Democratic Debate: Tim Russert Frames It For The GOP
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Feb 26, 2008 11:45am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t BillW)
Tim Russert may think that he keeps his political leanings well hidden (like, say, his penchant for pins under his lapel), but his questioning of presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during this 20th Democratic debate certainly was less than subtle. Despite the fact the American people (and Iraqi people and American troops, come to that) overwhelmingly support a withdrawal from Iraq, Timmeh can't help but frame his question as if the White House press office wrote it themselves.
RUSSERT: I want to ask you both a question then, if this scenario plays out, and the Americans get out, in totality, and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as the American president, to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?
CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that…
RUSSERT: This is, this is reality…
CLINTON: Well, it isn’t reality. You’re making lots of different hypothetical assessments. I believe that it is in America’s interests and in the interest of the Iraqis for us to have an orderly withdrawal.
Nice, Timmeh. I like the framing of "oh, so you'll get out of Iraq, but will you be responsible for the hell unleashed by that? Will you go back in and re-invade to secure it?" An attempt to perhaps vindicate your buddy Bush, perhaps?
Russert's behavior throughout the debate was rather bizarre. He interrupted Clinton constantly and made ridiculously offensive insinuations of anti-Semitism against Obama on the fallacious logic of transitive relationships. (Very reminiscent of how he asked Obama his opinion of an anti-Bush statement made by Harry Belafonte, for no other reason than the shared color of their skin) How considerate of him to help out the GOP by starting his own Republican oppo whisper campaigns against the Democratic candidate right there in the middle of the debate.
Login or Register to post comments.
1st
Reality like 24.
Who knew Russia's new leader's name?
I didn't but that was a gotcha question and she got it right.
And is it just me, or did Timmeh look a little rough?
I thought his questioning of the candidates was fair. If they can't handle these types of questions, they shouldn't be running. Asking tough questions doesn't mean he's adopted the Republican line, it just means being a fairly impartial journalist
Russert wastes the nation's time asking gotcha questions, as entertainment, not news.
And BTW: Some of us could not watch the debates because MSNBC's website had Javascript crap that was not fully tested for compatibility on Firefox, Netscape, and Internet Explorer. In effect, the presidential debates have been hijacked by corporate media, and unless you subscribe to cable TV, you are not entitled to be an enlightened voter.
If this has not become a fascist country, I don't know what it is. But one thing I'd like to say:
Screw MSNBC.
Of course he does. Russett has GOP tattooed on both his, uh . . . - both of them.
*
Iraq hasn't already gone to hell?
God, no kidding. On the Farrakhan exchange, I half-expected him to just scream out YOU'RE A GODDAMN MUSLIM, AREN'T YOU OBAMA???
Loved when Hillary called him on his version of "reality."
Russert works for MSNBC, that should explain it. I know the Obama supporters thought that the bias shown against Clinton by the MSNBC staff meant that MSNBC was for Obama. Dream on. They are just manipulating the election so that McCain wins. You know, the same McCain that has Chris Matthews heart. They are not journalists, they are crusaders.
getalife @ 2:
I don't think Obama knew it either.
One thing you'll never see is this type of baiting taking place in a wing nut debate. The one good thing is who ever gets the nomination, they will be far more prepared for tough questions then St. John.
Lollimom @ 5:
That assumes you'd be 'enlightened' by hearing everything the candidates have to say anyway, which I think is a dubious proposition, since they are all completely fulla crap on the campaign trail, but yes, very anti-democratic for these debates to not be on PUBLIC airwaves. Sheesh, their oughta be a law.
Note to Timmeh: Iraq has already gone to hell. That's the reality. What a jerkoff!
great answer, Hillary! lies or not she deftly and insistently pointed to russet-potatoe-head that he was making it up!
Richard @ 4:
Really, you think asking Obama to denounce Farrakhan is fair and impartial? How is Obama responsible for Farrakhan? Nice little frame of anti-Semitism to seed in the mind of voters--Republican push polls do that all the time. You think framing the Iraq withdrawal as a "if you do, the 'terrists' are gonna git ya" is fair and impartial? You think interrupting a candidate EVERY time you ask for a response is fair and impartial?
With all due respect to you Richard, I am going to have quote The Princess Bride and say "you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means."
