Debate Disrespected Clinton, too.

It's been days since Tuesday's ABC News debate in Philadelphia between Obama and Clinton, and the dust still hasn't settled. From before the debate even ended, there has been a furor among media observers over the way the event was handled by ABC. The candidates' actual responses to questions have taken a backseat to the questions themselves, which some have considered so inane that the event has been widely dubbed "the worst debate ever."


Obama was the obvious target this time. As the frontrunner, it seemed reasonable that moderator (and, and must be pointed out, former Clinton aide) George Stephenopolis would go after him. However, the debate basically turned into a series of questions aimed at Obama. Much of the outrage has rightfully come from the nature of most of the questions: ABC chose to prioritize tabloid-style questions and superficial controversies over real issues. Obama was asked about American flag lapel pins, the "bitter" comment, Reverend Wright, and had his patriotism repeatedly challenged. It was not until the 16th question that Stephenopolis finally got to the economy -- even has he acknowledged it as "the number one issue in the country." Obama was justifiably upset over the line of questioning, which seemed designed to lower the discourse and ignore real problems in favor of the kind of artificial issues which the media has been churning out for years. This debate was so blatant in its insistence on muckraking that at one point, the crowd even turned on host Charles Gibson, assaulting him with a torrent of boos.

But Obama may have actually come out the better of the two. Not only did ABC's pitiful questioning fire up his base (as if they needed to be any more enthusiastic) the prevailing story ended up being "Media tries to screw Obama." The Illinois senator ended up looking like the victim of shameless yellow journalism. As for Hillary? She had a very different problem.


The moderator mostly went after Obama, with Clinton only getting a few token queries every now and then. On the surface, this may seem beneficial to the former First Lady: nothing wrong with staying out of the line of fire, right? Perhaps, but reducing Hillary to an afterthought in the debate sends the message that she doesn't really matter anymore. She was essentially treated as Obama's sparring partner on Tuesday, instead of as a legitimate candidate in her own right. And with the perception that she can't win growing by the day, Clinton can absolutly not afford to be ignored this way. Answering tough questions may be uncomfortable, but the alternative is to be saddled with the perception that you are such a political nonentity that you aren't worth questioning. At Tuesday's debate, Hillary was essentially told "you're just here as a foil for the frontrunner, so we'll go easy on you."

Over the past few weeks, Clinton has found the spotlight slowly dimming on her, even as it shines ever more brightly on Obama. The only major news story involving Clinton in the last month has been the sniper gaffe. Any other time she's in the news, it's in reaction to something Obama said or did. While the media is being increasingly hard on Obama, it is simultaneously reducing Hillary to an also-ran, as was the case on Tuesday. It is utterly crucial for her to maintain as much of that spotlight as she can in order to remain viable. But as is always the case when the media is involved, this is a problem which is largely out of the candidate's hands.

A "Bitter" Pill

Apologies for the sporadic updates. I've been slammed with assignments and Laura's computer is broken, but I should be able to update regularly again beginning today.

It seems the media's been slightly adrift over the past week or two. Hillary's sniper gaffe has run its course, and for a while there was no new major misstep or scandal to focus on. This was especially problematic because the Pennsylvania primaries are still two weeks away, so the election season is caught in a period without any actual elections in it. The media has just been waiting for a candidate to slip up again so they could pounce on it and hammer away, and now it looks like Obama has given them their chance.

The dominant story on nearly every political site since Friday has been a set of comments made by Barack Obama at a San Fransisco fundraiser in which he refers to small-town Americans as "bitter," and going on to say that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It didn't take long for the media to pick up the story, and Obama's opponents followed soon after. Clinton was quick to hit him on it, using the comment to position herself as the friend of the working class (she mentioned her grandfather was a factory worker, although it is telling that one has go back two generations to find a working-class Clinton.) McCain aide Steve Schmidt also called Obama on the remarks, saying "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking...it is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

So it seems that the right's charges about Obama are right after all. He really is an elitiest Harvard educated slickster with contempt for common American values and no understanding of the working class. The proof is in the comments, right?

