Oh stop whining about ABC


Well, yeah.  ABC was mean to Obama.  They treated him like, dare I say it, the frontrunner.  They treated him like they are going to treat him every day from now until November.  You saw him, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, get the same sort of treatment Clinton has been getting from day one, and your feelings are hurt.  Why?  Because it's not fair?  Hell no.  Not a darned one of you cared a whit about "fair" when the shoe was on the other foot.  No.  You're offended because you thought, for what reason I can not even imagine, that the media would continue to give Obama the same ride they always give McCain.  And under it all, in the backs of your heads, you are finally acknowledging the echos of what Clinton supporters have told you all along - that the media would turn on Obama once Clinton was out of the way, and the free ride would be over.

What do I mean?  Why don't you take the jump and find out.

Did you hate Stephanopolous and ABC last August, when they warmed Obama up and threw HIM, not Clinton the first question about her negative, and premised the whole thing with a Karl Rove quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn now to the second question I raised, the topic question about Senator Clinton. And outgoing White House counsel Karl Rove opined on that this week. He was on Rush Limbaugh. Here's what he had to say.


KARL ROVE: There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She's going into the general election with, depending on what poll you're looking at, in the high forties on the negative side and just below that on the positive side.

And there's nobody who's ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you're loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.


OBAMA: I am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: "Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates"; "Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket."

Are they right to be worried?

Did Clinton at least get the follow up?  Nope, the next question was also to Obama:

But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?

after he answered it, Stephanopolous let Edwards chime in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?

OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.

EDWARDS: Well, let me just say -- I have a slightly different view. Here's what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.

America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that's a loser.

followed by more follow-up, TO EDWARDS:

And you're seeing that Senator Clinton is not?

Clinton was never asked to address the question.  Instead, the next question to her was a shift, based on something Edwards said, and clearly another shot at her:

EDWARDS: Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I've said: Why don't we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we're the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.


I've asked the other candidates to join me in that.


And at least, until now, Senator Clinton's not done it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, will you do it?

and he stayed on the attack:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton...

CLINTON: So I'm looking forward to going up against whoever the Republicans nominate.


STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you're taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you're part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.

and the follow-up?  Senator Edwards, please keep attacking Senator Clinton:

Back to you, Senator. She says the distinction is artificial.

But wait, you might say, the real problem last night was trivial questions.  Newsflash, folks, that is nothing new:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We've got a question -- we've got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah.

And he said, "My question is to understand each candidates' view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?"

I'd like each of you to answer it. Let me start with you, Senator Clinton.

Now look at this exchange, then find a SINGLE DEBATE where any other candidate was asked this sort of follow-up question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused. It was a very difficult decision, and I tried to weigh it as carefully as possible, talking to a lot of different people and being assured, both publicly and privately, by President Bush and the people close to him that they would use the authority to go in and get inspectors and try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction and pursue diplomacy.

So, you know, looking back on it, I wouldn't have voted that way again, certainly, because obviously President Bush had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do. And obviously for me that is a great regret.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you tell the whole truth when discussing it?

CLINTON: Well, as I saw it, yes, you know, similar to John. You know, when the president of the United States says, as he said publicly, and then as people around him said privately over and over again, "We're going to use this authority to get inspectors back in, "We're going to go to the United Nations," you know, at some point, you do have to make that evaluation.

How many people here griped about ABC or Stephanopolous then? Did we start a boycott then?  

It wasn't over, there, by the way.  All the debates until the last one have been huge pile-ons, and the candidates and moderators have been in it together.

In the October 30, 2007, debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams went after Clinton, and invited the other candidates to do it too (and by the way, introduced the first use of the "Rocky" theme to the race by Obama, not Clinton, for those who piled on with the ridicule lately):

You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.

To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues.

WILLIAMS:  And that was, quote, "bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats." That is a strong charge, as you're aware.  Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?

OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-hyped.  In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I'm Rocky in this situation.  


The next question invited Edwards to attack Clinton:

Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is "Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran."What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?

Here is a later question from Russert.  On its face it looks innocuous. Too bad the whole thing is a sham:

Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let's talk

about Iraq.  One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General

Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was

recently quoted saying, quote, "I don't oppose the war.  I have never

heard Senator Clinton say `I oppose the war.'"

Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Why do I say it's a sham?  I'll let Bob Sommersby tell you:

As it turns out, Russert was working extra hard to frame that insinuative question. Kennedy's "recent" statement was made on October 6, and it was instantly disavowed, that same day, by Clinton and her campaign. (Spokesman Blake Zeff, in the October 7 New York Daily News: "Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn't end it, she will, She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.'") But so what? Twenty-four days later, Russert could be found on stage, calling this a "recent" statement and pretending there was something troubling here--something slippery that needed to be resolved.

So what did Kennedy actually say that led to the question?  I'm glad you asked, because it was most definitely NOT what Russert insinuated:

KATZ (10/7/07): A top military supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid says she doesn't "oppose" the Iraq war--and neither does Clinton.

Oh yes, she does, Team Clinton said yesterday, rushing to overrule its own backer.

"I have not ever heard [Clinton] say, 'I oppose the war,' " retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the first woman promoted to three-star Army general, told the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader newspaper as she visited the early-voting state to stump for the New York senator.

"I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal...I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq," Kennedy continued.

"That's a much more sophisticated thing than saying, 'I oppose the war.'"

Kennedy's statements could be seen as a marked break in the tightly scripted campaign helmed by Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but later said the Bush administration had deceived Congress and the public about the conflict.

"Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn't end it, she will," spokesman Blake Zeff said. "She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.'"

And how did Russert and Williams follow it up?  By inviting Obama and Edwards to pile on to his lie:

Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton's answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

Senator Edwards, same question.

After that debacle, a commercial break.  Where did they pick up after the break? Again, on attack against Clinton.  Here was the first post-commercial question:

And we're going to start with another subject at the top of this segment.

Senator Clinton, it will go to you.  It speaks to electability.

Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, said this about you, quote, "I don't know Hillary's experience.  She's never run a city.  She's never run a state.  She's never run a business.  She's never met a payroll.  She's never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less, even hundreds of people.

"So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here," end of quote.

Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?

Then Russert followed it up with another question to Clinton, one he knew was disingenuous, since he knew Clinton could not control release of National Archives documents:

Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Was this a continuous attack on Clinton, and an invitation to all the other candidates to pile on?  Let's look at some more questions to find out.  How about this one?

Senator Biden, you said recently, "While Mrs. Clinton was meeting socially with the prime minister of a country, I was sitting down and negotiating with them.  I know my experience is considerably deeper and more relevant."

Do you stand by that quote, and is your inference that she is less qualified than you to be president?

But wait, it gets worse.  From here Russert switched the debate to Social Security, and premised the entire segment on a lie about Clinton:

Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility.  You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security.  You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no."

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Let's follow Bob Sommersby back to the New Hampshire debate to see if Russert's question had any basis in fact, shall we?

At that gruesome New Hampshire debate, Clinton didn't "say no" to raising the Social Security cap; she said she wouldn't endorse any option until a bipartisan commission was formed. Sorry, but Russert was being baldly disingenuous here (as always). Here's the question His Greatness had asked at that earlier debate:

   RUSSERT (9/26/07): Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people? "I'm going to tax your income. I'm not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you're a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make."

According to Russert's question this past Tuesday night, Clinton "said no" to this proposal. But here's what actually had transpired, though Russert had seemed to forget:

   CLINTON (9/26/07, continuing directly): Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.

   First, I do think that it's important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we've lost 14 years of solvency. It's now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

   Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in '83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.

   And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I'm president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

   And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don't put fiscal responsibility first, you're going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the '90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

   RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97-5 off the table?
    CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

Did Clinton "say no" to raising the cap? What she said was: I'm going to move toward fiscal responsibility, then I'm going to form a commission. At that time, "you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done." Maybe you like that answer and maybe you don't; for our part, we'd prefer to see Democratic candidates explaining that it isn't clear that anything needs to be done about this matter. (Though that may not be winning politics, given the insistence of people like Russert that we're in a crisis.) But she didn't "say no" to raising the cap--unless you want to embellish a bit, so you can imply she's dishonest. And that's what Russert did this night, as he's done to Big Dems in the past.

Clinton said the same thing in response to Russert's new question.  But he could not let the canard go.  He attacked again, and she responded again:

RUSSERT:  But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

CLINTON:  Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it.  I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap.  We're playing on the Republican field.  And I don't intend to do that.

Russert wasn't done:

RUSSERT:  You call it a Republican talking point.  Georgetown University, February 9, 1998:  "We are in a--heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.  If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits," Bill Clinton, 1998.

RUSSERT:  That's recent history.  Only two years to go in his term.  Is that a Republican talking point?

CLINTON:  No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus.  And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in `98, `99, 2000, 2001.

If you look at the debate transcript you will see that Russert's follow was ALWAYS about Clinton - either AT her, or TO other candidates inviting them to attack her.  After letting Obama also answer the SS question, here was his follow up:

But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

We already saw how Clinton was asked a question based upon what Giuiliani said.  Was Obama asked a question premised by another Republican candidate?  Yup.  Let's see if it was a fastball or a floater:

Senator Obama, we're going to transfer into a new area here.  A question specifically for you because you're in a rather unique position.  It's about religion and misinformation.  Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.

Then they went to the second break, and only after that did they start asking questions of Dodd, Kucinich, and others.  What a farce.

So here's my question - should I dig into the Daily Kos archives to see if the people so preoccupied with moaning and wailing about ABC had any of the same gripes on October 30, 2007?  No?  I didn't think so.

Let's go to the

February 26 debate in Cleveland, shall we?  How did that one start?  With two questions aimed directly at Clinton:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your -- (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

and, quoting DRUDGE of all people:

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours -- a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

Later in the same debate Tim Russert went on the attack:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

Do you remember this exchange, before the break?  They gave Obama a long opportunity to talk about invading Iraq, and cut Clinton's response off because they needed to go to a commercial break.  They did it with a promise to return to her on the return:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

So, what was the first question on the return, and who got it?

Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we'll take a look.

Something else funny happened there, too.  When they played Clinton videotape, they asked Obama about it.  When they played Obama videotape, they asked Obama about it.  Ain't that grand?

Russert raised the FRAUDULENT National Archives argument again in this debate:

MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It's now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that -- again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

Look folks, the point is not that you're all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.  The point is that this is how frontrunners get treated, and how Democratic nominees get treated.  If you had the absurd fantasy that it would be different for Obama you were foolish.  All that happened in the last year was that the media had Clinton in the cross-hairs, and Obama was their weapon of choice.  Once she's gone, he's next, and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  That, in a nutshell, is why the BELIEF that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he will lead us to a 50-state promised land, is nothing but a set-up for grotesque failure.

If you think what happened last night wasn't fair, well, I agree with you.  But if you think it was any different from what has been happening for a year, well, you are kidding yourselves.

Tags: ABC, Barack Obama, Debate, George Stephanopolous, Hillary Clinton, Recommended, Tim Russert (all tags)



Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Do you think they'll love me at daily kos?

by dhonig 2008-04-17 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

dhonig, you rock!

by Caldonia 2008-04-17 06:13AM | 0 recs
Pity Party at dhonig's house! BYOB

Is whining about whining ironic?

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-17 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Pity Party at dhonig's house! BYOB

Dhonig's diary is a well researched documentary of media bias. The only folks whining about dhonig's analysis appear to be Obama supporters.

by KnowVox 2008-04-17 08:56AM | 0 recs
If you say so. There's no accounting for taste.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-17 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Pity Party at dhonig's house! BYOB

Actually, dhonig's extensive analysis supports my central point -- that the debate moderators focus on stupid gotcha politics and tabloid scandal, rather than helping voters understand where the candidates stand on the issues.  For the PA debate, they might for instance have asked about coal mining and the environment.  They could have spent 30 minutes each on Iraq, the housing crisis, health care, and the environment (or any number of other worthwhile topics).  

I thought it was ridiculous when Stephanopoulos was tossing bombs last year about Clinton's negatives -- hardly less ridiculous than the questions about the flag pin and whether or not Rev. Wright loves his country as much as Obama does.  

