Matthew Yglesias (April 17, 2008) - In Sort of Defense of George Stephanopoulos (Media)

I really don't know how you can defend Stephenopoulos in any way, shape, or form. In no previous debate were extensive numbers of questions this irrelevant and "gotcha." I fully expected gotcha questions. I did not expect 50% of the debate to have them. Nor should I expect it.

Obama was asked if his PASTOR loved America. He was asked about a person he knows who committed a crime when Obama was 8 years old. How can you defend a person who would ask those questions?

Steph is actually defending himself now to Politico by saying that the voters are not voting on issues, they are voting on tabloid topics. He is contemptible.

Posted by evie | April 17, 2008 2:26 PM

MY:
You forgot that George S. went on two far right radio shows yesterday(One of them being Faux's own Sean Insanity). Basically Hannity fed George questions to ask last night(specifically Ayres). It's too bad that Obama didn't know George was on with Hannity prior to the debate yesterday. Would have loved for Obama to hit George with the Hannity/Hal Turner connection. How is that YouTube unfair though? If you want to be a douche bag, like George S. was last night, you better prepared to take the blow back.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 17, 2008 2:27 PM

I disagree. It had at the very least an appearance of conflict. Since ABC decided to spend the first 45 minutes hectoring Obama--the dubious but journalistically defensible position of attacking the front-runner--it needed to put someone out there without a direct link to one of the candidates.

The effect was one in which the moderator and one candidate, former colleagues, were battering the other candidate. Hard to look at that and not feel a little queasy.

Posted by Jeff | April 17, 2008 2:28 PM

Uh, okay.....

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Stephanopoloulos isn't biased.

That patriotism question was not evidence of his Clinton hackery, just evidence that he is a scoundrel of a journalist.

Either way you toss it, it's a disgrace.

But pretending that Clinton's boy wonder isn't in the bag for her - which he clearly is - shows that you're a hack, too, Matt.

Call em like you see, Matt, and your readers will believe you have the country's best interest at heart. Defend other journalist's bias and you look like just as big a hack as they are.

Posted by Frank Thomas | April 17, 2008 2:28 PM

He took a question - almost verbatim - from Sean Hannity. Sean freaking Hannity.

Quick point about the "well, Hillary got the hostility treatment too" thing: did she? I mean, I don't recall any questions about Norman Hsu or Vin Gupta - two people arguably are closer to Clinton than Ayers is to Obama. Nor should she get those kinds of questions in a nationally-televised debate: they are unimportant in the bigger picture.
Moreover, while I agree that every single debate to date has been more or less about trivial horse-race crap, it was particularly egregious yesterday. In January and February, we had debates literally every week. It didn't really make sense to have the "mandates or no mandates" argument for the 20th time. But the last debate, before yesterday's, was six weeks ago. Think about everything that's happened: foreclosures continued to rise; Bear Stearns was bailed out; Petraeus testified on the Hill; Bush admitted to planning torture; China cracked down (harder) on Tibet. All in the last six weeks. This was an opportunity to engage the candidates on any of these issues. Instead...well you know the rest.

Posted by south side | April 17, 2008 2:30 PM

I don't think Yglesias is defending Stephy... he's just saying that it's silly to attribute his incompetence and douchebaggery to a secret campaign to elect Hillary Clinton.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | April 17, 2008 2:30 PM

evie:
I wonder if George S. even knows that Wright served in the military. I can't believe that George S. is a Rhodes Scholar. He gives other Rhodes scholars like Russ Feingold a bad name.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 17, 2008 2:31 PM

I don't think Yglesias is defending Stephy... he's just saying that it's silly to attribute his incompetence and douchebaggery to a secret campaign to elect Hillary Clinton.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | April 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Steph is actually defending himself now to Politico by saying that the voters are not voting on issues, they are voting on tabloid topics. He is contemptible.

evie, Stephanapoulos isn't contemptible. He's earned the right to be this way because his bowling average is over 200.

Posted by Pesto | April 17, 2008 2:36 PM

Why is it Silly? Georgie owes his entire career to the Clintons, and in his biggest opportunity to pay them back, he attacks her opponent with garbage.

I think it speaks for itself.

Open your eyes, please.

