Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

When Russerts Attack [VIDEO]

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 12:07 PM on February 27, 2008.


The standout performance of the Dems' debate in Ohio was Tim Russert's repeated tirades at the candidates for not answering his clownish questions.
When Russerts Attack

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

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.

Digg!

Tagged as: media, race, clinton, obama, farrakhan, democratic debate, russert, williams

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Franken-Coleman Update: Norm Returns To Senate As Non-Senator
Al Franken, has been declared the winner of the Minnesota contest but has yet to be sworn in as court battles continue.
Post by Ryan Grim. January 21, 2009.
A Bar Stool View of This Moment in American History
Some reactions to Obama's inauguration speech (which, yes, I watched in a bar).
Post by Joshua Holland. January 20, 2009.
Franken-Coleman Recount: How Far Will It Go?
Will Norm be able to take this all the way to the conservative-controlled US Supreme Court?
Post by Phoenix Woman. January 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Um...
Posted by: pdecarlo on Feb 27, 2008 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't find this clownish at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Um... Posted by: ericthefool
A Little Too Late
Posted by: pongji on Feb 27, 2008 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appears that Mr. Russert has finally learned to ask the "tough questions" years after his patty-cake interviews with George W. Bush.
I remember when Russert asked Bush about his truncated Air National Guard service. Bush replied that his father had made special arrangements to get him an early discharge so he could help with his daddy's campaign.
My follow-up question would have been "So what process can our viewers use to make the same 'special arrangement' for their children?"
This question didn't seem to occur to Russert, who just moved on to his next index card.
It's too bad Tim Russert didn't learn to play "hardball" a little earlier on.
He's looking more and more like a right-wing hand puppet to me.
Where the hell's the remote?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Little Too Late Posted by: Gulliver
» RE: He IS! Posted by: GrannyBgood
a stallwort (sp?) friend of israels?
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 27, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's the "change" he's been talking about? pffft.... he might as well have said i support apatheid.
i did see that he endorsed AIPAC as well. what a joke. real change u can believe in huh? lol

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the battle of resumes
Posted by: winged_thing on Feb 27, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me the more the competition for presidency builds, the more this really is simply about who has more experience, more qualifications, more education, etc. At the very last question of the debate, they were both blatantly self-promoting their own resumes in typical professional fashion. I suppose, at the very least, they DO have one, unlike our current president!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the battle of resumes Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: the battle of resumes Posted by: Longdream
» RE: the battle of resumes Posted by: fagel
Questions
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 27, 2008 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"You can't be a President who can make tough decisions unless you can answer tough questions."

Fair enough, I suppose, but here's a question: Can you imagine any Republican candidate or public official being asked questions like that by a mainstream media source and being picked apart like that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russert the Asshole!
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Feb 27, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This sounds like a man trying to save his job! They apperantly agreed between them they would play goodguy-badguy. Russert does one of the MOST IRRATATING things that a moderator ( think BILLO) or questioner can do..HE CUTS PEOPLE OFF OR SHORT with another question. The only thing it makes me want to do is whack the fucking dipshit in the mouth...and say SHUTUP AND LISTEN TO MY RESPONSE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I used to hate his pandering.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 27, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you could never tell to whom he was going to pander.

I, for one, appreciated him last night when he wouldn't allow Mrs. Clinton to say she never said what she certainly did say.

But whoever asked where all this righteous fervor was when we needed him to attack the lying, thieving, torture-mongerers in power is absolutely right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is the press so gaga over Russet anyway???
Posted by: form516 on Feb 27, 2008 7:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like he is this great media giant or something. He is literally the most obnoxious arse (except for Tucker) on nonFox TV. I keep hearing them all say "ooohh Russet is such a good interviewer." RUSSET IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A TOOL. You know, they think we are all idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh man
Posted by: daniel1982 on Feb 27, 2008 10:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The editing in that video was horrendous. Barely watchable. Next time just have the entire debate.

