Far be it for me to justify last night's debate performance by ABC hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. (I was an early and loud critic!) But a YouTube that Obama supporters are circulating surely takes reasonable criticism too far. It's a parody of "In Memoriam," a recurring feature on ABC's "This Week" (the show Stephanopoulos hosts). In the segment, ABC acknolwedges recent deaths--of celebrities as well as American soldiers fighting abroad--by showing their names and playing mournful music in the background.
David Brooks gave Charlie Gibson and George Stephanoupolos an "A" for their performance last night. But his seems to be a minority view. Here's what everybody else is saying: Sam Boyd, The American Prospect Will Bunch, Phladelphia Daily News Michael Grunwald, Time Reed Hundt, TPM Cafe Ezra Klein, The American Prospect Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher Tom Shales, Washington PostNiall Stanage, The Guardian Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation As I said in my first posting on this last night, I honestly expected better.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... Or maybe it was just the worst of times.Two debates took place in Philadelphia tonight. And, conveniently enough, they took place one after another, divided cleanly by a commercial break. The first debate was garbage time, as ABC moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos took turns confronting the two candidates with questions that have dogged their respective campaigns over the last few weeks. Obama, the frontrunner, got most of the attention: Exactly which statements of Rev.
Charlie Gibson really hammered the candidates--both candidates--over their proposals to raise the capital gains tax. Why woudl they do that, he asked, when lowering the cap gains tax during the 1990s raised revenue? My recollection was that Gibson's premise was wrong, but I couldn't remember the details of why. Fortunately, I know a few economists. Here's one of them--Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute--with the story: Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues.
I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama's proposal to raise the cap on the payroll tax, at least right now, mostly for political reasons. The greatest danger to the program isn't its projected financial shortfall, which is reliatvely tiny. But I'm also not a fan of Hillary Clinton's attacks on the idea. And the exchange they just had shows why. A few minutes ago, one of the moderators--I think it was Charlie Gibson--asked why both candidates would consider raising capital gains taxes or taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Both candidates answered, correctly, that sometimes taxes are worth it.
Ever since the commercial break, it's been all substance: A meaty question on the Middle East followed by some queries on taxes and the budget. And both candidates are using them to make coherent arguments about their policy ideas. And what do I think about these substantive points? Stay tuned. (Those things aren't so easy to blog in 90 seconds!) --Jonathan Cohn
I continue to think that Obama's speech on race, from a few weeks ago, is one of the most elegant and powerful political events I've ever seen. And I gather, from the poll numbers, that it was at least modestly successful (if not very successful) at winning over voters who'd soured on Obama because they heard Rev. Wright's controversial comments. The problem with the speech is that--like any great speech--it's not nearly as powerful in sound bites.
I’ve enjoyed ABC’s coverage of the campaign so far; Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos have, in my opinion, run by far the most substantive (and, as a result, revealing) debates. So I find this first question, asking whether either candidate would guarantee to make the other his/her running mate, a real disappointment. This question reveals nothing about the candidates--not their policy preferences, not their respective governing styles. It’s just an attempt to trap them--a gotcha question, in other words. I expect this silliness from Tim Russert. Et tu, Charlie?--Jonathan Cohn
For most of the campaign, one of the clearest contrasts between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been stylistic: She was pedestrian, talking in simple terms about people’s problems and her plans to help solve them; he was lyrical, speaking in grand themes about changing America. In tonight’s opening statements, I thought, both candidates played against their types.
It was a little less than a year ago that filmmaker Michael Moore got the nation’s attention with Sicko. But it’s hard to know how many people watching the film came away convinced, particularly when it came to Moore’s portrayal of health care systems abroad. Critics of universal coverage have long claimed that such systems inevitably lead to long waits, substandard care, and generally unsatisfied patients; to counter these arguments, Moore showcased happy patients in Britain, Canada, and France.