Posted by Frank Thomas | April 17, 2008 2:36 PM

I dunno, MY -- Have you watched George's Sunday morning chat fest with any regularity? His exchanges with Cokie Roberts alone can be frightening. He's a funny little thing.

Whatever his reasons were for conducting himself like a tool, he nevertheless did just that -- and for two whole hours. Reminded me of the Aqua Teen episode where Master Shake runs around saying "I like beatings. I could beat you all day!"

Posted by charlotte | April 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Umm, no. I don't think it's unfair. When it walks like a... well you get the point.

Posted by Chris | April 17, 2008 2:39 PM

The debate was what it was because an awful lot of TV news is silly and horrible, not because anyone was doing Clinton special favors.

Is that something like even-handedness towards Hillary Clinton from Mr. Yglesias? Maybe Matt's on his best behavior since the Pope's in town... (just kidding, of course)

Posted by dry_fish | April 17, 2008 2:41 PM

I agree that MY's definitely not defending Stephy here, but I did have to read the post twice to appreciate that.

The Sean Hannity/Ayers thing is just so strange. I've no idea why someone as bright as Stephy wouldn't at least look into the history there. Your average citizen hadn't heard a thing about Ayers until last night. How is it a "tabloid topic" if it isn't in the "tabloids" yet?

But here's the thing very few people are mentioning: Hillary knew the details of Obama and Ayers, enough to be able to mention that in her rebuttal. Is there any doubt they've scoured the Earth for dirt on Obama in a pathological way?

Posted by Jake | April 17, 2008 2:43 PM

If George Stephanopoulos were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him.

I might take a dump on him, however.

Posted by Boy George Stephanopoolous is a midget and wears a hairpiece | April 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Matt Y.

George S. went on Hannity's show early that day and was told to ask about Ayers. He said that he was writing it down.

George S. is truly a political hack.
You should know better than to defend him, if you insult the intelligence of your audience then you stand to lose the audience and that means fewer people will buy H.I.N.T.

Because we all know you like $$$ and HINT is a way you'll make $$$.

Posted by Student Guy | April 17, 2008 2:48 PM

J.W. Hamner... I don't think Yglesias is defending Stephy... he's just saying that it's silly to attribute his incompetence and douchebaggery to a secret campaign to elect Hillary Clinton.

a) I agree.

b) I sure hope you don't have a copyright on the word "douchebaggery", because I fully intend to add it to my lexicon.

Posted by LFC | April 17, 2008 2:49 PM

You sanctimonious Obama supporters didn't care about the silly questions when Russert, Matthews, and Williams were using them to beat up Clinton.

I'm a fellow Obama supporter, and I hated those questions then and I hate them now. It's disgusting that the first full hour of the debate mentioned no real issues.

Attacking the media for being "biased against Obama" is silly. Instead, attack the media for focusing on trivial, substanceless things instead of meaningful issues.

If the general election this year is about issues, then the Democrat wins. If it's about trivial nonsense or "character," McCain could very well take it.

So don't just bash Stephanopolous for being "anti-Obama" and ignore Russert, Matthews, and Williams because they treated Clinton worse -- Russert and them might not be so helpful in the fall. Instead, bash any media figure that focuses on trivial nonsense instead of real issues. That's the better long-run strategy.

Posted by Algernon | April 17, 2008 2:49 PM

Other than the debate I have seen a total of 30 seconds of "stephi" on ABC in the last year. I had to turn away because I could not take him "touting all the progress of the surge" to a skeptical Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel! This was just as Basra was exploding and the Green Zone was getting heavily mortared! That hack was expousing admin talking points to one of a few sane/reality based Republicans!

As to the video: MORE PLEASE!

Posted by centrist | April 17, 2008 2:51 PM

Stephy plays nice with the Clintons for the same reasons that Condoleeza Rice tried to play nice with the New York Times.

Posted by tinisoli | April 17, 2008 2:52 PM

You sanctimonious Obama supporters didn't care about the silly questions when Russert, Matthews, and Williams were using them to beat up Clinton.

I'm a fellow Obama supporter, and I hated those questions then and I hate them now. It's disgusting that the first full hour of the debate mentioned no real issues.

