Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Who Lost the Penn Debate? The Moderators, Many Say

V

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
*Outrage as ex-Clinton staffer runs debate*

Outrage as ex-Clinton staffer runs debate

ABC journalist Charles Gibson (centre) is under fire for his questions in the televised debate between senators Clinton and Obama.

April 17, 2008 - 2:36PM

US voters have expressed outrage over the decision to allow Bill Clinton's former press secretary to moderate today's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The two Democratic senators went head-to-head in Philadelphia in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

The debate was moderated by ABC journalists George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton staffer, and Charles Gibson.

More than 7000 viewers posted comments on the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news website criticising the "biased" and "superficial" questions posed by Stephanopoulos, the network's Washington correspondent.

Stephanopoulos helped run Mr Clinton's 1992 election campaign and acted as his press secretary and advisor on policy and strategy before joining the ABC.

"A very biased debate, both Charlie and George attacked Obama tonight," wrote Admiralboy21.

"George Stephanopoulos was on Bill Clinton's administrative staff at one point, why was he asking the questions. ABC did a TERRIBLE job with the debate!!"

Zorbakrufus wrote: "ABC News has officially lost any semblance of credibility it ever had for me.

"It took the moderators over an hour to ask a single question on policy. They may as well have had britney spears asking the questions. If Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson made up those questions, they should both be fired immediately. You did an absolute disservice to this great country. Shame on you ABC News."

During the debare, Senator Clinton rebuked Senator Obama over his fiery former pastor and his attitude to working Americans.

Senator Obama, however, said he was confident the American people would see through what he billed as trivial political attacks.

Senator Clinton was desperate to change the campaign narrative, as fresh poll numbers clouded her long-shot comeback hopes, and delved into Senator Obama's background to warn of the scope of Republican attacks against him.

She said he should have left his Chicago church in protest at the incendiary sentiments of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, particularly those about the September 11 attacks in 2001, which caused a storm recently when aired online.

"I have to say that for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack which happened in my city of New York would have been just intolerable for me,'' Senator Clinton said.

"Therefore I would have not been able to stay in the church.''

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama attempted to score big political points under the veneer of politeness, but both betrayed signs of fatigue after a campaign which has lasted more than a year.

The New York senator also skewered her rival over his comment in a fundraiser last week that some smalltown Americans clung to religion and guns because they were "bitter'' about their economic circumstances.

She pointedly brought up her grandfather and father who lived in Pennsylvania, saying she didn't believe they clung "to religion when Washington is not listening to them''.

"I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either, when they are frustrated with the Government.

"I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.''

Senator Obama said he had "mangled'' his words, but said there was a deep frustration among Americans with their economic plight and their political leaders.

"Yes, people are frustrated and angry about it, but what we're seeing in this election is the opportunity to break through that frustration,'' Senator Obama said.

He took aim at Senator Clinton's contention that she could better bear Republican assaults after years in the partisan cross-fire.

"In a general election, we know there are going to be all kinds of attacks launched,'' he said.

"What the American people want are not distractions,'' he said.

"They want to figure out, how are we actually going to deliver on health care; how are we going to deliver better jobs for people; how are we going to improve their incomes.''

Both candidates said their rival could beat Republican John McCain in November.

Asked if Senator Obama was electable as president, the former first lady said: "Yes, yes, yes.

"Now, I think I can do a better job. That's why I'm here,'' she added to laughs.

Senator Obama likewise said "absolutely'' on the question of whether Senator Clinton was electable against Senator McCain, and also said: "But I too think I'm the better candidate.''

The former first lady was under intense pressure to change the complexion of her battle with Senator Obama ahead of the Pennsylvania primary.

Senator Clinton has attacked Senator Obama for days over his "bitter'' comment, but latest opinion surveys suggested he had escaped serious immediate damage.

Polls show Senator Clinton has stalled Senator Obama's attempt to catch her in Pennsylvania, but her lead of around six points did not suggest the kind of blowout win she needs to sow doubts about Senator Obama's presidential viability in the minds of top party leaders.

Senator Clinton trails Senator Obama in nominating contests won, elected delegates and the popular vote.

Her only chance now is to convince nearly 800 Democratic grandees called superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win November's general election against Republican John McCain.

There was more grim news for Senator Clinton in a Washington Post/ABC News poll that gave Senator Obama a 10-point lead when Democrats nationwide were asked who they would like to see go up against Senator McCain.

Senator Obama was up two-to-one among Democrats asked who was most electable in a general election, undermining Senator Clinton's quest for the hearts of the superdelegates.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/us-election/chair-lift-for-hillary/2008/04/17/1208025351372.html

-VG
 
QueEx

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Who Lost the Debate?</font size><font size="6">
The Moderators, Many Say </font size></center>

New York Times
By By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: April 18, 2008

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators of Wednesday night’s presidential debate on ABC, became the subject of a fierce and somewhat unexpected debate themselves on Thursday, as viewers, bloggers and television critics lamented what they described as an opportunity lost: a chance to ask the two candidates for the Democratic nomination substantive questions early and often.

The media post-mortem — which boiled over in more than 17,600 comments posted on the ABC Web site alone — also touched on questions that had long been simmering in the protracted Democratic campaign over the role of moderators in televised debates, to say nothing of political journalists generally.

If there was a common theme, it was that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had front-loaded the debate with questions that many viewers said they considered irrelevant when measured against the faltering economy or the Iraq war, like why Senator Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Others rapped the journalists for dwelling on matters that had been picked over for weeks, like the incendiary comments of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.

Only after half of the 90-minute debate had been concluded did the moderators turn to questions concerning Iraq, Iran, the housing crisis and affirmative action.

The criticism — echoed in columns in The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Daily News, as well as on Web sites like Politico — was picked up on Thursday by Mr. Obama himself.

“We set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people,” Mr. Obama told an audience of nearly 2,000 in Raleigh, N.C., many of whom applauded. Reached by phone on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Stephanopoulos, a former aide in the Clinton White House who hosts “This Week” on ABC, sounded somewhat taken aback.

“We thought it made sense to deal with the core controversies,” he said, by way of explaining those early questions. All of them, he said, went to “what has become the No. 1 issue between the candidates — who can win in November?”

Ultimately, he said, “the debate covered a lot of ground.”

But Mr. Stephanopoulos said that after digesting much of what had been sent forth in the blogosphere on Thursday morning, he would have approached one critical aspect of his job differently. “I could imagine moving up some of the questions,” he said. “You can differ over that.’”

In a press release early Thursday afternoon, ABC trumpeted the debate’s viewership: an estimated 10.7 million, according to figures from Nielsen Media Research, the most that had seen any debate concerning the 2008 election. The online anger aimed at Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson, some of it admittedly partisan, was reminiscent of the furor directed at Tim Russert of NBC News for what was perceived as his disproportionately tough questioning of Mrs. Clinton at the last Democratic debate, in Cleveland in February. Among the questions Mr. Russert had asked Mrs. Clinton, but not Mr. Obama, was to provide the name of the new Russian leader.

But the outcry on Thursday was on a much larger scale, reflecting, at least in part, broader frustration with the news media as a whole.

“Congratulations for taking journalism to a new low (who even knew that was still possible),” said one person who posted to the ABC News Web site, and identified himself or herself as a college professor who had assigned the debate as homework. “I almost felt like I needed to apologize for suggesting that they watch the debate, but instead we used your sorry display as a way of talking about how the media covers politics today.”

Ken Bode, a former correspondent for NBC and CNN who moderated a Democratic primary debate in 1992 in South Dakota, said in an interview that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had erred by “churning up the old and the trivial of the last six weeks” during the debate’s extended opening. “I would say hit the issues first,” Mr. Bode said.

David Bohrman, who oversees all of the political coverage at CNN, took particular issue with the lapel-flag question, which was posed to Mr. Obama by a voter appearing on tape. Mr. Bohrman said he would have instead had the moderators ask each candidate about their stance on a possible amendment to the Constitution banning flag-burning. “That’s a legitimate flag question,” Mr. Bohrman said. “I think the voters are expecting more from us.”

Still, there were plenty of commentators who said Thursday that Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos had acquitted themselves nicely in their roles as moderators. Former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York, whose name was invoked in Mr. Gibson’s first question, over whether Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would each commit to pick the loser as a vice-presidential nominee, said, “I’m certainly not going to criticize them for the subjects they selected, when everyone has been selecting those subjects for weeks and weeks.”

Don Hewitt, the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, said ABC’s structuring of the questions was an acknowledgment that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience.”

“When you’re in television,” Mr. Hewitt said, “that’s your job.”

Julie Bosman and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18moderator.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
 
QueEx

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html" WIDTH=750 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Actor4Truth

Actor4Truth

Star
Registered
I'd say it was the typical tie.. (5% give or take)...! I think the questions by the narrators where kind of attacking Obama a little bit..!! I don't see this debate effecting the outcome a whole lot.. Those who were gonna vote for Obama still are... And the same for Clinton..! I still see it going 55-45 one way or the other...!!!

Props on the repost of the debate... Missed it live..!!
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top