bjvaq rbotvlq
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1547 buy crotamiton

yzxfmk
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1525 buy insect repellant patch

yzxfmk
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1525 buy insect repellant patch

knwxudl
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1504 buy bupropion

spbwhin
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1483 buy cyproheptadine

spbwhin
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1483 buy cyproheptadine

dtwjoeh
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1461 buy geriforte

dtwjoeh
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1461 buy geriforte

hrijkm cfasqj ukjl
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3039 gaba (hgh booster)

xbrd tcelf ghad twyjs
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3018 glutapower

bzkw vdxnme
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2997 advantage carb blocker

nxgfwo jsaoubl yvifm
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2975 orlistat

cbqd qglo kazeq rklefwp
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=270 bladder support cats

cbqd qglo kazeq rklefwp
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=270 bladder support cats

weqlobu
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=249 urinary tract support cats

weqlobu
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=249 urinary tract support cats

jlsk bkpui
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4975 kamagra ajanta

wfkbjq chnft xzfktcu dhlkaf
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2966 female sexual oil

wfkbjq chnft xzfktcu dhlkaf
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2966 female sexual oil

odvtnra gfhza ocwn
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2945 women attracting pheromones

hjlmxku tzci
http://www.anglija.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4067 cheap sildenafil citrate

hjlmxku tzci
http://www.anglija.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4067 cheap sildenafil citrate

iejnadct dkfew rhjouy ztdjgoncl gnjsiq cnlxm nqrgzex http://www.nxgosvjde.zurykt.com

ghaotnp pryemcd sldpvj bznqaklds nmbwsolf xfnrs oabwurzyj

the cable news net works were atrociously bias the last few dy leading up to the primary day. they open negatively on obama,and for 2 third of the broadcast ,it was anti obama,and to top it off, larry king live had on that eve and it played 2-3 times that night, coincidence, i dont think so. Ohio, pa,shows you how the predices are in those states. it wasnt about the issues, it wasabout shallow thinking. if i still lived in pa, i would start a movement to oust rendell and mayor nutter. he let them use the blacks and as you see by the head lines white males, older white women,they had no use for the blacks .they as much said they dont need you.shame on the blacks in both of those states

Hillary gets piled on and questioned over superficialities all the time. This time, with serious questions about his judgement (which he touts as his strong suit), Obama starts to whine. Well what does he think the Republicans will do to the nominee - whoever it is? And does he really think that if he whines, they will stop the attacks?
He reminds me of a guy I worked with - adequate at his job, but not the best of the bunch. Yet everytime he was criticized (legitimately) he accused management of picking on him because of his race. And the scared white guys backed off. Eventually, the guy was promoted - and failed miserably. He didn't have the experience necessary for the job but had been treated with kid gloves because he hollered "racism" everytime he was corrected. I see many similarities in Obama's behavior.

and there goes my last abc viewing

and there goes my last abc viewing

At this point, I am frankly skeptical that any media organization wants feedback from us peons on this receiving end of the journalistic divide. Let's face it, as with most issues, there are opinions from A to Z on the so-called debate about the debate, not just from us but from some of your own journalistic colleagues and from respected politicians. In other words, there is clearly a large cross-section of the people at large who are trying to get across a point that the other portion of the people wants to deny: that ABC at least to some degree failed in its role of bringing debate substance to the viewer-voters by virtue of the trivial, tabloid nature of the questions in the first half of the debate. But 97% of the news media is in denial about that fact. They want to presume that they make no such mistakes, and, furthermore, that what their colleagues at ABC have done is completely appropriate, professional, and objective. Fine. Lovely. Since you seem to have the power of the last word in this medium, that makes you always right. Obama and Clinton may be coerced to give apologies for misstatements or failure to wear certain lapel jewelry, but you apparently don't have to operate by those standards. Congratulations.

UNBELIEVABLE !!! Check out the YOU TUBE Video of Hillary's supporter ED RENDELL AND FARRAKAHN. ( WoW )!!

I know Hillary has been playing the victim all campaign season, but if you look back at the questions from previous debates. They were much closer to balanced and about substance. Remember she tripped up on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, hardly an unfair question. I think the equivalent to this debate would be if she got asked about reportedly saying screw em about white voters, asked if she used PI to intimidate Bill's mistresses and so on. If Hillary were vetted in the same way she things Obama needs to be, she would be in trouble.

The content of this "debate" reminded me of my reasons for turning in my pay TV box. It's simply not worth the money!

The news is all about distraction - especially distraction from what they are really doing in DC. Have you ever noticed that it gets a lot louder and more distracting when the politicians are getting ready to scr** us again?

Except for PBS (which I can get with an antenna); the Discovery and History channels (I do miss them); and a few movies, there's really nothing there for me. And if I want a movie, I can rent or buy it.

I have no desire to watch non-debates and business as usual in politics.

BTW - I have had 60 plus years of watching American politics in action, so I do know whereof I speak.

Barack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question.

At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.

Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that "we are the change that we are seeking." Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

There was some of that in this debate. But Obama was also asked about his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his remarks about wearing an American flag lapel pin, his comment that "bitter" small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns and religion" and his "friendly" relations -- "friendly" is his campaign adviser David Axelrod's word -- with William Ayers.

Did Obama expect that this would never come up in the campaign? He certainly gave that impression.

Obama fans are upset that ABC News's Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things.

Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire's mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.

Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public.

That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia's Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed.

And Barack Obama was not well prepared.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTFlYWNiN2I1MTQ1OWM2ZTNmNWM4M2U5NmZkMTVmYTg=

Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when ABC News questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement (among other difficult issues) in Wednesday's debate. In watching campaign debates dating back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (on at least eight occasions). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson had interrupted him following a 126-word answer.

Castlereagh - Russia is #8.

JohnLocker,
There is a connection between the war and higher gas prices. It is really how we are funding the war which is partly responsible for the weakening of the dollar which is partially to blame for the higher oil prices. That is the limited connection.

Metternich - "Dave, higher gas taxes over the past decade, or two, would have reduced consumption and encouraged research on alternative energy sources"

Really? Over the last decade gas prices have gone from about $1 to 3.50 with no discernable decrease in consumption. It would have taken substantially higher gas taxes (in the order of a several dollars a gallon) to do this since demand for gas is highly inelastic. Aside from being political suicide to do this, it would have accomplished the same problems that we are currently facing - fuel prices are pushing up the cost of many other items and pushing us into recession. A gas tax like that is also quite regressive.

"Let me ask you: what do you think is in store for us? Higher gas prices still?"

Yes. But market forces will begin to do what it appears your goal is - to look to adopting alternative fuels and curb, if ever so slightly, consumption (actually the recession will probably help in this regard). Only it might not force bad solutions on us like the governments endorsement of ethanol.

