I hope last night’s Democratic debate was the last one. Ever. I can stands so much till I can stands no more. But it really has become, as the Times notes this morning, a parody. A parody of a parody, complete with idiotic questions, followed by the attendant “insight” of the MSM pooh-bahs who have shown how dense they really are.
Flat out, I’ve never liked Tim Russert. A supremely confident blow-hard who’s managed to create a reputation as the “toughest questioner on television,” Russert finally had his lunch handed to him in the best part of last night’s debate, when Hillary Clinton dissected his slipshod questioning. And a red-faced Russert nearly exploded.
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe–
MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.
SEN. CLINTON: No — it isn’t reality. You’re — you’re — you’re making lots of different hypothetical assessments.
MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to get — we’re going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms — SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that — but that is important —
MR. RUSSERT: — because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you’re in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear!
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you don’t have all the record because you can go back and look at what I’ve said consistently.
LOL. You can’t handle the truth! When you look at the line of questioning and read the transcripts, Russert browbeats Clinton and throws softballs to Obambi the entire night. His set up to the questions gets longer and longer with Clinton as he attempts to “trap her” (did doofus get the memo that this wasn’t an episode of Meet the Press, but instead, a DEBATE last night?), where his questions get simpler and shorter with Obama as the night goes on.
“Gotcha” journalism isn’t “hard-hitting” or particularly all that clever. And asking hypotheticals over and over and over again is shoddy debate preparation, and lets us know nothing about the character of those being questioned.
Ironically, I saw Russert earlier in the evening on Hardball, angrily denying that “Saturday Night Live was accurate” in its portrayal of the MSM (him included) being “in the tank with Obama.” For real! He was pissed, red-faced, with an aura of “how dare they accuse me?” of such a thing (side bar: this follows Monday’s rage against SNL by Keith Olbermann).
And this morning on Today he again defended himself against the “SNL charge,” as it’s becoming known, by saying “Y’know, Matt, the problem wasn’t with the questions, the problem was with her answers,” regarding Clinton.
Uh, no, gasbag, the problem was definitely with both the questions and the questioner.
In reality, of course, the SNL parody continues to haunt because the writers finally came back to work and called the MSM out: Russert, Olbermann, Williams, et al, (Mo Dowd?) have been punked by the Obama campaign, hustling his talking points, treating him with kid gloves.
These guys just can’t handle an “uppity woman,” apparently. And the snickering sexism in the way the MSM has dealt with Clinton is simply astounding (keep in mind, I write this as Obama supporter, of all things).
I am not into identity politics at all, but as I’ve noted over the past year, the country would more than likely elect a black man over a white woman (or any woman) any day of the week. Because gender trumps race in terms of discrimination. And that’s become quite painfully clear the past couple of months.
We’ve come a long way, in that regard, with race relations in this country, but the gender gap is still Grand Canyon in scale, especially in the MSM.
Cross posted from AoF