Stephanopoulos Remains a Loyal Clintonista

May 1, 2008 — Ron Chusid

ABC apparently does not care about journalistic integrity anymore. The C in ABC must stand for Clinton, and unfortunately it doesn’t mean Anyone But Clinton. After hosting what was very likely the worst debate of all time in Pennsylvania, George Stephanopoulos has found an even more blatant way to whore for Hillary. He’s hosting a Town Hall for Clinton on This Week. Having Stephanopoulos hosting might even save Clinton the trouble of having to plant questions for this one, although she might not want to break from standard operating procedure.

Update: The Clinton apologists are claiming that there’s no problem here because Obama was invited to attend. First of all, such a last minute invitation is not very helpful as Obama’s schedule is undoubtedly pretty tight at this point making it difficult if not impossible to add on such an event if he wanted to.

More seriously, this totally misses the point. The problem is that there is a conflict of interest with George Stephanopoulos hosting such an event. It becomes more a televised Clinton campaign event than a legitimate news show. ABC should not allow this to air. This would be like Tony Snow hosting a Town Hall for John McCain a few days before the election, and then extending the Democratic nominee a last minute invitation. (The analogy would be even better if Bush was the Republican nominee but fortunately that cannot happen again.)

Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated that she prefers Bush-style manipulation of the news as opposed to answering real questions, including the use of planted questions. Having Stephanopoulos as host for such an event takes the sham to an even higher level. Clinton has also concentrated her campaign on poorly educated, low-information voters. She utilizes Rove-style attacks rather than campaigning on substance. When she does make an act of speaking on issues she resorts to ridiculous proposals which attract the interest of her uninformed supporters but which do not hold up to scrutiny such as with her support of the gas tax holiday and her proposals for the mortgage crisis. After Stephanopoulos’ conduct in the Pennsylvania debate, I bet he will only act to facilitate such strategies.

Posted in Hillary Clinton, News Media, Politics. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Stephanopoulos 1993 vs. Stephanopoulos 2008

April 19, 2008 — Ron Chusid

There’s been a lot of controversy over the type of questions asked in the last Democratic debate. Basically conservatives (as well as similar thinking Clinton supporters) who are obsessed with nonsense like the views of those Obama associates with, even if not held by Obama, or that patriotism is determined by wearing a flag pin, defended the debate. Those of us who believe that this is a pack of nonsense and want to see politics move beyond such wedge issues objected to the debate.

Yesterday a group of journalists wrote a letter critical of the debate:

We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. 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. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. 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. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators’ occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We’re at a crucial moment in our country’s history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction. 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. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential “character” issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. 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. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Add one more journalist to the list–the old George Stephanopoulos of 1993. Jason Linkins uncovered an old video clip in which Stephanopoulos saw things different while he was faced with responding to such right wing talking points. From the transcript:

What he’s going to do in this campaign is focus on what’s important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That’s what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don’t want to be diverted by side issues, and they’re not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, News Media, Politics. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

ABC and Hillary Clinton Double Team Obama With Slime

April 17, 2008 — Ron Chusid

Theoretically having a debate on a major network as opposed to cable might mean having a better debate. It certainly did not turn out that way. Looking around the blogosphere there is disagreement as to who won but most agree that the questions were horrible. Tapped writes that the questions were a disgrace. Greg Mitchell calls it a shameful night for the U.S. media. It seemed like every ridiculous bit of slime being spread the last several weeks was discussed, ranging from flag pins to associations with 60’s radicals to Obama’s bitterness statement.

Deciding upon who wins depends largely upon how you see these questions. While Clinton was asked about her Bosnia gaffe, the bulk of the nonsense questions involved Obama. This could be seen as a negative for Obama with him being placed on the defensive. I saw the major difference between the two being that Hillary Clinton tried to use the slime to her benefit. In contrast, Obama clearly would have preferred that such nonsense be kept out of presidential debates, and even defended Clinton on Bosnia.

The debate contained far too little of substance, but it did reveal more about the character of the two candidates. Judging the debate in this manner Clinton failed badly. Once again this debate demonstrated that the choice is a continuation of the same old Bush/Rove/Clinton style dirty politics or a change to politics of substance.

What really matters after debates is the general reaction, not my opinion. On the one hand, public opinion is partially determined by the media, and I fear that the media lacks the ability to recognize how terrible the questions were. Coverage based upon showing Obama on the defensive would not look favorable.

I remain hopeful that the American people are smarter than this and are growing tired of choosing presidents based upon who can be discredited with the most negative slime. If the American voters see it this way, the next president will be either Barack Obama or John McCain. The debate once again made it clear that Hillary Clinton lacks the integrity and character necessary to be taken seriously as a president, and has far more in common with George Bush than any of the other candidates remaining in the race.

Update: If it seemed like the questions were coming from the lunatic right as opposed  to rational journalists, there’s a good reason for this. George Stephanopoulos got his advice regarding the types of questions to ask from Sean Hannity. Of course Hillary Clinton remains on the same page as the far right, as I’ve noted many times in previous posts.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Hillary Clinton, News Media, Politics. Tags: , , , , . 17 Comments »

Edwards Questions If Obama Is Qualified to Be President

September 9, 2007 — Ron Chusid

John Edwards, who is probably the least qualified candidate from either party to have a shot at a presidential nomination in recent history, has questioned whether the far more experienced Barack Obama is qualified to be president. New York 1 reports:

Edwards admitted he’s unsure if his other Democratic rival Senator Barack Obama is qualified for the job, but called him talented, young and charismatic.

Hat tip to Think On These Things who had an excellent reply to this:

Wow. I can’t believe JOHN “All rhetoric, no record, least number of years in political office than any other Democratic nominee, co-wrote the Patriot Act and the bill that sent our troops into Iraq, did less work in his full single term in the U.S. Senate than Obama has done in his half term” EDWARDS, said that.

There are several additional items to add to this. Obama spent years working as a Constitutional law professor, community organizer, and member of the state legislature before entering the Senate. Edwards sought a single term in the Senate which he primarily used to run for the 2004 nomination. When he had to settle for the vice presidential spot, he placed his own plans for a 2008 run ahead of the interests of the 2004 campaign.

Bob Shrum may have summed up Edwards best when he called him “a Clinton who hadn’t read the books.” When the National Journal took a survey of the most overrated candidates, Edwards led the Democratic field.

Edwards’ term in the Senate is hardly anything to call one qualified to run for president. The blog I quoted above already noted Edwards’ blunders on the war and the Patriot Act. George Stephanopoulos also noted many additional areas where Edwards has changed his views from when he was in the Senate.

While Edwards made healthcare a cornerstone of his campaign we found that Edwards doesn’t even know that Cuba has a government run health care system, and he even asked this just a few days after recommending that people watch Sicko which looked at the Cuban system. His ideas on health care looked even more absurd when he started talking about making preventative care mandatory.

Obama sure showed he knows more about separation of church and state, with his comments sounding much more like those of someone qualified to be president than Edwards’ statements on religion and gay marriage. Obama’s experience in Constitutional law is also more pertinent to becoming president than Edwards’ experience in using junk science to convince juries that problems caused by fetal brain injury long before the onset of labor were due to alleged malpractice at time of delivery.

Obama also shows a better understanding of dealing with poverty than Edwards, as I’ve discussed here and here. Edwards’ use of the poverty issue appears much less sincere after the exposures of how he used his Poverty Center as a means to keep supporters on the payroll after 2005 and to avoid FEC regulations. His claim that he had no idea that the mortgage company he worked for was foreclosing on Katrina victims does not say much about his intelligence after he claimed he worked for the company to learn the business.

I’ve previously quoted Brad Warthen, editorial page editor of The State as showing examples of what a phony Edwards is. Edwards supporters replied here and elsewhere that he was just a right winger who would attack any Democrat. However this defense didn’t hold up when I checked for his writings on Obama:

The 23-year-old who still gasps somewhere within me is convinced that Barack Obama is completely for real when he channels JFK via Jimmy Carter…
I first spoke to Barack Obama — very briefly, because of cell phone problems while I was traveling through mountains — a month ago. He only wanted to talk about one thing: Clean. He was unveiling his plan for “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” — “Closing the Revolving Door,” “Increasing Public Access to Information,” and other Clean Government 101 stuff.

But with that overflow crowd of college kids providing better reception than my Treo, I realized that for this candidate, such yadda-yadda basics were more than just the talking points of that one day.

Warthen’s writings about Edwards being a phony appear much less partisan after seeing his comments on Obama and reading of his past support for Jimmy Carter.

There’s no doubt that Obama has less experience than many others who have run for president, but he has far more experience than John Edwards. Obama has also shown that he is far more knowledgeable than Edwards. Edwards has no business questioning whether anyone else is qualified to be president.

Related Post: Edwards Evades Question, Then Attacks Clinton for Triangulation. Not only is Edwards the least qualified candidate, he’s also the most hypocritical.

Posted in Barack Obama, John Edwards, Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
«
Newer posts » »