I just watched the debate on the ABC News website and, wow, that was a horrible debate on ABC's part. I think CNN has conducted the best debates, even NBC was a bit on the attack towards Hillary Clinton. Such a shame that ABC News would stoop down to that level by constantly instigating another argument to break out between the two, asking them questions on every past controversy that has been discussed over and over and that did not need to be discussed again.
I was hoping that the media would for once forget about all these stupid controversies that keep on being brought up and focus on the real issues that voters, and voters of Pennsylvania in particular in this case, care about. Unfortunately, in the end it's the media and what people see covered on television is what has a large influence on most people. It makes you wonder, if television or the media weren't there to constantly bring all this up, would this campaign be the same? The media has largely been in support of Obama, paying more attention to all of Hillary Clinton's controversies and issues that were brought up.
Did we hear any news coverage when an Obama campaign office in Texas was seen with a pro-comminusm Che Guevera flag? No. Yet we always hear about all of Clinton's drama. Never have I heard the news really take an in depth look at the candidate's views on issues, yet we hear about all the little controversies every day.
I'm a big fan of Disney and ABC, and I'll gladly take part in this boycott to help spread the message that this debate was wrong and the real issues need to be discussed (even though I don't really visit Disney's sites, watch their television networks, or plan on going to the parks anytime soon as it is)
The questions ABC's personalities asked on shallow and inconsequential matters have the potential to impact the American electoral process in very significant ways.
C-SPAN is currently presenting a Robert Iger interview in which he expressed his "strong disagreement" with Senator Obama, regarding his criticism of the consolidation of media outlets. Iger even said that Obama was mired in "old-world politics." And, here we are. Disney is among the last 11 entities from which 90% of Americans get their news, and the type of news they get is hardly fair and balanced. So, Senator Obama seems justified in his concerns. And, Robert Iger seems to have embarrassed himself with his April 8 remarks in light of the debate debacle.
The American democracy depends on having an informed electorate, and that democracy needs more than the likes of Fox News informing said electorate. Editorial discretion is being compromised, and deregulation has clearly resulted in a narrowing of the diversity of voices.
The irony is that the debate ABC scripted to potentially disadvantage candidates who express an interest in restoring regulations may result in getting the American people to focus on the need for the very same regulations to be restored.
The American people would be well-served by seeing this boycott expand to become a criticism of media consolidation, in general. And, ABC News would be well-served by sending Gibson back to his coffee-and-donut chit-chat and by sending Stephanopoulos back to his P.R. flackery for the Clintons.
Based on the way they've been conducting themselves recently, they're going to need all the spin-doctoring they can get.
One quick question. How much longer is all this going to last? Isn't there a time limit on how long theses two can vie for the Democratic ticket?
Personally I could care less about the questions they were asked. The questions, and their answers, mean nothing to me. It's their actions that I look at.
If the super-delegates did do so, they would cause many registered Democrats, as well as several independents and Republicans, to boycott the Democratic Party, and the nominee would surely lose in November. So, many people question the reason Senator Clinton is still running when virtually everyone agrees that she has no chance of winning both the nomination and the Presidency.
Some have speculated that she is attempting to cause Senator Obama to lose so that she'll be able to run in 2012, and others believe she may be staying in the race to help Senator McCain because both of them are receiving their money from federally-registered lobbyists and PAC's. And, as long as people continue voting for Senator Clinton in the remaining contests, she'll still be able to continue her efforts to destroy Senator Obama's chances in November.
Another possible motivation for her to stay in the race is that she is raising money so she can pay herself a better salary or so she can stockpile those funds for a future campaign. However, I expect fewer people will continue donating to her when they realize just how impossible her chances of winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 are.
Senator McCain's campaign obviously wants her to stay in the race so she "bloodies-up" Obama, to use Rush Limbaugh's term, because McCain knows that he'll have difficulty doing so, himself, since negative campaigning hurts the person engaging in it. And, the news media want Clinton to stay in the race because their ratings and readership have markedly risen during this nominating process. And, as the campaigns spend money on advertising, the media outlets increase their ad. revenue substantially.
For these reasons, Senator Obama is being attacked from all sides, but the only way the process will end is when people stop contributing money to Senator Clinton's campaign and when they stop voting for her in the remaining contests. The uncommitted super-delegates now need to start declaring their intentions, as well, to show that the party is coalescing behind Senator Obama.
C-SPAN's video of Ken Auletta's interview with Robert Iger is available at this page:
In the video, Robert Iger speaks about the consolidation of mainstream media outlets as being an innocuous thing, even though the recent debate suggests otherwise.
Now, if there are actual voters out there that watched this debate but no critiques of it, then maybe they were swayed into voting some way.