From the perspective of Leftblogistan, I think the Clinton supporters risk complicity in dumbing down our media when they try to reduce this issue to Obama supporters whining about attacks.  This shouldn't be an issue Democrats are divided on.  Wouldn't you like the eventual nominees to engage in the science debate?  We're less likely to see that happen if folks can point to "prominent Democratic blogs" who laugh about those whiny Obama supporters who don't like it when their guy gets some tough questions.

by deminva 2008-04-18 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Views from Leftblogistan

Your premise might be plausible if you applied it universally across the board to ALL candidates, back when Russert was asking questions about UFO's. However, those who have developed "sudden outrage" at the press for asking Obama difficult questions are, in fact, just whining. Your guy performed poorly when he should have knocked these questions that have been floating in the press for months out of the park. No one's to blame for Obama's poor performance but Obama.

by KnowVox 2008-04-18 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Views from Leftblogistan

I know you're correct that some supporters developed "sudden outrage," but my point is that the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters I read here and at Daily Kos have thought the debates and their moderators have been consistently bad.  I also note a difference between "gotcha" questions aimed to exploit perceived or pseudo-contradictory stances on issues and the ridiculous non-issues Gibson and Stephanopoulos raised.  In many eyes, this debate may have been the most dreadful.  To many, however, most have been at least bad.  Who can forget CNN plugging their pre-Iowa debate about "the gloves coming off," then Blitzer going on for most of the first thirty minutes asking stupid questions intended to make the candidates bicker?  Clinton, Obama, and Edwards tried their best not to engage, while Richardson, Dodd, and Biden winced at the stupidity of it all.  It burns now, just as it burned then.

by deminva 2008-04-18 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Views from Leftblogistan

Sorry, but that's not what many observed. The overwhelming majority of Obama supporters here and at Daily Kos CHEERED when Clinton was always asked the first question, ganged up on, and not given time to respond. It's only when the Clinton bashing got so out of hand that SNL made fun of Obama's kid glove treatment. Your johnny-come-lately "outrage" is noted.

by KnowVox 2008-04-18 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Views from Leftblogistan

Thanks for your lazy snark.  You could also do your homework and find comments of mine at DailyKos in which I express disgust at the lousy moderators of debates last fall and winter.  You would also find copies of letters I wrote MSNBC excoriating Chris Matthews for his sexist, misogynistic treatment of Senator Clinton.

by deminva 2008-04-18 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I'm sure Taylor Marsh will send you an e-card.

If Hillary had faced even 1/2 of what Obama faced last night, this site would be afire with calls for Gibson's firing. Saturday Night Live would do a skit in which Hillary is burned as a witch, during which, Hillary herself would appear, free Amy Pohler from the flames, and be carried off like a High School Quarterback after winning the big game.

Obama was, once again, the grown up. We'll 'whine' (I prefer 'whinge') at ABC because they should be beaten upside the head for having a two-hour political forum and wasting it on tripe. Americans are going without health care, jobs, homes, food today -- and the headlines are dealing with the political equivalent of who Brody Jenner is Shtupping.

I'll go further. This debate is the Britney Spears' Vagina-Flash While Leaving a Limo of the political season. No one who even hears about it feels clean afterwards. And if you actually WANTED to see it, you only felt, at best, pitiable afterwards.

All democrats -- and democratic candidates -- should be disgusted. It undermined our entire brand -- and our entire purpose -- of undoing the damage of the last 7 years of Bush and 14 years of GOP contempt for Americans of middle-to-lesser means.

I would hope some unity would follow a travisty like this. But "hope" is a hard thing to muster when standing face-first against a tsunami of elephant crap.

by Lettuce 2008-04-17 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Did you read this diary?

by Trickster 2008-04-17 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I did - it was stupid.  Frontrunners don't get treated like that, unless you want to show me a single debate where McCain or Hillary Clinton faced anything like what happened last night.

No, taking one year of debates and picking out all the questions that were hard on Hillary Clinton and then pasting them together as if the weren't spaced apart by five minutes or an hour or two weeks or a year, as they were, isn't the same thing.

One of the debates sited got Tim Russert a death threat that was delivered during a Clinton campaign conference call.  And that was for like, two policy related questions.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:11AM | 0 recs
Yes they do...

I am sure that whoever gets the nomination will be treated FAR worse by the GOP-leaning MSM. Obama has been treated with kid gloves up till now in the media.

That honeymoon may be ending, get used to it.

by architek 2008-04-17 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes they do...

The "hard question" count ran at 5-1 last night in favor of Obama.  That's basically been the pattern all along - when they pin her down it's always over policy.

She's gotten the mother of all free rides.  We list her post 2000 baggage here all the time; she's never been asked about any of it.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Please, open your mind just a bit.

Before it's possibly too late.  Disclaimer:  I support Hillary Clinton...but please read this.

Paul Lukasiak had a post up at FireDogLake that talks about race and gender and polls, etc.

In the comment section he responds to this quote from an Obama supporter who said this: "I agree that Clinton's negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot."

Lukasiak's response:

"Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Please, open your mind just a bit.

If you think me, as an Edwards supporter, most contemporary observers, the majority of the electorate as measuree in exit polls, and the entire African American voting bloc who fled the Clinton campaign simply imagined that the Clintons were running a southern strategy in preparation for Super Tuesday, then I don't know what to tell you.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:16AM | 0 recs
Do you think if the Clintons - or anyone

else were truly racists, they would applaud LBJ and Jesse Jackson?  If you do, then I don't know what to  tell you.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you think if the Clintons - or anyone

I never said, or thought, that they were racists.  They are politicians.

by Mostly 2008-04-18 07:53AM | 0 recs
Also, to repeat part of my previous


"And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?"

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:20PM | 0 recs

Typical roving Obama gangs on Daily Kos:

Hidden by:Scoopster, kitebro, EntrWriter, Scarce, kestrel9000, istari5th, yg17, discocarp, haruki, leawood

Gee, wonder how many of those guys will be permanently banned at Daily Kos for ratings abuse.

Still waiting.

Did I just hear the sound of crickets?

No, wait.  That was the sound of Markos rewarding all the people who hide-rated that diary with paid, front-page author status.  In fact, I heard he's going to fire Meteor Blades, for being too damned impartial and not Obama-ish enough, and replace him with scoopster or kestrel19000.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:29AM | 0 recs

Okay. Here's an update.

Recommended by: dcdanny, histopresto, ManfromMiddletown, dvogel001, BPK, Zain, resa, Bill W, FlyingToaster, vcmvo2, joanneleon, Fabian, PBen, Bouwerie Boy, quaoar, soonerhq, vigilant meerkat, DJShay, Jjc2006, MBNYC, Henry Reed, Doodad, science first, david mizner, phoenixdreamz, Red no more, NewDealer, bugscuffle, jay w, Capt America, Last Years Man, katz5, toughcookie85, bethrsingleton, Fairy Tale

Hidden by: Scoopster, kitebro, EntrWriter, Scarce, istari5th, txdemfem, yg17, discocarp, haruki, leawood

That's 35 to 10, though he closes his diary with

Look folks, the point is not that you're all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.

If that sentence hadn't been in there, I guarantee you there would have been no zeros. Meanwhile, here it's getting rapturous applause because of it.

by MBNYC 2008-04-17 06:53AM | 0 recs
My point:

Clinton's license to do harm
by kos
Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:21:00 AM PDT
In one of the threads last night, commenter theran made a good observation:

At some point the concept of "Republicans will do X" has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more.


Is that Markos personally fomented the rabid and as Sean Hannity would say "unhinged" anti-Clinton (and sure, its also pro-Obama) lunacy on that website.

You can click my prior diaries here for more quotes showing how the monster that Daily Kos has become was created directly by Markos Moulitsas, himself, and is no coincidence or naturally occurring event.  

In fact, I'm certain that if he had gone in the tank for Clinton back in January, instead of Obama, the thousands of rabid Obama supporters on that website would be rabid Clinton supporters, and would aim their pitchforks and torches at Obama supporters.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 07:01AM | 0 recs

There are structural and ideological reasons why Daily Kos, an anti-war and anti-establishment blog, is a hotbed of anti-Clinton sentiment. She embodies, fairly or not, a lot of what people there are against.

I don't hold Jerome responsible for some of the hardcore Obama-hate that gets posted here, or for the posters that seem to have decided to out-do Free Republic. The same courtesy should be extended to Markos, I think. There are horribly behaved people on all sides of this.

by MBNYC 2008-04-17 07:07AM | 0 recs
Sorry, but he looks the other way

when people who have done nothing more than disagree with the status quo are heckled, harassed, and ultimately have their posting privileges revoked, in the most offensive manner.

Daily Kos is Hate Blog.

Recommended diaries are little more than hit pieces.

There is nothing to read any more.

It's spam.

by internetstar 2008-04-17 07:45AM | 0 recs

...on most occasions, there's more thematic diversity on DKos than there is here, certainly on the rec list. Or when's the last time a diary on FISA or torture made the MyDD list?

The front page more than makes up for it, mind you, but otherwise, your comparison is flat-out wrong on the facts.

by MBNYC 2008-04-17 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

This site is more focused on politics, candidates, and polls than on issues.  It always has been, long before this campaign season began.  That's what attracted me to it.

So yes, there's a "diversity" in that sense at DKos that isn't seen here, but within the area that this site covers you really can't make that statement.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

Pre-strike, the number of Clinton supporters at DKos was always very small.  She's a member of the DLC; it's not that hard to figure out.

When opinions about candidates hardened, her supporters fled.  It wasn't that there was anything particularly vitriolic about Kos, they were just horribly outnumbered.  In the past week, I've heard "this site is becoming the great orange satan" more times than I can count, and it's only because pro-Obama people are coming here.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually...

This is a joke right.  dkos ran anyone who supported HRC off their site by being the worst kind of bullies.


by giusd 2008-04-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

On DailyKos you can actually read, and act on, things besides candidate diaries.  FISA, Torture, Iraq, Cheney, Israel, etc.

If you're not interested in any of those things, and if you have forgotten why you're for your candidate, then yeah, there's no point in being there.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

MyDD has always been a straight politics site, not an issues analysis site.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

So there are no issues in politics?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-17 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

Whatever.  MyDD has never focused on issue analysis.  That's not what this site is about.  There are plenty of other sites for that.

You come here if you want to read some smart analysts talking about the latest polls, fund-raising stats, whose challenging whom for whose seat, that sort of thing.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

Actually I go to Swing State Project for that.

by X Stryker 2008-04-17 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

So, politics not issues. No wonder you guys loved the ABC debate!

by X Stryker 2008-04-17 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, but he looks the other way

Congratulations, you've described excactly what I think of MyDD.

by X Stryker 2008-04-17 10:37AM | 0 recs
Saying "Nah" doesn't cut it.

I have diaried statements made by Kos from January, 2008, that caused his website to turn into an angry mob.  You can click my diary and read it if you want to, but "nah" won't cut it.

The same courtesy should NOT be extended to Markos.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 09:04AM | 0 recs
Not really.

Unless you can prove cause and effect in either case. I certainly don't believe that Jerome is responsible for Freeperversal, or that anyone is responsible for anything anyone else does online.

by MBNYC 2008-04-17 09:14AM | 0 recs
You'd have to start by showing me proof that

Jerome, in his own words on a daily basis, has been fomenting the hatred.  I can do that with Markos.  I don't know if you can do it with Jerome, because I haven't posted here that long.  But I know I've never seen any vitriol against Obama by ANY front-pager here that EVER rises to the level of shit that comes out of Markos' keyboard.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 10:21AM | 0 recs

...not really. You're making the claim, it's up to you to prove it. Coincidentally, I'd also note the distinction between 'opposing someone politically for various reasons' and 'hating'. Markos opposes Hillary Clinton, as do I and many others, in practice, half the Democratic party. 'Oppose' is meaningfully distinct from 'hate', at least if words have meaning.

by MBNYC 2008-04-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-22 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Saying "Nah" doesn't cut it.

