You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows at ABC News
Just when you think the corporate media can't sink any lower George Stephanopoulos, the former Bill Clinton communications director and co-moderator of Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate on ABC News, fired off a bizarro question at Barack Obama that came right out of the brain of Fox News' Sean Hannity.
So Rupert Murdoch's shills over at Fox News get to frame the debate among the candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination for president? I guess Rupert's work is complete now.
The only aim of Sean Hannity's question that happened to pop out of George Stephanopoulos's mouth was to slime Obama by charging him, once again, with guilt by association. The opening for the Far Right and for ABC News to smear Obama came from the benign fact that as a community organizer Obama had crossed paths a few times with the long-time Chicago activist and English professor, Bill Ayres, who once belonged to the Weather Underground. The other questions about lapel pins and the level of love for his country in the heart of Reverend Wright have all the hallmarks of a political assassination attempt. And Mayhill Fowler's "bitter" charge sure has legs!
Neither Stephanapolous nor Charlie Gibson should be allowed to live down this journalistic atrocity. Their efforts at character assassination could only be "balanced" if they were to ask the Republican candidates during a televised debate a question submitted to them by someone who is as far to the Left as Hannity is to the Right. I have a suggestion: Next time, for fairness sake, Stephanopoulos should ask John McCain a question formulated by Bill Ayres.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I was just watching Reliable Sources address the debate, and yeah, I think we can all agree the "flag pin" question was a bit much, though I didn't realize "the women on the street" who asked the question was actually someone the NY Times quoted about this, but all these other questions really were legitimate. The media has focused on the Rev. Wright and "bitter" remarks ad nauseum, and this IS the first debate held since these issues came up. But the larger point is that of the other 20-something debates, many of them focused rather harshly on Clinton's negatives. This ONE debate was more focused on Obama's, the front runner's, negatives, and the whining is deafening - just deafening. I think that highlights pretty starkly just how great the bias in the media really is. And let's face it, if he had actually performed well, no one would be saying a word, other than to praise how he tough he is.
This entire argument highlights IMO a greater issue, the liberal media's overwhelming favoritism toward Obama, and that's actually the more substantive issue here. When Clinton was the front-runner, that was the "excuse" for her getting the majority of the hammering. If Obama makes it to the general election, you can bet he's going to get roughed up plenty and that these issues are going to come up again.
So . . . he can cry me a river. He's sure never complained about be the liberal media's darling.
Someone should ask McCain if the reason for staying in Iraq for 100 years is because that's how long it'll take to ensure that there are no survivors. And since 4000 Americans have been killed over 5 years, and he claims that we're doing well, does that mean that 80,000 more deaths would be acceptable to him? Or we can rehash the people HE was associating with during the S&L scandal. Or how he can say torture is wrong as a Senator, say that it's okay during the GOP primary, and then say that it's wrong again once he's locked up the nomination?
He'd be fairly easy to stump by simply demanding specifics on how he plans to continue an unsustainable war, cut taxes further, increase military spending, and somehow fix the economy. He can be exposed for the dinosaur that he is by focusing on his idea that nuclear power is the magic fix to our energy problems. And he'd be easy to trap by making him make a statement strong enough so that he couldn't backtrack on it later (which has been his strategy for this election in particular and really his political career overall). Only problem is that people don't pay attention to policy, consistency, and logic. Image is everything and the election is simply a popularity contest. Unfortunately, McCain has been sold to the public as a straight talker and a centrist when really he is neither. THIS is where he needs to be attacked.
I am not sure which way the wind blows. but, you dont need a weatherman to tell that ABC blows.
Sean Hannity has become a characterture of himself or what he claims to represent politically.
How is the hypocritical, fanatical hate and anger he spews towards the left every day any different than what he accuses Wright of doing? It’s political journalism bordering tabloid satire.
How about his own questionable “associations”? His allegiance to the right is blind. It doesn’t matter who in the Republican Party runs – Hannity is on their side and they do no wrong.
This may have worked in the past, today we’re too savey, too connected, too informational globalized now to not see it for what it is.
Hey, not so fast. debate moderators are charged with one duty only; that is to ask the most relevant and pointed questions from the citizenry's perspective of the candidates. Ordinary folks could care less about the esoteric machinations of economics or byzantine international politics which are meaningless to most.
These guys were only doing their job.
What is relevant about flag pins? Is a president unable to govern without one? does it convey some sort of mystical magical power on its wearer?
What is so relevant about the patriotism of a third person? Is a president unable to govern if everyone is not at patriotism level green?
What is so relevant about the bitterness or lack thereof of the PA electorate? Is a president unable to govern if the bitterness level is at bitterness code orange? Is that what drives the price of fuel to record levels?
What is so relevant about actions of a 60s radical who is now about as mainstream as they come (sitting on civic boards in the nation's 3rd largest city) that a president who was in grade school in either Indonesia or Hawaii at the time of all this radical behavior (and had no idea their paths would cross despite of any musings of presidential aspirations found in kindergarten papers), must be concerned about today?
What is so relevant about about the ideological vision of a Marine Corps vet (who helped operate on a sitting US President) who became a minister to a flock of black Americans on the south side of Chicago that this minister's view are a threat to a President who attended his church for who gives a shit how long?
Doing their jobs? Bullshit, and you know it.
We've become a reality show society...
our attention span, collectively, is dulled and abbreviated by our constant visual, sensory and emotional stimulation.
we depend on our media (you know, the media that definitely is not a corporate enterprise, because money is definitely an arbitrary thing to Americans) to do the majority of our thinking as we devolve to porcus erectus by means of our sedentary lives.
Don't expect this "watchdog' media to prepare/inform the people of any ensuing crisis...h
They (Stephanopolopolous and friends) are doing what they're paid to do, but are they journalists? No. They're simply cheerleaders for a hypercapitalst new world order and smiling stewardesses on a ship set for certain disaster.
In that case, let the ordinary folks eat cake.
George S pro Clinton bias can be clearly seen on his Sunday yak show. Cokie Roberts swoons over Clinton, and George frames the round table debate to always point out stuff about Obama and never about Clinton. Biased journalism at it's best.
George S. can't get any lower, he is already so close to the floor.
What I don't understand is if the GOP has about 30% support how is it that people fear them so?
Who gives them this power? As the saying goes: You cannot be taken advantage of without your consent.
Why is the Right allowed to set the agenda and the tone of campaigns? Why is the excuse of "well he needs to be toughened up to face the republicans" acceptable rationale for despicable behavior of so called professionals? It makes one think of two warring factions.
Is that what this country's politics have come to? Essentially a contained civil war where each side does battle every 2 years and have a major battle every 4 years and then practice detente in between.
How is that a sane way to run a country?
I
Obviously it isn't, and a good bipartisan front was just witnessed. The media should not be able to shape the discussion of politics in the manner they see fit. The country's problems are not partisan, conflict, suspicion, mistrust..
Little George and fat Charlie are examples of what is wrong with so-called reporters. They accuse Obama of being out of touch but they are really the ones out of touch. For nearly an hour, they acted like a Hollywood Tabloid and could not raise anything of import to this nation until citizens actually began booing them. ABC was getting directions from FOX and the Clintons, with little George still paying back Bill for giving him a job as Communications Direct that he sucked at and ended up being demoted. ABC and its staff is a joke.
George is afraid if he does not support the Clintons, James Carville will call him "Judas"
Agreed. Let's hope the electorate wakes from their stupor and begins to act. Otherwise this rightward drift will continue. The media can manufacture consent because they aren't forced to pay a price for their actions, people keep watching their garbage and buying their stuff.
I seriously hope when Obama wins the presidency some good legislation is passed to prevent the control that the media has in shaping the politics of this country. It is divisive and only serves their own greedy interests. Something should be passed so our representatives wouldn't have to spend so much time pan handeling to buy air waves that are supposed to be owned by the public in the first place.
You know, what is not healthy is how Clinton supporters bash Obama suporters and vice versa. Yes, ABC engaged in a character assassination on Tuesday night. Here is the thing I want Clinton supporters to think about. If Clinton gets the nomination (I do not think she will, but what if) what do you think the Republican machine will do to her? They want to run against Hill, not Obama and that should tell you something. Hill has not been fully vetted either. This is the first time she has run for president. She is not an incumbent. They are going to sock it to her and sock it to her hard. And all your cries of sexism is not going to help her. So you should be upset because she got off scott free the other night, but this did not help her. You all are underestimating the GOP like you did Obama and that's bad. If by some miracle Hill gets the nomination, the GOP is not going to show any mercy. She has not convinced me that she is going to be able to take on that machine. Remember, much of the grief Bill received from the GOP was when he was in office. Not before. So the fully vetted argument doesn't hold water. Remember, he was impreached and that is going to come up in the general election. And if she runs that campaign like she is running this, get ready for President McCain.
Gibson and Stephanapolous may be the modern era's Gilbert and Sullivan, except neither one can carry a tune worth a damn.
