Where he signed his warrant, though, IMO, is when he said a couple of days ago that he would prosecute crimes of the Bush Administration. Obama is no radical, but he has a different power base, and clearly some powerful people are threatened by that. This is worse than the “Obama is a Muslim” stuff that Clinton has winked at, because the latter would not be a serious offense even if true, whereas most of the accusations against the Clintons would be serious, some extremely serious, if true. Look at the the 90’s classics that haven’t come up: Did the flashes on the Waco FLIR footage indicate that the government fired incendiaries? Did Clinton overlook cocaine traffic at Mena? Was Vince Foster really murdered? Why did Clinton collect FBI files on political figures? All this stuff could be revived, and will if Clinton were to secure the nom, but none of it is in the air now. The purpose of the debate was to skewer Obama, and the Tuzla question directed at Clinton was a token – a figleaf to defend a claim of balance, much as you will find on Fox.Ĭlinton supporters online are now claiming that Clinton has gotten this throughout the campaign, but I would like to see the transcripts. There is a reason that Clinton, her surrogates, and most of her online supporters are defending the debate, and Obama and his people are not, and it is not that Clinton and her people are all idiots. Other media/commenter types wanting to sign on should send an email to it has no place in this petition, one thing that concerns me about the previous thread on this tragedy is that most seem to postulate that the debate was equally unfair to both candidates. Thomas Schaller, Columnist, the Baltimore Sun Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America’s Future Mark Kleiman, UCLA/The Reality Based Community Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune) Todd Gitlin, Columbia University/TPM Cafe James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber/George Washington University Michael Bérubé, Crooked Timber/Pennsylvania State Universityīrad DeLong, Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal/UC Berkeley Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.Įric Alterman, City University of New York Stephanopoulos turned in “shoddy, despicable performances.” As Greg Mitchell of _Editor and Publisher_, describes it, the debate was a “travesty.” We hope that the public uproar over ABC’s miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. In the words of Tom Shales of the _Washington Post_, Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. This applies to candidates of both parties. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential “character” issues do not. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest.
#TRY THERE IS NO TRY FUCK THE PROM QUEEN FREE#
In such a context, journalists moderating a debate–who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves–have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction. We’re at a crucial moment in our country’s history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Neither moderator allowed them to do this. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. The moderators’ occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens’ interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC’s viewers. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. However, it is, so far, the worst.įor 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. We the undersigned deplore the conduct of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16.
Together with various other media types and bloggers, I’ve signed a “letter of protest”: at the way in which ABC conducted the debate on Wednesday night.
0 kommentar(er)