It appears that the only way to elevate political debate in this country is to put GE's Butt Plug into traction for a year or two.
I sure hope Americans are not so deluded in their thinking, to actually think ANY new Prez will get the troops out of Iraq. It just isn't going to happen. All the military leaders are against it. Truth about Iraq? The military put up walls to separate the fighting factions and that is the ONLY reason violence is down in Baghdad. If the military leaves, it starts up again. The "Ceasefire" is fragile at best, and without a sheriff monitoring the kids in the schoolyard, so to speak, the killings would start up again. The Iraqi leadership installed by Bush, is a coalition of the bribed, with no military support of their own. It is the worst planned occupation in history. So if a new Prez withdraws, all hell breaks lose, the military is sent back in, and whoever the new Prez is, gets blamed. The reliance of the Iraqi Puppet Regime on the US military, is total.
That Farrakhan thing was silly too. He denounced Farrakhan's views. What a candidate supposed to do, reject the support of any American voter that has views the candidate finds offensive? This race is for PRESIDENT of the country and everyone in it, not just people you like.
In the general, I'd like to see McCain asked if he rejects the support of everyone who is supporting him that would never vote for a black person.
Aww poor candidates. If they can't handle questions from big bad Tim, then they shouldn't be President.
Christ, it's kind of sad to see all these people of afraid of Tim Russert. The guy is tough on Repubs and Dems, I love watching reruns of him embarrassing Rudy Giggaliani and Mitt Romney.
russert blusters, "this is reality," as he conjures up a fictitious scenario...
bwhahahaha!
An aside: Thank HEAVENS the Democrat Congress has heard my pleas! They are now going to have investigations...into whether Clemens lied. They would rather chase he-said-she-said allegations over something that matters so little instead of going after the more important liars who have caused so much death and destruction in terms of our own men and women and treasure lost as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Way to go Congress. Warm up the fiddle, cuz Rome is a burnin!
If I were Obama or Clinton, I would have interuppted that shithead and said something like,
"You know, one of us IS going to be the next president. No doubt about it. When that happens, the FCC is going to be restored to integrity. Restoring the integrity of the FCC is going to be one of our highest priorities. There is going to be a day of reckoning, and the way the media has manipulated this election cycle is going to be deeply investigated. There are going to be some major changes. You need to think on that before you speak rudely to either of us, before you interupt either of us again", .....just to send a message to Jeff Immelt, Rupert Murdoch, and the other 3 CEO's who run the propaganda machine we collectively know as the MSM.
Who are the GOP framing?
Besides Obambam's church.
Let the Sunni/Saudis, the Shia/Iranis and AL Q fight it out so that Iraq self determines its own fate. If Al Q wins at least then we have a known government to obliterate the next time they pull their shit.
Chris Gamble-Democrat First. @ 18:
They did handle the questions. Your whine is out of place.
Nicole Belle @ 14:
It's obvious that russet-potatoe-head is teeing up the dems for the coming debate with McAin't.
"Asking tough questions doesn’t mean he’s adopted the Republican line, it just means being a fairly impartial journalist."
quoth Robert/
Can I just ask that you help me up off the floor? I'm done laughing hysterically now.
Timmeh certainly is living up to the many, many awards that he so deservedly used to receive from Mediawhoresonline.com. Ah, memories. Punkin'Head Tim is about an UN-impartial imperial journalist as you're likely to meet. Asking Obama to repudiate things said by other African Americans is indeed racist bullshit.
But Timmeh is the grand old man of media clowning (to paraphrase the incomperable Bob Somerby). See his Libby trial testimony. He's not a journalist at all: he's Dick Cheney's trained attack-weiner-dog. And Chris Matthews is there to scoop the poop.
Lord, these people make me tired.
i would have loved to see him try to pin cheney down while he had the chance instead of being used,after the administartion planted a story w/judy miller in the NYT about the uranium tubes...timmeh your a fucking moron,and the white house knows it to.
both clinton and obama are still laboring under the delushion that the war on terrior is real, both dont intend to withdraw from iraq or afganistan! both but especially wont renounce ameican agesshion against iran, nukes are still on the table! obamers mouth waters at the thought of attacking inside packistan hunting for alkidas and bin laddens ghost, fucking warmongers ! kucinich 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Richard @ 25:
Chris Gamble-Democrat First. @ 18:
with your frequent russert-cheerleading you must be running for pres of his fan club...
Samson- @ 19:
Yep, he sounded like an idiot.
I liked Clinton's answer. Obama's answer sounded like some triangulation - I think he was playing it safe. We saw Obama campaign from a position of a big advantage in his Senate race; he has to keep the acceleration going, not go into the 4-corners offense.
getalife @ 2:
I did, Dmitry Medvedev
Or as I like to call him Dim Wit Medivac.
Filthy Harry @ 24:
Can you not read my good man?
The campaigns and blogs have been crying about it all night.
Please learn to read.
rip william f buckley
you may not have agreed with his politics, but he elevated political debate and the englsh language to a high level
im sure he was disgusted by the wwe like politicking of recent years
and he was no fan of the chimp
Yeah, I didn't care for some of the angles he took, but "what if the terrorists take over Iraq?", is a question that will be considered by a lot of people. It is a little silly, but it gave both Clinton and Obama a chance to address it gracefully. On Obama's campaign finance pledge and Clinton's claim that she never said anything nice about NAFTA, they should have been chased around a bit. Clinton was good when she called him on hypotheticals and Obama alertly cut him off before he could start quoting Farrakhan at length. Russert bugs me sometimes but I prefer him to reporters who act as recorders of talking points.
Samson- @ 31:
We can't all be sheep little guy.
People like Russert, Matthews, that horrific Judy Miller, will always be linked to the Iraq disaster with their vomit inducing cheer leading for Dubyah. Russert is a such a hypocrite.
Why doesn't Russert just bring his copy of The Drudge Report and ask his questions directly from there?
I thought the role of a moderate was to ask questions and then ( silly me) moderate the answer of those questions between the candidates?
I don't remember when that role changed to include baiting questions regurgitating already proven falsehoods.
Fuck that pumpkin headed sack of shit , he seems to forget we all know dead eye dick cheny
owns him.... possibly the worst so called debate moderator ever . He acted more like he was
actually in the debate in which case he lost . I'm really sick of these self important pundants
thinking that they are all knowing and we really give a shit. Get rid of all of them now..
Did timmeh ask either if they believe in the theory of cintelligent desingm?
Chris Gamble-Democrat First. @ 37:
Yeah, someone needs to bugger them.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I found it outrageous that they would not let Hillary speak because they "had" to break for commercials! The future of America is being debated here and they can't muster the cash to broadcast it commercial free!?!?
That's everything that's wrong with this country right now.
SHAME ON YOU MSNBC!
I can't speak for the rest of the interview, in terms of tone or bias, but I think that particular question is a perfectly valid one.
I, too, would like to know what the Democratic candidates would do should there be a crisis in Iraq after a US withdrawal, be it orderly or otherwise.
I think we all deserve to know how the new President would respond to that. And to just lay blame on the Republicans for getting you into Iraq in the first place is a cheap cop out. No, the new President will own whatever mess he or she ends up in, and they need to know how to deal with it, and be able to communicate that to the rest of us.
Russert is a tool.
Mark @ 45:
I thought tools were useful.
Richard @ 25:
P.S.
Keith Olbermann is the one redeeming feature of MSNBC. The rest may be bottom feeders, but Keith is one of the last real journalists.
ya who would think someone should be asked hard questions
Chris Gamble-Democrat First. @ 34:
I can read. We're complaining that the questions were stupid or offensive. We're upset because we'd prefer intelligent digging questions that examine the candidate's positions. No one is afraid. However regardless, the candidate's did handle the questions.
Why is timmeh still on the air anymore than novacaine in the press?
They both helped in the perpetuation of treason.
Democracy in Danger @ 48:
So that makes timmeh a brown tonguer?
I think Tim is absolutely right to be asking this question - the US does want to get out of Iraq, but what will happen when we leave? This is why I have been against a withdrawl from the beginning, even though I never supported the war.
That is a very serious question and one that should be raised.
I was commenting on Timmy's questions during the debate. Hillary had it right. His question on pulling out of Iraq and al qaeda ratcheting up the violence wasn't dealing with reality. A what if, is not a serious question.
Tim admitted he went to Woodstock "in a Buffalo Bills jersey with a case of beer."
.
I didn't get to watch it last night, so I was wondering...
