ABC News:
As you'd imagine, the debate is the talk of the town here today, and not all of it is positive. The consensus seems to be that Sen. Barack Obama had a rough night, and many are objecting to the tenor of the questions... Today, the candidate literally brushed it all off, saying that this was simply old-style politics....
Yes, that's true: It used to be expected that candidates would have to answer questions harder than "exactly how bad are those nasty Republicans?" There used to be something called "depth" in politics, which consisted of slightly more substance than repeating the word "hope".
ABC News has heard from thousands of angry viewers. At least some of the negative reaction came from Obama supporters, among them the liberal group MoveOn, which has mounted an action campaign to send a message to the network....
"Stop asking our shallow candidates tough questions! It's totally unfair."
One viewer wrote, "This so-called 'debate' will be shown to my communications students as an example of what shoddy journalism looks like." "Shame on you, Charlie and George," wrote another viewer. "We deserve better."
That's true, actually. I have a friend who was a journalism major. He interviewed one candidate on camera and asked all sorts of hard questions. His professor praised him. Then he interviewed another, and asked the exact same kinds of questions. His professor rebuked him. Then he noticed the difference: the first candidate had been a Republican (hisss!) and the second, a Democrat.
Lesson learned? Don't corner the Democrat if you want a good grade. Softballs only.
But some were more positive. Among them, one viewer wrote: "Folks, if [Obama] can't deal with the hostile questions from George and Charlie, how do you expect him to deal with McCain and company in the fall?"
Clearly, that guy's a Rethuglican. Bring out the mind-wiping device. Too much of that, and people might learn about their candidates (from both parties) before they're elected.
Sorry for being snarky, but I get a bit tired of the endless whining when a Democrat gets asked a hard question. The press may typically handle their own with kid gloves, but the rest of the world -- containing sharp, pointy things like laws of economics, an unfriendly foreign press, and fanatics with explosives -- will not be similarly accommodating.
I had noticed this a bit myself. It was almost inescapable today to not see some reference to this debate. Do you know if the questions were actually hard or was it the usual pillow-fight?
Speaking of shoddy journalism, I really wish the restaurant I was in this afternoon had TiVo. I was watching the 4PM news, and I thought I heard the reporter say that the debate was "between the last two candidates for the presidency."
Of course, I could have misheard, but, somehow, it wouldn't surprise me.
Do you know if the questions were actually hard or was it the usual pillow-fight?
From the clips I've heard (I didn't catch it live, either) the questions were actually hard, given that the candidates hold left-of-center positions.
For example, both were challenged about whether they would still withdraw if top military leaders said it would destabilize Iraq. They were confronted with evidence that capital gains tax cuts stimulate the economy, and increase tax receipts. When Obama failed to answer, the question was actually re-asked.
This is certainly not the sort of questioning leftist candidates expect, hence the stunned uproar from the left. Tom Shales, for example, rants about it being "despicable" and "slimy". (Obama was asked to clarify various associations. And to explain what he meant by his "bitterness". How underhanded -- no Republican has ever been asked similar questions. Yet, as far as I heard, Obama did everything but answer the questions -- as usual.)
Contrary to Shales portrayal, there were indeed a number of substantive questions:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel.
During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States.
Should it be U.S. policy now to treat on Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack against the United States?
OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. And that has to be one of our top priorities, and I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.
I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: Here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons, but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats toward Israel.
I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.
And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: As I 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 would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action.
I'm not highlighting this because Obama answered badly, but rather to point out that George asks twice, and tries to get clarification. That's a basic feature of journalistic interviews I haven't seen for years. And Obama gave a good answer, though, sadly, very little in his history or associations mesh convincingly with it.
I had noticed this a bit myself. It was almost inescapable today to not see some reference to this debate. Do you know if the questions were actually hard or was it the usual pillow-fight?
Speaking of shoddy journalism, I really wish the restaurant I was in this afternoon had TiVo. I was watching the 4PM news, and I thought I heard the reporter say that the debate was "between the last two candidates for the presidency."
Of course, I could have misheard, but, somehow, it wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on April 18, 2008 12:24 AM