Letters to the Editor
-
"This debate is crap"
I really wish one of the candidates would have said that.
-
Hannity's unfortunate role in the Democratic debate
If a commentator from Air America so much as hinted about a question in the Republican debates, we would see screaming headlines from the Right, echoed by the mainstream media and debated in Congress.
However we can all expect this item to be completley ignored.
If, by some miracle, John McCain is not elected President in November, it won't be for want of trying on the part of our "independent" press.
-
That would be Sean Hannity, friend of Neo-Nazis?
Stephanopolous: yet another toxic byproduct of the Clinton administration.
-
They Should've Walked Off
Both Candidates should've walked off after the first twenty minutes. Or completely ignored the moderator and started asking questions of each other. Unfortunately, sleaze is the only thing on candidate has going for her.
Regardless I hope blogs pick up the Hannity-Stephy connection and push it out into the media. It is a serious breach of journalistic ethics and Stephanopoulus should be fire for taking his talking points from a right wing bigot like Hannity.
-
Little Georgie Stephanopoulus
is an ass clown
-
Kill the messenger
While Obama shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of those he's associated with over the years, the William Ayers' question was a legitimate one, because whether we want to admit it or not, we are influenced by our choice of relationships. Posing the question gave Obama an opportunbity to explain -- he'll most certainly be asked about his relationship with Ayers in the general election if he's the Dem nominee.
There's an assumption here that Steph would not have asked the question without Hannity's prompting to do so. I hate it when people act like they are mind readers.
-
No one cares
First off no one cares about this silly debate. Secondly, please refer to point 1. Thank you.
-
Hillary's Third Party
The only way George's question would have been legitimate would be if he had credited Hannity as his source. As in, "When I was on FOX, Hannity asked that I ask you ...etc." Since he did not, thus claiming authorship, it furthers the argument that a significant number of Clinton's supporters are willing to link arms with FOX, Ayers, Hannity, Limbaugh, and not only adopt the immoral technique of the far Right, but actually embrace them into their campaign. Whatever the reason, and we can only speculate, Clinton has no problem abandoning loyalty to the Democratic party for the advancement of her own agenda.
-
That a tabloid establishment like Fox...
...is given any credence is bad enough. When a dishonest propagandist like Hannity is allowed to influence a debate for a party that he actively works to keep out of power, that simply shows how corrupted the media, and the electoral process they cover, and manipulate, has become.
-
PSMarc93
So because George Stephanopoulos asked a question that seems to have been suggested by Fox News, Hillary Clinton, her family, and all her supporters are in league with Rush Limbaugh?
Got it.
-
@MICKI
Are you serious? Are you suggesting that each and every person you have volunteered or worked with over the course of your adult life has values, and only those values, that YOU PERSONALLY ESPOUSE?
You're either a hypocrite or in total denial. Obama was questioned about people who he either knew as an acquaintence or as a religious pastor. People all across the United States attend churces where they disagree with some of what their pastor or priest says. That's why this issue died out...until Stephanopolous saw fit to revive it for precious minutes on national TV.
And as for the Ayers question, nothing more or less than a smear tactic. Barack Obama knows the man as a colleague on a board, a neighbor. Is there any evidence that he supports in any way, shape or form this man's behavior 4 decades ago?
The bottom line is always this: A black man is suspect in this sad nation and can always be labelled a traitor if, heaven forbid, he bucks the system. Obama has excelled despite his disadvantaged circumstances and he would, right now as we speak, be embraced with both arms by the Clintons if he had just waited his turn (if that ever came.) Obama doesn't play that game so well, so I guess he had to be taught a lesson.
That said, who wants to bet that Hillary STILL loses the nomination? And what will she have achieved? The real possibility of 4 more years of Bush/Cheney politics. She should also be very careful. Her job in New York may not be too secure at the rate she's going.
-
If we were not still living in Bush's Bizarro Nightmare
...where corporatized media has been kinged, this offense (just using a question from Hannity. period. much less uncited) would have carried a severe punishment.
What, I don't know... many, many mea culpas in prime time? a suspension? obsequious apologies to the candidates?
but... Something!
-
Journalism reaches now lows
Journalism, if you can it that has reached new low in the U.s. with the of fHannity, O'Rielly, Beck, FOX CNN, ABC, CBS. Only PBS and MSNBC has decent journalist these days.
-
George S.
If this is true, can we establish that this is the point at which George Stephanopoulos officially "jumped the shark"?
-
Tonight's debate will be tabloid talk...
So how do the candidates weigh in on Britneygate?
-
So how do the candidates weigh in on Britneygate?
I don't know. But I do know that our mainstream media will paint it as "trouble for the Democrats".
-
League of Women Voters
It's time for the candidates to ask the League of Women Voters to run the candidate debates again. IIRC, the candidates pushed the League aside one year because they wanted more control over the process. Well, that has certainly worked out well!
-
@alecsmom
Learn to read for content.
-
Ummmm.... nooooo....
"So because George Stephanopoulos asked a question that seems to have been suggested by Fox News, Hillary Clinton, her family, and all her supporters are in league with Rush Limbaugh?"
No. It's not possible to draw that conclusion from my argument. My concern is that a major voice for Clinton, George, sees nothing wrong with taking a slanderous, guilt-by-association, smear and tossing it at another Democrat (it wasn't even a question, the stain of its accusation will stick long after the question is later proved to be slanderous -- this kind of trick works well for Karl Rove); that Clinton herself is willing to meet with and charm Ayers, etc. That this is a disturbing strain, motif, that keeps appearing in her campaign. The vast majority of the loyal democrats who brought Sen. Clinton to the brink of election upon their shoulders are betrayed by the Clinton campaign's willingness to emmulate, even employ what she once called "a vast right-wing consipiricy." So, no, I'm saying that George's uncited use of a Hannity question is another mark in a trend that shows Clinton and SOME of her supporters are willing to employ the dubious tacticts of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk; that Clinton and SOME of her supporters would even hire him to attack Sem. Obama if given the opportunity. MOST of her supporters are those of us who admired the Clinton administration, are proud of her service to New York and the Senate -- betrayed by her willingness to INCLUDE the right wing, either in tactics or in fact, to win her nomination.
She has lost. She cannot plump up her numbers by now appealing to bigots on the Right and simply shuffle them into her stack of loyal democrats who brought her here.