George Stephanopoulos' shallow, trivial questions

I can't believe George Stephanopoulos's questions during the April 16 hillary and Obama "debate." Below is George's explanation disguised as his wikipedia entry. The questions were trivial, stupid, representing the worst of old time politics. I think Obama brings a freshness to politics that goes beyond the petty, inconsequential phoney issues of old fashioned politics. Don't forget how Kerry's war hero record was destroyed by the Rove evil machine. I think McCain is honest when he says he wants a clean, open campaign - an Obama - McCain race might be the best race i have experienced and I am looking forward to it.

Stephanopoulos became a subject of public controversy after serving as co-moderator, with Charles Gibson, of a debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the 21st debate among Democratic candidates for President in the 2008 election cycle, broadcast live on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, by ABC News from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Both Gibson and Stephanopoulos were chided for focusing most of the first hour of the debate on issues critics regarded as trivial, intentionally incendiary, and slanted toward Republican political views. Obama was challenged, for, among other things, associating with Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, who espouses some positions of Black Theology, and with William Ayers, a supporter of his who had been a member of the Weather Underground during the 1970s. Obama was also challenged for his purportedly conspicuous failure to wear a flag pin. Clinton was challenged for being perceived as untrustworthy. Both were questioned pointedly and at length about their perceived willingness to raise taxes and restrict gun ownership. Tom Shales wrote in The Washington Post, "For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with." The New York Times's David Brooks, however, took a different view: "I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that." Stephanopoulos defended himself the following day, saying, “The questions we asked were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant and what you would expect to be asked in a presidential debate at this point."