 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Worst Debate in History?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:35 AM As I recall, Jim, your prediction was that it would be Hillary vs Romney, and Romney would win. That tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take anything you say. But thanks for sharing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Bobert Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:07 AM Well, one thing is painfully obviuos and that is that we have caught up with the UK in our ***tablid*** mentality... Speaks more of our educational, or lack there of, system... ABCDummed down.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jim Lad Date: 19 Apr 08 - 01:22 AM Rezko |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:18 PM Rig-- How will Obama do with the "broder public"? Obama, as the Democratic nominee, will smash McCain. 1) All his current supporters will not only vote for him, but many will do the essential work in the trenches to actually get out the vote. The new voters include huge numbers of young people and a higher turnout of black voters than ever. 2) He will get all the votes of every US voter---Democratic, Republican, or independent, for whom ending the Iraq war is the #1 job. 3) As the Democratic nominee, he will get the votes of all voters who feel the #1 issue is preventing a Republican from getting the chance to name any more Supreme Court justices. This means that Hillary's strongest supporters--for whom protecting Roe v Wade is paramount-- will vote for him. Especially since Hillary herself, trying to protect her options for the future, will campaign--hard--for him. 4) He will get the votes of anybody who feels that overhauling the health care system is vital--not just tinkering with "market-based solutions", which is all McCain's base will allow him. And I know this is true about McCain's limitations--remember, I read the WSJ. 5) He will get large numbers of Hispanics--since he can push--hard--the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--which, again, McCain's base will not allow. 6) The economy is likely to be still shaky in the fall--and, yet again, McCain's base will not allow any response other than "market-based" approaches. Which will be obviously a band-aid for a gaping wound. 7) Most importantly, all Obama has to do is portray McCain as Bush's 3rd term--and McCain has no chance. The disgust with Bush--among independents--and some Republicans is that deep. The only question still remaining is whether, as the Democratic nominee, he will get YOUR support. Yes or no?--it's time to fish or cut bait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:01 PM A spirited debate of this subject. >> From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM "...Obama will win." Yes, it looks like he's got the nomination pretty well sown up. But what will happen when he has to appeal to the broder public? << He will win by a wider margin that the margin over Hillary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:57 PM Jim-- Glad to hear that Obama's time in the White House will make Nixon's corruption mild by comparison. Based on your track record so far, that's wonderful news--since you're the perfect negative indicator. Please, tell us more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM "...Obama will win." Yes, it looks like he's got the nomination pretty well sown up. But what will happen when he has to appeal to the broder public? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM I agree about needing to go back to League of Women Voters sponsored debates. Poppagator, glad you liked the link. Here's a few more op/ed from other press: The politics of pile-on is going on over at ABC as everybody from Obama-friendly MoveOn to a wide array of TV critics are ripping Wednesday's co-moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for offering "shoddy, despicable performances" in the words of the Washington Post's Tom Shales. The Philly Daily News called it "a train wreck," and Andrew Sullivan, blogging for The Atlantic, called it "one of the worst media performances I can remember - petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about." Greg Mitchell in Editor and Publisher called it "the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." And so on. More to be read HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: CarolC Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM Let me just second the vote for going back to the League of Women Voters debates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:18 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:33 PM I agree McGrath. Jim Lad. Duck and cover, because Obama will win. He will win because he is by far the best politician of the three. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM We could always go back to the era when there were NO debates. You are still in it. These aren't debates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:32 PM And actually, Jim Lad--the Mudcat Mafia pulled the same crap when Kerry was the nominee in 2004. Attack doggin' is just their style. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:31 PM For all the Bush years, everyone here has whined on endlessly about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But when the shoe is on the other foot--especially their boy's extremely golden foot? Like to the tune of raising more money than any candidate in the history of the planet earth? Not so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jim Lad Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM I have never taken any pleasure in watching decent people get conned. Never! However when a group such as this one, spends endless months driving away almost all who oppose them, the temptation to make an exception is almost irresistible. The system has been corrupt from day one and the Democratic party so intent on having a weak candidate represent them that they are even willing to ignore millions of their own voters. And you all support this! Mr. Obama will not take the White House. If he does, Nixon's time in office will look like an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" compared to Obamagate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:07 