Those whining about the ABC News Democratic debate tend to focus on the first half of the debate. WaPo TV critic Tom Shales writes:
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. 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.
Editor & Publisher’s Greg Mitchell sings the same song:
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers even quotes PA Gov. Ed Rendell — a Clinton backer — as implying that the early questions were not “real.”
Sez them.
However, as I have previously noted when discussing the GOP primaries:
In a November 2007 Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, respondents split 46%-44% on the question of whether personal qualities or issue positions were more important in choosing a candidate for president. In a March 2007 Associated Press-Ipsos poll, 55% of those surveyed considered honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate. Only one-third looked first to candidates’ stances on issues. Note that the November poll forced a choice, whereas the question in the March poll was open-ended. (Emphasis added.)
That March poll also found that fewer than one-third of voters focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence. Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal wrote at about the same time:
How important are perceptions of integrity and trust? Very. Drawing on decades of opinion poll data, political scientists identify two central traits — competence and integrity — that drive judgements about presidents and presidential candidates. “Presidents are judged,” wrote Professor Donald Kinder (with whom I once studied at the University of Michigan), ” by their intelligence, knowledge and experience on the one hand, and by their honesty, decency and ability to set a good moral example on the other” (p. 840). Candidates that are perceived to be otherwise qualified and competent lose when voters find them lacking in terms of honesty and trust. And keep in mind that the bulk of the research driving these conclusions comes from general election surveys in which perceptions of competence and integrity were sometimes strong enough to overcome partisan leanings in driving voter choices.
In sum, there is a sizable bloc of voters who think character matters more than issue positions, or who use issue positions to gain insight into the character of the candidates.
Political junkies and pundits, however, are generally not part of that bloc. My background is such that I care at least as much about issues as character questions — but there are limits. For example, John McCain claims he has learned from the demise of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that we need to secure our borders before the public will be willing to consider what to do about the tens of millions of illegal immigrants already here. However, there are many people (myself included) who are skeptical of such pronouncements, based on what is known of McCain’s stubborn and often contrarian character.
Moreover, character questions allow voters to assess a candidate in a broader sense than looking only at issue positions. This is particularly true with regard to a candidate who does not have a lengthy public record. For example, the sad fact is that global terrorism was not near the top of the issue matrix during the 2000 election. Yet people — especially Democrats — tend to forget that following the 9/11 attacks, some Democrats privately expressed satisfaction that Al Gore, who tried to make his foreign affairs expertise an issue in the campaign, did not win:
The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr. Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign policy team as Mr. Bush did. Citing Mr. Gore’s sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29 in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating to the public.
One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice president would think he had all the answers.
”He may know too much,” the former senator said. ”And he would have tried to micromanage everything.”
A top appointee in the Clinton administration, criticizing the qualifications of those he expected to be Mr. Gore’s foreign policy team, said he could not imagine Mr. Gore’s foreign policy advisers ”running a war against Afghanistan.”
No doubt the more partisan Democrats and ideologues would cite this as examples of the anonymous Democrats being dead wrong. But they should concede that they would have liked to know then what they think they know now.  The larger point — that our focus on the candidates’ issue positions today may not anticipate the issues of the future — remains valid.
Thus, the complaint that the first part of ABC News debate did not focus on policy questions reflects a certain degree of elitism — a quality which is neither and absolute good nor an absolute evil. Even the shroomy Aaron Sorkin was able to figure out in the screenplay to The American President that being the president is very much about character. Questions about honesty — whether it be Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia fable or Obama’s claim that he will be a Unifier after 20 years of spiritual guidance from the noxious Rev. Wright — matter to many people more than whether either of their healthcare plans has a mandate. Voters who want a president who “cares about people like them” may want to see Clinton (a/k/a “The Glacier) and Obama (“small town” people “cling” to guns and God) and make a judgment. It is not irrational. Blaming ABC News for asking character questions, however, may be.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
ABC did the Dems a huge favor. While many Americans may not be tuned in to the primaries, they will tune in for November. The character questions will be exploited (and rightly so) by Senator McCain. Last night proved that neither Clinton nor Obama are ready for prime time on these issues, but they’ve got months now to get their acts together.
The lefty screaming is simply evidence of buyer’s remorse. How dare ABC expose the candidates as midgets when there are important issues to discuss.
It’s interesting that Hillary admitted that she was a liar last night, and Obama proved that he’s not very good yet at lying. And we want a substantive “dialogue” from these truth impaired losers?
Actually I think both of them did well in answer to the character questions. The questions seemed stupid and inane, but I guess they matter to someone.
I personally find that character is revealed in your vision and plans for the country, the way you conduct your campaign, how you answer your critics – even the stupid critics.
So my conclusion is not so much that George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson are to be pointed and laughed at (they obviously are) but that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama managed to stay quite classy while having to answer the prattlings of the chattering monkey class that we call the media.
Two things I have heard Republicans complaining about for YEARS that turned out to be true: 1. There is something creepy about the Clintons. 2. The media is joke (an unfunny joke).
I am trying to figure what Hillary meant: When asked in last night’s debate whether Obama could win the general, Hillary said “yes, yes, Yes.â€Â
Could it be Hillary channeling Molly Bloom’s soliloquy from James Joyce’s Ulysses?
“…I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes. â€Â
Maybe I am reading too much into it–but does Hillary has the hots for Barak?
I think the character questions in general are very important. We will not be able to maintain this republic if we forget the importance of virtue in our elected representatives.
The left knows this too, which is why they have spent so much time over the last 8 years decrying the character of Bush, they are just upset now because the 2 candidates that they have left do not register high in this regard. We are fortunate that they will soon remember their affinity for character issues once the Dem contender has been decided and they can collectively turn their focus on McCain.
Joe, I think so.
(Molly Bloom!!!! Wow! And it ties in quite well. I am fucking impressed. I wish I had thought of that.)
Maybe I am reading too much into it–but does Hillary has the hots for Barak?
Are trying to give Sen. Obama the screaming fits?
Education Guy:
I don’t think that our side is crying about character questions, we are crying about inane, fluffy silliness disguised as character questions. We subjected George W. Bush to the same idiocy, and it did NOTHING to portend what kind of president he would be. If we would have bothered to ask him what is plans and vision for the country were, perhaps he would have told us. But we wanted to know how much coke he snorted in his youth, was he really a cheerleader, whether he loved The Lord, and then fawned over how cool and “like us” he was.
I think we are doing the same thing. The most revealing thing about the summary of last nights debate was on ABC where they spent a lengthy amount of time crowing about how they grilled the candidates on Snipergate and Bittergate, and “briefly touched on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and the war on terror”…..lmao!!! That is just fucking sad.
I don’t think that our side is crying about character questions, we are crying about inane, fluffy silliness disguised as character questions.
This is where it gets tricky, IMO. To some, questions about Wright or Snipergate are fluffy silliness, but to others they are important issue which talk to the character of the individual. Who gets to decide what is fluffy silliness and what is honest character evaluation material?
Lisa,
I do agree that the questions avoided many, many areas which are likely to be critical to the success of the next POTUS. No questions on Iran? Insane.
But not in how you spent the Sunday mornings of the last 20 years of your life?
Personally, I think the “visions and plans” rhetoric to be the least revealing, as it’s the most scripted. I want to hear some of that, but more important is who you look to for advice and what you do when the pressure is on.
 while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Exaggerations?
And Lisa, are you really unsure what Clinton or Obama’s plans and vision for the country are? Or their positions on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and the war on terror? Is the Democrat base so dense that after dozens of debates they still need to hear those questions answered again?
Oh, and plans and visions have nothing to do with character, the shadiest character often will sell you the loftiest visions. Character is revealed by past behavior, which is why both these characters would rather talk about the future.
I don’t know that I can praise all the questions. The problem is, the candidates have to answer the ones they are asked and they should strive to answer them well.
Obama stumbled badly, even on the substantive issues. You notice Clinton isn’t moping about the debate.
And after reading Lynn Sweet’s coverage of how Obama answered the Iran/Hamas questions in PA, I think it was a favor to him that he wasn’t asked again last night.
Hi, Lisa. You thought that Baracky repeating that “I have answered that already” and “I wasn’t there” was a strong showing?
Surprisingly enough, they both come across as incredibly reasonable, to my ears, until you actually listen to what they are saying. Tax the rich. Surrender in Iraq. Refuse to answer questions regarding their histories of gun control. Tax the rich again. Punitively tax profitable companies. Free healthcare for all!
Lisa, let me state a typical insane, evil conservative opinion:
I think that you are only partially right. How the candidates handle criticism and campaigning is very important. However, after 20 debates and a winding down primary season the candidates’ stated vision for the coutry in this debate was relatively unimportant.
Feel free to take a minute and grab a dozen eggs.
After 20 debates unless you are a frackin’ survivalist or a Luddite just about everyone should know where these two candidates stand on the issues and their “vision.” they are going to spend over 4 Mil. this week alone in TV and radio ads. The point of Karl’s post is that character is important at the beginning of the debate and it’s just about all we have left at the end.
