Dems pay their union dues

It seemed like the Democrats were in concert Tuesday, live on MSNBC from Soldier Field in Chicago, the stage resting on the home turf of ‘da Bears” (and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama).

At the CNN/YouTube debate a few weeks ago, Obama said he'd meet with purported enemies like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. And yet Tuesday night he would not commit to meeting with Barry Bonds.

That question came from moderator Keith Olbermann who, in his role as presidential debate referee, couldn't resist a little miscreant behavior.

Like an announcer hoping to be heard over the roar of raucous fans, Olbermann quickly called attention to how little he could control some 15,000 union workers and supporters in the stadium (the forum was sponsored by the AFL-CIO).

Never mind 30-second “lightning rounds,” the evening took on the aspect of a true stump—a competition to see which candidate could whip the crowd into the loudest frenzy.

Delivering anti-Bush sound bites to union members is slam dunk television for the Dems. Though there was something timely about it all, given that a collapsed bridge in Minnesota and trapped miners in Utah have been dominating the news cycle—infrastructure and the plight of the average American worker center stage.

In that regard, the guy who got the most stirring ovation of the evening was not a candidate but an audience member, Steve Skvara, a steelworker for 34 years who needed arm braces to stand and come to the mike.

Skvara said he’d been forced to retire after suffering a disability, only to see his former employer, LTV, go bankrupt, costing him a third of his pension and his health care.

“Every day of my life I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family,” he said, his voice quavering, “and I can’t afford to pay for her health care. What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?"

It was real pain, on display. The question, directed at Sen. John Edwards, brought the crowd to its feet, and this rhetorical quip from MSNBC talker Chris Matthews during the post-debate analysis: “I wonder if that wasn’t a moment that’s going to change American political history.” 

Well, it is kind of the revenge of the little guy on TV, from the ongoing fascination with "American Idol" to this presidential season. If TV is guilty of covering the campaign money race like it’s the weekly box office report out of Hollywood, the medium also seems, in these pre-pre-pre-primary forums, to be positioning itself as a bridge between the candidates and the public’s widespread disaffection with the process.

The CNN/YouTube debate was largely a curiosity, but it did produce a citizen question with legs—would you meet with the leaders of America’s enemies?

To recap, Obama said he would, and HillBill vol. 2 said that wasn’t necessarily a wise thing to say, and then Obama raised the ante, giving a speech in which he said he might go into Pakistan to root out the perpetrators of 9-11.

Tuesday night Obama attacked Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), who'd previously attacked Obama's foreign policy as "confused and confusing."

“…I don’t know about you," Obama said to Dodd, "but for us to authorize [war in] the place where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present, which you authorized, and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did … is a problem.”

In the crowd commotion that followed, the camera caught HillBill vol. 2 (previously caught whispering with Edwards), winking at Dodd. 

Later she said of Obama: “You can think big but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president," warning about "consequences across the world.”

If you’re scoring at home, he was cheered, she was jeered.

-- Paul Brownfield

Comments

[Espi]

In this TV age and weekly staged "debates" among Presidential candidates, only catchy sound bites and simulated behaviour counts. It is like the mock WWF wrestling fights have been copied for TV by the Presidential candidates. Acting talents, the ability to think on ones feet and the ability to deliver a "devastating" repartee are all that matter. It is like the old Roman circus when gladiators were to fight lions - where the audience eagerly wanted to see blood and bodies dragged out.

Does the voter make up his/her mind based on such shallow theatrics? Unfortunately yes, as they voted twice for George Bush as he came across as a "likeable, ornery" guy, a "born again Christian" who was ignorant about everything yet scored in "authenticity"!! Hence in this round each candidate is concentrating on stage presence and wants to capture the voters' imagination - not his logical acquiescence to his/her candidature!

[DCJOE]

This isn't a review of the debate; its a Barack Obama puff-piece. What's with the "HillBill Vol 2" BS? Tell the truth: Sen. Obumbler flunked the exam again. The President of Canada? Can't answer the question about Bonds because he hasn't hit the home run yet? How long are you MSM types going to keep trying to pump this rube up?

[GeorgeS]

Some questions:

1- Why does the media use Hillary's full name...Hillary Rodham Clinton but does not use Obama's full name which is Barak Hussein Obama?

2- Why is the media so in love with a senator with barely 2 years of experience in the senate and a senator who just smiles when her husband is caught with his pants down.

3- Why does the media not ask simple question to each of these candidates... What business, organization or government body have you successfully lead in the real world outside of Washington. (George Bush has run a successfull corporation, governed a state and has led the United States government in a time of great crisis....anyone remember 9/11)

4- Why is the media afraid to ask some simple logical questions such as..."you keep saying that the Bush plan is no good but you fail to give any details how you would do it"?

[John Sweeney]

I have to agree with DC JOE........why not even one mention of the biggest applause getter of the evening - Dennis Kucinich?
Shoddy journalism, Mr. Brownfield.