If you watched the debate the other night, you might have noticed what a farce it was...
It was unreal how ABC's agenda to keep the horse race going for ratings was barely hidden. The first 40 minutes were all about the nitpicky scandals and campaign accusation bullshit that is ruining politics today.. an argument can be made that we need to address the honesty issues of the candidates..but in Obamas case most of these issues are not about him but about tenous associations and advocates. Obama is largely a victim of guilt by association. In Clinton's case it was lying about Bosnia sniper fire, but her associations with questionable people and practices have solid paper and money trails..but they never asked her about them.
Rev. Wright was correct in his assertions..but even if he wasn't, it is hardly Obamas fault. And Obama was statistically correct in his "elitist" statements about the frustrated working class..but for Clinton or Charles Gibson to accsuse people of elitism...shit, it amounts to Bill Gates accusing people of being wealthy! His tenuous association with a man who was a member of the Weather Underground 40 years ago came up, but the moderators didn't ask Hilary about the Clinton administrations pardon of two members of the same group in 1999..Obama brought it up, but it never became a broader issue of discussion.
Anyhow, most of the first hour was an attack on Obama by George Stephanopolous..a guy who worked for the Clintons back in the day with gentler attacks on Clinton to make it seem fair...in any case, our kids are getting blowed up in Iraq and they ask dumb questions of these candidates..what's next? Asking what their favorite foods are?
It was unreal how ABC's agenda to keep the horse race going for ratings was barely hidden. The first 40 minutes were all about the nitpicky scandals and campaign accusation bullshit that is ruining politics today.. an argument can be made that we need to address the honesty issues of the candidates..but in Obamas case most of these issues are not about him but about tenous associations and advocates. Obama is largely a victim of guilt by association. In Clinton's case it was lying about Bosnia sniper fire, but her associations with questionable people and practices have solid paper and money trails..but they never asked her about them.
Rev. Wright was correct in his assertions..but even if he wasn't, it is hardly Obamas fault. And Obama was statistically correct in his "elitist" statements about the frustrated working class..but for Clinton or Charles Gibson to accsuse people of elitism...shit, it amounts to Bill Gates accusing people of being wealthy! His tenuous association with a man who was a member of the Weather Underground 40 years ago came up, but the moderators didn't ask Hilary about the Clinton administrations pardon of two members of the same group in 1999..Obama brought it up, but it never became a broader issue of discussion.
Anyhow, most of the first hour was an attack on Obama by George Stephanopolous..a guy who worked for the Clintons back in the day with gentler attacks on Clinton to make it seem fair...in any case, our kids are getting blowed up in Iraq and they ask dumb questions of these candidates..what's next? Asking what their favorite foods are?
posted by:
|
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Fri, April 18, 2008 - 9:49 AM<what's next? Asking what their favorite foods are?>
they didn't ask that? obama better say "bacon double cheeseburger." woe to him if he doesn't eat pork...
i'm still quite irritated by that SIMPLY STUPID question about why obama doesn't wear a flag. not questioning his patriotism, btw--the questioner made a point of saying this, although the flag is a clear SYMBOL for patriotism.
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Fri, April 18, 2008 - 12:23 PM
I agree with some of it
look at the bright side
Hillary acknowledged Barack's electability
"Yes...Yes.....Yes"
so its like a victory of sorts for Obama
there is a poll showing that a majority of Democrats believe that Obama is more likely to defend McCain than Hillary -
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Fri, April 18, 2008 - 12:29 PMFor what it's worth, a petition from MoveOn.org.
"Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions--ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."
pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/ -
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Fri, April 18, 2008 - 2:36 PMthanks for the link.
when i listened to this "debate" on the radio ( west coast did not get the live tv broadcast ) i kept thinking, "this sounds like Fox news"....toward the end i remebered that i was listening to the broadcast on kabc/ los angeles which carries hannity, o'reilly, mark levin and other right-wing talkers! my stomach turned...i don't normally listen to this station although o'reilly is an entertaining in his ridiculousness.
-
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Fri, April 18, 2008 - 11:27 PMObama came out looking ultimately better because he at least had more opportunity to show himself under fire.
And of course, Clinton's little slip didn't hurt either: "I said some things I KNEW not to be true".
-
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Sat, April 19, 2008 - 2:05 AMThe thing is - they nailed her on an actual lie (Bosnia) while they tried to nail Obama on issues they manufactured. The manufactured issues didn't stick to him.
Big difference, and that's why Obama came out looking better.
-
-
Re: Shame on ABC
Sat, April 19, 2008 - 4:00 AMman......I feel stupid
I said:
"there is a poll showing that a majority of Democrats believe that Obama is more likely to defend McCain than Hillary"
I meant to say
"There is a poll showing that a majority of Democrats believe that Obama is more likely to defeat McCain than Hillary."
sorry...excuse my Dyslexia....I feel like George Bush.....sheesh
-