PM There have been over 20 debates now, Jack. Do you think just maybe you may not be keeping them all straight? We could always go back to the era when there were NO debates. Would that make you happy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:26 PM Excellent Post Pappagator! Excellent! In fact when MSNBC hosted the debate they did indeed use NBC staffers Russert and Williams to host. Matthews and Olbermann did commentary. To my mind there is a huge gulf between Olbermann and Fixed News (Faux News) Olberman jokes and comments. But he tells the truth. I agree that Gibson and Hillary's poodle tried to be tough on both but as per the number of idiotic questions they asked, they were four times tougher on Obama. But that is to be expected. Hillary is the front runner. Hillary piled on four times. Obama took the tiny piece of high ground he was offered. Hillary cackled. But that was understandable. She is way behind. She was desperate. She realized that she didn't have the luxury of looking Presidential in a forum which is suppose to be an audition for President! I think Stephanpoulous must be looking to switch careers. I wouldn't bet on his surviving on ABC once Obama is elected. But then Obama will be on the Daily show Monday. He was on Colbert last night. Maybe Obama will appear on George's Sunday morning comedy show? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM No, this was not the worst debate in history. Not even close. Already the pundits are playing smackdown with each other for whining about tough questions at debates (as well they should). As for Olbermann being too partisan for NBC to put him on the debate moderation team? Think again. MSNBC's first ever Olbermann-moderated debate (Aug 7, 2007) averaged less than one million viewers, and was the lowest rated debate of the 2007 political season. NBC has also put Hardball's Chris Matthews on the debate beat. It is ridiculous. Why can't we go back to League of Women Voters debates? Those actually meant something to voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:07 PM With regard to the video about Obama's remarks in Raleigh, North Carolina whose link I posted in this thread at 17 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM ,a number of hot* YouTube videos have been produced which combine rapper Jay-Z's song "Bush Your Shoulders Off" with Obama's remarks and his demonstration of this gesture. My favorite is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZJex9Ge2-Q * "hot" here means the YouTube videos have a lot of viewers, favorite ratings, and comments in a small amount of time. For comments about the background and meaning of that gesture, check out this post in the "Yes We Can And Other Videos" thread: thread.cfm?threadid=108722&messages=28#2319632 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: PoppaGator Date: 18 Apr 08 - 05:26 PM I don't think the outrage over ABC's conduct of the debate has anything to do with being "unfair" or "too tough" on Obama. I think it was a severe disservice to BOTH candidates, as well as to the Pennsylvania electorate and the nationwide audience. After all, they were equally as insistent about beating the dead horse of Hillary's "Bosnia snipers" gaffe as any of Obama's similarly superficial misstatements. That flag-pin bullshit was, of course, the absolute lowest point of the whole exercise, and was directed at Obama. But then, we all know whose dynasty made Georgie S's career. When I signed the MoveOn petition* the other day, I added a paragraph of my own to the canned text saying that, while I may have some reservations about all the network news departments, I was especially disappointed by this performance by ABC, and that I felt certain that both CBS and NBC would have done a more professional job. NBC's Keith Olbermann is indeed blatantly partisan, and makes no attempt to pretend otherwise. I really enjoy him, and have done so since the days when he was an ESPN sportscaster. He is undeniably very witty, and I think that even folks who disagree with his positions can appreciate that. But I certainly respect the opinion of those who can't stand him; they have understandable reason to see Keith as the mirror image of those Fox News and tall-radio right-wing-nuts. I don't agree with them or think they're right, but tht's a matter of opinion; I understand where they're coming from. But ~ this is important ~ I'm sure that NBC would never assign Olbermann to work one of these debates. They'd send the consummately professional Tim Russert for sure, and probably Brian Williams or some other respectable and intelligent corresponent along with him. CBS has their own roster of actual journalists, too, who they could be expected to trot out for a debate. ABC sent a feelgood morning-talk-show host and a former Clinton aide, apparently issuing them a mandate to avoid serious discussion and try to instigate some mutual mudslinging between the principals. *Thanks to Kat for posting the link to that petition here. I considered doing so but never followed through. To those of you who don't agree, don't sign! (As I'm sure you haven't.) Posting the link here was nothing more than providing information to those who might want it, a category into which quite a few folks hereabouts fit quite nicely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks Date: 18 Apr 08 - 05:10 PM The purpose of television debates, like all television programing, is to sell deodorants, allergy medication, feminine hygiene products and toothpaste. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously confused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM Is that breeze I feel coming from Geo. Stephanopolous shaking in his boots from those insults? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:49 PM Mr. Stephanopoulos may you enjoy a comeback the likes of Dennis Miller after he decided to kiss neocon ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:48 PM Mr. Stephanopoulos, You have joined the ranks of Heraldo Rivera and Oliver North. You had a chance to do something ethical with your elevated position of having access to power, and you failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM Chuck Todd is as bad as the rest of them. But to be fair, its his job to comment on the Horse race. So I guess its his bosses fault. ABC didn't have to make the debate about this distracting trivia. We need to be selecting a President. If they are similar on the position then the debate should be about who can explain their position better. Its the Issues!! Thanks for the Colbert Video Azizi! excellent! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 03:51 PM I signed it Kat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM Well it made me laugh, McGrath. MoveOn.org is putting together an ad they will run on ABC's own website about how poorly the debate was run AND they have over 200,000 signatures on their petition to be send to ABC. They are going for 500,000. Please go sign their petition if you've a mind to: see my link at 1231am |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:18 PM Why should anyone hope that "the media won't look like idiots"? (Apart from the people with executive responsibility in the relevant media perhaps.) Don't most people just love it when the all-knowing pundits get egg on their face? .......................... "travesty of a mockery of a sham " Can't agree, kat. It's surely just a way of emphasising the point by using a run of linked (near) synomyms. A figure of speech - I'm sure there's an impressive academic term for it. It could have been "a travesty, a mockery and a sham", which wouldn't have strained the syntax, but I think linking with an "of" instead of "an" somehow seems (for me) to improve the rhythm, and doesn't confuse the sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Date: 18 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM "In an open letter to ABC, journalists and media analysts condemn the network's poor handling of the April 16 Democratic presidential debate". -snip- Here's an excerpt of that letter: "For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage... In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/open_letter Journalists Slam ABC Debate Tactics April 18, 2008 -snip- The journalists signing this online letter were affiliated with one of 20 different media and/or universities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Apr 08 - 01:55 PM Hopefully Obama's the bottom will drop out of Obama's poll numbers now, so the media won't look like idiots after the primary, like they did in New Hampshire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Alice Date: 18 Apr 08 - 12:01 PM I went to the ABC news web site and responded to their feedback link at the bottom of the home page. I asked if they were part of Fox News now. Also told them the debate looked like real journalism is dead at their network. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:53 AM The outrage continues to swirl around ABC News and its travesty of a mockery of a sham of a presidential debate here in Philadelphia last night. travesty- any grotesque or debased likeness or imitation mockery - a derisive, imitative action or speech sham - something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax What the hell is an imitation of an imitation of a fraud? That is one of the most poorly constructed descriptions I have ever read! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM The new ABC formula is to take the swift boat talking points of Bill OReilly and Hannity and grill the candidates on their involvment. Just what was yout involvment with Vincent Foster's death Mr. Hussein Obama??? hmmmm? On 9-11 your good friend Ayers said he wished he had bombed more, with riends like that, do you need more enemies Mr. Obama? ABC you are sick and you will choke on the socialist bail our of corporate greed and financial high crimes and misdemeanors. You have not served the nation, its people or the constitution of the United States of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM Point of curiosity. Is "GUEST,Fantasma" the poster who used to be GUEST, guest" until a usurper came along and started using the same label? .............................. "Yes, but far more voters are refusing to support a candidate who happens to be a woman." But how many of those are in fact just refusing to support a particular candidate who happens to be a women? Just as Clinton supporters are refusing to support a particular candidate who happens to be a man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:51 AM "So, the New York Times is basically stating that many voters are finding odd or vague reasons not to support a candidate who president who happens to be black. And without any thought to the subtext, ABC News plucked one of those reasons and brought it to the center stage of democracy." Yes, but far more voters are refusing to support a candidate who happens to be a woman. And??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:43 AM Well, you better get used to the heat, because Obama is now the front runner, and the gloves are off. That's the way the game is played, and Obama claiming to be above "politics as usual" won't change that one iota. Here is what I can't figure out. Why are Democrats and their surrogates so fucking gullible and intentionally ignorant? Why do they keep pretending that the system and the process isn't corrupt? You see, that is the disconnect I have. As was pointed out in the Washington Post this morning by political pundit Howard Kurtz: "It is hardly unusual for debate moderators to draw partisan criticism, as NBC's Tim Russert did in October, when liberal commentators accused him of harassing Clinton over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues. But it is rare for ostensibly neutral media writers and television columnists to pile on with such fervor... Much of the reaction broke along ideological lines. From the right, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that ABC's performance was "excellent," adding: "The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities." The liberal advocacy arm of MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Obama, said it will run an ad against ABC if 100,000 people sign a petition accusing the moderators of abusing "the public trust" by asking "trivial questions . . . that only political insiders care about." But the sentiments I agreed most closely with in the article about the "debate about the