Obama vs. Clinton in Philadelphia: ABC loses

This night’s debate had potential to be very meaningful. Instead, it was a colossal waste of time.

No, I am not saying that because the moderators (including former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos) piled on Obama; I expect that.

It was because the piling on was over the warmed over trivial stuff: stuff Rev. Wright said, a party that Obama may have attended, why he stopped wearing a flag pin, etc. Yes, Clinton caught the Bosnia “sniper fire” question.

No, I am not angry about Obama being hurt; after all one of the principles of negative political ads is that they only work if they convey new information, and we learned nothing new here.

And that was the problem: no one came away from this debate knowing anything that wasn’t already out there. Keith Olbermann called this the “most tabloid debate” ever.

About the Ayers issue: not much there.

In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama’s acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as “tested and vetted” after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and “passion for social justice.”

“This whole connection is a stretch,” Harrington told me. “Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns.”

Yawn.

ABC did more to make BHO’s point that today’s politics is petty and insubstantial.

I think that the closing statements spelled out the choices that the voters have.

DHinMI at the Daily Kos has a good analysis.

But as far as ABC debate: ABC News not a news organization but rather a tabloid organization.