Thursday’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia may have been the most outrageous hit job ever perpetrated against a presidential candidate and the American people by moderators of a Presidential debate. ABC clearly had two purposes in moderating this debate: First, to destroy or hurt Barack Obama’s candidacy as much as possible; and second, to move the dialogue in our country as far to the right as possible, by spewing out right wing talking points and surreptitiously lecturing the candidates and the American people about them.

But Obama didn’t let them get away with it:


Attempts to destroy Obama’s candidacy

Bringing up Reverend Wright again
If there is anything that is likely to destroy the candidacy of a black man running for President of the United States it is stirring up racial resentment by painting him as an “angry black man” or at least associating him with one. Previous attempts to destroy Obama’s candidacy by associating him with Reverend Jeremiah Wright having failed, Charlie Gibson decided to give it one more try. He decided to try a new angle: make it seem that Obama had lied when he claimed not to have previously heard the remarks by Reverend Wright that started the controversy:


Obama explained again that, though he had long been aware that Reverend Wright sometimes made controversial remarks, he had never previously heard the remarks that precipitated the recent controversy. And Obama again condemned those remarks.


Then Stephanopoulos stepped in to challenge Wright’s patriotism, twice (which Obama defended) and ask Obama how he would handle the inevitable attacks against him regarding the Wright issue if he won the Democratic nomination – the implication being that this is a very important issue that warrants continuous national attention.

Implying that Obama is patronizing to Pennsylvanians
Most of us are probably familiar with Obama’s remarks regarding the bitterness of many Americans toward their government and how that has affected some of their attitudes. Obama has repeatedly explained how his remarks on that subject did not fully reflect what he meant to say. But ABC could not resist another opportunity to drive in the knife:


What a cowardly and dishonest ploy! Instead of taking responsibility for his own views on the subject, Gibson claims that these are the views of Pennsylvanians. It would have been far more accurate for Gibson to have noted that his expressed views are in fact NOT the opinion of most Pennsylvanians, since Obama’s poll numbers have risen in Pennsylvania since he made those remarks. Obama explained it again:


But hey, why let him get off so easy? Stephanopoulos then picked up on the subject, quoted McCain as saying that this is going to be a killer issue in November, and then gave Senator Clinton the opportunity to lambaste Obama some more on the subject (which she was happy to do).

Obama doesn’t wear the American flag enough
Of all the inanely stupid issues to bring up at a presidential debate, I can’t think of one that tops accusing someone of not wearing the American flag enough. If it’s true that Obama wears the American flag less than other U.S. Senators (Who counts such stupid things?), I doubt that 1% of Americans would be aware of it if our national news media didn’t harp on it.

Again ABC resorted to the dishonest and cowardly ploy of attributing knowledge of and views on this issue to voters rather than to themselves. First, they play a tape featuring a “voter”:


Then Gibson volunteered his own opinions on the issue, again attributing them not to himself but to others:


Obama responded by making a point that should be obvious to any person over the age of ten – that there are more important ways to measure one’s love of their country than by how often they wear the American flag:


And he goes on to mention several other things that should be more important to Americans than how often their President wears the American flag.

Associating Obama with terrorism
The lie that Obama is a Muslim has probably been refuted enough that few Americans believe it. So, ABC needed to find another way to associate him with terrorism. The best they could come up with was to note that Obama had held a meeting in the house of William Ayers and was said by his campaign to be “friendly” with Ayers. Here is Stephanopoulos’ characterization of that organization and of Ayers:


The Weather Underground was a former anti-Vietnam War organization, which was on the FBI’s ten most-wanted list during the Hoover days. Whether their activities ever killed anyone is not clear to me. Ayers and his wife turned themselves in during the 1980s, and all charges against them were dropped. Anyhow, Stephanopoulos’ characterization of Ayers is clearly misleading at best. Here is what Ayers himself had to say about his supposed advocacy of terrorism:


Obama had this to say to Stephanopoulos:


Obama might have added that Stephanopoulos had totally mischaracterized Ayers. But how was Obama expected to have researched the background of everyone he’s ever associated with, in preparation for this debate? If that’s the best they can do to associate Obama with terrorism – he had a meeting in the house of someone who has denounced terrorism of any kind much more clearly than anyone in the Bush administration ever did – they’re skating on pretty thin ice.

Characterizing Obama on presumed inconsistencies on the 2nd Amendment and gun control
Apparently ABC believes, or pretends to believe, that it is inconsistent for someone to believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms, and yet simultaneously believe that there are circumstances where government may legitimately put restrictions on guns in the interest of public safety. They apparently don’t understand that, just as our Constitutional right to free speech doesn’t give us the right to libel, to purposely incite others to violence, or yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, there are some things that are not black and white:


Oh, horrors! – a politician emphasizing one aspect of an issue without emphasizing other aspects of the same issue. Obama countered Gibson by explaining the elementary logic that our government has the responsibility to protect people against violence. So Gibson went further and claimed that “You favored a ban on handguns”. Obama responded:


Trying to make Obama seem like a marginal candidate who can’t win a presidential election
Making Obama seem like a marginal candidate who isn’t a serious contender for the presidency is problematic for ABC, since he’s virtually wrapped up the Democratic nomination, and most national polls have him running ahead of the Republican nominee. The debate moderators would seem downright stupid (and biased) if they directly implied that Obama is unelectable. So instead they tried to get Senator Clinton to do that for them, by asking her several times whether she thinks Obama is electable.

