Stephanopoulos defends his questions to Obama

Amid a storm of criticism that Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate focused too heavily on “gotcha” questions and not enough on substance, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos defended his decision to ask Illinois Sen. Barack Obama about his relationship with former political radical William Ayers. Stephanopoulos denied he’d been spoon-fed the question by Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“We have been researching this for a while,” Stephanopoulos said in a phone interview from New York. ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, he said, had blogged about the issue April 10, after it was first reported by Politico, the political news website. “Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it’s being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election.”

(A spokesman for Obama did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.)

On Tuesday, as a guest on Hannity’s radio program, Stephanopoulos said, “Well, I’m taking notes now, Sean” when Hannity suggested he raise the topic of Ayers with Obama.

In Wednesday’s prime-time debate, co-moderated with Charles Gibson, Stephanopoulos asked Obama: “…On this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that…. An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are ‘friendly.’ Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?”

Obama replied, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.”

Progressives pounced. “The real story of this debate,” said MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, may be “where one of the moderators found his questions.”

Stephanopoulos dismissed the idea that he was doing Hannity’s bidding.

“The questions we asked were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant and what you would expect to be asked in a presidential debate at this point,” he said. “The questions we asked…are being debated around the political world every day.”

By this morning, more than 14,000 viewer comments had been posted on the ABC News website, the overwhelming majority critical of the debate moderators, who spent most of the first hour on what Stephanopoulous called “electability questions.”

“The way we thought about it was, it made sense to hit the electability questions first, then move on,” he said. “I can see where reasonable people would differ with that.”

The debate, broadcast in prime time, was the 21st and probably final matchup between the two Democratic contenders, Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. It was, according to ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider, the most watched debate of this campaign cycle, with 10.7 million viewers. The previous record, also held by ABC News, was 9.3 million viewers of the Jan. 5 debate between Democrats in New Hampshire.

As the critical Pennsylvania primary looms on Tuesday, both candidates have been dogged by controversies unrelated to the issues that voters say are topmost on their minds.

Clinton apologized for making up a story that she was under sniper fire on a tarmac while visiting Bosnia in 1996. Obama said he had “mangled up” what he meant to say after implying to supporters at a San Francisco fundraiser that some blue-collar voters are “bitter” and as a result “cling” to religion and guns.

Updated with more after the jump...    

Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose impassioned denunciations of the American government were widely disseminated on the Web last month.

“But do you believe he’s as patriotic as you are?” Stephanopoulos asked.

Obama replied, “This is somebody who's a former Marine. So, I believe that he loves this country. But I also believe that he’s somebody who, because of the experiences he’s had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices he’s had.”

Stephanopoulos, who was a senior advisor to Bill Clinton in his first term, also pressed Clinton about her character, telling her that an ABC News poll found that “six in 10 voters that we talk to say they don’t believe you’re honest and trustworthy.”

Washington Post television critic Tom Shales accused Stephanopoulos and Gibson of turning in “shoddy, despicable performances.” They dwelled, he added, “entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that has already been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news.”

However, New York Times political columnist David Brooks blogged his approval. “I understand the complaints,” he wrote, “but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that.”

An outtake from the end of the debate, which appeared instantly on the Huffington Post, showed Gibson being heckled by audience members as he introduced a final commercial break. “The crowd is turning on me,” he said with a thin smile.

Some who watched thought the anger stemmed from the caliber of the debate. But Schneider, the ABC News spokesman, was in the hall and said he believed some in the audience were angry that they had to sit through yet more commercials before being allowed to leave the venue.

“I have no doubt other people may wish to spin that,” he said. 

-- Robin Abcarian

Photo: ABC News moderators George Stephanopoulos, right, and Charles Gibson, left, are seen before the start of the Democratic Party debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Comments

[Bob]

ABC: Fire George and put Gibson out to pasture -- how about an ABC afilliate, say, in Little Rock?

The shame of this episode is that these two shills were even allowed to have center stage. And who was the director and why was he/she putting Chelsea's face on screen? Why does Obama have to run against three people, all Clintons, all the time?

This one will be remembered as the winner of the Garbage Award in journalism.

[Kevin]

Does no one get it? G. Steph worked for the Clintons. The fact that he took advice from Sean Hannity is proof that he was too swayed by his bias to be a moderator in that mess. Shame on ABC News!

[Max Grubb]

No question but what Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolis had in mind Wednesday night. That was to give Hillary as much push as possible. Notice they did not mention the Columbia trade situation at all. Howard Woolfson is still a supporter of the
Columbia agreement and is her campaign manager, Mark Penn has not been dismissed, just demoted, and Bill, well of course he is keeping is $800,000 for supporting the Columbians. They also purposely avoided the fact that Hillary supported NAFTA during her husband's administration and she campaigned on how good it was working in 1996 in New York. Of course now she is against it and for Gibson and Stephanopolis to bring it up now would expose Hillary to the issue of trust which of course they didn't wanrt to do. Thank God we have other choices for politics than the Fox subsidiairy called ABC

[Bridget]

I was so disappointed by last night’s debate. Instead of focusing on the real issues Americans are facing today, Senator Obama was asked about a FLAG PIN!

What does his wearing/not wearing of a flag pin have to do with his ability to run the country? Seriously?

I've had it with the pandering. I've had it with the media patting us on the head and pretending that they know what issues Americans really want to know about. I've had it with the media feigning shock and moral outrage over non-issues, and treating us like we are all blathering idiots who can't see exactly what they are doing. What about the economy? The housing crisis? The war?

I will still be voting for Obama in the Fall if he is the nominee. However, if he isn't, I can safely say that I will be done with politics for a long time. Not because my candidate will have lost the race, but because I don't want any part of politics as they are being played right now. Politics today have nothing to do with the issues, or what the candidates can really do for this country. It's about God-damning America, sniper fire in Bosnia, and a 100-year war. Politics are nothing more than a game of one-upsmanship, and tearing down anyone who gets in the way.

And the media is just as much to blame as the candidates who engage in these types of politics. Elections are not won by the best candidate, but by the PR firm that can get the media to help them spin non-issues into campaign-crushing issues. It happened in 2004, and it will happen again this year. In the end, it will be the candidate that comes up with the best sound bite, and is better at spinning his/her opponent's words and making them stick, that wins. It won't matter what that candidate actually believes in – just what they (and the media) made the American public believe their opponent believes in.

Bitter? I'm not just bitter. I'm bitter, I'm angry, and I'm done with this game!

[JJ Gildersneeze]

It's pretty rich that the story has now become whether the question was out of line, rather than how squirrelly Obama's answer was.

The relevant factor isn't how old Obama was at the time of the bombings, for christ sakes. This person helped fundraise for Obama the adult. Obama the candidate for the legislature.

So why exactly is asking him about this out of bounds?

[Jeff in Akron Ohio]

You Clinton folks and Neo-Cons don't get it. Is this the kind of American politics you want to see and listen to? Drill and thrill and see if 'll spill politics? Good old Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos could of asked Hillary a number of equally "tabloid-esque" questions; the same will go for McCain during the general election. Enough said. Let's end these personal attacks and get down to making this a better country where we talk about real issues and make progress, not wallow in the mud slinging.

[Hugo]

How can you defend your performance as moderators when you discuss the economy...a FULL HOUR after it has begun. If, as George prefaced the topic, the economy is the #1 pressing issue on Americans' minds, you should probably bring it up before re-hashing the Reverend comments and the whole "bitter" non-issue.

[sunny florida]

What on earth is all this "indignant" reaction to ABC's debate about? Please people, we are talking about hiring someone (and it is that) to do the toughest job in the world and we are afraid to ask the really tough questions that linger in the minds of many, many people? I can read about the plans of both people on their websites, ad nauseum, and I can read the opinions of those plans or things less tangible about the candidates in columns, but I want to see how these people can handle the really tough, revealing questions that show a person's character, on pointe, without a speech or teleprompter. This was a very tough, stark (no applause - love that!) debate that pushed issues we have with both candidates and those that will certainly be pushed by the Republicans. This is not a job for the faint of heart, or light of spirit, otherwise we all would be applying.