I totally agree, PJ.

by Tolstoy 2008-04-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
PBoneFullGrown and Julie in Vermont:
Care to remove the improper ratings?  Or at least explain them?  All it does is support my case that Daily Kos has gangs of roving Obama supporters who alert each other to troll-rate comments that denigrate either Kos or Obama.  
Thanks for proving my point with your ratings abuse!
by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: My point:

Markos is losing his mind.  I think he thinks he can actually control American politics on his little blog.  Hahahahahahahaha, silly fool.  Obama's mask is slipping.  Shelby Steele and William Kristof are right about Obama- he wears a mask and it will crack.   It's cracking right now.

Obama looked irritated and uppity on that debate.  Hillary was pissed, but she held it in better.  And when they discussed policies (over an hour into the debate), Hillary wiped up the floor with Obama.

But the Obama-bots go out in full spin force, convincing themselves and trying to convince others that Obama is still the "chosen one".  Which he is not.

by stefystef 2008-04-17 09:11AM | 0 recs
You just had to go there, didn't you.

"Uppity"  Why don't you use the whole phrase and have the courage of your convictions?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: My point:

I don't know if it's arrogance or ignorance but from Kos on down, they really do believe they have power.  Highly amusing.

by Tolstoy 2008-04-17 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: My point:

Is this like the third time you've described Obama as "uppity"?  Thought we didn't get it the first time?

by Skaje 2008-04-17 03:49PM | 0 recs

Did dhonig post something similar about the great Keith Olbermann is a meanie protest last week?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-17 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I doubt it.

Every single question last night was framed in a GOP talking point. All the Wright issues, Ayers and the rest are campaign fodder to Republicans. When it turned to issues we got capital gains and affirmative action. Where do you think those issues fall as far as priorities to the people of Pennsylvania?

ABC didn't suck last night because it went after the front-runner, it sucked because it was looking to pigeonhole both candidates in to framed GOP talking points.  

I think you missed the boat on this.

by AHunch 2008-04-17 07:57AM | 0 recs

Yes, yes, thank you.

And dhonig, many of us DID scream when Russert and Williams and others asked BS questions of Hillary, because they hurt the Democratic brand in general, and made us look like we had no substance.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
It's not about hard questions

But really, leave it to you guys to turn what happened last night into another opportunity to paint Hillary as a victim once again. Kudos. You are getting to be pros at that.

Hard questions are expected, if they have to do with policy, or how a person has conducted their campaign, or bears on emphases the candidates have made. Clinton could take the hard questions, and so can Obama.

Most of the examples cited above dealt with real issues, or campaign conduct. They were not below-the-belt. They were not "So, after crucifying Obama over "bitter" and "cling," we find you said "screw the working class" in 1995. What does that say about your already questionable credibility?"

If they wanted to gang up on Obama, to "test" him, there were plenty of legit ways to do it that would not have insulted the audience, and that might have actually hurt him. I know, I hammered him relentlessly on the issues when I was for Kucinich, then Edwards. There's no dearth of material (though I think Clinton has more).

The problem last night, besides the CLEAR conflict of interest with George (and the impression left with the audience that Clinton was in on this ambushing of Obama), was that the questions either:

1) Had, along with their answers, already been beaten to death in the media, and people are sick of them (Tuzla and "bittergate" AGAIN? Screw that.)

2) Involved tenuous associations (really, if they'd played "scumbags I've associated with" evenly between the candidates, you think Hillary would have looked as good? How about if they'd read through the rap sheet of every high-level criminal Clinton pardoned? Hell, if Obama has to answer for Wright's decisions, surely Hill has to answer for Bill's, if she's his "top advisor"..)

3) Had nothing to do with the candidates or their positions --"Do you think Jeremy Wright loves his country as much as you do?" WTF?

4) Covered empty, stupid topics (Lapel pins? Was either candidate wearing a freaking lapel pin last night?)

5) When substantive questions WERE asked in the first hour, they were asked of Hillary, not Obama. When interruptions and rebuttals were offered, they were only offered to Hillary. When the moderators interrupted and aggressively followed up, they only did so with Obama.

Then, after Rodney Kinging Obama for an hour, apologized to Hillary for not giving her more time. This made it LOOK like a hit job. Even though Obama acted blindsided, the audience sympathized with him.

Hillary could have raised the level, but she didn't.

So no, the outrage is not that hard questions were asked. It's that ABC took an opportunity to allow the candidates to speak on meaningful issues, and instead wasted everyone's time, and added to the sense that with the Clintons, some fix is already in.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:08AM | 0 recs
That's what really got me

Then, after Rodney Kinging Obama for an hour, apologized to Hillary for not giving her more time.

That was about the most gratuitous thing they could've done.

What's she supposed to say?  "No, Charlie, I was hoping that you could ruthlessly savage me the way you're doing to Barack some more?"

She knows not to get between a dog and its bone.

resists urge to cheapshot

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: That's what really got me

Excellent show of restraint, Little Dragon.

by fogiv 2008-04-17 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: That's what really got me

Thank you.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-18 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not about hard questions

You're right...they weren't hard questions.  They were incredibly easy questions on issues he has already faced several times.  He should've been able to defuse them without breaking a sweat.  Instead he got agitated and now he's bemoaning the "lack of substance" in the debate.  

I have news for you, Mr. Obama.  If you think that one was tough wait till the GE, if our party is fool enough to nominate you.  Those debates and your treatment then by the media are going to make last Wednesday look like a walk in the park.

by creeper1014 2008-04-18 03:23PM | 0 recs
You've wrapped this up

in a nice neat package dhonig. You can go ahead and put a bow on it. I didn't enjoy watching what happened last night, but I can't say I'm surprised. I crossed the picket line and checked out dKos this morning, but I missed your diary there. The one title that did jump out at me was "Senator Clinton could have stopped it but she didn't". Obama didn't get any harsher treatment last night than Clinton has been getting all along. Why do some of his supporters expect somebody to always come to his rescue? Why do they think Hillary Clinton should do anything for Obama besides throw him an anchor? I don't remember him speaking out about the sorry state of the media because of their treatment of her.

by georgiapeach 2008-04-17 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Chop, Chop

Is that guillotine they are rolling out into the plaza for you?

by johnnygunn 2008-04-17 08:50AM | 0 recs
I don't care if they were "mean"

Seriously, it doesn't matter at all if ABC was "mean." The problem was not that they were "picking on" Obama. The problem was that the questions were absurd.

No questions about terrorism, no questions about the economy, no questions about the Supreme Court, no questions about torture, etc., ad infinitum.

They weren't treating Obama like "the frontrunner." They were treating both candidates like children.

by not Brit 2008-04-17 08:56AM | 0 recs
people do care
about those issues and you already know where the candidates stand on all those issues you say they should have asked about.  
People want to know the candidates and now they are getting to know Obama beyond the ridiculous deification that has been happening for months.
by TeresaInPa 2008-04-18 02:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I don;t know if the folk at dkos will love you (and I won;t be going over there to find out), but I do.  Your diary is well researched and directly on point.  Well done, indeed.

by Denny Crane 2008-04-17 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC
I don't suppose that it's worth pointing out that your carefully researched laundry list of complaints is largely about substantive issues, while the hit job on Obama in the first 55 minutes of last night's debate was entirely composed of pointless trivialities intended to attack Mr Obama's character? Reverend Wright? The Weather Underground? (b)Flag pins,(b) for God's sake?
     We needed more discussion about the war, the economy, the veteran's bill, and health care. Instead, we got Hannity and Scarborough revisited.
by ER Doc 2008-04-17 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Very interesting diary.  I feel there's something of a disconnect between the title (which to me suggests "shut it, it was fair") and the text, which basically shows that debate questions tend to be retarded non-policy questions, that Obama formerly was being treated better by the media than Hillary, and now that's switched.

That seems true.  But I don't think it has to be that way.  And I, an Obama supporter, was equally pissed off at the absurd Bosnia question.  How does having someone say to her "oh I'm not voting for you b/c you got stuff wrong and now how can I trust you on anything since you were wrong here and you hate puppies" help anyone understand anything better?

This is only the 3rd debate I've seen this primary season (one Edwards-O-C, one O-C), and I thought both of the other two were much more substantive.  However, I did miss the early insanity.  

I think that pressure on the media brings the chance of better questions.  And by better I do not mean "softer on Obama."  "Sen. Obama, X percent of Democrats want a universal healthcare plan.  Wouldn't your plan leave some people uninsured, and if that's the case how can it be universal?" is an extremely fair question that also gets to the heart of the matter.

Or another one, going off alegre's theme of gender pay disparity in another post----"Sen. Obama, your campaign has maintained that you would work as hard on issues like gender pay equality as Sen. Clinton.  Yet, Sen. Clinton introduced two bills on this issue since you entered the Senate in 2005, you have not introduced any and you did not co-sponsor either of hers.  Wouldn't Sen. Clinton be a better President for women, not because of her gender but because of the committment she's shown as a Senator?"

And the same for her.  Seriously.  Why not?

by bosdcla14 2008-04-17 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Don't know about Capo's site, but I tell you what I love you. This just about says it all for me, because this is THE debate where I became a Clinton supporter.

So, thanks for the reminder of the FIGHTER and the FLIGHTER running to be the nominee of the Democrats.

And, here's a reminder for all those whiners today: John McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008 -political-pulse-swing-voters

by Tennessean 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Will They Love You at dKos?

They won't, but I sure do.  

Wonderful diary, dhonig, and long, long overdue.

The debates have been slanted since the get-go.  If they hadn't been, John Edwards would have fared far better than he did.

Listening to the Obama supporters squeal would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  Clinton's been getting this kind of treatment since day one.  Their guy finally gets some nasty questions and they freak out.

Oh, geez...I just realized you posted this at Big Orange.  Right on!

by creeper1014 2008-04-18 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Yep, ABC asked some stupid questions in that debate.  But how are you going to compare questions she got on foreign policy, Social Security, and Job Creation to questions Obama got on whether or not Rev. Wright loved the country as much as he does, and why doesn't he wear a flag pin?

I'm sorry, yes she was piled on, but piled on over actual issues, not the fluff we saw last night.

by shalca 2008-04-17 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The Russert stuff was really ridiculous though. I used to watch "Meet the Press" until I caught on to his silly gotcha questions. I don't understand why this guy is respected. All he's good at is looking through old newspaper quotes and twisting words.

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Russert has always been about gotcha moments.  The only credit I give him is that he's a non-partisan ass, and tries to catch any politician that he can question.

by shalca 2008-04-17 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Russert is nothing but gotcha questions, and he is horrible on follow up.  There

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It's all about damage to the Democratic brand. We should scream when BS questions are asked of any candidate.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Typical interview:

Russert :: steely, self-important gaze :: : Sen. Obama, I'm going to read you a quote from a newspaper article -- let's put it up for our viewers -- in which you professed to, and I quote "really like chocolate ice cream". Yet merely two weeks later at an Iowa private residential fundraiser, you said the following: "I have always enjoyed chocolate ice cream, but I also like vanilla and sometimes strawberry". :: looks up :: Does Senator Obama think chocolate ice cream is the best, and can you explain this contradiction?

Of course, I used a more important topic than the ones Russert usually comes up with, but you get the idea.

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It's funny, I remember yesterday talking to some supporters before the debate saying there was no media bias. That the press has been harsh yes but has been mostly fair. And this morning, the exact opposite reaction.

So, is there media bias or isn't there?

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Right.  No one who supports Obama has ever thought that there were problems with the msm until yesterday.  In fact, the reason they participate in blogs has always been to praise the traditional media and to encourage it to continue to so wonderfully inform the American public.

by ashriver 2008-04-17 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Did I say everyone who supports Obama thought the media wasn't biased? No. I was relaying the story of my office and the Obama supporters here. I never say all Obama supporters this or all Clinton supporters that, I'm not naive enough to believe we're all blocks of people with lockstep ideas, thanks.

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

You should ask your officemates.  Its clear that people here do not believe that the media is unbiased.

by you like it 2008-04-17 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I did, and that was the whole point of my comment.

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Well c'mon man, don't cut off the story in the middle!  What did your office mates say after you asked them that?

by ashriver 2008-04-17 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

What's so hard to understand? The day before the debate they had been arguing that the media's been tough but fair, and the day after they were arguing that media bias -- specifically ABC -- turned the debate into a joke. That's it.

by VAAlex 2008-04-18 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It's not about bias, it's about bad journalism.  Seriously ONE MINUTE was all you could spare to talk about gas prices and the effect it has on the trucking industry and consequentially everything else in the country?  If you don't waste half your time on tabloid journalism looking for a soundbyte perhaps you could get into a substantive debate on policy issues that you know, actually matter to real americans.

Oh and Gibson's obvious self serving question about capital gains tax was ridiculous.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The problem with ABC wasn't that they were "mean" to Obama, it was that they took their questions, nearly every one of them, straight from Republicans (literally).

This was supposed to be a Democratic debate, but all we got were stupid gotcha Republican questions, so SHAME ON THEM for that.

by bawbie 2008-04-17 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I agree...  I didn't realize that the majority of Dems cared more about whether Obama wore a flag pin than whether they had a job to go to in the morning... I must have missed that poll somewhere.

I mean HALF the debate was over crap.  HALF!  "Why don't you like America?" got 10 minutes but "What are you going to do about Gas Prices?" got only 1 minute each...  It was the dumbest debate EVER. EVER.

Clinton supporters can say "Oh look the press is finally going after Obama," but that "debate" was ridiculous... Clinton's never had a debate where she was asked about every possible negative association she has in her life.  And if that had happened to her last night, Clinton supporters would have had the same reaction.

The point is this was the worst "debate" ever.  Nothing important was talked about until the 2nd half, which probably no one watched or paid attention to because they were tired of hearing the trash that was being discussed in the first half.

by jturn17 2008-04-17 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

But isn't that a good thing? You got see Obama in action and it wasn't very reassuring.

by VegMom 2008-04-18 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

So you're saying that this is how politics should be run and we should try to change it?  No thanks.  

Notice, by the way, how in your quote above Obama refuses to pile on Clinton, even when he was behind?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?

OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.

Not, "Clinton is evil," not, "She's unelectable," just, "I think I can do the job."    

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

That was a politically calculated reply.

by Dave B 2008-04-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
So what?

You're blaming him for not taking the bait and making her seem less electable?  Just because Clinton does it to him (in private to superdelegates) doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

And another thing.  Although Obama took the brunt of the crap on ABC, Hillary was hurt by it too (Tuzla? really?).  ABC was atrocious in their debate last night and not only because to Obama.

by shalca 2008-04-17 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Obama came across as defensive to the point of inarticulate, it was pathetic, really. If this is the way he "takes a punch" he won't last through the primary season. Will he back out of the SC debate?

He cannot take the heat, and has proven his lack of ability in front of a national audience last night.

Clinton is so used to being treated his way she was simply amused at what happened. The media has piled on her so unfairly it has almost destroyed her, and she has had to take it like a trooper and keep on keepin' on. She is awesome.

Guess what, Obama supporters, this comes with the territory. The rest of the world isn't going to go along with the "hope" and "change" fantasy, they are going to rip your candidate to shreds. There is lots more to go after him with, this is only the beginning. Get ready to be marginalized in the GE. You folks asked for it.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I thought he looked pretty bad last night, too. Not what I'm used to. Very, very tired, and less articulate than usual. But for the rest of the season, he's shown that he certainly can take a punch, and then respond so deftly he gets a bump in the polls. So I  suspect last night was an anomaly. Maybe he's sick or something.

by kydoc 2008-04-17 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I think he was kind of shocked and disgusted that ABC played it so slimy--I think it kind of hurt him. (Reminds me of when William Wallace takes the helmet off of his opponent in battle and sees his ally Robert Le Bruce--he was crushed). It WAS a pretty serious betrayal of responsible journalism, last night.

A hard lesson for Obama. He'll be smoother next time. I don't always hold it against a candidate to respond to obvious betrayal with shock.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Maybe he should cry next time?

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 09:40AM | 0 recs
Of course...

It would've helped Obama had the "journalists" not constantly interrupted him when he was trying to articulate his answers.

Obama talks in a certain cadence and method, and interruptions can throw him off.  He wasn't meant for Crossfire, he was meant for the Oval Office.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course...

I think you must mean when they stopped him from doing his usual duck and spin.  I agree, he talks in a certain cadence and method, he uses a pontificating cadence as his diversionary method.  Poor baby, interruptions throw him off trying to remember what he said the other four times he evaded.

by oh puhleeze 2008-04-17 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

i think the proposed boycott/strike or whatever of ABC/Disney won't work well, because a lot of those people can't give up the ABC entertainment stuff. Disney knows their democraphic well ;-)


by campskunk 2008-04-17 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

there's no way i could stop watching Lost at this point (i'm only on season 2)

by the mollusk 2008-04-17 06:33AM | 0 recs

Its tough when they have so many NBA playoffs games.  There's no way I can give that up.

by you like it 2008-04-17 09:33AM | 0 recs
A pebble of wisdom in a sea of ignorance

Outstanding diary!

by SluggoJD 2008-04-17 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Its is not simply about being mean to Barack Obama...it is about going 50 minutes without talking about a single issue.  It really short changes the voters.  They talked about Wright, Ayers, Tulza, Flag-pins - but not one of those issues does anything for a voter.  They each got 45 seconds on oil prices.  4 minutes to talk about Dr. Wright, and 1 minute for gas prices?  How is that helpful?

by CardBoard 2008-04-17 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

cardboard you rock

by CardBoard 2008-04-17 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

um, i think you forgot to switch identities before you complimented yourself.

by campskunk 2008-04-17 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Snort!  LMAO  Damn, lost a perfectly good cuppa joe.

by Caldonia 2008-04-17 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC


Cardboard, you rock.

Now you have to wonder if we are the same person, muahahahah!!

by Darknesse 2008-04-17 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I just did that to make fun of the downthread comment.

by CardBoard 2008-04-17 06:56AM | 0 recs
^Could be your only comment I'll ever rec. LMAO

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:32AM | 0 recs
That was to cardboard. nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

"They talked about Wright, Ayers, Tulza, Flag-pins - but not one of those issues does anything for a voter."

Nonsense. Obama has little to no record to evaluate him on, so all we have to go on are his associations and character references. They were shredded last night. Voters are forced to go on what little can be ascertained about him. Voters have a right to know about his associations and decide for themselves what it says about his character. You may not like their decisions.

This is why I have been saying he should not have run at this time, there is nothing, no experience, no accomplishments,  to back him up when his baggage is exposed. He is like a cardboard candidate - the slightest breeze will knock him down.

He is unelectable.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The fact that he's in the lead for the democratic nomination refutes your assertion that he's unelectable.

In addition, using flimsy associations to determine HOW someone will run the country is flawed logic at best.

by shalca 2008-04-17 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The fact that he's in the lead for the Democratic nomination in no way means he's electable. Just ask Mondale, Dukakis, or McGovern how this works.

by LakersFan 2008-04-17 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

True, but it's pretty damning to Hillary Clinton's chances.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I don't think anyone was discussing Clinton's electability. But I'm not surprised that an Obama supporter would try to change the topic like that.

by LakersFan 2008-04-17 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Obama's record is thicker than Clinton's (11 years to Clinton's 7) and his "associations" are a manila folder compared to a phone book for Clinton.

Obama was off because he came to talk about things that matter and all he got was specious wingnut attacks.

I think you're right, though.  The voters will make the decision, and I don't think that George Stephanopoulos's Disney masters have given them enough credit.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

 This is one of the ways we judge character, not on whether you wear a lapel pin, but on how you act when confronted.  It's not hard after 6,000 stump speeches to paste in a paragraph on any issue.  What's hard is grace under fire, something Obama is clearly lacking.

by oh puhleeze 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC
yeah when Hillary was getting ripped by Russert with gotcha questions and race-baiting questions and Obama and Edwards were ganging up on her this crowd was lapping it up and could not clap harder. NBC became the network for Obama. Well he is the FRONTRUNNER now so this is just the beginning and it will only get worse. The happy happy days of softball questions and kiddieglove treatment are gone. If he cannot face hard questions and has such a think skin about it then the Obama fans should petition him to drop out. One other thing people are saying he was never asked a policy question. Be serious do you want to see him massacred. His policies are Republican lite. His healthcare is a failure, his Iraq policy advisor mirrors the AEI surge policy, his trade policy is Austan Goolsbee, he has no well defined economic platform and he is in bed with the subprime lenders. In short he has no policy so that's the reason he got asked other questions yesterday.
by tarheel74 2008-04-17 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I'm fine with hard questions.  What are you going to do about the subprime crisis?  How can you really lower gas prices if we might be at peak oil?  How can you remove our troops in Iraq without causing a bloody (or bloodier) civil war?  Where do you stand on the trade off between the environmental destruction that mining the newly discovered Montana oil vs tapping that important resource?   Those aren't easy questions and Obama could easily stumble on them.

They're also relevant to the problems facing us now.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC
ahh, well I guess you were hiding behind Obama during all those NBC debates? Quit whining, you wanted a 21st century candidate you got one..all youtube and no policy.
by tarheel74 2008-04-17 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It was August of 2007.  I was worried about other things politically then than the primary.  I didn't shift into focusing on the election until December or so.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

either you have selective memory or you have been sleeping, either way NBC/MSNBC conducted debates well into 2008.

by tarheel74 2008-04-17 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I started posting here relatively recently, but I have defended Clinton when she was on the receiving end of this sort of stupidity (e.g. that she was in the White House when the famous encounter happened... who cares?).  Even with Bosnia, my only problem is that she wouldn't just come out and say, "Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking by saying that" or something but kept trying to fight it for a while.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 07:09AM | 0 recs

Hillary can handle hard questions, and there's nothing wrong with them. Same with Obama.

When bullshit right wing questions are asked of any of our candidates, we scream because it damages the Democratic brand, and makes us look like we have no substance.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:25AM | 0 recs
Look at the mashup on C&L of

stupid questions asked by the idiotic moderators.  The first hour of the debate was taken up by ridiculous non-issue questions...to both of them.  If you watch the video, be sure to look at the expressions on both the candidates faces while the questions were being asked.  A thought balloon over each of their heads would read 'WTF?  For this I am wasting 2 hours of my campaign?'

I was expecting them to look at each other half-way through and then just turn and walk out.

As for the candidates' performances...I give them both A's for putting up with such garbage.  

by GFORD 2008-04-17 06:31AM | 0 recs
terrible debates

Throughout entire primary season. The MSNBC one earlier was just as bad.

This was just pathetic as far as focusing on some pretty stale and often trivial issues. But that's what you get when you give the networks the debates. I hope next time we have debates focused on one issue rather than trying to cover everything in an hour and a half.

by highgrade 2008-04-17 06:35AM | 0 recs
Credit to highgrade.

If memory serves, you are an Obama supporter.  And if so, the fact that you see that the ABC debate was to Obama what the MSNBC debate was to Clinton, shows a lack of bias on your part.  Nicely done.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Credit to highgrade.

I'll be honest, I don't particularly like Hillary - but there is no sense in blinding yourself to the obvious. I said it during the MSNBC debate that it was unfair of Russert to have gone at Hillary the way he did.

I think the candidates are so afraid that if they try to take some of the power away from the networks that they will be battered during the coverage. I hope that the outrage over some of these terrible debates will push people to ask for debates by moderators not looking to make a name for themselves.

I remember during one of the California debates they had a guy from one of the larger Spanish speaking networks. He was great. Tough and asking relevant questions.

by highgrade 2008-04-17 09:11AM | 0 recs
The MSNBC debate

It was bad, don't get me wrong, but they didn't spend 52 minutes attacking both candidates on right wing smears.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 07:18AM | 0 recs
It wasn't just unfair Obama

It was unfair to Clinton too.

1) She got attacked on tabloid stuff too. I mean, she really screwed up on that Bosnia stuff, but it's old news, and no voter actually cares any more. It's not a serious issue.

2) She looked the least appealing during the tabloid part of the debate. If the entire debate would have been about substance, she would have come off better. The focus groups of undecideds watching the debate didn't give her great ratings in the first part of the debate and liked her much better in the second half.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is not appealing when she's going negative, but is appealing when she's talking about issues in a serious way. If she somehow won the nomination, she had better hope the debates are about the issues and not this right-wing sniping, otherwise she won't be looking very good.

