Skip to content

MSNBC “debate”

February 27, 2008

I think I’ve made it fairly plain that I don’t suport Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President. I’ve pointed out a lot of her bad points, and alluded to certain unethical practices that the Clintons have been guilty of.

Do you know why I have the freedom to do that?

Because I’m not in a position to have to be fair or balanced. I have the choice to support whatever candidate I like and tell anyone who will listen exactly why.

Debate moderators do not have that luxury. Their job is to ask questions and keep time. That’s it. Not so for Tim Russert, apparently. The debate started with Hillary being completely grilled on every campaign foible, then Obama being asked, compassionately even, how he felt about that.

Hillary was visibly upset rather quickly, as this set the theme for the whole debate. Throughout the debate, Clinton was privy to answering questions about every shady campaign move she’s made while Obama got more fair questions about policy. A couple of times, Obama rose to Clinton’s defense against the constant stream of stones being thrown by the “moderator” Russert.

I have never been made so aware of the skew in the MSM. MSNBC showed zero adherence to the ethics of journalism or to the foundation of debate. For that, I have no respect for them or any journalist who doesn’t point out the blatant disregard for neutrality in this debate.

If this is the type of “news” that MSNBC shovels out, then you can count on me to not be watching. I don’t give a shit how smart and funny Olbermann is.

14 Comments leave one →
  1. February 27, 2008 8:19 am

    I am definitely not a fan of HRC, but I agree with your assessment. It pained me to watch it. They practically fawned over Obama and grilled Hillary relentlessly.

  2. February 27, 2008 9:27 am

    Joe_M, how would you feel if Rhode Island attacked Vermont this weekened. What you do as President?

  3. February 27, 2008 9:27 am

    Now here’s a thought. Do you think it was MSNBC’s angle to make Obama look better, or get Clinton sympathy for the upcoming primaries?

    I wouldn’t put it past them, The Clinton’s are the political equivalent of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

    I didn’t see or hear the debates, I was working at the time, so I can’t judge the reaction.

  4. February 27, 2008 9:54 am

    “Joe_M, how would you feel if Rhode Island attacked Vermont this weekened. What you do as President?”

    I would first start cross-dressing, then don a suit of titanium plate mail +1 versus reality. I would recall all Canadian troops back to Rhode Island and negotiate a peace sith nothing more than my emerald pumps, Canadian warriors, and silver tongue. Oh, bofre that, I would get a silver tongue.

    Once peace was established, I’d call on the power of Baal to turn both states into pillars of salt, and ride away on my magic unicorn.

  5. February 27, 2008 9:59 am

    MSNBC was obviously favoring Obama. I doubt Russert has the guile to play the game well enough to get sympathy for Clinton.

    The problem is that now Clinton can easily blame the bad moderation on her poor performance.

  6. cassandra m permalink
    February 27, 2008 11:43 am

    Tim and Brian are NBC. They are the Big Kids of the traditional media. MSNBC is worse, in my estimation, except for Olbermann.

    The Big Kids are in a pretty bad position to moderate these debates. It shows them up as ratings-addicted, not really news-addicted. Some of the better debates I have heard were moderated by radio people (NPR with local reporters) where the need for fireworks was not necessary.

    I am still disturbed by Russert’s question re: Farrakan. Farrakan is not worthy of defending (and is way less influential or attention-getting as he used to be, but is a useful symbol as Soul Brother No 1 for black antisemitism) but I really want these folks who want black folks to specifically denounce bad behavior by other black people, then I want to hear questions of white candidates asking them to denounce the bad behavior of specific white people.

  7. February 27, 2008 12:13 pm

    “I really want these folks who want black folks to specifically denounce bad behavior by other black people, then I want to hear questions of white candidates asking them to denounce the bad behavior of specific white people.”

    That’s a really interesting point. However, it has come up just recently with the whole McCain/Cunningham thing.

    I wonder how that situation would have presented if McCain had anyone to debate.

  8. February 27, 2008 12:14 pm

    PS: not saying Cunningham was as bad as an anti-semite, but just pointing out the similarity of white guy denouncing white guy

  9. February 27, 2008 12:23 pm

    Let it be known that I am denouncing and rejecting any support from Donviti.

  10. February 27, 2008 12:30 pm

    Athletic support doesn’t count


  11. cassandra m permalink
    February 28, 2008 12:33 pm

    (sorry to come back late) The Cunningham thing was about one man trying to use Hussein as a signifier for all things Muslim and scary. It is not just rude, but certainly anti-Muslim. But Cunningham is not a Farrakan equivalent. So what if McCain gets endorsed by Stormfront of the KKK or the Council of Concerned Citizens? I bet that Tim Russert would not ask him to denounce that endorsement. Or how about Ann Coulter? A conservative who frequently calls for Democrats (and others she demonizes) to be hurt or killed. And no, I don’t buy the joke thing.

    It is almost as though the media has accepted that bigoted behavior is OEM with republicans, but Democrats must be ever vigilant to weed out and publicly shun all of their bad actors.

  12. cassandra m permalink
    February 28, 2008 3:26 pm

    Here’s one: Catholic Group wants McCain to denounce evangelical

  13. February 28, 2008 5:17 pm

    Well, it seems that for a group that touts itself as the equality group will automatically be called on every little infraction. Remember, it was not the average joe who called Obama on it, it was Tim Russert, a journalist and not a very good one.

    Compare the Farrakhan thing to every sexual infraction that the right is accused of. The media goes wild. Craig got way more heat then he deserved for his “infraction”.

    When you set youself up as the champion of the poor, or of the family, or of whatever, the media is going to be there to chop down anyone who even seems to go against that ideal. The MSM is to point out scandal and create dissension where there is none. They dropped any other goal long ago.

  14. February 28, 2008 5:19 pm

    “Here’s one”

    Well, that’s McCain getting called on it, but noticeably not by the media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: