Who Lost the Debate? Moderators, Many Say

The New York Times
April 18, 2008
By JACQUES STEINBERG

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators of Wednesday night’s presidential debate on ABC, became the subject of a fierce and somewhat unexpected debate themselves on Thursday, as viewers, bloggers and television critics lamented what they described as an opportunity lost: a chance to ask the two candidates for the Democratic nomination substantive questions early and often.

The media post-mortem — which boiled over in more than 17,600 comments posted on the ABC Web site alone — also touched on questions that had long been simmering in the protracted Democratic campaign over the role of moderators in televised debates, to say nothing of political journalists generally.

If there was a common theme, it was that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had front-loaded the debate with questions that many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, like why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Others rapped the journalists for dwelling on matters that had been picked over for weeks, like the incendiary comments of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

Only after half of the 90-minute debate had been concluded did the moderators turn to questions concerning Iraq, Iran, the housing crisis and affirmative action.

The criticism — echoed in columns in The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Daily News, as well as on Web sites like Politico — was picked up on Thursday by Mr. Obama himself.

“We set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people,” Mr. Obama told an audience of nearly 2,000 in Raleigh, N.C., many of whom applauded. Reached by phone on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Stephanopoulos, a former aide in the Clinton White House who hosts “This Week” on ABC, sounded somewhat taken aback.

“We thought it made sense to deal with the core controversies,” he said, by way of explaining those early questions. All of them, he said, went to “what has become the No. 1 issue between the candidates — who can win in November?”

Ultimately, he said, “the debate covered a lot of ground.”

But Mr. Stephanopoulos said that after digesting much of what had been sent forth in the blogosphere on Thursday morning, he would have approached one critical aspect of his job differently. “I could imagine moving up some of the questions,” he said. “You can differ over that.’”

In a press release early Thursday afternoon, ABC trumpeted the debate’s viewership: an estimated 10.7 million, according to figures from Nielsen Media Research, the most that had seen any debate concerning the 2008 election. The online anger aimed at Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson, some of it admittedly partisan, was reminiscent of the furor directed at Tim Russert of NBC News for what was perceived as his disproportionately tough questioning of Mrs. Clinton at the last Democratic debate, in Cleveland in February. Among the questions Mr. Russert had asked Mrs. Clinton, but not Mr. Obama, was to provide the name of the new Russian leader.

But the outcry on Thursday was on a much larger scale, reflecting, at least in part, broader frustration with the news media as a whole.

“Congratulations for taking journalism to a new low (who even knew that was still possible),” said one person who posted to the ABC News Web site, and identified himself or herself as a college professor who had assigned the debate as homework. “I almost felt like I needed to apologize for suggesting that they watch the debate, but instead we used your sorry display as a way of talking about how the media covers politics today.”

Ken Bode, a former correspondent for NBC and CNN who moderated a Democratic primary debate in 1992 in South Dakota, said in an interview that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had erred by “churning up the old and the trivial of the last six weeks” during the debate’s extended opening. “I would say hit the issues first,” Mr. Bode said.

David Bohrman, who oversees all of the political coverage at CNN, took particular issue with the lapel-flag question, which was posed to Mr. Obama by a voter appearing on tape. Mr. Bohrman said he would have instead had the moderators ask each candidate about their stance on a possible amendment to the Constitution banning flag-burning. “That’s a legitimate flag question,” Mr. Bohrman said. “I think the voters are expecting more from us.”

Still, there were plenty of commentators who said Thursday that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had acquitted themselves nicely in their roles as moderators. Former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York, whose name was invoked in Mr. Gibson’s first question, over whether Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would each commit to pick the loser as a vice-presidential nominee, said, “I’m certainly not going to criticize them for the subjects they selected, when everyone has been selecting those subjects for weeks and weeks.”

Don Hewitt, the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, said ABC’s structuring of the questions was an acknowledgment that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience.”

“When you’re in television,” Mr. Hewitt said, “that’s your job.”

Julie Bosman and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

Many people can pretend otherwise, but ABC knew that a lot of people tune in to see a political knife fight and they delivered on it. They know that the average viewer has the attention span of a tse-tse fly and as soon the boring issues talk starts, it's CLICK.....back to American Idol.

True... But then again, this is what, the 15th debate now? If you've seen the other 14 debates you pretty much know what they are gonna say about healthcare, etc...

I liked that they pinned Obama down and made him answer questions. He couldn't do his "change" and "hope" crap to avoid the tough questions.

If it was a knifefight over something NEW, I would agree. But the questions being asked related to inane, irrelevant, or just plain rehashed topics that people have already settled in their minds. I think the average viewer got more out of Obama's response about how the media obsesses over these issues then they did watching the candidates repeat responses they had given weeks ago.