Above all, it was unfair to the American people. The voters deserve a balanced debate on the issues.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-17 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It wasn't just unfair Obama

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is not appealing when she's going negative, but is appealing when she's talking about issues in a serious way. If she somehow won the nomination, she had better hope the debates are about the issues and not this right-wing sniping, otherwise she won't be looking very good.

Agreed here big time.  Whenever I hear Clinton talking about issues, I'm reminded of how much I loved her a year ago.  It's only when she gets involved in the gotchas that I get frustrated with her.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

...and if you're angry with ABC, you may as well be angry at the entire media at this point heres why;

The Philadelphia Inquirer describes the debate as "tense and grim," ands adds that Obama "seemed on the defensive for much of the conversation about personal vulnerabilities."

The Politico says Obama "faced his toughest grilling yet" and "found himself in an unusual defensive posture."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also says Obama "was repeatedly placed on the defensive."

The Baltimore Sun reports that Obama "was repeatedly thrown on the defensive" in an event "that spotlighted campaign gaffes, his association with a controversial former pastor and a '60s radical, and his reluctance to wear a flag pin in his lapel."

Theres much more.... http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080417.htm

by soyousay 2008-04-17 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

No, these articles are right. When you repeatedly attack someone, it puts them on the defensive, inevitably. Obama might have been more prepared, but he wasn't knocked down.

But none of this media chose the pathetic, empty smarmy nature of the questions. Those were insulting to the VIEWERS. "Does Jeremy Wright love America as much as you do"?

What the hell kind of question is that? Lapel pins? Come the hell on.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The kind of questions were the kind that will be in the general election.  Thats the kind (whether we like it or not.)

by christinep 2008-04-18 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Questions like those posed by ABC give candidates what they need most in the public perception:

An opportunity to diffuse the biggest concerns about their candidacy.

Each supposedly unfair question was a pitch that either one of them could have used to score a home run.  Obama should have known questions of this nature were impending.  Instead, he was unprepared and embarrassed himself.  Is that ABC's fault?  Of course not.  His legion of supporters would have us believe that, but Obama has no one to blame but himself.

by BPK80 2008-04-17 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

So if they had asked Clinton if she was a man-hating lesbian who will do anything to get elected, that's an opportunity to score a homerun, not a baseless and misogynistic question?

If they had asked Obama if his hateful pastor loves America. . .

oh wait.

by shalca 2008-04-17 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

has there been a scandal that has broken in the last 6 weeks that would directly relate to that question being asked of Clinton? No? I didn't think so.

Obama should have been prepared for those questions last night. every one of those issues broke in the last 6 weeks. Did he really think he would NOT be asked about them? Did anyone really think he would not be asked about them? Hell, the media talked for days before the debate about how those questions would be asked.

Obama and his supporters need to stop reading their own fawning press and come back down to the reality on the ground. Politics is hard...

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 07:17AM | 0 recs
6 weeks?

People knew about Ayers and Obama for years.

The flag pin issue came up in October.

This was a blatant hatchet job on Obama.  If they were using the same scrutiny on Clinton, they would've brought up the Weathermen pardons; Obama wouldn't have had to.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 07:34AM | 0 recs
Um, yeah.

"Screw the working class, Bill."

The question would have gone:

"So Hillary, since you've crucified Obama in speeches and ads over his 'bitter' comment, and now  we find, in a book published in 2001, in an incident confirmed by two other sources present, that you said "Screw the working class, Bill. You don't owe them anything." Now, polls are showing that the majority of Americans don't trust you already. How does saying "screw the working class," after you've paraded around acting like the workers' best friend, enhance your already damaged credibility?"

Or, they could have read the lengthy rap sheets of all the slimy crooks Bill pardoned (included the WeatherUnderground guys) and goaded Hillary to explain their relationship to each and every one of those people.

Don't for a second act like there's no unmined material on Hillary just because Obama and the media haven't gone there.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, yeah.

"Don't for a second act like there's no unmined material on Hillary just because Obama and the media haven't gone there."

Or that they won't bring up Bill and the blue dress.

by happycozy 2008-04-17 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, yeah.

Actually, bringing that up would increase sympathy for Hillary.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, yeah.

Yes, it would increase sympathy for her and anger the electorate who hated having Clinton go through that.

If the repubs come at her it had better be with NEW, UNMINED material and if the taxes and schedule were any indication...it won't be easy.

Unlike Obama she got ready to run for president and seemingly divested herself of potential landmines...

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 10:49AM | 0 recs
You're right. And very wrong.

Yeah, it's true that Obama will hear that obnoxious, overhashed tripe again. Obama got a little blindsided, but he can take it.

But it was an empty, smarmy hit job that made Hillary look complicit. They could have defensively ganged up on Obama if they did so regarding his actual stances, his actual policies, record and plans, and his statements about them.

Hell, I went after him enough on all of those things when I was for Kucinich, then Edwards. There's plenty of material.

But don't defend ABC for wasting viewers' time on non-issues, on manufactured controversies, on tabloid waste. That insulted both candidates.

They could have talked about the loss of our civil liberties. About torture. About investing in America. About trade changes. Something that matters.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

This diarydocuments the bias that has been benefiting Obama while not one person who supports him ever said a peep. Hillary people have been saying that Obama has gotten a free ride. Last night you saw the beginning of  Obama's undoing.  

by linfar 2008-04-17 07:30AM | 0 recs
I doubt it.

What I saw was the makings of another big Obama speech on the tenor of the campaign and politics in general.

I think ABC will live to regret their gaffe.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I doubt it.

If Obama comes out with a speech on the media even halfway, quarterway as groundbreaking as his speech on race, I will die happily to see the faces of ABC and die-hard MyDDers contort with the ripples of yet another defeat.

by Mardarkin 2008-04-17 07:52AM | 0 recs
It just occurred to me

I was wondering why ESPN nixxed one of their guys doing a basketball segment with Obama; Obama was totally game for it, but it got quashed from way up.

They probably figured Obama would ask them not to air anything on ABC's networks after last night.

Anyway, I hope Obama does do a speech.  While speeches might not solve every problem, they sure make people take note of the problem.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I doubt it.

Oh please...I hope he does try and give a speech about the tenor of politics and the debate last night. PLEASE?!?!?

Then clips from all previous debates can be played, snippets of fawning Obama blogs can be read, the SNL skits can be replayed over and over and we can really start discussing the way the media has fawned all over him and given him a free ride until now.

Do none of you realize that he cannot give a speech to solve every perceived problem? Not to mention what a fool he would look like if he did?!?

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I doubt it.

The only foolish notion here is your premise that the purpose of speeches are to problem-solve. Buying into campaign rote and soundbites about "solutions, not speeches" perhaps brings that on.

Do you believe that the "bully pulpit" is meant for brainstorming solutions? That its target audience are policy wonks? No, it's purpose is to COMMUNICATE and to INSPIRE: ergo, to LEAD. Something he has done repeatedly, effectively, and with unmatched skill.

And if he does choose to focus the bright lights on ABC's miserable little hack job, it is they who will appear despicable, partisan, foolish. It is they who will lose. Underestimate the power of finely honed oratorical skills at your own peril.

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I doubt it.

History indicates that politicians who openly attack the press (by speech or other comment) have the same end: THEY LOSE.

by christinep 2008-04-18 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

What I don't understand is that I thought ABC news gave Obama the chance to get on record, in front of everyone, questions that ARE going to come up anyways in a general election. I mean...if ABC is going to do it, you know the republican 527s will. I thought that was an extremely convenient thing for Obama to have.

It really shows the childishness of the Obama supporters that they are now having aneurysms, contacting ABC and heckling the moderators the moment Obama gets a FEW tough questions. If he gets the nomination it's going to be a loooong, annoying election season.

by apolitik 2008-04-17 07:48AM | 0 recs
Those weren't "tough questions"

It was legitimization of garbage that has been circling the drain for weeks or months now.  

When a teacher is accused of having inappropriate sexual relations with a student, even if it's not true, the teacher's reputation is ruined.  ABC is a respected network (well, used to be respected...), and for them to bring up such tripe is both unexpected and damaging.

If Stephanopoulos goes after McCain with actual journalistic integrity and hammers him on all the legitimate things that can be levelled against him, then I'll start to believe you.  If he just softball McCain and accepts all of his answers at face value without digging, it'll be proof that they're just another pandering network.  If they go with the baseless smears, it proves that they're an equal opportunity dirtbag.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 08:32AM | 0 recs
Just a few.

You're not living in the real world.  You call that "a few" hard questions.  They were hard, but that's not the point - they were all about every scandal that Obama has faces since he announced his candidacy in rapid fire.  

Then they went to the "issues" part of the debate, but it was all framed to pin the candidates down, like "will you pledge not to__" or "how can you advocate ___ when I, Charles Gibson, who thinks a school teacher in NYC makes 200,000 a year, disagree with you" and it was all a huge mess.

Clinton supporters aren't happy either.  Their campaign is though, which I find strange.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Yup, and they sadly denied Hillary the opportunity to go on record about having said "screw the working class," while having crucified Obama over "bitter," or about she and Bill's relationship to every slimy, high-level crook he pardoned (including the WeatherUnderground members), or about her REAL connections to "the family," the right-wing Dominionist group..

How unfair of them to have given all those opportunities to Obama! They must be sexists.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

We can tell you've been reading the Obama Post. Nothing like dredging up quotes from 1992 and 1995.

by apolitik 2008-04-17 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

..right, as opposed to, say, an association with Ayers from the '90s, who did something bad in the 60's.

This was exactly my point.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Except that he has known him for a lot longer than that, and he had a fundraiser for his current campaign. Nice spin job...too bad it can't work on me.

I'm sorry but Barry's excuse about him knowing him only because he was living in his neighborhood will mean nothing. He's in Chicago, not a tiny subdivision...and even if he was in a tiny little neighborhood...you still just don't associate with known terrorists  just because live down the block. At the very least, knowing terrorism is such a touchy subject...you don't try to defend your ties to that person.

by apolitik 2008-04-17 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Obama served on a board with him dedicated to helping poor people. And God forbid anyone who has done bad things ever do good things with his life.

But hey, if you're so sensitive to associations with criminals, feel free to explain the Clinton pardons of similar Weather Underground characters. At least Obama didn't overturn the decisions of the courts.

Or feel free to defend the dozens of other Clinton pardons of high-level criminals and slimebuckets.

Nice spin indeed. You've got no credibility on the "scumbags I've had questionable associations with" mantra if Clinton is your candidate.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Or while we're legitimating right wing talking points and lines of attack, surely you are equally disturbed over Hillary's having worked for a Berkeley law firm run by Communists that was busy defending Huey Newton and other violent radicals accused of killing cops and other vicious criminal acts.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Big difference between the clients of a law firm you worked for years and years ago and the associations you made while preparing to RUN FOR PRESIDENT...

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 10:51AM | 0 recs
Oh right, you mean like..

# Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for Hillary's campaign?

# How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

# Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

# How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

# How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

# Bill's 800K from the Colombians--the ones who fund the paramilitary death squads?

You mean things like that?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh right, you mean like..

Snce all but one of those is about Bill and the Hsu thing was thrown at her and ealt with long ago...no...that is not what I meant.

I said stuff that broke since the last debate. Obama was asked about things that broke since the last debate. And since his entire campaign is based on his holier than thou personal judgement...

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh right, you mean like..

"And since his entire campaign is based on his holier than thou personal judgement..."

Right, and Hillary's is how "vetted" she is, and all her baggage a known quantity, while Obama is "unelectably damaged." She hasn't begun to answer for the crap that's out there on her.

And no, the "dishwasher" contributions are all about her. And as her husband's "most trusted advisor" who is claiming "experience" by proxy, and someone who financially benefits by all of his shenanigans, I think she does have to answer for her almost inextricable "association" with him.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh right, you mean like..

Hillary got all her "experience" through osmosis.

And, "judgment?" Well, let's see...

* She thought it was safe to leave Casanova Jr. alone in the White House while she flew around the world solving everybody's problems.

* She thought givin' a dilettante frat boy [with an IQ of a rutabaga] the power to wage unfettered wars of aggression was a good idea.

* She thought the "wars of aggression" thing worked out so well she decided to give that same frat boy an opening to wage one more for da road.