Attacking the media for being "biased against Obama" is silly. Instead, attack the media for focusing on trivial, substanceless things instead of meaningful issues.

If the general election this year is about issues, then the Democrat wins. If it's about trivial nonsense or "character," McCain could very well take it.

So don't just bash Stephanopolous for being "anti-Obama" and ignore Russert, Matthews, and Williams because they treated Clinton worse -- Russert and them might not be so helpful in the fall. Instead, bash any media figure that focuses on trivial nonsense instead of real issues. That's the better long-run strategy.

Posted by Algernon | April 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Sorry for the double post, got an error message at first.

Posted by Algernon | April 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Why is it that you people can only spot media bias when you are on the receiving end of of what you perceive to be tough questions?

What, George had no conflict when asking questions of republicans for all these many years? Or perhaps it just doesn't matter if it's not your boy. But that would be inconsistent selective outrage, and you're not inconsistently and selectively outraged, are you? No-- if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. I saw that once on a bumper sticker, and kinda liked it.

I know media bias. I know tough questions. I know authentic faxes when I see 'em. This was nothing.

I think the real problem is not enough democrats in the opinion-making news business.

Just wait. We'll get the old man in the general. I got his laptop's hardrive from his discharge in the 70's. You should see what he googled when he was in the Air Force. Pretty wild stuff. Wild and authentic. Like the Big BO.

Courage.

Posted by Dan Rather | April 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Hey Algernon, don't be so bitter that your girl lost. She would have lost in the general election anyway.

Posted by Aw, Algernon is bitter | April 17, 2008 2:57 PM

If it's just standard TV, Matt, then why wasn't Clinton asked a question straight from the VRWC too? Give me a break.

Posted by Ron | April 17, 2008 3:01 PM

If you think the debate sucked, then why do you spend 10,000 times more words defending it than on why/how it sucked? or the reasons it sucked so bad (please tell us oh wise media guy, why did they do this???)

Posted by Vaughan | April 17, 2008 3:05 PM

Matt is correct - ABC and Stephy aren't in the tank for Hillary, they are in the tank for the GOP. It just so happens that the best way to help the GOP right now is to slime Obama and help prop up the cadaver of Clinton's campaign.

Posted by blah | April 17, 2008 3:05 PM

I thought the debate was unfair to both of them.

The Republicans were the big winners. Since Clinton has aligned herself more closely with the Republican position . . . the unfairness was bound to end up hurting her less than it hurt Obama. But then Hillary chose to embrace the tone of the debate--to amplify and sharpen the moderators' insinuations, something Obama pointedly refused to do--so I'm not sure she has much credibility as a critic on this one.

Posted by southpaw | April 17, 2008 3:07 PM

Algernon, GS is just another fraud who over compensates by pushing conservative narratives so he isn't labelled a liberal journalist. The questions last night were the type we all (both Obama and Clinton supporters) deride every time we hear them, be they from Russert, Anderson Cooper or some other blow hard. We're not pissed because Obama was on the receiving end, we're pissed because the for a full hour the questions were insanely stupid. Really, why doesn't he wear a flag pin? Why doesn't McCain wear one? It's a stupid ass question no matter who gets it and ABC News should be ashamed to have even considered spending 1 second let along 5 minutes on it.

Posted by tom.a | April 17, 2008 3:07 PM

Again, I'm an Obama supporter. I think he's the better general election candidate and would be the better president. Again, Stephanopolous and Gibson were disgusting last night.

But this phenomenon of tabloid-trash nonsense questions is not limited to them -- it's endemic to the media, and it will hurt Obama in the fall when Russert and Matthews don't have a Clinton to kick around anymore.

Posted by Algernon | April 17, 2008 3:08 PM

amen algernon!

When Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner, most of the debate hostility focused on her. Her campaign and her supporters whined about it, but the complaints didn't really make sense -- of course you focus on the frontrunner. It's the same thing now.

Of course, the exception would be at a Republican debate.

MY, you need to go back to school with the Old Man at the Daily Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110207.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030608.shtml

Posted by sam hughes | April 17, 2008 3:14 PM

Oh man, I owe Matt Y an apology. I thought I was on Ambinders' site! My very, very bad. Matt HAD described the suckiness, etc. sorry.

