debates

Last night, I have to admit that I did not watch the Pennsylvania debate on ABC because by now I have decided who I support based on issues and character, but I did read the analysis. It does not surprise me that Hillary was declared the winner. She is good at debating. So how does that make someone a good president?

What I had not expected was having questions submitted to the mainstream media (supposedly) by the likes of right wing extremist and supposed news person Sean Hannity. What I had not expected was that it would be over half tabloid journalism with no questions on the issues; but then it has been years since I watched network news. If I had been watching these characters, perhaps I'd not have been surprised.

Analysis regarding the debate was good from Andrew Sullivan on Daily Dish. He felt that Obama did poorly. Here's one of his comments--

"Stephanopoulos was schooled in Morris-Rove politics. Under the tutelage of Hillary Clinton and James Carville. I repeat the obvious:

"No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it's not illegitimate as such - but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart."

It did not surprise me that the mainstream media would ask question geared to make Obama look bad and ignore some of the things that might make Hillary squirm-- like the recent revelation that in the 90s, during the Clinton administration, she said who cares about small town southerners, which might not be a big deal except her making such a big deal out of Obama trying to explain his problem with getting through to small town Pennsylvanians.

As the debate last night evidently clearly indicated and I have said, the media wants it to be Hillary and McCain. So they go after anything that might scare voters. Why does something like a lapel pin even matter?

I will be writing more about the subject of what do they mean by elitism, coming next. The question I have now is why does the media want it to be McCain and Clinton in November? I don't know if they see it as a better for their news, whether it's their desire to keep the status quo, not see someone come in who will really change things, or if they are under orders. Despite all the talk that the media is left wing, they are owned by right wingers.