This YouTube is making the rounds:
« Romney At RTCA Dinner | Main | Silver Lining Of Expectations » The Obamaverse v. George Stephanopoulos17 Apr 2008 12:54 pm Comments (37)
A much better video would just be clips from last night's debate... 
I'm ... only a reluctant Obama supporter, but am on record below as condemning the moderators in ... rather strong terms. But that isn't just lame, it's beyond lame. Though Stephanopoulos certainly should be ashamed of himself.
There's no substance to this video, which is too bad, because there is a substantial argument to be made. Stephanopoulos made his name not as a journalist, but as the steward of the Clintons' public image. His conflict of interest in this case was patent, and ABC deserves an ethical roasting for giving it a forum.
I honestly thought George was better than that. Sorry me. Charlie is really out of touch. Most Americans aren't worried about capital gains tax. How about paying for gas and stopping the loss of jobs. Oh I don't know, what are we going to do about how China owns us. What a pathetic display. As for Clinton, looked more like she was gunning for a veep spot with McCain with her attacks straight from the GOP playbook.
Though I'd be curious to know what Ambiner means by "making the rounds." I can't imagine that it's "making the rounds" among Obama supporters. More likely it's making the rounds among the hackocracy, "journalists" like Ambinder who think that unfair subtanceless "gotcha" questions are just great, unless its their boy McCain on the receiving end.
I agree with LarryM. If you want video from Obama supporters, the JedReport.com is the place to go. And for some reason, although Andrew Sullivan has posted his videos in the past, Armbinder will not. Go figure.
Obama fans are enraged today. Blame Stephanopoulos, blame Gibson, blame ABC, blame Clinton...blame anyone you want, but the reality is that Obama has serious flaws and an equally serious inability to respond effectively when confronted with them. Like it or not, people judge you by the company you keep. If you doubt me think about the heat the Clinton's took for Jim McDougal and others. Obama's ties to Wright, Rezko and Ayers present a similar challenge, but he seems even less able than the Clintons to respond effectively. And you canKt blame anyone but Barack for that (or for his decisions to associate with them in the first place).
why can't Hillary knockout Obama? Why can't she get more superdelegates?
Talk about emails and video going around to include Talk show hosts:
Talk about emails and video going around to include Talk show hosts:
Talk about emails and video going around to include Talk show hosts:
Talk about emails and video going around to include Talk show hosts:
Talk about emails and video going around to include Talk show hosts:
I'd like any explanation of why the question of William Ayers was raised against Obama, who merely served on a board with the man, and nothing was mentioned about how Bill Clinton pardoned two members of the Weather Underground. Ayers was never convicted of anything and, as pointed out in many places, Obama was 8 freakin' years old when he was a member. The two people Clinton pardoned were convicted. From the NY Times article in 2001: Ms. Rosenberg served 16 years in jail after she was found with a companion in New Jersey in 1984 unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons, including a submachine gun, from a car. She admitted her role in the New Jersey case, in which she had planned to supply others with explosives for politically motivated bombings. But hey, there's not double standard at ABC.
Obama's ties to Wright, Rezko and Ayers present a similar challenge, but he seems even less able than the Clintons to respond effectively.-NJH Right, which helps explain why he's up on her about 10pts in Gallup. He really can't deal with any landmines effectively. The guy has no talent whatsoever. He's pretty much just gotten all of his votes so far because he's an uppity negro and people like uppity negros, especially those with Semitic names. Now, excuse me while I extricate myself from teh STUPID.
I won't comment on the video. But it is worth asking why George S. was allowed to be a moderator for the debate. And it is worth asking why given the appearance of a conflict of interest, he nonetheless carried serious water for the Clinton campaign by raising the Ayers "issue". A while back I heard Carl Bernstein mention that that the Clinton camp thought there was serious dirt on Obama that the press was insufficiently concerned with. I'm guessing it's the Ayers thing. Ben Smith tried to sell this as a story a while back but it flopped. And now George S. just happens to be seen in public "getting the idea" for the Ayers question from Hannity, but then when he delivers it, Clinton is armed and ready to go with the follow-up. Granted, it's unlikely that George S. was actively collaborating with Clinton -- but the sheer fact of their connection gives an appearance which has a bad odor. Indeed, when I heard George S. was going to moderate, I naively assumed he'd bend over backwards the other way precisely to maintain whatever reputation he might have as an "objective" journalist. Color me surprised that it went the other way.
I'm sorry, I hate to stoop to the level of Obama supporters, but: Wah wah wah wah wah!
The ABC moderators’ questions were embarrassing and shallow, just as many of the Times’ caucus articles are embarrassing and shallow: pandering to the gossipy, the obvious, and the trivial, rather than informing the public or investigating genuinely important issues or policies. The media are desperate for attention and advertising dollars and no longer follow strict journalistic, philosophical, or political standards.
The old media is getting plenty of well deserved heat today from a growing sophisticated online activist coalition. Last night's debate represented the last gasp's of a very powerful but dying political machine and the once powerful and dying network news. We are witnessing the end of an era!
LFC:
Kay, you're good at that. But then again, I suppose your campaign has had 3 months of practice crying and whining about everything. Hillary has 5 days left; time to whip out some tears!
ABC! Run away! Run away! A 'growing sophisticated online activist coalition' is after you. Why not just admit the obvious? That all's fair in love, war, and politics? Obama did poorly - there's no shame in admitting that. His 'politics as usual' theme failed miserably as a counter-attack. We now know this won't work in the general. That doesn't mean you can't still support Obama because you think he has better policy proposals. It does mean that he'd better develop a better defense than, "This is just politics as usual." Please stop this unseemly whining. I'm feeling sorry for Obama supporters. I am beginning to think that they are elitist snobs who think they know what's best for all of us - including telling me what is acceptable political discourse. Before last night's debate I thought this was BS, coming from Hillary and Hannity as it was. With the reactions I see today from his supporters, I am convinced that Hill and Hannity had it right.
Obamadummies: Stephanopolous has been on the outs with the Clintons ever since he wrote a tell-all book after leaving the administration.
Guess who also worked for ABC News? None other than Marc Ambinder. In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle: Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Check out the article “Barack’s “Underground” Friends” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=291
The video is pretty lame, as is George Stephanopolous. As is Charlie Gibson. I am convinced that Hill and Hannity had it right. Yep, Hill and Hannity. They are teammates now.
The only thing that would have made last night's debate better would have been if they could have swapped out Charlie Gibson for James Carville.
Calling anything on Michael Savage's site 'brilliant' is the best laugh I've heard all day. Thanks. I'd also like to know exactly when Hillary was hit with the equivalent of "do you think your pastor loves America?" Hillary's had sexism and bullshit thrown at her, to be sure, but that Wright question was breathtaking in its batshittery.
"I'd also like to know exactly when Hillary was hit with the equivalent of "do you think your pastor loves America?"
Um, Rusty? "Obamadummies: Stephanopolous has been on the outs with the Clintons ever since he wrote a tell-all book after leaving the administration." Most of us "Obamadummies" know there's no love lost between the Clintons and George after he wrote his book. Stop fighting straw men. The question is whether the moderators' questions were even-handed, well-informed, or even worth our time. And there, the answer is clearly, "no".
There is a flaw in the notion Hillary Clinton's background has been vetted more thoroughly than Barack Obama. She has not been fully vetted In Public During Her PRESIDENTIAL Run. As in - 'we wrote about her, but it was years ago.' What is known of her exists when she was first lady, or running for Senate. She is open to a different scrutiny now, as well as open, sunshine coverage of her past at this time. The press is not speaking about what she has done now - it's simply referring all of us to google her and see if we find something. I was surprised to hear she advised Bill to 'screw 'em' about white southern males who did not support her. Yet we hear about Obama's comments and deeds. I see a list of Obama did this, Obama did that. Yet many of the others taking ABC to task are pointing the Clinton ommissions out. What's wrong with ABC. Ratings? If that's the case, when Obama gets in, we need to openly discuss how to challenge and remove the license for ABC to operate a broadcast outlet in the United States of America. Because the company's motives do not serve the public.
10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked:
At long last it has begun to dawn on the left that it's ludicrous to pass off former political operatives as objective journalists. It only took you what, twenty years? (Russert, Matthews) Give us on the right some credit! Conservatives were opposed to ABC passing off Stephanopoulos as an objective journalist before it was cool. We were also Clinton-haters before hating the Clintons was cool. We told you that the Clintons were manipulative liars and cheap-shot artists who only cared about themselves, but you didn't listen. You should have listened to us back then; it would have saved you all this angst. There wouldn't be any Hillary to get in the Obamessiah's way. Oh well. Maybe you'll listen to us next time. Here's a preview: Obama's a arrogant empty suit who gives boring speeches. You'll find yourself speaking those words in a few years. Remember where you heard them first!
If any salacious rumor or accusation is fair grounds in a debate, then why not ask Hillary these questions: 1)Has Bill had any affairs since leaving the White House? 2) Are you a closet lesbian? 3) What really happened to Vince Foster? 4) and of course, ask her about all of the real scandals that are part of the Clintons, such as pardongate, travelgate, Whitewater, cattle futures trading, etc. I mean, to Steph, all of that matters, esp. if it matters to Sean Hannity. And Since Hannity has raised all of these issues, then Steph has to as well.
Stephanopoulos became popular due to Bill Clinton. His conflict of interest in this case was patent. His questioning was very biased and not relevant. ABC should not have chosen him as one of the moderator. If any question is relevant, why not ask Hillary the following questions?
If the vast majority of negroes vote their race, then by their actions, it's okay for me to vote my race. I live in Johnstown, PA, and I will be voting for Hillary. Seems the only bitter people are the L.Ron Obama supporters who find questioning their messiah "offensive." Obama = Scientology-like behaviors.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm an Obama supporter, and even I have to admit that's pretty lame.
Stephanopoulos did a lousy job last night, it's true. But what made it such a surprise and a shame is that he's often one of the better questioners on the Sunday shows.
Posted by TL | April 17, 2008 1:01 PM