debate" actually came from ABC. Howard Kurtz quotes Jake Tapper: "They were tougher on Obama, yes. He's the front-runner. By any empirical standard, many members of the media don't seem to want to ask Senator Obama tough questions, and Senator Obama doesn't seem to want to answer them. This is the 21st debate. It is the only one where people have complained that the moderators were tougher on Barack Obama than on Hillary Clinton or any other candidate. How on Earth is that possible?" Indeed. The article goes on to mention that NBC's Olbermann, the liberal Sean Hannity IMO, led the charge against ABC (what a surprise). Now, I have a very close friend who is obsessed with electoral presidential politics, and has been since we were in college. She LOVES Olbermann. I find him to be offensive in the very same way I find Hannity, O'Reilly, et al to be offensive. The partisan Dem blogosphere immediately sent it's minions over to the ABC forums after the debate, to flood it with pro-Obama spinners. There was nothing unfair about the debate I watched in it's entirety. If Obama is such a delicate flower he can't handle the hothouse, he needs to get out of the race. Because the scrutiny only intensifies on him from here on out. He did not perform well in the debate. When under tough questioning about the issues of character in the first 40 minutes, he dodged, evaded, and outright lied, and you could tell it in his body language as well as his demeanor. He constantly looked like he was ready to lose his temper, which didn't come off well at all. He also wasn't at all articulate in his answers. The fact that he faltered so badly upon having the character questions asked (ie, the Wright controversy, the comments about PA voters, etc) doesn't bode well for him in the general election, but we'll see. It is clear that his people should have prepped him far better for the character questions. Because nothing will sink a candidate faster than character issues. The fact that he was on such shaky ground in that regard should give people pause, instead of causing them to behave like attack dogs, which is what the rabid Obamamaniacs and their MSM and partisan blogosphere surrogates did before the debate was even finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: M.Ted Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:31 AM It was pointed out, by Chuck Todd, political news director at NBC, that, with so little actual difference between the candidates positions on most issues, the only differences are in matters of personal style, so the debate becomes about personal style. It is taking Obama an inordinate amount of time to get the nomination--and that is not nearly as complicated as getting us out of Iraq, or getting the economy back on track-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:22 AM Why do they call these "debates" anyway? The people on show aren't even allowed to talk directly to each other, let alone discuss or argue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM Here are excerpts from an article some folks here may find interesting: Nash McCabe: The Rest Of The Story- Will Bunch; Philadelphia Daily News April 17, 2008 "The outrage continues to swirl around ABC News and its travesty of a mockery of a sham of a presidential debate here in Philadelphia last night. Meanwhile, this post over on Philadelphia Will Do raised my curiosity over something that seemed a footnote at the time, as I was focusing my fire on the way that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were misconducting the debate. It concerned the videotape question that was posed by the woman at top, Nash McCabe of Latrobe, Pa. Here's what she asked: Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't. As I watched her question, what I wondered -- and I imagine many other viewers wondered as well -- was where on earth did ABC find this representative of my home state. As a journalist, I kind of assumed that ABC sent a film crew to western Pa., and then culled the most provocative questions from the people that they found. Silly me. In fact, ABC News found Nash McCabe the old-fashioned way -- they read about her, and her thing with the American flag, in the New York Times earlier this month... Read the whole story -- it's fascinating and heartbreaking, and will cause you to reflect some more on the "bitter" Pennsylvania controversial. But there's one more thing about Nash McCabe and insertion into our national political dialogue, and that is the most bizarre twist of all. That original New York Times article (by a former Newsday colleague, Paul Vitello), the one that started this whole ball rolling. It wasn't really about flag pins or patriotism. It was about race. Here's the headline over the picture of Nash McCabe: "In Ex-Steel City, Voters Deny Race Plays a Role." Vitello writes that he found little support for Obama in Latrobe, and crux of his article is this: But when dismissing Mr. Obama, voters in this former steel center, whatever their racial feelings, seem almost compelled to list their reasons, if only to pre-empt the unspoken race question... So, the New York Times is basically stating that many voters are finding odd or vague reasons not to support a candidate who president who happens to be black. And without any thought to the subtext, ABC News plucked one of those reasons and brought it to the center stage of democracy. To be extra clear, none of this is a criticism of Nash McCabe -- my heart goes out to her and her husband, and there is no evidence here that her views on Obama and the flag, which I personally think are misguided, are racially motivated. Instead, it is yet another indictment of ABC News, which was eager to act is if there's no racial subtext to this election, other than its question about affirmative action for Obama's "affluent African-American daughters." Obama's been under fire for the last week for suggesting that Rust Belt voters -- facing a swirl of feelings about the economy and "people who don't look like them" -- are wooed by wedge issues". http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Nash_McCabe_The_rest_of_the_story.