Democratic Candidates Play Nice in Nevada Debate

By Joel Wendland

NBC's Brian Williams led off the Nevada debate with a question about how the campaign for the Democratic nomination got to the point where race and gender came to the foreground in sharp attacks between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton opened by speaking nicely about Obama and regretting the overzealousness of her campaign staff. "What is most important is that neither race nor gender should be part of this campaign," she said.

"We are family in the Democratic Party. We are so different from the Republicans on these issues," she added.

In his response, Obama asserted that there are so many more serious problems to deal with than bickering between the campaigns. "I know John and Hillary have always ben committed to equality," he stated. Obama, too, blamed an overzealous staff and said, "We want to make sure we focus on the issues."

Obama added that he didn't really believe in the Bradley effect. He expressed confidence in voters who will judge him on his record and ability, his vision, and plans not his skin color. He expressed confidence that voters would judge him on whether he succeeds in creating jobs with good wages, ending the foreclosure crisis, promoting retirement security, and so on.

Referring to a comment Clinton made last week in which she downplayed Dr. Martin Luther King's role in promoting civil rights laws in favor of the role of President Johnson in signing those laws, Obama did add, "change is going to happen because the American people determine it's going to happen. That's where I draw on Dr. King's legacy."

In my view, Obama succeeded in pointing out an important philosophical and ethical distinction between himself and Sen. Clinton. Here he insisted on the role of the people in bringing about change and being part of a broad movement to do so, whereas Clinton seemed to be insisting on a "Great Woman" version of history in which she is the main agent of change.

Obama expressed regret that in the last debate he appeared to suggest that Hillary isn't likable, insisting that she is "plenty likable."

For her part, Clinton expressed regret that her campaign had accused Obama of "raising false hopes" and said, "When we have a Democratic nominee we'll have a totally unified party."

Citing his southern upbringing during the Jim Crow era, Edwards said, "I feel an enormous personal responsibility to move forward" on issues of race and gender. He cited the historic candidacies of Obama and Clinton as a good thing, "It says good things about America."

A more substantive discussion of race and racism in US politics will have to wait for another day.

NBC Blows It in Kucinich Debate Fiasco [Updated]

***Update: MSNBC just reported (8:12 pm) that the Nevada Supreme Court ruled to vacate the injunction against airing a debate without Kucinich. Another blow to democracy.***

****Update #2: MSNBC personality and failing talk show host Tucker Carlson characterized the issue as one of "judges deciding who gets to be on TV" and the company is calling it a First Amendment issue. In other words, NBC has the First Amendment right to decide the political discourse in this country. Their speech is protected from our right to know where the candidates stand. Another blow to the Constitution.****


--Sending a signal to the American people that it has the right to select the presidential candidates presented to them, NBC today appealed a court decision that would have barred tonight's Democratic presidential debate if the media corporation excluded Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

In early January, according to the New York Times, Kucinich met the conditions the media giant set for being included in tonight's debate to be aired on its cable network MSNBC [and locally on KVBC in LAS Vegas on air [updated info: 11:20 pm]. After the results in Iowa and New Hampshire caused Richardson, Dodd, and Biden to exit the race, however, NBC arbitrarily altered its criteria and announced its intention to exclude the Ohio representative.

Kucinich sued. And he won, arguing that not only was NBC in effect endorsing three candidates by doing so, they were in breach of their contract by arbitrarily changing their criteria.

For its part, NBC argued, according to the Times, that it has every right to arbitrarily set criteria for who is included in debates, implying of course that it has a right to tell voters who they should vote for and what issues should be discussed.

Nevada District Court Judge Charles Thompson sided with Kucinich and issued an order against airing the debate unless Kucinich is included.

NBC's smarmy political director Chuck Todd is quoted as saying the decision to arbitrarily exclude Rep. Kucinich was “a good faith editorial choice of a privately-owned cable network to limit debate participants based on the status of their campaigns.”

In other words, Todd is admitting that NBC's business practices and editorial choices are related to General Electric's ownership of the company he works for? What other interpretation of these remarks could there be? NBC wanted to exclude Kucinich because in their editorial judgment Kucinich is "bad TV." And TV is all about the dollars, right, not debate, discussion, issues?

If Todd isn't fibbing when he further claimed that the decision to exclude Kucinich, and, presumably, the subsequent legal battle to have the court's injunction against the exclusion overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court, was not intended to reflect the corporation's political bias, then it was a business decision.

NBC may be privately owned, but it doesn't own the airwaves, and it doesn't own the political process in this country. NBC has no right, private multinational corporation or not, to decide who will stand on a stage and discuss the issues facing working families.

Todd's statement and NBC's actions reflect the sort of media elitism that disgusts most Americans.