I always feel filthy after listening to these network slobs

[PCIntern]

who are third-rate reporters at best, who lack any true historical perspective other than what you might read in a high school civics text, who diminish those who are brighter, who are more academically successful, who are not enduring the same 'impostor phenomenon' from which these undereducated, slick, but highly transparent and really incompetent 'folks' suffer.

What gets media folk like Gibson, Sawyer,and Russert hard is mentions of a Redskins Game, or spouting Rethug talking points without referencing their source (Gibson's statement that the surge IS WORKING - not that according to some 'advisers to the President"). There is the 'have a beer with HIM' ethos.

I have two words for them: Screw You.

They have certainly screwed the American Public - they refuse to understand the enormity of the corporate lies for which they have sold their nearly-worthless souls.

[pinto]

1. I thought Gibson did a decent job as moderator tonight, no comment on the others.

:evilgrin:

[Hangingon]

3. I think he did well too.

[WinkyDink]

5. "What debate moment do you wish you could take back?" FEH!

[pinto]

8. Eh. One throw away question. No biggie, imo.

[PCIntern]

6. Respectfully disagree:

I find him a smarmy, know-nothing, who got shown to the seat in the anchor desk by dint of the death of Jennings and the fact that the duo appointed to attempt to salvage his seat, failed because one of the Iraqi groups who was supposed to meet us with rose petals, forgot, and took exception to the presence of the convoy and poor Mr. Woodruff took one for the 'team'.

[pinto]

7. Agree, yet that said, his couple of hours on stage tonight was OK,

that's what I was referring to, not his history.

[PCIntern]

9. I suppose...

but he's just a glorified entertainment reporter. Imagine if someone who knew something about political science conceived and asked salient questions of both sides.

He's an empty suit...originally chosen, BTW, b/c he looked somewhat like David Hartman. Remember him?

[pinto]

12. I know...the media's let the bar drop on their standards, big time.

In the media world as we know it now, though, this wasn't bad.

I felt I got to hear more from our candidates than in any previous debate.

[PCIntern]

13. Also, with only 4 Dems...

there was a chance for some fleshing out of points and back and forth wasn't bad.

At least they weren't as deadly as the Rethugs, who looked and sounded terrible, especially Fred the Ancient...

[pinto]

17. I thankfully missed Madame Toussard's Republican House of Wax show.

Didn't get in here 'till the Dem's came up.

:evilgrin:

[PCIntern]

18. The reason I watch it is that

once every four years, you get to watch a Rethug circular firing squad.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I know the feeling. Mafiosos are nicer, kinder and cleaner. nt

[WinkyDink]

4. ITA. Thank you.

[stillrockin]

10. I know.

I NEVER listen to these ignoramuses other than when they moderate debates. I loved it when the audience laughed out loud when Gibson referred to the hypothetical couple of St. Anselm profs who together make $200K.

He constantly defended Bush's policy in Iraq. Exactly how willfully ignorant does a JOURNALIST have to be to make such comments?

Oh yeah, and Charlie, get those stupid reading glasses under control. They make you look like a dope ass.

B-)

[PCIntern]

11. Pretty affected look, wasn't it?

I'm sorry, he's a bit weird...as I posted above, I felt that he'd been chosen after David Hartman quit the network b/c it was a smooth visual transition.

[stillrockin]

14. Yeah, I remember DH.

He was an idiot too. Didn't he leave to become a supah-stah? I recall that he was really nasty to Joan Lunden, or whatever her name was.

[PCIntern]

15. Yes...

he only played a nice guy on TV...they used to say that the two most evil men on TV were DH and Jack Lord.

[riverdeep]

16. That laugh by the audience said it all.

Like, don't you even do basic research, dumbass?

Judging by his pushing the line that the surge is working, obviously, no. That's so disheartening, that the media is falling for it again. You'd think they'd learn by now to question everything that comes out of this administration. Obama calmly pointed out, in almost a throw-away line, that the level of death and killing* is the same as it was two years ago and no foundation for an upcoming withdrawal has been laid whatsoever, i.e. political progress.

* The measurement of which is questionable, to say the least. Counting an Iraqi casualty based on which direction they got shot in the head is laughable. But ol' Charlie and his cohorts keep buying.