Friday, January 23, 2004
The Empire Strikes Back
201k.com found last night's Democratic debate in NH maddening.
The insufferable sanctimoniousness of three of the four questioners--Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, and John DiStaso--stood out more than any questions posed or answers given all night. That's not a good sign for democracy. Only Tom Griffith, anchor at New Hampshire's WMUR-TV, displayed a proper regard for the process and the voters. The others sought endlessly either to trivialize the candidates (and by extension, the election), or to play silly "gotcha" games.
We found ourselves wishing that all the candidates, and not just Howard Dean, had picked up on John Edwards' lead to turn the tables on their inquisitors, as they did with Tom Brokaw a few weeks ago. Doing so would certainly not hurt them with voters.
Unless the Democratic candidates do whatever is required to take the terms of this election back from the supercilious media, and therefor from the GOP, they risk letting the entire process end up looking like it did last night in New Hampshire, where Joe Lieberman--a candidate who did not contest in Iowa, who is polling negligible numbers, who is routinely booed by Democrats, and who has been widely reported in both the national and local press as having next to no supporters on the campaign trail--was allowed to present George W. Bush's case for going to war in Iraq not once but several times.
We literally lost count of the times Lieberman was able to repeat Karl Rove's talking points on Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was the very last thing uttered in the debate, thanks to a meatball nicely lobbed by Fox News' Hume.
Democrats have a right to be more than a little disturbed by this, given that it is abundantly clear from both polls and previous debates than Lieberman's unqualified support for the war--expressed deliberately in terms exactly mirroring those of the Bush administration--does not reflect the majority of Democratic voters. Quite the opposite, as both John Kerry and John Edwards have discovered.
To have this determinedly Bush-like pro war stance dominate a Democratic debate courtesy of an unpopular candidate and a Fox News anchor does not bode well for the party in the upcoming election.
The same can be said for Peter Jennings' appalling triple-play, in which he simultaneously: a) attempted to hold Wesley Clark responsible for Michael Moore's calling George Bush "a deserter" (as if anyone on God's green earth could put words in or out of Michael Moore's mouth); b) insinuated that Moore should not be allowed to speak his mind (unless, presumably he clears it first with ABC News); and c) dismissed the deserter charge as "reckless".
Clark answered this nonsense very well (and of course Moore himself immediately responded). We would only add that we suspect Jennings doesn't know any better than Moore what the truth of the matter is, and that if he wants to look into it he should do that (maybe together with Moore), and not waste time in a debate trying to hold Clark--who has said nothing about Bush's military record--responsible for the remarks of others.
Lastly, we repeat our call for Al Sharpton to drop out of the race. If he would like to tell jokes in front of audiences he should try his hand at stand-up comedy; no doubt he'd be great. But he absorbs far too much spotlight for a candidate who is polling in the low single digits, who did not contest in Iowa, and who barely has a presence in NH.
If Sharpton were able to answer substantive questions as well as the equally non-polling policy wonk Dennis Kucinich, one could make a case for his continued presence in the race. But as he proved last night, fumbling badly when asked who he would pick to run the Federal Reserve, he is a better moralizer than a policy thinker.
We like Al Sharpton. Moreover we appreciate his views, and believe his presence in the field helped ground the candidates on solid liberal territory. But he is, at this point, a bit like a brilliant horn player hired for one gig who can't stop stealing the stage from the lead singer--and whether he likes it or not, the voters are making clear that he's not destined to be the singer in this particular band. He should glide gently into the backline, where he will do everyone--band and audience--more good.
The insufferable sanctimoniousness of three of the four questioners--Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, and John DiStaso--stood out more than any questions posed or answers given all night. That's not a good sign for democracy. Only Tom Griffith, anchor at New Hampshire's WMUR-TV, displayed a proper regard for the process and the voters. The others sought endlessly either to trivialize the candidates (and by extension, the election), or to play silly "gotcha" games.
We found ourselves wishing that all the candidates, and not just Howard Dean, had picked up on John Edwards' lead to turn the tables on their inquisitors, as they did with Tom Brokaw a few weeks ago. Doing so would certainly not hurt them with voters.
Unless the Democratic candidates do whatever is required to take the terms of this election back from the supercilious media, and therefor from the GOP, they risk letting the entire process end up looking like it did last night in New Hampshire, where Joe Lieberman--a candidate who did not contest in Iowa, who is polling negligible numbers, who is routinely booed by Democrats, and who has been widely reported in both the national and local press as having next to no supporters on the campaign trail--was allowed to present George W. Bush's case for going to war in Iraq not once but several times.
We literally lost count of the times Lieberman was able to repeat Karl Rove's talking points on Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was the very last thing uttered in the debate, thanks to a meatball nicely lobbed by Fox News' Hume.
Democrats have a right to be more than a little disturbed by this, given that it is abundantly clear from both polls and previous debates than Lieberman's unqualified support for the war--expressed deliberately in terms exactly mirroring those of the Bush administration--does not reflect the majority of Democratic voters. Quite the opposite, as both John Kerry and John Edwards have discovered.
To have this determinedly Bush-like pro war stance dominate a Democratic debate courtesy of an unpopular candidate and a Fox News anchor does not bode well for the party in the upcoming election.
The same can be said for Peter Jennings' appalling triple-play, in which he simultaneously: a) attempted to hold Wesley Clark responsible for Michael Moore's calling George Bush "a deserter" (as if anyone on God's green earth could put words in or out of Michael Moore's mouth); b) insinuated that Moore should not be allowed to speak his mind (unless, presumably he clears it first with ABC News); and c) dismissed the deserter charge as "reckless".
Clark answered this nonsense very well (and of course Moore himself immediately responded). We would only add that we suspect Jennings doesn't know any better than Moore what the truth of the matter is, and that if he wants to look into it he should do that (maybe together with Moore), and not waste time in a debate trying to hold Clark--who has said nothing about Bush's military record--responsible for the remarks of others.
Lastly, we repeat our call for Al Sharpton to drop out of the race. If he would like to tell jokes in front of audiences he should try his hand at stand-up comedy; no doubt he'd be great. But he absorbs far too much spotlight for a candidate who is polling in the low single digits, who did not contest in Iowa, and who barely has a presence in NH.
If Sharpton were able to answer substantive questions as well as the equally non-polling policy wonk Dennis Kucinich, one could make a case for his continued presence in the race. But as he proved last night, fumbling badly when asked who he would pick to run the Federal Reserve, he is a better moralizer than a policy thinker.
We like Al Sharpton. Moreover we appreciate his views, and believe his presence in the field helped ground the candidates on solid liberal territory. But he is, at this point, a bit like a brilliant horn player hired for one gig who can't stop stealing the stage from the lead singer--and whether he likes it or not, the voters are making clear that he's not destined to be the singer in this particular band. He should glide gently into the backline, where he will do everyone--band and audience--more good.