"do you agree that Iran and Saudi Arabia are getting even richer than they already are off of our (U.S.) money?"

Yes this trend continues. Would I prefer that the US get its energy needs from our own capacity? Sure. But we don't/can't drill in our back yard. Coal, a resource we do have, is apparently problematic for the environment. We don't do nuclear. We have NIMBY issues with wind and solar. Solar is relatively expensive too. Ethanol just pushes up food prices. I am with you on wanting to lessen dependence on oil but I don't think we get out of it by taxing and having government beaurocrats decide on the best way. It is a question of political and national will, not tax revenues.

"And lastly, what does their increased wealth portend for the USA?"

I don't know what it portends. One could make the case that if they would spend it on the health and welfare of their citizens, that would be beneficial. If they spend it on fueling anti-western thoughts and hatrid, it is detrimental. My perception is that there is a little of both of those going on.

"Canada (#2 on the list of oil reserves)"

Where is Russia?

So, Dave, do you think that there is no connection between the invasion and occupation of Iraq and higher oil prices? None whatsoever?

"taxing gas... the US govt would have had more money to waste"

You mean like spending $400,000,000 PER DAY in Iraq, Dave???

JohnLocker - "Two, the US invasion of a Middle East country sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserves has greatly destabilized the region."

Canada (#2 on the list of oil reserves) is not in the Middle East and the US did not invade them. Or maybe I missed it.

"Oil was $25 a barrel before the invasion; what is it today?"

More. Interestingly enough in 1999 oil was 16.55 a barrel and in 2000 it was 27.40. How could this be as there was no war going on in the ME? Could it have something to do with world demand vs supply, the strength of the dollar and oil futures speculation?

Dave, higher gas taxes over the past decade, or two, would have reduced consumption and encouraged research on alternative energy sources.

Let me ask you: what do you think is in store for us? Higher gas prices still?

And furthermore, do you agree that Iran and Saudi Arabia are getting even richer than they already are off of our (U.S.) money?

And lastly, what does their increased wealth portend for the USA?

Well, Nico Putney did an analysis of the various debates and counted the questions posed to both Obama and Clinton to find that indeed Obama's treatment at the ABC debate was far worse than Clinton ever got.
Here's the link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.html

I'm glad that at least one person has made the effort to actually do some quantifying. I don't know Mr. Putney's preference in the election, but assuming it is for Obama - well then Hillary and McCain supporters can and should do their own counting up of actual questions posed, so that we're talking about more than just how things "seem" depending on who the individual is rooting for in the election (and who they want to see destroyed). Even if the results are "spun", it's still something to work from.

The ABC debate was important. The debate measured character.Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had the courage to ask tough questions. Senator Obama failed. Senator Barack Obama had a free press for a long time. The ABC debate pointed out the lack of media scrutiny toward Senator Obama. After the debate, even Tim Russert changed his tone and questions against Axerold in Meet The Press on Sunday, 4/20/08. Bravo! Wake up Media! NO Obama. Vote smart. Vote for experience. Vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. She is a fighter.

Metternich - "Had we "paid ourselves" rather than paying the Saudis and Iranians, by slowly but steadily, increasing our own gas tax, we would have all those billions, rather than they."

Actually, they would have still had the billions because taxing gas would do little if anything to curb price or encourage conservation, the US govt would have had more money to waste, the and people of the US would have been poorer because gas prices would be even higher than what they have been. What a hugely ridiculous statement.

We are who we are.

Yes, I am aware of the massive transfer of wealth that is underway. So be it...

Some Americans will focus on the major geo-strategic shifts. But MOST Americans will be more interested in what transpired in the first 45 minutes of the debate.

These are the people who like the "American Idol" and "Survivor" and "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" TV shows. They know nothing of the history of Iraq. They know nothing of what happens when wealth is transferred this rapidly from one nation to another.

So... we'll argue about lapel pins.

We will get exactly what we deserve.

should be "the one who thought"

Moveon.org's ad says "Enough is enough...The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year."

Funny, they didn't seem to think that the public "needed the media to stop hurting the national dialogue" when they got a sweetheart deal to run their full page "General Betray-Us" ad in the NYT.

The ultra left/progressive wing of the Dem party has taken over during this election cycle, and will stop at nothing including campaigning against Clinton and using threats and intimidation to advance the candidate who best serves their will, Barack Obama.

What has become apparent is that Obama expected to not have to answer any tough questions. It's ironic that he ends up being the one who though he would coast to the nomination, not her.

I was not advocating a gas tax hike, Metternich.

I am saying two things

One, we need to focus on the important issues (and there are some HUGE ones out there right now) and stop this infantile bickering

Two, the US invasion of a Middle East country sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserves has greatly destabilized the region. Oil was $25 a barrel before the invasion; what is it today?

JohnLocker is right.

We are witnessing a historic transfer of wealth. The long-term ramifications are huge.

Had we "paid ourselves" rather than paying the Saudis and Iranians, by slowly but steadily, increasing our own gas tax, we would have all those billions, rather than they.

But, now, they are getting the billions upon billions.

The questions are: what will Iran do with all this massive wealth? What will Saudi Arabia do (or continue to do)? What will happen to our Economy if this drain on it contiues?

Maybe it is very important to parse each candidate's every statement. Maybe it is very important what each candidate wear's on his or her lapel. Maybe it very important to thoroughly examine every slip of the tongue by each candidate.

But let me ask you this...

Has anyone realized -- and American that is -- realized the ENORMOUS SHIFT of WEALTH that is taking place right now?

Do you realize just how fabulously wealthy Oil Producing nations are becoming?

IRAN is getting very rich. Please remember that rich has to proceed powerful. All that oil-wealth can, and will, sponsor terrorism. It can also build a formidable nuclear arsenal.

SAUDI ARABIA is already rich and getting insanely richer. You should already know that they ARE the Leading financier of terrorist activities. In other words, they are bankrolling the people that want to kill you and your children.

So, with oil at well over $100 a barrel, stop and realize how much more WEALTHY our ENEMIES are becoming BY US. Our money, US money, is flowing right to them. Think about it.

Now...

Is it very important to parse every single mis-statement a candidate may make?

Since I can't cast a real vote tomorrow, this Obama supporter will vote for Team ABC in the debate. Gibson and Stephanopolous were weaker than Russert attacking Hillary in Cleveland, since Russert did stick to substance. But my man needs to figure out how to hold onto his "let's be reasonable" message while thrusting, parrying, and kitchen-sinking when necessary. I didn't pick him for the Hallmark card oratory. I picked him because he can beat McCain, and like it or not, Hillary's forcing him to figure out how. The Swift Boaters will talk about flag pins and Weathermen, not tax rates.

Swoosh - "It will be a cold day in hell before anyone asks McCain if he is "patriotic" or if he endorses the views of his minister of his neighbors."

Interestingly enough, they won't be asking McCain how it feels to be the first black candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president. That's because many questions are tailored to candidates based on the candidates background, history, recent events or just who they are. Because every candidate does not get the same questions does not mean that the questions asked (or not asked) are not fair. Or that someone is being treated unfairly. Obama got those questions because of the Wright controversy, his wife' statements and his continuously flubbed answers on his patriotism. That these questions are topical is only because of Obama's previous failings in answering them.

After some time thinking about it, I have concluded that ABC actually did an excellent job with the debate (in spite of themselves). What this debate did was force Obama to put up or shut up. His campaign has been built on the premise that he is a different kind of politician running a different kind of campaign. The problem is that there are very few people, either working on campaigns or other politicians, that believe Obama's new approach will work or even that he really does have a new approach (the "change" thing is just a campaign gimmick). Ultimately, the old and new were going to collide. The past several weeks we have witnessed the collision, culminating with the PA debate. The question I had is how much does Obama himself believe his own rhetoric? It seems to me that, when push came to shove, he resorted to a more traditional style (negative ads/blame the press/be partisan/etc). This is especially true of the people working for him and his supporters who have whined like heck and certainly have not lacked for partisanship. Based on his performance over the last several weeks, the word that comes to my mind when I now think of him is "fraud". When he should have been carrying the campaign to a higher level, he wound up rumbling in the mud with HRC. Those people that think that Obama will magically transform DC and bridge the political divide need to take off their rose colored glasses. There are still, for many, a lot of good reasons to vote for Obama. Getting rid of politics as usual is not one of them.

ABC News, as well as all other major media outlets (even the WaPo) are now completely, totally in the tank for the Republican party. Wholly-owned subsidiaries.

No surprise, then, that half the debate last week was devoted to right-wing talk radio "gotcha" questions.

It will be a cold day in hell before anyone asks McCain if he is "patriotic" or if he endorses the views of his minister of his neighbors.

The response of Obama's supporters to the ABC debate in Philadelphia last Wednesday has been frightening.

This was the first debate in which their candidate was confronted with hard questions, the kind Clinton alone has faced in all of the previous debates.

In this instance, 14,000 Obamaphiles attacked ABC in response, and Obama personally used several inappropriate gestures in his public whining about having been put on the spot for once.

(Obama's hip-hop references should remind us of the powerful element of misogyny in this type of music.)

Hopefully the media won't be so intimidated by the hordes of angry Obamaphiles that it will revert to its previous kid glove treatment of Obama.

At the debate, Charlie was focused on capital gains taxes. Whatever. At least he knew what they are.

On Sunday, McCain thought capital gains taxes were paid on 401K plans. Clueless.

I can't wait to get this travesty over with.

And, yet again today, the media treats Senator McCain with kid gloves. Amongst other missed opportunities this morning on This Week with George Stephanopolous -

- Why didn't George Stephanopolous question the hypocrisy of Senator McCain's assertions? Senator McCain contends he has acted appropriately in regards to John Hagee but continues to demand that Senator Obama has still not sufficiently addressed Rev. Wright and William Ayers?

- Why didn't Mr. Stephanopolous point out to Senator McCain that Senator Obama was NOT attacking Senator Coburn, but merely pointing out that it is absurd to hold candidates accountable for the positions and statements of people they know and work with?

- But, mostly - Why didn't Mr. Stephanopolous ask Senator McCain why he wasn't wearing a flag pin? From what we learned from last weeks ABC debate, isn't that truly the test of whether or not a candidate is patriotic?

Oh, that's right - ABC only thinks Senator Obama needs to pass a patriotism test.

Obama wasn't 'ambushed', as one Kool Aid drinking Obamanista has whined, but was asked some pertinent questions for a change that revealed his lack of character that he couldn't answer. The Obamanistas apparantly only want softball questions asked to make him look good. When hardball questions get asked of Obama instead, they'll blame the messengers and not Obama's assocciation with a Louis Farrakhan desciple pastor Jerimiah Wright Jr.'s hatefull anti--America and anti--white sermons that Obama amened and hallelujad to just about every Sunday for 20 years.

I would note the ability to withstand heat is also a sign of the devil. His accomodations in Hell are well known to be hot. Could a candidate be trying to recreate comforable hot conditions for herself, not acxtually be thinking of kitchens? Not that I am comparing Hillary...That would be negative politics.

Miserable. Hoping for more policy. Anyone get the feeling the media will do anything to keep this fight going until the convention? It seems like they are desperate to make an issue out of every mistake or misstep. Of course, the campaign surrogates do all they can to fan the flames. It's getting tired. It all seems so high school. He said, she said.

NEO CONS!!! Let's talk about your war crimes against humanity. Let's talk about the Republican's disregard for the American people's desire to end the war that our family members are dying for and the American people are paying for. Let's talk about how the Republican's have broken laws and allowed your friends to break laws like: Libby Shooter. Let's talk about the fact that the Replications motivations are grounded in greed and power hunger. Let's talk about torture: did the Replications forget it is against the law or are you people above the law. Let's talk about voter fraud, election fraud, and voter machine fraud. The American people are on to the Republican's lies Carl Rove, George Bush, Dick Chaney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. We consider all of you and all your pals slim-ball, lying, criminals. We are going to send all of you in jail. If we don't get you guys in this life time God will deal with all of you on Judgment Day. I would not trade places with any of you for all the money in the world. My soul is not for sale. You guys/ girls better enjoy your 30 pieces of silver while you have a chance.
Dems: Here is a plan of action. Why don't we start impeaching these criminals know? The Republican's will be too busy defending their lies and they want have time to interfere with our Democratic November 2008 White House Coronation. The American people are behind you. Timing is everything and the time to act is now.
Does everyone know the far-right is planning to steal the upcoming election just like they did in 2000, 2004, and 2006?

Fellow Democrats it is time we stand up against this tyranny. Our fellow Democrat (Senator Obama) got ambushed on prime time television. Where is the outrage from the Democratic leadership? I don't care which democratic candidate you are supporting. Your personal alliances are not relevant, a divided house cannot stand. This election is not just Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's test, it is the Democratic Leadership's test. The American people and the World for that matter, needs to believe our party can stand up to these bullies and lay-down the law. I am tired of hearing about the Republican attack machine. Don't allow the Republican's to shape the thoughts and perceptions of the American people, we can't allow the American people to believe the Republican's are un-beatable. Perceptions are reality. This is why Senator McCain is winning independents' and Republicans' back into his fold. This trend must be stopped. This can be accomplished by the Democrats uniting and solving the Florida and Michigan delegation issues. If we can't conduct a primary election how will we convince the American people we can run the country? Now since Senator Clinton decided to give McCain talking points against Senator Obama which lends creditability to those attacks. Her creditability must be sacrificed she as to be totally discredited. I realize this could be a hard pill to swallow but our Democratic party comes first, just like she has put her political aspirations before our Democratic party, the deed must be returned forcefully and believably.
Now get your act together and push back. It is time to frame these criminals in the American people minds; they must be defined and classified in a negative light. The media also needs to be framed so people don't believe everything the reporters, pundits, and news commentators' say. Senator McCain must be pushed back to the right, he cannot be allowed to flip flop his policies to the middle. The ABC Debate is a perfect example of why we need to take control now.

My problem is with the questions of the first 50 minutes. Even though they have been rehashed ad infinitum over the last few weeks, I respect that a lot of people may not have heard any of these discussions, BUT. I feel George and Charlie should have sprinkled the "gotcha" questions throughout the 120 minutes instead of trying to ratchet up the ratings in the first 50 minutes with tabloid-ology.

What about questions on the Economy? How about the rising food prices? The Iraq war?
Pakistan? Afghanistan? Gas prices? The housing crisis? Health care? Issues that are far more important to the average voter , and were saved for the end, so that time actually ran out before most of them were even addressed. How does this help the voter??

BTW, I think ABC deserves ALL the criticism it's received, and I gladly donated to Sen Obama after receiving the "Gotcha" email. I've also canceled my DirecTV ABC channel, which I had to pay an extra $1.50 a month to receive. I can live without it and will probably donate that $18 I'll save to Sen Obama's campaign too!

There is something cult-like and frankly kind of scary with the Obamamania seen in the press and with his followers. The outrage over the debate is unbelievable when you take an objective look across all the debates and see that this was the first time Obama had to deal with tough questions and the first time he was NOT treated with special attention. His indignant attitude towards his treatment makes me know he won't be able to handle the major swiftboating coming his way.

It is unfortunate that the media has controlled this primary season so much and not done their jobs properly. They have no integrity when they show such obvious bias towards Obama.

Some of it may be Obama-spin, but the debate was, in total, a bad joke. They continued beating dead horses (Wright, Snipers), resurrected the ghost of McCarthy (guilt by association), and brought up what is perhaps the most asinine subject of the entire electoral cycle ($#%#^@#$! lapel pins!)

O, scrivner. I'm so glad you bothered to repost your blather to correct a freudian slip. You didn't think you wasted enough space the 1st time?

Quoting George from the debate:
"Let's take a minute and talk about gas prices."

A MINUTE George!?!?
You and Charles thought your obligation to inform the American public was best served by 52 minutes on flag pins, etc., leaving little time for issues impacting most every single American?

I'm embarrassed for both of you.
But then again, maybe I shouldn't be.
Perhaps you no longer HAVE any journalistic integrity.

the 'debate' proves that all US media are now arms of the republican/military/contractor propaganda machine.

The New York Times leads with a 7,500-word exposé of the Pentagon "message machine," a concerted effort by the Department of Defense to spread the Bush administration's Iraq talking points by briefing supposedly independent retired commanders for network and cable television appearances.

The NYT successfully sued the Department of Defense to gain access to thousands of e-mails and internal documents relating to its posse of military T.V. commentators. The 8,000 pages of information "reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated." These "military experts" often communicated with the Pentagon to receive the latest agenda before going on camera, and some used the inside information to assist private companies in obtaining military contracts. More unfortunately, "members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access."

Only an inference drawn from her behavior, but Hillary seemingly has thrown in the towel on '08 and moved on to strategizing about '12, with some crucial interim steps underway.

In August Obama would finally be nominated, but approach the general election as damaged goods following her relentless negativism, aka her scorched earth tactic (the dog-in-the-manger stance).

President McCain would not endure beyond a single term. The way would be clear for her.

If only she could wash out that damned spot.

The question for ABC is not whether it is biased (it was just asking the questions everyone has been writing about lately).

The question is... is this anyway to elect a President? Does it really matter if Obama's pastor "loves America as much" as he does? What does that even mean?

I would hope a serious network would ask serious questions, and that the challenge for the journalists would be to ask them in such a persistent way that they could get past the scripted answers.

For me, ABC failed on every level.

*This is a perfect illustration of how the influence of the special interests is shaping our national discussion, Chris, distracting us away from questioning just how BIG their role actually is.

* A L L of the important questions - from universal health care coverage to the rising price of food and oil to the declining job market - pivot around the growing inequity between the power of the special interests vs. the power of the common citizen as regards our elected officials.

*You, yourself, once asked about the power of endorsements, Chris. ABC just validated my response to your question (i.e., that you left out the endorsements of the media in your list of varying types). The power of the fourth estate (and the very few who own and seem to control you) to manipulate the perception of the masses - distracting them from the truly CRUCIAL issues with exactly the kind of "bread and circuses" that last Wednesday presented us is not just ENORMOUS, it is destroying our democracy.

*EVEN given their own premises for the selection of their questions - given the recently revealed information about the staggering level of financial ties between a foreign government and one of the Democratic candidates - had either Gibson or Stephanopolous asked ONE QUESTION about the part that special interest money plays in our national campaigns (and hence their extraordinary access to the seats of US power), I would have, however reluctantly, been willing to go along with their stated defense (but they did not).

*The really PERTINENT questions in this election, Chris, could have ALSO been sensational IF the moderators' purpose was actually as they have stated.

But clearly, it was NOT.

the proof in abc's pudding will be sunday--if george asks mccain about the keating five, the lobbyists on the bus, why the maverick doesn't wear a flag pin, whether he supports anti-catholic rev. hagee, whether he knows the difference between sunnis and shia, about the "bomb, bomb, bomb iran" song, about the leisurely stroll in the bagdad market, about cindy's taxes, about his divorce, about his alleged affairs, etc., then we'll know it's just abc's view of how to question candidates instead of a blatant attempt to set up a republican.

I highly recommend Walldog's post, a few screens above.

He puts the focus right where it belongs: on the corporate media -- for its partisanship, slanted reporting, undue influence and irresponsible framing of the issues in the narrowest and most salacious possible terms.

Bravo, Walldog.

A crappa-palooza debate. Apologies to the villagers who love dirt, but most Americans still love meat and potatoes. ABC left us hungry.

Chris,

There you go again. Shame on you for holding up the likes of Politico.com as exemplars of trusted journalism, when in fact, the site is blatantly conservative, with nary a positive story about Democrats to be found, only hit pieces.

Of course the Disney/ABC duhbate was Mickey Mouse. Far worse than any Hillary Clinton or Tina Fey had any reason to complain about.

The questions asked of Hillary Clinton in previous debates were neither trivial (i.e., they didn't require her to defend her lapel accoutrements or judge the degree of her pastor's patriotism) nor were there any 45-minute, extended sessions in which questions were aimed almost exclusively at her, especially none limited to questioning her patriotism, character, old baggage and gaffes.

If anyone disagrees, please tell me in which debate a moderator peppered Hillary for 45 minutes with questions about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Norman Hsu, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, her husband's disbarment or her reputation as pathologically ambitious, dishonest and mean.

Even forgetting her checkered past, did either moderator in Thursday night's debate have the wits to follow up on her admission that she repeatedly told a story she "knew" not to be true? Did either ask if, in fact, she had lied about taking sniper fire, lied about Northern Ireland and lied about her role in other foreign policy events just to prop up her national security credentials? No.

I guess that would have been a "gotcha" question,, too. But it was the only "gaffe" she had to answer for, and it happened in just the past two weeks. Contrast that with the grilling Obama took about the kind of Internet slime pedaled by some here, and it's clear that ABC News was looking for a headline with which to trumpet its own credentials Friday morning.

Stephanopoulos and Gibson need a lesson in civility. A couple of their early questions might have been more or less fair, but not the ones about flag pins or Rev. Wright again, not the Dream Ticket -- again. And why hasn't the Washington Post reported the Reuter's story about ABC News tracking down the "woman on the street" for her question about the flag pin? Her previously reported disdain for Obama must have been irresistible to the "fair and balanced" ABC team, who treated her as a bystander troubled by rumors instead of a Hillary fan bent on spreading the rumors.

This was hack journalism, smears draped in the mantle of Constitutional snippets, flashy graphics and the pugilistic title of "Obama vs Clinton: One on One," and, moderated, of course, by two VERY DISTINGUISHED NEWS PROFESSIONALS asking VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS that DEMAND ANSWERS!

Excuse me while I toss my cookies once again at the sad state of journalism and its adoption of political innuendo as a solid substitute for reporting on the vital interests of the democracy...

The line was crossed when:

1. Carville's "War Room" buddy George decided to ask the question that Sean Hannity "told" him to ask. Literally.

2. When ABC News went to all the trouble to find the one idiotic woman mentioned in a New York Times article who said she couldn't vote for Obama because he didn't wear a flag lapel pin. They found her, and then filmed her asking Obama this stupid question.

Neither George nor Charlie could find the balls to mention that since McCain doesn't generally wear a flag lapel pin, who is this poor woman to vote for come November? And why should any person not named Bush or Cheney or Billary give a sh*t?

Since Hillary wants to imprison someone who burns the flag, does she also want to jail anyone not wearing the designated pin?

3. Charlie is so alone in his anchor-world balloon where million dollar salaries are the norm and not the exception, he felt the most important topic of the night was related to capital gains taxes.

After all, it's what he and the Astors talk about at the country club every weekend. And so Charlie bared his obsession for all to see. Scary.

As Jon Stewart might say, what's left for The Daily Show when ABC takes over their act?

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama questions that were pertinent and needed to be asked of a candidate for President of the USA. While the Obama cult members are whining about supposedly trivial questions, these questions exposed Obama's character and also as an empty suit who simply tells people what they want to hear at a given moment. It embarrased Obama because he couldn't answer them, and that's why the Obamanistas are upset. They want nothing but softball questions asked of their candidate but anything goes with Hillary and McCain.

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama questions that were pertinent and needed to be asked of a candidate for President of the USA. While the Obama cult members are whining about supposedly trivial questions, these questions exposed Obama's character and also as an empty suit who simply tells people what they want to hear at a given moment. It embarrased Obama because he couldn't answer them, and that's why the Obamanistas are upset. They want nothing but softball questions asked of their candidate but anything goes with Hillary and McCain.

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

The questions asked of Hillary Clinton in previous debates were neither trivial (i.e., they didn't require her to defend her lapel accoutrements or judge the degree of her pastor's patriotism) nor were there any 45-minute extended sessions in which questions were aimed almost exclusively at her. Especially none limited to questions of patriotism, character, old baggage and gaffes.

If anyone disagrees, please tell me in which debate a moderator peppered Hillary for 45 minutes with questions about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Norman Hsu, Travelgate, the despicable sleaze of the Lewinsky affair, her husband's disbarment or her reputation as a behind-the-scenes ball buster.

For that matter, did either moderator in the recent ABC debate have the wits to follow up on her admission to telling a story she "knew" not to be true? Did either ask if she, in fact, lied about taking sniper fire, lied about Northern Ireland and lied about her role in other foreign policy situations just to prop up her national security credentials?

I guess that would have been a "gotcha" question,, too. But it was the only "gaffe" she had to answer for, and it happened in just the past two weeks. Contrast that with the grilling Obama took about the kind of Internet tripe pedalled by some here, and it's clear that ABC News was looking for a headline to trumpet its own credentials with Friday morning.

Stephanopoulos and Gibson need a lesson in civility. A couple of the early questions might have been more or less fair, but not flag pins, not Wright again, not the Dream Ticket again, not Wright's patriotism and by extension, Obama's.

This was hack journalism, crap draped in the mantle of Constitutional snippets, flashy graphics, a pugilistic title of "Obama vs Clinton: One on One" and, of course, two VERY DISTINGUISHED PUNDITS ASKING VERY EARNEST QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS!

Excuse me while I toss my cookies once again...

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

Here's the problem -- normal citizens have to depend on the press to ask the questions we'll never get a chance to direct to a candidate. And believe me, if not for the "bargain" that the journalist represents the millions of regular folk at home, no candidate would waste the time and effort to go through one of these debates. So the rage you're hearing from the blogosphere is of the "Network" kind: it's our way in the 21st century of slamming open the window and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." You're not getting this cushy access to the candidates for your health, but as MY REPRESENTATIVE. In case you forgot, that's the reason it's called the Fourth Estate (the first 3 -- the branches of Government). So when MY REPRESENTATIVE trivializes and wastes my opportunity for information, is clearly biased or just full of hot air I'm gonna react. So, yes, I thought that the ABC moderators were ill-informed, condescending (Charlie, er Charrrrrles, Gibson needs to lose those 1/2 glasses he perches on his nose to sneer down from), trivial and biased. Or, simply, shoddy and despicable.

I just think that the debate was symptomatic of the disconnect between Washington and the media, and real life everyday Americans. I am fortunate enough to have a good secure job that pays well and provides healthcare, but even amongst my friends and family, there is a real sense of desperation. Most of my family is in Texas and middle class, yet really struggling. My parents are about to retire,and yet the idea of that is daunting. One of my brothers is an Iraq veteran who was stop-lossed and extended, finally out, only to be fighting the VA over the health problems he's facing (yep, he's one of the 300k vets who's MRI showed traumatic brain injury, among other problems). None of us are on the extreme end of poverty or wealth, though many of us have experience the low end at some point. Just ordinary people living their lives. But that has become more and more of a struggle. And when we see the media focusing on things like flag pens and mangled remarks, it's exasperating. We don't care! Give us a little more credit--we're smarter than you think. No, really, we are. I, along with my brother, are supporting Obama. Most of the rest of my family are evangelical christian conservatives voting for McCain. But there was a universal disgust with the debate the other night that we all shared. Politics finally brought us together on something.

For this weekend's Wag the Blog, we want to hear from Fixistas on this debate over the debate. Did the ABC moderators cross the line with its questions of Obama? Or was it no different than earlier debates accept that it was Obama -- not Clinton -- in the crosshairs?

All of the debates used various tabloid type questions against each of the candidates. But what ABC did in the last debate was to use so many of these kind of questions that they get the dubious honor of holding the record of taking up almost the entire first hour of a two hour debate with meaningless personality based questions.

And contrary to what Cilliza, VandeHei, Harris, Brooks and other second rate journalists, who write about trivial sideissues would have you believe, the majority of the flak that ABC took had nothing to do with either Obama or Clinton. The vast majority of the criticism was directed at ABC for the inane sideshow they created with their shoddy questions.

Judging by the question posed by Cilliza in this column, he is obviously not interested in hearing about the real reason for the complaints he's only interested in pitting the Obama camp against the Clinton camp. Because when the media can divide the Democrats it enables them to continue to write their personality based stories about both candidates instead of writing about real issues.

All of these faux journalists should be held with the deepest possible contempt for trying to use their readers to provide cover for their lousy political coverage. Most of us are not fooled by these stunts.

What if it's appopriate to "vet" a candidate, but a debate is not the appropriate venue for such "vetting"? Clearly, the questions themselves worked to cast all the doubt and inflict all the damage the moderators could hope to inflict on Obama so close to the PA primaries; his responses were largely irrelevant to that process. The number of questions posed to Obama, and the level of detail the moderators pursued in those "questions," were grossly disproportionate in relation to those posed to Clinton. Those who have since remarked that the questions were perfetly "fair" must be those who have a reason to enjoy watching Obama being skewered from three sides, while Obama remained gentlemanly enough to chose not to strike back at Clinton, esp. over the Bosnia lie. A debate is a forum for discussion and argument over substantive issues, not smears. All those who voiced their revulsion at the spectacle had every right to do so. I have never been aware of any "media bias" against Hillary, even when she claimed it was so and the media was so quick to agree with her. Nor was she ever uniquely put on the spot in any debate by questions that were not about policy or position, as a review of past debates will show. This was a collusive low-moment, which has woken the general public up to demand that the dirty dealings of the "press as political operatives" cease, and that they take back their rightful roles as impartial, objective, non-partisan reporters of the facts.

I don't think any honest person who read the thousands of complaints on the ABC web site (about 20,000 now, running about 8-1 against the network) could claim they were either orchestrated, or all from Obama supporters. (Or from "leftists," as one blog on Time.Com claimed -- unless you think all Democrats are leftists.) Stephanopoulos and Gibson demeaned the Democratic party and essentially did the Republicans' work for them in advance. This was a Democratic primary debate, and should have focused on issues that MATTER to Democrats. For more on this, check today's editorial in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

I don't know if the last debate was different from other Clinton-Obama debates. But if the questioning in the first 45 minutes was the same in other debates except that it was directed more at Clinton, then they constituted an equal abdication of journalistic responsibility as the last debate. Just because the press asks both candidates uninformative and unhelpful questions doesn't make it right in either case.

We're electing someone to do a job, not to make a fashion statement with lapel pins. Any questions that are not job-related is a waste of precious opportunities to find out what the candidates think on matters of substance. Maybe if the press reminded people that we're voting for a president and not a dinner buddy or a personal therapist, we'd have better politics in this country.

Our country has gone horribly off track during the Bush Administration. President Bush's approval ratings remain mired below 30%. And the approval ratings for Congress are even lower than that of President Bush.

So, when Senator Obama says the American people are fed up with Washington, this is not a catchy slogan. It is a reality.

The American people are fed up with the divisiveness and nastiness between the Republicans and Democrats. While blame can be assigned to both parties, I believe that President Bush and the formerly Republican controlled Congress bear the largest burden. Though both the 2000 and 2004 elections clearly demonstrated that our country is basically split 50/50 between the two parties, the Republicans chose to rule as if they had a huge majority. After the 2004 election, President Bush crowed, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." And he has spent it, and it has cost him. And it has cost our country. As a result of President Bush's decisions, we have blown through our surplus and our country is now deeply in debt. We have lost thousands of troops, we have lost our good reputation around the world, we have lost our way. Our country is depressed, both financially and emotionally.

So when Senator Obama says the American people are fed up and need a change, this is not a catchy slogan. It is a reality.

The American people want to assess which candidate can best change the way business is done in Washington, so that our collective lives can change for the better. We want to hear their proposed solutions so we can contrast the differences between their policies. And the filter through which we can receive that information is either through the mainstream media or the internet.

But when corporations control so many disparate streams of information, the American people become wary of the intentions of the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example, controls Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, MySpace (amongst others) and many of their commentators/personalities have soapboxes on both cable news and talk radio. As such, Rupert Murdoch is a major gatekeeper of information, with the power to shape and influence the news we receive. But Mr. Murdoch is not the only such gatekeeper. TimeWarner controls CNN and Time Magazine and many other streams of information. As does Disney, as does Viacom, as does NBC/Universal.

And when informed viewers regularly watch these corporate news shows, we are able to detect certain patterns. Fox News is the most transparent in their bias. Run by former Republican operative Roger Ailes, Fox News is inarguably biased in favor of the Republican Party. Their hosts, guests, stories and verbiage all serve to illuminate the bias they clearly have of Republicans over Democrats. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

CNN is slightly subtler, but regular viewing of their programming reflects a detectable preference of Senator Clinton over Senator Obama. Some MSNBC hosts have clearly formed a distinct preference of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, while it is clear that others prefer Senator Clinton to Senator Obama and Republicans over Democrats.

And because viewers can detect such bias in the reporting, we have lost faith in the independent journalistic integrity of the hosts and pundits who regularly appear on these shows. By regularly tuning in, we can all divine where these "journalists" stand on the issues, candidates and politics.

The media is under fire, and the dissatisfaction directed towards the media is well deserved.

Take the "Reverend Wright Controversy" for example. The media has shown the same footage of Reverend Wright incessantly for weeks. And the public has been saturated with the footage and demands for Senator Obama to explain and apologize for the sermons. Fair enough but, beyond that initial wave of coverage, where has any hint of journalism been on display?

A simple Google search reveals that the heavily edited sermons blanketing the airwaves were assembled by Lee Habeeb, a former producer of the Laura Ingraham Show. Ms. Ingraham is a well-known conservative pundit. It is plain to see that the creation and distribution of this selection of Reverend Wright's sermons was politically motivated.

Why has that not been investigated, where is the reporting of that aspect of the story?

Why hasn't the media shown viewers what Reverend Wright said before and after the heavily edited selections of his sermons? Why has there been no examination of the context of the sermons, why has there been no debate regarding whether or not any of the sermons may have been valid? Why has there been no reporting about more positive aspects of this church? Why have there been no comparisons to other churches and other fiery speeches? Why has there been no deeper examination and incessant airing of other "controversial" sermons by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, John Hagee, or Ron Parsley? Where is the journalism?

Take the "flag pin controversy", for example. Where is the journalism in this "issue"? I do not recall seeing Senator Clinton regularly wearing a flag pin, I do not recall seeing Senator McCain regularly wearing a flag pin, I do not recall seeing Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopolous wearing a flag pin at last week's ABC debate. Why is this only an issue for Senator Obama? Why wasn't Senator Clinton asked the same question - Was this a debate or an interrogation? Why is this even an issue at all? Is there suddenly a "patriotism" test in this country? Does the simple act of wearing a pin determine whether or not somebody is patriotic? Why not explore these angles to this "controversy"?

Where is the journalism?

Fox and CNN spent the entire last weekend barraging Senator Obama about so-called "elitist" comments he made to "San Francisco liberals". All weekend long, CNN parroted the e-mails they received from the campaigns of Senators Clinton and McCain. Echoing the word "elitist", over and over again.

Where was the examination of whether there was validity in Senator Obama's comments? Throughout this campaign, the media has relentlessly focused on the core constituencies of Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's supporters. Exhaustively, we've been told that Senator Clinton has consistently appealed to Women, Latinos, Those Who Make Less Than $50,000 and Older Voters; and that Senator Obama has the support of African-Americans, Young Voters, Those Who Make More than $50,000 and Higher Educated Voters. We've been told the two campaigns are battling for the votes of White Men and Working Class Voters, and that these voters could determine who wins or loses in Pennsylvania.

So is it really surprising that a group of supporters would ask Senator Obama how he is doing with this constituency? Is it really controversial that Senator Obama would recognize the challenge of reaching this constituency that has recently supported Republicans? Is it really worthy of around-the-clock coverage that Senator Obama clumsily made the same argument made in Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Rather than propagating the political tactics of his rivals, why don't reporters explore these aspects to this "story"?

Where is the journalism?

Sean Hannity has been screaming about the "William Ayers controversy" for weeks. In the days before the ABC debate, Mr. Hannity asked George Stephanopolous to question Senator Obama about Mr. Ayers in the ABC debate. Sure enough, Mr. Stephanopolous broached this Right Wing talking point in a debate viewed by 10 million viewers.

Isn't it fair to question why Mr. Stephanopolous allowed himself to become a tool for Fox News? Isn't it fair to question why "guilt by association" is given as much or more weight as positions on policies that are so crucial to America? And wouldn't it have been fair to at least inform the viewers that Mr. Stephanopolous owes his entire career to his position in President Clinton's administration, if not recuse him from participating as a moderator?
Isn't it fair to at least question whether there was a conflict of interest to have Mr. Stephanopolous be a moderator of this debate?

These are but a few of the problems that Americans have with the media. Many pundits have defended ABC and taken the position that viewers care about these sensational "character" questions, arguing that viewers would not tune in if the debate were only about policy matters. What a depressingly cynical and condescending opinion the media seems to have for their viewers. But more importantly, this viewpoint reflects and defines exactly why journalism is under fire.

The media is no longer concerned with journalism. Today, it is all about entertainment.

As Paddy Chayefsky foretold in "Network", as James L. Brooks foretold in "Broadcast News" - In satisfying the need to procure high ratings, news departments have become more concerned with entertaining viewers than informing them. Rather than covering complicated and nuanced issues, news shows choose to focus on the salacious and the sensational. Rather than appealing to the highest common denominator, news shows opt to focus on the lowest. And when news writers put subjective verbiage in the mouths of news reporters, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between objective reporting and subjective punditry.

Americans find it insulting when members of the media dismiss our passion, our commitment, our values, our patriotism. While Senator Obama, on this one occasion, used inartful language to dissect the intent of voters, the media makes a living doing the same thing day after day.

Rather than focus on the qualities possessed and positions articulated by these candidates, the media focuses on the gaffes the candidates makes and the tactics their competitors employ. Sizzle over steak, flash over substance, salaciousness over seriousness, sensationalism over nuance.

Americans are sick and tired of this laziness and manipulation from the media.

That is why journalism is under fire.

Believe the experts at your own peril.Malthusian economics awaits us.You could always try Marx and Engels.

I read twenty-six pages of a the entire debate's transcript, and I was beginning to wonder WHEN I would get to The Questions of substance. We're talking about a debate before PA's voting process, crucial. The debate arrives, and half of it was wasted on stupid questions. Among them, was question of the flag pin? Of ALL important questions that could have been asked, and some MAJOR topic(s) weren't even touched on mind you people, they chose stupid questions.

My opinion, that debate was a waste of time and not very substantial. I wouldn't even call that a debate.

George and Charlie, have you any darn idea what Obama could have been doing with that precious time??? How unprofessional. Why didn't you just set up individual INTERVIEWS with each candidate separately??? You may as well have done that. That was NOT a debate. Many of us are disappointed, hands down. End of discussion.

Obama: Keep moving forward. Many of us are expecting you in 2008. There's much work to do and people to help bring home.

debate was completely fair and completely due in terms of someone in the media trying to get some straight answers from obama on matters that are absolutely troubling and absolutely will have impact on his electability in the general if nominated.

some of the questions from the wednesday debate that he still failed to answer:

1. what specifically had he heard in previous rev. wright sermons that moved him to exclude him from participation in his campaign kick-off? and since he apparently felt those comments controversial enough to distance himself then, how different were those comments from the ones posted on the web a few months ago?

mr. obama keeps asserting that the 2 episodes of rev. wright commentary were substantially different in tone and tenor. ok, how about you let the public be the judge of that by telling us what his original comments were. heck, we'll even let you paraphrase, mr. obama. just give us some actual data so that we the public can actually draw our own conclusions.

2. why have we not heard anyone in the media (besides george stephanopolus during the debate itself) challenge and document that obama flat out lied in response to whether or not he and his campaign had been ACTIVELY pushing the "bosnia-gate" story and ACTIVELY pushing stories that hillary clinton is "untrustworthy"..."willing to say or do anything"...and today, "lacking in moral authority to lay the wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier?"

the press attends DAILY press calls with each campaign, obama's included. the press receives press memos DAILY from each campaign, including obama's. the press gets non-stop text messages and e-mails from each campaign, including obama's.

there is no media member who is covering this race who could take a lie detector test and answer anything but "yes" to the question of "is the obama campaign actively pushing "bosnia-gate" and storylines that hillary clinton is "dishonest."

but do we hear or read any sharp critical analysis from the media calling obama and his campaign out on this fact? no, we do not.

so the politico.com guys, harris and vandehei, got is spot on: one need look no further than the media negativity toward gibson and stephanopolus to have all the evidence they need of the obama-bias in the media.

of course, the doubley troubling thing about the obama media bias is that it cannot be resolved by merely highlighting the problem in hopes of shaming the media personalities and their employers into correcting the imbalance because the media itself is the sweet spot of the obama demographic, namely (1) college-educated voters, (2) earning $100K+ in annual salary.

the media isn't merely getting sloppy and lazy in pursuing its task of balance. the media in large sees obama as "their personal candidate" and are thus incapable of separating their journalistic duties from their personal attractions, and thus you have the "obama-media-phenomenon" in a nutshell.

I can't get terribly excited about the ABC debate. The moderators are, after all, businessmen. Their job is to attract and keep as many eyeballs on their program, and it sponsers,as they can. Its their job to generate ratings and money for the conglomerate that owns them. There's nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT they claim to be JOURNALISTS. Thats a lie, and a fraud on the public. They are NOT JOURNALISTS, or PROFESSIONALS. They are entertainers. There is a difference. Journalists have a code of ethics and a primary responsiblity to the people that rely upon them for information rather than to their owners/bosses. Unfortunately, this distinction is lost upon 90% of the public. Candidates who are truly concerned about getting an accurate message out about themselves would INSIST that debate be conducted by professionals above reproach. There must be a couple of REAL journalists around someplace who could take up that job for the good of the nation.

I can't get terribly excited about the ABC debate. The moderators are, after all, businessmen. Their job is to attract and keep as many eyeballs on their program, and it sponsers,as they can. Its their job to generate ratings and money for the conglomerate that owns them. There's nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT they claim to be JOURNALISTS. Thats a lie, and a fraud on the public. They are NOT JOURNALISTS, or PROFESSIONALS. They are entertainers. There is a difference. Journalists have a code of ethics and a primary responsiblity to the people that rely upon them for information rather than to their owners/bosses. Unfortunately, this distinction is lost upon 90% of the public. Candidates who are truly concerned about getting an accurate message out about themselves would INSIST that debate be conducted by professionals above reproach. There must be a couple of REAL journalists around someplace who could take up that job for the good of the nation.

I can't get terribly excited about the ABC debate. The moderators are, after all, businessmen. Their job is to attract and keep as many eyeballs on their program, and it sponsers,as they can. Its their job to generate ratings and money for the conglomerate that owns them. There's nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT they claim to be JOURNALISTS. Thats a lie, and a fraud on the public. They are NOT JOURNALISTS, or PROFESSIONALS. They are entertainers. There is a difference. Journalists have a code of ethics and a primary responsiblity to the people that rely upon them for information rather than to their owners/bosses. Unfortunately, this distinction is lost upon 90% of the public. Candidates who are truly concerned about getting an accurate message out about themselves would INSIST that debate be conducted by professionals above reproach. There must be a couple of REAL journalists around someplace who could take up that job for the good of the nation.

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.

Gibson: And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

Obama: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. This is a story that has been evolving since last December, when Politico.com obtained a copy of the questionnaire the Obama campaign had completed for a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. One of the questions dealt with a ban on handguns and assault weapons, and Obama took a hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban assault weapons?Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign later told Politico that the candidate "never saw or approved" the completed questionnaire, that his campaign manager had filled it out, and that she "unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position."

At the end of March, Politico published another story saying that Obama had actually been interviewed by the group on his answers to the questionnaire, and that he filed an amended version of it the day after the interview. His handwriting was at the bottom of the first page and some answers were modified, such as his response to a question about whether minors should be required to notify their parents or get their consent before having an abortion. The answers to the questions about gun bans, however, were not changed.

Kruezmissle-

Actually given Obama's weaknesses with working class and Latin voters- Colorado is out- he won DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES there- which favor professionals and have a tiny relative amount of people voting- she is actually more likely to win there in the general election. The same thing goes for New Mexico. Obama will actually have to compete in CA due to his problems with working class and Latin voters. The only new state he brings in is VA (WI and IA also, but Gore won those-Kerry lost them) but the problem is he loses MI and has to compete to win in PA resulting in the Republicans winning the White House 290 to 248.

Obama did a bit of historical rewriting regarding his previous statements on wearing a U.S. flag pin in his lapel.

Obama: I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with. ...

Actually, last year he told an interviewer for station KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:

Obama, Oct. 2007: I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

And ABC News quoted him as saying that wearing flag pins had become "a substitute for ... true patriotism":

Obama, Oct. 2007: You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. ... Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. ...

Conservative critics have attacked Obama repeatedly for these remarks and his lack of a flag pin. Obama said during the debate that this "distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people."

Recently, at an April 15 rally in Washington, Pa., he accepted a lapel pin given to him by Philip Fiumara, a disabled Vietnam veteran. "It means a lot coming from you," Obama said.

We take no stand on whether wearing a pin or not says anything about anybody's patriotism. And Obama is within his rights to characterize discussion of the matter as a "distraction." Those are matters of opinion. But as a matter of fact, Obama went too far when he denied ever saying, "I don't wear flag pins."

Kreuzmissle-

Check your facts on the popular vote.

From realclearpolitics.com
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 13,931,423 47.6% 13,837,418 47.2% Obama +94,005 +0.4%

94,000 is not a lot of votes. .4% is not a substantial margin.

Also he is behind in primary total votes if caucuses are not counted- caucuses are ridiculous exercises where small percentages of people representing those with financial and social advantage are way more likely to be able to vote,
Look at this chart: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/Election2008/TLC_eriposte_2008_Dem_caucus_turnout_margin_new.gif

Basically, the higher the turnout- the better it is for HRC- so who is about holding back the vote? Caucuses are undemocratic and should be eliminated in the future- but for now, picking our candidate based on them is a very bad idea (the only largish state other than home Illonois that Obama won that had a primary where he did not win by astronomical margins in the large AA populations was WI- a great victory, but an anomyly.)

Leon

How about the media's refusal to report that the contest fir the nomination is essentially over? Who does that favor? All of the debates have been ridiculous. The CNN You Tube debate was totally fatuous also. Watch the BBC. I am embarrased for all of us.