Who lost the Democratic debate? ABC, viewers say
All in all, it wasn't the best night for either Democrat. Barack Obama was forced to defend himself - with varying degrees of success - against a barrage of questions on his patriotism and personal associations. Hillary Clinton, while at times appearing commandingly presidential, struggled to explain her Bosnia "misspeak" and often seemed all too willing to dive into the fray with answers straight off John McCain's talking points. Plumbing the blogosphere today, the consensus appears to be that this was a fairly uneventful debate unlikely to drastically alter the contours of the race either way.
But there was one conclusion on which the overwhelming majority of commentators - and viewers - were united. That the biggest loser from last night's debate was the host - the news network ABC. At the time of posting, the ABC website had attracted over 10,000 comments, all but a few savaging the network for abandoning substantive policy discussions in favour of a relentless rehashing of the campaign's gotcha moments and smears. Some of which, such as why Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, not only pandered to the lowest common denominator but exhumed squabbles long dead and buried.
The line of questioning appeared at times so shamelessly skewed against Obama that you began to wonder if the moderators were on Clinton's payroll. Not so far from the truth, actually, as one of the moderators was George Stephanopoulos, formerly a senior advisor in Bill Clinton's White House and a key architect of his 1992 election campaign. Some leading blogs were so incensed by the perceived bias that they posted contact numbers for ABC, urging readers to ring up and complain. And while the outrage was dismissed by some as the ramblings of Obamamaniacs, ungracious in defeat, the audience - who presumably included some Clinton supporters - were none too happy either. Click here to watch the moment that the hosts found themselves the target of the audience's ire. The same post also samples the comments on ABC's website.
A selection of comments from the press:
"It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."
"To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment. Gibson and Stephanopoulos spent more than half of their time playing "gotcha" on subjects that only the idiot pundit class obsess over. But Gibson and Stephanopoulos weren't the only two participants playing the game, because Hillary Clinton was right down in the mud with them."
"On the questions that touched in some way on policy -- taxes for instance -- Obama looked weary and had what I can only think to compare to the look of a staggering boxer. The discussion of the capital gains tax was a painful example. Most of what Charlie Gibson said was complete nonsense and there were fairly clear, good responses. But Obama stumbled through them.
"On the policy questions, on the other hand, Hillary had what she almost always does in these settings which is a series of well prepared and clear answers which hit on the political points she's trying to make. In this sense I don't think there's much of any way to say that Clinton wasn't the winner on points."
"The questions essentially constituted the Republican case against Obama in a general election. He appeared tense, and dispensed with the questions in way that was unlikely to inflict any more damage as he heads into next week's voting. But the tone of the questioning also reflected that Obama has yet to put the controversies that have dogged him over the past few weeks to rest.
"Clinton, who holds a modest lead in most Pennsylvania polls, did not seem to emerge with a game-changing performance, but the intensity of the questioning of Obama could aid her long-term goal of casting doubt among superdelegates about his candidacy."
I don't think the 40-minute early Obama pile-on was bad for him. I think the following round, where he seemed rattled and reliant on his script, was bad for him. To believe it's worth junking the Clintons and giving him the nomination, a Democrat needs to think Obama is at least as resilient as Hillary. And he can take the attacks, but he can't get past them.
Clinton's game hasn't changed since February: It's to win enough delegates to close the gap before the convention, then convince superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. She utilized and validated a boatload of Republican attacks on Obama (Ben Smith noticed that she mentioned 9/11 three times while attacking him). She's watched with obvious surprise as Obama survived every attack, as Democrats cling tighter to him. So she's trying to convince them that Republicans will be more successful than her. It's all very meta and I'm unsure if it'll work.
"A former Clinton staffer - someone who owes his entire career to the Clintons - asks her opponent questions devised by Sean Hannity: "Stephy said he was writing down all the info Sean gave him."
I think Fox News would have done a better job. But then I cannot imagine anyone doing a worse job."
seems an unintended blow may have landed more effectively. The Democratic frontrunner has struggled to repair the damage to his campaign not from an attack, but from an expression of support - from the controversial head of the Nation of Islam and oft-alleged anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan.
