Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Obama Refused to Let Two Stooges from ABC Define him

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 06:51 PM
Original message
Obama Refused to Let Two Stooges from ABC Define him
Edited on Fri Apr-18-08 07:44 PM by Time for change
Thursdays 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 Obamas 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 didnt let them get away with it:

Attempts to destroy Obamas 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 Obamas 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:

GIBSON (to Obama): More than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him (Wright) to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him: "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So, what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation? And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?

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.

GIBSON: But you did rescind the invitation to him.

OBAMA: But that was on something entirely different, Charlie I wasnt aware of all these statements The church is a community that extends beyond the pastor. And that church has done outstanding work for many, many years

Then Stephanopoulos stepped in to challenge Wrights 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 Obamas 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:

GIBSON: But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

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 Obamas poll numbers have risen in Pennsylvania since he made those remarks. Obama explained it again:

OBAMA: The point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change and it doesn't, then, politically, they end up focusing on those things that are constant like religion. It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith since I'm a person of faith and have done more than most other campaigns in reaching out specifically to people of faith.

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 doesnt wear the American flag enough
Of all the inanely stupid issues to bring up at a presidential debate, I cant think of one that tops accusing someone of not wearing the American flag enough. If its 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 didnt 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:

VOTER: Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism (yeah, right), but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

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

GIBSON: It comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And, as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November.

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 ones love of their country than by how often they wear the American flag:

OBAMA: I could not help but love this country for all that it's given me. And so, what I've tried to do is to show my patriotism by how I treat veterans.

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:

STEPHANOPOULOS: They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

The Weather Underground was a former anti-Vietnam War organization, which was on the FBIs 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:

I heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant terrorist extolling bombings against the U.S. and even advocating more terrorist bombs. Senator McCain couldnt believe it, and neither could I. Im often quoted as saying I have no regrets. That is not true. Im sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Vietnam, and I say No, I dont regret anything I did to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government. Sometimes I add, I dont think I did enough. This is then elided: He has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just cause. Ive never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely

Obama had this to say to Stephanopoulos:

OBAMA: So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that.

Obama might have added that Stephanopoulos had totally mischaracterized Ayers. But how was Obama expected to have researched the background of everyone hes ever associated with, in preparation for this debate? If thats 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 theyre 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 dont understand that, just as our Constitutional right to free speech doesnt 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:

GIBSON: Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now, when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns. Why don't you emphasize that now?

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:

OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Trying to make Obama seem like a marginal candidate who cant win a presidential election
Making Obama seem like a marginal candidate who isnt a serious contender for the presidency is problematic for ABC, since hes 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, ABCs 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:

MANDY GARBER: They (Clinton and Obama) keep saying we want to bring the troops back. But considering what's happening on the ground, how is that going to happen?

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 Bushs sycophantic generals know best how long we should stay there:

GIBSON: If the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home? General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?

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

OBAMA: 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." And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. We will not have permanent bases there (when Obama is President). We are overstretched in a way we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.

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:

STEPHANOPOULOS (to Obama): As president, how specifically would you recommend changing affirmative action policies so that affluent African-Americans are not given advantages and poor, less affluent whites are?

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, Im sure that emphasizing the importance of solving our affirmative action problems wasnt his only motive in asking that question. Im 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:

OBAMA: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just of affirmative action, but how we are admitting young people to college generally, is how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams? And race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities and other institutions to say, "You know, we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or because they're a woman"...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they're wealthy?

Raising taxes on the rich is bad for a sluggish economy
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McCain signaled that the No. 1 one issue in the general election campaign on the economy is going to be taxes. And if the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you continue will you persist in your plans to roll back the President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?

When Clinton responded that yes, she would raise taxes on the wealthy to approximately the rate they were paying during her husbands 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:

GIBSON (to Obama): You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percentBut actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.... And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all? . But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

Ok, I realize that the effect of capital gains taxes on the economy is somewhat controversial and Im no economist. But Gibson presented this as if its established fact, and it isnt at all. Here is what Justin Fox, TIMEs 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?

Yes, capital gains tax cuts invariably result in a revenue increase the next year, because investors aren't idiots: If they see a cut coming, they're likely to delay capital-gains-generating transactions until after the tax rate drops. But I don't know of any serious economist who thinks that cutting the capital gains tax rate increases revenue over time. Here's a chart of the last 12 years of capital gains tax revenues:

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 Bushs 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: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year $29 billion for 50 individuals. I also want to make sure that our tax system is fair, and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it, and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

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. Ive noted some of that above, in Obamas 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: And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s. Im talking about how we need to restore a sense of economic fairness to this country, because that's what this country has always been about, is providing upward mobility and ladders to opportunity for all Americans. One of the centerpieces of my economic plan would be to say that we are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are earning who are middle-income, individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to a thousand dollars' worth of relief. Senior citizens who have earnings of less than $50,000 wouldn't have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And middle-class homeowners who currently don't itemize on their tax filings, they would be able to get a deduction the same way that wealthy individuals do.

