Wow, speaking of outrageous.
How pathetic, honestly.
Debatable Choices
A trio of news veterans will moderate this fall's presidential debates, but who and what do they represent?
TheRoot.com
Updated: 1:26 PM ET Aug 18, 2008
Aug. 19, 2008--In case you missed it, earlier this month, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced their picks to moderate the three presidential debates this fall. The chosen: NBC's Tom Brokaw, CBS's Bob Schieffer and PBS's Jim Lehrer.
So, in an election year in which race, gender and generational change have dominated politics and public discourse, the commission decided that these three white men, aged 68, 71 and 74, respectively, are our nation's best choices to question the candidates and represent voter consciousness about the issues? When one—and only one—of the candidates is also a 70-plus-year-old white man?
Don't get it twisted; this is not about hating the players, just the game. The chosen ones are all esteemed journalists and have not only paid their dues but supported a number of younger reporters in their own careers, myself included. No, my criticism is aimed at the tired institutional thinking that automatically defaults to older white men to bring gravitas and credibility to important national events and assumes—wrongly—that the men are somehow free of a perspective shaped by their own life circumstances and life stories.
Think about it. What if the commission, a non-partisan, non-profit group that has sponsored all presidential and vice presidential debates since 1988, had picked three 40-something African Americans to moderate all three debates? No matter how much experience and name recognition those journalists brought with them, people would question whether, as a group, they represent the full range of views and perspectives in the American electorate, and indeed whether such a lineup was fair to both candidates.
At a press conference announcing the decision, the commission's executive director, Janet Brown, said the moderators were chosen because they are "very serious." "I don't want to know how many decades collectively they represent in the news business," she said.
Well, if seriousness and experience are most important, in what universe does PBS's Gwen Ifill not qualify? The commission has tapped her for a second time to moderate the vice presidential debate. How, then, can she not have the experience to moderate one of three presidential matchups? And if my perception is clouded by my longtime friendship with Ifill, then how about 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, who knows what it's like to break into the boy's club as much as Hillary Clinton did? What about Katie Couric, one of the best interviewers in the business? What about the award-winning CBS journalist Byron Pitts? What about CNN's Soledad O'Brien, whose reporting and interviewing chops have been tested in every format from live morning television to long-form documentary? What about Ruben Navarette, an award-winning syndicated columnist whose politics defy categorization? What about Ray Suarez of PBS, whose easy facility with issues from urban planning to international affairs have made him a sought after moderator across the country? What about Univision's Jorge Ramos, who was one of the youngest major network anchors, and thus, now one of the most experienced? What about Anderson Cooper, a rising star at CNN who would bring extensive international experience along with a generational point of view more in line with a growing and intensely engaged portion of the electorate?
The first debate, to be held Sept. 26 at the University of Mississippi and to be moderated by Lehrer, will focus on domestic policy. Brokaw will host the second on Oct. 7, a town-hall-style matchup with audience and Internet questions at Belmont University in Tennessee. The third, to focus on foreign policy, will be moderated by Schieffer at Hofstra University in New York.
The commissioners want to make these debates about the "issues." But deciding exactly what is an issue and what priority to assign them is itself a matter of opinion, perception and experience.
Earlier this year when Obama brushed his shoulders off in response to a political attack, few people under 50, certainly not most blacks, viewed it as a sexist gesture; most viewed it as a hip-hop reference to "brushing off the haters." But 73-year-old Geraldine Ferraro didn't see it that way and complained about it for weeks. When Sen. Clinton made her remarks, early in the primaries, about how MLK and the civil rights leaders needed politicians like LBJ to actually get the legislation in place, the campaigns argued for weeks (and in some ways are still arguing) about who was playing the race card and who was playing it straight. Who gets to decide what issues are important?
Surprisingly, the commission itself is somewhat diverse. The panel includes the former president of Howard University, H. Patrick Swygert, and the lawyer and activist Antonia Hernandez. Former Clinton administration press secretary Mike McCurry, a baby boomer, is among them. Did this group consciously decide to ignore or dismiss people of color and women because of their race, gender or age. Unlikely. Did they assume a non-white, under-60 journalist would be so dazzled by Obama or so freaked out by the national spotlight that they couldn't think straight and play fair? Hard to imagine.
What the commission did do, it seems, is default to thinking of older white men as institutional standard-bearers that automatically convey universality, objectivity and credibility. But older white men are people, too, and just like younger people, women and non-whites, they come with worldviews, prejudices, perspectives and life stories that inform their understanding of issues. Wouldn't everyone have been better served if the three debates were led by a combination of moderators that better reflected the diverse life experience of the candidates, as well as the potent richness of the electorate?
TV Week's Michele Greppi asked commission co-chairman Frank Fahrenkopf what kind of feedback he was getting about the quartet of moderators, and he said ..."Absolutely nothing but positive remarks . . . from the general political realm."
The general political realm? Who would that be, Frank? I think we know.
McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama
Poll: Republican seen as a stronger manager of the economy
WASHINGTON - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.
The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.
"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."
McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.
That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.
McCain has been on the offensive against Obama during the last month over energy concerns, with polls showing strong majorities supporting his call for an expansion of offshore oil drilling as gasoline prices hover near $4 a gallon.
Obama had opposed new offshore drilling, but said recently he would support a limited expansion as part of a comprehensive energy program.
That was one of several recent policy shifts for Obama, as he positions himself for the general election battle. But Zogby said the changes could be taking a toll on Obama's support, particularly among Democrats and self-described liberals.
Obama's support among Democrats fell 9 percentage points this month to 74 percent, while McCain has the backing of 81 percent of Republicans. Support for Obama, an Illinois senator, fell 12 percentage points among liberals, with 10 percent of liberals still undecided compared to 9 percent of conservatives.
Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters.
It made little difference when independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who are both trying to add their names to state ballots.
McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. Barr earned 3 percent and Nader 2 percent.
I really do quite admire the Republicans for being able to set the narrative so effectively regardless of how absolutely ridiculous it is.
He has 7 houses
what's one more ?
McCain has never misrepresented his worth or background.
McCain Spokesman's Retort: Obama Lives in "a Frickin' Mansion"
By Michael D. Shear
SEDONA, Ariz. -- A spokesman for Sen. John McCain vowed to retaliate against today's story about how many houses the GOP candidate owns with a renewed focus on Sen. Barack Obama's ties to a Chicago developer and charges that Obama is an elitist.
"We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."
The felon reference was to Tony Rezko, a former Obama friend and financial backer who was convicted on fraud and bribery charges this year. Rogers vowed to intensify efforts to link Obama to Rezko in the coming days.
"That's fair game now," he said. "You are going to see more of that now that this issue has been joined. You'll see more of the Rezko matter from us."
The McCain campaign was in full damage-control mode as the housing story took off today. Rogers tried to play down the story, saying that reports of the many McCain houses were overstated.
"The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case," Rogers said. "The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use."
Those four include an apartment in Arlington, a ranch in Sedona, and two condos, in California and Phoenix, he said. The others include "some investment properties and things like that."
He also added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.
I guess it is not safe to say how many properties I own and what they are worth, and really it does not matter.
McCain has never misrepresented his worth or background.
That's true.
He believes if you make $4.9 million/year you are middle class. I'd say he's pretty consistent about his views in this respect.
At least he did not say, "That question is above my pay grade."
Did anybody catch that McCain basically endorsed re-instating the draft yesterday? It was at some town-hall type thing he was doing, and some lady in the audience said something along the lines of, 'there won't be anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell unless we re-instate the draft', and McCain responded by saying, 'I don't disagree with anything you just said'.
One thing is clear, there is certainly no evidence of an Obama Tsunami like victory in November. McCain surprisingly seems to have the advantage now, although its unknown if this will be sustainable.
I searched this forum.
I found exactly one poster who predicted a huge win for Obama.
And even then, he basically qualified it.
What we are seeing is what most pundits (who have a reasonably objective clue) predicted.
There has been more than one,
I have heard that phrase used many times in my lifetime, maybe it is a midwestern thing, but it always refers to God.