Stakes High for Democrats in Philly Debate

I've been in shul most of the past few days and haven't gotten around to blogging anything on the so-called debate of last Tuesday night. Now that I think about it, I've actually avoided it. Because the reality was that I turned it off after the first 45 minutes and put some Coltrane on and tried to forget what those two clowns from ABC - Walt Disney Entertainment were doing: talking about exactly the things that thinking Americans, concerned for the future, could not give a damn about. The first half was strictly about ratings and sensationalism to rank with that of the National Enquirer's lower competition. Being an avid watcher of "This Week" since it was David Brinkley, I was most disappointed, nay, disturbed with the obvious bias that was being shown against not only Obama, but against the intelligence of the American voter. Stephanopoulous, who owes his professional life to the Clintons, should have known to recuse himself from "moderating" this "debate". There was nothing moderate about what I saw.

At the first, they were talking still, still, still, talking about Jeremiah Wright. I thought: "aren't we past this?" and "why are they still talking about this BS?" I was in more or less a state of shock that this could be happening, right here in the so-called bastion of freedom in the world where the press is free to do pretty much whatever they want or (according to this morning's New York Times), what the government wants, at least from former military who are connected with the military contracting business somehow. Of all the issues faced by this country at this moment in its history, immediately prior to a potentially pivotal primary vote in Pennsylvania, these two, whose elevators stop at their pockets, not their journalistic integrity center in their brains, decide to talk about trash. Where did they find the ONE voter in this country who "is concerned" with Mr. Obama's patriotism because he doesn't wear a lapel pin? Why are we talking about this "because I know X, therefore I think like X" business? It's almost beyond words and is the reason why I turned it off.

If Obama was pissed off, I don't blame him one bit. If he looked irritated, he had a right to be so. I was irritated. If he would have overreacted, people would have found a way to get on his case about his "temperament" or some nonsense. Having spent the better part of four years studying political science in college, loving politics, this was the equivalent of florid syphillis. Painful and disgusting.

I very briefly perused some of the comments on the ABC website after reading Frank Rich's column in the Times, having just come back from seder at Rav Menashe East's home, where he hosted 45 people. if you have not read that column, you should. If you didn't see the "debate", allow me to tell you that I will not deem it appropriate to remove the quotation marks from that word, as what happened, at least from the half that I saw, was more of a hatchet or axe job on Obama. I have mentioned this to several people, and I invariably hear "oh well, he needed to be tested!" Tested on what? Whether he wears a lapel pin? To vouch for the opinions and statements of people that he happens to know? This is just like the Communist witch hunters headed by the Senator from Appleton, Wisconsin in the 1950s. Nothing less. They used guilt by association then, and Obama's opponents, including and especially Mrs. Clinton, are doing the exact same thing now. The below was an example of a particularly well-done comment that I thought was worthy of attention here:


I love reading the comments of people who think that the moderators did a good job because they "tested" Obama with questions that might be used against him later by Republicans. Is that really the job of moderators of a Presidential debate? Did they tell Obama that they were going to do that when they invited him to a "debate?" It would be like taking your car in to get an oil change and the guy picks up a hammer and smashes your windshield in. And then his buddy excuses his behavior by telling you that the guy did it to "test" you, in case somebody smashes your windshirld in sometime in the future. I'm sure we would all accept that. Let's put this as straight as possible. The moderators of a debate are supposed to be moderating a debate between the candidates, not attacking one of the two candidates incessantly in order to "test" that candidate. That's just a nice little fake excuse you can use if you want to attack somebody, just like the guy with the hammer who was just supposed to change your oil. Stop with all the excuses, already. These guys were supposed to be objectively moderating a DEBATE between candidates who were running for the highest office in the land. Instead they chose to use the time to attack the candidate that they obviously want to lose the contest. Think up all the stupid excuses you want. They don't work. We know a hatchet job when we see it. This was a hatchet job, pure and simple.


I agree and endorse wholeheartedly the sentiments and their expression. There are over 19,000 comments on the debate story on ABC.com. From reports from people who get paid to review those commentary boards, the trend is overwhelmingly in favor of the views I hold and share here. Let us hope that most Pennsylvania voters on Tuesday April 22 see the so-called "race" for what it is: over.

Chag kasher v' sameach....

Randy Shiner