Is it raining frogs yet?

[ewagner]

Two things happened last night that still have me dumbfounded.

First, Brokaw was actually respectful of the candidates and didn't take any "gotcha" or cheap shots.

Second, Tweety actually treated Howard Dean respectfully during his post debate interview.

This is sooooo different from the past debates.

I know what I'd like to believe: The mediawhores see blood in the water for the Bush administration and they are trying to whore it up for our side.

Ya think?

[sallyseven]

1. I noticed it too.

I just think that they got complaints about the behavior of the other guys that did the moderating. Brokaw has been better lately and not so condescending. Kerry beating Bush, in some areas, that is a sign that the bush is on the rocks. Too many things have gone down this last week for them not to notice that bush is a looser. Kay's testimony was so full of holes. Large voter turn out. Subtle things like that.

[aintitfunny]

2. Brokaw had his problems

While I was listening to the debate on NPR, I only heard 'campaign' related questions. Questions about Dean firing Joe Trippi (Even though Dean didn't fire JT). Trying to force Dean to answer to the fact that his new manager was a Telecommunications lobbyist. Pressing that issue some. Harassing Kerry about some prior comment he made related to Democrats winning the South. Asking the other candidates en masse if they did not win in the next two weeks if they would drop out. Silly question to ask someone running for president.
So TB did not impress me. He was also not very respectful, particularly of Dean. He treated Dean like it was an interview and he was going to get a "scoop". Granted I only heard snippets after that, having to try to listen to the debate while accomplishing other necessary tasks, but the part I did catch made me think TB should not have been the moderator. I thought debates were to discuss issues, not behind the scenes campaign politics.

[PATRICK]

4. I also think Brokaw was anything but

fair and balanced. If scripted he could not have done worse in creating a Brokaw versus Dem stumblers debate. The opening questions about the horse race missteps of each... I don't think these forums are worth it if you have to have lousy TV personalities like these. By that logic to get on radio you would have to put up with Limbaugh as moderator? The needs of candidates, people and the voters should determine a better format, especially when there are many candidates.

Seeing the candidates work real crowds, talking one on one as they do on C-Span has been worth more at times than debate performance which obviously means zero to Bush voters and perhaps more of the electorate than we care to contemplate. A slanted biopic might even be better.

[tnlefty]

3. I thought that Brokaw acted like an ass at times...

With Clark he misrepresented something that the Gen. had said about the Bush* administration not having done all that it could to prevent 9/11 and Gen. Clark corrected him and I swear I thought I heard him repeat the mis-statement again. I seem to remember that he tried that same crap with others - Dean in relation to Unka Dick being involved with "cooking the books" on intelligence about Iraq's WMDs, or lack thereof. It seems as though he tried that with one or two of the other candidates as well.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive.

[NoKingGeorge]

5. Brokaw sucked.

He kept forcing campaign administration issues and prefacing ALL his questions. Framing a question is one thing but saying 'most beleive' or being corrected on most suppositions showed not a lack of preparation but rather an attempt to elicite unfavorable responses.I just want the 'where do you stand on ...?' questions. All the candidates handled him well. I did not see anyone going over to shake his hand at the end.

[marie123]

6. call me

When it is raining men. keep the frogs