Obama on regulation of special interests
OBAMA: Special interests have come to dominate Washington We're now seeing a deteriorating housing market. That also is a consequence of the lack of oversight and regulation of these banks and financial institutions that gave loans that they shouldn't have. And part of it has to do with the fact that you had $185 million by mortgage lenders spent on lobbyists and special interests who were writing these laws. The tax code has been written on behalf of the well-connected. Our trade laws have the same thing has happened.

And most importantly, I believe that change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. And that's why we decided we weren't going to take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special interest influence but, instead, we're going to enlist the American people in the project of changing this country. It's going to be absolutely vital we form a new political coalition in this country. That's what we've been doing

Obama on health care
OBAMA: What the American people want are not distractions. They want to figure out, how are we going to actually deliver on health care? That means health care for everyone, no exceptions. Nobody left out.

Obama on fiscal responsibility
OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go.

Obama on education
OBAMA: I'm against No Child Left Behind as it is currently operating, and I would end it, because we can do so much better to have an education system that really focuses in on kids who need extra help. Let's make college affordable again. I think our job should be to try to create the conditions that enable people to live up to their god-given potential.

Obama on foreign policy
OBAMA: John McCain wants to continueGeorge Bush's foreign policy Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. I'm speaking forcefully about how we need to bring this war in Iraq to a close, because I think it is not serving our national security.

Obama on energy policy
OBAMA: We've got to investigate potential price gouging or market manipulation. I have strongly called for a windfall profits tax that can provide both consumers relief and also invest in renewable energies. I think that long-term, we are going to have to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars because the only way that we're going to be able to reduce gas prices if we reduce demand.

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 dont 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 Starrs conflict of interest during his investigation of Bill Clinton. They ignored the Jeff Gannon story and the news of Karl Roves role in the CIA leak investigation. They put positive spin on Bushs 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 DeLays corrupt activities began to emerge, they had this to say:

There is an iron triangle of liberal interest groups, Democratic congressional staffers, and media jackals who have never identified with or liked Tom DeLay (and what he stands for) and are enjoying every minute of their conspiring to bring him down. Almost every accusation swirling around DeLay involves actions by him that have exact analogues among other members of Congress of both parties.

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 Thursdays debate, are any indication, hes not going to take this lying down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Put this on the front page! K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. dupe
Edited on Fri Apr-18-08 08:10 PM by meow mix
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ToughLuck Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-20-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. Did you see George this morning?? what a pathetic joke,
He used his Sunday show to try and defend his horrendous debate.. Cokie Roberts and sam Donaldson obliged him, reassuring him he did a great job.

Those two hacks tried to be convincing about how the public wants these questions..bullshit over and over again.

I am not a fan of George Will or his politics at all, BUT, he was the only credible member of the panel. It was his complete lack of comment to those assinine questions. Will said, The questions worth hearing were about capital gains...He is a conservative and regardless of my disagreement about that issue with him, he is correct that it was a relevant question. After he said that, the other 3 went on about how Obama's supporters were too sensitive, Will's response to that was, lets get back to what Obama said about capital gains answer. It was obvious he was NOT going to give credence to those stupid questions by Gibson and George..for that I give him credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. very thorough analysis TFC....k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Nobody who attended Ebenezer Baptist Church in the 50s or early 60s would have had a snowball's ...
... chance in Hell to be elected to national office - or even surviving a primary election. It's testimony to how much the 'official' discourse has changed that people younger than about 40 have almost no concept how much MLKJr. was vilified repeatedly in the public media and by politicians.

Blowing the Reverend Wright dog-whistle is beyond offensive to those of us who vividly recall those days.


That wasn't "moderation" by ABC ... it was an inquisition. Obama wasn't questioned; he was badgered. He was repeatedly interrupted and their notion of "balanced time" was to invite Hillary to pile on. (I am NOT an Obama "fan.") I don't see how any "fair-minded" person could view that travesty and even come close to thinking the public interest was served. That's the requirement ABC has to meet in order to use the public airwaves. They did NOT meet it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. They most certainly did not
Their purpose was not to serve the public interest. Their purpose was to destroy Obama and promote their right wing ideology. I'm sure that Stephanopoulos and Gibson were simply puppets, acting on behalf of their corporate masters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's the best way to put
it.."Obama Refused to Let Two Stooges from ABC Define him"!

As far as Ayers is concerned..when has hannity ever told the truth in his life? His job is misformation and Double Shame on george stepou(sp)and chuck gibson.

Nice job, Time For Change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
42. Thank you zidzi. I was so glad to see that those two have been thoroughly condemned by
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. Just two stooges ??
If they lose their credibility, they have nothing else. ABC is quickly losing its credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WHAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wonderful compilation and analysis...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. I wish to god that we had an honest media but I know that these folks want us to continue living in
a right wing corporate hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good to see this on the DU homepage ... hope it stays there awhile.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Thank you Bob
I sure do hope that Obama does something about our news media monopolies after he becomes president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. On the real tip, ABC is truely "dead" to me and what I used to think of the organization
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BayjanDem Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. Never satisfied
There are people in this country that have their minds made up regarding Obama. Not rational people. The people that want to bring up Jeremiah Write, or "bittergate" or flag pins. They will never be satisfied with anything Obama has to say. These same idiots provide comments like the following: "About time Obama get asked the tough questions" or "Obama's a whiner", or "if ya can't take the heat, blah blah blah". What a load. He's handled it better than I would. There is a point in a persons life where, even when running for president, you have to say enough. I've explained, I've answered, I've made some mistakes, but enough is enough. Running for this office should not cost you your dignity. A LOT of people want to humiliate this man on a personal level. We saw that the other night. But like that bunny, he's stilllll going! Obama/08!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yeah, he's not letting it cost him his dignity
He's taking everything they throw at him and answering their questions using both his heart and his intellect. When you think about it, it's kind of amazing that he doesn't seem defensive in response to what they're throwing at him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DavidMS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. This is big
Obama is also being able to run against the media. By parrying these attacks he is able to look like slimy DC insiders have it in for him (which is true). I think that some on the right will be attracted to his strength of character. He kept his cool despite the media jackals attacking him and performed brilliantly. Then the next day made fun of them in a speech. He can also turn the focus of the campaign on to why to low-life TV journalists would take such cheap shots at a man like him.

Of course after being elected, the real fun begins. All Obama needs to do is always remember to look like the strong leader he is and the republican-sycophantic press corps will eventually get it.

Its all about framing the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brindis_desala Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. you didn't think this was going to be easy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-18-08 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
17. abc news sux!!!
cbs sux..cnn sux...nbc sux...msnbc sux..cnbc sux and cnn sux!! the only real news is du news!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TragedyandHope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
19. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. K&R!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ellipsis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
21. 50. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
22. Proud to be your 50th rec.
This is an outstanding post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
24. K & R
Well done. A good look at how a true leader conducts himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mcollier Donating Member (887 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. The Obama Campaign Needs Our Support
Volunteer, contribute time and money if you can. We can be the differnce. Our voice is more powerful than the
powerful special interest and the few connected. Yes we must hope and believe in that hope that we are taking our government back our country back. As
the non-Obama supporters to check out Obama's document "Blueprint For Change"... It is an impressive outline of change that we can believe in... If you
want to know about Obama's "Agenda", this document is where you will learn the truth and you will likely be pretty surprised. If you continue to allow the
media to brainwash you with garbage about who Barack Obama is and what he stands for, without having the thoughtfulness, judgment or character to find out
for yourself then your probably an old fool who has been so condition to be suckered you just take it naturally. Young people are taking more
responsibility in this election like never before as they see their parents and grandparents hurting and struggling and bitter and feeling nearly helpless
due to the harse economic strain.

Home work assignment:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DeeDeeNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
26. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pavlovs DiOgie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
27. Bravo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
30. Yet again, another excellent piece,Tfc. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fyddlestyx Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
31. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Willo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
32. Good post TFC and well organized. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
33. ABC is a fascist network
They created Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. ABC covered up its sinister involvement in creating Limbaugh by having Limbaugh credit a fictional "EIB" network for putting on the show. Meanwhile, ABC broadcast years of constant lies and hatred that divided America. ABC has gotten away with their fascist agenda for too long. A reputation adjustment for ABC is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
34. Obama defines himself alright
his 'blank screen' is not so blank anymore...and it isn't a pretty picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
35. you cannot blame big corpa or MSM working for their self interest.
you CAN blame us for letting them do it unfettered, without some semblance of responsible reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I most certainly DO blame them
They receive free access to public airways, and in return it is their obligation to provide reporting in the public interest.