Some of the questions were stupid, like the hypothetical one about Iraq going to shit and falling to Al Qaeda. Some of the questions were right on. If Hillary liked NAFTA in 2004, what changed? Both Obama and Hillary want to renegotiate..ok.. under what terms!? I looked through Obama's website and I could not see any specific criticism of NAFTA, and what terms he would like to have changed or included.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The death a journalist.
Posted by: compu on Feb 28, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was a decent one untill GE bought
nbc.Its said that,"its of very bad education speak with the mouth full".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The death a journalist. Posted by: Longdream
These stooges always follow the same old tired Rove playbook
Posted by: xbj on Feb 28, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone else noticed the same tired pattern?

Spend the three years leading up to the election being a BIT unbiased, leading the public to believe they are if not actually unbiased, possibly a bit left leaning.

Then suddenly, as if flicking a switch, in the year leading up to the election, 95% become Fox News. Russert in particular has been the most noticeable and heinous one this season, stocking his Sunday program with entire panels of right wing rabid Clinton-hating Obama loving pundits. They figure because they've been fawning over Obama no one will notice they're all GOP. Rrrrright.

This has gone on now for the entire length of Bush's Presidency, and it's getting tiresome. And we're on to the fakeouts, if these cretins think they are going to retain their viewership after this rigged election by pretending to be unbiased and pretending to change sides yet again to coddle and pander to an unsuspecting public, they've got a wakeup call coming.

I've boycotted "Meet The Press" since they pulled their fast little switch, and as far as I'm concerned both they and Russert can "go fuck themselves." As well as any other GOP shills doing their level best to keep this Goddamned war and the complete obliteration of the American Middle Class and the bankrupting of America going as long as inhumanly possible.

No one, NO ONE in their right mind and with the single tiniest shred of moral human decency COULD support the GOP in ANYTHING, for ANYTHING.

NO ONE. And all who do WILL ANSWER FOR IT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Self-Serving Pinhead
Posted by: thornwolf on Feb 28, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like so many of the media pundit class, Russert is in thrall to his own ego, and does not represent the legitimate concerns of the electorate, but rather represents the agenda of his corporate masters. Thus, his credibility as an analyst or commentator is nil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russert's alright
Posted by: peacelf on Feb 28, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russert, a former Dem operative, does his job very well for a mainstream news hound. He asked the right questions to start, but failed to follow up with the tougher queries, like NAFTA. How has NAFTA been good for anyone but Wall Street? would have been a good question to follow up with.

Nonetheless, I've seen Russert tear into many a candidate and hold them accountable for their words. He still works within mainstream news values, but he can make any candidate squirm. And, I like to see neo-liberals like Clinton and Obama squirm. They do not represent working and lower middle class people.

Hillary is a professional politician (the worst kind) and Obama is using lofty language to sell virtually the same platform as Hillary. Both are beholden to corporate interests.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Russert's alright Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: ussert's alright Posted by: Quannah
» RE: alright?! Posted by: GrannyBgood
what i have a problem with is
Posted by: lionsdenmother on Feb 28, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i dont have a problem with tough questions what i have a problem with is how Russett questions democrats this agressiveness was never applied to any of the republicans by any in the media, and that is why we are in the mess we are in .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone said:
Posted by: motamanx on Feb 28, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" ...his credibility as an analyst or commentator is nil."

That's really all there is to say, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russert is a pain in the ass
Posted by: willymack on Feb 28, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He poses a loaded question, and before the one he's interrogating can halfway answer, he rudely interrupts as is he can't get enough of his own voice. This happens more often when it seems that the one he's talking to doesn't get rattled or tongue-tied and appears to be responding in a manner that he can't control. Such was the case with Clinton and Obama, both of whom can hold their own with ANYONE in a Q&A session, never mind a schluck like Russert. It's easy to see whose side Russert is REALLY on, but I wonder if he's aware that we're on to him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ussert is a pain in the ass Posted by: arthurread
RUSSERT PARROTS FARAKHAN
Posted by: BradKennedy on Feb 28, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a schoolboy half a century ago, I remember coming across an old French proverb which seems applicable to Mr. Russert's insistance on repeating the Louis Farakhan quote before a national audience. May Senator Obama add this French arrow to his quiver for next time: "Those who persist in repeating an insult are themselves guilty of the insult."
Brad Kennedy, Author

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Russert at all?
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 28, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DO the candidates not get to pick their moderators? Do they not get to say, I'll do this debate but not this one, or I'll do this on x terms only? They use these tactics to exclude the Greens and hell, even their own Kucinich...

