Looks like Gibson and Stephanopoulos are after Obama again since their hatchet job disguised as a debate:

http://abcnews.go.com/...

They neglect to mention that 90% of Obama's war chest IS public financing.  90% is from donations of $1000 or less!  Count on Olbermann to make that point tonight on Countdown.

Charlie whines like a little two-year old asking if Obama's decision is "fair."  Was it fair in '04 when the Repugs were flush with cash?  Was it fair when they stole Ohio and before that Florida?  It's our turn, bitch!  Deal with it and stop spreading your whiny little propaganda.  This isn't a question of unfairness.  It's a question of justice.  Now bite me!

I hate Disney.

For the first time I feel a little concerned about Obama's campaign. Maybe there's nothing to be concerned about yet, but the way he's handled his opting out of public finance thing seems needlessly hurtful to him.

Every commentator on every network, except Olbermann, seems to be flatly stating that this is a flip flop - a breaking of a promise. But it is NOT. We all here at this site have seen the qualifying language Obama made when he checked that "yes" box. Obama tried to encourage McCain to rein in the 527 groups, McCain refused, so Obama can say he tried to work out an agreement with McCain but couldn't. Opting out of public financing is 100% consistent with what he promised.

Last night on ABC News Charlie Gibson sat down with Senator John McCain and asked him point blank "are you the underdog?"

John McCain responded by saying that he is the underdog and that in fact he is surprised that the polls are as close as they are considering where the Republican "brand" is currently. I completely agree with Senator McCain on this point - why aren't the Democrats winning by 15% right now? We have maybe the least popular President in the history of the country running the show with an imbalanced and receding economy, a disastrous war without end, one scandal after another in the White House....

Yet a Senator who voted with that very same President 95% of the time is running virtually dead even with Barack Obama at this point in time. How is that possible? Or should I just throw up my arms and say 'hey, we elected George W Bush twice... nothing we do makes any real sense'?

I'm curious to hear what others think about this -

Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.

My column last week criticizes ABC's Charlie Gibson for using his position as debate moderator to focus the presidential discourse on the supposed unfairness of asking very wealthy people to pay the same tax rate on their stock profits as their servants pay on hard earned wages. Gibson led us to believe raising the capital gains tax rate would severely harm most Americans, when the hard data shows that the richest 1 percent pays most of this tax (not surprising, considering the richest 1 percent own most of the stock).

So what should Gibson have asked when it comes to capital gains taxes? How about asking the candidates whether they are serious about ending the situation whereby their wealthy donors in the private equity industry are being allowed to bilk American taxpayers?

Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.

The "controversy" over Barack Obama's "bitter" comments was a media creation from start to finish - a brouhaha manufactured by very wealthy reporters and pundits who do anything they can to ignore, reject or otherwise downplay the very real issue of inequality and economic class in America. Using MSNBC's Chris Matthews and "The Wire's" Jimmy McNulty, I show in my new newspaper column out today that the very media ideology that spins up these "controversies" has gone from subtle to brazen in the last few weeks - and that intensification is breeding, yes, bitterness.

(Original version was posted at my blog)

On a night of completely horrid debate questions, this had to be the worst:

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look.

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

ABC has been hiding behind the shell of "we were just asking tough questions" in response to their questionable performance in the Pennsylvania debate. But to see how transparently false that claim is you only have to think about this "tough" question: When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, that's a tough question, partly because it is grossly unfair, partly because it's an ugly insinuation and partly because it's structured in a way where there is no good answer. That doesn't make it a good question.

I present the debut of the Daily Kos Sunday Funnies, a decidedly biased view of the idiots in our media and politics, from a Photoshop artist with too much time on his hands...The last week has, unfortunately, provided a bevy of material...Lets review, shall we...(see below)

Charlie: (Addressing Barack) Talkin' at some closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, ya got ta talkin' in California 'bout small-town Pennsylvanians. Ya say dey bitta, 'n dey don't particularly like people who ain't like who dey is. Ya sed ya mispoke, ya sed ya mangled what ya sed, d'ya undastand tha' some people in dis here state find that patronizin' 'n think tha' ya sed wha' ya meant? How's ya' gonna splain that to 'em?

Last night in his talking points segment about the backlash against the ABC debate Bill O'Reilly, the sex-crazed pervert at fox noise who not too long ago had to pay millions of dollars in a settlement for a sex harassment suit against him by a female co-worker, equated Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to a black militant. According to the right wing lunatic, George Stephanoplous and Charlie Gibson did a great job in asking "legitimate questions" about Obama's patriotism and connection with Ayers as Americans want to know if he "shared their values". The Republican scumbag concluded that far-left websites (code for dailykos) were outraged because we don't like those questions being asked and we don't mind supporting someone who is anti-American or a black militant.

More stupid crap from the GOP.

This is time it is Obama's comparison between Tom Coburn and William Ayers.

I can admit that it wasn't the best comparison. So I've thought of a better one for Obama.

i wanted to think a few days and process what i saw before i could really respond to the last round of debates. i left the debate (a big group of the campaign volunteers and staff met up wednesday night at ivy tech to watch the debate and make calls during commercials and it was wonderful) feeling that barack had won. no question. hillary had to admit she was a liar on national television, barack stood strong in the face of questions he's going to have to answer at some point (b/c it's not like that douchebag sean hannity is ever going to stop whining about anything), and he was very adamant about defending himself, the movement he leads, and all of us who support him. i felt good about that because he stood strong in the face of an all out attack by abc.

Following the storm of criticism ABC received over Wednesday night's Democratic debate game of Trivial Pursuit hosted by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, it was time for the network to weigh in and boy howdy, there's nothing like a little introspective reporting:

As you'd imagine, the debate is the talk of the town here today, and not all of it is positive. The consensus seems to be that Sen. Barack Obama had a rough night, and many are objecting to the tenor of the questions...A grueling round of debate questions focused on issues such as Obama's patriotism and his more controversial friends.

Who could object to questions about lapel pins and whether your pastor loves his country?  After all, if you can't handle a grueling round of questions on that, how are you going to handle al Qaeda?   Now, some might suggest that asking the candidate "How are you going to handle al Qaeda," would accomplish that too, but when time is limited and you have to get in questions from Sean Hannity, choices have to be made.  And as Stephanopolous pointed out, "there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument."   So there you have it; the rightwingnutosphere will be attacking Obama as an America hating, terrorist-enabler, so naturally ABC had to beat them to the punch.  

And besides, according to ABC, criticism of the "debate" was from the blogosphere, Obama supporters and:

...the liberal group MoveOn, which has mounted an action campaign to send a message to the network.

You know MoveOn...they're those crazy leftists that insulted General Petraeus.  Not mentioned? Criticism from the Washington Post, Editor & Publisher, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Times, Time, the Associated Press, or Reuters.  But why mention that when David Brooks liked it?  

After the disgrace of a "debate" ABC put on Wednesday night, the barbs and criticism have been flying at the network and moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Now, a significant turn of events is adding a new chapter to this story.

Check it at ReallySeriousNews.com:

The flag pin affixed patriotically to ABC Nightly News anchor Charlie Gibson’s lapel today announced its support for Democrat Barack Obama’s candidacy for President.

"I’m proud to endorse Senator Obama for President," the pin said in a statement released by the campaign. "I firmly believe that Barack represents a true shift in American politics, and has the vision and gravitas to deal with the most pressing problems facing our country today."

I am mindful of the dual responsibilities given to me by grant of this space: to inform and to provoke. Though the ability to amuse does not come naturally, sometimes I attempt this also.

Without occasional humor neither you nor I could tolerate me. Without challenging the status quo I could not justify my effort in writing or your time in reading.

So it once was with television news.

In remarks to Greg Sargent about the questions asked at ABC's Democratic primary candidate debate the other day, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos is quoted as saying:

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in Novembber." [sic]

"This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it."

Interestingly enough, that's at some variance with what ABC's own poll reported today, based on data collected between April 10th and 13th.

Amidst all the uproar over ABC’s debate moderators’ divisive, distracting and sometimes just inane questions, there are a couple of gems from the discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked. From Hillary Clinton’s raw honesty and new insights on middle east conflicts to Barack Obama’s revelations on employment and educational barriers for poor whites, here’s a selection of items that shouldn’t be overlooked.    

The Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night was dominated by a wall of stupid painstakingly constructed by ABC's moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

Brought to you by...
News Corpse
The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.