If I mug someone on the street to steal money from them, would people say that I can't be blamed for it because I did it for my self interest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
37. Big Biz can't affect Obama, must be a mind fucker for them, what would Cheney do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
38. Great post. One more thing: Gibson the elitist lied to the public about the capital gains tax.
GIBSON: "So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

That is a completely false statement that certainly Charles Gibson would know is not true. Notice he said 100 million people in this country own stock, which I assume is true. Yes, they own stock, but they don't pay a capital gains tax, and never will!

The vast majority of those 100 million people only own stock through retirement plans like IRAs and 401Ks. They might own stock through these investments, but even when they withdraw money from them they do not pay capital gains tax. The only tax that might be placed on withdrawals are an ordinary income tax. They never pay a capital gains tax, so increasing it will never affect people with these retirement accounts.

A capital gains tax is for taxing the profit from the sale of an investment like stocks. But only a very small percentage of Americans--the elite--have these kind of investments outside of retirement accounts. Yet Gibson said the 100 million people who own stock would be affected by an increase in the capital gains tax.

Gibson is playing a shell game with the American public, deliberately confusing stock-owning people with capital gains tax-paying people.


No Capital Gains on Tax-Deferred Investments

Many people invest in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds through a tax-deferred retirement account.

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), Roth IRA, and 401(k) plans are examples of tax-deferred accounts. Your investment profits in tax-deferred accounts are not reported as capital gains. Instead, income from these accounts is tax-deferred until the money is withdrawn, and then the income is taxed as ordinary income. (Withdrawals from a Roth IRA may be tax-free if you meet certain requirements.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. I didn't catch that statement about the 100 million people
These guys are disgraceful. They have no business getting paid for being journalists. Since they make use of public airways, they owe an obligation to the public. ABC should lose it's license, and the two stooges should lose their jobs and be barred from practicing journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
39. Obama is a freaking genius. I want him for president. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virgdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
40. Bravo..
well written, succinctly put article characterizing the debate and Obama's brilliant and insightful answers as he navigated the BS that was thrown at him for two hours Wednesday night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
43. The way Obama slaps this crap down and reveals these little "journalist" pricks to be the
moronic dimwitted lying scum that they are is one huge reason he is the best candidate by far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Heathen57 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
44. Rec #94 and proud to do it.
George Steph.. was doing his best to try and throw Obama and get him to say something that could hurt him. It backfired and Obama shined as he destroyed their questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ellipsis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
45. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
46. Great job - I appreciate the substance and the detail
I watched much of the debate, but it gives a stronger impression to see both the questions and the answers in print. Definitely a recommended thread - thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
47. OK WHY weren't these questions EVER asked by the media prior to this debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-19-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
48. The more they try to malign him, the more they malign themselves.
Edited on Sat Apr-19-08 09:56 PM by dmr
Over and over and over and over, there is someone out there baiting this man. Trying to trip him. Trying to get him to say or even do something that they can twist and beat to death.

His grace under fire serves him well, and that serves our nation well. Even as just a primary candidate, he has changed this country. The more inspiring he gets, the more they look ridiculous.

Hard as they publicly dare try, they cannot break his strength of character. That must frustrate the hell out of these co-conspirators that are ruining our country (I truly believe that the pundits and newscasters are complicit for the death and destruction Bush's* war has brought us). They try to wedge idiotic stories in and he remains focused - which is why I disagree with you about Obama not setting them straight on Ayers. They wanted him to waste time doing that. Less time to talk to Americans, and more ammo for them to use against him later.

They don't like when someone comes along and bucks their system. Someone who'll advocate for all Americans. I fear for his well-being.

As far as ABC - I didn't watch the debate, though I read the transcript and watched snippets of it. When ABC aired the propaganda film Path To 911 nearly 2 years ago, I followed through with my boycott of anything ABC & Disney. It is a strict boycott. ABC is unwelcome in my home. I gave up watching favorite programs, too, including a soap opera I had watched for over 30 years. Interestingly enough, I haven't missed any of it. I wrote my local affiliate this week, that the debate is just one more reason why I can't and won't lift my boycott.

I am hoping that President Obama will immediately take extra steps to ensure the safety of the internet from the corporations and governmental tinkering and restrictions. Without the internet, America will be dumbed-down further than what they've already tried to make us. The internet is what is keeping Democracy safe from the political and corporate mobsters.

Thank you for making this analysis. I look for your postings.

Edit: grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 24th 2017, 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC