"Character is destiny." -- Heraclitus, pre-Socratic philosopher
Which tells you more about what kind of president a candidate would make:
a. Her positions on the nursing shortage, Social Security and internet decency; or
b. The way she responds under pressure?
I'm guessing that, like me, the great majority of people would opt for "b."
Ah, but the sensitive souls of the Boston Globe editoral board aren't the great majority of people. Their editorial of this morning, "A debate, not a prize fight," is one long vote for 'a.'
Like a strict 19th-century New England schoolmarm, The Globe raps the media's collective knuckles for its focus on the fistfight aspects of Tuesday's Dem debate and its aftermath. Frets the New York Times's AA farm team:
With roughly two months to go before the first votes are cast in the presidential primaries, the candidate debates have taken on a new urgency and substance. But voters would never know it from the pregame hype and postgame analysis of the most recent Democratic debate Tuesday night. Forget Social Security, Iran, immigration, oil prices, Internet decency, nuclear weapons, global warming, government transparency, the nursing shortage, and drug sentencing - all of which were covered in the two-hour debate. Let's just assume the only thing voters want to know is whether Barack Obama landed any punches on Hillary Clinton.The pugilistic metaphors started before the debate began, with analysts on MSNBC speculating on how aggressive Obama would be in his attacks on Clinton. Obama had telegraphed a new willingness to compete more forcefully with Clinton in a New York Times interview earlier in the week, and the TV personalities were fairly salivating at the prospect that Obama might draw blood.
My favorite line: "Even the usually substantive National Public Radio began the next morning's political chatter with a discussion of whether the candidates 'landed a glove" on Clinton.'"
Oh no! Don't tell me the Globe's favorite radio network descended from its lofty pedestal to join the unseemly fray! Pass that Globe editor the smelling salts.
The editorial ends by primly reminding all that "it is the substance of the candidate exchanges, not the form, that should matter."
Wrong.
Of course substantive positions matter. But in our post-9-11 world, it is precisely a potential leader's form under fire that matters most. The first time Hillary Clinton confronted any real challenge during her otherwise triumphal march to the nomination, she ran off to the friendly confines of her all-women's alma mater to play the gender card.
Heraclitus was right.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The editorial ends by
November 3, 2007 - 10:01 ET by motherbeltThe editorial ends by primly reminding all that "it is the substance of
the candidate exchanges, not the form, that should matter."
Well, that depends. If the your candidate had a lot of substance, then of course that's where you want the emphasis to be. But let's face it, it's the Clinton campaign that wants the focus of the debate discussion to be on the "gang attack" on HRC. Why? To deflect from her poor performance: the fact that she didn't answer some of the questions and waffled on others.
As the old lawyers' motto says:
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If neither is on your side, pound the table.
I suppose the globe figures
November 3, 2007 - 09:09 ET by bassndudeI suppose the globe figures if they stomp their feet and wipe their eyes with Hillary, everyone will back down cause she is a woman? Please, if she cant play with the big boys, she needs to pack her panties and go home and play with chatty cathy.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Today's Day-by-Day
November 3, 2007 - 10:25 ET by RJAfter a month off, Day-by-Day is back.
The Globe got one thing right
November 3, 2007 - 10:41 ET by RovinFrom the Globe:
"Of course, Clinton is an adult and a prohibitive favorite, and should be subject to intense scrutiny. But it is the substance of the candidate exchanges, not the form, that should matter". (Emphasis added)
The Globe got one thing right----"substance". There was no substance in any of Clinton's responses during the debate. "Bush's failed policies" was interjected into most every comment Mrs. Clinton made. This nation is looking for COMMITMENT on the issues facing us, not "fence-sitting" to appease both sides of an argument.
Rovin
The Globe got one thing
November 3, 2007 - 15:39 ET by MidAmericaThe Globe got one thing right----"substance". There was no substance in any of Clinton's responses during the debate. "Bush's failed policies" was interjected into most every comment Mrs. Clinton made.
Hillary answers with the same non-answers kerry was so fond of. When ask what he would do different than President Bush he would answer with something like-"we're going to do it smarter". And the press would let that stand as a real answer to the question.
Big boys picking on her
November 3, 2007 - 10:48 ET by celatorAfter a lifetime of presenting herself as a feminist, as a tough, intelligent person who can hold her own, Hillary has now set the feminist movement back 40 years. Her "Wah wah, Mama, the big boys are all picking on me, make them go away!!", explanation for her performance in the debate is shameful. Under the slightest possible pressure, she folded up like a cheap two dollar suitcase. And she wants us to allow her to deal with the toughest dictactors in the world to represent the national interests of the United States? I think not.
Try 100 Years
November 3, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Del DolemonteDon't forget, Hill n' Bill had already set the feminist movement back 60 years in 1998-1999, when the feminists and NOW all gave Bill a pass for engaging in an expoitation-style sexual relationship with a woman young enough to be his daughter, who could also be considered his workplace subordinate.
Had a Republican President done the exact same thing, they would have taken him out behind the barn and shot him.
-
November 3, 2007 - 18:35 ET by dahliatraversthe feminists and NOW all gave Bill a pass
And this time, they're giving Hillary a pass on the nuts-or-sluts attacks she made on the President's inconvenient girlfriends. Attacks she made from her position as First Lady.
A powerful woman slanders weak women to cover for a very powerful man. How can that be acceptable to feminists and NOW?
So, the smartest woman in the world is really a twit?
November 3, 2007 - 11:13 ET by acaiguanaA twit who slept her way into power all the way to the White House one time and now wants us to elect her to the position of leader of the greatest and most powerful country on the planet.
Um...
I'd be more inclined (not really) to actually take this manipulative wench more seriously if she quit running against George Bush (who last time I checked wasn't running for diddly) and started running on some sort of honest platform.