Posted by Vaughan | April 17, 2008 3:16 PM

The debate was what it was because an awful lot of TV news is silly and horrible, not because anyone was doing Clinton special favors.

You get paid for this?

Posted by antiphone | April 17, 2008 3:16 PM

I thought that was hilarious!!!

Posted by Robin Brun | April 17, 2008 3:21 PM

It's one thing to say you can't prove that Stephanopoulos displayed bias, but it's something else to give him the benefit of a doubt. It's easy to doubt Stephanopoulos's liberality by finding another weasel careerist in broadcasting. Say, Chris Matthews.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 17, 2008 3:23 PM

Last night's debate was great -- I only wish I didn't miss the first hour. It was great to see a mainstream network actually ask tough questions of Democrats for a change.

Expect more of those questions in the future: last night's debate was the highest-rated one of this election cycle, so far.

Posted by Fred | April 17, 2008 3:24 PM

What's the fuss about? It's been okay for MSM figures to bash Clinton for months - savage her, call her names, insult her, her family and her supporters. You know you have the choice to turn off your television. That's what I do these days except for something like the debates.

I agree with Algernon except I am a Clinton supporter. Finally Obama is in the "hot seat." Does anyone seriously think if Obama gets the democratic nomination, that the Republicans are not going to mention Wright, Rezko, Ayers, as well a "bitter-gate" (thanks to Obama's own words)? The swift-boat ads mounted against Sen. Kerry are going to look like "Sunday afternoon in the park" when they finish with Obama.

Senator Clinton on the other hand has been vetted over and over again. We know who we have and personally I like a fighter because that's what it's going to take to win back the White House for the dems.

Posted by Cathy | April 17, 2008 3:29 PM

The debate was disgusting but I, personally, don't attribute the lack of professionalism or meaningful issues due to bias against Obama. No, whatever the reason, be it attempting to prove objectiveness, or laziness, the questions asked last night did not provide any worthwhile information that I, as a voter, hoped to hear to help me make a decision. If the same thing were to be done to McCain I would feel the same way. I am finding that for the most part, television media is lacking in their effort to do any due diligence when it comes to 'investigative journalism.' It seems as the number of viewers grows, the lower the professionalism and actual worthwhile content. Is it just laziness, sitting on past laurels? When I was much younger I looked up to Walter Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Mike Wallace, etc. Are there no longer real journalists or am I remembering the past through rose-colored glasses?

Posted by Michael Fisher | April 17, 2008 3:34 PM

and personally I like a fighter because that's what it's going to take to win back the White House for the dems.

And we and the Bosnians have seen how she responds under fire.

>*INCOMING*<

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 17, 2008 3:35 PM

I agree that Stephanopoulos is not in the tank for the Clintons. He in fact has a history of being unfair to them.

But the key to him is that, because he used to work in a democratic administration, he is obsessed with proving to the right that he "gets it." The conservative media has temporarily put their Hilary bashing aside and is no going nuclear on Obama. Taking his cues from them, Stephanopoulos went nuclear too.

So while his past work for the Clintons does explain his treatment of Obama last night, that explanation is not the one presently being offered.

Posted by pjs | April 17, 2008 3:36 PM

The questioning was perfect. About time someone took on Obama and didn't let him tap dance around HUGE issues affecting his electability. It was amazing to watch--the media finally zeroing in on what so many of us have gotten for ages--that Obama is a joke. I'm a democrat and my party will be making a incredible error to nominate him. He's weak and it showed once again last night. But when it was Clinton being attacked you Obama-ites were more than happy to applaud the media. Step.away.from.the.blogs. You people have lost touch with reality.

Posted by Jessica | April 17, 2008 3:39 PM

I'm not sure what motivated George S or Charlie G....maybe they are simply so out of touch with regular Americans who are struggling that to them, American's en masse are deeply troubled by who wears a flag pin or not. But just in case Charlie or HIllary or McCain or George are confused, here's my message:

I don't mind tough questions, I mind irrelevant ones. Ranting preachers, aging hippie radicals, flag lapel pins and other BS issues have zero bearing on why gas is $4 a gallon, the economy is tanking, the prospects of global warming, a deficit I'll be paying for b/c my parents couldn't balance their checkbooks and a 100 year old war in Iraq.