Think about it. Gilbert and Sullivan were masters of the nonsensical and comical. Ditto, Gibson and Stephanapolous. Gilbert and Sullivan had intellectual pretensions. Gibson and Stephanapolous, in spades. Even their initials are the same.
Gibson and Stephanapolous, the modern Gilbert and Sullivan without the wit or the entertainment value.
Yes Sean A. Hannity and George A. Stephanapolus are brothers. Sean loves to have George on his talk show all the time. So they both are Fox gooneys.
Actually, George is Hannity's sock puppet.
This is not about "defending" Obama at all -- get serious, Sean Hannity? The man lives to eviscerate all Democrats, he's made a handsome living trashing everything liberal -- he really is a fascist if you ask me, and a dumb one at that because people like the ones he serves at Fox, Protestant ruling class folks, if this were 1908 instead of 2008 they'd be calling someone like Hannity a Mick and barring him entrance into their world. What Stephanapolous did was inexcusable because he asked a slime-ball question that was planted by a Republican attack dog -- what's the point? So people need not worry about their mortgages, or their jobs and the economy, or the price of gas and heating oil, or whether they can send their kids to college or get health care, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what's important to DEMOCRATIC voters in Pennsylvania (Hannity and his people are not going to vote Democratic ever) is put forth by Hannity, i.e. some smear about Bill Ayres, who is a fine guy and has done great work helping his community.
Are you serious, "fine guy....hel
I guess I'm in the minority - but I think Obama handled all the questions with candor and dignity. I think it was one of his best debates. He was classy enough not to beat up on Clinton about Tuzla, and Columbia, because he thought they were gotcha issues. I guess that disappointed some people, but I applaud, and appreciate, the high road. If all the negative stuff wins - that's what we'll get every time. It's time to put our money where our mouth is - either we want a candidate who takes the high road, and discusses issues, and coming together to solve them, or we want a candidate like Clinton, who uses a scorched earth policy to divide and win. (even attacking Democratic "activists")
Obama did an admirable enough job at enduring this farce. He's had to suffer so many of these indignities in order to get to the presidency. It will be nice to finally have a respectable president again after all these nightmarish years.
One critical question (finally!) for Obama and all the Obama supporters are complaining. He better get used to this kind of thing, he has been given a free ride so far by the press but he won't in the general election and the sooner he gets used to this kind of thing, the better if he is going to run. The SwiftBoaters of 2008 are sure to be busy and he better to able to fight back and answer them back if he wants to win.
One critical question ( finally ) for the Hillary supporters.
Why not just come out and say it. You don't think he can win because he's black. He's beating you in delegates and popular vote, but you don't think those numbers will hold up because he's black.
Just say it. It'll do you good. It might be cathartic. Not saying your racist.
You're just cowards. Not believing people in this country can see past skin color at this late day and age. You're cowardly Democrats, not realists. If you look and the youth vote, the slumbering giant that has been awakened they don't seem to hold the same racial fears you do.
No more of this triangulating, vascillating, rationalizing. No more elitist bullshit. No more " we're just vetting him for the awful rigors to come from the GOP." You don't think he can win because he's black.
JFK was a candidate with less experience than most others, but he proved to be a decent administrator because he knew how to chose the right people for the job. The most important part of being president is being able to assess ability. That is one thing president Bush never understood.
JFK was also hamstrung by a subtle bias, he was Catholic. I heard stuff about the Pope telling JFK what to do. What about 'pipeline to the Vatican?'
Those who wont vote for Obama because he is black needs Hilary and BIll's more subtle attacks...
After Hilary met with Murdoch some months ago, I wondered what the topic was. Now I know....'h
If enough American's complain than maybe the politico's will finally realize we don't like trash politics. We don't need Democratic versions of Karl Rove. And with John McCain, since he was the victim of this type of garbage in the 2000 primaries, he may not want this style of campaigning either. I find it interesting, that in a democracy, the public gets criticized by media pundits for voicing their displeasure at tabloid style debates.
Maybe enough people just don't care about responding to slanderous bullshit. But I can see its very near and dear to your Clinton/McCain loving self
SwiftBoaters? Who needs the SwiftBoaters when you've got Hillary's 527 doing the grunt work *for* McCain? http://www
That wasn't a debate, it was a political lynching. Period.
And if you could see him through my eyes, he wouldn't look ( whispered ) "elitist" at all.
Not to worry, plenty (most) people saw through the blather. Obama is staying above the fray where he belongs. A class act we so sorely need.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