Not so fast.

Obama is getting a raw deal here, on several levels. The media is famous for removing context from candidate statements, but they've truly outdone themselves this time, essentially boiling the entire statement down to a single word: "bitter." Well, there were a lot more words in Obama's statement than there. Here, in context, are his remarks:

"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Doesn't seem quite so bad in context, does it? Rather than an attack on small-town America, Obama seems to be making a Clintonseque "I feel your pain" statement here. He's essentially saying "you're unhappy, you're angry, and it's because the government has forgotten about you. Well, I understand where you're coming from, and I haven't forgotten you."

Could it have been a little better phrased? Certainly. But what we have here is Obama essentially acknowledging the elephant in the room. We may not want to admit it, but there is no question that many small towns are in decline. There is no question that many people blame illegal immigrants or other minorities. There is no question that many working class people are angry. So is the whole country. Perhaps the "clinging to guns and religion" line was ill-advised, but what Obama did here was something similar to what he did with his speech on race: he had an honest conversation which acknowledged some ugly facts.

He could have offered empty compliments and canned statements about the "real America" and "salt of the Earth folks" like a typical politician, he could have done the old song-and-dance where you come in, pose next to a tractor, talk about how small towns are the most perfect, immaculate places on Earth and then continue ignoring their needs. But he wanted to have an honest conversation. He wanted to acknowledge that small towns do have problems, that their people aren't perfect, and then he wanted to ask "why is that? How can we fix it? How can I help?"

Essentially, Obama is being attacked today for refusing to pander.

Perhaps we have become so jaded, so complacent and expectant of candidates to pander to us, that any truly honest, warts-and-all statement becomes offensive. And there's no question that some lines in Obama's speech were a bit harsh and poorly chosen. But to transfer that into a supposed contempt for small-town America is absurd. If Obama has such feelings, they are not made apparent in his statements. Quite the opposite. He is trying to engage small-towners in an honest conversation instead of talking down to them. He may have failed to do that with his choice of words. But he did not insult them.

Perhaps in recognition of that, Obama has refused to take back his comments. He has expressed regret at causing offense, but maintains that the core sentiment was still valid.

The McCain and Clinton camps are jumping on this statement with everything they've got. I don't blame them. The media is going after this story like...well, like Hillary's sniper comment and Obama's preacher debacle (McCain remains safely out of the line of fire, it would seem.) Which means it will mostly blow over in a week or so, but it will leave scars which will continue to fester.

It's truly unfortunate, because this is not a story that deserves to be hyped this way. There were legitimate reasons to go after Wright. There was no way "God damn America" was going to be explained away with context. There were legitimate reasons to question the sniper comment. It was factually inaccurate no matter how you slice it. But the "bitter" story thrives on lack of context, and in fact, could hardly be as big WITH context. These are comments which are easy to misconstrue. While they might raise a minor stink on their own, rip out all the ideas and leave only the idea of "Obama says rural voters bitter, cling to guns and God," and only then do you have a major national story.

It couldn't come at a worse time for Obama, with the Pennsylvania primary two weeks away and polls showing him gaining significant ground on Clinton. This story could easily bring his numbers into freefall. We shall see.

One more observation: I have yet to hear a single actual small town Americans comment on this. For the past 24 hours, we've heard all three candidates, various hangers-on, and every pundit under the sun chime in. But every story I've read contains nothing but speculation as to how the people Obama is supposedly insulting will react. No one has bothered to go out and actually ASK these people if they're insulted or not. Instead, they've TOLD them how they feel. How's that for looking down on small towners? And now that the story's gotten such hype, it's a bit late to go around asking for comments without the whole chicken vs egg theory intruding: would they have reacted the same way before the media decided they should be outraged? We'll never know now, because the media didn't ask.