What pisses me off is this endless political game playing where the elites of this nation seem to think that raising the process of flag waiving is gonna make us forget that it costs $60 to fill up a small gas tank.

We're not that stupid. And I think no matter who you support you have got to demand that BS game playing has got to stop. And if you don't demand that, then you're part of the problem.

Posted by Tessla | April 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Don't be bitter Jessica.

Posted by Aw, Jessica is bitter | April 17, 2008 3:45 PM

Don't be bitter Jessica.

Posted by Aw, Jessica is bitter | April 17, 2008 3:45 PM

Matt,
Defending your friends in journalism only serves to transfer their incidiousness onto you.

If ABC News would have provided full disclosure before the debate (i.e., George Stephanopolous was a former Clinton communications director; the CEO of Disney/ABC is a Hillary supporter), then perhaps there wouldn't be so much backlash today. They would have, at the very least, admitted their *potential* conflicts of interest and gained some credibility regarding transparency as a result.

But they did not. And I can't seem to understand how anyone could say that Obama had a "bad night" last night and not give the same critique to George and Charlie.

That "debate" was bad for democracy.

Posted by Nick | April 17, 2008 3:45 PM

Don't be bitter Jessica.

Posted by Aw, Jessica is bitter | April 17, 2008 3:45 PM

"I'm a democrat and my party will be making a incredible error to nominate him"

At this point, even assuming Obama is a weak candidate there's no credible alternative. Hillary's negatives are sky high, and that's at a time when the republicans are promoting her candidacy because they want to face her in the fall.

The problem with Hillary as always been that she's got a lot of very loyal supporters but also has the tendency to piss large numbers of people off. That was clear from the beginning.

Posted by Helter | April 17, 2008 3:45 PM

At least Clinton put herself in the line of fire--Obama would be too busy removing that flag pin from his lapel as he sat in a meeting in San Francisco with Ayers where they reviewed tapes of Jeremiah Wright ranting about America and waxed notalgic for the old days when Ayers was a bomber, to get on the plane to Bosnia. Can't you see it now? Obama in full professor mode pointing his finger and saying "understand this.." as he explained to Ayers why it is Americans are they way they are--why Michelle says we have "broken souls". All the while whining that he's being distracted from the real issues. Maybe when he figures how to put on a pair of bowling shoes and what a cheesesteak is, he can get on that plane to Bosnia.

Posted by LRP | April 17, 2008 3:47 PM

At least Clinton put herself in the line of fire

She didn't put herself in the line of fire. In case you weren't paying attention to the debate, she admitted last night that she LIED about Bosnia. She received a greeting card from a little girl on the runway - the video is all over the Internet.

Posted by Sinbad | April 17, 2008 3:51 PM

Rob Lowe has more gravitas than GS the boy wonder. Leave it to the Clintons to out-shallow their TV clones.

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 3:52 PM

Matt,
Defending your friends in journalism only serves to transfer their incidiousness onto you.

If ABC News would have provided full disclosure before the debate (i.e., George Stephanopolous was a former Clinton communications director; the CEO of Disney/ABC is a Hillary supporter), then perhaps there wouldn't be so much backlash today. They would have, at the very least, admitted their *potential* conflicts of interest and gained some credibility regarding transparency as a result.

But they did not. They proceeded to take 45 grueling minutes to arrive at a topic that a majority of Americans are actually interested in; not what pundits are interested in, but what Americans are interested in. Instead, they played tabloid politics.

And I can't seem to understand how anyone could say that Obama had a "bad night" last night and not give the same critique to George and Charlie.

That "debate" was bad for democracy. And that YouTube vid was totally fair.

Posted by Nick | April 17, 2008 3:52 PM

NOooo--you're mistaken--I'm not black, weak and bitter..that would be Obama. I mean, a bad cup of coffee. Ooops.

I think it's the Obama-ites who are bitter today. Their guy looked like the "wimp" everyone is calling him today. But don't worry--Obama gets your bitterness.

If it's not Hillary '08 then bring on the war hero..McCain '08!!! Anyone but Obama!!

