MSNBC's O'Donnell: Health Care "Isn't As Sexy" As Wright

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Because when I tune in to watch an interview with universal health care advocate (and maybe-should-be candidate for President (seriously, are we sure it's too late?)) Elizabeth Edwards, which is billed as a response to Senator John McCain's health care proposals, I would expect to see a segment that's basically framed around that issue.

But MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell had other ideas. Don't get me wrong: Edwards did get to briefly respond to McCain's proposed policies. But to be afforded that privilege, Edwards first had to field two questions about Senator Barack Obama's re-re-repudiation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And the ensuing health care conversation lasted all of two questions before O'Donnell commenced a five-question attempt to pin down the Edwards' family endorsement, forcing Elizabeth Edwards to find newer and more creative ways to parry the question.

O'Donnell was inadvertently honest about it, telling Edwards, "This is a big deal, health care for many Americans. It's not as sexy as Reverend Wright is now." Uhm, maybe call Elizabeth Edwards back when you're not feeling quite so aroused, then?

[WATCH.]

Comments

[swift goat pet for truth]

"sexy"?

NOTHING Rev. Wright did, can do, or ever will do will EVER affect my life even in the slightest.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is almost a daily issue with me and my family.

What Norah meant to say was, since she makes in the top 1%, healthcare is not the slightest interest to her, but sleazy gossip is.

[devadasi]

Norah O'Donnell is an air head. What the hell is she all made up for? Looks like she's ready to go a dinner party, not report the news. And that laugh of hers....it­'s worse than Hillary's. Let's get some serious women giving us the news like Rachel Maddow.

[victoriajubilee]

you are right ,she laughs like someone who had several glasses of wine too much.

[NC4Obama]

Iam sure being Pro Iraq War was also much more sexy then saying the facts and investigating but its not like the News Media is expected to report in the public interest right? They are just a entertainment company and ratings > news, anyday. So what if a few hundred thousand people die and millions suffer, they got their ratings and that is much more important.

[Bobzmcishl]

That's why the internet is such an invaluable resource when all you can get from television is the most inane comments from political "spinmeisters". What is really ludicrous is having Republican consultants commenting on the Democratic race and vice/versa. You know all you're going to get is a bunch of bs.

[LannyMacD]

Yeah Jason, and your site is helping in what way? Looking at the bullshit that your staff have selected as headlines and "important leads to follow" all of them are NON-ISSUES!!! Polls, super-delegate endorsements, Rev. Wright and dirt on McCain. Yep, quality journalism there. I appreciate this is ONLY a blog, but show some backbone and leadership. Hit the candidates on their positions on issues, Get ALL of your writers doing the same thing and MAYBE you'll have the moral high ground to start talking about the weaknesses of the MSM.

Signed, a very frustrated voter/reader

[PatrickforO]

I heartily second Lanny MacD's post!
- Trade
- Offshoring of jobs
- Economy
- Energy policy
- Affordable college education
- Improved elementary and secondary education
- Improved early childhood education
- Ending Iraq war
- Focusing on getting Bin Laden and the rest of the terrorists
- National debt, fixed outlays and federal fiscal policy

Golly, but we're all REALLY much more interested in the Rev. Wright and Bittergate. Just ignore this post...

[DesertLight]

I saw this already. Motion distress airbags are located in the seat pocket in front of you.

[V4Vigilance]

Until interviewees start putting these morons in their place, this will continue to be the level of political discourse in this country, at least as far as the MSM is concerned. My proposal, nothing embarrasses TV & radio types more than 'dead air'. Whenever an interviewer trots out one of these off-topic, 'gotcha' questions the interviewer should simply remain silent until the interviewer asks if something is wrong to which the interviewee should respond, "I'm here to talk about [insert RELEVANT topic here]. If you have a question on that topic, I'd be happy to respond."

OBAMA 08

[OliviaRee]

V4Vigilance,

You nailed it. I shredded my circus ticket today. These clowns masquerading as journalists are straight out of a Jerry Springer show. I refuse to participate any longer. My hope is that the guests on these *soap operas* will heed your advice and take the high ground. My sense is the agenda of a majority of these pundits trumps class and integrity.

All the best!

[Testtubebaby]

Or get up and leave....

[drkazmd65]

Only if they get up and leave after a brief statement like. "I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you had some relevant and intellegent questions that you wished to ask me. Since that is apparently not the case, I will be leaving."

Otherwise they network and host can try and spin it as the guest got uppity or something.

V4 is correct - dead air,... followed by a head on statement as to how inane the question was, is the way to go. Don't go, stay and make the idiot interviewer face the truth.