opponent during debates, for instance -- but once that's established, everything else is just guessing. Remember how we nominated John Kerry because, hey, big war hero, everybody's gonna vote for that? Remember how well that worked out?
And even if electability was a tangible thing, are we really supposed to believe that the best way to gauge it is by asking a series of pointless annoyance questions and watching to see if the candidate gets annoyed? Why not ask the questions in Pig Latin, then? Hell, ask the candidates to describe the texture of their bowel movements. If they get through that, make each of them butcher a sheep on stage and eat the meat raw. Let Johnny Knoxville run the next debate. Last one to throw up gets the nod.
April 17, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
the argument that the candidates need to answer questions that are on the mind of the people is bogus. greenwald puts it well: the mainstream media justifies its reporting by pointing to its reporting as evidence of what people want. what a crock of crap.
all i know is that when i expressed my disgust to abc via their comment form, the response i got was a one-line thank you followed by lines and lines of information about how to convert an analogue signal to a digital one so i could continue to watch their crap after the switch to digital broadcasting. that told me all i wanted to know, and have known for a long time.
April 17, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
George's flawed and partisan opinions regarding electability are defeated by the fact that these are the two chosen candidates for the democratic party, having eliminated a sterling field of excellent candidates. It is an elitest, condescending out of touch delusion and insult to the America people for George and Gibson to question either candidates electibility.
These two parrots wasted valuable airtime, and the peoples best interests by spending 45 minutes focused on rehashing old, already redressed, and irrerlevent slime hurled on Obama.
Cheney responds with an elitist, condescending, out of touch "So?" when reminded that the majority of Americans do not support the bloody, costly neverending war in, and occupation of Iraq.
Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper", and still pimping the fiction that our economy is "strong" and Barak is elitist, condescending, and out of touch?
Any American that buys into to this partisan babble is interested in superficialities, not substance, and missing the point.
Democrats need to end this selfimmolation, settle and unite behind an executive team, and begin preparing for the viscious slime and venom the fascists in the Bush government and the
republican reich are certain to unleash.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the fascists and the unabated perpetuation of the exact same fascist predations, tyranny, suppression, secrecy, and wanton profiteering proselytized and practiced by the fascists in, or beholden to the fascists in the Bush government.
"Deliver us from evil!"
April 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanna do something concrete?
Go to MoveOn.org and sign their petition to ABC.
Very quick, easy, and effective.
April 17, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tuzla, Bosnia. Clinton's tall tale was about Bosnia, not Kosovo.
April 17, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Ed. I happen to think that Obama is the more "electable" of the two candidates, whatever we mean by that term, but I would support him over Hillary even if I thought he were at an electoral disadvantage compared to her. He's better on the issues, but he also understands the importance of building support for the party and its ideals from the grassroots. Of course, this is one of the main reasons I think he's more electable than her, so make of that what you will.
April 17, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does TPM cover all this bullshit "gotcha" crap with a microscope as if they are a proctologist looking at a stool sample and then claim that a debate devoted to the same topics is "shallow."
What does TPM's critique of this debate say about TPM's coverage of this election?
April 18, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly because the socalled "gotcha" politics is in fact "bullshit". TPM, (and many others by the way) are shining hot lights on the complicit parrots and partisans on the payroll of the fascists in Bush government in the socalled MSM bruting babel; and insidiously ignoring, or diminishing the many epic crisis confronting all Americans Doughlas Watts.
Many Americans recognize that the economy, the bloody, costly, noendinsight war, occupation, and excuse for wanton profiteering in Iraq, the real jihadist threats matasticizing in the netherreaches and untamed lands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan lavishly funded and nurtured by Bush government "good friends" in Saudi Arabia, Iranian influence in the region, crippling oil prices enriching the enemies of A[s merica, the potentially catastrophic ecological crisis threatening all humanity, the lack of, and radical increase in cost of food and drinkable water, the rabid and rapid divide between thehaves and the havenots, and the grievous perversion and betray of the Constitution, the rule of law, the peoples trust, and every principle that formally defined America - are glaring proofs that there are far more critical and relevent issues at play than Obama's mangling of the words bitter and cling, and Hillary's cackle.
Focus on these inane and nonsensical issues if you want sheeple, - but be advised the fascists are closing the coffin and nailing in the final spikes. America as we once knew it is dead. We either demand redress and restoration of America and the unconditional respect for, and submission to the Constitution, the rule of law, the peoples trust, and the principles that formally defined our once more perfect union.
"Deliver us from evil!"
April 18, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Ed, good to see you posting here again.
Now that you're done with Stephanopoulos and ABC, any chance you can make some, er, suggestions to TPM Media LLC in a similar vein, you know, like on what gets covered and whether it's meaningful? It doesn't have to be a public blog post, but some private communication on the matter would be most appreciated. Thanking you in advance....
Oops, I see you may have already done so..the headline on TPM home page is on the Senate earmarks... :-)
April 18, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
i love posts like this. you always know a post is clear, concise and watertight when Matthew Weaver, gotalife, Louisville1975 and Billy Glad won't go near the comments section with a ten foot pole.
April 18, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
How dare, that woman ask why Obama does not wear a flag lapel pin. I want to know why she was allowed on national television wearing that god-awful blouse.Geezz that thing is so ugly, my god, the women from that polygamy cult in Texas dress better. Maybe, the blouse was to fit into the motif of Hilary hunting with her grandpa. Did her family really drive all the way from Illinois to Pa. to summer at a cabin? Heck, I grew up in Illinois, and only place anyone there ever went to a "cabin "was in Wisconsin. Of course, I grew up in the western working class suburbs, not in the tonier Park Ridge.
April 18, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reasoning here is spot on.
There is also, at least theoretically, the argument that these latest 'conversation points' in the campaign are all "new" since the last televised debate, in contrast to their stands on issues, which have been more or less the same for the last year and a half through dozens of debates. By this logic, what can we expect to be said about the "issues" that hasn't been said before?
The answer to this also less than compelling argument is that the questioners need to come up with questions that elicit 'new' information on issues, by let's say asking about an important issue that hasn't been discussed in ANY TV debates in depth (such as global warming) and coming up with aspects of the issue that could shed new light on the candidates (eg Jim Hansen's recent findings regarding the urgency of the issue, that we have ALREADY passed catastrophic 'tipping points' and need to lower not just the level of emissions, but the overall level of Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) in the atmosphere.
This is one illustration of a question about a (snore) issue that would point in really NEW directions. There are other issues, such as the global AIDS crisis, Darfur, education policy etc where similarly new angles can be found.
But the questioners really just want to focus on questions that produce, in the language of the post "fireworks", including presumably
'substantive' questions about a nuclear war.
April 18, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course. I'm so allergic to these "gotcha" issues that I sometimes don't even process them carefully.
Ed Kilgore
April 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The least ABC could have done is warn viewers that they believe real issues have been rehashed ad nauseum in other debates, therefore their debate will be a completely superfluous circus sideshow.
April 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you ABC, for finally putting Obama in the
Hot Seat. This is the most important Job in the world and we need to know who OBAMA is. This should
of been done much earlier on in this process. It's
the media's job to inform the public and vet our
leaders. Once their in office it's to late. We can not have a President who repeatedly keeps people with terrorist views as friends and bus. associates. Michelle Obama would be a disgrace as a First Lady with her milliant views, not proud to be an American. Her college thesis says alot, and we cannot excuse her writings then as being young, when we wanted to know why no one acted on the warning sings on the Va. Tech shootings of that young student were repeated brought to attention. These are early warning signs were ignored. ABC wake up and expose the truth, George Stephanopolos and Charles Gibson did a GREAT JOB, I hope they will continue with the HARD QUESTIONS!
April 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That debate was not a debate by any definition of the word. With that as a standard, maybe we should play Simon Says to judge our candidates...
Simon says wear this pin.
Simon says torture this man.
Simon says kill this man.
Simon says bomb this city.
Simon says kill all Muslims.
Good job! You get to be president!
April 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Obama supporters not want to discuss the issue of electability? This is after all an election.
As for "who know how electable any candidate will look in November?" that is exactly why we must look at how electable they look now, and what we project they will be up against moving forward.
If you have any question about why such issues as those raised in the recent debate have a direct effect on electability, you need look no farther than the last two presidential elections.
As for having the moderators ask questions about the candidates positions on policy, we've heard all that. What we haven't heard until last night is tough questioning of Barack on the serious issues relating to his electability raised by his close association with Jeremiah Wright, and other recent developments. In fact, what we haven't heard until last night was tough questioning of Barack on anything. It was way overdue. And his poor performance shed some much needed light on how he is going to fare against the GOP.