In a normal election year the drama and stuff has a lot of sway. But with the economy in the crapper, most people pissed about the Iraq War, and a generally sour public mood about the direction of the country, people are not nearly as concerned about the trivial BS as they would be otherwise.

Did you watch the debate?

Ya I should have said "question" not "questions". I like how he was caught about the payroll taxes.

Obama: "No I'm not going to raise any taxes for anyone making above 200-250k"

Gibson: "What about payroll taxes?"
Gibson: "What about capital gains taxes?"

Oops...

:dunno:

He obviously meant income taxes when responding to the question. Even on the payroll tax, I don't think that affects people making below $100k. And whatever increase in the capital gains taxes occurs on people making below that will be offset by the middle class tax cuts and higher child tax credits each year that Obama has proposed.

But why have to play these games to begin with? Why have to have a degreein calculus to see if shaving some taxes here is offset with more taxes there? Why not have either the NRST (FairTax) or no income tax at all?

Just more class warfare.

Sorry for the OT shit, but god damn people worry about the wrong shit in politics.

Tell mom that and let me know what she says... I don't think she will get enough via middle class tax cuts to offset her capital gains losses on her non-tax deferrable savings... :unsure:

What the hell would you know about our mother's financial status? Quit being such a smug son of a bitch and maybe I'll take what you say seriously.

Fair question, and I wouldn't oppose a flat tax IF there was a sizable personal deduction. I've always supported having a $50k exemption so that middle and lower class people pay no taxes whatsoever.

My concern with a sales tax is the fact that lower/middle class people pay a higher percent of their income on necessities. The last thing we need is to tax them on that. I've heard the arguments that overall taxes would decline, but I'm not convinced because I haven't seen an independent analysis that does not make questionable assumptions about consumer spending. I'm also not convinced that the sales tax would provide as much revenue as the current system, and we need to pay of debt and pay for some social programs. I would support cutting spending by increasing efficiency and removing waste, but I don't support wholesale stripping of social programs.

Frankly, the calculations needed to determine whether lower/middle class people would pay more or less under the NRST is more complex than what I described about off-setting income tax and higher capital gains. People making below median income only have a tiny fraction of their income due to capital gains, so increasing that is not going to hurt them much if at all.

Frankly, the biggest problem facing middle/lower class earners is gas prices and decline in equity in their homes, which have little to do with tax policy. Lower mortgage interest rates and get a reasonable energy policy, and the tax increases won't mean anything in terms of a person's quality of life.

I'd agree that's probably true, especially the energy part. In fact, an energy policy is just about the only thing I'm in favor of raising taxes to support.

I'm just not sure if we'd have to slash any current social programs to make the NRST work at the 23% rate that's proposed. I'd like to see some actual non-biased numbers. But mu guess is that the pre-bate would more than cover any increase middle income earners were paying for necessities, esecially if the corporate SS, Medicare, and payroll taxes came out of the price of goods.

I'm just going by what you guys already said in this thread. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, there are several other tax increases proposed by Obama (and Hillary):

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/april/...--taxmatrix.pdf
(The Capital Gains rate should be 28% for Obama)

In addition everything I have read about that "middle class tax cut" proposed by Obama is that it is tiny and when combined with all other tax increases we will still be in the red overall by a good margin.

No, you made a smart-ass comment about a family situation that you are ignorant about. You were blindly regurgitating a line that David had made, and doing so in a way that ignores the details of the situation that even he acknowledges are not as simplistic as your stupid comment. That kind of childish gamesmanship is why few people take you seriously.

As for your link, find me a source that is not a Republican shell organization. Among the ATR's projects is to put Reagan's picture on the $10 bill. Find me a credible source and we'll talk. Until then, you're just pasting crap from partisan sources without fact-checking them first, which is the same shit that gets you stomped at the OMB.

Calm down dude.

Since you know so much about Obama please tell me what in the ATR chart is wrong. Now is your chance to educate us.

YOU made the claim. The burden is on you to back it up with credible sources. ATR is not a credible source, so I see no reason to take your claims seriously.

It's the same way that you cite some idiot like Glenn Beck and then dare people to "prove it wrong". Ain't my job to debunk every false claim you make.

Well Obama's camp isn't putting out numbers like what the chart has anywhere that I have seen. It seems they are more interested in hiding their tax policies and deceiving than putting it out there in simple numbers.

If you know of a simple chart (like ATR's chart) out there, please let me know.

If Obama hasn't released the numbers then how does ATR know what the tax rates will be under Obama's plan? :blink:

Must you always cite partisan hacks who just make stuff up about the candidates?

AND, Obama's plan differs from Clinton's in several ways, yet the ATR piece you cited lumps them together. That was the first tipoff for me that what you were citing was garbage.

The second tipoff came when I looked a little closer at ATR, which was one of the organizations funneling money for Jack Abramoff.

Great source you got there! fgtb76

It takes quite a bit of time to translate all of Obama's B.S. to English. It looks like ATR has already attempted to do that.

And you accept everything a Republican partisan organization tells you just because it makes Obama looks bad. Yeah, we know the schtick already.

Well if you (or anyone else) have a better source that lays out all the numbers. Please let me know. I just don't have time to attempt to translate all the B.S. to English myself.

Right, you never have time to fact-check the partisan crap you spew on a daily basis.

Like I said, everybody knows your schtick already.

And we know your schtick.

You can't even produce accurate tax numbers for YOUR candidate. If you support YOUR candidate you should gladly post numbers on his tax policy.

Cut the AFMB bullshit, Mike. If someone posted a Slate.com analysis you'd dismiss it as an unreliable source. Yet you turn right around and put up a GOP shell organization and pretend it's credible. You're acting like people on these boards are a bunch of dumbasses who can't see through your transparent, partisan tripe, and in the process coming across as a grade-A retard yourself.

Take that stupid pretentious bullshit back to the OMB where it belongs.

OK fine since you are unwilling I'll check the numbers myself...

Which you should have done to begin with instead of blindly believing everything some GOP organization tells you.

I figured a super duper Obama supporter like you could answer my questions and give me the numbers.

I'll get them myself...

Here's what I have so far... Needs more work:

Checking the numbers from: http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/april/...--taxmatrix.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Tax Rate

McCain: 35%
Obama: 39.6%

CORRECT: Since Obama wants to rule back the Bush tax cuts on top 1%. McCain would not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/polit...r=1&oref=slogin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lowest Tax Rate

McCain: 10%
Obama: 15%

NEEDS VERIFICATION...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capital Gains Rate

McCain:15%
Obama: 20%

CORRECT but it could be as high as 28% for Obama.

Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Last year, when Obama proposed up to $85 billion annually in middle-class tax relief, he suggested paying for it in part by hiking the capital-gains tax to as much as 28 percent.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/..._tax_103875.htm

Also in the debate he would not commit to keeping it at 20% or below...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dividends Rate

McCain: 15%
Obama: 39.6%

SOMEWHAT CORRECT: Obama has said he will let the dividends tax cut expire so that dividends will be taxed at the same rate as normal income. It could be as high as 39.6% but it will depend on what your income is...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/405/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Death Tax

McCain: 15%/$10 million
Obama: 55%/$1 million

CORRECT: McCain wants an exemption up to $10 million and a 15 percent rate for estates bigger than that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=nextpage

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage Penalty

McCain: None Under $150,000
Obama: Full from Dollar One

NEEDS VERIFICATION...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child Tax Credit

McCain: $1000
Obama: $500

CORRECT: McCain would double child tax credit; add family incentives.
http://ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMT Rate

McCain: 0% (Repealed)
Obama: 28%

CORRECT: McCain Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
http://ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

Obama Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Employment Rate

McCain: 37.9%
Obama: 54.9%

NEEDS VERIFICATION...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate Income Tax

McCain: 25%
Obama: 35%

CORRECT: McCain would cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/P...4b23c9ee1cf.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business Infrastructure

McCain: Full Expensing
Long and Complex Depreciation

NEEDS VERIFICATION...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child Tax Credit

McCain: $1000
Obama: $500

CORRECT: McCain would double child tax credit; add family incentives.
http://ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm
------------

I believe that is incorrect on Obama's end:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/...icyFullPlan.pdf

Another problem with this supposed comparison is that it presumes that Obama would oppose an increase in the child tax credit, when there is every reason to believe he support it. You also have to ASSume that McCain would get all of the tax cuts he proposed, which is virtually impossible with the Democratic Congress, or that Obama would get all of the tax policies he wanted, which ignores the realities of committee chairs and the bicameral nature of Congress.

Trying to say "your taxes will be X under McCain and Y under Obama" is just silly and a bunch of propaganda. We know that under Obama taxes will increase for the wealthiest 1-3% and will either not change or decline for the middle and lower class. Under McCain, we know that we will get an extension of Bush's tax cuts and some middle class tax cuts as well.

What needs to be said beyond that?

We're coming to take you away, ha ha.

Can you translate B.S. to English for me and give me a number on that?

La.

Aqui?

Obama pretty much walked into an ambush the other night. But I admire his resolve and his willingness to try to stay on message. This shows the character and strength needed to run this county. Hillary won the debate but showed her true colors. She was on the attack and ABC was a willing accomplice.