i couldn't believe that they dredged up rev. wright, and the flag pin (come on) and the weather underground! i hadn't even heard of that bit of gossip, which means it's been making the rounds on the extremist blogs -- rush limbaugh and his party. i don't let myself go there. the best way to drown out ugly voices is to not react.
some media outlets took the debate seriously:
Gibson reminded Obama that more than a year ago he asked Wright not to attend the announcement of his candidacy, reportedly telling his long-time pastor, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So, what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." Gibson then asked Obama why, knowing Wright was "rough in sermons," it took him more than a year to distance himself from the remarks.
Obama responded unconvincingly, saying that even though he had a close relationship with Wright that spanned decades, it wasn't until he read an article in Rolling Stone that he found out that the reverend had delivered inflammatory sermons, and that it wasn't until he saw YouTube clips that he was aware of Wright's even more explosive comments.
But in last month's highly touted race speech, Obama said: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."
So which is it?
washington post:
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
nyt david brooks thought abc deserved an A. journalists are supposed to make the candidates uncomfortable:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
then some of the media are in grand support of each other this morning.
“I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history,” Obama said.
He also said: “For us to be obsessed with this — these kinds of errors — I think is a mistake. And that’s not what our campaign has been about.”
He and Hillary Clinton are trying to deliver a message to the American people, he said, but “sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day.”
So, gosh darn it, would you just stop listening to the two of them every gosh darn minute of every day? Would you just ignore them a little more? And while you are at it, would you please stop concentrating on what they say instead of what they mean?Obama does have a point. But it is the nature of the political process that the dramatic gets attention, and when a candidate makes a gaffe, it is going to get noticed. That is how the game goes.
well, that's just it. obama is trying to change the game of politics and he's got a whole bunch of people with him on that. sure, i know mccain is going to let it rip but if we can learn that the campaign for highest office in the nation, a nation with some serious problems, isn't a joke or a game, perhaps we can move beyond this foolishness.
abc is defending itself after an onslaught of mail and calls, 14,000 comments this morning on the debate story.
in a story this morning, abc says it was trying to bring forth the candidates style of leadership:
"The choice between the candidates crystallized tonight," Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza writes. "It is not, fundamentally, a choice about issues or even ideology -- it is a choice about approach."
Obama (tired?) has had few campaign evenings as trying as Wednesday. "It could not have been the performance Obama wanted to have six days before the state's primary, at a time when he needed to reassure voters," Thomas Fitzgerald writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"At its core the debate boiled down to this familiar argument: Obama saying that politics itself was broken, its games not worth playing, and Clinton saying that skill at the game was crucial."
obama has my vote.