There is great value in observing the way candidates act and in what they say and in how they say it and in moments of unguarded, unspun revealations. All of those things that ABC is getting pounded for are really the only insightful things we have left by which we can judge a candidate’s character. It’s important because visions and ads and campaigns are not designed to inform us where these candidates stand but are created to provide the best framework for telling people what the gurus think they want to hear to get said candidates elected.
I can make certain value judgements on positions but, in truth, voting record is a more important metric in measuring a candidates possible path through national leadership. No candidate survives the campaign vision thing once they are in office. Thus while swooning hordes of Obamaphiles were choking up and fainting over the changitudinous and hopelicious dulcet tones of speaking, I was very concerned about the lack of content as this said something about the man that made me nervous.
There is a balance for me between positions held (more importantly positions voted,/i>) and questions about charcter that are contained in unguarded moments. While Tuzla and Bill’s less than sterling contributions have only reinforced previously held opinions about the Clintons based upon ample previous experience(liars, self interested) Obama’s recent troubles have opened my eyes to another side of him that he has scrupulously hidden. I am then free to balance that against his clear, unwavering hard liberalism and reach a less than flattering conclusion.
In other words, those first 50 minutes of “nonsense” (to quote Chakka Fattah) were much more important to me and, I suspect, to a significant percentage of voters than any of the “hot button” issues that each candidate’s supporters can recite from memory while drunk on sparkling wine.
McCain, having a longer history in the Senate, is more easily judged by his voting record but that doesn’t excuse him from character issues like Keating and his angry outbursts, as well as, quite frankly, his willingness to throw Republicans under the bus to get the sort of legislation he thinks should be passed.
So, you see, it works all the way around. I think ABC did exactly the right thing for voters because how these candidates handled these “character” issues says way more than another policy review of universal health care and the like.
BTW: The only thing we got new in policy was the capital gains tax, which was by far the best policy question of the night and actually plowed new ground.
I’ll hunker down against the eggs.
Frackin’ HTML idiot!
Having once actually run for public office, in a town where media and special interests structure the campaigns from start to finish, I can kind of sympathize with those who are complaining about the questions candidates get asked.
But I can also sympathize with candidates who use questions as an excuse to soundbite what they want to say rather than what the questioners want them to talk about. Fact is, candidates don’t have to answer the questions they’re asked — but if they try to stay on message they get raked over the coals for not answering the questions they’re asked.
I got my political ambitions out of my system very quickly.
There were no direct questions about Iran? Strange, but I recall Gibson asking Baracky what he would do if Iran attacked Israel. Both of them prattled on and on about how Bush ruined everything, and if we had just engaged Iran in diplomacy (Hill), or met with Ahmadinnerjacket (Baracky) things would be puppies and kites.
They did not need much time to discuss Iraq. Each proclaimed to have a position, forged in Pittsburgh steel, that they will ignore the advise of the Generals (the same ones they have been braying about Bush ignoring) and surrender in Iraq as soon as possible. The only substantive differences were that Baracky would surrender immediately upon the votes being counted, and Hill would wait to be inaurgurated. Either way, a bloodbath ensues.
BJTexs,
Obama was interviewed on cap gains by Maria Bartiromo on March 27. It did not go well, and Team Obama apparently learned nothing from it.
BTW, MayBee, BJ and others are getting at a point I avoided for reasons of length — those complaining about the first hour need to take a look at that second hour, ’cause it wasn’t pretty.
Baracky was especially bad on the capital gains question. Ouch.
I’ve got it playing on my DVR right now, and JD is indeed correct about the Iran question.
Under their administrations, the world will put pressure on Iran.
BTW, here are some more of Obama’s thoughts on Iran.
You tell me.
Thanks, MayBee. We can translate the “no questions about Iran” to mean not asked in the order the leftists wanted. Regardless, it was a swing and a massive miss for both of them. Not sure why they think that asking about that first would have mde their answers any more palatable.
Why is the WaPo’s TV critic commenting on a political debate? That’s like having my dog write a column about heart surgery.
Without question, Karl. But I’d go a step further and say that the second hour was far less important than the first at this stage of the campaign. Beyond the policy and “vision” stuff the first hour told me more about who the candidates “are” in a more insightful way than anything I got from hour two.
Some Dems are focusing on the the implied ABC whipping but I’ll bet that other Dems were paying very close attention to the candidates’ responses and making some visceral decisions about their leanings.
some comment spam is wrecking our css
and i can’t delete it
but this comment should kick it off the front page
Oh no! I think I might have been unclear. The paragraph I posted is from a forum Barack had with some Jewish leaders in PA.
His answer at the debate was more hawkish (I will do whatever it takes to keep Iran from having nukes and attacking Israel).
I wanted to demonstrate that when he goes more in depth, it is not to his favor.
Remember in the 2000 election, the Democrats got hold of the info about Bush’s drunk driving conviction. It was years before and Bush had given up drinking completely, but that did not matter since they thought it would help them win. And it almost did
Jim in KC — That’s because your dog is overqualified for Tom Shale’s job.
As for personal questions over issues questions: WHAT ISSUES QUESTIONS? These two HAVE no substantial accomplishments between them except a degree of personal self-aggrandizement that makes Citizen Kane look like Mr. Peepers, and are interchangeable on policy.
I do see your point. Yes, they have blathered ad nauseum about their vision and plans. But I see these debates as one of those lie detector/personality tests where you ask people the same thing over and over in different ways, grill them on the tiniest details of their plans and their lofty assed vision. They will eventually reveal their shallowness, dishonesty, snobbery, or stupidity (or maybe they will reveal that they really know what they are talking about and are seriously committed to bringing their ideas to fruition).
I am not discounting the personal shit. That IS important, just not as important as whether they plan a thousand year war funded by a crippling tax or something fucking crazy. And I don’t think we should take the trite position of “Omg I have heard their boring-assed tax and spend, appeasing the terrorists shit already, lets get down to the real issues: Were you or were you NOT in the house while your husband was getting his knob polished? Did you or did you not slap-a-bitch?”
We do not have to be entertained during an election. Most of the time, the candidates do end up unwittingly entertaining us with their breathtaking jackassery. But we can stand to be bored by repeated grilling about budgets, healthcare, the economy, the rumored global food and energy crunch, etc. If it gets too boring, do like I do and flip over to “The Flavor of Love” for a while.
BJ that was a great post, btw. I see your point. I think the debate did indeed serve an important purpose and should not be dismissed. I think alot of the criticism and petulance is from people who don’t like to see Sen Obama on the defensive. That makes them uncomfortable because they see him as so utterly unassailable, if he is uncomfortable and under pressure it must be that someone is being sleazy and persecuting him. That weird desire to protect him like he is the Dalai fucking Lama is not good for him or the party. If we want to kick some ass, we need someone who can take some hits and not whine about it (or at least whine sparingly and in a strategic way that helps your poll numbers and makes your opponent look like an asshole).
Anyway, I agree that how they handled the questions told me a hellova lot about who they are. However, it still annoyed me that Gibson and Stupidnopolous thought they were Woodward and Bernstein. They need to be cockpunched.
Laughing my ass off at #25.
Lisa – The correct term is cockslapped. Or given a mushroom bruise.
Jim in KC – Why do you hate your dog?
LOLOLOL @ “given a mushroom bruise”…..
An indictment of the shallowness of both Democratic candidtes: neither on has even the outline of a National Defense plan. In random comments, Clinton has supported a vague “the Army should be bigger” position, and Obama has said he’d slow down Future Combat Systems development. Hillary’s at least willing to have more troops to support, I guess.
Hillary at least has a history. We know something about her. Obama’s record is measured in scant minutes, comparitively, so the people and the press seize on any indication, any insight and that’s the nature of the beast. That he doens’t like it is natural. That he couldnt’ predict it and has no better answer than to compare as morally eqivalent a terrorist and a fellow Senator, much less a racist pastor and his own grandmother indicates a completely disqualifying lack of judgment. He decided to run of Presidnet on a whim and it’s an indictment of the Democratic party that they’ve let it be this successful, though the specter of a Hillary Clinton administration is likely the answer to that–any port in a storm.
Karl:
As usual, I’m late to the party (damned job), but I wanted you to know how much I appreciate your insightful analysis. This is just a great post.
I continue to be amazed that these people are actually allowed to vote.
[…] a single issue that matters to the American people,” he is spinning. As noted yesterday, character matters to a large bloc of American voters. It matters to Nash McCabe, who asked the flag pin question: […]
[…] News Democratic debate on Wednesday — the first part of which dealt with electability and character questions — the HuffPo has featured a torrent of stories and posts bashing the network and debate […]
[…] In reality, more than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday’s Democratic debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season. More watched the first hour Rich desipises than the second. At least that is what was reported by the New York Times. Meanwhile, in the week since Obama’s claim that small town America clings to God and guns because of US economic policy, he went from a 10-11% lead to about dead even with Hillary Clinton in the Gallup tracking poll. It turns out that many voters believe that character counts. […]
[…] as I have previously noted, those numbers can flip to as high as 55% putting character above issue positions, depending […]