Tough Questions or Just Plain Bias?

I did not enjoy, like or even find the political talk show last Tuesday every informative; a debate is was not. It just was boring and made me mad. The media hounds just can't seem to get over themselves and their seemingly sense of importance in all this! We can do very well without the likes of Charlie and George. BRING BACK THE CITIZEN RUN TOWN HALL MEETINGS!

The issues with the "grilling" of Senator Obama, was just one to get him to squirm. He is really new and fresh on this scene of Presidential politics. We really don't know all that much about him. We know that black people will support him because he is black; President Clinton just shortened the defection time from Hillary. Black people support their own no matter what, even in the face of illicit drug use, criminal conviction, inappropriate behavior, etc. They make no excuses. He or she is one of their own and they have to support them in order to have a sense of political power.

Senator Clinton on the other hand, is a well know public figure, largely due to her 8 year stint as First Lady to President Clinton. She was dragged through so much mud for 6 out of the 8 years, that we know just about everything there is to know about her. She is a well know quanitity; she can therefore, spend her time talking about her plans and programs when and if she becomes President. That also assumes, she gets asked questions that would allow her to actually discuss the issues at hand - which was the real problem with the meeting on Tuesday.

What the public wants to know, is definitely not the same as what the media wants us to know or care about.
The next match, if there is one, should be run by the League of Women Voters or some other non-for-profit group, interested only in advancing civil discourse. Minus the commercials of course. No more Charlie and George show - ever.

… the ones that get elected …

Has anybody heard the question-"Which candidates, if any, are members of the TriLateral Commission, Bilderberg Group or Council on Foreign Relations?".
Would that make a difference to anyone's vote?

Well, finally after 84 years of life on this earth..I find that the littlest,tinest,wee prick has a mouth!!! with a huge last name to identify it... those two moderators should be fired.. I will never watch either one again that are pitiful and a blot on their profession. Better yet send each one of them a definition of the word DEBATE...not that animal act they threw last week... what a laugh!!!

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I wouldn't wear a flag pin if I had a box full of them.

Denigrating peoples love of their country isn't a nice thing to do. If you are not patriotic, I wonder why, unless you are from the "I hate America" group.

I still wait to hear which country that group wants to trade America for. I've been all over the world and I missed it.

part of Obama's problem is that he has no principled stand about fairness in the media, e.g., he ignored the media's brutalization of Dennis Kucinich.

talk to your neighbors. we are all mediums of communication.

"Obama instead is asked by the moderators to hand them either his former minister's head, or his own. Does your minister love America as much as you? Answer no, he disowns the man who officiated his marriage and baptized his children, diminishing the very complexities he spoke about in his speech on race. . Answer yes, Obama destroys his campaign."

Obama is intelligent. He knows how he should have answered that question if he wanted to win the election. All he had to say was: "That is a ridiculous question, and I refuse to answer it." The whole country would have stood up in front of their TVs and applauded. But like all Democrats, he wants to lose. So he didn't say utter those 11 simple, winning words. That's the kind of person Obama is. That's the kind of people Democratic candidates are. They're not comfortable in their own skins, personally or politically. Republicans have no such problem.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

They were not tough questions - they were just stupid questions, which have all been already answered.

And what right did Gibson have to ask both candidates for a pledge about choosing VPs? Who does he think he represents?

Gibson and Stephanopoulos are not fit to tackle such such serious things as presidential debates.

ABC should just outsource this to the BBC or someone better than the US Media.

I thought wright's opinion didn't matter? Why have him speak now (is Obama desperate?)

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I wouldn't wear a flag pin if I had a box full of them.

Jeremiah Wright is scheduled to be Bill Moyers' guest next Friday night(Ap 18). That should put the notion of a "racist church" to bed. Make a point of watching it, Thomas More (2:19 pm), unless you're just too comfortable with your own bigotry.

Little Brother -- Your well considered post, drew me to think of a possible new non-fiction title:Seismic Fault in Decorum
Namaste

AlexLawyer (8:13 pm) & OPINER (8:53) - both excellent posts. Thanks.

----------------------

Alex wrote, "The media gave Hillary a free ride. .... No one raises questions about how Hillary can reconcile her long and lucrative service on the board of the union-busting, low-wage paying, unfair trade practicing, foreign-outsourcing Wal-Mart with her claim to be a friend of the working classes, and they surely don't point out that most of the economic gains in her husband's administration went to the top quintile...."

