They rate of taxation for capital gains is also not indexed so regardless of income everyone pays the same rate. Why shouldn't they be taxed progressively like regular income? These are questions I would like to have heard Barak and Hillary answer.

Why do we need moderators when both Clinton and Obama are more than able and versed enough to ask questions of each other? It's hard to imagine them doing any worse than last night's miserable performance by the debate moderators.

Yes, the candidates will resort to their stump speeches and stock answers, but if the questions are interesting enough, you'll force them out of that mold at least occasionally, and you'll actually (and finally) be making an effort to really inform the voter.

A bit of underreported news from the back half of the debate was made by Hillary Clinton, when she promised massive retaliation against Iran for an attack on Israel or on other unspecified Middle Eastern countries. And this despite that fact that, in the absence of a ratified treaty, it's beyond the power of the president to unilaterally launch a war against Iran in response to an attack on a third country. Also, Dick Cheney's been working for a year to create some incident that would justify a strike on Iran.

Much as I dislike Pat Buchanan, I do have to give him credit for spotting that one right away. Olbermann went back and read the transcript, and sure enough, the whole panel was amazed at what she said.

You can call and ask for Charlie and George's voicemail (0.00 / 0)
I did and told exactly how despicable and trashy what they passed of as journalism last night. Then I did the same with the president of ABC news. his name is DAVID WESTIN. call the following number. Be polite and tell them that you will no longer patronize their sponsors until they apologize and fire Charlie and George

212-456-7777

If they try and transfer you to some bullshit comments line, tell them no way. Call back. It took me 6-7 time to get through to them but I did. Enough is Enough

I think the candidates would give interesting answers if the questions were about more than just the stock issues. I've heard enough about their health care plans, withdrawal from Iraq, etc. I think all of us are aware of the gory details by now. Where I would like to see us go is into other topics that also effect the nation's health. For example I would like to see a detailed discussion on science policy (natch) and how they plan to use/get scientists to work on green energy issues, homeland security, national security, etc. I'm sure other people on this board would be interested in more details on topics that are near and dear to them.

Its happened again! I am in full agreement with optical weenie!

A flip around the news networks shows only the local ABC affiliate covering their debate (calling it "hard hitting," and claiming "tough questions"). Everyone one else is going with the Pope and polygamists.

ABC hit a new level of stupid last night. Unbelievable that that lapel question even made it to the floor, with neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain (at another event) wearing lapel pins.

Hello?
.

Yeah, I got David Westin's secretary, but she refused to take a message about the terrible nature of the debate. They set up an ad hoc "audience information line" and they try to transfer you over. But if you call and ask for David Westin, they'll transfer you over to him. Just sound like you have official business and say you're an old golf buddy of his if they question you.

This new version of Al (5.3?) is really strange.

Next debate, contract it out to the BBC. If their questions equally suck (which I doubt) at least they will sound better.

"Would candidates give us interesting answers if moderators did this? Or would they just pivot immediately back to the stump speech? Beats me."

Yes, they would pivot immediately back to the stump speech. Remember the YouTube debate? One guy asked Mike Gravel if the Vietnam war was a waste. His honest, un-PC answer was: Yes, it was a colossal waste.

Then they asked Obama, and he rambled on for 2 minutes about how much he supports the troops. I was pissed.

optical weenie on April 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM:

I would like to see a detailed discussion on science policy (natch) and how they plan to use/get scientists to work on green energy issues, homeland security, national security, etc.

Wouldn't that be nice:

On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal today, Nobel Prize winners David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail remind us of a debate that won't be happening tomorrow in Philadelphia. All three of the presidential contenders turned down the opportunity to participate in Science Debate 2008, which would have been an opportunity to give voters a chance to learn more about how these would-be Presidents would approach the environment, health, technology and medicine.

But there is still hope, anyways.

There is a skit from an old Second City show about a news program with Moyshe Dayan as the guest. The news journalists keep asking Moyshe Dayan lame questions about his holidays, etc. and he admonishes them to ask more penetrating questions about the Israel/Palistine conflict, which one journalist finally does. Moyshe Dayan then describes his holiday.

