Last night this violent framing took on a new and disturbing dimension when George Stephanopoulos, co-moderator of ABC's candidate debate, asked a series of questions insinuating that Barack Obama may be politically aligned with a radical group called The Weatherman Underground--a 1960s violent political organization responsible for the bombing of federal buildings:
snip...
Of course, it is patently absurd to believe that Barack Obama or any candidate for President in either party has political allegiance to 1960s group of domestic terrorists. But the truth in this situation did count for much, unfortunately. Stephanopoulos question was the type of media stink bomb that fouls a candidate in the asking. Obama's answer, no matter how quick or good, could not have changed the outcome.
On the surface, Stephanopoulos' questions seems to be about 'patriotism,' the supposed organizing theme for that particular round of questions. In fact, it was not about patriotism at all, but was a trap. The question tried to put Obama in a situation where he felt the need to repudiate his connection with a man associated with political violence in the 1970s. Obama responded not by taking the debate, but by showing what was at stake when questions like Stephanopoulos' are allowed to stand unchallenged:
snip...
It was a good answer. The issue is not whether he needs to answer for the past violent acts of one of his constituents, but whether or not the political debate can move forward in a productive manner in the face of this kind of effort to associate candidates with violence.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, should have said something very similar. She should have said that such questions are fundamentally debasing of the political system. She should have said that asking Barack Obama to deny his allegiance to domestic violence is an offense to the very institution of civil debate on which our entire system depends. Unfortunately, she chose to add to the violent framing, further implying that Obama was somehow aligned with The Weather Underground and implying, however vaguely, that Bill Ayer's violent views were somehow shared by her Democratic opponent for the nomination. That moment--her response--was the low point in the entire political career of Hillary Clinton.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/et-tu-abc_b_97229.html She could have taken the high road and gave a little speech about why we must elevate the debate and discourse in this country. Instead she chose to roll around in the mud like a little pig. Shows how desperate and un-leader-like she is.