That put her in a bind of course. She would like to convince the Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable. But she risks offending voters by saying that in public. So she tried to evade the question. But the moderators kept on pushing her, so finally she said that yes, yes, yes, Obama can win.

But nice try, George and Charlie.


Pushing right wing talking points

The Iraq War must be pursued
To push the Iraq War, ABC’s first ploy was to again put forth an “ordinary American” who recognizes the wisdom of keeping American troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as things are not going well:


Then Gibson bopped in to make several implications: that we have made “gains” in Iraq; that we need to stay there indefinitely to protect those gains; and that Bush’s sycophantic generals know best how long we should stay there:


Obama set him straight by giving him an elementary lesson in U.S. government:


Affirmative action is a major problem for poor white working people
With all the economic problems affecting poor, working and middle class Americans today, you would think that debate moderators would pick some of the most important ones for debate discussion – like affordable health care, the housing crisis, or unaffordable education costs for so many American children today. Well, ABC has a pretty good idea of what our major economic problems are: affirmative action and high taxes for the wealthy:


Yep, we have to do something about those affluent African-Americans in order to get our economy back in order. But in fairness to George, I’m sure that emphasizing the importance of solving our affirmative action problems wasn’t his only motive in asking that question. I’m sure that he also felt that it would be good for our country to stir up a little racial animosity towards our black Democratic nominee. Obama tried to broaden the issue a bit:


Raising taxes on the rich is bad for a sluggish economy

When Clinton responded that yes, she would raise taxes on the wealthy to approximately the rate they were paying during her husband’s administration, Stephanopoulos responded, “Even if the economy is weak?”

Hmmm. He may as well have simply given us all a lecture on the wonderful benefits of trickle down economics.

Raising taxes on capital gains decreases government revenues
Gibson repeatedly hammered away at the folly of increasing taxes on capital gains:


Ok, I realize that the effect of capital gains taxes on the economy is somewhat controversial – and I’m no economist. But Gibson presented this as if it’s established fact, and it isn’t at all. Here is what Justin Fox, TIME’s business and economic analyst, had to say about the subject, in an article titled “So, uh, when did Charlie Gibson turn into a supply side nut job?”




I would add to that discussion the fact that trying to make the case that George Bush has done anything to boost our economy is suspect indeed. There are many different economic indicators, and short-term government revenue is just one. Decreasing taxes on capital gains well below the income tax rate facilitates a widening income gap, which has already reached record levels under George Bush’s economic policies. That is undoubtedly good for some people, but many believe that it has toxic effects on society as a whole, through such mechanisms as shifting political power to a narrow wealthy elite. This is what Obama had to say about it:



Obama defines his positions

To prove that they were capable of asking at least one question that neither attacked a Democratic candidate nor introduced right wing talking points, Gibson asked as the last question, “What are you going to do about the price of gas”, and he gave each candidate one minute to answer.

One might think that, with such a concerted effort by the debate moderators to attack Obama (and Clinton too, to a lesser extent) and to introduce their right wing talking points, that Obama would have had little or no chance to discuss issues of importance to the American people. But he still managed to define, in general terms, what his campaign is about, despite all the obstacles. I’ve noted some of that above, in Obama’s responses to the attacks on him and the moderators’ pushing of right wing ideas. Here are some more examples of issues that Obama managed to force into the conversation:

Obama on fairness

Obama on regulation of special interests

Obama on health care

Obama on fiscal responsibility

Obama on education

Obama on foreign policy

Obama on energy policy


Some final words about our corporate news media

Our national corporate news media have been screwing the Democrats and our country for years. They receive free licenses from the federal government and in return they have the responsibility to provide news in “the public interest”. Yet they don’t care at all about that sacred responsibility. Instead, they use their privilege to provide slanted news that ensures that pro-corporate Republicans will stay in power and in return will enact legislation that ensures ever more accumulation of wealth and power to themselves.

ABC “News” in particular has been doing this sort of thing for quite some time: When the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (SBVFT) came out with their transparently phony allegations against John Kerry, right before the 2004 Presidential election, they posted nearly a hundred links to the story during one 17 day stretch. They mocked the Downing Street Memo (“The left is unappeasable on the issue of the Downing Street Memo”) and Cindy Sheehan. They dismissed stories of Ken Starr’s conflict of interest during his investigation of Bill Clinton. They ignored the Jeff Gannon story and the news of Karl Rove’s role in the CIA leak investigation. They put positive spin on Bush’s handling of the Katrina disaster. Right before the 2006 elections they aired a so-called “docudrama” that blamed Bill Clinton for the 9-11 attacks. And as the story of Tom DeLay’s corrupt activities began to emerge, they had this to say:


The list goes on and on. The main difference between ABC and FOX News would appear to be that ABC does a better job of pretending to be a real news organization, rather than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party.

The Democrats have undergone the torture of a thousand cuts by the corporate media over the last several years. They are in a terrible dilemma because, given the great power of our corporate news media, attacking them poses great risks. Yet, Democrats may have no reasonable alternative choice other than to come out swinging against the corporate media. The Republicans are the Party of the corporations, the wealthy and the powerful. A great deal of their power rests with the slanted news of the corporate news media, without which they would either have to begin to adopt a pro-people agenda or they could not win another election.

It may be that Democrats now have an opportunity to go over the heads of those who provide biased news to our country, directly to the people, to expose our corporate media for what they are. Barack Obama may have an opportunity to do that like no other politician in recent memory, given his record setting campaign funding, comprised disproportionately of small donations. If his recent performances, including Thursday’s debate, are any indication, he’s not going to take this lying down.