OPINER wrote, "I think that democratically inclined humans were better-off, and progressive political reforms were more possible, before the advent of home computers and political websites....

...Something much more alive and humanly potent comes from the physically interactive political world; something that these hypnotically alluring, disgusting plastic boxes of disembodied blue blinking electrons will never and can never compensate for...."

Obama is the strongest candidate and in any other country, given the state of dissatisfaction with the current President, would be seen as a welcome opportunity for change. But the commercial interests controlling the media know how to generate revenue through over-hyped conflict and exaggerated debating points. The big test for the media will come in the real battle in November and how they report the big issues that voters should be deciding on.

AlexLawyer so much hit the nail on the head.

A union-bashing member of a theocracy-endorsing christian cult (Clinton) is given a free ride by the media while they question the credentials of a neighborhood organizer whose minister spoke the truth though perhaps in a vernacular unacceptable to some.

I mentioned Clinton's membership in that right-wing Christian group in my recent book (The Prince of War: Billy Graham's Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire, http://theprinceofwar.com or check Amazon). Clinton and Ashcroft, Lieberman, many other wing nuts).

I think the DLC is in bed with the Repugs on this one. They want Hillary as the candidate at any cost.

I think I would have become pretty angry and let the moderator know it. I would have scolded him for the stupidity, irrelevance and offensiveness of his question, and I would have suggested perhaps that another one like it would be answered with a bloody nose.
____________________________________

Ghawar, I like your approach!

Indeed, one of the symptoms of a broken, corrupt, and mortally ill government and culture is the elevation of decorum to a fault. Unlikely as it remains, perhaps a politician will somehow be able to shatter the glass prison of toxic civility and decorum without becoming persona non grata.

But in the meantime, candidates will continue to grit their teeth and respectfully kow-tow to the ringmaster(s), with a few mild exceptions-- nowhere near your straightforward assertiveness!

I think that democratically inclined humans were better-off, and progressive political reforms were more possible, before the advent of home computers and political websites.

Before we had the opportunity to anonymously squander our energized frustrations and shared sense of outrage in a maximally non-physical community, our thinking and passions tended to naturally build up to a point where we finally HAD to talk to our neighbors face to face and build political action on the ground from there.

Something much more alive and humanly potent comes from the physically interactive political world; something that these hypnotically alluring, disgusting plastic boxes of disembodied blue blinking electrons will never and can never compensate for.

The media gave Hillary a free ride. She excoriates Obama over his membership in an inner city, economically diverse church, but no one probes her longstanding association with a very secretive, ultraconservative, ultra-elitist fundamentalist Christian outfit consisting solely of the rich and powerful. No one raises questions about how Hillary can reconcile her long and lucrative service on the board of the union-busting, low-wage paying, unfair trade practicing, foreign-outsourcing Wal-Mart with her claim to be a friend of the working classes, and they surely don't point out that most of the economic gains in her husband's administration went to the top quintile.

The candidates have only themselves to blame for the abusive treatment that both they and all of the issues themselves receive from the moderators. I, and I believe others, are unimpressed by a candidate that allows himself to be made a simpleton, even if it goes over the public's heads.

I am thinking in particular of a past "debate," one between the first depressing Bush and M Dukakis when one of the moderators asked Dukakis how he, as president, would respond to the rape and murder of his wife. Dukakis explained that of course he would respect the U.S. system of justice and let the courts proceed; the moderator failed to elicit any sort of hint from Dukakis that he might use personal violence himself.

I remember thinking how I would have answered such a question. I liked thinking that I would walk to the front of the stage, spin and drive my heel into the moderator's jaw to knock him out cold.

That's what I would have felt like doing. In reality, I think I would have become pretty angry and let the moderator know it. I would have scolded him for the stupidity, irrelevance and offensiveness of his question, and I would have suggested perhaps that another one like it would be answered with a bloody nose.

I believe that Dukakis would have won the election had he shown some spine and rage. Americans would like that. Obama could do the same, but Hillary just hasn't got it in her; everything about Hillary is phony.

That doesn't mean that Obama could win MY vote with such a display. For that he would have to be equally manly in discussing the real issues that are never discussed, and not the rape and murder of his angry, bitter wife.

Are we surprised that the media is biased against a black candidate, or a woman or a progressive? The media is the means by which inequality survives in this country. Any threat to inequality and their very existence is threatened.

