Stop Tim Russert before he moderates again

February 27, 2008

In the last post, we talked a bit about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did in last night’s debate in Cleveland. But I’d remiss if I neglected to note how truly awful Tim Russert was as a moderator. His performance was rather embarrassing — for all of us.

This had to be one of my favorite exchanges of any of the Dems’ 20 debates.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we — if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what’s —

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No — well, it isn’t reality. You’re making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

Clinton shouldn’t have had to explain the difference between a hypothetical question and a real-life scenario, but Russert was clearly confused.

Alas, it only got worse. Much worse.

The entire series of questions for Obama about Farrakhan was even more noxious, as Josh Marshall explained.

I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it’s getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.

That’s not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan’s vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn’t believe that Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness”.

As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.

Josh posted a video clip, and it’s as bad as it sounds. Obama denounced Farrakhan and said his anti-Semitism is “reprehensible.” Russert, for no apparent reason, decided to start reading some of Farrakhan’s more disgusting comments anyway. Obama interrupted, saying we all know about Farrakhan’s record, which is why he’s denounced it. Russert, apparently unable to help himself, stuck with the topic.

Digby drove all of this home beautifully.

The country wants change. They want Washington to stop all the partisan bickering and they want a different tone. They want their government to be serious and deal with real problems.

Can someone please explain to me how that can possibly happen until something is done about the reprehensible political press? From tax returns to Farrakhan to footage shown by “mistake” to the endless, trivial, gotcha bullshit, this debate spectacle tonight was a classic demonstration of what people really hate about politics. It isn’t actually the candidates who can at least on occasion be substantive and serious. The problem is Tim Russert and all his petty, shallow acolytes who spend all their time reading Drudge and breathlessly reporting every tabloid tidbit and sexy rumor and seeking out minor inconsistencies from years past in lieu of doing any real work.

Judging by their silly questions tonight, Russert and Williams obviously know nothing about health care policy, Iraq, Islamic terrorism, economics, global trade or any other subject that requires more than five minutes study to come up with some gotcha question or a stupid Jack Bauer fantasy. It’s embarrassing.

It is, indeed, and it’s harmful to the process. There’s no reason for debate moderation to be this bad.

Russert – among the dumbest of the dumbing-downers.

  • My comment in the previous post (#10) would have been more appropriate here had I know this topic was up:

    The questioners were miserable. I could picture the bug-eyed highschool debater’s grin on Russert’s face when he Wiki-ed Dmitry Medvedev and learned the he was born September 14, 1965 in Leningrad, is a Russian politician, businessman, and lawyer. On the strength of this half minute of work he popped the snotty question: “What can you tell me about the man who’s going to Mr. Putin’s successor?”

    The question, in that context, reminded me of the old “literacy” questions they asked black potential voters in the South, e.g., name the oldest third cousin of the governor. You could look it up (as Time had), but why bother?

    As for [whether Clinton made up ground on Obama], she needed a series of real scores and/or he needed one real bomb. Neither happened. Yes. We. Can.

  • Marshall had a great line on Russert’s What If? insanities:

    “Russert’s militant simpletonism is getting a bit tiring. What if we partly withdrew and then the Iraqis told us to completely withdraw and then al Qaida was elected president and then they allied with North Korea, do you have a policy ready for that!?!?!?!”

  • Unfortunately, Russert is just doing his job by dumbing down of America. The corporations who run this joint actually encourage this idiocy in all its variations, because dumber people buy more crappy products and don’t ask hard questions about the corporations and how they operate.

    We’ve been drugged, people. Injected with stupidity. Timmeh and Tweety and MoDo and Broder and all the other turds who fill the sewer of corporate media are being paid a lot of money to keep us from figuring out what’s really going on, and because they haven’t found a drug that works on everyone, some of us can still see that they are asking moronic questions.

    If you want to see the corporations in all their glory, watch this movie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

  • Was it just me or was Russert barking questions loke an angry pit bull at these two presidential candidates? I don’t ever recall him behaving that way. Maybe he was on something.

  • He kept interrupting them, barking over the end of one answer to ask the next point.

    Or the bizarre Farrkhan thing, where Obama had explicitly denounced his anti-Semitism but Timmy still felt the need to get all his juicy examples of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism out there all the same. How many times do you need him to denounce it, moron?

    If there’s ever been a clearer indication that Russert doesn’t care a bit about the answers (or even listens to them), I’ve never seen it. It’s all about him — listen to my smart [sic] question, look at the gotcha quote I dug up, look at me me me.

  • I don’t wish to sound like I don’t agree with you about Mr. Russert, but it’s my feeling that Iraq will indeed, if not “go to hell,” most probably get worse before it gets better when we leave. In this light, the question isn’t that unreasonable. The answer, I believe, is to suggest that whatever problems our leaving might create, our staying will not solve, and might actually exacerbate.

  • If anyone saw Russert on the morning news programs on MSNBC and NBC he certainly seemed very proud of himself and his performance. It was, frankly, nauseating to see him gloating and grinning.

  • Wow-I’m surprised to read this post. I thought Russert was loads better than some of the other moderators and his sharp questions made for a much more entertaining debate–especially in light of Campbell and Wolf of the CNN team who couldn’t control the candidates at all last week. He actually went after the candidates to push them out of their normal rhetoric get some actual answers on what they would do during their presidency that I found enlightening. For example, making them state that they would both renegotiate NAFTA. And kudos to him for trying to get a pledge out of Hillary on releasing her tax returns. I don’t understand why she just doesn’t release them already…

  • Comparing Russert’s “reporting” with that of the NYT’s story on McCain is like comparing John Kerry to George Bush. Everyone on both sides of the aisle complained about Kerry’s woodenness, etc., yet, Kerry wasn’t running against Jesus — he was running against George Bush. Was Bush a more engaging speaker? Better able to relate to the common man? Is there ANY objective criteria one can use to say that Bush was a better choice than Kerry?

    Here, we have two aides to the candidate in question, independently corroborating that they were so concerned about a relationship that they approached the Senator about it, and the candidate admitted the relationship was innappropriate. Result: bipartisan denunciation of the sloppy reporting, including from the paper’s ombudsmen, and the liberal infrastructure for pushback adding to the pushback on a paper for not having documentary evidence, thus sending a signal to every media outlet about what they can expect from braving the publication of a story on McCain, as the Times was reluctant to do.

    On the other hand, we have Tim Russert using e-mail hoaxes, Drudge and the color of Obama’s skin to associate him with every terrorists and anything offensive thing any black man has ever said.

    What has the NYT’s learned here? In terms of sticks and carrots, Russert will be praised by the large megaphone, and get complaints from the whiny blogosphere they WANT to tick off, and the NYT’s paid dearly, as Dan Rather did, for running a story on some very real questions about a Republican candidate, yet fell short of journalistic perfection. Air a story on Siegelman and have stations pre-empt your show.

    If you’re in the newspaper BUSINESS, which route would you go?

  • How dare you insult ‘Timah’ the ‘everyman’!

    He was just doing his job of being an obnoxious twit attempting to create conflict. Everyman knows that the job of the Corporate News Media is to hype anything, regardless of relevance, to sell advertising.

    That is, unless it is the Bush White House, who regards Timah as their favorite talking head host!

    Timah’s grin has become as annoying as Bush’s grin…

  • And kudos to him for trying to get a pledge out of Hillary on releasing her tax returns. I don’t understand why she just doesn’t release them already…

    Yeah, Hillary sounded really lame about releasing her tax return. She won’t have time to “get it together” before the March 4 contests? What’s to get together about a return that was filed last year? Just call your accountant and tell him to release it, already. It takes 5 minutes.

  • TR: that’s the thing about Russert that bothered me most last night. I was trying to think of a way, any possible way, that Russert would retire or just quit (huge lotto winnings? work for the new Bush library? book deal?) –nothing bad, just something to get him off television screens. Then I realized he’ll never leave willingly. Because it is all about LOOK AT ME! I’M CLEVER! LISTEN TO ME! It was depressing.

    Russert wasn’t even chastised by Olbermann’s post-game question to him where it was pointed out that Obama never said in flat terms he’d do public financing as the nominee. Russert’s response was he wanted Obama to clarify that, no doubt using the exact same words as he used on the page. What sort of idiot savant thinks using the exact same words every time is what is necessary? (Though it does explain why Russert and his acolytes tended to swoon over Bush and his rote memorization of phrases for so long.)

    I also don’t think it was a coincidence that Russert, Mitchell, and Tweety all got to go to Cleveland State for the debate while Olbermann stayed in NY. After the end of the last primary coverage, where Olbermann went after Tweety for his taking apart of the Obama supporter, and had the whole staff laugh at him (on camera–lovely to rewatch on C&L), I wasn’t too surprised that the kewl kids lobbied for a field trip to avoid hanging out that mean smartie-pants Olbermann. (Who isn’t necessarily brilliant, just states the obvious without overt psychosis, though he did seem a little eager for Clinton and her people to rend garments over their plight. Sheesh–let it go.)

  • Why wouldn’t Hillary answer like a CINC should? We will hunt AQ no matter where they set up shop. If that happens to be back in Iraq after we end our occupation so be it. A president should reserve the right to go after anybody who threatens our security. Obama answered the question correctly. Hillary waffled.

  • The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a shamelessly fawning front page article on Russert the other day. Apparently he went to law school at Cleveland State University, which hosted the debate.

    I think it’s finally time for the right to chuck the argument that the conservative, corporate-owned media has a liberal bias . . .

  • Right after the “debate” the sight of Tim and his flunky Matthews actually chortling to each other over what they must perceive as Hillary Clinton’s dead political body was too much to bear. Having tracked the coverage (much to my wife’s chagrin) of Hillary and Barack since September, I would say there has been a bias against Sen. Clinton.

    I will never get over the feeling that this Democratic election in general, and the Obama supporters in particular have been “handled” by the networks. All of this phony narrative might sell advertising, but it does nothing for the notion of a fairly and accurately reported election. Keep tuned, by March 5th the knives will have been sharpened for Sen. Obama.

  • Tim Russert was on Jeopardy (Washington celeb) and it was amazing what he didn’t know. I’m talking about basic American history. Someone should dig up the tape of this. He loves to stump people with rehearsed questions, and no, he can’t veer off the script because he has no background knowledge.

    Don’t get me started on the media in general. You always get the arrogant ‘the people don’t want issues’ but the blogs deal with issues and the media deals with horse races – people vote more because they can bypass the media.

    One good thing he did last night was provide the background of Hillary on NAFTA, which Obama is reluctant to do in such a forum, and Hillary takes advantage of every punch Obama pulls to distort her own record. Russert’s lead up to that question was perhaps the most important moment of the Ohio debate.

  • You should have seen Tweety praise Timmeh during the debate “analysis” for thowing “gotchas” – Timmeh was gleaming with pride, almost giggling. THAT was the worst political TV I’ve ever seen. Period.

  • Whooah! Lot’s of whining over Tim Russert for being tough? The guy is great…and consistent. He holds everyone’s feet to the fire- left or right. Russert is the best journalist in TV today…I think it was one of his finest moments.

  • I would say there has been a bias against Sen. Clinton. -Chip Coblyn

    You’re absolutely right. Like when they keep highlighting her middle name, Rodham, hoping to create the illusion of similarity between her and the recently executed former dictator of Iraq and terrorism in general.

    And when they talk about the Welesley madrassa she attending when she was younger, hoping yet again to insinuate ties with terrorism.

    Or when they said she wasn’t black enough. How can a woman not be black enough, I ask?!

    And even as recently as last night, the moderator and her competitor tried to gang up on her and link her to the anti-Semitic comments of an espoused supporter despite her complete disavowing and repudiation of that supporter.

    You couldn’t be more right. The media is totally the reason why Hillary hired Mark Penn. So biased.

  • What I would like to know (well ok I already know why) but rather I would like the candidates be asked and required to answer questions about signing statements, rights of habeaus corpus, eavesdropping/wiretapping, and I want hillary to state explicitly why she did not return (as obama did) to vote against the senate reauthorization of the PAA (protect america act)- but wait could you imagine the GOP spin machine- “she..voted..against…the…PROTECT AMERICA ACT!!…- more juicy than barack HUSSEIN OBAMA not wearing his little flag pin…

  • I would imagine that with government salary and expense reimbursements, income from other sources, and campaign expenses, Clinton’s (and Obama’s too) tax returns may be very complex. Releasing them to the public surely requires evaluating whether any information personal to someone other than Clinton might be involved. It might also require explanations because just providing the forms would not be self-explanatory. If Clinton filed jointly with her husband, then explanations for his income and where the money came from would be needed as well. It may not be that all of his information should be made public along with hers, since he is a private citizen now and not running for office.

    The demand for her returns is a way of implying that she is hiding something. If Obama supporters have any suspicion about her financial dealings, they should voice them directly, instead of making a veiled accusation about a form that is unlikely to be revealing of much of anything but may be confusing to voters and misrepresented by the media (who have demonstrated a will to misrepresent her in many ways). The Clintons have been accused many times but never shown to have done anything improper financially (after exhaustive investigation). The chances that Hillary has anything hidden in her returns are remote. This is just a smear and a distraction voiced by Obama’s people.

    There are some boundaries that politicians can and should draw. Talking about their sex lives is one. Talking about non-threatening health issues is another (e.g., hemmorhoids). I think divulging tax returns over and above revealing campaign financing and accounting for political office financing is out of bounds. There are blind trusts to shield investments from political manipulation. There are logging systems for gifts. There is no right to know how much interest the Clintons paid on their mortgage or how much Bill has received in speaker’s fees, or what percentage of their income went to charity as opposed to non-deductible causes. I would say the same if it were Obama’s returns everyone was clamoring for, but Clinton’s people are not “throwing the sink” at Obama, so inappropriate demands for personal information are not being made of him.

  • Russert fancies himself as the “gotcha guy.” The vicim’s party doesn’t matter so much; he’s an equal opportunity ambusher. I used to respect and admire him, but he’s grown rude, boorish and quite tiresome. Someone needs to tell him he’s not the story or even part of it. He’s really only a messenger boy after all.

  • One gets the feeling Timmeh isn’t pleased that Democrats appear to be on the verge of retaking Washington and ending the comfortable period of having Republican liars on his show that tell him what he wants to hear. Russert seemed to seethe that in Washington he and his cohort are in charge and these two upstarts had better take notice.

  • Hillary polls worse when her middle name is included than when she is referred to as just Hillary Clinton. You bet the media is including it.

  • As far as I am concerned, certain people should not vote…case in point, salon published an article by Gary Kamiya that he was voting for Barack, but that his “blackness seals the deal”….WHAT!!???

    People who are unable to ask critical questions and demand actual answers from candidates ultimately get the candidates and officials they deserve. Until we start treating candidates for president as if they are running to be President of the United States, rather than Senior Class President, we will continue down the road towards universal retardation.

  • Russert fancies himself as the “gotcha guy.” The vicim’s party doesn’t matter so much;

    Can you give examples of Russert ambushing a Republican based on an e-mail hoax?

  • About 30 seconds into his post-game colloquy with Olbermann, Tweety blithered that he didn’t understand why they went on so much about health care when the country doesn’t even have a health care plan. It was like being back in 6th grade. These people are genuinely stupid.

  • Yes, the media does seem to favor Obama, but what do you expect? For the entire Clinton presidency, the so-called liberal media made it their principal preoccupation in life to slime the Clintons with completely made-up scandals. That bastion of liberalism, the NY Times (yes, the same paper which operated as Bush’s press secretary during the run-up to the Iraq war–see Judy Miller), pursued Whitewater the way Ahab pursued the white whale, in spite of the fact that there was absolutely nothing to it at all. Travelgate, filegate, billing records, Vince Foster, etc., etc.–no idiocy was too idiotic for the Times and the Post and the rest of the liberal media. In the end, the only scandal that had any reality was that Bill got fellated and, like every married man and every politician since time began, lied about it.

    But we Obama supporters can take no comfort from the fact that Clinton-baiting is the media’s blood sport (as author James Stewart put it). If and when Obama’s the nominee, the Republican slime machine will crank up the volume, and Russert and Matthews and the Times and the Post will gleefully report and repeat and discuss every smear–all in the name of journalism, of course.

  • Hillary polls worse when her middle name is included than when she is referred to as just Hillary Clinton. You bet the media is including it. -Mary

    Yes, oh listener to tiny violins, Hillary has definitely been the candidate most victimized by the inclusion of their middle name. Didn’t Hillary tell you to get real?

  • There hasn’t been much discussion of this, but I am concerned that the independents who voted for Obama during Democratic primaries may vote Republican in November. My darkest thoughts focus on a plan to nominate Obama using Republicans disguised as Independents, then defeat him in the Fall, but as conspiracy theories go, I really can’t see how conservatives would ever have coordinated something like that. Nevertheless, I don’t see the increase in new participants to the political party, entering just to support Obama, as necessarily a good thing if these people are not going to be there in the Fall.

    Obama supporters see this as a groundswell in favor of Obama, but what if it is a “beat Hillary” initiative, as the media and conservatives clearly seem bent on doing. Their actions would be little different if that were the ulterior motive — neutrality and absence of criticism for Obama (no boosting because he will be running in Fall and you wouldn’t want to strengthen him for that race) with strong criticism and ridicule of Clinton, no substantive coverage and emphasis on every complaint made by Obama’s campaign. It would be a great way for conservatives to steal an election in the face of overwhelming public disgust over Bush’s term. Very Rovian. When Bush’s major supporters left early (and every said the rats were leaving the ship), they left to do something. What did they do? It wasn’t to lay the groundwork for McCain. Call me paranoid, but this is a plausible scenario, in my opinion.

  • Yes, the media does seem to favor Obama… -Brian

    No, they don’t. Please don’t concede bullshit talking points to the Clintonistas.

    It wasn’t Hillary’s patriotism that was questioned all last week, and I gave plenty of other (albeit snarky) examples above of mistreatment of Obama.

    Clinton supporters are just hearing the tiny violins of pity.

    When they get over it, they’ll realize the media has done what it always does: mistreats ALL Democrats.

  • Oh, come on. I really enjoyed Russert last night. The Farrakhan stuff was out there, but oh well — it was the kind of issue that WILL be raised during a national campaign.

    About the hypotheticals: what is the problem here? For the past few weeks both candidates have been talking about experience and judgment. What better way to let voters determine a candidate’s judgment on foreign policy than by asking questions about what they were to do if X, Y, Z were to occur? It shows a judgment that isn’t determined prior to the debate, one that the candidates must address and respond to in the moment.

    I have seen a lot of negativity directed at Russert. I am an Obama supporter, and I can tell you that myself and those others I have talked to have had no problem. We need more moderators like this; I DO care about a candidate’s judgment, and the largest part of that judgment involves currently-hypothetical situations that will be very real in the future.

  • I watch ‘Meet the Press’ on a semi-regular basis, and it has occurred to me from time to time that Tim Russert’s reach might be exceeding his grasp. After watching the Cleveland Democratic debate, all suspense has been lifted.

  • There hasn’t been much discussion of this, but I am concerned that the independents who voted for Obama during Democratic primaries may vote Republican in November. -Mary

    What do you mean there hasn’t been much discussion of that? It’s all Jim used to post, and every time he posted it I asked the same thing, where’s the evidence?

    I guess it’s better to go into November with the assured loss than the potential win, eh?

    This is just whiny, off-topic concern trolling.

    If you have any evidence, let’s see it, otherwise, it’s pure tin-foil hat territory to think that Republican and moderate voters are so organized they can pull off a national coup in the Democratic Primaries.

    Get real.

  • Tim Russert is a unique figure in today’s media. He never worked as a reporter. He has never written a magazine article or an op-ed piece on any current event or issue. His principal claim to authorship is a hagiographic book about his father. And yet, despite such meager credentials, he is chief of the Washington bureau for NBC News! His weekly “Meet the Press” broadcasts are more “Meet Tim Russert” than the high-quality programs they were in the pre-Russert era. And, as a “moderator,” Russert’s biases and boorish behavior are always in full view. As a service to the American public, NBC should at least remove Russert from having any further role in future presidential debates.

  • jhm @8 – No, this is not a realistic scenerio at all. While I’m sure things will get bad in Iraq after we leave, it’s not going to be Al Qaeda that’s the problem. I mean, hell. We’ve seen how hard it is for us to control Iraq, and we have the strongest military that’s ever existed. Yet we’re going to imagine that a militant band of foreign Sunnis is going to come in and take over the country? That’s insane. Iraqis want Iraq for themselves, and they’re not going to allow Bin Laden or any of his men to take over the country. As Juan Cole has suggested, the moment they stop needing foreign help, the Iraqis will slit their throats and move on. Al Qaeda isn’t taking over Iraq.

    And what difference would it make? What would they be doing in Iraq that they aren’t already doing in Pakistan or Afghanistan? The point isn’t whether or not they destablize an area. It’s whether they can get to us. That’s what they want. Besides, “Al Qaeda” as a formal organization doesn’t really exist anymore. They don’t need a foothold in Iraq to get to other middle-eastern countries. That’s an out-dated concept. They’re already IN those other middle-eastern countries. And if they’re not, they’re not getting there from Iraq.

    So while Tim’s right in thinking things might get worse, including Al Qaeda in the scenerio was just absurdist fear-mongering.

  • Russert seems to pride himself on his preparation. But, to me, he reminds me of the kid at school who does excessive homework on an assignment and still gets it wrong.

  • “Whooah! Lot’s of whining over Tim Russert for being tough? The guy is great…and consistent. He holds everyone’s feet to the fire- left or right. Russert is the best journalist in TV today…I think it was one of his finest moments.” -Craig

    I’m still trying to figure out if this is sarcasm. Craig, you must love Matthews, or…are you Chris Matthews?

  • Hillary polls worse when her middle name is included than when she is referred to as just Hillary Clinton. You bet the media is including it.

    Raise your hand if you ever heard of John Sidney McCain III.

  • Mary #35 – Your fear mongering isn’t helping. Nobody’s buying it and it’s somewhat offensive. The groundswell for Obama is real. Trust me, I went to his rally here in Austin the other night, and these people really are fired up and ready to go. I got there an hour early and was so far back that I never actually got to see Barack, and yet everyone around me was excited to be there and in a great mood. It was definitely more like a festival than a political rally. But it’s not just to see the “rockstar”. These people really are volunteering for him and turning out to vote. People are ready for change and Obama is well positioned to give it to us.

    I understand that you guys are out of legitmate arguments to use against him, assuming you had any at all. But that’s all the more reason why you should re-evaluate your opinion of Barack. You can find conspiracies to explain why Hillary lost, like blaming the media, dumb followers, or Republican tricks. Or you can realize that this is the real thing and that people really are excited about Barack and that he’s a great candidate who we are very fortunate to get. It’s your choice.

    BTW, if building up Obama’s reputation as a grassroots rockstar is a Republican trick, it’s the dumbest one I can imagine. Even if people didn’t feel that way about him already, they do now. Besides, the Republicans have been gearing up for quite awhile for Hillary to run and she’s the nominee they wanted. That’s why they used to mention her name during their debates more than they mentioned Bush. Now that they’ve realized they’re facing Obama instead, they were caught flat-footed and haven’t figured out how to handle him. And I don’t think they can. They’ll try, but they’ll come up as empty as Hillary has.

  • To Mary @ #26

    I keep wondering…

    The Clintons claimed that they were broke & $10 Million in debt when they left the White House.

    It is now 7 years & 1+ month since that time. Hillary’s financial statements files with the Senate show her with a net worth of $35 Million & the ability to ‘loan’ her campaign $5 Million. The financial statements do NOT include Bill.

    What did Hillary do in slightly over 7 years to get out from a $10 Million debt & gain a net worth of $35 Million? How much is Bill’s net worth?

    Personally, I would like to gain $35 Million in net worth in 7 years on a Senator’s salary!

  • After reading your headline for this post, I came this close to doing a spit-take all over my keyboard. You’re lucky I’m not sending you the bill.

    Kudos. 🙂

  • Can I be childish for a minute here? I was literally nauseous watching Russert’s face, which grows ever more fat (that is the childish part), and weird in a pop-eyed kind of way, like he’s on drugs or something. I guess I haven’t watched him that much; I didn’t know he was such a jerk. At the point where he started trying to recite quotes of Farrakhan, I realized he was down there in the bottom of the barrel with the email smears. Throw enough, and some will stick. I mean, he didn’t even TRY to ask policy questions, not much anyway. And then (more barfing), afterwards, Chris Matthews and Tim, blabbering about Tim wanting to catch a marlin, the “gotcha”, with these big slobbering grins on their faces. What a pair of dumb, narcissistic rightwing tools. Walter Cronkite, we need you now! But then Olbermann came on, in his words and appearance flying way above them somewhere.

  • Tim Russert struck me as a belligerent drunk in a bar trying to goad someone, anyone, into a fight. He was disgraceful in his manner and disrespectful to the candidates, his audience, and his profession. I’d like to see a national letter-writing campaign to MSNBC criticizing him for the way he treated both candidates.

    But that’s not the worst of it. In 20 debates, why has there not been even ten minutes devoted to the assaults on the Constitution launched by our administration, and abetted by Congress? What about habeus corpus, or signing statements, or the theory of the “unitary executive”? These issues are the political version of global warming. Our democracy is melting, and TV pundits rehash the same old topics.

  • I completely agree, After last nights debate I pose the question as to why we have media/journalists, anchormen even moderating debates.

    Tim Russert has become so inflated since the 2000 election, he is so caught up in his own worth that he loses sight of what a debate should be about….issues.

    He also kept interrupting Hillary Clinton, I felt she was not being given ample time. I’m not usually bashing the old boys club but last night I felt the white male establishment was against her.

    I think we should have College Professor’s and or debate students moderate these debates. get rid of the media influence altogether

  • To elaborate on the good doctor’s comment above: Mary, do you really believe Obama would draw thirty thousand people to his rallies if a large segment of his support is actually coming from Republicans and independents crossing over to vote for him? Why would they bother attending a speech given by a man they don’t agree with? The Obama phenomenon is genuine, and the doctor is right: the GOP has been so obsessed with the idea that they might actually get to sniff Hillary’s panties again that they neglected to prepare a contingency plan to deal with any other Democrat. They’re flummoxed by Obama, they’re panicking, and it shows.

  • Remember Jack Welch, CEO of GE not all that long ago? This bit about him from a few years back speaks volumes about Tweety & Punkinhead:

    “In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.”

  • Can I be childish for a minute here? I was literally nauseous watching Russert’s face, which grows ever more fat (that is the childish part)

    Why do you think we on the left derisively call him Pumpkinhead?

  • Hi ~ Y’all are very interesting and fascinating and this blog has been really intersting to read.

    I want to make one comment ~

    The press has been overwhelmingly pro-Obama- I don’t think the using of Obama’s middle name or some photo of him in foreign garb while visiting another country have much traction in the current mood. First off – going to another country and wearing their local costume is hardly remarkable or repugnant and half the population has done it. Dignitaries – certainly. The middle name thing – well it is his name – nothing to be ashamed of – even if some mini-rush is trying to use it up to stir up anger. It doesn’t really work.

    Aside – last night tthey just rehashed all the stuff we’ve heard – I would have appreciated new issues and topics of american gov’t.

  • With acknowledgement to tess @ 15, Ohioan @ 20, James Robinson @ 27, and Rebecca @ 48.

    Tim Russert is 98 parts ego and 2 parts “just enough knowledge to be dangerous.” He mistakes insufferable rudeness for “toughness,” and apparently his bosses, his peers in the Village, and some viewers also make this mistake. With the exception of Olberman’s back-handed call out of Russert’s faulty question to Obama about his public financing “promise,” the post debate discourse was abysmal. The Matthews / Russert exchanges were nauseating displays of bloated egos and stupidity (Matthews and health care ugh). They clearly see debates as opportunities for the moderators and pundits to “shine” and view the roles and goals of the moderator/media – not those candidates – as primary. Honestly, what WAS the point of the entire line of questioning about Farrakhan? It was a very low point for Russert. He essentially asked Obama, “Now that Louis Farrakan has said he thinks you should be president, how do we know that you will not treat Jewish people and Israel as though you were channeling Louis Farrakhan?” I was embarrased for Russert. I hope “Big Russ” beats his ass for it.

    I would also put in the lame category (what I heard of) Rachel Maddow’s analysis of the debate. She proclaimed the debate a “win” for John McCain. She further opined that and future debates as boring as the one she just witnessed was going to kill all that enthusiasm that is driving high turnouts in the Democratic primaries. Evidence? I heard none. Insight that that inane and trivial questions can sometimes elicit less-than-riveting responses? Nope. That might get her thrown off her gig. It was all in all pathetic, and I gained no insights into the candidates from watching the “analysis.”

  • I don’t know why more people don’t use my technique for watching the debates.

    I just mute the sound when the questions are being asked. I only listen to the answers.

    I want to hear the candidates speak. I have no interest in hearing Tim Russert nor
    Brian Williams.

  • Thanks for that additional insight, President Lindsay. I guess Russert is giving his bosses just what they want. Rudeness masquerading as toughness and fairness is a-ok.

  • “as low of a low point as it was in tim russert’s moderation of last night’s democratic debate, i do think it’s interesting that many in the blog world are harping on russert’s louis farrakhan questioning and not seeing what i saw in the moment: senator obama wanted to have it both ways.”

    read more here: denouncing and rejecting
    or here: tuesdaysblog.com

  • Tony,

    Blog whore (can I call you blog whore?), you are mistaken. He both renounced and rejected it all the while saying the Farrakhan retained the right to say whatever he wanted.

    I do so love how you don’t use capital letter on your shitty blog, though. You’re just so fucking hip.

  • I’m not saying that all of Obama’s support is from Independents or that the people attending his rallies (a small percentage of the overall voters) are Republicans. I am saying that all you have to do is shift an even race a little bit using Independents who have switched parties and Obama dominates. I find it suspicious that Obama has such strong support in red and swing states. I see him winning primarily in states where there are not already large progressive majorities in favor of Clinton — he has not won any large states, to my knowledge. Yes, there is a groundswell and bandwagon effect going on, fueled by the media and true Obama supporters. It is capable of generating more votes than he might otherwise have received. The gerrymandering in Texas that disadvantages Democrats favors Obama because he is receiving Independent crossover votes.

    People have been noting the large number of “new” voters flocking to Obama. They have not been noting the loss of voters in the Republican party. Maybe people are ashamed to be Republicans but maybe they remain conservatives and are not becoming converted progressives. They may be willing to vote for Obama against Hillary, but may not vote for Obama against McCain because at heart they are not Democrats.

