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.
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.
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.
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.
These guys were only doing their job.
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.
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...hell, there's enough in the agricultural realm for there to be bread lines in the U.S. in the next five years...anyone remember the dust bowl? well its worse now (our industrial agricultural practices, i.e.). Grassroots empowerment through local food systems is absolutely critical if we are to ensure -anything- to our children and grandchildren.
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.
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
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.
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 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....."I didnt mind he was a negro, it was just hanging out with the rappers that made me vote for McCain.'
After Hilary met with Murdoch some months ago, I wondered what the topic was. Now I know....'here is a wad of money to destroy the Democratic Party, Hilary. Go get 'em.'