Waiting...
ACA
...
Chat Moderator: Best time 11:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET. PM to schedule your chat. Monday and Thursday Chats will be held.
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
You simply can't trust
November 3, 2007 - 12:06 ET by motherbeltYou simply can't trust someone who wants to take both sides of every issue. Didn't we learn that from her husband?
Just look at her answer to the driver's license question.
Paraphrasing: Do I think it's the best solution? No.But I understand that the governor has to do something.
However, she didn't have any proposal that she thought would be the best solution; because that would require taking a stand.
What really matters in a debate for President
November 3, 2007 - 12:42 ET by c5thenIs not the way they present their ideas or platforms on issues that they have already thought about, but the way they respond to questions about issues or events that they really HAVEN'T thought about or developed a "position" on.
Hillary tends to sidestep these questions until her "assistants" can tell her what her position should be, and then comes out with a well thought out fence stradeling statement a few days later in a puff interview
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
She is going to be her own
November 3, 2007 - 14:49 ET by bigtimerShe is going to be her own worst enemy...
Thank God!
Here is Bill Clinton's
November 3, 2007 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerHere is Bill Clinton's mumbo-jumbo about the release of the papers from the National Archives.
Looks like Hill let him out of the house to do some cover for her lies....so he tells more.
Nothing new here with them..after-all we got a two fer' when they were elected didn't we....
GMTA is right!!
November 3, 2007 - 16:10 ET by motherbeltbt, I am bringing my comment from the Open Thread over here, because it fits...that is really funny we were both posting on the same thing at almost the same time!
So, are you old enough to remember "Tricky Dick" and his tapes?
Here's my comment from the OT: (minus the link, because you have one already):
AP has an article today that says former President Bill Clinton insists he is NOT holding up release of the WH papers the Tim Russert asked about in the debate the other night. He says Russert's question was "breathlessly misleading."
Here's the money quote (emphasis added):
"Unlike previous presidents, I have already released one million pages of documents, about half of which affect Hillary - the records of the health care task force," Clinton said."
Now, anyone who's really, really, old, like me (LOL) will remember Richard Nixon on TV, making a speech next to a table with stacks and stacks of tapes, piled high, to show how much information he was releasing to the Watergate Investigation Committee.
The only problem was, everything was there except the tapes they really wanted.
Why did I just have a flashback to that moment????
Maybe because of this, also in the AP article (emphasis added):
The Republican National Committee said that Clinton's remarks referred not to the records of the health care task force but to records of a separate panel working on the issue, White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group.
Oh yes mb I am old enough
November 3, 2007 - 16:29 ET by bigtimerOh yes mb I am old enough to remember Tricky Dick and his tapes...
You made an excellent point. Anytime either one of those people open their mouths you can count on it being a lie.
Just bobble-head Hillary during the debate proved that...even when she is nodding her head up and down, whether she is being questioned by the moderator or someone else is answering her or just plain commenting on something that has nothing to do with her...
It drives me nuts, it was bad enough watching that constantly for years when she sat/stood behind her partner in crime.
You would think the leftists in the USA would be too...
-
November 3, 2007 - 18:43 ET by dahliatraversYeah, what was the deal with all that nodding? Were we supposed to think she was answering when she really wasn't?
Honest to pete, she must go home exhausted every night, what with all the girning and gesturing she does.
Debating other dems is
November 3, 2007 - 16:09 ET by MidAmericaDebating other dems is just the minor leagues. She better hope she doesn't have to debate either Guilianni or Romney. If she does she'll have to spend a lot of time at Wellesley College with her girlfriends so they can all have a good cry.
The Boston Globe could not
November 3, 2007 - 18:59 ET by stratmanThe Boston Globe could not be more incorrect concerning the intent of having debates. If all that were necessary of candidates was to expound their views and plans when president, then a press release or unchallenged monologue stump speech would suffice.
The reason for debates is to see how the candidate thinks on their feet, responding spontaneoulsy to questions and criticisms. The goal of a debate is twofold:
Communicate views and ideas;
Display the mettle of the individual.
And it is in the debating arena where John Q. Public has maybe the only opportunity to witness the mettle of the individual. Therefore, it is critical to place candidates slightly off kilter with difficult and/or uncomfortable political/policy questions (though not about one's wife's tongue piercing!).
Homophonically speaking, Hillary's metal is being exposed as tin-plated fools gold. For her ineptitude and evasiveness, she deserves no medal from the Boston Globe.
***In the above picture of Clinton and Obama, is Obama thinking "Mama's got back"? Yes she does indeed, Barry.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Long distance runner
November 3, 2007 - 19:13 ET by celatorStratman, well said.
I used to think that this never-ending campaign was merely a clever media ploy for much needed increased advertising revenue. (It probably is, actually)
But I've come to see that testing the mettle (precisely the right phrase) of the candidates in this long distance run is an excellent process.
It's now obvious that Mzz Hillary doesn't have the spine, experience or training for the run, let alone the trophy.
celator: You are
November 3, 2007 - 20:01 ET by stratmancelator:
You are absolutely correct.
When the MSM pushes the Democrat candidates/agenda on American television ad nauseum morning, noon and night, the media is catering to the morning show stay-at-homes, Oprah-loving, tabloid-watching Liberal demographics. Since the Libs have been seething for seven years since Bush was elected (twice), the sycophants eat up most any friendly coverage to "feel" better. There has been a lot of friendly coverage which means more viewers. More viewers equals more advertising dollars.
It has been a two-fer for MSM: more money earned and pushing their chosen agendas. The media is playing to the bleachers and it has been paying off... so far. When the wind stops blowing off the stockyards, and living downwind from a stockyard is like living around bloviating Liberals, the MSM will revert to more Conservative programming for the now desirable demographic.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.