Often when politicians give interesting answers, people find them unelectable.

Keith G. on April 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM:

If their questions equally suck (which I doubt) at least they will sound better.

Yes, you can make almost anything sound sophisticated with an upper-class British accent.

Weenie: I would like to see a detailed discussion on science policy

Danger! The candidates would risk offending that large percentage of the population that thinks scientists are God-hating heretics.

The debate could be balanced, though, by asking each candidate if he or she expects to be personally whisked away when the Rapture comes.

Often when politicians give interesting answers, people find them unelectable.

Point: Brojo. Not yet Comment of the Day but definitely a contender, if you ask me. (Which nobody did.)

I guess this is an example of personality-driven -- um, politics? media crap? -- but the thing that disgusts me most about the debate (which I did not see) is the stills of Charlie Gibson looking like a consummate, total jackass. Lifting up his arms, making all jolly-like as he's clearly saying "Ho-ho-ho" about something entirely unfunny. This appears to have gone on throughout the debate.

He looks like some jackass college administrator or real-estate-agent, insurance-agent, or car-dealer of one of your friends back in high school. Stinking of cologne as he wears some hideous sweater or golf shirt, palling around with friends from the Optimists Club or the Rotary Club. Ugh.

Charlie Gibson, afficianado of "How To Win Friends and Influence People," with all of his ass-headed bravado.

Do people come any more witless?

Charlie Gibson=Ted Baxter. Big time.

"He looks like some jackass college administrator or real-estate-agent, insurance-agent, or car-dealer of one of your friends back in high school. - Anon"

What you mean some latte sipping, wine sucking elite?

expects to be personally whisked away when the Rapture comes.

Rapture comes when I do...

Anon: Charlie Gibson=Ted Baxter.

I disagree. Ted Baxter was a likable pompous ass.

Thersites,
Ya finished with your deadline yet? Want your beer now?

Jeebus, I'm ready for that beer. Spec is out being reviewed.

Nice thing about writing a spec is, you don't have to debug it.

Can BBC host the next debate? Now those guys know how to grill politicians.

Or please bring back Ted Koppel.

If we were really worried about Cap. Gains hitting the regular guy... We'd exempt a higher portion of one's income as capital gains and more items (Own one car? Bought a new one immediately? Occupy your house? Did occupy the house you're selling within six months? blahblahblah...) instead of lowering the rate.

It is annoying when there's a myriad of deductions, but sometimes you need to set things off limits.

Charlie Gibson=Ted Baxter. Big time.

It's funny 'cause it's true!

The only candidate I have heard in years who would directly answer questions (as opposed to going back to the stump speech) was Edwards.

Why do we need moderators when both Clinton and Obama are more than able and versed enough to ask questions of each other? It's hard to imagine them doing any worse than last night's miserable performance by the debate moderators.

I came here to say exactly this. So thanks David W.

But I also want to point out that Michael Berube is an egostastic dipshot.

I got the answer to the capital gains tax after a minute or so, not nearly enough time for me to prepare an immediate debate response.

The best debates would be blogs, where each candidate has a half hour to prepare a response, and words it the way the candidate wishes.

Gibson knew this, but Gibson is a self-loving jackass.

Snap! glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, psssst!

There's your beer Thersites, over the intertoobz!

The ABC "debate moderators" are not idiots or fools. They are employees of a giant, wealthy corporation, and they are doing exactly what their employers want them to do, so they can continue to collect large paychecks.

What good do you think it does to complain to the president of ABC News, when he and his ilk are the ones giving marching orders to the "debate moderators" to do exactly what they did?

Here's the big picture, folks:

1. The "mass media" from which the majority of the American people get the majority of their information is completely owned and controlled by a few giant corporations.

2. These corporations want the policies of the Cheney/Bush administration (eg. huge tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of their industry so they can buy up more and more of America's newspapers, networks, and radio and TV stations, and other policies that in general transfer wealth and power from the working class to the ultra-rich corporate elites) to continue.

3. Therefore these corporations will do everything in their power to ensure that John McCain is sworn in as the next president in January 2009. This will include the deployment of their various "on-air personalities" to engage in character assassination against the Democratic candidate (including asking stupid, Republican-framed questions in fake, phony "debates" to force the candidates to spend their time before the public talking about stupid things) and extoll McCain.

It's not a question of whether ABC's "on-air personalities" can learn to ask smarter policy questions. Their goal is not to inform the American people about policy issues and the candidates' views of these issues. Their goal is to ensure that government of, by and for the ultra-rich corporate ruling class continues.

Still, there are ways to ask interesting questions that get beyond the banal but are still accessible to mass audiences — not questions that play games with trivia, but ones that bring up unexpected topics and force candidates to think on their feet in interesting ways. Somehow, though, that rarely seems to happen.

One quibble, though, and that has to do with relevance. The MSMers get the unexpected topic part of your equation, and there's no question but that they're plenty interested in the questions they come up with, but they couldn't give two shits about whether or not those questions are relevant to the lives of the people tuning in, and, therefore, to the larger campaign. Even if Russert, Gibson, Stephanopoulos, et al. had the capacity to move beyond trivia & gotcha, they simply wouldn't. The point isn't substance. The point is spectacle. Can I stump candidate X? Can I elicit an uncomfortable reaction from candidate Z? Can I goad candidate Y into attacking candidate N? Really, it's not any different than what goes through the minds of reality TV producers.

SecularAnimist: They are employees of a giant, wealthy corporation, and they are doing exactly what their employers want them to do which is to act like idiots and fools. At least we knew for sure that Ted Baxter was a fictional character. With these yahoos, we're left in doubt.

But if we all stopped watching (fat chance) their little circus shows, they might pay attention.

Weenie, now the kyes aer sckut togteher. Thanks a bunch!

What good do you think it does to complain to the president of ABC News, when he and his ilk are the ones giving marching orders to the "debate moderators" to do exactly what they did?

I think most people are hoping for a reaction along the lines of, "Oh, shit, they're on to us!"

But to hit the networks where they hurt, don't just complain to the network president. Make sure you also mention that you will be complaining to each of the debate's sponsors and explaining to them why ABC's horrible debate means you will no longer be buying that sponsor's products.

That's the only place to hit them -- broadcast TV (and cable, to a lesser extent) is still an advertising-supported medium. If they start losing ad money, they're screwed no matter how many FCC licenses they have. And they're already hurting from all of the make-goods they had to do because of the writer's strike, so now is a good time to turn their sponsors against them.

I also want to point out that Michael Berube is an egostastic dipshot.

He is not! I'm a huge fan of Berube, been reading him since he started writing for TPM almost ten months ago.

I tuned out real early when I realized this was Gibson and George's attempt to do something for themselves, although I cannot name it.

If it were on Fox News Channel it could not have been worse. But whomever said George knows anything about journalism? He came into all this by working on Bill Clinton's campaign, then later as a White House staffer. He has no roots on the rules of the game/good journalism. At one time he wanted to become a priest. Can you believe that?

Wish Sam Donaldson and Ted Koppel were back. They would have done a much better job. These two were the jokers in the pack. Obama doesn't have to be on the defensive, they already are with all that that nonsense they presented as hosts. Time to tune these guys out, I hope the folks in PA did!!

Frankly, when did Joe Klein become the go to man for any kind of standard in journalism? It's how you know that Kevin is nothing more than a pretent Dem, because he repeatedly shoves Klein down your throat. ABC's debate was deplorable and asking for Klein's deplorable lack of journalist ethics, even more shameful. Klein isn't a journalist, he's an operative with an agenda and Kevin knows this all to well.

Ted Koppel!!!

Haven't you noticed - Ted sold out and started speaking shit. Sam's the best though, at least so far.

Ted Koppel has been advocating for war with Iran since 1979. His NPR 'reports' from 2007 were propaganda pieces doing the same.

Ted Koppel? Haven't you realized he drove Hillary's getaway car from the Vince Foster murder scene?

* ; )

Would they pivot back to the stump speech?

What'd be wrong with that? I bet 80% if voters never hear most of a stump speech. The debates are their one chance to hear what the candidates are all about, from the candidates themselves. If it's a freeze-dried and canned version, so be it - at least it'll be thought out and hopefully intelligible, and voters might actually learn what a candidate stands for. Better than endless hunts for gotcha.

Look, I've been thoroughly vented for years. You all know what a lying, corrupt, power-hungry person I am. But who knows what HE's like?

This is excellent news for Hillary.

I might be willing to believe the flag lapel thing if the hypocrites who keep the inane nano-controversy alive actually wore flag lapel pins, but the shrieking chicken-hawk hypocrites dont.

These might be of interest to the voting public, but these issues (Wright, Tuzla, Lapel Pins,etc.) are not questions for a debate.

What do we learn by asking Hillary "Do you think Obama is more patriotic than Rev. Wright?" or asking Obama his thoughts on "Is Hillary lying about about her account of Tuzla?"

These are personal issues that each candidate must deal with in a one on one personal interview.

Maybe ABC needs a dictionary to look up what defines a debate!

I'm sorry to have to be the one to shatter the illusion, but the "real world" is not quite a "tapped in" as the blogo-freaks. Most people are JUST NOW hearing about flag-pins, Obama is/was/mightstillbea muslim. For crying out loud, they actually played a video-question from someone who asked about flag pins! OMG!!

As much as the cognoscenti carry on about the MSM ganging up on BO or HC, the MSM are ENTIRELY a reflection of their VIEWERS!! I find it amazing that anyone can still as the flag-pin question, or any of a dozen others, but for many, many people, this is real NEWS!! At least it gives BO, and I suppose HC, a chance to those who don't have an RSS feed to a dozen or more blogs and MSM news outlets!!

If you ask them better questions, they give better answers. We saw that at the MoveOn Town Halls, and to a lesser degree at YKos. The MoveOn citizen questions were especially good, and reflected nuances of a candidate's views. I think one reason this was especially effective is that the questions were all one subject. A second reason is that the questions weren't asked in the stultifying setting of seven people on the stage, answering in 1 minute bites, but done in independent, prerecorded interviews with ample time to answer.

How much notice has the media taken of the fact that John McCain doesn't wear a flag pin?

great point, but it's all academic because most in the MSM are so lazy they couldn't be bothered to do the work it would take to be adequately informed on the subject at hand to ask probing questions, much less actually expend the necessary cerebral wattage to FORMULATE them. Much easier to ask "gotcha" policy questions and boring policy redux questions... that way they can still make it to hair and makeup on time.

The only candidate I have heard in years who would directly answer questions (as opposed to going back to the stump speech) was Edwards.

That was one of the primary reasons that I supported him. I remember him being asked whether the awards in civil lawsuits should be capped and he quickly replied: "Yes, they need to be capped". His policy positions all seemed sharper and more focused than the others.

Kevin wrote:

"Somehow, though, that rarely seems to happen.".

There is no 'somehow' about it. This is intentional distraction, intentional avoidance of serious discussion. Otherwise the so-called media representatives lose control of the format.

The candidates should respond with, "That's an idiotic question. Give me a real question and we can have a real debate".

The first candidate who does this will get my vote.

The media focus on these idiotic questions because they believe the public can't follow nuanced discussions of policy, which is the most elitist thinking of all. Political debates have become clones of the Jerry Springer show.

You ask "isn't it worth a try?" Sure it is but you wouldn't have the largest audience tuning in like the other night. The Media knows what it's doing and that is to titilate the public with inane BS. We are way past the "real issues". It's which "celebrity" gets elected. We pick our "celebrities" by rumor, gossip, misspeaks, missbehaviour, fashion etc. You can't expect the Public to read the news when People Magazine is so readily available. Just ask Californians. We elected Arnold-you know- the movie star? He was going to go to Sacramento and clean up Gray Davis's mess. Ha- what a bigger mess we have now. This is proof positive that the voters just didn't want to understand the issues. This is why we elected Geo2 and have the current mess. We gotta wake up and demand the issues be addressed and deny the Media the script.