Josh Marshall has nailed the essence of last night's debate in his ongoing coverage at Talking Points Memo.
Even though he missed the first horrible half hour, he says
Looking around other sites, I guess I'm not the only one that thought this debate was unmitigated travesty.
But Josh also makes several very astute points:
- George and Charlie based the entire debate script on right-wing political assumptions:
Not only were most of the questions on partisan gotchas and frivolous points. But more importantly the questions upon which the candidates were pressed the most were ones that presumed the correctness of Republican agenda items, sometimes explicitly so -- on taxes, capital gains taxes, gun rights, Iraq, etc.
- Charlie Gibson has no idea how much money average Americans make:
9:16 PM ... Did someone tell Charlie Gibson that he knows something about economics? There are a heck of a lot of people people who make over $97,000 a year? Really? I think like 12% of the population makes more than $100,000 a year. And his capital gains point is a canard.
_
I guess I'm not enough of a Gibsonologist. But I guess there's a history of Gibson knowingly spouting off with his complete lack of comprehension of what sorts of incomes most Americans make.
- During the debate, a funny observation by a TMP reader
9:44 PM ... TPM Reader KB checks in: "Josh, ABC's News' posture tonight makes perfect sense. Don't you get it? In GOP primary debates the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax. In Democratic primary debates, by contrast, the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax."
- On the Charlie Gibson patting himself on the back
9:46 PM ... No Charlie. It hasn't been a "fascinating debate." It's been genuinely awful.
- Beyond the pale
the moderators, mainly Charlie Gibson, but not exclusively, were awful. And apparently I missed the worst of it in the first half hour. And not simply for Obama, who probably got the worst of it, but for Hillary too. In a debate it's not out of the ordinary to have a couple gotcha type questions. But this seemed to be almost all that.
- Important issues not even touched
There are issues like health care, and whose proposal will achieve universal coverage; some question about the credit crisis; perhaps some question about Iraq that presupposed that getting out is a necessary objective -- like, noting ways that each has hedged on their promises to leave Iraq, rather than a question, the subtext of which was 'what will you do when the serious people tell you we shouldn't leave'; something executive power -- a legitimate questions since presidents are seldom willing to renounce powers grasped by predecessors; the environment; perhaps, what will these candidates actually do -- concretely -- to crack down on executive branch corruption since Democrats have made such political hay of the issue at President's Bush's expense; perhaps a single question on the environment?
- Nails in coffin
Do these questions presuppose concerns and priorities of Democrats? Yes, sure. But then, this was a Democratic debate. If they'd wanted Hannity to moderate, I'm sure he would have made himself available.
and
This sort of episode really sickens me...It's stuff like this that really makes me think that whole big chunks of the established press needs to be swept away.
Fantastic job, Josh!