George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson pretend to know more about what electability means than we the voters? What the hell are they talking about?

George seems to be saying that since he is an expert (he helped get Clinton elected) that he knows what is going to dominate the race, which he seems to assume are these stupid little sideshows. Um... We don't yet know what rediculousness the right wing is going to throw at the Democratci nominee other than the liberal label, lack of experience, trust and the rest of the rediculous grab bag intended to get everyone to forget that Iraq is a mess, the economy is a mess, the environment is a mess, health care is a mess and etc. and that it is singularly the Republicans' fault.

The problem is that this isn't about bias, it really isn't. It's about journalistic incompetence and that's it. These pretty boys/girls with the right degrees and connections get the big jobs and don't do the work and have no concept of what it means to actually live paycheck to paycheck and have to scratch out a living and take care of kids and all the other things that average Americans do.

The line of questioning and GS's defense of it only highlights the point. He believes that average Americans care more for flag pins and all the rest of that bunk than they do about the things that actually affect their lives? And we have had 30 years of this (beginning with Reagan) where the media reports on the sideshow and people make their votyes based on the sideshow, not the main event.

Incompetence, incompetence, incompetence...

A good campaigner, there's no doubt about it. He has managed to earn the trust, respect and slavishness of the national media and he knows how to talk about his issues in ways that seem new even if his solutions are aged. I have always said that he is going to be a tough opponent no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

However, the Dems have not yet gone to work on him in any substantive way, which leaves a lot of room to push his poll numbers down. The problem is that in the past (Gore/Kerry) Dems have been such cowards when it comes to elevating their opponents' negatives that it never happens. It's as if they forget to do one-half of what you're supposed to do to run a good, vigorous and strong campaign.

However...

I have seen Obama supporters say they can't wait for Obama to go to work on McCain and the Republican attack machine--well, where is it? His race speech was magnificent and showed some true courage (not enough in my opinion though), but we haven't seen him yet really take a hard swipe at the Republicans. It has been nothing but how he will bridge the divide. The trouble is that Repiubalicans and especially the religious/financial/cultural right wing don't want a bridge and they don't want anything to do with Obama or Clinton.

As for Hillary, the Bosnia story ended her chances right there. It is time to acknowledge that she did herself in with that and is rediculously vulnerable to repeated attacks like those that destroyed Kerry and Gore.

If Obama really wants to start getting those hesitant Dems he needs to show that he has some fire to him. He needs to show that he is going to pick the flag up and defend our interests and that he is as willing to fight against the Republican right as he is Al Quaida and so on. I want to see him cut to the heart of what is wrong with the right and all that they have done is wrong. Because McCain is going to be very effective at putting forward an argument to fool people into thinking that has never been better since Reagan and more of the same is what will keep us safe/prosperous/democratic/mora/etc.

This and the past debates have been fairly rediculpous, but perhaps we have learned a couple of things for the future.

1) Reporters rarely if ever have any practical experience, training or education in the topics that they cover. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part this is true. For example, does Gibson or stephanopolos(sp?) have any expertise in economics or foreign affairs and policy? No.

2) Reporters have a bias towards glitzy sideshow crap because they operate within a culture that congratulates getting a scoop on meaningless stories such as the reverand and etc. Also, they work for huge companies that pay them huge salaries in order to get this tripe so it can be marketably fed to the consumers. They have a fiduciary interest in the horse race and maintaining a low level of discourse on real issues.

3) Since reporters have no expertise and fiduciary responsibility to earn their salaries by providing marketable infotainment, we should not have them be the panelists for debates because they will always resort to their basest instincts. Instead experts and people with a real interest in the outcomes of policy debates should be asking these questions. This means professors and people who understand what it means to cut Medicaid income eligibility by a thousand dollars per year and who understand the effect a bomb has on a community when it lands on a house and kills a number of people living in that house, and who understand what the constitution means with regard to seperation of powers and the responsibilities of the congress and executive and judiciary branches.

Should remain as the War Room writer. Finally we are learning about and talking about real issues that affect real people. And this is exactly the kind of coverage this country needs MUCH MORE OF. However, the media seem far more intrigued with reporting on side show baloney. The incompetence is staggering!