April 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing wrong with discussing electability. Obama is popular and continues to appear highly electable. As soon as the Democrats have a nominee, and they stop tearing each other down, I expect that nominee to surge five or six points in the national polls and move out comfortably ahead of McCain again. McCain received that kind of bump when Huckabee dropped out, and the same thing will happen when the Democratic race comes to an end.
April 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, those debates were not trying to discuss electability. They were trying to DEFINE electability as something that Obama does not have.
ABC is run by the plutocrats, who want to make Barack look bad because Hillary, more than Obama, plays ball with the plutocrats. The plutocrats would love to see McCain/Clinton in November. With either of those two in the White House, no one will rock the boat.
April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If flag pins and preachers on a rant determine the electability of a candidate, at least now we know how we keep ending up with idiots for presidents.
April 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orankay you are incorrect when you say the Republican Machine "chose" McCain because of electability. The Republican Machine had nothing to do with choosing McCain, in fact they were actively trying to submarine him again this year. Mitt Romney was the Republican Machine's choice, and he would have probably gotten slaughtered by either Obama or McCain. It's revisionist history to give "The Republican Machine" credit for picking the most electable candidate. They tried to bury McCain this year and it blew up in their collective face when Rudy tanked and Romney never caught on. It doesn't make sense for you to discredit the Dems for ignoring "electability" issues by saying they should follow the Republican's lead. None of the Republican Establishment got behind McCain until it became inevitable.
"We can not have a President who repeatedly keeps people with terrorist views as friends and bus. associates..."
Uhhh, John Johnson, we already do. He's in the White House right now. Who do you feel has the stronger terrorist views, Rev. Wright or the Saudi Royal Family?
The ABC debate was completely absurd, but it seems like the culmination of a bunch of absurd debates this election, like the "raise your hands if you believe in creationism" or the snowman asking the question. It's almost impossible to get outraged anymore, because every debate is a complete joke, has been for a while now. Remember those debates between Bush and Gore in 2000? Any way you judge them, from a debate/policy standpoint Gore skewered Bush in each and every one. Yet the lasting bits from those debates were Bush's "fuzzy math" soundbite and this idea that Gore was too "elitist" and seemed to be talking down to Bush. Unfortunately we live in a place where substance has been relegated to irrelevancy.
April 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they were going to do a debate on electability they at least could have acknowledged the elephant in the room: race.
Krugman tripped all over himself today blasting Obama for buying Frank's "Kansas" argument and then explained Democratic defeats this way:
"So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story."
Well, DUH, Paul, it's race, fella. It's got not a lot to do with Obama's stands on economics, his ability to bowl, or his lack of a flag pin.
April 18, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo Otto. A voice of reason I can relate to.
The old saying is "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". ABC did a GREAT job of testing Obama's mettle for the first time in this entire campaign. All these Obama whiners need to face reality: Obama is not ready to face the Republican attack machine and we DON'T want another Republican president who happens to ditto almost everything this one stands for.
April 18, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama not ready to face the GOP attack machine. Yeah, and Louis wasn't ready for Schmeling. (Sorry, I didn't say that, you didn't read it.) Look, I just read Peggy Noonan in the WSJ. Her take is it is "not race, not liberalism," it's INEXPERIENCE that's will be his problem with voters. He hasn't "struggled, hasn't suffered." Geez. These establishment columnists who know it all but effortlessly evade obvious logic.
Did George suffer? No, he was elected on his daddy's coattails and a Texas accent. Did Bill suffer? Did Reagan "struggle?" So why does she say these things? A touch of racism? A plaintive cry from the older generation? Who cares. Issues aside, it will boil down to the strength of his charisma. I wouldn't underestimate it.
April 19, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
While strongly agreeing with Mr. Kilgore's analysis I must disagree with one point which is not exactly stated but implied: that is that there is some sort of equivalency between Obama's stance on flag pins and Clinton's documented LIE about her arrival in Bosnia. That this LIE is treated as a "gaff" by the main stream media allowed Senator Clinton to make joke of it on the Leno show. It's not funny anymore than President Bush's LIES leading to Clinton's affirmative vote for the war were funny.
April 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink