A Debate, Or Whatever

Stupid, offensive, or biased questions from the Democratic presidential debate, hosted by Charlies Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, on April 17, 2008:

(1) (from Gibson, of both candidates) Governor Cuomo, on elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, "Look, fight it to the end. Let every vote be counted. You can test every delegate. Go at each other right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that
whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other one will agree, if they lose, to take second place on the ticket."
So I put the question to both of you: Why not? (LAUGHTER)
Don't all speak at once.

No, Charlie, neither candidate is going to take a pledge- binding himself/herself months ahead of the convention- which you would never asked the Repub candidate to take.

(2)(follow-up to Clinton) If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?

You already asked this question, Charlie; what part of Obama's response- "I think it's premature at this point for us to talk about who vice presidential candidates will be, because we're still trying to determine who the nominee will be" didn't you understand?

(3)(from Gibson, of Obama, regarding his controversial remarks to a fund-raiser) Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

There is a legitimate question or two still to be asked about Obama's comments about small-town America, but "do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing?" is not one of them, but rather suggests a conclusion it is not Gibson's to make- perhaps his own conclusion couched in the cowardly "some people" phrase. It is itself a patronizing question, when he might have actually asked about the issues raised in the remark.

(4) (to Clinton about allegedly talking to Bill Richardson about Obama's electability) I'm not going to ask you about that conversation; I know you don't want to talk about it.

This was not a question but a comment from Stephanopoulos. Still, why should George set out to avoid asking a candidate a question because it would make her uncomfortable?

(5) (Stephanopoulos, of Obama) Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And, number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?

Which question is worse? The hot-button issue, not about the content of Reverend Wright's remarks or Obama's response to them, but about the feelings toward his country of someone not running for office and whom very few of us have ever met or ever will; or a hypothetical question which is meant to suggest that he can't win ("played on television again and again and again")? And is the reference to playing the remarks repeatedly after the convention lay the groundwork for the GOP rationalizing this line of attack once they launch it?

(6)(follow-up to Obama) But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?

Do you still think, George, that the candidate is going to say that his former pastor is unpatriotic?

(7) (an individual identified as a Tom Rooney of Pittsburgh, Pa.) Senator Clinton, how do you reconcile the campaign credibility that you have when you made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost
my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?

If you've already decided that the senator lied, what purpose is served asking her what she can do "to get that vote back?" If you've decided that she lied and it's important enough to ask her about it, why would you vote for her? (Hiding behind the "man in the street" technique does not justify placing such a question on the air.) Is this ABC's backhanded way of saying what it's too cowardly to charge "Senator, you lied about Bosnia?"

(8) (from an individual identified as a Nash McCabe) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your
patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I
want to know why you don't.

Probably the worst question of the debate, but with much competition, this is not a question which would be asked of Senator McCain- who does not wear it and whose patriotism no one would doubt- and thus raises the question: are we to suspect that Barack Obama is less patriotic than the other candidates? Sorry, but Obama is not going to make you happy and say that he is unpatriotic, about which there is no evidence.

(9) (from Stephanopoulos, of Obama about William Ayers, "part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s) Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

And can you, Mr. Stephanopoulos, tell us why you take your questions from GOP TV talk show host and Repub enthusiast Sean Hannity?

At dailykos, DHinMI noted that all these topics were ignored:

The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis.
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance

Merely calling the guys who hosted the debate "biased" may be giving them too much credit.

On Being "Commander In Chief"

Writing in slate.com, Fred Kaplan on 4/16/08 explains "when it comes to national-security affairs—the heart of his campaign, the center of his career—does Sen. John McCain know what he's talking about?"

Kaplan refers to McCain's (unintentional or intentional) recent mix-up among Sunnis, Shiites, and Iranians, fascinating in a candidate whose claim to the presidency is staked on a supposed knowledge of foreign policy. Still, the more revealing remark by the Arizona senator, as Kaplan recounts, was a response to whether he would divert U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to quash the resurgent Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden. McCain responded: "I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that."

But as Kaplan points out, General David Petraeus is commander of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and therefore not in a position to make that decision. The commander of United States Central Command, who is responsible for the entire Middle East and south Asia, was until recently Admiral William "Fox" Fallon. Admiral Fallon (no fan of General Petraeus) believes that U.S. resources should be diverted from Iraq to other crises in the region and was fired recently after stating there would be a shift in strategy in the Iraq war. Nevertheless, candidate McCain neglected to mention that he would have asked the commander of U.S. Central Command his opinion on policy.

This suggests the most serious issue. Diversion of American troops to Afghanistan, Kaplan notes, is a matter not of strategy and tactics, but of policy and priorities. It is not a decision to made by any military commander but by the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Apparently, for all the tough talk, the vaunted "straight talk" of the McCain campaign, the senator wants to take a pass on this role of the leader of the free world.

Not so, apparently, Barack Obama. In a rare moment raising an actual issue of policy, Charlie Gibson at the Democratic presidential debate on April 16, 2008 asked Obama "so you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" The Illinois senator responded:

Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.
That's not the role of the generals.
And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops
carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with
respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are
going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.
Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to
adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the
commander-in-chief.

Barack Obama, whose weak point is purported to be foreign policy, understands the role he would assume upon taking the presidency. John McCain, whose strong point is purported to be foreign policy, apparently does not understand. That will tell you something about the man the Repub Party believes should be the next President of the United States.