~ Did either one explain why neither voted on the PAA from the Senate?
~ Did either explain how the deterioration of the Fourth Amendment keeps Americans safe?
~ Did either explain how their continued support for funding the troop activities in Iraq is an act of getting them out of Iraq?
.
I would have like for either of the candidates to ask Timmeh if they were supposed to be debating each other or him?
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
This Buffalo Bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6pbnvDoTsM
Dang, there goes my argument that Obama will not fight back.
"John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."
Score one for Obama.
The disturbing reality in Iraq:
Chris Hedges: The Calm Before the Conflagration
LockeNessMonster @ 3:
Timmeh looked absolutely shitfaced at one of the previous debates.
Tim to Obama:
I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off
behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Richard @ 4:
There's a difference between tough questions and questions framed by rethug talking points. Got it?!
Yeesh 62,
You can throw away your own kleenex.
Dr. Acula @ 63:
Actually, you notice he's (presumably) basically plagiarizing what was said when the Democrats refused to debate on FAUX.
Timmy might need some quality time with Jeff Gannon so they can study journalism together.
fat russert just keeping his nantucket sugardaddy hap-hap-happy!
Jason B @ 53:
What? The US wants to get out of Iraq? Not before the oil corporations get the oil theft agreements signed.
Here's the reply I wish Obama had made:
It's interesting Tim you use the hypothetical of, if al Qaeda would take a stronger position, and push Iraq into civicl war and become 'hell'. The fact of the matter is, Iraq already has become hell. To the millions of people who have fled their homes, abandoned their jobs, Iraq has become hell. To the millions more of Iraqi people who remain amongst the threats of kidnapping and daily violence that plagues Bagdad and scores of other cities--Iraq has become hell. When you live without clean running water, or electricity that only is on a few hours a day, as most Iraqi people do--when worry every day about your loves ones turning up in some ditch, before being brutally tortured--that is hell. And one more thing Tim--to ignore that fact that Iraq already IS in civil war, is to be turning a blind eye to the reality that often is not portrayed in our brief news clips of what's going on in Iraq. Yes there is progress being made--but at what cost? How many American and Iraqi lives have been lost because of the decision by the Bush Administration to start this war on Iraq. We are not safer. We have not created stability in the Middle East. We have made things worst. From here on out we need to stop thinking in hypotheticals and take a long hard look at the reality we face today. We can not continue with the same failed policy that has created these problems to begin with. America needs new leadership, and I am ready to lead this country to... blaa blaa blaa (insert whatever cushy feel-good phrases here)
Max-1 @ 56:
Obama did vote against the PAA.
pud questions. Whoever wins the primary is going step into a shit-storm from the GOP shit machine, so might as well get use to it.
What did you expect from Russert? That's his style. The candidates know about Russert and his gotchas. They have to be sharp and ready for anything. They have to be prepared for his bullshit and learn to take any of his questions and turn them around. Attacking Russert has always yielded nothing. He never changes. He's MSM. He's connected and protected. Therefore, he's just another piece of turd on the road to the White house. You just have to avoid stepping in it. The bottom line, If a candidate doesn't like Russert, he or she always has the option of not never agreeing not to participate.
Roger Ailes should have heavily recruited Tim Russert and his show to Fox, and replace that 0-rating capitalist pig show on Sunday.
Russert acted like Drudges bitch. Not a journalist, but stringer for a GOP gossip. Pathetic.
Max-1 @ 56:
Errr . . no.
It was pretty much a scab-pick fest designed to get the candidates bickering of possible. No detailed questions on plans for the economy, crimes of the current administration, or most anything else that we view as substantive issues.
Is there any reason to presume they didn't?
Russert's garbage-out style last night was so beyond-the-pale it was pathetic.
The Farrakhan/your pastor grilling of Obama was coded racism. And if he and his cronies in the media don't see that, they need an Imus timeout.
Ron @ 70:
Incorrect.
Obama was not present for the PAA vote and voted FOR the Dodd Amendment regarding the removal of immunity for Teleco's.
.
Jason B @ 53:
When we leave, the UN - with heavy representation from the Islamic states - goes in, in whatever numbers are needed to assure the peace and reconstruction. We, Great Briton and other principal "Coalition of the Willing" co-conspirators are excluded, but pay most of the bill. At least then there is security, and the issue of being colonized and turned into a client/slave state whose natural resources are going to be looted and raped disappears. The Iraqis are overwhelmingly resisting a hostile occupation force that isintent upon taking their country from them. Al Q - such as it exists - was created by us through our hubris and bungling. They won't last 5 seconds after their only justification for existence is gone from the scene; the Iraqis hate them and will decimate them in short order.
The question of what happens when we leave has always been a WH red herring meme that was intended to distract from the obvious and manipulate us into thinking we had no choices.
Prairie Sunshine @ 76:
It's also another veiled reference to Islam.
I'm watching the debate now, but Russert's questions (that I've heard so far) have been abysmal.
Chris Gamble-Democrat First. @ 37:
you're right, i can't be a sheep--you've already taken that job.
so, we'll leave it to you to suck up to and defend the corporate media. it is a thankless job, but you seem to be big and tough enough to do it, hee hee.
Who in the hell chose Russert to moderate these debates anyway.
How bout some variety. Some diversity.
If the GOP put as much effort into governance as they do into fear-mongering power-grabs, they wouldn't have to resort to fear-mongering power-grabs.
Tim has been playing with his tool too much.
Barack Obama breaks the 1,000,000 donor mark this past night. An amazing feat by any standards.
And yet, last night, some of the posters here were gloating that Russert was sticking it to Clinton.
My, such situational ethics.
Yo Russert.... do you still beat your meat?
L.A. Confidential @ 82:
I would sell my left ovary for a debate hosted by Keith Olbermann...but then again, I don't think my fact starved brain could handle it. I'd probably wind up having some sort of seizure.
Tim Russert looked like he just came in from a night of hard drinking. Our media is in awful shape. We need to revolutionize the media structure in this country. Radio, TV, Internet, etc.
i'm surprised timeh didn't wear a pointy white hat last night.
Kudos to the candidates for not just losing it with Russert. My response to "This is, this is reality ..." would have been more like "No, it's NOT fucking reality, you idiot. It's a whole bunch of ifs. Holy Christ in a Honda, you're an idiot."
Technology can make our progressive causes that much easier to achieve...
www.MediaMatters.org
And Net Neutrality is of utmost importance.
Orangutan. @ 89:
The Con goal is to put the Media completely under one roof up and coming here. TV-Internet, the whole nine yards. One of the big fears of a Hillary Clinton administration is their plan to bust this thing up and regulate, return the airwaves and spectrum to the public to which it belongs.
If that happens the Propaganda is over.
Xenudo @ 91:
joe cantwell @ 90:
Ya got something against Yugos, guy?
When it comes to linking earlier posts I can'twell either.
L.A. Confidential @ 82:
How about Kermit the Frog?
ysbaddaden @ 96:
Anything but idiots trying to be hip would be fine.
ysbaddaden @ 33:
Bet you could pronounce it, too.
L.A. Confidential @ 93:
Why would Hillary do that when her husband was the one that helped introduce the legislation that made this all possible for the media? That doesn't make sense. Sort of like her saying she is against NAFTA, yet has stated over and over that she isn't until now. It is curious the amount of media endorsements she has got through donations as well including Murdick. I somehow don't think the media is afraid of her changing anything. Or anyone else for that matter. I think what you see right now, is the very least, what you will see after November. Very few changes. The backroom wheelers and dealers like things just as they are.
Jason B @ 53:
I agree that we should be concerned about what happens when we withdraw, but why not just ask that. To create the hypothetical that Al Qaeda seizes control (very unlikely - a Sunni group with no historical ties to the Sunnis in Iraq) and then to pose the question, "would you re-invade," is framing along Dick Cheney's playbook.
Pumpkinhead and Brainless Williams are really sad, sad, sad indicators of the health of our corporate media. Pumkinhead is like the nerdy high school kid who goes around trying to act like a sophisticated adult. The most pathetic moment was when he went around hawking that awful "big Russ" book.
For those of you who don't have time to watch the entire debate, I boiled it down to a little over 2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k-Jo_IZbwE
Hillary kind of set the tone with her hissy fit about the order in which the questions were asked, imo.
Fanon @ 98:
No, but I could fake it authoritively.
But then of course after that Politkovskaya/Litvinenko/Safarov incidents I'm getting the hang of it.
