Poor George! Debate analysis from daily howler

[springhill]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

PLUTOCRAT MODERATION: Poor George! George Stephanopoulos has been given the task of defending the conduct of Wednesday’s debate. In fairness to him and to Charlie Gibson, you can make a case—a tortured case—for the emphasis the gentlemen placed on Wednesday night’s “flag pin” questions.

In fairness, the questions weren’t pulled from thin air; they’ve been present in the current debate. (Some have been more present than others.) Some people will cast their vote on this basis. If there were no other topics to ponder, you could perhaps tolerate these topics—if not the gruesome frameworks Charlie and George tended to run with.

In other words: If there was no mortgage meltdown, no health care problem, no war in Iraq and no climate crisis, one might imagine tolerating questions of the “flag pin” type. Unfortunately, those problems (and others) exist—though it often seems quite hard to get Major Journos to notice or care. Before we suggest the cause of this problem, let’s review the fumbling tendencies put on display Wednesday night:

The instinctive waste of time: Even before posing their “flag pin” questions, Charlie and George displayed a familiar journalistic tendency—the instinctive waste of time. We started with (worthless) opening statements—though one can’t help suspecting that this was scheduled to set up that instant commercial break. But even then, before the flag pin questions, we had to suffer through several groaners in which Obama and Clinton were encouraged to name each other as running-mates. Before asking them what they would do as president, Charlie Gibson wanted to know what they would be doing it with. This instinctive wasting of valuable time is a hallmark of modern press culture.

The frequent childishness of the questions: Then, it was on to the “flag pin” queries! For a moment, let’s assume that those questions concerned valid topics. That assumed, the childishness of some of the questions was striking. Can this really be the way these journalistic giants think?

Example: Clinton had said that she wouldn’t have stayed in Jeremiah Wright’s church. “Do you honestly believe that 8,000 people should have gotten up and walked out of that church?” Gibson weirdly asked her. Soon after, Stephanopoulos continued with Obama, asking this: “Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” Whatever one might think of this topic, these questions were written on second-grade level. But then, we were soon forced to sit through this now-famous taped groaner: “I want to know if you believe in the American flag.” And Stephanopoulos followed with this: “I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships.” Egads! Even the Pennsylvanian who appeared on that tape knew that she had to say that she wasn’t questioning anyone’s patriotism. Weirdly, Stephanopoulos had no such compunctions. Which leads to our third complaint:

The persistent conservative/Republican frameworks: There are many ways to be childish. But in Wednesday’s outing, Charlie and George were persistently childish in pseudo-conservative ways. Good lord! In persistent questioning, Gibson seemed to have no idea that the president is the commander-in-chief; he persistently marveled at the idea that a Democratic president might adopt a policy in Iraq with which the generals differ. (“Are you essentially saying, I know better than the military commanders here?” he asked Clinton, seeming amazed.) And then, the squires moved to tax policy. Stephanopoulos took his framework straight from a pledge from a famous Republican campaign:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?

In this, as in some other areas, it didn’t occur to the country squires to ask the Dems what they would do; their questions automatically seemed to start with the other party’s perspective. This isn’t automatically wrong in such sessions. But you have to marvel at the way Stephanopoulos introduced this discussion:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on Americans' minds right now. Yesterday, Senator McCain signaled that the number one issue in the general election campaign on the economy is going to be taxes. And he says that both of you are going to raise taxes, not just on the wealthy but on everyone. Here's what he said in his speech yesterday.

[FrenchieCat]

1. That's how this whole primary is being ran....

expecting for Democrats to bend over and allow the GOP to stick stuff up our arses.

I realize that we don't want to lose, but this is extreme fear, which never wins.

[Coexist]

2. Yesterday, Senator McCain signaled that the number one issue in the general election"

"Yesterday, Senator McCain signaled that the number one issue in the general election campaign on the economy is going to be taxes."

Well, George, if Senator McCain signaled it, why by jove, it must be so. What the Republican nominee says, GOES.

So let it be written.

So let it be done.

[Tesha]

3. "So let it be written..."

[Coexist]

4. lol!

[Kahuna]

5. I don't mind the questions they put to Obama. What I mind is that..

there were several embarrassing questions they could have asked hillary and did not. It was like a three to one tag-team exhibition. All the shot were taken at Obama's expense.