Jessica aka Typical White Woman

Posted by Jessica | April 17, 2008 3:52 PM

Obama went down last night like a bunch of bowling pins adding up to 37!! LOL--the guy was pathetic!

Nobama!

Hillary '08

Posted by Harry | April 17, 2008 3:56 PM

Sinbad--since you were on the plane I guess you know then that they were warned about sniper fire right? Had to move clinton to the armored cockpit right? You remember that? That's called the line of fire. ven if the bullets didn't come. Lots of men have admitted they wouldn't have done it. Having the guts to get on the plane and go into a war zone--which no-one disputes--is what she did. Obama can't find his balls let alone the plane to Bosnia. Again, I'm a democrat and if I can't stand the guy this much just wait if he's the nomineee. The GOP will really pummel him. If he can't take it now, he won't be able to take it then.

Posted by LRP | April 17, 2008 4:02 PM

You're missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter what this guy's agenda was, he blew it. Big time. He disgraced his profession and in a much larger sense his country by focusing on inane non-issues. His motivation could have been to help the Clintons, to curry favor with his Republican corporate bosses or to achieve ratings. It doesn't matter. He's a hack. The quicker we can rid ourselves of these people the quicker we can turn our country around.

You're going out on quite the limb defending this guy on any level. He's earned a lifetime of derision if not worse from any self respecting American who is interested in anything more profound than making Democrats look stupid.

Posted by Mike M | April 17, 2008 4:07 PM

I find it very disturbing this is the kind of video being made just because you disargree with someone

Posted by mymy | April 17, 2008 4:10 PM

LRP -

Pay attention: She admitted last night at the debate that she LIED about it. Sorry to break it to you, but she's as dishonest as her husband.

Posted by Sinbad | April 17, 2008 4:11 PM

It's hard to tell if Stephenopoulos had an agenda or not. But what's clear is that he is biased, even if he tries to hide it by appearing to be tough on Clinton, and he's terrible at what he does. He should be fired, not because of any specific agenda but because he sucks. And because ABC News just lost a whole heck of lot of viewers and might want them back at some point.

I've avoided watching Stephenopoulos like the plague because I think he sucks.

Posted by s | April 17, 2008 4:31 PM

I can't get why he was a moderator, his current opinion on the Clintons notwithstanding. He could hate them-- then he'd still be biased. It's not appropriate any way you look at it.

And are Charlie Gibson and he really the best that ABC's got? Because damn, that's just embarrassing.

Posted by Persia | April 17, 2008 4:45 PM

Read this very brief post at uggabugga and then try to defend GS. Worthless, lying idiot.

Posted by doug | April 17, 2008 4:46 PM

stop watching tv

Posted by judson | April 17, 2008 4:47 PM

Read this very brief post at uggabugga and then try to defend GS. Worthless, lying idiot.

Posted by doug | April 17, 2008 4:49 PM

I watch this segment every Sunday and have grown conditioned to get a bit sad and somber everytime I hear the accompanying music, especially when the troops count comes at the end. I find use of this segment to make a political point disgusting, and yes, I find it repulsive that you spread it around.

Posted by Israel | April 17, 2008 5:08 PM

Algernon:
Stupid questions are stupid questions. This long time Obama supporter was JUST AS FURIOUS at Russert, et al. for asking non-relevant, prom-king questions at the previous debates. It's a general contempt for media elites, really.

Posted by C.Howard | April 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Are we hanging in the same blogosphere? Most of the outrage I'm seeing is not "That was unfair to Obama"* but "I came to see them pressed on issues like gas prices (incorporating environmental concerns, such as Anwar, green energy incentives, the issue of midEast dependence, and the overall state of the economy)--and I got friggin flag pins???? FOR AN HOUR???"

Debates may not normally rise to the level of all those subpoints, but at least do your audience the favor of touching on one or two.

The audience booed the moderators. This is not par for the course.

*I do think the balance was unfair--how about Penn's nonfiring, Colombia, and Peace in Northern Ireland while we're dredging stuff up?--but that happens; tough. Deal. I don't think Clinton has been pressed unfairly (Boys piling on? That's what the other candidates do to the frontrunner, regardless of gender or Clintonism.) but some do. No, the problem is wallowing in speculation about the patriotism of a man no one in the audience knows personally, rather than a discussion about North Korea and Pakistan.