It's also easier than all those terrorists named ben/al/sadams/husseins/mohammeds you run across now
Preferably with a tank.
Paul @ 78:
Absolutely.
This is precisely what I've been advocating for the past 3 years. And everyone listens to me, so we should be in good shape in no time.
Seriously though, I agree. In order for real recovery and healing to take place, there needs to be a distancing between the victims and the perpetrators.
ysbaddaden @ 104:
I have learned with Russian and German that if you pronounce each syllable distinct and separate you will hit the mark more often than not.
Just once I'd like to see candidates walk right past the morons with a podium and start speaking to the people, let them ask the questions. Shut the fascist right-wing MSM down!
ConcernedCanuck @ 99:
Bill admitted being naive in trusting American business people would do the right thing when he signed that.
Let's go back to having the League of Women Voters running the debates. They really seemed to want to draw out from the candidates their views on ALL issues. The television personalities try to make the debates entertaining; they try to play one candidate against another; and they get too wrapped up with the hot news item of the day. I was amazed that Clinton and Obama were asked about Putin and Russia. All the other debates dwelt on the War and health insurance with a little NAFTA thrown in. And I really don't want to waste my time hearing them discuss their reaction to their opponents campaign statements (he said - she said).
L.A. Confidential @ 108:
He may have, but representing the DLC, you have to be pro-corporation or you get no donations.
L.A. Confidential @ 108:
ConcernedCanuck @ 110:
He admitted being naive of many of the major bills he signed. Bills biggest problem is he trusted people to much. He isn't a War Monger.
MountainMan23@60
OT
It's quite disturbing to know that our tax dollars are being used as a bribe, for a peace that will explode as soon as Cheney feels that it's appropriate for "the cause"!
My kids, and our community could really use that money for basic needs!
Instead, I'm paying some militant Arab and (or) Muslim to stop shooting and bombing people so that it will appear as though the "surge" has accomplished something...
A something (less bloodshed and ethnic cleansing) that is not listed as one of the true (political) benchmarks for any lasting progress!
I am completely ashamed of this country... the American Sheeple are about to be taken to the rendering plant!
Back to the Ghost Dance
So when did 'merka become iraq's legal guardian?
glad to see this post-- i was yelling at russert throughout the debate to stfu-- i was really hoping that hillary or barack would slap him silly for his asinine questions--
L.A. Confidential @ 112:
I always thought as good a leader as he was, that he thought too much with his pecker and let others run his important business. I find it hard to believe that a man in politics all his life would be naive on anything. Just like people who voted to give Bushie everything he's wanted pretending to "not really know" when the entire world knew and marched in mass protests.
MargeAggedon @ 114:
When it invaded and broke it.
cnn.com frames it for the GOP: Ticker: McCain will be hard to beat, poll says
I wonder if his hosts in North Vietnam found him hard to beat...
Sorry, just couldn't help muself there!
Back to the Ghost Dance
ConcernedCanuck @ 117:
I think that just makes it their 'pimp'.
Tim Russert is a complete and utter blowhard. He has taken a venerable program like Meet the Press and turned into "Read the Press" as he sits like a sixth grader reading from columns he's clipped. His mind is small, his questions and discussion shallow and one dimensional. How did this joker become OUR mouthpiece for questioning those who want to be our president.
He is truly an example of how Not All That Smart ends up in the driver's seat of our political debates. You can throw in Wolf Blitzer too for that matter, and that ridiculous routine he performs daily on CNN.
Our media is an embarrassment only surpassed by our ability to elect an intellectually challenged failure as our president.
Farrakhan can no longer be used as a litmus test. (Bad Black Man, Bad Black Man!) Loyalties demarcated by LF appear to suggest one will not get accepted by whites or jews. He's been used too long as an illegitimate socially conscious standard of some kind of undefined mental performance standard. I no longer answer those questions. And Barack deftly made it clear how he feels - so what part of his answer could Hillary not understand.
Do we say whites must reject and denounce the KKK or Karl Rove (Bad White Men, Bad White Men! Feels bizzarre, oui?) to be accepted by people of color? I don't recall ever hearing such a thing.
Will Romney get back in the race. Will the Bush/Rove Administration flipflop and go back to Mitt? Will those big money donors come back with them? Will it be revealed that that declined Ann Coulter credit card is connected to the unpaid bills of the Clinton campaign? Next week, on 'Barack The Vote.'
