Democratic Debate = Trivial Pursuit

Maybe I can check it out later

I hadn't noticed that ABC had hyped this debate as a discussion of serious constitutional issues. Maybe, the article should have been title, ABC hosts a game of Trivial Pursuit as a substitute for a presidential debate.

I agree with this article. The politics of spin...gotta love it. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

It's a given that Americans seem to put a lot of emphasis on trivia, even in decisions of magnitude. It's how they understand and relate. Certainly makes a good case for the need for education reform.

I'm pretty tired of all this political stuff... None of the candidates seem very fit to run the country at this point... I'm ready to get on with the election.

The politicians, in general, are embarrassed by their own lack of knowledge and their own voting records. They want the campaign to be a matter of the trivial. Substantive issues scare them to death. They have such contempt for the public and voters in general that they spend their time in games of trivial pursuit.

Maybe, you have a point, Larry. But, when the candidates are only questioned about trivial, we ought not be surprised that we are returned trivia in exchange. It is the Fourth Estate that has failed in its obligation and maybe in your terms exercised...contempt for the public and voters in general.

"In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estate General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"

- Jeffrey Archer

And yet, there are those who merely point the finger at the 'candidates' as if no one else played a role in trivializing democracy.

an insult to our intellegence

That's what I meant, PLD. It's really not entirely the fault of the candidates. The questions that are posed are formulated according to what the press thinks America can handle and what they want most to hear. They have the stats on what people deem important, what news gets most viewers. Their questions are geared toward keeping up those ratings. What interests Americans dictates what gets asked more than we realize.

For me it was so nice to read someone who "got it." In the past the news divisions of corporations weren't real money makers, but that was okay because they were supposed to be providing a public service. These days the news programs are part of the entertainment divisions of corporations and thus are expected to garner ratings, which translates to higher fees for commercial ad time. Unfortunately, we the viewers are attracted to the sensational and disdain the merely informational. So ratings go up when there are controversies, whether real or created. Given our humanity, and thus inherent fallibility, we make mistakes in word choice, which leads to endless parsing and carping on how someone might possibly take it in a way that reflects their own biases and prejudices and experiences than the meaning intended by speaker - even after the speaker has attempted to reword and explain their intentions. And the opponent and media reap the benefit of manufactured controversy.

Thanks Stephanie - that's one of my favorite lines from my favorite president! :)

Thanks for pointing us to the article, David. It reflects beautifully how I feel:

"What's troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics—the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial," he [Obama] wrote.

I've felt this way for years, and was deluded into thinking that if I just shut the tv off and accessed only credible, well-researched news media I could save myself from this idiocy. Well, it didn't matter because the majority of the rest of America did NOT do the same. They fell for the media and the Bush Administration's campaign of lies and manipulations over the past 8 years.....hook, line and sinker. And they turned against each other and shut off their minds.

Honestly, if Obama does not win the presidency in November, I will seriously consider moving to another country. I am totally disgusted with the American public right now. We really don't deserve an intelligent, talented, hard-working, visionary leader. It's so obvious by the way the man is being treated right now, and the complacency of the American public towards this kind of behavior.

Obama's right....most Americans are bitter..and they don't even realize what they are giving up willingly....until it is too late and future generations will look back and think, "What the hell were my grandparents thinking? Sitting watching 'American Idol' with a six-pack and a Big Mac while our country went down in flames?"

"What's troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics—the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial," he [Obama] wrote.

Sheryl - That is exactly the line that caught my eye as well.

And might I add, you have captured it wonderfully in your comment as well. I tip my hat to you.

Come Fall no matter who the dem candidate is, we will talk about God, Patriotism, Guns, Abortion. Issues that the president has very little influence in fact (appointment of supreme court justices). The funny thing is on the issue of taxing capital gains, Obama and Hillary have differences there, although I am not sure because Charlie Gibson was the one arguing with Obama, not Hillary. Talking about MODERATING. That issue won't be picked up by voters for ex. Too challenging?