Posted by Deborah | April 17, 2008 5:10 PM

Some of you folks need to brush up on the current right wing talk show rhetoric.

Being in the tank for the Republicans is EXACTLY THE SAME as being in the tank for Clinton. The two are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are two sides of the the same coin.

Listen to Rush a little bit, he'll straighten you out on the right-wing tactic of shilling for Clinton for the benefit of the Republican party. Stephy being in the tank for Clinton is entirely consistent with Stephy also being in the tank for the Republicans.

Posted by Nixon | April 17, 2008 5:28 PM

The thing that Stephanopoulos did that mystifies me is to read Hannity's question almost verbatim, including the part about Ayers' comments appearing in the Times on 9/11. My questions for GS would be: 1) did you actually fact-check to confirm that the comments did, in fact, appear in the Times on 9/11?; and 2) if they did appear on 9/11, did it occur to you that the implication you were making-- that they were even more insensitive than they already were on their face-- was false because the comments would have had to have been uttered on 9/10 or earlier to make it into the 9/11 newspaper?

Someone hit on another interesting point above. Hillary said, with respect to Bosnia:

"On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case."

What's it called when you say something that isn't in keeping with something you know to be the case, i.e., true? That's right, A LIE. Hillary basically (and finally) admitted that she lied, and she then spoke for five more paragraphs before a moderator spoke, and even then it was only to question Obama. Why didn't Gibson or Stephanopoulos cut her off and say, "Senator Clinton, you just said that you said things that weren't in keeping with what you knew to be true. Aren't you saying that you lied?"

Posted by Brian | April 17, 2008 5:31 PM

"You sanctimonious Obama supporters didn't care about the silly questions when Russert, Matthews, and Williams were using them to beat up Clinton."

Uh, if you go back and read those blog entries, yes, we did beat up on Russert, Matthews, and Williams. Matthews, especially. The whole country beat up Matthews.

Which makes you an idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 5:53 PM

This was the first debate that took up the ordinarily common questions (at debates) about affirmative action, Israel, specifics on taxes, etc. As for the questions on various gaffes, the truth is,if Obama would only, ONE TIME, give plausible,humane answers to some of these questions, they could be put aside. For instance, he was asked something to the effect of whether Wright was being unpatriotic in blaming 9/11 on U.S. policies in his first sermon after 9/11---and he gave no answer except to ay that Wright was a Marine at some time---so what? Here's what one wants to know: does Obama consider Wright's raving ANY evidence of having an anti-American attitude? If not, then why is it even "objectionable" as mild-mannered Obama called it? I wish he'd been asked whether he was bothered in the least that his fellow churchgoers were jumping up and down with JOY and GLEE when Wright was yelling that America had some nerve being angry about the 3000+ who died in the infernos of the World Trade center! Their happiness at the ungodly suffering of those 3000 victims burning or jumping is sickening---"objectionable" just doesn't cut it!!!!!

Posted by Isaac | April 17, 2008 7:39 PM

Hooray for David Brooks of the New York Times! Finally, Brooks has come around to this red skinned woman’s tough traditional American Indian point of view. I do enjoy watching Brooks and Shields on PBS. Those two are quite the pair to draw to.

I much enjoyed last night's debate between Obama and Clinton. I understand many sissified Americans are upset, as is expected. I am not sissified nor upset. This debate last night provided America a chance to observe the behaviors of both Obama and Clinton when confronted with surprise questions and confronted with tough questions. These are a type of questions which will be foremost during our general presidential election. Be sure, the republican party will raise all these issues and much more. Both Obama and Clinton must be prepared to tackle seemingly silly personal topics. Any weakness displayed in dealing with these types of questions will be votes lost.

My personal take is Obama stuttered, stammered and stumbled over his words being taken by surprise. Obama was not prepared, not ready for unexpected topics.

Clinton, such a wonderful performance, such wonderful dodging of personal issues! Clinton did not hesitate, she was articulate, assertive and did not miss a beat. Clinton made a point to diplomatically chastise Stephanopoulos. Clinton was clearly prepared for anything.

