Letters to the Editor
-
The toughest thing about the questions..
..must have been resisting the temptation to just punch those imbecile moderators in the mouth.
If Clinton's tack was to do what her husband Bill did while being interviewed by Chris Wallace not too long ago, I would respect her so, so much more. Likewise, I feel that Obama should have been less restrained and gone for the jugular.
The tactics used last Wednesday are exactly what Glenn Greenwald talks about in his new book, and the counter tactic has to be to publicly and unequivocally call bullshit.
While Obama's "a more perfect union" was undeniably a great speech, he also needs to answer questions like "do you think Rev. Wright loves this country?" with answers like, "He served in the military, he serves his community, and he is frustrated and angry -- exactly /because/ he loves this country. I would go as far as saying that he is bitter, but it is not from a lack of trying."
Likewise, Clinton should respond to questions about Bosnia with a clear cut "asked and answered. I made a mistake. What's next."
I would pay good money to see both of them, lawyers, cross-examine the press.
And that is, in essence, what Greenwald does. Thus far, excuses and turning the other cheek have not worked. Ignoring it doesn't work. Some times you have to punch a bully in the mouth.
-
stumble
Could someone please tell me--specifically and not some vague "he did not answer tough questions"--exactly what was Mr. Obama's stumble?
smith
-
It wasn't about the questions, Joan
As others have pointed out, Obama's annoyance was not about the toughness of the questions but about the stupidity of those of the first 45 minutes. Can you imagine such nonsense in the famous debates of the past? Lincoln-Douglas, Kennedy-Nixon, Carter-Reagan? No journalist with any self-respect would ask about such tabloidical nonsense, pandering to the knuckledraggers of the nation when so many more important things are at stake.
That it now happens is because broadcast journalism has been greatly corrupted in this country. It always has owed a debt to the commercial side of its employing broadcaster, but the great ones nevertheless operated under a vow that they would follow the highest standards of the profession. Much of that is gone now, and it went long before the competition of cable or the Internet. I date the downfall to the day more than 20 years ago when Laurence Tisch bought CBS and put the news division under Entertainment and slashed its budget. The danger of that tidal force was illustrated when "60 Minutes" pulled the story of the Brown-Williamson tobacco whistleblower, some say because Tisch owned a tobacco company.
I think the country has been in grave danger of becoming an authoritarian state (the polite word for fascist) since George W. Bush became president, and only the Internet with its immediate access to like-minded people has saved us and the ability to contribute to candidates like Obama. Still, the networks are a daily meeting place, and we should protest, as Obama did, when they demean their own duties to the public.
-
On The Job Training- Again
Obama can do only a "set piece". He's very good as long as he and his handlers control all contexts.
This possible candidate has even less vetting and less experience than Bush.
Who've you got in mind for HIS Cheney?
-
Obama called them on it
I am a Hillary supporter, but as far as I can tell all Obama did was to call those guys on their crappy questions, a la John Stewart and CNN. They could have asked about any number of pressing issues, but instead they are worried about lapel pins. Moronic.
I think those stupid questions can hurt him because he needs to continue to demonstrate to those of us who have not drunk the Obama Kool Aid that he is about more than "hope" and "yes we can." Bush also promised to unite us and bring change and blah, blah, blah, and we see where that got us. (OK, he did bring change.)
I think Obama will be our nominee, and I'll vote for him, but unless we can get beyond pins, preachers and rally slogans, it will be with my fingers crossed that he can live up to the hype.
-
Letting the Opposition set the Agenda
I don't know about any of you but I am truly tired of having all the primary strategies or lack of them run through the sieve of the Republican Attack Machine, as if that is the only litmus test worth vetting issues over. We give them WAY TOO much power. Its what they want.
Are the smearmongers from the Republican side irrelevant? No of course not, but we give them sway and clout in framing how 'our' agenda is going to be put forth.
ABC in one of its lame rationalizations said it was providing a public service in trotting out the Republican GE strategy during the debate.
I felt my candidate, Obama, reflected exactly what I was feeling(can't say that about to many political figures) Impatience and disgust with the patronizing,trivial tone of the questions.
If Barack felt disgusted, then he was accurately portraying what we voiceless, beleagured, voters/citizens feel....all the time.
Part of what draws people to him(do some of you still think its smoke and mirrors?) and his message is the very fact that he rightly fights back against this dumbing down of the facts of our lives. He gives us a voice. We have been shut out of the discourse by the chattering classes and the political elites for decades now. Our concerns and fears trivialized or ignored. I'll vote for his irritation any day. Its so much more real...than this canned pap we keep getting fed about our own 'noble' day to day reality.
-
Why does Joan Walsh always stand in front of a brick wall?
Because it makes her feel at home.
PS: When Hillary explained her Tuzla delusions by saing "I'm not that dumb", she was just quoting you. Accept some responsibility, person! (Sorry for my obvious sexism... I know that's the explanation when anyone dares criticize a woman).
-
Walsh, wrong again
Joan, you've been hanging around the MSNBC crowd too long. Its bad enough you miss chance after chance to state a clear progressive point of view while pontificating on the TV or even give halfway decent responses to the lame remarks by your right wing cohorts. Now, you pick up their talking points! "The thing that stands out, two days later, is how irritated he seemed by the tough questioning." Please. "Tough questioning?" It wasn't "tough questioning" that irritated Obama. It was stupid, insipid, moronic questioning that irritated Obama and what this whole controversy is about. In fact Obama seemed to be pleading for "tough questions" about issues that actually matter. The "he's afraid of tough questions" meme is standard mainstream media spin to defend their own dispicable actions that you now parrot.