What else is trouble for the guy behind one half of McCain-Feingold is of course trying to get around the public financing/loan collateral issue. And of course, the count the McCain campaign lobbyists. So when people look at what Mc has done, we can also see some very sad 'why he did it' following closely behind.
But i do notice how the media finds there are only two parties on the ticket for November 2008 already. Nice.
Dr. Acula @ 118:
Ah yes. CNN appealing to the Republican base by using "hard" and "beat" in the same sentence as McAdultDiaperWearer. Too rich.
MargeAggedon @ 120:
Maybe, but after killing over 1 million of them with the promises of a better life and democracy, the US really has no alternative. If it leaves them to bleed, it will come back and bite 'em on the ass.
ConcernedCanuck @ 124:
Koolaid good then?
Democracy in Danger @ 48:
KO, Abrams, Maddow & Buchanan are all that separates MSNBC from Faux. That was the most poorly moderated "debate" ever. Time for me to completely banish MSNBC except for KO, but sadly, he too has sipped some kool ade.
>Who knew Russia’s new leader’s name?
I didn’t but that was a gotcha question and she got it right.
I did, Dmitry Medvedev
Or as I like to call him Dim Wit Medivac.
Bet you could pronounce it, too."
Dubya's magical jetpack-earpiece would have known ... and I'm sure he would have pronounced it wonderful ..
I had never read that bit about Timeh's Bush campaign button under his lapel. I can't believe he would have a job after that. What a shill.
MargeAggedon @ 125:
What koolaid would that be? You think after killing all those people, maiming their women and children, and torturing their citizens, the US can just get up and "let's move 'em on out?" I don't think so. It was the US government that did this. Right or wrong it is the responsibility of the US citizen. Period. The government represents YOU. Doesn't matter if you voted for them, or if they stole the elections, or whatever. It is a reflection of you. I think perhaps you should have a glass of "reality" instead of koolaid.
Russert's "Farrakhan" question was just stupid -- and bizarre. I mean Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary. Does that mean that Hillary is pro-eating disorder? No. It doesn't. Stupid anchor man.
Andy @ 10:
Of course, St. John won't get the tough questions, only the Dem nominee
why dont they get asked questions by poli sci professors, or others from academia? why is it always a russert or a williams or some dumb ass it is impossible to respect. agony.
And don't forget that Mr. Brian Williams used to work for Dick Cheney. Look back at the very end of the debate- Obama approached Brian to shake his hand and I don't think that Brian could have walked past him fast enough. If Obama does indeed win the nomination he's going to get hammered daily by all of the networks.
Russet(!) used the deceitful tactic of coming out half-cocked as an approach to Hillary (which she tackled very well BTW) knowing full well she wouldn't feed into it. Then posed the same question(disguised as a new question) in a calmer, more casual way to his intended target Obama, who would feel obligated to answer. OBama's only way around that loaded question, at this point, was to hedge it.
These fukkwads are experts in deceit and haven't gotten to where they are otherwise.
Hillary rambled on and on and on about fine details of her health care plan (yawn). She used up a heck of a lot of time with her filibustering. Russert finally put a stop to it. These fine details are a silly waste of time because once it goes through Congress it would be different anyway. Russert came off rough, but Hillary was aggressive and would not stop filibustering.
Chill @ 133:
When was this? Williams used to be a local news anchor in NYC.
ConcernedCanuck @ 129:
Stop with that Canadian thinking, in the US of A it is *always* somebody else's fault.
The amount of denial is astounding in this country really...
Tyler Durden @ 137:
It's disgusting. Support our troops, and hey wow 4000 dead. Ya, that's terrible. Now try looking at it from the point of the innocent Iraqis who did NOTHING to the US. Nothing at all. You broke it, you fix it.
I was CERTAIN that half those questions Russert asked were written by Sean Hannity.
Chill @ 133:
<a
ConcernedCanuck @ 138:
Americans are selective, it is how we operate.
Most politicians know the actual number of people who perished on 9/11. Now, ask about the actual death toll due to Katrina victims... and not even most federals agencies even bothered to keep an actual body count or victim ball park number.
Years from now, few people in this country will even know --or care-- about the actual death toll suffered by the Iraqis. But they will surelly remember the exact number of Americans lives lost fighting for democracy, once the Iraq war monument is erected in DC. Who knows, we may even have some big budget Hollywood movies describing the horrors of Iraq. And that will be as far as the American Mea Culpa will go.
Never mind that this country killed a few hundred thousand of innocent civilians, it is the freeest country on the world, defender of Democracy. The TV said it, and they would never lie... you Canadian lumberjack!
ConcernedCanuck @ 129:
After causing all that grief staying under the guise of 'cleaning up' or 'keeping the peace' is a sick joke. Who do you suppose is going to 'fix' things? The no bid contractors? Blackwater? It's way past time to get out.
And you really think that the average person struggling to get by and keep up is really responsible if their politicians are lying sacks of murdering shit? They're responsible for the dogs who steal elections and then force them into illegal wars for profit?
"RUSSERT: I want to ask you both a question then, if this scenario plays out, and the Americans get out, in totality, and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as the American president, to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?"
I believe that in the future debates questions that frame or slant towards a particular agenda should be opened for questioning as to the motivation of the person throwing out the question.
I would probably say the best strategy would be to indicate that was a legitimate question but to question the way it was framed. Then I would site examples of the political leanings of the questioner (politely) and ask them to rephrase the question without the obvious political agenda.
The Dems need to be aware of how questions (intentional or not) can be manipulated during the course of a debate to serve the ROP's agenda.
Karike @ 135:
Filibustering is what Obama did when he couldn't just say "I reject Louis Farakahn." Or when he wouldn't say he'll keep his word about public campaign financing regardless of whether he's the nominee or not. Those 2 things made no sense for him to drag out. If he's the nominee, he has to keep his word. If he's not the nominee, it won't matter. What was so hard about just cutting Timmeh off at the knees with a short straight answer about Farakahn so they could move on to something important? Which, in Tweety's case, wasn't health care. What a jerk, whining about how long they talked about health care (which most Americans care about) instead of obsessing over his preferred topics like Hillary's laugh & why white men won't vote for that "castrating" "bitch" (still waiting on an apology from McCain for that supporter's vulgarity).
In addition to this same thought...
"I would probably say the best strategy would be to indicate that was a legitimate question but to question the way it was framed. Then I would site examples of the political leanings of the questioner (politely) and ask them to rephrase the question without the obvious political agenda."
or,
I would probably say the best strategy would be to indicate that was a legitimate question but to question the way it was framed. Then I would site examples of the political leanings of the questioner (politely) and then would of indicated that a 100 years or more of a Iraq campaign is probably the most viable strategy that the questioner supports. Therefore I understand why the questioner would want a question of this nature addressed.
Then I would answer the question.
There's one thing to do: challenge McCain openly to present a reality-based scenario upon which, as he claims today, Al-Qaida would take over the whole country. Call him/them on it. I assume everyone here knows why AQI could never take over Iraq. And we've got to not only show that McCain is dangerous, but that he is fundamentally wrong.
Billo is tha LAST guy I would ever think I would agree with... but he accuses NBC news constantly of being anti-Hillary... and basically an OBAMA SUPPORT NETWORK. Last night Timmeh proved that he and his co-ourts are no such thing... he proved that they are against BOTH of the Democratic candiates.
And by the way, one other little "McCainism" to challenge: The Surge is Working! Well, given that after the Surge brigades leave Iraq this summer there will still be more U.S. forces in Iraq than before the Surge, how is this a victory or a meaningful success of any kind? Call 'em on their rhetoric. Thats all they've got, aside from a continually stupid electorate who keeps falling for this BS.
The problem with MSNBC is that they are more concerned with perception than with consistency. They blow left-right, hot-cold depending on who's putting pressure on them, who's crying about being put upon, etc etc...or, heavens to betsy, being "liberal". Remember, they're part of the NBC "offend no one" corporation. Whereas Fox News just plows ahead being as openly partisan as they want, and laughing all the way to the cable news bank. MSNBC acts like Democrats do, Fox News acts like Repubicans do. Wonder which one has the most success and why?
Timmeh, I served with Mr. Potato Head: I knew Mr. Potato Head; Mr. Potato Head was a friend of mine. Timmeh, you're no Mr. Potato Head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofccRKsi2Eo
Login or Register to post comments.