‘Modern day extinction’?

April 27, 2007

There were a few bizarre questions in last night’s debate, but this exchange stood out.

WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, a question for you. A friend of mine who’s in the leadership of the Democratic party says that if the party goes down a third straight time, what will happen is what he defines as “modern day extinction” of the Democratic party. Putting yourself aside, perhaps, is there a winner on this stage tonight, and does your party have what it takes to reverse this trend and win the White House?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely yes, there’s a winner. Taking myself out, I’m looking at a bunch of winners right here, number.

First, what’s Biden going to say? “No, we’re going to lose, all hope is lost”?

Second, as I recall, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential elections. And the fourth was pretty close. Reverse what “trend”?

The proper answer was, “Whoever we nominate will win the election, because the Republican nominee will have to follow the lead of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s combination of corruption and failure, which will piss off a majority of American voters, or they’ll have to promise to change course, which will piss off their own base. They are forked.”

Now, the big three (or four) can’t say that, because they need to maintain the claim that their opponents can’t win, but anyone else in the field can admit it, because it’s no skin off their back.

  • Proper answer: “Does your friend’s name rhyme with “Joe Leakerman” or “Zell Killer”?”

  • “Reverse what “trend”?”

    This brings to mind again the idea that the media has its narrative, which ends up being pretty much set in stone regardless of how facts on the ground change. The media narrative for the past decade regarding the Democrats is that they’re doomed to failure. Thus, a loss in 2008 would confirm that ‘trend’, regardless of what has happened previously.

    Similarly, I think a lot of the attacks on Harry Reid by the media result from the MSM view that Democrats are supposed to be the meek, subservient minority party. (We’re the sissy liberals – we can’t fight back!) Any time a Democrat actually talks tough or openly, he’s not fitting the ‘script’ and hence must be an embarrassment for the party, in the MSM’s view. In reality, such a Democrat is simply demonstrating how embarrassingly simplistic the MSM view politics.

  • Nice Ohioan. I was going to make a Joltin’ Joe Lieberman joke but you beat me to the punch.

    Other contenders: Pat Caddell, Lanny Davis, Alan Colmes…

  • I think Brian might be confused about a conversation he overheard at his network about the “modern day extinction” of journalism.

    I know it’s been said in plenty of other places, and Brian Williams would know why if he had an ounce of brains and access to a mirror.

  • Just wait.

    Some time next year, Time/Newsweek/USN&WR will have a picture of the Democratic frontrunner next to a picture of Michael Dukakis with the caption “1988 Redux?”

  • Bizarre is right! Given that the Democrats actually gained majorities in both houses of Congress in the last election and that virtually every public opinion poll is on their side, where on earth does this outrageous idea of the “extinction” of the Democratic party come from? I would really like to know just who Williams’ “friend who is in the leadership of the Democratic party” who made such an off the wall statement could be.
    ‘

  • Thanks, LG. Better luck Lieberman-bashing-faster-than-me next time.

    Racerx, you nailed it. For example, what’s with the ‘3 favorite countries’ question to Obama??? I mean WHAT?!!

    And the follow up, ‘Aha! You forgot Israel’…??? Unbelievable. Other than being a giant head on the Daily Show, Brian Williams has nothing to show for.

  • Maybe the trend he was refering to was the Rethuglican’s stealing of the elections by rigging the voting machines?

    (I have my tinfoil hat on today so give me some leeway on that one).

  • Debra wrote: “I would really like to know just who Williams’ “friend who is in the leadership of the Democratic party” who made such an off the wall statement could be.”

    Good question. I glossed over this on the first read-through of the quote. A good response by a candidate would include, “Anyone in the Democratic leadership, if indeed there is such a person, who is irrationally talking about the extinction of the party does not deserve to be in the Democratic leadership.”

  • If anyone can justify keeping the Electoral College around, I’d love to hear (or in this case, read) it.

    If it wasn’t for that outdated and completely useless institution, 9/11 probably would’ve been stopped, we wouldn’t be in Iraq, New Orleans would’ve gotten help sooner, we’d be taking care of global warming, policies could’ve been instituted that helped the average worker, we’d all have health care …

    **sigh**

  • Williams tries to be clever by totally bypassing the standard “some people say” routine by attributing the quote to a “friend.”

    First of all I want him to produce this “friend”

    and secondly what do you think the RW media is going to make of Brian Williams having a friend in DEM leadership….
    I am sure this will be used as “proof” of the liberal media leanings of the MSM and NBC.

  • There were multiple opportunities for the candidates to attack the media and its pernicious effects–including Brian Williams, the guy who IIRC went out of his way to genuflect to “Red America” after the (in fact rather close) 2004 election.

    My personal favorite was in the way he framed the Giuliani question: “How did this perception of ‘Republicans as protectors’ become rooted?”

    Proper answer: “Because of blow-dried fucknuts like you, the people who never actually bothered to question the endless stream of lies and distortions that came from the White House until it was too late. The corporate slime you work for, like Jack Welch who pushed your News bureau to call the 2000 election for Bush before anyone knew what was going on that night, and the rest of your bosses who are more concerned with regulatory decisions and stock valuation than getting at the truth, also ‘helped.'”

    It’s very, very early, but these Democrats are going to have toughen up at some point.

  • Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row from 1980 to 1988. They must have been extinct already.

    Then again, Republicans lost five presidential elections in a row from 1932 to 1948 — so they must not have been around to win the 1980s races, and thus the Democrats must still exist.

    Unless Democrats went extinct a century ago, after losing six presidential elections in a row from 1860 to 1884.

  • Brian Williams lowers the bar for journalism even further. The questions he asked were not those of an intelligent politcal observer, but of a someone trying to produce infotainment. I’m surprised Brian didn’t ask “Who’s hotter Paris or Brittney?” I don’t know if I will ever watch televised news again.

  • Second, as I recall, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential elections. And the fourth was pretty close. Reverse what “trend”?

    Actually, with the news now out of how the Ohio vote in 2004 was controlled on Republican owned and operated servers, the truth is that the Democrat got more votes than the Republican in four of the last four elections.

  • That was the biggest disappointment of the whole “debate”…The Questions. Williams was just ridiculous and extremely condescending in the manner in which he asked the questions yet this has been largely ignored. I resented the candidates being spoken to in that manner. The event should be more realistically referred to as the Democratic Discussion and let the candidates tackle the major subjects one by one and the questions will take care of themselves. The Dems should re-shape the whole platform of the event in the future.

  • Have we mentioned Brian Williams trying to sandbag Obama about Palestine? I thought Obama handled it really well by saying that his quote was being taken out of context and that when you put it in context, it, uhhhh, changes the meaning entirely.

    I wish Obama had asked him “Brian, do you have my full quote there?” and then followed up by saying this is the kind of BS that passes for journalism today.

  • Second, as I recall, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential elections. And the fourth was pretty close. Reverse what “trend”?

    That isn’t to mention that the Democrats surged in 2006 and took back majorities in both Houses, as well as mopped the floor with the GOP on many state-level elections. If we lose the presidential race in 2008 then we need some serious introspection. But the Democrats – who currently are in the majority and enjoy the support of a majority of Americans, and whose policies are far more aligned with Americans’ than the GOP’s – are far from extinct.

    • Comments are closed.