Robert Sheer wrote about this today

"Are Americans unusually stupid, or is it something our president put in the water? As millions surrender their homes and sacrifice other standards of our nation's economic and political reputation to the caprice of the Bush-Cheney imperium, a majority of voters tell pollsters that they might vote for a candidate who promises more of the same."

I read it and think he is wrong. The problemi s not the politics, but that the campaign has gone on for what seems like years. We know Obama opposed the war from the start, really does he ever say anthing else? I was glad he didn't mention it last night or might hvae thrown a pillow at the TV. The bigger problem is that the media has given Obama a free ride for so long that the voters want to know more about his personal life and past activities. For months he was allowed to give flowery speeches againt the war and promoting unity and hope. Give me a break! No one asked him a hard question for months. Now when it is almost too late, reporters are just beginning to probe into his half truths and questionable associations. It will make people mad, but I'll say it -- if he were a white man or woman he would not still be in the race. Would a white man get away with saying "typical black person?" No way, Would a white man get away with attending a church that was anti-Black or un-American? No way! Would the wife of a white man be allowed to say I am ashamed of America and survive the campaign? NO, NO, NO! It was a relief to see Obama on the defensive for a change, maybe I am just one of those typical bitter white women that cling to religion and guns, but I wouldn't vote for the man if he were the only candidate out there.

I'll have to disagree with your conclusions Linda, but then you'll find many people agree with you.

Pehaps you're right about the voters wanting to know more personal information about the candidates, though I wish we would not attribute every breath someone else breathes to the candidate. For every statement and/or association that has been raised for Obama, there are at least an equal number of statements/associations attributable to Hillary Clinton (and/or Bill Clinton, since they often appear to be a tag team). Frankly, I suspect if people tried hard enough they could come up with a few misstatements from me or people I may have known who don't fit the predefined stereotype many of us find acceptable.

The point here, I believe, is that most of this stuff is really not particularly relevant. Worse, most of it has been removed from context and sound bited to the point of it not reflecting at all the reality. In addition, the cultural and/or circumstantial context is critical to understanding the motives behind even the most damning sound bite. We may still find we object vehemently once we see or hear the entire statements or know all of the facts, but we don't even bother to try to do that.

Finally, none of the stuff that we spend all our time focused on amounts to a hill of beans with respect to solving the real issues that Presidents are supposed to be worried about - war and other international relations, long-term economic stability, providing a fair opportunity for all to engage in the American dream, protecting our environment for future generations of Americans and for all peoples of the world, etc. These are the important issues. Unless we, the people, focus on what's important we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I caught a bit of the debate and found the limited questions quite biased. I'm particularly ashamed of Stephanopoulis' performance - he knows better!

I expected the questioning to start with the trite stuff...but it just kept going on and on. We've been there. Move on.

Frankly, I began to feel embarrassed that we were focused on the sensational and ignoring the really tough issues. That's exactly what Obama has been trying to get at. Are we really so shallow that we take offense at trying to solve the real problems of the country?

I've stopped paying much attention. I've chosen my candidate, and am tired of all the mud.

I hear you.

I agree with PLD (Maybe, the article should have been title, ABC hosts a game of Trivial Pursuit as a substitute for a presidential debate.) It isn't fair to blame the Democratic party for what the media has done. I believe it was perfectly obvious that both candidates would rather have discussed important issues. If one of them (and/or her campaign) hadn't spent so much time creating the non-issues, she might have had a slightly better chance that they would have had to ask appropriate questions for that to happen. Only slightly, however. If she hadn't provided the distractions, the Republicans would have and the media would have jumped on them just the same.

For those who were hoping for important issues, I suggest you try the candidates' websites.

I think that there has been too many trivial items in this election process - who cares if he wears a flag pin or not? I don't. Doesn't make him any less patriotic. Why would he run for president if he wasn't patriotic? I still feel that Hillary is a bit of a liar, I have always felt there was something dishonest about her, even before the whole thing with Croatia. I will probably vote for Obama as I like his personality more and I feel he knows what he is talking about. Yes, he has less experience but he seems much more honest and straight forward. I didn't see much of the debate. My son kept changing the channel. I did catch a couple of the questions and saw how they answered them.

I'm sticking with Obama.

I suppose I've always been a "put it all on the table and lets work through the different ideas and come up with a solution" kind of person. That usually means there is no winner and loser (hopefully it means that both (actually, all) sides are winner). I understand that doesn't work well for two competing parties, but at some point the people who elect our representatives (i.e., us) have to remind our representatives that they are there to represent us (hence the "representatives" part), not the parties.

So, a little more sense on our side will lead to a little more sense on the part of the media and the political parties.

Okay, I have a stupid question. With all the hubbub about Obama not wearing a flag pin and how it's some sort of a sign of lack of patriotism, how come nobody questions Hillary for not wearing a flag herself? Is patriotism only a requirement for male candidates?

I was disgusted with the "debate" . . . and Sheryl stated it as eloquently as I ever could. What's wrong with people that 45 to 50 minutes into this nothing of substance was covered?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I'm beginning to agree with Clark Kent that this Clinton campaign is little more than a scorched earth policy hoping McCain will win so she can retry again in four years.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Dave A. - the whole thing is making me sick to my stomach. When I saw them show that video asking the question about the flag pin I thought it was idiotic and they were lousy journalists for essentially fowarding the ignorant. Now that I've suddenly realized that Hillary (and apparently McCain) also don't regularly wear flag pins I absolutely livid at the shoddy journalism. Somehow with all the attention given to this point the whole journalist pool of all the major 24-hour news networks missed the obvious question of why the standard was being applied to one candidate but not to the others?

Doyle - notwithstanding your source, even Clinton knows that the party would not support her in 4 years if she is the reason McCain wins.

Fact check:

The questioning implied that Bill Ayers was a present day terrorist that it was a no-brainer we should all dissociate ourselves with. The Washington Post has an article about him Friday.

"Bill Ayers is a 60s radical who bombed the Pentagon, etc."

True - Bill Ayers and his wife and others were members of the Weather Underground who protested the Vietnam War and planted bombs at the Pentagon, the Capitol, police stations and courthouses.

"People were killed" [This was offered by Hillary Clinton]

Partially true. The only people ever killed were three members of the Weather Underground itself, when a bomb they were making went off prematurely. No innocent people were killed. [Not surprisingly, Clinton manipulated the truth to imply something that was not]

"Ayers commented on 9/11 that he was sorry that the Weather Underground had not done enough"

Partially true. Ayers responded to conservative pundits hammering him for his Weather Underground past, saying that he did not regret his militant tactics. By coincidence it was published on Sept. 11, 2001. In other words, it had been submitted days ahead of 9/11 and was not a response to the 9/11 attacks as Clinton implied.

"Ayers is a terrorist"

False. Ayers WAS clearly a terrorist 40 years ago. The Weather Underground did some despicable things. But today Ayers is a well-respected, mainstream education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife is a law professor at Northwestern University. The current Mayor of Chicago described Ayers as a "distinguished professor of education" and a "valued member of the Chicago community."

From the Post article: "It's kind of laughable for people who have worked with Bernadine and Bill in the most boring and mundane settings and recognize that they're absolutely upstanding establishment citizens today," said Lawrence C. Marshall, a Stanford University law professor. He recalled a juvenile justice project: "Judges who were lifelong ardent conservatives had no trouble recognizing that the work that Bernadine and Bill are now doing is completely divorced from anything in their background."

Now, I personally can't condone what Ayers did 40 years ago, but I also cannot condone misstatements of fact, either accidental or intentional, manipulated to create a false impression. Pass judgments as you will, but base those judgments on reality.

The URL for the Washington Post article is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703910.html?hpid=topnews

I missed it. But after reading the article, I don't feel as though I missed anything. I would have wanted to hear a political debate, with substance. Why doesn't Obama wear a flag pin? WHAT IS THAT? Why not go and ask a small chested woman why she doesn't wear wear a padded push-up bra? What does it have anything to do with? And if you ask one, should you not ask the other? Exspecially when they are members of the opposite sex! That opens another door all together, seriously lets not be sexist. And I'll leave it at that.
Political issue's, oh nooooo! Now we're going to talk trash. Obama's Reverend, Obama's wife. What about Obama's desire to discuss political issue's? Is that not what should be of interest? So Rev. Jeremiah Wright said something at church one day, when Obama wasn't even there. Obama didn't say it. He has stated that he didn't agree with it. And his wife and her comment, give me a break! Who has never used a poor choice of words? How many people have had a souse say something in which they used a poor choice of words? It happens all the time.
But what really gets to me is the fact that he isn't even the one that said anything. And who honestly believes that Hillary is CONCERNED about how the Republicains will deal with his controversies? I'm sure that is her primary concern at the moment, lol!
So we have a man who personally knows two people who made some questionable remarks. We also have a woman who is willing to lie about being under snipper fire. Why she did so is of no concern to me.
The way I see it, we can hold Obama accountable for the actions of others. Or we can hold Clinton accountable for hers. I personally view it as a no-brainer, anyone should be able to figure that one out.
As for the politics issue's, I hope we're able to get to those sooner or later.

Connie - I take solace in the confidence that the people will see through the silliness. Obama does have a knack for addressing these things. The more I see the more I understand that 1) Obama is human, and 2) Obama is different from the average Washington politician. He's not the ridiculous caricature on a pedestal that some have created, but he's also not the caricature the opposition has painted either. He's a real person with real human foibles (like all of us). But more important, he's working really hard to actually go about the race differently than the typical politician. The man sees the issues from multiple viewpoints. The man thinks. Isn't this what we want rather than someone adept at gamesmanship? Are we that afraid of change, though we constantly beckon for it?

I don't know David, good question! I would like to think not, as change is needed at this point. I take that back, change has been needed for some time. And I also believe that people will see through the sillness. But it is discouraging that with our current state of affairs, that such mindless questions were addressed. I would be taken back by that, probably still waiting for a real question!
Yes, there is no question that a persons character should be taken into account. But as you mentioned, Obama is human just like the rest of us. Hillary is as well for that matter. But it says a lot that Obama is trying to do things differently. It would be nice if he was given the opportunity. I also agree it would be nice if the sillness was set aside, and the multiple areas that require attention were addressed. Those are ones that I am interested in.

I very much agree with you Connie that change is needed and has been for a long time. Despite some good things happening during the 1990s (Bill Clinton's 2 terms), we were besieged by constant battles. Rightly or wrongly, the Clinton years were one thing after another, one fight after another, one conflict after another. And Hillary takes pride in this. She argues that she has been fully vetted, that her dirty laundry has already been rummaged through, that she has withstood the attacks and is ready on day one to attack back at the Republicans with full force. I'm sorry...am I really not getting it? Do we really want to continue the battles that have dominated the debate for the last 16 years of the Bush and Clinton era? Do we really want to play partisan political games like we've been doing for the last 8 Presidential terms? Do we really want to go another 4, 8, 12, 16 years without doing anything to deal with our most pressing issues (which by any stretch of the imagination does not include whether or not any one particular candidate wears an American flag lapel pin, especially when the others aren't wearing it either)? Is this what we really want?

No, we do not. We want a change in demeanor. We want a change in focus. We want our elected representatives to represent us - the people. That doesn't mean you win 51% of the vote/electoral college and that gives yo a mandate to shove your particular partisan agenda down our throats. It means you work hard to find common ground between legitimate positions and goals. It means you govern for all the people in the United States, not just the slightly more than voted for the other candidate. It means looking to find solutions to the issues and problems that face all of us, all of our children, and all of our childrens children. It means representing our interests, not your own party's interests.

Perhaps I just don't get it.

After writing my comment above I discovered Jared's article on Robert Reich endorsing Obama. In it Reich explains the three terrible traditions that campaigns have come to foment. Jared's article is a must read. Find it by cut and pasting the URL below:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977326604

David - In my personal opinion you get it just fine. I was all ready to comment, but I am off to read Jared's must read. I will probably end up waiting until tomorrow to continue joining in the conversation. Long drives wear me out, kinda sucks getting old!

I'm off as well. Loading the car to bring stuff to work tomorrow (still trying to empty my house)

Cheers

Amen