    I don’t know who Jim is, but I have not seen people talking about this in this blog. I read this blog because it has been more balanced than most sites and because there are few enough comments to actually have a dialog without being on the internet all day. Trying to shut down my views by referring to some mythical Jim who was previously refuted or calling me a concern troll doesn’t address this issue.

    I have no proof that Republicans are engineering this, as I stated in my original post. However, the facts are evident about which states Obama has won, what percentage of his voters are Independent or “new” compared to long-time Democrats, and how many people are registered as Democrat vs Republican in various states. We can differ on the interpretation of those facts, but the facts exist.

    I agree that Obama has many enthusiastic supporters. I disagree that their existence precludes an attempt to manipulate primary or caucus outcomes by bringing in “ringers” in sufficient quantity to beat Clinton in an extremely close election.

    The polls have been wrong because the polls sample known segments of the voting public, not non-voting independents coming out of the woodwork for Obama this year because he is just so darn irresistible.

  • Russert works for General Electric. He is nothing more than a corporate hemmroid that is paid millions to do the bidding of the Corporation, and it’s agenda, that hired him. He and his girlfriend, Brian Williams, are employed to do all they can to get the corporations choice installed as the next president: McCain. The entire line of ‘questioning’ Obama about Farrakan is aimed, ultimately, at the Church that Obama attends because the pastor of that Church is a friend of Farrakan himself. So you can already begin to see the corporate line of attack when Obama becomes the nominee for president which of course linked to the ‘whispering’ campaign generated by the corporations about whether Obama is a secret Muslin and all that evil blather: let’s just remember too the CNN ‘poll’ about whether Obama manifests the ‘proper patriotism’ shit. The corporate media should be charged, tried, and convicted for purposeful, criminal, fraud committed against the Amercian people. They are , of themselves, responsible for the destruction of our once great country called America.

  • Mary – Sure, it’s possible that the GOP has some secret conspiracy whereby they can tell tens of thousands of people to vote for Obama without anyone spilling the secret. But it’s also possible Hillary’s an alien. Or that McCain is a Vietcong hiding inside McCain’s dead skin. Or that Obama is Ronald Reagan. Lots of things are “possible”. But that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Meanwhile, everything points to the theory that Obama really is exciting people and getting people to turn out in huge numbers. I myself went to my first political rally ever just to see Obama, and I’ve never been this excited about a candidate. I fully supported Clinton, Gore, and Kerry; but Obama’s the first one I was really excited about.

    BTW, exit polls show that 11% of the people who voted in the 2004 general election had never voted before. Kerry got 53% of those, while Bush got 46%. And that was with a boring candidate and an unpopular incumbent president. Is it really surprising that an exciting candidate with broad appeal can turn out new voters? And Kerry got a slight majority of independents, who made up 26% of those who voted in 2004. And again, Obama has an appeal that should pull them out even more.

    Now, you can keep bringing out all these conspiracy theories to explain why Hillary lost, but the obvious answer makes much more sense. Especially as your basic premise is completely backwards: The Republicans were counting on Hillary to win. They wanted Hillary. They attacked Hillary all last year and she was their favorite strawman to attack during their debates. You might not want to hear this, but she was the nominee they were counting on. Sure, it’s possible that your theory is correct, but the obvious answer just makes more sense. Barack really does have a wide appeal that is drawing out new voters.

  • Who do you believe? Russerts cohorts telling you how brilliant he is or your lying ears. Maybe next time someone will ask the BBC to supply a couple of moderators. The differance in the questioins and their breadth of knowlenge on the subjects would be quite an eye opener.

  • Trying to shut down my views by referring to some mythical Jim who was previously refuted or calling me a concern troll doesn’t address this issue. -Mary

    Oh, Mary. I’m not shutting down you views because they are the same as Jim’s (and he’s a pretty regular commenter who showed up about the same time as you, I’m surprised you missed his comments since you seem to be similar in thinking).

    I’m shutting down your views because you have no evidence. And peppering us with concerns like these with no evidence is called concern trolling and it was wildly off topic, and as this discussion now evidences, successfully derailed the thread.

    There is no issue to address because what you’re talking about is not happening. If there were a whisper campaign, an email, anything, we’d have heard about it. Do you honestly think something on a scale grand enough to affect so many primaries could’ve escaped Steve’s attention? C’mon, get real. (There I got, plagiarizing Clinton again.)

    Jim must’ve posted this particular ‘concern’ about 50 times, and each time I asked him the same thing I ask you: evidence, please? I noticed your reply didn’t actually have any.

    Sigh. Between the Clintonistas and regular trolls like SteveIL, I’m getting worn out.

  • This comment thread is out of control. What a bunch of one-sided, short-sighted, single-minded ranting.

  • This comment thread is out of control. What a bunch of one-sided, short-sighted, single-minded ranting. -John Bacon

    Why? Because not everyone worships at the alter of Russert? 🙂

    But some people have disagreed, for example, you at comment 37, and I don’t think anyone responded in any way that you were wrong to hold that opinion.

    I really don’t get why you’re saying this.

  • I’m surprised by how negative people’s reactions are. Russert can be annoying and self-promoting, and he’s no intellectual giant, for sure. But he does squeeze answers out of candidates who (like all politicians) try to twist the question into one they want to answer.

    He got the explicit statement of regret from HRC on the Iraq vote, he wrangled specifics from both of them on the NAFTA policy. Those are positives. Did he take the questions too far on HRC’s taxes and records, or Obama’s denouncement of Farakhan? Probably, but I prefer a tough interviewer onstage who occasionally drags out a question for an extra minute, rather than passive moderators like the ones at the CNN debate who had no control over the answers at all.

    And for the record, both Russert and Matthews have liberal backgrounds, not conservative ones. It might not seem like it, I agree, but their attacks are not idealistically motivated.

  • And for the record, both Russert and Matthews have liberal backgrounds, not conservative ones.

    Yes, and lots of corporate sell-outs were once wild hippies. People change. You base your opinion of someone on who they are, not who they were. I don’t know who Russert and Matthews were, but they’re clearly too shallow to be ideological now. They’re just shills for the powers that be. Let’s not forget that Meet the Press was considered a safe haven by Cheney.

    And while I also prefer a tough interview, I prefer them to be tough on everyone and for the questions to be pertinent and not “gotcha” questions. Russert wasn’t trying to get the true answers. He was trying to make them mess up. There’s a big difference.

  • And for the record, both Russert and Matthews have liberal backgrounds, not conservative ones.

    See #52. What part of “buying their leftist souls” don’t you understand? Damn, sometimes it’s like talking to a wall. Get a clue. Welch bought them out long ago, then had to gloat about it to make it even more obvious. Yet even with that you ignore it and pretend they’re liberals? Get a clue!

  • The one thing I hope is that we don’t become the O’Reilly’s of the left. With comments like Lindsay’s, #69, it sounds like we’re approaching that mark. And giving him more fuel for dismissing “lefty bloggers.”

    Doubt, #66 — I appreciate the even tone in your response. I’m more in dismay that posters here are getting so worked up and looking at this in such a black-and-white, us vs. the world case. I agree with Adam’s post. Russert elicited responses and reactions that were much more than a regurgitation of past healthcare debates. For that alone, I’m alright with him, even if he pushed the envelope on a few issues.

    They’re potential Presidents. It’s the media’s job to poke holes and remain skeptical. They should be able to stand up to Russert if they have any chance of surviving a general election, and we shouldn’t expect anything less from them.

  • Tim Russert does two things exceedingly well. He can turn anything into a horse-race. He also plays a great game of rhetorical gotcha. He doesn’t do very much to illuminate ideas or wrong-doing.

    He is the poster-boy for everything that is wrong with our political discourse. He doesn’t poke holes, he throws sand in the gears.

  • *claps loudly* Thank you! The guy even looked aggressive. I thought he might lunge over the table at her in a wild-eyed rage. I know the Clintons are notorious for disliking the media, as most former presidents are, but they really got reamed by the media, both of them, so the hatred seems to run deep.

    I also realize that Obama mania has brought more new viewers to “news” stations than Britney crotch sightings, but after all these newbie political viewers get bored and go on to the latest fad hobbies, the 50% to 60% of democrats who supported Edwards and Clinton won’t forget the disgusting bias we’ve seen from the likes of Russert, Matthews, and Olbermann. I, for one, will never watch their shows again.

  • Man, I thought Russert and Williams did a great job. But now I realize that’s only because I was comparing them to Wolf Blitzer, John King and Campbell Brown.

  • Obama is our Savior. Please everyone, we must rally around Obama and Michelle and empower them to create the change we need in evil, racist america. Then we will give Michelle something to be proud about when it comes to racist america. Michelle was oppressed at Princeton and Harvard and gave voice to all who know what an evil country this was until Obama ran for President. Barak will treaty with our muslim brothers and apologize for an arrogant america.

  • missed in all this is how quickly Obama and Clinton jumped to attention to reassure viewers that they are pro-Israel. I think we’ve become so inured to this paradigm on the dem side that we no longer critique it or even notice it. BUT ITS IMPORTANT!

  • Obama guy is totally wrong. McCain is the savior. He looks like the old guy from Reservoir Dogs and smells like my dead grandfather. He can take all sides of any issue while convincing his admirers that he really only supports their position. And best of all, he’s less sure of his own talking points than the people asking him questions, but doesn’t mind inventing whatever he needs to fill in the blanks. And did I mention his temper? Very manly. There will be no apologies to Muslims from this man, not unless it’s a talk radio host making the slur; to which he’ll apologize for everything. But we needn’t worry about that, as he’ll be firebombing them while he does it.

    McCain: Like a president, but crankier.

  • Russert’s been around a while and clearly wa splease with himself, but he has stirred more poo than a little. First he asked Obama “hypothetically… if” X,Y,Z happened what would you do. And Obama answered, hypothetically. That one hypothetical answer to a stupid hypothetical question is now a back and forth between Obama and McCain. Plus on the Farrakhan thing, Obama denounced Farrakhan immediately– but Russert kept going with it!!! That took up valuable time form real issues… education, stem cell research

  • Tony,

    Not sure why I happened upon this bunch of comments, but I clicked your links, read your blog, and actually think you ARE pretty hip.

    • Comments are closed.