This debate was a critical display of how each candidate, Obama and Clinton, will react and will conduct themselves when subjected to surprising and stressful issues.

Obama fell apart. Clinton proved herself cold, calculating and cutthroat. Clinton is no sissy!

My congratulations to ABC news for daring to broach issues which have sissified Americans tugging at their hair while anxiously screaming, "This is not fair!"

All is fair in love and rock & roll.

Job well done ABC, my feather is off to you!

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation

Posted by Purl Gurl | April 17, 2008 8:02 PM

I wanted to slit my throat last night to put myself out of my misery. ABC gave us Forty-Five minutes of superfluous crap! Then the commentators decided, Oh gosh! By the way we need to start asking some real questions before the credits roll.
Is Hilary Clinton a democrat? Is George Stephanopolous a real journalist? After last night, I think these are the question we need start asking. Maybe if these hacks had to gas up their own vehicles or explain to their children why daddy or mommy has to leave for Iraq again, they'll get a real clue and stop waisting the peoples time and let us vote for true change. If last night is an example of what awaits us with future debates, someone smother me in my sleep.

Posted by legboo | April 17, 2008 8:23 PM

I wanted to slit my throat last night to put myself out of my misery. ABC gave us Forty-Five minutes of superfluous crap! Then the commentators decided, Oh gosh! By the way we need to start asking some real questions before the credits roll.
Is Hilary Clinton a democrat? Is George Stephanopolous a real journalist? After last night, I think these are the question we need start asking. Maybe if these hacks had to gas up their own vehicles or explain to their children why daddy or mommy has to leave for Iraq again, they'll get a real clue and stop waisting the peoples time and let us vote for true change. If last night is an example of what awaits us with future debates, someone smother me in my sleep.

Posted by legboo | April 17, 2008 8:23 PM

Clinton is no sissy!

Then why did she cry when somebody asked her how she does her hair in the morning?

Posted by Sinbad | April 17, 2008 8:30 PM

I don't know if Stephanopolous was fair or unfair to Obama or to Clinton. His actual performance as moderator is beside the point. No moderator should have such a glaring conflict of interest as he had. What was he doing on that stage?

Posted by Heathcliff | April 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Purl Gurl clearly appreciates a woman who lies like a rug, and who is "cold, calculating and cutthroat".

But then Purl Gurl probably lives alone for some reason.

Maybe Purl Gurl should vote for Cameron Phillips. She lies, and is cold, calculating and cutthroat.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 9:44 PM

These are pertinent questions. Why you want these Obama issues kept under wraps is the problem. I am a Democrat but feel like the Obama camp has something to hide. The media is also playing the same game. The only conclusion is that cCain is the only viable candidate in 08.

Posted by Blaine | April 17, 2008 10:42 PM

Stephanopoulos brought up very pertinent questions. Why you want these Obama issues kept under wraps is the problem. I am a Democrat but feel like the Obama camp has something to hide. The media is also playing the game of stumping for Obama and this has to stop. The only conclusion is that McCain is the only viable candidate in 08.

Posted by Blaine | April 17, 2008 10:45 PM

I am utterly depressed and bitter. The flag pin and how much does he love the Flag? That is urgency. I just give up!

I have an 8 year old child who has a bright future!!!
As of right now living in his country: that has the economy of a third world fully in debt and printing paper money with no backing, while the middle class disappears and joins the Soup kitchen if there is any left by Conservative compassion; planet in peril but who cares ; a country in 2 wars -- soon dragged to world war111 courtesy of Iran and Israel(the two most unfavorable countries last month BBC Poll) but we must defend Israel at all cost because of AIPAC and according to the Fundamentalist such as the Pastor Hagee who McCain begged for his support we should encourage World War 3 -- -- that is good because Doomsday will arrive and we all want rapture and Israel is returned to the Jews.

Oh my can we ask about the relationship of Obama with Darth Vader that is so urgent

Posted by Gina | April 17, 2008 11:10 PM

Blaine, that was one seriously pathetic effort at trolling.

Give it up. You have no future in it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 11:27 PM

In Sort of Defense of George Stephanopoulos

Comments (79)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories