Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Tonight’s loser: Tom Brokaw [also, open thread on post-debate coverage]

By

What a truly awful job of moderating.  I was shouting “Tom, shut your FACE!!” (or some less polite variant) at the TV on multiple occasions.

Oh, yeah, the candidates.  They did fine.  No game-changers.  Obama hit some very solid points on health care and on foreign affairs.  McCain didn’t embarrass himself.

Tie goes to Obama — McCain didn’t come close to accomplishing the kind of terrain shift that he desperately needs.

By the way — anyone who was upset about Hillary Clinton extending the primary season as long as she did should reconsider that position.  Those 21 (or whatever it was) debates against Senator Clinton (a superior debater) have made Obama a far, far better debater than he was in the early going.  The odds of a game-changer in this debate or the next one are extraordinarily low.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I actually had to turn from PBS to CNN so I’d have all the bells and whistles to distract me.

    <

    p>Of course, now that the pundit panel is onscreen, it’s time to change the channel.

    • jinks (sort of) – you changed channel, I hopped on the internets to keep myself awake.

      <

      p>It was that, or pick up the book Ryan lent me so I can finally get through it (it’s gianormous) and get it back to him.  

      • I still haven’t finished Mr. Lynne’s book, so you’re covered at least for the next fortnight =p

        <

        p>and don’t feel bad taking a while to finish that book. it IS ginormous. Also, fantastic. (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, for those who are curious.)

        • I too thought that book was quite good, if loosely focused… And it had a more or less ‘editors ending’: meaning the editor stood over the writers desk and said ‘let’s wrap it up….’.     I would love for it to have been a series or, at least, a trilogy, but that’s difficult for publishers to wrap their heads around for first time writers.

          <

          p>A worthy read, and the fact that it’s ‘ginormous’ is one of it’s selling points: it’s immersive.

          <

          p>

  3. How painful.

    <

    p>Yes, he was just awful.

    <

    p>Instead, I made a much more productive use of my time posting something I’ve been wanting to write all day (see user diaries, too lazy to link to it) on our Left Ahead discussion with Howell today.

  7. I can’t look.

    <

    p>Or rather, I don’t want to.

    <

    p>It’s still on cspan in the background and all I hear is people leaving the hall, LOL. Gotta love cspan.

    <

    p>On third thought, I need to go to bed, tomorrow’s my 5am day. sigh STOP HAVING DEBATES ON TUES!!

    • Gergen is usually a lot more fair than bennett. He’s one of my favorite Republican pundits. Actually, he’s probably my only favorite Republican pundit.

  9. a few sites are talking about it, I missed it.  (TMP is in the process of getting the video posted)

    • forgot about the DVR.  Hit the rewind and you can tell the shook hands, even embraced.  This is while Brokaw was making his final statement.  

      • I believe this is what was going on while Brokaw was yelling at them to get out of the way of his teleprompter.

        • looks like TPM has a video later where the candidates and wives were together.  I don’t think it’s anything …

          <

          p>video

    • It was after the close of the debate – they were still on the stage with their wives.  It looked like Obama was extending his hand to McCain, and McCain missed it or ignored it.  Obama shook Cindy McCain’s hand instead.

  10. NBC has some random commenters I have never heard of — who are these people? where do they come from? do they hibernate in some dormant state only to emerge every four years, warmed by the bright lights of the studio? — who say that it was a tie, and that therefore Obama won. They agree Obama killed McCain on health care. Brian Williams: “Even when I am at these debates, I only watch the TV monitors, because that’s what the viewers see. That’s all that matters.” What a muppet.  

  11. I’m somewhat of a conservative democrat (On Fiscal issues!)…and I thought Obama slaughtered him. The discussion around healthcare was at the top of the reasons why…but his tough talk on Pakistan and how the responsibility of why we are less popular there lies with our support of Musharaff and not a comment on the campaign trail about going after bin laden wherever he is…

    <

    p>The stability of Pakistan is climbing up the ladder of the most costly things to come out of the Bush Presidency that Mcsame won’t change….

  13. Cops an attitude about the post-debate Spin Room…”that’s one place we’re not going tonight.  I don’t know why anyone would want to go in there with people who are just in there for spin.  If you want to see the spin room, guess you’ll have to watch another network.”

    <

    p>Good for him.  I wouldn’t mind Hanging with that Mr. Cooper.

    • … by ‘on the other hand’-isms that plague our media.  There’s no point to arguing against spinning objective reality unless you’re also willing to take a stand on behalf of objective reality.  Here is a particularly bad example of not siding with objective reality:

      Todd Gitlin points to one of those examples of MSM conventions that interefere with truth, to the obvious benefit of liars, here.

      He notes that “Jim Rutenberg has a piece in the morning NYT on the Hannity loonfest that graced Fox News Sunday night.” Rutenberg writes that Andy Martin’s accusation that Barack Obama’s work as a community organizer in Chicago was “training for a radical overthrow of the government” is “unsubstantiated” rather than false, adding: “Is the claim that the moon is made of green cheese ‘unsubstantiated’?”

  14. Can we just get Jim Lehrer to do all the debates? He’s by far the best. Stays out of the way, presses the candidates when they don’t answer questions, and you barely even notice him most of the time (which is a good thing for a moderator).

    • Can we just get Jim Lehrer to do all the debates? He’s by far the best. Stays out of the way, presses the candidates when they don’t answer questions, and you barely even notice him most of the time (which is a good thing for a moderator).

      <

      p>I don’t think that a single moderator is any good at all if, in fact, he or she doesn’t, in fact, moderate.  While I agree that Jim Lehrer has been better than the others, this go ’round, that’s a pretty low bar.

      <

      p>In my history of watching debates, some of the better debates I’ve seen were ‘moderated’ by a panel (usu 3 or so) of journalists who would A) follow up on questions aggresively and 2) reference prior speech in the debate (for example if Candidate McFancypants answered a previous question with a specific phrase that phrase would be brought up for further elaboration, or explication in a differing context.)  I think a panel of moderators allows for more pushback without letting a single person stand out or control the debate.

      <

      p>In general, I’m not given to put much weight on a moderators ‘objectivity’: I want to see how candidates act against those who agree and those who disagree. I think false objectivity is much more pernicious that outright hostility to a candidate.  In fact, I think a much more lively and informative debate would be had if we used prior candidates, in a panel format, to ‘moderate’ the debate.  A revolving panel of Hillary, Mitt, Huck and Dennis Kucinich, over the course of four or five debates , asking questions would be something to see…  

  16. I’m not upset at the fact that the primary season got extended: All other things equal, I think contested primaries are good for us, and the more of them we have with an extended season, the better.

    <

    p>I am upset at the campaign strategy she adopted after it should’ve been clear that she was going to lose.  What Hillary did in March and April caused lasting damage, and that damage is still with us and will be with us on election day.  I am still very angry at her about that.

      1. Please don’t confuse the Hillary campaign and supporters with the lady herself.

      <

      p>2. You seem to be implying that it was clear Clinton would lose as early as March, which is entirely untrue.  I’d say it became clear when NC and IN voted.

      <

      p>3. After she was clearly going to lose, she trained her sights on McCain.

      <

      p>4. What lasting damage?

        1.  I agree.

        <

        p>2.  On Feb 20, Obama was up 70 delegates.  March 5: 96 delegates.  Obama was getting an SD a day; Clinton was in a vast dry spell.  Because of the proportionality system, it’s hard to gain much more than 1 delegate per district; in even-sized districts its really hard to gain any.

        <

        p>Clinton was toast in March, and she and her campaign played to win, recognizing that at that point their more gentle approach wasn’t working.  They needed to up the ante substantially; lose by a little or lose by a lot, it’s still a loss.  I don’t fault her for that, but let’s be clear: arguing that this race came down to the wire is like pointing out that a guy only won a nearly two hour long marathon by 30 seconds, even though he’d been ahead by those 30 seconds for the last six miles of the race.

        <

        p>3.  Certainly not immediately after it was clear.  A few months after it was clear, absolutely.

        <

        p>4.  There’s certainly some, but I don’t think that Obama has any more lasting damage than any other primary candidate who has a little trouble winning over his colleague’s supporters.  I do think that the Clintons — both Hillary and Bill — will suffer some lasting damage because, fair or not, people are upset with their apparent scorched Earth tactics.  I think that if Obama wins in November, the Clintons will be forgiven by those with a grudge shortly thereafter, especially if Bill Clinton continues his good works and if Hillary Clinton rises as a leader in the Senate.

        • I think the worst damage done by Hillary was done to Hillary.  It was clear that she would lose. Exactly when is not important, nor can be precisely pinned down.  I think what is clear is that she could have easily been the VP choice.  In fact, I think Obama picking Biden was, frankly, insane. Biden has nothing compelling to say… honestly… he doesn’t.  But regardless, how does Obama ignore the other candidate  in the race who got nearly as many votes as he did…? It’s clear that, from the point of view of Dems and Independents, Hillary as VP had very little downside and a whole heaping helping of upside.

          <

          p>But I do think that Hillary’s push to continue, long past the expiration date on her presidential campaign, sank her chances at the VP slot.I blame them both equally for sinful pride getting in the way: maybe Hillary didn’t want to play second fiddle and maybe Obama couldn’t get past some of the rancor and spite.  Tough shit for the both of them. Suck it up and be leaders.  

          <

          p>But, more importantly, I think that’s a travesty and a tragedy.  I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be skyrocketing right now. I think McCain would be in the fetal position right now, having flack flashbacks as the fireworks from an Obama/Clinton ticket lit the sky from sea to shining sea…  

          <

          p>And I think that very few people are equipped to take on the role of VP right now: it’s going to be a difficult position, drawing back from the eviscerations of the Cheney magisterium.  I don’t think Joe Biden is up to it.  I think he’s a chair-warmer in that position.   I do think that Hillary could do it well…  That, perhaps, is the biggest tragedy…  

          • Choosing Hillary as VP would’ve been horrible for Obama.

            <

            p>1. He and she ran on very different messages, and these messages were very well established in the public mind.  It’s too bad he didn’t pick a message-reinforcing VP candidate (he could’ve done better), but Hillary would’ve been message-destroying.

            <

            p>2. He would’ve looked weak, and pressured into it.

            <

            p>3. In a Hillary/Obama “team”, who’s in charge?  Who does the press focus on?  Who plays second fiddle?  It would’ve been extremely hard to manage.

            • fair points… but I’m not buying em.

              <

              p>

               1. He and she ran on very different messages, and these messages were very well established in the public mind.  It’s too bad he didn’t pick a message-reinforcing VP candidate (he could’ve done better), but Hillary would’ve been message-destroying.

              <

              p>The same can be said about both Clinton and Gore and Reagan and Bush Sr. In fact, the prototype for this would be.. Kennedy and Johnson, who ran a, shall we say, ‘spirited’ campaign against each other in ’60.

              <

              p>

              2. He would’ve looked weak, and pressured into it.

              <

              p>People would have said he looks weak, which… erm… they’re saying now…

              <

              p>

              3. In a Hillary/Obama “team”, who’s in charge?  Who does the press focus on?  Who plays second fiddle?  It would’ve been extremely hard to manage.

              <

              p>See above, re: Kennedy and Johnson.  If Johnson coulda sucked it up for the good of the party… well… what make Hillary so special?

              • I don’t know enough about the 1960 primaries to evaluate that example, though I suspect it was rather different and doesn’t really apply.  Note that having opposing messages that would fail to combine well is not the same as running spirited campaigns against each other.  Edwards and Kerry did the latter in 2004, but their messages were not incompatible: Kerry’s was “I’m the most electable” (which wasn’t set up to be a general election message anyway, so he had to change it regardless of who he picked), and Edwards’ was sunny positive hope etc., which could’ve combined well with almost anything.

      • Not a moment before.  As I recall that didn’t happen until the very last week of primaries.

      • Once Texas and Ohio (and VT and RI) voted at the beginning of March, it was all over and the outcome was decide.  I posted an analysis for my friends in April, because I was tired of people still acting as if it was an open question after the outcome had been clear for more than a month.

        <

        p>As for the campaign strategies I deplore, they were from the campaign itself.  I’m not confusing the campaign with supporters acting independently.  The worst of it was their strategic decision to exploit racial division to get votes.  They tried to do it subtly, so it wouldn’t be seen as a “racist strategy” (and I don’t think Clinton herself is at all racist), but they did it.

        <

        p>Some good starting points to understand what was happening at the time:

        <

        p>http://www.inthesetimes.com/ar…
        http://www.theatlantic.com/doc…
        http://www.salon.com/opinion/f…
        http://www.creators.com/opinio…

        <

        p>It is specifically in March and April that Clinton’s campaign did the worst damage, with her knowing about what was going on and sanctioning it.  She didn’t actually come to terms with the fact that she’d lost until several days after the last primary in early June, but she knocked off the dirty campaign strategy about a month or so earlier, when she seemed to figure out that it was at least very possible that Obama would be the nominee.  But it was actually near-certain that he’d be the nominee as of early March, and this campaign strategy shouldn’t have been pursued even it were still an open race anyway.

Archives