To unseat an incumbent of your own party you need to be involved in party politics. To select the party's candidate you also have to be involved in the party. To elect a President you don't. Primaries are poorly attended, few people vote, and they do so in a controlled atmosphere. Emmanuael didn't allow any anti-war candidates to run in the primaries of 2006. This year I don't even know who is allowed to run. Even for president only half vote. This is why nothing changes. It takes too much involvement and most Americans don't like that. There isn't enough time for that. Sushi anyone? Care for a latte?

Maryannsalo: you should realize that the president doesn't run the country, congress does. The president executes the orders given by congress. Since congress isn't going to change much and over 95% of incumbents will be reelected, as usual, the country will be run the same way it has been for a long time. Bush has done what he has done because congress agreees with him. if it didn't, he would have not been able to do much. The president is a tool of congress, and congress is a tool of the rich. The emphasis on the presidency is just a way to make the people think they are participating. The important races are for congress, and they get no coverage. Nancy Pelosi will be reelected. That is the most important fact to consider. Congress, which has colluded in war crimes, treason, and deceit is barely examined and barely ever changes. Power is held firmly and lastingly by the owners of the country. The rest of us poor sods are allowed to dream of a white knight that will rescue us. It is all to keep us deluded into thinking democracy exists. Remember: 95% of incumbents will be reelected. What do you think that means?

Rev Wright does not love America. Neither do I and I am not even black. I used to love America, but I have been reading....

"Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?"

Of course he does, and he also has the courage to address both the possitive and negative behaviors of this country.

What's the point of asking questions of a politician? It's a total waste of time. They'll tell you what you want to hear and avoid issues which might cost them votes.

It's time to use truth serum!

For a radical perspective see www.dangerouscreation.com

obama hit it on the nail......POLICTICS OF DISTRACTION.....BUT IN 2008 WE SHOULD SAY "NOT THIS TIME' OBAMA\EDWARDS 2008

Bias was all it was. If those are the tough questions...they need to get in touch with reality.

I saw somewhere, where Hillary mentioned the Weathermen...saying they planted bombs or such and many were killed...she got this wrong. The only ones who died in connection with the Weathermen were a couple of Weathermen when one of their bombs went off prematurely or during construction!!!

How come no one called her out on this?

I listened to the end of the "debate" - none of these things are a really debates - from a different room in my house. What I heard was nonsense form the questioners and dispirited or scripted answers for the candidates. It was quite boring. I didn't hear the question regarding Wright from Snuffleupagus, but I would have hoped that Obama's answer had been a quick "I believe you should be asking more substantive questions than that one, but if you really need an answer, I believe that he loves America more than you do, Mister Stephanopoulos." That's the kind of answers we need to be hearing from Obama, not the kind of crap that McCain and Clinton are spouting.

We should go through the list of everyone Hillary has ever met, find out everything that they have ever publically said, and then get her to publically answer for their views.

I bet there are some real doozzies in that list.

We can start with this:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband is a well known adulterer and purgerist. Why do support sexual harrasement in the workplace and lying under oath to Congress?...Will you now disown any connection with Lyin' Bill?"

LETS PLAY SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION TO KEVIN BACON!!!

We need to figure out how to elect a Democrat for president and also how to run the country in a sensible manner, in spite of the media.
Now that all the major and doubtless most or all of the minor media are owned by large corporations, we can see the result.
ALL media coverage is biased in favor of the most conservative candidates. I trust only common dreams, the nation, and a few individual writers.
Up until they were gobbled up, Knight-Ridder was doing a decent job of covering, especially, the lies that stampeded our poor country into Iraq.
Nobody is going to take their place.
Just for practice, can you imagine John McCain getting even ten percent of the negative stuff that was thrown at Hillary Clinton and especially Barack Obama?
And it does not matter who the R nominee is.

Some natioally prominent commentators are stating it is good that candidates have to answer "tough " questions.

B.S. A "tough" question is not necessarily an intelligent or a relevant one.

BTW - RIP my television for over a year now.

"Bring back the League of Women Voters"

Noe there is a super idea! Remove it from networks and Universities. One moderator is enough.

Senator Obama will continue to get the same questions over and over till he gives some real answers. So far he hasn't.

As far as his "cling" statement, you all know its a prevelent attitude and remark in certain circles. Unfortunately someone got it on tape and for a change did the right thing as a journalist and brought it out. I understand the poor darling is taking a lot of unfair flack about it.

In any case its certainly going to keep being asked and rightfully so.....an explanation for his judgement in the Wright senario, "cling" Ayers, etc. So far he hasn't given clear answers to the questions. And making believe he has is a fools paradise.

I may vote for him, but not before he explains why he hung in a racist church (if you've read the churches statements and Black Liberation Theology there is no doubt) and associated with a man thats a bigot, a racist, race basher and anti-American. That Wright is these things is irrefutable and only the deaf, dumb and blind would attempt to excuse him.

If this had been said by a White clergyman in a church espoucing Aryan Nation Theology, what do you think you'd be reading here about the debates and Wright? The truth can't be moulded to suit our preferences and when we lose sight of the truth and prefer manipulation of the facts and lies then we are the same as the people who have hurt America so much over the last 8 years.

The question was asked how does the wife of the 'first black president' lose all that african-american support? Well, duh, the other candidate is biracial! Every single, without exception, black person i have spoken to about Barack Obama hasn't known any of his issue/policy positions; they have all cited his race and the idea of "hope" (which to them equals upward mobility at all costs).

Imagine this debate with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney (or any outside of the box candidates) - how different it would have been! Neither of these candidates challenged the moderators so they are complicit in the trash.

Let's make sure that Nader & McKinney are in the debates in the fall, and that the questions asked are substantive!! We have until the fall to insist on it.

"By the way, just how did the wife of "America's First Black President" lose almost the entire African-American vote during the primaries?"

Mr. Jackson asks this question as if the answer would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Ms. Clinton lost the black vote because of black racist voting in the primaries.

Or maybe Mr. Jackson believes that there's a whole set of economic or foreign policy issues that skewed the black vote all the way to 89-11% for Obama in Ohio, 86-9% in Delaware, 91-8% in Wisconsin, and an average of 80-17% in exit polls of all the primaries so far.

I don't think it is about tough questions or bias, it is all about ratings.

The most accurate characterization I've yet heard of the ABC "debate" the other night referred to it as a "McCarthyite right wing inquisition."

It's nice to see the mainstream media grudgingly acknowledge that the debate moderators were unusually disgusting (see for example Bob Herbert's NYT article, on CD today). Attention has been focused on "Bitter," Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and flag pin. Not enough attention has been focused, however, on the hideous eagerness with which Hillary leapt to pile on -- essentially joining Stephanopoulos & Gibson to form a 3-person tag team aimed at damaging Obama as much as possible. Repulsive little Hillary was positively rubbing herself with pleasure in the background, chortling gleefully ("Rev. Farrakhan! Hamas!", she yelled), as former Clinton employee Stephanopoulos & the incredibly pompous Gibson conducted the inquisition.

So much has already been said about the first half being consumed by Wright, "bitter," flag pin, etc, that some of the spectacle's truly foulest moments (in the supposedly more substantive 2nd half) have escaped notice. Take a look at the clips of Stephanopoulos going after Obama on affirmative action, for example. Here we see the privileged white media talking head forcing the uppity black candidate to state for the record that he (Obama) is clear on the notion that what's bad about affirmative action is that it sometimes rewards "privileged blacks" at the expense of "qualified whites." If Stephanopoulos had added, "You do understand that, don't you, Boy?" at the end of this part of the inquisition, it would only have been marginally worse.

I didn't waste time watching the debate, but I'm aware of how idiotic it was. For me the howler was asking Obama about an ex-Weatherman and a bombing in 1970, when Obama was 8 years old. Wasn't that close to the time George Bush was going AWOL from the Texas Air Guard? I don't recall the media covering that issue in the debates.

They should also demand that Obama endorse the Vietnam War as a noble crusade, the Philippines War as a means to uplift and christianize, the Mexican War as a necessary expression of our Manifest Destiny, and Indian removals as property improvement. That would be fair and balanced, and highly relevant to today's problems.

This was not a debate. There was only one that came anywhere close to being a debate. We haven't had presidential debates in decades.

I wish there were a way for comments in related CD articles to be automatically linked or cross-referenced, although I'm not at all sure if, or how, this could be accomplished. Meanwhile, I resort to cross-posting:
__________________________________________

There are too many ironies to sort through in this debacle, but here's just one that comes to mind: The corporate media infotainwhores invariably justify, i.e. rationalize, their obscenely puerile talking/questioning points by claiming that, for better or worse, they're only focusing on what We the People are clamoring to be revealed.

Thus, they imply, even if the media grownups understand that issues like wearing flag pins (or not) and sound-bite contretemps like the use of "bitter" are trivial, marginal, and unworthy of serious discussion, they allege that the public is fascinated by such issues– much as an infant is fascinated by the glittering mobile installed in its crib.

If this rationalization is accepted at face value, it brings us to this paradox, or tautology: the Amerikan people won't stand for being insulted, demeaned, and condescended to like idiots or children! So it is the Solemn Responsibility of the (Corporate) Media to heed their cries and demonstrate our respect and deference to them by forsaking mature, intelligent, and substantive discussion and debate, and instead channeling, and thus validating and elevating, the petty, inconsequential, and simple-minded issues upon which they obsess.

The Amerikan People want to know what the hell Obama is thinking by not wearing a flag pin and calling plain folk "bitter", by God! And We the Corporate Media are obliged, in turn, to honor their wishes and focus on these vapid burning questions to the exclusion of more serious, sober pursuits!

Is it me, or is there something circular and self-confirming about this logic? :?:

Come on people! Isn't it time to cut Charlie and Georgie some slack? After all, they were auditioning for Entertainment Tonight. Where's Barbie Wa Wa when we need her?

We all know the reason for such "debates" is to keep the focus of US citizens on personality issues rather than the big issue: the continued class warfare of the US-based corporate rich against the lower-classes in the US and those living in the rest of the world.

Rather than reflect on the fact US-based corporations and their military arm are always at war with the poor of poor countries isn't better for TV ratings (and preserving one's career and life) to focus on whether or not a candidate is wearing a microscopically small US flag pin?

Bring back the League of Women Voters and their past sponsorsip of the the Presidential debates. They actually believe that the American voter is intelligent and serious about selecting a new President and would never have allowed such dribble to take place.
I was very disappointed in the questioning of both Senators Clinton and Obama at the forum on Tuesday night. The moderators were disrespectful of the American people's right to useful information. I guess Charles and George they thought this was one of their "news" shows were only their commentary and their rhetoric questions were important?
I think the nonsense thrown at both candidates was a waste of their precious time; questioning Senator Obama on his patriotism over his inconsistent use of a flag label pin was the height of arrogance by Mr. Gibson and he should be banned from further hosting any political forms in the future. George Stephanopoulos should have known better given his past position in the Clinton White House. Senator Clinton's attempts at debate and seriousness on the subjects being brought up were just frustrated and over shadowed by the fluff of nonsense offered by the moderators. Both candidates looked disappointed in the proceedings and their inability to actually present themselves for serious consideration to the PA voters. I actually feel sorry for both our candidates that these two media hounds have so little regard for the viewing public as to format a debate in this manner.

The Obama campaign really needs to put an end to Clinton's criticism that he "can't take the heat" and wilts whenever a "tough question" is put to him.

Their response should be that the questions weren't "tough" but tandential (at best).

Their response should be that in Senator Clinton the American people have a candidate who has no interest in remodelling the kitchen. She's content to let the people who prepare the food in the kitchen (media and politicians) to pitch garbage all over the floor and let rats scurry around as they prepare something to serve the American people!

"Call in the health inspectors!" I say. The whole place needs to be closed down and cited for health violations.

Alright, there's a bit of metaphor-stretching for you! And I'm not convinced Obama's really interested in doing any of this, but we're talking about political rhetoric here, not reality.

I don't think that it was a question of either tough questions or bias. What we are witnessing is a clear case of the contempt with which media elites regard both the American people and their electoral process. They are so contemptuous of the general public that they will gladly trivialize the disaster of the past 8 years known as the Bush administration by dwelling on trivia.

The best advice for dealikng with them is Nancy Reagan's famous advice concerning addictive street drugs "just say no". Sadly, with the way most Americans are addicted, it has just about as much chance of working.

the corporate mouthpieces posing as journalists will skew this election in the same way they "swiftboated" and "invented the internet" against the past two dems.

the coverage is so one-sided it's laughable.

yes, we will again be subjected to the most vile of character asassinations.......it's their way.

The title says it all. "Tough Questions or Just Plain Bias?"

Assuming this one debate does not completely derail Obama from the nomination, and I don't believe it will, then some of the flaps we're having now are like flu shots--innoculating us against the real flu (attacks from the right on these kinds of "issues") later.

Rev. Wright, his comments, and all this racist-baiting stuff is already old news now----heavily discussed in public early on. If Barack is nominated, the conservatives are going to look weak and silly if they try to make all that much of it later. We'll see.

As for "writing down" that Obama is going to lose, NO THANKS. We are not willing to "give up" so easily.

Bias that's all it was and getting their orders. I say OB will NOT be President in 08. Write that down HP said in April 19/08 OB will not win in 08