Letters to the Editor
-
Why the outrage now?
Sen. Clinton has had to endure the same type of "gotcha" questions from moderators throughout the debate process, while Sen. Obama only suffered through them last night. Why wasn't there outrage when Tim Russert insolently shook pages of a document at Sen. Clinton, all a-quiver in anticipation of taking her down, like a jackal about to attack a particularly troublesome wildebeest? Although this has been playing out for several months now, it seems that many Democrats and members of the media only notice when the negative spotlight is on Sen. Obama.
-
Shocking!
Look, you can get as indignant as you like: the debates are largely determined by the candidates' choices about where and when to appear, and the candidates' choices are determined by what will go over well with the public. We get, in short, the debates we deserve, just as we get the candidates we deserve. It's a chilling thought, but there's no getting around it.
A case in point: McCain, Clinton, and Obama were all invited to a debate on science and technology ("Science Debate 2008" was the putative name). Obama is the only candidate whose campaign even responded, and that response was a refusal. But Clinton and Obama both eagerly agreed to a debate on faith and morality. It is technically possible that Obama and Clinton are both secretly Amish, and thus only qualified to speak about faith. But since more than 50% of the American GNP since World War II has been based on science and technology, the refusal of our would-be leaders to discuss those topic in public is a serious problem.
More likely, though, they knew that talking about science is dangerous ground for a candidate: you might get something seriously wrong and show your ignorance, or worse yet you might get something right. As Hillary Clinton has shown, even an outright lie can be lived down -- just claim you misspoke, or misremembered. Actual science, as backed up by experiment and observation, is against the prejudices of a surprisingly large number of Americans, whether it's a refusal to confront climate change, a foolish insistence on creationism (or its intellectually bankrupt descendant intelligent design), or the wastes of money known as acupuncture and homeopathy. (And that's ignoring the brewing conflict between modern neurology and belief in an individual soul, and therefore an afterlife. Wait until that hits the mainstream -- we'll see right-wing Christians protesting Alzheimer's clinics.)
Beyond that, though, both candidates know that Americans would be unable to follow such a debate. In fact, just about any topic that requires actual thought -- which covers pretty much all the topics with which one might hope a leader would be conversant -- is beyond the grasp of We The People these days. We don't know history, geography, science, or math, so we can't speak meaningfully, or even listen intelligently to someone else speak, about economics, domestic policy, foreign policy, healthcare... All we can talk about is faith (a trash can of a topic, where nobody can be proved wrong so everyone must be assumed right, as long as they don't conflict with mainstream prejudice), gossip, and fluff.
So yes, things are bad, but let's not pretend this debate, or at least the quality thereof, was a surprise.
-
Some right-wing folks say the questions were good
Repeatedly, questions tied candidates to people from their past. Is that how the smears work now? Not only do they smear a candidate, they smear his friends, his pastor, people who sat on a committee with him? Doesn't that sound like the mafia, going after anyone who ever knew them?
How is this constructive? Rev. Wright is not running for President. Bill Ayers is not running for President. There is no reason to discuss them.
-
Glenn, please comment on the Iran question
Last night, George Stephanopoulos prefaced his Iran question with:
"Iran continues to pursue the nuclear option ..."
Then led the candidates into a hypotethetical question about what each would do when Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. The candidates, dutifully, took the bait and tried to up each other on how much tougher they'd be than their opponent. Hillary even went as far as stating, out of nowhere, that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States.
The problem here is that we don't know if Iran is pursuing a nuclear option, or we have no evidence of it. The most authorative source on this matter so far, last summer's National Intelligence Estimate, dismissed the idea almost unequivocally and said it appears as if Iran has stopped their nuclear weapons program. Yet, Stephanie threw this idea out there as if it were the de-facto conventional wisdom.
Please comment on this and don't let ABC get away with it. We may go to war soon on the grounds that Iran is an international nuclear threat. These are watershed moments when notion of Iran as a threat takes root in the American psyche through suggestion and repetition much like the idea of Iraq-alqaeda connections did leading up to that war. Far fetched scenarios are being repeatedly whispered to the American people matter-of-factly until nobody can remember why 70% of the population believes something that has no basis in fact. I object to this and wish you would call ABC on it too.
-
No kidding
I posted an entry in my blog summarizing the debate, and I read the transcript online to cut out some useful soundbytes. I checked the math of some of the reporters cited criticizing the ABC News moderators. Dead on. At least 16 of 26 web pages dedicated to the Wright issue, the Bosnia thing, flag pins, and all sorts of crap. Such poor, poor taste -- and what's worse is that people might have actually missed some good coverage because they decided to lead with the nonsense. Shame on them.
-
Bush is afraid of horses
So said Vicente Fox in recalling how Bush recoiled at the invitation to ride Fox's big palomino. How can a supposed "cowboy" be afraid of horses? How can a Texas "rancher" ride nothing more dangerous than a dirt bike and fall off that half the time? Strangely the MSM has not explored these paradoxes but they should and I hope you will. His sissy behavior here is an excellent way to undercut some of the he-man posturing on the right. President Pantywaist!