So when I heard that Russert was moderating the debate, all I could think of was... this is like having the Chimp himself or his puppetmaster Karl Rove be the moderator for the Dims debate. On the flip side it's like having Nader moderate for John McCain and the other bubbas (except that Nader would at least be substantive and on-point).

Dims are so damned stoopid to let themselves be subjected to a RWA tool as their moderator. That Russert's performance confirmed all my hunches just makes me laugh even harder at the Dims who want to be Queen/King. This entire exercise is obscene and utterly foolish.

We need IRV and a popular election STAT! Otherwise, it's just manually pumping blood around in a corpse. gawd bless "merkuh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lose Russert/ Incompetent egoist moderator
Posted by: EvieAnderson on Feb 28, 2008 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russert's tiny talent matches poorly with his huge ego. His aggressive, irrelevant and even ridiculous "questions" are maddening in this important context. We are interested in substance, policy, character and vision from these two brilliant candidates. It is demeaning to have them questioned by such a substandard moderator. Let him interview the worst president ever, a much better match.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

voter
Posted by: jwc1480 on Feb 28, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the types questions that should be asked of ALL those running for the highest office in the land. Who would you prefer, Larry King and his softballs? He's a fine interviewer and he gives his interviewees every chance to look good, but I want someone harder for the presidential debates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember the time when...
Posted by: Quannah on Feb 28, 2008 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Presidential Debates" weren't media circuses! Who, besides me, misses the good old days of League of Women Voters'-sponsored debates? Imagine... they used to be about substance! No hidden media agenda! No hype for at least a week in advance to get more viewers (which translates into great ratings)!

The media shouldn't be sponsoring these debates, period. They have a dog in this fight! And if you don't believe me, look who owns the news outlets. For one reason or another, they have a serious stake in the outcome of this election, and I think at the very least this would be considered a "conflict of interest."

There's been a lot of sensationalism during this election cycle. And it is the "moderators" that determine what questions are asked and of whom; how titilating the questions are; the style of the debate; the "rules"; who can answer and who can't; what the topics are; where the debate is held; who will comprise the audience; and the list goes on and on. All I know is there are most definitely moments when you know it's staged! How sad is that?

I say: BRING BACK THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS! You don't know what you've got til it's gone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I remember the time when... Posted by: GrannyBgood
Russert often BUT NOT ALWAYS leaves something to be desired
Posted by: abuelo1 on Feb 29, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
agreeing that there is plenty of reason to criticize Russert, Benen's repeated sarcasm in this case is not warranted.
First, there is no doubt that the question re the re-invasion of Iraq was hypothetical, so Benen is nit-picking in his criticism of Russert's nit-picking. the question is actually legit for candidates who are campaigning on a platform of getting out of Iraq. Candidates: for a change, why not just answer the damn question, acknowledging that it is hypothetical, and move on.
Second, re the Farrakhan mess: I'm surprised that Josh Marshall, quoted by Benen in the piece, who is Jewish, doesn't know the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel. Farrakhan is reprehensible at every level. Rev. Wright is better, but often not much better. and I don't think anyone would ever seriously accuse Obama of anti-Semitism. But his association with Farrakhan and Wright and some of his CHOSEN advisors leaves the level and enthusiasm of his support for Israel in doubt. so the questions from Russert are legitimate. as an aside, the Progressive bloggers are almost all too young to remember what Israel went through to get where it is today. it is now fashionable among the knee-jerk left to bash Israel and kiss up to the Palestinians who demonstrate their desire for peace by firing missiles into Israel every day. have we so quickly forgotten that the quintessential Palestinian, Yassir Arafat, was a liar and a terrorist?
p.s. I am Jewish, Progressive, and voted for Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not too young Posted by: GrannyBgood