Who hired Tim Russert

Man, he’s a dick. This debate shows why debates are useless. The entire debate was about laying traps – example: “What is the President of Russia’s name?” The whole denouncing or rejecting Louis Farrakhan subject. I guess it’s too much to wish for more policy, but I think we’re looking for someone to stumble. These debates have turned into NASCAR – people looking for the accident.

What the hell was with Hillary complaining about getting the first question of the debate? And she needs to stop with the “jokes”. Oh great – Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, I’m out.

5 thoughts on “Who hired Tim Russert

  1. I have to agree. It’s laughable that these guys dictate the level of public political discourse. When ‘The Daily Show’ runs a montage of these moronic moderators/commentators, the result is derisibly absurd and laughable, then saddening when one realizes that most Americans’ political views are being shaped by these carnival hucksters.

  2. I know – when I saw Chris “Complete Nutbag” Matthews show up for the after-party, I was done.

    There were several of us at work yesterday muttering “denounce/renounce, denouce/renounce…” And I cringed through Hillary invoking the SNL sketch. Yikes.

    Tangent: best SNL Clinton sketch ever? After the whole impeachment debacle was over, Darrell Hammond comes out as Bill at a rose garden press conference and just says “I. Am. Bulletproof. Next time, y’all better bring kryptonite.” F’ing brilliant.

  3. See…I feel self-conscious commenting when I still haven’t fallen under the spell of Obama. Not that I don’t think he’s got many admirable qualities, is obviously smart and poised and graceful under pressure…it’s just that I’m not ready to have his name inside a heart tattooed on my lower back.

    Give me time though.

    Anyway — just a preface to say I also thought that Tim Russert’s questions were annoying. But I thought he was picking on Hillary.

  4. I totally think he was picking a fight with HRC. Moderators really shouldn’t be argumentative or confrontational in the questions they ask – if they have to be to get a response from an evasive debater, fine – but a lot of Russert’s questions and his tone was combative.

    A couple of nights ago there was a writer on the Daily Show talking about Lincoln debates and it was said that they would debate for 3 hours – no moderator. Just one candidate talking for an hour, a rebuttal, and then back and forth.

  5. As an old-timer-media-boy, I can’t quite agree that we’d be better off with no moderator; it certainly can be done well and appropriately, preventing too much political prowess from overshadowing issues… but I certainly do agree that Tim Russert’s line of questioning here, or more accurately, his line of confrontational hypothetical conjecture, was pretty damned annoying.

    And that’s in spite of my usual semi-fandom of Mr. Russert (and I kind of don’t mind Chris Matthews either, btw, once I got used to his style or lack thereof.) I always dig Russert as an analyst, with the dry-erase board and all, during election coverages, but I really don’t like his apparent agendae with his lines of interview questioning.

    Apropos of nothing other than fellow-MSNBC-dom, I’ll also throw in I’ve become a big fan of Keith Olbermann recently. Even if he wasn’t generally informative, I’d like him if only for his low-key but consistent reference to Rush Limbaugh as “comedian Rush Limbaugh”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *