home
George strikes back at criticism! (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Universal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST
ABC News' George Stephanopolus has stepped up to defend his and his colleague's Charles Gibson's debate moderation last night, and rightfully so:

http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=461#461

Anyone who hasn't called ABC yet, I urge you to do so to help counteract the Obama astroturfers who are trying to vastly overstate their influence:

1-818-560-1000

Thanks. Let's reinforce ABC's great coverage.

thumbs up

Ahh... (none / 0) (#37)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
Universal.  It was only a matter of time.

[ Parent ]
Let's not (none / 0) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
ABC was atrocious.

[ Parent ]
not to me.. I think this was the debate with a (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by TalkRight on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST
change!!
as per MarcAmbinder

Obama's going to be the next president of the United States, maybe. The most powerful person in the world. And questions about his personal associations, his character, his personal beliefs, his statements at private fundraisers -- the answers to these questions tell us a lot. Sometimes the questions are unfair but this ain't Pop Warner; the artificial distinction between politics, personality and policy doesn't exist in this league, and if you're uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don't run for office.

But let's stipulate, for a moment and for the sake of argument only, that the ABC moderators were tone-deaf: that doesn't excuse Obama's performance. (If you think the MSM is ornery, wait until president Obama confronts Congress!) Obama's supporters like to see him fight back against the Man... witness his quick response to "bittergate".....; tonight, it seemed as if he was surprised by the pace of the questions and all the air was gone from his answers. There was no fight.

[ Parent ]

ABC was atrocius... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:26:03 PM EST
for not doing this earlier. I would consider this a leveling of the playing field and less of a debate. I think their tabloid approach to a debate was good practice for Obama (assuming he's the nominee) in the GE.

[ Parent ]
My .02 (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by cloudy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
After watching the debate last night I have to say that though the earlier questions were silly and unbalanced, neither moderator was overly aggressive (ala Russert) or fawning (Brown), so it was a vast improvement from the last 2 debates' moderators.  I missed more substantive policy talk, but I also think I'm an atypical voter.  The truth is, many folks I spoke to thought the debate was informative because it's the personal, "news bite" stuff they pay attention to.  I don't agree with it; I think it's silly, but these are things many people pay attention to when deciding who they are going to vote for.  I think it has something to do with policy talk being intangible to most people.  Take UHC, for example, I think most people see it as too grand, not that they don't understand it or want it, but that it's hard to conceive of how one would go about making such a large change.  I think a lot of folks don't really believe substantial change can (or will) happen. I also think, deep down, many are afraid of real change. It's easier to focus on the little things and make a choice based on if you "like the person" or not.  In that vein, I don't completely condemn ABC for their questioning last night.  Obama, if he's going to be our nominee, needs to be able to answer these questions, as silly and pointless as many of us here think they are.  These could be the "issues" that the swing voter, come November, will base their decision on.  To those voters, Obama has yet to prove who he is, while McCain has had years to hone his war hero, Maverick, persona.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft