Post Debate Frayed Thread - Democratic Underground

H2O Man

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-17-08 07:20 AM
Original message

Post Debate Frayed Thread

"I like Barack Obama, and I’m not attacking him, but …." – Tucker Carlson

Is all lost, if after the ABC debate, Tucker Carlson is finding fault with him? My goodness, Tucker uses the word "inexcusable" to Obama’s relationships with people that Carlson dislikes. Is the sky falling?

Let’s take a look at the debate, the voters, and the media

First, on the eve of the debate, there were two interesting threads on GD-P – one by Emit and the other by David Zephyr – which pointed out that there appeared to be a conflict in interests in ABC’s having George Stephanopoulos serving as a moderator. He had previously been employed as a Clinton political operative. Several Clinton supporters pointed out that he had split with Bill Clinton in such a manner that he could not be expected to favor Hillary over Barack.

As a result of the interesting points made on those threads by both Clinton and Obama supporters, I posted a "pre-debate" thread yesterday afternoon, asking a few questions, including what questions DUers would like to have asked at the debate? There were a lot of good questions put forward, from both Clinton and Obama folks. Valid questions, indeed: I felt that they showed that DUers are able to focus on the issues that are important to the general public.

I was pleased that one person posted questions that were way out of place on the thread. The person’s questions were personal attacks aimed at Obama. I thought it was wonderful, because it illustrated the sharp contrast between meaningful questions, and the type of absurd nonsense that Emit and David Z had warned of in their threads.

The posts by Emit and David expressed concern that George Stephanopoulos would try to sneak in some of the questions that Sean Hannity had supplied him with. Now that is true – Sean Hannity supplied George with attacks on Obama. And not only did George become Hannity before our very eyes, but Charlie Gibson came off as less capable of providing balance than Alan Colmes. The result was a debate that was so anti-Obama that had Emit and David proposed the possibility of the actual series of questions would be asked, most of us would have thought "it couldn’t possibly be that bad."

Now, let’s consider the target audience. We can also break the public into three groups: {1} those who always support you; {2} those who always oppose you; and {3} the undecided. I think that we can easily conclude that the Group 1 people who support Barack, resent the ABC moderators’ questions, and that the Clinton supporters in Group 2 are feeling that Obama deserved to be attacked by George Hannity, because the media has attacked Hillary before.

So Group 3 is what matters. And in Group 3, there are two distinct sub-groups: (a) the general public, including the Pennsylvania voters and the other places preparing for their primaries; and (b) the Super Delegates who have not decided or announced which candidate they plan to vote for. The way each group views the debate, and the media coverage associated with it, will have some overlap, but will have differences. The general public will recognize that the moderators focused on asking Obama harsh questions on "wedge" issues that had little to do with the things that are of interest to them: the price of gas, of heating their homes in the winter, or buying groceries, their medical insurance, the price of a college education, and the price of the war in Iraq.

It wasn’t simply that the moderators’ focus on wedge issues denied the audience the opportunity to hear Obama address the serious issues, it also meant that Clinton was unable to speak on the issues that are part of the public’s everyday life.

Senator Clinton did make a concentrated effort to keep attention on those wedge issues. Clinton supporters were no doubt delighted by what they view as her "toughness," while Obama supporters saw it as further evidence of her channeling republican tactics.

The question is, then, what will the general public Group C people think? Next Tuesday, we will find out for sure. But the previous examples from the campaign indicate that Obama is only marginally harmed by controversy, while Clinton tends to have increases in her "negatives."

Clearly, Senator Clinton is intent upon damaging Senator Obama, rather than focusing on her positions on the serious issues, because her campaign wants to pressure the Super Delegates. Those are the "undecided" people she is trying to communicate with. The ABC debate had less to do with the democratic primary, as it did with the general election.

As grass roots Obama supporters, we have a number of opportunities to help our campaign. First, we should take steps to influence how the media coverage is viewed by Group C. It is important to call, write, and/or e-mail ABC. But it is a hundred times more important to call, write and e-mail other media sources. We saw Countdown cover the specific issues raised on Emit and David’s threads. I think that we will see other accurate coverage this evening on other MSNBC shows.

We should be contacting other television and radio shows, and writing letters to the editor of our local papers, as well as targeting Pennsylvania papers. Our messages should be aimed specifically on reaching the Group 3 people. Thus, make them brief, calm as opposed to angry, and focused on a specific issue: that the ABC debate was focused on wedge issues, rather than democratic issues.

I think that Senator Obama did well last night. We should not allow the corporate media interests, or republicans, or even the Clinton campaign, to define it for the Group C people. And that includes the Super Delegates who will be watching the reaction to the debate, and the general public. Let’s get to work!