I sat thru the entire debate and tried very hard to keep an open mind. Afterall, one of these two people could be the next President. The only problem I had with the moderators was not nailing the candidates on a direct answer to a specific question, or even an indirect answer would have been nice. All in all, I think Hillary won this one. She seemed to maintain her composure (a good thing when times are tough as a President) and answer most of the questions, more so than Obama. She did loft a few bombs his way and one can argue it was personal, but I thought maybe there's another reason: maybe she really knows that if he is the nominee, that the Republicans will make mincemeat of him with his questionable ties to Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and his revealing comments behind closed doors when cameras aren't rolling and teleprompter is off. If the Republicans can destroy the character of two very good, credible men (Gore, Kerry) without much to work with, what on earth will they do to this guy? Afterall, isn't it MOST important that we elect anyone except a Republican who still thinks Sunni's and Shiites are reversed and thinks GWB's policies are "OK"?!

[chet mccabe]

Obviously! It was intended to support Clinton but It did not. Obama is a stateman and tried hard to stear both Charles & George away from the trash and trivia. ABC and both George and Charles should be ashamed of the show last nite.

[dharper]

The real tragedy to this abomination is that the Democrat Party believes that these two are the best they have to offer to this nation as presidential candidates. This continues to be nothing but a monumental exercise in futility.

Can't they remember Jimmy Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? With these types of candidates they are defeating themselves - the Republicans only have to show up in November to win if this nonsense doesn't cease.

Come on, DNC, wake up and smell the roses before you become thistles.

[Typical White Person for McCain]

I am a middle-aged, white male who is a lifelong Democrat and a member of a construction building trades union. In over thirty years of voting, I have voted almost exclusively for Democrats. I have voted for only two Republicans in my life, and both were candidates with strong pro-labor records running for state offices. That being said, if Obama is the nominee for the Democrats, I will register as a Republican before the general election, and I will never vote for a Democrat running for any office in the future.

[Edward Rotchford]

There is such outrage on this topic, and rightfully so! To sign a petition demanding an apology from ABC, visit http://www.petitiononline.com/abc41608/petition.html

[chet mccabe]

Obviously! It was intended to support Clinton but It did not. Obama is a stateman and tried hard to stear both Charles & George away from the trash and trivia. ABC and both George and Charles should be ashamed of the show last nite.

[nancy]

Not one person this entire campaign seasion has looked into the Clinton Fraud Trial/Peter Paul. I am so upset with that farce of a debate that I intend to gather as much support as I can get and make our feelings known about HOW the debate was conducted. Write to the tv station, gather all the advertiser names that advertise on their (George and Charles) programs and complain to them. I read years ago that if you hit the advertisers you really wallop the show. Anyone care to join in? Yes, they definitely owe Obama an appology and they owe us, the views ,an appology for their lynch like attitudes. ABC made themselves look like total idiots. Maybe George and Charles cab get jobs writing for the Globe or National Enquirer. I hope ABC takes a beating on this.

[Hillary All the Way]

awwwwww poor wittew Bawak, finally you venomous Obama people have been served a small sample of what Hillary has had to put up with for a whole year now from the media and these debate moderators, cry me a ####### river..

GO Hillary.

[nancy]

Not one person this entire campaign seasion has looked into the Clinton Fraud Trial/Peter Paul. I am so upset with that farce of a debate that I intend to gather as much support as I can get and make our feelings known about HOW the debate was conducted. Write to the tv station, gather all the advertiser names that advertise on their (George and Charles) programs and complain to them. I read years ago that if you hit the advertisers you really wallop the show. Anyone care to join in? Yes, they definitely owe Obama an appology and they owe us, the views ,an appology for their lynch like attitudes. ABC made themselves look like total idiots. Maybe George and Charles cab get jobs writing for the Globe or National Enquirer. I hope ABC takes a beating on this.

[rockthebleachers]

Whoop tee doo! So George worked for the Clintons. What does that really prove. Dick Morris worked for them too!

[Rhoda]

George Stephanopoulos needs to apologize to Senator Obama, not defend his sleazy non-issue questions.

[Willy Mcnoon]

George there are only two words I want to hear from you or ABC right now.

I'M SORRY.

You and ABC owe everyone an apology, not a "defense." What went down last night was indefensible.

SHAME ON YOU GEORGE, SHAME ON YOU ABC. Shame on you.

[Christopher Xaphakdy]

Why didn't he pose a similar tough question on Sen. Clinton? He still maintains his loyal to the former President and his wife, Sen. Clinton. We thought his posed questions would represent for the ABC NEWS as a journalist, not a political loyalty.