Countdown: Keith Asks Greg Mitchell 'Was this Worst Debate in History?' - 4/17

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 06:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iknau_sIYuA   Posted on YouTube: April 18, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 18, 2008 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1232

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - April 17, 2008; Keith reports on the ABC Democratic debate and how horrid the questioning was. Greg Mitchell weighs in.

[Gonnuts]

1. Contrived

My beef isn't so much with ABC as they were the only network to break news last week that we have admitted, brazen, cowardly torturers in the White House, as my beef with HuffintonPost, MoveOn.org nad many other blogs for waisting their enormous political gloat on this comparatively trivial matter of whether we should have "good debates". This whole flap is too contrived, both the staged debate and the reaction to it.

Is it important that we have intelligent debates? Of course. But when measured against war-criminals having their hands on the deadliest weapons ever devised, having fair debates seems trivial.

So, I don't know if this is just a cover for no follow-up stories on our "bad apples" in the White House or not, but I would like to see HuffingtonPost & MoveOn not seem so much a part of the problem.

[ihavenobias]

4. I disagree

Because all of those organizations you just named HAVE spent quite a bit of time and effort on the torturers/war criminals in the White House, and how the MSM rarely if ever talks about those issues in any meaningful way.

Part of the problem? I don't see that AT ALL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x120322

[pacalo]

6. Take it from someone who has no vested emotions toward either Democratic candidate...

I could care less about "bittergate", Obama's pastor (who isn't in the running), flag lapel pins, if Obama lives in the same neighborhood as Bill Ayers, but if I did care enough, I should be more likely to find it in the "Enquirer" rather than through a prime-time network debate.

With as many problems as we have in this country, caused by the worst president in U.S. history, who has gotten one free pass after another for major mistakes that affect everyone but the top 10%, I'd like to hear more about how these candidates would handle each issue. I'd like to know if they'd correct any of the mistakes made in the last 7-1/2 years. I'd like to know if they are gutsy enough to handle corporate pressure.

This was not a constructive debate for those who are hungry for representation. It was constructive for GOP swiftboaters & for Hannity's ego ("I say it here & it comes out there" -- "Broadcast News").

[trumad]

11. Contrived?

The most serious problem this nation faces is the media...Period!

[lilyannerose]

12. Contrived?

I don't think that the debate is a "trivial matter." If we want our country back we need to stand together, at our collective notebooks and desktops, and create such a pounding on our keyboards that it will be louder than "50,000 shoes hitting the TV Screen." The MSM will keep this BS up until they get the message that We The People are not going to take it anymore.

[Zachstar]

2. I am glad that the media is EXPOSING this bullshit debate.

Questions from a RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN TALK SHOW HOST??!!! WHAT THE FUCK!!???

Thanks for posting as it is high time this shit was exposed.

[Warpy]

3. "The sound of 50,000 shoes hitting the TV at the same time"

Yep, I think he's right about that. I'm not surprised that Hannity wrote the questions.

Both these men should have known better. That they didn't should keep them away from hosting any more candidate appearances for the rest of their overpaid lives.

[Zambero]

5. There are no longer any real DEBATES per se

All the conventional rules for debates have been suspended and replaced by MSM ground rules. There is very little or no back-and-forth dialogue between debaters. What we now see are parallel interviews for the candidates, with the tone set by the moderators. These so-called moderators do not actually moderate a debate. They do set the tone for it, however, through their line of questions, revealing their own personal bias for or against a candidate. Last night we got 45 solid minutes (well including the ads anyway) of accusatory non-issue related questions aimed at one candidate, which served to set the stage for the other candidate to chime right in and pile on further. So without a doubt it was all-time the worst non-debate in history!

[Norrin Radd]

7. Ha ha! I didn't notice the pun when I saw it on TV. "Masters of Debate."

Master-debaters. :rofl:

[Beam Me Up]

8. All I have to say is, this is going to be one hell of an ugly election cycle.

Especially if this is any example of what is yet to come.

:puke:

Someone wants McCain in the White House. Bad.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. KO doesn't remember the LAST debate, the one NBC did with Russert doing Farrakhan.

Here is a summary of the NBC debate from Feb 28, 2008. Brian Williams refers to the episode in which Hillary criticized Obama's misleading campaign flyers which the press called Hillary's “Sybil” moment (he doesn’t use that word) and then reminds her that she stands accused of giving Drudge a photo of Obama in a dress--an accusation which the Obama camp was so slow to deny believing that everyone has burned Hillary at the stake for doing it. Tonight Obama finally admits that Hillary probably does not feed oppo to Drudge. Oh, what a nice guy he is. They argue some about their health care policies since that was what the Sybil moment was about. The next question was about NAFTA, on which Obama had been attacking Clinton. All this before Ohio, so it is very positive for Obama since he can blame her for NAFTA and it is bad for Hillary. That brought us almost halfway through the debate. Next Hillary was challenged about why she didn’t say that Obama would make a great commander in chief. This makes her look very bitchy. After asking Obama if he was going to accept public funding (a McCain question for the general election, don't forget, NBC is really stumping for McCain), Williams hammered Hillary about why she and Bill had not released their tax returns yet. This is just one of the ways in which the Obama camp has been proving that they are not into the politics of "distraction"---you know, acting exactly like Dan Burton and his committee and its 1001 requsts for Clinton documents. If you act like Dan Burton, you know you must be doing something right. And NBC is sure on the money asking about those tax returns that all of America says is their number one most pressing issue. Russert then shows that he is nonpartisan and attacks Obama on Farrakhan and Obama is about to fall into his trap (imagine the headlines tomorrow “Obama refuses to reject Farrakhan”), until Hillary suggest that he just reject him and get it over, which he does to applause. Hillary gets more bitch points for not standing up for Obama's initial refusal to reject Farrakhan. Obama supporters will soon convince themselves that she was the one who brought Farrakhan up. Next onto the National Journal’s rating of Obama as (gasp) the Most Liberal Senator as if Democrats give a flying f**k about the National Journal. This is really just another instance of NBC softening Obama up for the general election. Democrats do not rate "Who is the most liberal Senator?" are one of their pressing issues either. Nor do they care much about the next few questions about Russia and NATO although I bet that NBC's parent company GE wishes that they did so that GE could build some big missile defense grids at a tremendous profit.

That was the oh so pertinent debate that Keith Olbermann would have us believe puts ABC's debate to shame. The only way that I can see that it is better than the one last night is that it made fun of Hillary more than Obama and it promoted GE and John McCain's interests more obviously.


I wonder if the same CREEP operatives who drugged Muskie are putting something into KO's sport's drink. No one could become this dumb, this fast.

[RazBerryBeret]

10. I was disappointed in the debate

because ABC had advertised it as a big deal...I think that forum should be called something other than "debate". it cheapens the idea of debates. that was a gossipy question and answer session.

also, because it was on network TV instead of CNN, people who didn't see the previous--more serious--debates tuned into that and most likely did not come away with a great impression of either candidate.

a quote from Bob Cesca:

"The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight."
that just made me laugh....

[Dyllyn]

13. Thanks for posting

Thank you for this