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:44 AM Azizi, you keep quoting from partisan sources. Your point of view would be more palatable to me if you actually did some of the hard work of finding more objective sources. And really, to all of your Obama supporters--there are so few posters here who aren't voting for Obama, why do you feel the need to keep harping at those who won't, when your candidate has already won? Why not just let it drop? Folkies are nothing if not missionaries for their own opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Date: 18 Apr 08 - 07:43 AM Barack Obama's statement to Stephen Colbert-"Manufactured Distractions need to be put ON NOTICE": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQLnvz66IN8 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 06:19 AM >>From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:41 PM What, you couldn't win your arguments on their merits in the 'Are You Bitter' thread, so you decide to start another one on the same damn subject?<< What you say is just gibberish, meaningless gibberish. I didn't argue at all in the "Bitter" thread. I just agreed with a few people and made a couple of "peanut gallery" quips about you. However on this thread you made one argument on the fourth post which was blown completely out of the water by the fifth. You make this argument in the seventh thread >>I think that could be partly true, except it wasn't George and Charlie who did the research and came up with the questions. Their staff did that.<< Your argument is preemptively blown away by a link in the first post where Olbermann plays an audiotape of Hannity's radio show. Sean Hannity gives a question to "George" and "George" says he is taking notes. Are you saying that "Sean" is on "George's" Staff? HA HA HA HA HA! If you want to start a thread where the rule is to make the most unfounded, silly accusation you can and hope that no one notices because they are skimming your posts, you should do so. I am sure it would be even more amusing there than the times you have done it here. But this thread is a serious discussion of the media, and you have proven that you have nothing of substance to offer. So run along missy and find something else to do. Are you still doing things out in the "real" world trying to save it? That might be a good place to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Apr 08 - 05:55 AM >>it wasn't George and Charlie who did the research and came up with the questions. Their staff did that.<< No it was they who chose the question, they got their questions from a number of sources, including "man on the street" interviews and most disturbingly, Sean Hannity who can honestly be describe as an anti-journalist. If Sean Hannity and a real journalist ever touched, the world would end in a ball of flame. Lucky for us he works at Fox "News" so the world is safe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,John on the Sunset Coast Date: 18 Apr 08 - 12:42 AM Post at 12:41 mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 08 - 12:41 AM Ah, Ronnie, Your comment might have had some credibility with me if you had commented on something I actually wrote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Date: 18 Apr 08 - 12:31 AM Stephanopolpous and Gibson did the worst job I've seen in years. I did post to ABC's live blog, fwiw. For those who would like to tell ABC what they thought of the idiocy: Subject: Enough is enough Hi, If you missed the Democratic presidential debate on ABC Wednesday night, Editor & Publisher called it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously! I just signed a petition to ABC and other media that says: "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." Want to sign it to? We need a bunch of signers for ABC to take this concern seriously. Click to sign |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM Let me try that again- "Needless to say, I believe that the dailykos diary is also interesting reading because of its comments about the ABC "debate" which is the subject of this thread. ** And, I see that I spelled "develop" with an "e" at the end. My bad. Any other mistakes or typos that I made in that post will have to fend for themselves. ** And, since I'm here, I'd like to add this link to a YouTube video clip of Obama's comments about ABC's tabloid debate that was held on April 16, 2008 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4 Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC I posted this link earlier along with my comments and several comments from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956 's article about that "debate" in this Mudcat thread "BS: Are You Bitter???": thread.cfm?threadid=110367&messages=152 As of 11:52 PM that abc.com forum had 19085 comments about that "debate". And most of them are very critical of the moderators & ABC television. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM Janet-- You "don't have an attitude problem"? Perhaps you'd like to start reading your own posts a little more carefully. Your sour attitude towards humanity in general, I would say, sets a new record for Mudcat. Now, admittedly you can't hold a candle to "Martin Gibson" in the vileness category--but that's OK, he was sui generis--please don't feel the need to compete. We love you just the way you are. |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: THE GREAT COMPROMISE (John Prine) From: Azizi Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM Somewhat off-topic: I'd like to to call Mudcat members & guests attention to this dailykos diary & comments: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/17/115745/384/715/497625 Let's Be Absolutely Clear About Last Night's Debate by Melody Townsel Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM PDT ** In the strange {but imo, interesting} manner that Mudcat threads develop in unexpected, convoluted ways, several commentators to that dailykos diary started quoting lyrics to John Prine songs. Among the song lyrics scattered throughout that diary's comments is this one: THE GREAT COMPROMISE John Prine As recorded by John Prine on “Diamonds in the Rough” (1972)
1. I knew a girl who was almost a lady. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:18 PM Sorry, but I don't have an attitude problem. You, however, do have a perception problem. It is called believing everything you think. |