Well, you know what? I come from a small town. So here is my unsolicited opinion: I'm not happy. And what makes me unhappy is how these comments have been reported on, not the comments themselves.

Do the Ads Add Up?

As the democratic campaign continues to intensify, the candidates keep dishing out political ad after political ad. Today alone, Clinton has released five new ads which are scheduled to air in Pennsylvania. Each ad adopts a slightly different strategy. In one, Clinton is featured as a child, with her father in Pennsylvania. Why? The Pennsylvania primary is coming up, and this ad stresses Clinton’s Pennsylvania roots.

Two other ads feature Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell and Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia, saying positive things about Clinton. These ads show that two prominent Pennsylvania leaders support Clinton, and imply that the general public should follow their leaders.

In yet another ad, Clinton addresses “the problem with Bush’s economy.” She says: “The Bush economy is like a trapdoor. Too many families are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through and losing everything. The oil companies, the predatory student loan companies, the insurance companies and the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. I intend to be a president who stands up for all of you.” This ad, while not directly linked to Pennsylvania, speaks to the large portion of Pennsylvanians struggling to make ends meet.

Her final ad is intended to appeal to the Hispanic population of Pennsylvania. Entitled “Nuestra Amiga,” or “Our Friend,” the ad describes how Clinton will aid the Hispanic community. “Our voice and our vote will elect the next President of the great country. Our candidate is Hillary Clinton because she respects our culture and understands the problems that affect our community. Millions of Hispanic families live with the fear of not having health insurance. The economic crisis and the cost of living are of concern to all of us. Hillary is our friend and will help us. Let’s vote for Hillary on April 22nd and we will have a better life. We are with you!”

Obama, as well, has been shelling out ad after ad, which are also intended to appeal to a wide variety of people.

I recently participated in a little experiment of my own. Jay Hyman, a professional director of music videos, Rob Tomoro, song writer, and “local Beloit Pop Star” Nicole Waters, teamed up to produce a music video supporting Obama. In order to collect footage of “excited young people for Obama,” they came to Beloit College.



This event was shamelessly promoted before it took place, with fliers asking “Do you love Obama? Do you want to be on national T.V.? Then come show your support for Obama and be in an Obama music video!” Obama fanatics and curious students alike rallied at Middle College, and followed the directions of Hayman.

In a large crowd, students were directed to sing “It’s Our Time Now,” “dance around,” and be energetic. “You’re a star!” “You’re beautiful!” “You’re wonderful!” “More energy!” cried Hyman.

It was painful. But, I figured that, since I was going to look ridiculous “on national T.V.” anyways, I might as well enjoy it. So, I danced around, played air guitar, and made a complete fool of myself.

Somewhere in the middle of take five, I became alarmed when I realized that I was actually getting into the whole thing. Lyrics like “If life is worth living, it’s worth giving all that you’ve got… it’s our time now…” actually got to me.

The subliminal messages, and even not-so-subliminal messages, are frighteningly powerful. You may think: “I’m smarter than that; I am not influenced by commercials or marketing. I know that what I see on T.V., read on the internet, and hear on the radio is not real.”

But, think carefully. What is McDonald’s slogan? I bet you know it. Finish this sentence: “There’s no wrong way to eat…” Finish the lyrics to this song: “Give me a sign, hip me…”

Those annoying little marketing gimmicks are more effective than you think. It’s possible that those annoying little campaign commercials may be too.

Chill Bill, Volume 2

Six months ago, the conventional wisdom was clear: Bill Clinton was the Hillary campaign's secret weapon. As if her path to the nomniation wasn't already guranteed, as if the primary season wasn't just a mere foramality before her coronation, in the highly unlikely event that one of the other candidates (there are other candidates?) gave her any trouble, all she had to do was bring out Slick Willie: beloved Democratic icon and the undisputed master of campagining. Even the Republicans who despised him willingly admitted that no one could top Bill Clinton for pure campaigning skill. Together with Hillary, they would make an unstoppable combo. Right?

Right?

Once again, this election has defied conventional wisdom. Bill Clinton has turned out to be a major mixed blessing for his wife's campaign: at times her #1 spokesman, at others, an embarrassment. The trouble began early on, when he referred to Obama's Iraq War opposition as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." But what really upset some voters was his comparing Obama's campaign to Jessie Jackson's failed 1984 White House bid. Many took it as Clinton implying that a black man could not become president.

The latest Clinton gaffe has come out of a Superdelegate meeting in California. It seems Clinton was talking with Rachel Binah, a Hillary supporter who once backed Bill Richardson. During the conversation, Binah expressed unhappiness with Clinton ally James Carville's use of the label "Judas" to describe Richardson.

Clinton exploded. It's no secret that there have been sore feelings between Richardson and the Clintons, who helped make Richardson's political career back in the 90's. But Clinton went on what was reportedly a very harsh, angry tirade in a room full of superdelegates -- the absolute last people the Clinton campaign wants to tick off.

No wonder that today, undeclared superdelegate Tom Harkin called for Clinton to "chill out."

It's good advice -- and as the Clintons are running out of time to turn this race around, it's advice Bill should consider taking.

The Family that Spawned 9/11

The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century, a book detailing the lives of Osama Bin Laden’s extended family, is now on the shelves of bookstores all across the nation.

Steve Coll’s new book is causing quite a stir. News outlets across the country are seizing this news story from a variety of different angles. “The Bricklayer’s Sons: The Family That Spawned 9/11,” by Michiko Kakutani, was published in the New York Times, and “Blood Brothers: The Bin Laden’s Represent Two Tales of Arabs in America,” appeared on FoxNews.com.

This story presents an interesting issue: people who have chosen to be political actors, and those who are thrust into the position. For example, Bin Laden himself has (or had, depending on the ambiguous state of his well being) clearly chosen to cast himself as a political actor. Now, study this photograph. These are some of the Bin Ladens listed in Coll’s recent book. Do these people look as though they have all chosen to live under the harsh light of the political spotlight? Sometimes, people chose this role.

Other people are given no choice.

Looking for the escape hatch

As reported in my previous entry, the extended primary season is making the Democratic party elite more than a bit nervous. Now it looks like they are more and more prepared to do something about it -- and Hillary Clinton is not happy.

With her delegate count far behind Obama's (even if one factors in her excepted Pennsylvania victory) Clinton badly needs as much time as possible to make the case that she is the stronger candidate in the fall. If the superdelegates pick in June or July, they are likely to go with the candidate in the lead: and that's Obama. However, chances are they would go with him even if things went on until the convention. It would just be much more contentious and damaging to the party.

The Dems are walking a fine line here. On the one hand, letting the primary continue for nearly four more months would be suicidal. On the other, Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she considers any attempts to end the election before the primaries are over to be equivalent to disenfranchising voters. Her message when asked about the issue has been to say that Obama and the party insiders are trying to take away peoples' right to vote.

The argument is a bit inaccurate, as Obama has already said that Hillary can stay in "as long as she wants." And most Democratic leaders have only backed an early end to the race which takes place after all the primaries have occurred, which contradicts Hillary's claim that they are trying to take away people's votes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he supported a July 1st superdelegate deadline, by which all delegates would be required to make their choice known.

Yet even that may not be enough to stop Clinton, who clearly wants to keep going until August. Speaking in Philadelphia today, the candidate compared herself to Rocky Balboa, the famous movie boxer (and Philly native) who is renowned for never giving up. Like Rocky, Hillary has been declared knocked out several times before: after Iowa, after Super Tuesday, after the Potomac Primary. Yet she has gotten back up again, and refuses to stop swinging. Whether that is admirable or foolish is a matter of opinion.