Debate thing
One thing I find interesting about the recent Democratic debate is how one aspect of the whole thing is being overlooked by even the critical media, George Stephanopolous' ties to the Clintons. One of the 'moderators' for this debate was one of the directors of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and had his career launched by his association with the Clintons. Given his outright smear questions for Obama, how is nobody crying foul on ABC and journalistic neutrality.
I mean, I am the last person to imply journalistic objectivity, but there is expected to be a lack of direct bias in the news media. Letting him moderate the debate is putting the fox in charge of the hen house and because of that, we get questions about Obama's association with Ayers and the fucking flag pin.
I mean, I am the last person to imply journalistic objectivity, but there is expected to be a lack of direct bias in the news media. Letting him moderate the debate is putting the fox in charge of the hen house and because of that, we get questions about Obama's association with Ayers and the fucking flag pin.
no subject
no subject
And my problem with the debate is less with the media going after Obama, which I think is fine, than with the methodology. I'm not a gotcha kind of voter unless I think that the relationship or event is telling of a larger pattern or significant relationship.
I.E. a passing personal relationship with someone who is a member of the communist party, no big deal. Working for the campaign of David Duke, big deal.
no subject
And the bridge is back in operation!
no subject
Yay bridge!
no subject
no subject