The real loser of tonight's debate: Charles Gibson

For not even knowing what the middle class in America is, and then being laughed at by a room full of them.

How many kids have you got fighting over there Charlie? :puke:

Fell asleep because of the cold medicine.

Thus, the laughter.

tax-cut rollback.

Not about that, but overall, Gibson asked thoughtful questions that brought out the differences in the candidates. Lots better than any of the stupid Fox debate moderators!

:thumbsup:

especially the one about people liking Hillary or not. very thoughtful indeed.

Whether it was arguing forcefully against the Dem candidates that the Surge worked or spending so much time on nuclear terrorism or his ridiculous notion of what the middle class was (or what professors make), he was working very hard to reinforce Republican talking points tonight.

Rp

I thought the questions were good

*ducks*

I just wasn't a fan of how defensive Charlie Gibson was towards Bush talking points.

Rp

a good moderator does--challenge the candidates. And that's why this debate was so much better than the BS-soundbite fests we've been subjected to so far.

I too, was watching football. :)

Rp

I think he took the areas that the public general perceptions (dems weak on defense, repubs weak on domestic and economic policies).

For example, to the republicans he not only put a big "americans are concerned about and want healthcare" when they were vague he put the question back to them more pointedly and asked for specifics.

I think he did this to both sets of candidates.

My big quibble with Gibson was during the first part of the dem debates he asked a question and pointed it exclusively to Obama and Clinton - excluding half of the stage for 5-10 minutes.

candidates are the sorriest I have ever heard; McCain comes the closest to exhibiting some modicum of intelligence. Sickening to think that one of them might just might make it to the White House.

why we could afford a trillion dollars for war but not to ensure every American had health coverage--and then, when they claimed we had the best system in the world, pointed out that we're the only industrialized nation not to guarantee coverage.

:eyes:

that people are hurting, financially in America. He and Diana Swayer and Matt Lauer and Katie Couric and all the rest of the Morning talk show Elite.

was that because he was part of the "morning talk show elite" too?

But his comment about teachers making 100k in NY pissed me off. Totally exposed where he's coming from IMO.

Charlie Gibson, representing American journalism, showed the almost autonomic instinct of our fully Publicanized mainstream media to warn Democrats off of raising taxes. The media continually threatens Democrats not to steal money from regular Americans for their apocryphal wasteful 'welfare' spending. Contrast that with Publican spending in the trillions - not worth mentioning, maybe even un-American. So there's Charlie, running the standard media hit on Democrats, much to the appreciation of network execs no doubt.

Instead, Charlie ended up showing the mainstream media, to a laughable degree, for the Publican mouthpieces that they are,
1) getting it embarrassingly wrong about how much regular people make, and
2) thinking that $200k, even if professor households made that, is the poor middle class that is overtaxed and deserves a tax break

Everyone saw it and laughed.

Very few things are better for this country than Americans waking up to just how completely inclined to right-wing precepts about economics the journalistic establishment in America really is.

Thank you, Charlie Gibson.

forcing the issue on nuclear proliferation like it was the big news of the day, and I would think it would bore a lot of people to turn off the Dems because the subject matter was not something people talk about. he deserved the laugh by everyone too, lol. He didn't really moderate, but that's because outside of Clinton jumping in once when it was clearly Edwards turn, all 4 of them were very fair with time.

right wing hack. His fear-mongering rubbish about nuclear bombs pissed me off from the start of the debate.

the Republican debate?

The debate really went to hell when he joined the action. All sense of fairness went out the window.

I loved the format of last night's debate and I though Charles Gibson did a nice job. A moderator has to play devil's advocate to get politicians to answer tough questions. This is how the American public sees the differences between the candidates and makes their decisions. I do not think his questioning has anything to do with his personal beliefs. He looks at what the parties say about each other and makes the candidates answer those questions because that is what they will be forced to encounter if they are the Democratic party nominee. By doing so, he helps show us, as voters, which candidates will be able to answer those tough questions when the time comes. The Republican party, with the exception of Ron Paul, still support George Bush's ideas about the war in Iraq. Therefore, it is Charlie Gibson's job to ask questions from their "side" so we can see how the candidates will respond to the Republican nominee and supporters when the debate is against them. He did the same thing during the republican debate. I think it's great that he approached it the way he did. Candidates from both parties were forced to answer tough questions rather than spouting political rhetoric and empty promises.

I have supported John Edwards since the last elections and every time I watch debates he solidifies my faith in his ability to help our country move in a new direction. He is the complete opposite of George W. Bush and will fight for the citizen's of this country. Obama did a nice job, as well. I think some of the questions Gibson asked allowed Edwards and Obama to separate themselves from the other Dems. They both stood up under pressure a lot better than their "experienced" counterpart and much better than the Republicans. I don't really care which party Charlie Gibson supports, I think he helped our guys shine last night.

living in an episode of 24," - http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/election-thoughts.php?page=4. Really, the perfect summarization of almost all of his questions, aside from those that showed his complete and utter lack of understanding of the lives of average Americans.

in our country (I'm lumping "big" media talking heads in there) DO NOT HAVE A CLUE how the vast majority of citizens live on a day-to-day basis in our country. Don't have a clue...

The repug debate REALLY proved that. Most of those men had no idea, and thus no compassion, about the realities of daily life for most of us.

All in all, however, I thought Charlie did a good job and I liked the format. The Two Americas John Edwards speaks of is becoming more and more evident on the TV screen to those paying attention.