I'll say it. I thought the questions from MSNBC were fair, for both candidates...

[sfam]

Whether or not we see Russert as a bloviator or not, I think the selection of questions where pretty fair. Both the Farrakhan question to Obama and the tax release question to Hillary were both fair, as were most all the questions.

To those blaming MSNBC for doing something wrong here during the debate, I just don't see it. At all.

[RunningFromCongress]

1. Agreed. Russert is a real journalist, he asks hard questions to everyone.

[democrattotheend]

2. They both got tough questions, but at times Russert was harder on Clinton

like on NAFTA. But overall, they both got tough questions.

[Barack_America]

5. I agree with this. Russert had clearly researched better how to go after Clinton.

I guess you could argue that this was instead due to her longer history in Washington and, thus more positions to attack, but I don't think so.

He also didn't let her stray from the question as much as he did Obama.

Obama got tough questions too, but there was a clear bias, IMO.

[papau]

32. I agree - Russert allowed Obama some non-answers - but drilled down with Hillary every time

[Barack_America]

34. FYI...

I'm an Obama supporter. If you could remember that the next time Obama supporters are trashed around here, I'd appreciate it. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to point out that we're not all non-objective cultists. :D

[sfam]

9. You didn't think the Farrakhan question was tough??

I agree the NAFTA question was tough, but Tim defended his position fairly clearly I thought. More importantly, he got them both to agree that they would renegotiate or cancel this agreement. Why is this a bad thing for our candidates to say?

We TRULY need a discussion on industrial policy with McCain - EITHER candidate will eat him for lunch on this topic.

[Barack_America]

26. The Farrakhan question was sleazy.

The moderator referencing your previous positions on an issue and pointing out that your supporter (Strickland) previously condemned something that you have also done...that is TOUGH.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. WTF? We're all dealing with the Russert and Williams crap and you post this?

:wtf:

[sfam]

6. What crap? Did you expect softballs all night? Truly, what are you talking about?

I honestly don't get the objections here. Don't give me a subject line - what are you talking about?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Nader got softballs.

Neither Democratic candidate could expect that treatment.

[sfam]

12. What in the world does Nader have to do with anything?

That guy is off TV after this week. Why bring this up?

And why do we want softballs here? Why would this be a good thing?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. I truly can't follow your sub references. I leave it to others to track this

argument. :-)

[mtnsnake]

19. LOL!

[sfam]

24. My sub-references???

What would those be?

[EFerrari]

4. The questions were framed in a coercive way.

The topics were fine and fair but the actual questions weren't. Grill 'em, as far as I'm concerned but once you use the frame "when did you stop beating your wife", that's just an abuse of the situation.

[sfam]

7. I didn't see it that way at all...

I really like that we got tough questions on both sides. I would FAR prefer the candidates get exposed to this stuff now than later. I thought all the questions were pretty fair, even if harsh on occaision.

[EFerrari]

14. If you get a chance to watch it again or even parts of it,

listen for the framing. :)

[Abacus]

10. I think everyone's on to

what got CNN their debate ratings boost. It is in their interest to make it heated on the stage.

[reality based]

11. What was not fair were their active efforts to prevent the candidates from answering those questions

as well as trying to put words in the candidates' mouths. It was basically a warm-up for GE's plans for influencing the general election.

[sfam]

15. When did the candidates not get their points across?

Truly, they pretty much both walked over the moderators on the health care issue. When did the candidates not get their views expressed? I didn't see it.

[RBInMaine]

13. Yeah, but the "gotcha" and fight-bating questions were silly.

There was no need for these guys, especially Russert, to go so hard-ass here as they were on Meet The Press. That was BS. This was supposed to be a debate about the issues, not this kind of
almost tabloidTVism, shock-jock type questioning.

[sfam]

17. examples? What exactly weren't fair about the questions? nt

[RBInMaine]

31. I'm speaking to the tone, wording, baiting, etc. No need of it.

Oh c'mon, taking this Meet The Press tack by throwing out things like, "So you're going to go back on your word?" type frame; the pop quiz thing about the new Russian President's name and "do you know anything about him?" phrasing, and that last gimic about ending by trying to get each candidate to crap on the other. There wasn't a need for using this kind of "let's get some ratings here" tv tactics. Yes, these people are running for President and need to be well vetted, but this was a Presidential debate, not Meet The Press or Hardball.

[sfam]

33. I don't get why you think MTP should be asking more pointed questions than a presidential debate...

if anything it should be the reverse, especially after 19 debates. Its not like we haven't heard both candidates waxing poetic on health care prior to today. Framing the public financing question as breaking his word is exactly how its being portrayed in the MSM. Whether this is accurate or not, this was an OK question to ask I thought.

[Enrique]

18. criticism of the media on DU is not credible

the price we have to pay for being so fucking stupid is that we no longer have the high ground over the media.

[Political Heretic]

25. Salient point.

Sad but true.

[sfam]

28. agreed. Jon Stewart has the right of it...

They really don't care about a particular candidate, they just want scandal and sensationalism.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

30. You may be "so fucking stupid". Doesn't mean all are.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I disagree

His whole career is built on trying to put people in uncomfortable positions - not to elicit meaningful answers to important questions.

There's a place for the former, but it's ALL he does.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. Tim Russert is flagrantly biased......

He goes into a 5 minute diatribe beating Hillary over the head, then asks a question at the end of it and considers that fair.

[Liberal Veteran]

22. I thought the tax release question was fair, but the Farrakhan question was ridiculous.

My reasons are very simple:

The release of her finances is totally within Clinton's sphere of influence.

Nobody has any control over someone else's voting choice.

[sfam]

27. The Farrakhan question was absolutely fair...yes it was a landmine, but...

This is sort of what Russert does. This doesn't imply it wasn't fair though. Barack ended up defusing the situation fine I thought. This is FAR better than it hanging out there and the Repubs using this as a ridiculous campaign attack, I thought.

[Ravy]

23. I thought this was the best debate by far. Particularly because

it took both candidates to areas they don't normally cover in their campaign speeches. I learned quite a bit tonight.

[NDambi]

29. Agreed. It was better than CNN