Blaming the Messenger

The recent and hopefully last Democrat debate finally made some real news but for an unexpected reason. Rather than the normal who won, who lost blather, the focus was on ABC and the two moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Everyone involved in the broadcast was savaged for what was called an opportunity missed. That opportunity was described by TV critics and bloggers alike as the chance to ask the two Democratic candidates substantive questions early and often.
Critics seemed to object to questions pertaining to Obama’s controversial pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag lapel pin and Hillary’s tales from the tarmac regarding her non-adventures in Bosnia. A lot of the grousing seems to be coming from the Obama camp and the candidate 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.” Sen. Clinton was less concerned as most of the questions raised allowed her to regurgitate much of her earlier jabs at Obama.
I for one find the criticism misplaced and contrived. It reminds me of my Morton Downey Jr. days where we gave the viewers a steady diet of controversy and bombast. I can’t tell you how many people have bent my ear over the years castigating me for putting such relative trash on the air. My response has always been the viewer dictates what passes for entertainment and if nobody watched, the advertisers wouldn’t be there and it would be lights out. I would have been delighted to make the money I made producing cerebral television but so few people would watch, I’d have gone broke.
The same is true in politics. A presidential campaign these days is a political reality show where only one contestant is standing at the end. A political campaign, like all carefully orchestrated dramas, is very much dependent on a good story line as well as a few unexpected surprises. Without that, the voter changes the channel and candidate.
Which is why I find the whole ABC dust-up silly and contrived? Gibson and Stephanopoulos know Clinton and Obama have almost identical views on most boilerplate issues. Both want out of Iraq unilaterally, universal health care and want to raise taxes. What the American people don’t know is the quality of the candidate’s character. ABC was 100% right getting these issues on the table early on.
Asking Hillary why she lied about sniper fire or Obama about his minister’s anti-American rants is fair game. We need to know who these people really are before we give them the keys to the kingdom. Would Hillary Clinton deceive the American public as President if it served her purpose? (I’m restraining myself here) Is Obama a closet America hater or does he just need to find himself another church? I want to know the answers to those questions before it’s too late.
The howls of protest directed at ABC and their moderators smacked a bit of Florida 2000. If you recall, there wasn’t a peep of protest about voting problems in Palm Beach or Broward counties until the Gore folks realized they were losing. At that point the Gore people started calling the old folks up and telling them they were robbed and off we went to the Supreme Court. In this case, it was only after Sen. Obama and his people realized he’d taken a few hits during the debate that they cried foul followed by his supporters in the media.
So let’s all give Charlie and George a break although I’m still trying to figure out why ABC couldn’t find someone other than a former Clinton flack to co-host.