* She actually thought she could get away with telling a tall tale [on three separate occasions] about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Anymore judgment calls like those and we can kiss this country goodbye.

by Flirtin with Disaster 2008-04-18 12:14AM | 0 recs
Thank you for a great diary.

I've been searching for something like this all morning.  I haven't watched every minute of every debate, but I've certainly seen enough to think that ABC's horrid debate was no different from all the other debates -- with the exception that this time, Obama was the primary target.

It's been amusing (and also rather sad) to watch, in the words of many DailyKos posters, "faux outrage" about the media's recent turn on Obama.

They seem to be almost shell shocked -- shocked that the media has stopped heaping praise on Obama, shocked that Chris Matthews's leg seems to have stopped tingling, shocked that they've started to apply their typical, MSM bullshit against the annointed one.

I don't like the MSM either.  I've been appalled by the MSM for years.

But when I and others have complained over the past year about the MSM's treatment of Clinton, Obama supporters are dismissive and rude.

What happened when MSNBC's David Shuster said it was "unseemly" for the Clintons to be "pimping" their daughter?

DailyKos errupted into a fit of "David Shuster is a great journalist" and "Stop whining" and even "He's got a point."

What happened when Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "fucking whore"?  Suddenly, progressives were defending RR's "First Amendment right" to speak "truth to power."  Oh, and they said she was right.

What happened when Clinton supporters staged a protest against media bias in New York?

Every jackass with a dial-up posted a diary mocking the protesters, condemning their "faux outrage," arguing that sexism isn't really much of a problem, and even arguing that the media had bent over backwards to give Clinton -- yeah, Clinton -- a free ride.

So I find the "faux outrage" all over the web this morning rather disgusting and hypocritical.

And yet, I'm not surprised.

by Angry Mouse 2008-04-17 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for a great diary.

Thank you.....that's exactly the kind of disgust I've have been having all morning at the behavior of the Obamabots.

by apolitik 2008-04-17 07:55AM | 0 recs
It was different

The other debates that I've seen (since January) didn't allocate over half of their runtime to wingnut smears of both candidates.

There was maybe one or two shots like that in each previous debate, like Russert's Farrakhan jab.  That I can deal with, but this was over 50 minutes of solid tripe, when we had actual problems to work out.  They went on and on about tax impact on people who make "between $200,000 and $250,000 per year," and my jaw just dropped.  I don't know about you, but I can't even imagine how that's more important than the new G.I. bill or learning more about how the candidates intend to approach McCain in the general.

What happened when Schuster spoke stupidly?  He got a 2 week suspension.  Clinton wanted him to lose his job over a misstatement.  If only she applied the same standards to herself.

Randi Rhodes lost her job for doing what comedians always do: say what nobody else will.  I (and most Obama supporters here) didn't agree with her stupid, vulgar routine, but don't suggest that she didn't pay the price for it.

No, this isn't "faux outrage."  The media has a role to fill in our society.  Some media outlets don't hold themselves to a high standard.  That's why we get Fox News or many of the worst blogs.  ABC is a well-funded and respected organization who speaks to a lot of people.  They should know better than to squander a unique opportunity with two of the three people who could become the next president by wasting our time with flag pins.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: It was different


The diarist has, on the one hand, the debate last night.  

On the other hand, they've taken an entire YEAR of debates and picked through the hardest questions on Hillary Clinton and then placed them all together.

Yeah, I think they about balance each other.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:22AM | 0 recs
Excellent comment, Angry Mouse. That is

exactly what I'm thinking and feeling. The visceral reaction of Obama's supporters to last nights debate tells me everything I need to know.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-17 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

bravo! it sucks when your candidate isn't offered a pillow, huh?

by c4every 2008-04-17 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It'd be nice if we could have one debate where Obama isn't asked about Farrakhan.  I know, they're both black politicians and it's a ritual they all have to go through, but I thought this ground had already been covered.

Matter of fact, isn't the flag lapel pin thing about a year old?  Why dredge it up now?

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

If anything ever portends all hell breaking loose, it's when SNL skits become urban myths in political debates.

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-17 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

"Stop whining."  This coming from the people who were all upset that Hillary was getting treated unfairly by the media.  

If she is the dem. candidate, I want to see how cheery you HRC supporters will be then.  The repugs are going to go after Chelsea, Buddy, and Socks the cat.  No Clinton will be safe.

by happycozy 2008-04-17 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

"If she is the dem. candidate, I want to see how cheery you HRC supporters will be then.  The repugs are going to go after Chelsea, Buddy, and Socks the cat.  No Clinton will be safe."--happycozy

LOL. Thanks for the concern. We Clinton supporters, like Hillary, are battle tested and combat ready. Obama, I see is still looking for his flack jacket and has not yet passed basic training.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Battle tested and combat ready:

You guys are stone-cold terminators.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

superetendar said: "LOL. Thanks for the concern. We Clinton supporters, like Hillary, are battle tested and combat ready. Obama, I see is still looking for his flack jacket and has not yet passed basic training."

Hey, battle tested don't mean squat when it comes to the repugs, and if you people, so blind in your hate for Obama don't see this, it's truly unfortunate.

The repugs will manipulate the media so that NO democrat will be appealing.  That's the point that people are making.  This isn't about Obama, this is about right-wing media.  Jesus Christ!

by happycozy 2008-04-17 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Hey, battle tested don't mean squat when it comes to the repugs, and if you people, so blind in your hate for Obama don't see this, it's truly unfortunate.The repugs will manipulate the media so that NO democrat will be appealing.--Happycozy

I see you've finally joined the STOP THE MEDIA campaign. You've finally showed up! Does this anti MSM include the anti Hillary MSNBC too, hmm?  Or is this a selective battle? We Clinton supporters have been fighting this lonely anti MSM battle for years and now you show up?  Feeling the heat now eh? When the fire reaches the Obama penthouse up in the stratosphere let us know. Who knows we may come and help you out. It depends, though, let's revisit when the flames get higher and I can hear the desperation in your voices. Next time build your Obama high rise with fire stairwells linking to those lower floors where the Clinton realists have always lived, we've been choking on MSM fumes, while you were living high on MSNBC.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

superetendar said: "I see you've finally joined the STOP THE MEDIA campaign. You've finally showed up!"

I've alway been against mainstream media.  And I've always been critical of the misogyny toward Clinton.  My point, and I'm hitting a brick wall here, so this is my last post to you, is that this idea that Clinton is battle tested is bullshit.  The repugs will go after whoever the democratic nominee is.  So relishing in Obama's demise is silly because the repugs will not be gentle with Clinton.  Mainstream media is making it so NO democrat can ever retake the White House.  That's my point, and if you're too dense to understand that, then God help you.

by happycozy 2008-04-17 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Thank you dhonig. I've seen most of that before, but it was still painful to read all at once.

I'm still feeling surprised that someone in the media was willing to ask him a few hard questions.  Unfortunately, since it seems very possible he will be our candidate, I am more convinced than ever that both he and his supporters will be totally undone by the savagery that will come in the GE.

by Apostle 2008-04-17 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Good God. Obama turned in a poor performance, I'm not disputing that, easily his worst by a mile. He got damn near annihilated and I'm fucking pissed at him for it.

But to call it business as usual is dishonest bullshit. I went back and read the entire transcript including the Obama answers you left out and it was as alike as a candle is to a meteor strike.

by MNPundit 2008-04-17 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Excellent diary.  

...my goodness, Obama was questioned?  Whoda' thunk we'd see that in the Primary?

by LindaSFNM 2008-04-17 08:21AM | 0 recs
A point made
Usually, even a couple of months back I would have been ``up in arms'' on anybody treating a Dem like that. Now, I dont care after seeing the blogs on Kos and other Obama fans go crazy over
and attack Clinton for defending her daughter after David ``pimp'' Schuster. After that it has been downhill, what with carzy old senators calling her to withdraw just so that there guy can win the nomination. And I do not feel even
guilty about not defending the senator.
by ann0nymous 2008-04-17 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: A point made

As reported in The Hill,

Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 11/01/07

Mark Penn, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC's "Meet the Press."

One caller from Oklahoma City said that "the questions ... were designed to incite a brawl," and that Russert's and Brian Williams's moderating was "an abdication of journalistic responsibility."

Another said Russert "should be shot," before quickly adding that she shouldn't say that on a conference call.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
How dumb do you think we are?
Things I don't care about are, Hillary's lie about Bosnia and what accessories Obama wears. Or how they both have six degrees of separation between themselves and others with questionable pasts or have made disagreeable statements. I care about the war, the tanking economy, the housing crisis, the healthcare crisis, the fact that our leadership is discussing when it is OK to torture and when it is OK to wiretap citizens, and how the us ranks among the top 5 executioners in the world alongside Iran and China. I care about our country, not how Obama accessorizes. ABC ought to be ashamed for not doing there job. Those of you who are gloating over a perceived HRC win must know deep down this was literally a shallow victory.
by grasshopper 2008-04-17 08:41AM | 0 recs
Crown Royal

Is certainly one of the better blended whiskeys.  But it is a blended whiskey.  I'm sorry to tell you that elites drink single malts, not blends.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Crown Royal

That hasn't been true in decades.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Crown Royal

Interesting...if you watch the video of the shot incident...Hillary doesn't suggest Crown Royal...the bartender does.

Hillary clearly turns down whatever he suggested first saying, "oh no, I don't want anything sweet." Then he suggests crwon royal and she says, "Oooh, good idea."

by americanincanada 2008-04-17 10:54AM | 0 recs
Gotcha journalism at its worst ...

My problem with it wasn't so much bringing up the Wright thing, or the Bosnia thing, or even Ayers. And Obama could and probably should have handled those a little better (I'm a supporter, and yes, he seemed off his game).

That said, the fact that they spent an entire hour on craptacular stuff like the lapel pin and whether or not Wright loves America is, in a word, ridiculous, like Steph was taking cues from Sean Hannity's talking points. Again, fine. But here's what we didn't hear about:

Torture. Subprime loan crisis. Global warming. Trade policy (not to be snide, but if we're playing gotcha, why wasn't Mark Penn's Columbian adventure fair game?). Etc. Etc.

And from as objective an observer as I could possibly be, I thought that HRC would have racked up major kudos across the party if she had responded to the lapel or Ayers thing with, "Charlie/George, that's kind of a ridiculous question. Can we talk about something more real?"

Wonky stuff is what she does best.

Obama was off his game. But this debate was a ludicrous sideshow.

by jbill 2008-04-17 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Well a helluva lotta people are "whining", dude. At ABC.COM "Philly Fight Nite" comment page the posts are 15,000 pissed off progressives and counting.

Yesterday was not a debate. It was a "high tech" lynching of the soon to be nominee for the democratic party, Barack Obama, by Clinton crony, Stephaluffagus, and Chucky his sidekick.

by april34fff 2008-04-17 09:02AM | 0 recs

Couldn't you just agree that a debate that had no substantive questions until an hour into it was a disservice to both candidates and all of us?

Instead, it's a well-researched "two wrongs make a right" screed.  Useless.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-17 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I think the questions were ridiculous last night.  I think Obama did look pretty stunned by the whole thing.  However I agree that none of the people who are up in arms today about how their candidate was treated gave a rat's ass about how Hillary has been treated by the media in this campaign.  No, two wrongs don't make a right but if you are going to save your outrage for when your candidate is getting the treatment then your outrage rings pretty hollow.

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

You know, I totally agree that the first half of the debate was just awful, it was a big Obama crap-a-thon.  Even the Tuzla question to Hillary wasn't bad and could be looked on as a chance for her to extricate herself from a problem she undoubtedly had.  (In other words, it didn't make up for all the poo that was slung on Obama.)

OTOH, in the context of all the imbalanced coverage throughout the campaign, this one debate was a snowflake falling in the Sahara, a tiny thing, of no consequence, ephemeral.  Hillary has faced a press corps not too dissimilar from what Obama saw last night on a day in, day out basis.

So all this "Call for Obamaction" and storming the ABC phone lines crap just seems more than a little whiny to me.  Especially coming from a campaign that has itself spent so much time picking at Senator Clinton's words and actions to create its own gotcha moments.

Yes, ABC's performance was worth a gripe or too, but it doesn't even begin to even out what has gone on all campaign long.  You guys are overplaying your hand if you're trying to make this into a big deal.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 09:21AM | 0 recs
this diary is wrong for one simple fact

the kind of "debate" we saw last night shouldn't be happening AT ALL.

not for Clinton.  not for Obama.  not for McCain, or Edwards, or Romney, or Huckabee.

what was on the television last night is a new low level which should not have been reached by any debate period.  we've apparently lowered our standards in deference to corporate media.  that's extremely saddening.

by fightinfilipino 2008-04-17 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The whole premise that we shouldn't complain about ABC because Hillary got tough questions at other debates is absurd. Regardless of what happened at other debates, last nights debate was a travesty and an insult to the voters of PA and the democrats in general. OBama got far the worse of it but any Clinton supporters crowing about this or suggesting that we as democrats shouldn't be upset are incredibly short sighted and foolhardy.

by wasder 2008-04-17 09:51AM | 0 recs
Where were you when David ``pimp'' Schuster
was attacking Chelsea Clinton (and this was not even the one running for President)? Pimping doesnt mean what it used to mean or worse Clinton is exploiting the controversy for her benefit was the reply that Obama fans used to give.
And this was even before the 3 AM ad or the Wright or the Ayers. Apologies, it is the Obama fans and the likes of ObamaPost, Kos and TalkingPointsMemo which have brought us to this point and frankly you should not expect any sympathy from us on this count.
by ann0nymous 2008-04-17 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Where were you when David ``pimp'' Schuster

How this has anything to do with what I just said is beyond me. Whatever Shuster said has nothing to do with the fact that the debate last night was a travesty, and one that should be equally mortifying to fans of Obama or Clinton.

by wasder 2008-04-17 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

How soon until Chris Crocker makes a "Leave Obama alone!" video lol

by rossinatl 2008-04-17 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

by Mostly 2008-04-17 12:46PM | 0 recs
Greate diary.

Unfortunately the Obama fan base got a wake up call 15 months too late.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-17 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The point is not that ABC was mean to our candidate. The point is not that ABC was doing a rightwing hit job.

Both of these things are true but they are not the source of my outrage.

The source of my outrage is quite simple- at a time when we need to elect a President that can help solve serious problems they are more interested in asking cosmetic and "gotcha!" type questions than speaking about the issues that effect this country.

It was pathetic, and what is worse is you know it is pathetic, you just enjoyed it because you aren't an Obama supporter.

NO Democrat should be happy with what happened last night. It was shameful and disgusting; just as it was when they have done it to Hillary in the past.

by JDF 2008-04-17 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It's not about going after Obama, I welcome that because I think it shows how strong he is, it's about going 45 minutes before asking a relevant question that actually is of concern to the American public.

by RussTC3 2008-04-17 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Great Diary. If nothing else it points out to those who pay attention, how out of touch and off the wall the Obama supporters are. They seem to get this idea that he is invincible, but most of us who have been around politics and have paid attention all these years know better. With Republicans now coming back to roost with McCain, he has to get more than blacks and wine drinking elitist Democrats, or he is finished. Most of us older and wiser voters, know that is not going to happen. How unfortunate for the Democratic Party, but they just don't seem to get the grasp of how to run a successful national campaign, because they always nominate the wrong candidates. If we thought Kerry was bad, God help us with Obama.

by steve468 2008-04-17 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I seriously doubt that you are a Democrat. What are you even doing on a board like this if this is what you think?

by wasder 2008-04-17 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

What's up with the TR for this KnowVox? the commenter was disparaging our last nominee, and making overtly right wing points in disparaging our soon to be next nominee. Clinton supporter or Obama supporter, this is a blog where we talk about how to get democrats elected, not how crappy all of our candidates are.

by wasder 2008-04-17 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC


I have to admit feeling a little seeing the shrill, wounded and angry
Obama supporters get a dose of what they themselves have been dishing out.
Turnabout is fair play . Get used to it. You're not at the student union anymore. This is the real world that Hillary has lived in for 16 years.
Can you take the heat? The kitchen aint cooling down anytime soon.
Adapt or perish to the echos of your own indignant bawling.
...And i'll still vote alongside you in the GE, if your candidate gets the nom, but no koolaid goes down this gullet anytime soon.

by Zorkon 2008-04-17 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Excuse me but there has been no "dishing out".  If you you read the cut and pasted diaries above, and keep in mind that they represent a year of debates and not one 45 minute firing squad, they are ALL POLICY QUESTIONS.

She hasn't been asked a single question of the types that Obama was asked last night - until last night, and that was over Tuzla.  Unfortunately Obama got that, and then more on top of it.

She's been given a pass the likes of which I've never seen.  

by Mostly 2008-04-17 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

"the likes of which i've never seen"??? You must have been dozing.  She has been grilled; now, he is being grilled.  That's life in the political fast lane.

by christinep 2008-04-18 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

For the record, I insisted the loser of the MSNBC debate was MSNBC. I was glad to see John Stewart roast Brian Williams over it.

On the other hand, an ABC boycott makes more sense to me than the MSNBC boycott did. ABC is the most conservative of the Big Three, while MSNBC is the least conservative of the 24/7 news outlets.

In conclusion, I detest the media.

by X Stryker 2008-04-17 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Ya know...it does not matter folks..Obama has picked up more supers this week..
It will not be a 15 to 20 point blowout in PA for Clinton next week. It will be a 15 point victory for Obama in in NC.
The Supers are not going to wait until Denver.
The are not going to stand by and not let the focus be McCain v Obama which it will next fall.
It is too Late for Clinton.... Rightly or wrongly.
Once the Obama/Clinton media circus is over.
McCain will be exposed for the stale old bread he is.

tap yer toes to the late great Bo D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzn7Vyoq Ew&feature=related

by nogo war 2008-04-17 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The way the media treats candidates sure does matter.  This is nothing compared to what they will do in the fall.  You have to be long sighted to the point that you realize it is even our democracy that this is about.

by Scotch 2008-04-17 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

oh and Steve...I don't troll rate anyone..however if I were so inclined

"How unfortunate for the Democratic Party, but they just don't seem to get the grasp"

If you were a member of the the Democratic Party that would be a "we" and not a "they" wouldn't it?

This after all a true blue Dem place.

by nogo war 2008-04-17 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC
Who got roasted isn't what bothered me. It was the type of questions asked.
If they're going to girll Obama about the economy, Iraq or health care, fine.
If they're going to draw andquarter him over flag pins, forget it.
by spirowasright 2008-04-17 11:42AM | 0 recs
I'm sure

you'll appreciate this one, dhonig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqG D4

It seems that Obama knows what to do with that kinda crap.

by vbdietz 2008-04-17 12:23PM | 0 recs
That's awesome

I knew he'd come back with something good.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I thought this was a very good article. I don't necessarily agree with the diarists' premise, but it was very well put together and argued well.

...Then I got to the comments... do we really have to keep the infighting and accusations going? Let your arguments stand on their own.

by Zoey 2008-04-17 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Really?  Even this?

"Look folks, the point is not that you're all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are."

by Mostly 2008-04-17 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Well, maybe minus that line :)

by Zoey 2008-04-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Sorry you lost, Hillbots.

Actually, I'm not.  Hopefully you'll lose your next Senate race too.

by ThunderHawk 2008-04-17 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I assume that you're the same TH who was banned at DKos from pure nastiness.  That was some accomplishment.  Don't bring your name calling and nastiness here, it won't fly.  

by Scotch 2008-04-17 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

That is a great diary.  I see it didn't do too well at dkos.  I just rec'd it and put a link to it on talkleft.

Thanks for all the hard work.  I remember all those dumb questions now but had forgotten them over the long primary.  You have a sharper mind than I do, that's for sure.

by Dave B 2008-04-17 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

"She's been given a pass the likes of which I've never seen."

I just read that?... (blinks-rubs eyes-shakes head to refocus-blinks again)

Could you find a single person besides yourself that will assert that Hillary Clinton has been given a free pass by the media in this campaign?

by Zorkon 2008-04-17 01:00PM | 0 recs
While I don't agree 100%...

The media has given her a pass on BSing all of her goalposts.

Like, she didn't actually win Nevada or Texas in the delegate count, but they gave them to her anyways (the latter mostly because Bill said she'd drop out if she didn't win, and this stuff is ratings gold).

If a new kid named Barack Obama had lost 11 in a row, the pressure for him to drop out would be like a sardine can at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.  It would make what Clinton has faced look like junior high peer pressure.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I remember in the early debates until Obama caught up with Clinton in the polls, the Obama people were all too happy to see Hillary  grilled and put on the defense constantly.  Their glee was always excused by the claim that Hillary was the front runner and it was appropriate for the front runner to be treated like that. Now, I admit that I read mostly what the Obama supporters wrote on DailyKos, and that site is hatefilled to the brim.  However, I think that feeling was universally shared on some level by a whole lot of Obama supporters.  I could never understand why the so called front runner deserved worse treatment than others in the running, but she was after all, Hillary Clinton and everything involving her is fair game.  I still don't understand why it is the Media's appointed and permissable job to bring down a front runner, and never will.  

But I will say to Obama supporters, welcome to our world.  Now you know what it feels like to have the media against you, not in just building your competitor up, but in actively trying to destroy them one candidate or another. Something needs to be done about the media and it takes everyone to change the atmosphere that they seem to think they have the right to create.  One side can't sit back in glee for months at a time and celebrate the trashing of one candidate or another, and then only cry when it happens to theirs.  It will go on forever with that kind of attitude.  We need to have a mass movement against the media with everyone involved.  Fuck the likes of Chris Matthews and the rest of them for destroying our democracy.  

by Scotch 2008-04-17 01:07PM | 0 recs
Stop Whining & get used to it

I will say it again as clearly as i can:

This is politics. It is a rough sport. Get used to it OR quit watching, bitching, reading, contributing, commenting, and following electoral politics because if you whine, you are obviously not cut out for it and you have no business Whatsoever being here.

As a support of Obama, i can say that the questions yesterday were fair. They needed to be asked. It is better that he is asked those questions NOW, then in October or November. Can't you understand this? Don't you understand that the early he gets something out of the way and clear his closet, the better it is for him? This is what happens in the primaries and the honeymoon of Obama with the press is over. He will get a small bounce and kids' glove treatment again after he clinches, but all of that will be over after the convention. Again, the republicans will drive and push the press to put tremendous pressure on Obama to squeeze him and ask him all kind of questions. Remember, the republicans have newspapers, columnists, and even network cable which they would all be put into the service of McCain to help him get elected. Just wait until they start asking him about his drug use: who was with you when you smoked pot Senator? Did you share it with anyone? Was s/he a minor? Did you buy it? Did you enjoy it? Did you know that you were breaking the law? and so forth and so on and so forth and so on.

Again, get used to it or get the hell out of our way.

by likelihood zero 2008-04-17 01:08PM | 0 recs
While I agree...

It is good to get all this out of the way now, rather than October, it doesn't change the fact that I can be terribly disappointed in the shoddy journalism or the waste of my time.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Whining & get used to it

And fulminating against nasty overtly one-sided attacks is the way we choose to deal with it. Deal with it.

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-17 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Whining & get used to it

Well, you are a flaming idiot because it ain't gonna stop. Wait until the republicans start firing their Gatling guns and you will see what negative campaigning means. 527, RNC members, Congressmen, surrogates, the candidate, his VP, his staff, republican analysts and so on going 24/7, all of them will be on TV, on cable, on Drudge, in the newspaper editorial rooms, leaking anonymous story to the press, planting fake stories, and driving the news agenda everyday. They are very good at forcing their opponent to talk about what they want to talk about. They have 20 years of experience and during this time, they perfected their tactics.

Senator Obama until now has had a sweet ride in the media and in these primaries. Though i support him all the way, i am not a novice and i worked in a campaign that was taken apart by a lean mean republican machine in 1988, and i fully expect the republicans to take Senator Obama to the shed. I just hope that he won't be stuck there.  Moreover, the republicans have enough ammunition to keep on firing until they drive his negative up in the 40s. Put all those stories back to back (the pin flag + Rev Wright crazy sermons about USKKKA, GD America, Chicken coming home to roost + Weather underground + bitter comments ) and they will depict one thing: Senator Obama is not to be trusted; he is not a patriot; he hates our values; look at the friends he keeps; and he does not love America. You craft a clever ad with this narrative and carpet bomb Ohio, Missouri and Florida into submission to push those on the fence to your side. This is what negative campaigning means and this is how it is done. And the problem with negative campaigning is that the more you complain about it, the more desperate you look; the more desperate you look, the weaker you become and Americans do not vote for weak candidate.

However, we have one thing on our side: the situation in Iraq ain't gonna get better and the economy is in the crapper at least until November. These are two heavy duty issues that can save our asses.

To be honest, Senator Clinton has been really restrained. Compared to what Ted Kennedy did in 1980, she is a true trooper. Ted Kennedy was a total jerk to Carter until the end. Those who are old enough sure remember how Jabba the hut refused to shake president Carter's hand live on TV on the podium of the democratic convention. Everyone saw that and even Reagan said the day after that that was not a classy act;  and that is why a whole bunch of old timers in the democratic party hate Ted's guts. So, the little heat Senator Obama got last night is just a microscopic preview of the fall campaign. So, if you are appalled by last night, you need to renew your Zoloft prescription because you really need it, and while at it, up the dosage a bit.

One last thing, i am praying day and night that no one come forward and say that he saw Senator Obama in Church the day Rev. Wright made one of those crazy statements. Senator Obama keep repeating that he was not there and i fully believe him, but if there is someone out there and the republicans found him and put him in front of a camera; well you might as well stick a fork in it.

by likelihood zero 2008-04-17 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

or is it sChadenfreude?

by Zorkon 2008-04-17 01:34PM | 0 recs

Look folks, the point is not that you're all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.

What a crock.  I hope you feel better, though.

by McNasty 2008-04-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
This is a rant.

If you think this is just an issue of a media-frontrunner pile on your sadly mistaken.  More intelligent people than you have pointed out the fact that it was an evening of tabloid, anti-intellectual tripe.  

If you want to promote allowing the right-wing agenda to infiltrate this election cycle there isn't any better way to do it (y'know other than switching your party affiliation).  Here is what voters were told they should care about this election cycle:

  1. A sixties radical group that hasn't been around since...um...the sixties.
  2. Whether Jeremiah Wright loves this country.(wtf?)
  3. A poorly written fable about Bosnia.
  4. sporting the american flag - which as we all know is a grand substitute for true patriotism.
  5. Whether rural voters are bitter about the politics

And that was just the first 45 minutes of the debate.  If voters weren't bitter before last night, they should be now.  In this time of fatal economic crisis, an endless war, a failed health care system, the elitist msm is telling us what our true concerns are.  With all do respect, if you aren't completely indignant over this you can't be a true progressive or true democrat.

ooh, and don't even let me start on the capital gains demagoguery.  We, as a people, should f*ing care if the upper 3.9% of the population has a few extra taxes to worry about when we've seen a stagnation in wages since the late 70's.  They've got to be kidding me.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-17 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Listen up.  I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm just as upset about that asinine Tuzla question that they threw at Hillary Clinton as I am about the bullshit patriotism and Rev. Wright questions they threw at Obama.  That was a travesty of JOURNALISM.  It was a travesty not because I support Obama, but because it was a DISGRACE.  And the thing is, Clinton supporters, you should be just as upset.  You may think, now, that your candidate came out ahead last night.  And you may even be right.  But stay with me...

Let's imagine that all your dreams come true.  Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of the party.  It's October, and she's scheduled for 3 debates with John McCain.  One of the debates is on ABC.  Charles Gibson is moderating.  And he spends the first 45 minutes of the debate asking Clinton about NAFTA, Tuzla, Marc Rich, Mark Penn and Colombia, Bill's speaking fees, Monica, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, presidential pardons, suspect fundraising activities, staying home and baking cookies, and why Hillary wore so many headbands in the 90s.  And meanwhile, he gives McCain a tongue-bath, giving him plenty of time to pile on to Hillary.

Think it can't or won't happen?  Think again.  Condone this behavior now, and you're condoning it for YOUR candidate too.

I support Obama, but we NEED a Democrat in the White House.  I will absolutely vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  Let's try to get our priorities straight, shall we?  No matter how you slice it, allowing ABC to get away with this tabloid travesty hurts all of us.

by writerswrite 2008-04-17 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Oh please...Obama got questioned about everything that has been in the news lately.

If he can't handle those questions, he shouldn't be president, period!

by SoCalVet 2008-04-17 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Makes one wonder how some of things things pass as news in the first place. It was an undeniably slow couple of news weeks, but the media somehow found a way to keep things 'interesting' as they always have and always do.

by LandStander 2008-04-17 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC
what writerswrite...wrote..
tap yer toes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coKGNwR8_ 4k
by nogo war 2008-04-17 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I am a voter who made a decision last night also.....Clinton. I thought she was great.

Also, I thought the ABC debate was much better than the NBC debate.  Thanks ABC!

by Maddie05 2008-04-17 04:05PM | 0 recs
Your George stephanapolous is showing.

I know that's you, George.  Only ABC's waterboy could tell us what we heard last night was a high-minded debate.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-17 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Would you all like some cheese to go with your whine? I'm not gloating one bit.

by grlpatriot 2008-04-17 04:07PM | 0 recs
Let's assume Hillary gets the nom

Nothing short of a miracle would do it, but for the sake of argument...

How do you intend to get a liar elected?  And don't refer to W, because people trusted him at one point.  But people don't trust Hillary.

I think it's a fair point because you can bet the Republicans are going to make a point of reminding voters that they don't trust.

Also, don't refer to the current crop of polls on the front page, because when they've favored Obama, the Clinton camp dismisses them as meaningless.  So, I want to make sure you folks are consistent.  Wouldn't want anyone to say there's a double standard in the Clinton camp.

And as to this diary, you know that it's not the same.  Hillary has not had her patriotism impugned; she's not undermined with suggestions that she might be "too white."

Yes, she's been called out on Tuzla and some other tales she's told, but that's pretty fair game.  I mean, when you tell a story repeatedly and it doesn't reflect the truth but digresses from time after time, there's a pretty good reason to assume that someone is not telling the truth.

But honestly, a flag pin?  Who the fuck cares?

As long as there are Democrats like yourself who tolerate these sort of tactics against Democrats, this country will never change.

by jaywillie 2008-04-17 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

This is pathetic.

You should be outraged when the media and the Republican establishment levels unfair and untrue charges against Barack Obama.

When unfair and untrue charges are leveled against HIllary Clinton, I will defend her.

Give it up with your win at all costs mentality.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-04-17 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It isn't a win at all cost mentality since Hillary doesn't stand a chance (and she at least must know it). It's a take Obama down with her mentality... and it's as despicable as intra-party politics gets.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-17 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The last time I heard the term "whining" so much was when I accidently stumbled onto Rush Limbaugh's program while driving.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-17 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

The last time I heard the term "whining" so much was when I accidently stumbled onto Rush Limbaugh's program while driving.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-17 06:53PM | 0 recs
Don't get mad, get even.. at MOVEON.ORG

Start by signing the moveon.org petition. That may actually translate into an advertisement denouncing the "debate"

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-17 07:04PM | 0 recs
The media reads the blogs .

They want to make money and appeal to what they think the public is interested in.  The type of questions they asked reflected that.  Stop whining about what happened and change the tone of the discussions to real issues and the media will pick that up.

by laternighter 2008-04-17 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

What a waste of diary space.  Totally pointless.

by yitbos96bb 2008-04-17 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

As I'm on the west coast, I had to watch that debate on a live stream. The dial-testing focus group graph took up half my screen, and an ad took up most of the rest, a tiny little window showed the debate itself. As a result, I mostly watched the reaction.

The problem I would have if I were a Clinton supporter (full disclosure: I'm one of the least popular kind of supporters; I support both candidates wholeheartedly) is that her best responses (dials up to 80 to 90) came when they actually started to talk about the issues. She is so quick on her feet with facts and policy she always wins when the discussion is real issues that affect people's lives.

The initial gotcha phase of the debate, Obama did relatively well with his responses (the dial ranged from 50 to 75). Clinton's piling on with the moderaters never got the needle past 55.

by dead goat 2008-04-17 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

I know, I'll answer a question that nobody raised!

But if you think it was any different from what has been happening for a year, well, you are kidding yourselves.

Who said that?

by dday 2008-04-17 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

It wasn't so much that it was unfair.  It's that it was inane.

And who says complaining doesn't get you anywhere?  Tuesday night, all the blathering heads were talking about "bittergate."  Tonight they're talking about Gibson and Stephanopolis.

So actually, they gave Obama a break.  But it's 45 minutes of the rest of our lives we'll never get back.

by Drummond 2008-04-17 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

But it's 45 minutes of the rest of our lives we'll never get back.

I'm pretty bitter about that.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

GREAT DIARY!!! I wanna know where all these whiners were during the other 10 debates when the mods attacked Hillary!!!

by nikkid 2008-04-18 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Obama must have forgotten that he said he was Rocky then, because now he wants everyone to know Rocky is a movie.

Seems like he is entering his own worse nightmare.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-18 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Yeah, I was wondering when somebody else would pick up on the Rocky reference.

by dhonig 2008-04-18 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Someone on one of the cable shows (I think it... actually I know it was Michael Smerconish) said that the net effect of last night's debate was that if any of George Stephanopoulis' issues are brought up again it's going to get a "oh god, this stuff again?" reaction.

It's one way of looking at it.  I always thought repitition strengthens negative advertising - one swiftboat ad would have done nothing at all - but ABC's debate was so bad that it may be an exception to that rule.

by Mostly 2008-04-18 08:03AM | 0 recs
The Tough Questions

have to be asked of our candidates.  I've no problem with Obama being asked these questions, b/c sooner or later the Repubs. are going to  bring them up.  However, it was 15 or 16 questions and 60 minutes into the debate before they got around to the important things, you know the ISSUES.  That is unacceptable.

I was unable to see the debate, but those I know who watched it didn't even bother after the first 45 minutes, b/c they thought that was all it was going to be.  

by venavena 2008-04-18 08:38AM | 0 recs
ABC screws America AGAIN!
The point is that this is how frontrunners get treated, and how Democratic nominees get treated. If you had the absurd fantasy that it would be different for Obama you were foolish. All that happened in the last year was that the media had Clinton in the cross-hairs, and Obama was their weapon of choice. Once she's gone, he's next, and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg. That, in a nutshell, is why the BELIEF that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he will lead us to a 50-state promised land, is nothing but a set-up for grotesque failure.
Front runners do get treated this way and, until the last debate, Clinton was most frequently in the media's cross hairs. However, we need to stop crying over spilled milk and go forward. ABC News failed to address the most important issues facing Americans in their first 15 questions. They were more concerned with Wright, Ayers, Weather Underground, Bosnia, dream ticket, can Obama win. The 16th question was the first that dealt with substance and the moderator admitted it was the number one issue on the minds of most Americans. It took 16 questions for them to get to the most important issue! I must admit I got this line of thought from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I was so disgusted with the debate, I don't even remember them asking the question. The kind of debate ABC and held (and, they are not alone) is the kind of debate that will serve McCain, and almost guarantee him a win. The Republicans don't have answers for the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care, or Social Security. All they will want to talk about is crap.
by zenful6219 2008-04-18 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Oh Poor, poor B>O!  You got asked some tough questions?  what to do but cry and whine like the pastsy and wuus that you are!

by tricia19 2008-04-18 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop whining about ABC

Wait, so because it's been going on "for a year" it's not working complaining about? So you feel that any anti-Clinton bias wasn't worth complaining about, or what? What a strange piece of logic. The longer something is a problem, the less it's a problem worth mentioning?

Why shouldn't Obama supporters complain about inane media coverage just as Hillary supporters have complained about it?

Let's face it, Clinton supporters have led the parade against media bias, and they can't stand to have their pet issue taken away from them (seeing as how it provides them moral high ground on something), even for a day. That's what this is really about.

PS: "FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER," you say? Haha. Bittergate, Wright, Rezko, Flag Pin, Ayers, Etc. This wasn't new stuff, this was just ABC's greatest hits of the various unfair media coverage that's been going on against Obama for months.

by Addison 2008-04-18 06:19PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads