Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Katie Couric Inches Closer to Moderating a Debate

By Howard Kurtz
Hillary Clinton and Katie Couric have said yes. Now it's up to Barack Obama.

CBS, the only major network that hasn't sponsored a presidential debate this season, would very much like to host one in North Carolina. As an added incentive, the 90-minute session would air on Apr. 27 right after "60 Minutes," with its large audience as a lead-in.

But both Democratic campaigns were dragging their feet. So the invitations from the North Carolina Democratic Party somehow leaked today, informing both candidates that Couric and Bob Schieffer were ready to host the prime-time debate in either Raleigh or Charlotte. The Clinton camp quickly agreed; the Obama team hasn't responded yet.

With no North Carolina face-off currently scheduled, the Apr. 27 event, if it comes off, would be crucial in the run-up to the state's May 6 primary. Obama has no objection in principle; his campaign had earlier agreed to CBS's first suggested date, Apr. 19, until someone discovered that it had been brilliantly scheduled for the first night of Passover.

As important as the proposed debate may be to the Democratic contenders, it is equally important to CBS executives, who have seen Couric shut out this year while NBC's Brian Williams and ABC's Charlie Gibson have moderated a number of debates. (Gibson and Stephanopoulos will do it again in Pennsylvania later this month.)

Couric's one shot fell through when CBS journalists threatened to join the Hollywood writers' strike and a Democratic debate in Los Angeles had to be canceled.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 3, 2008; 2:19 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Secret Service Says McCain Has No Protection
Next: Clinton, in Calif. for Fundraisers, 'Getting Used to Being Outspent'

Comments

What is the point of this debate with Katie Couric as the moderator. Katie of all the people in the world is a loser in all respects. Not only that she is very polarized. She is a feminist who's only reason to conduct such a debate between Hillary and Obama is to give an undue advantage to Hillary. A moderator is supposed to be as unbiased as possible in a debate. I am pretty sure that Katie would have already had a mock practice session with Hillary on all the questions she is going to ask. Unless CBS puts somebody other than Katie to do the debate, viewership is going to be pretty dismal.

CBS has a big problem with Katie. On one hand they are paying a woping $15 mil per year to Katie. Just like Hillary, Katie hangs on there using sexism as an excuse. There are so many women anchors and talk show hosts where women excel. And for Katie to say her failure to attract audience has to do with her being a woman is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Nick Newman | April 10, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Another sign that CBS and Couric are in the tank for Hillary...

Despite clear indications from other polls that Obama is gaining ground in Pennsylvania and has led Clinton nationally for over a week, here's how the NY Times played the latest NY Times/CBS Poll:

Obama's Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE
Published: April 4, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Senator Barack Obama's support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


And here's the real trend:

Latest national polls taken in last 2 weeks:
Today's Gallup Daily Tracking -- Obama leads +3
Rasmussen Tracking -- Obama +3
Pew Research -- Obama +10

Latest Pennsylvania polls:
Rasmussen -- Clinton +5
SurveyUSA -- Clinton +12
Quinnipiac -- Clinton +9

Pennsylvania less than a month ago:
Rasmussen -- Clinton +10
SurveyUSA -- Clinton +19
Quinnipiac -- Clinton +12

Makes you wonder why CBS/Couric would expect anything from Obama's campaign but caution.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 4, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

I would like to point out a few basic but unmentioned facts:
I sat on debate teams in high school and college. None of these so called "debates" qualifies.
Actual debates should be each person stating their answers to the same questions from an unbiased moderator. These "things" do nothing of anything resembling normal Q & A that takes place in a debate.
No one in these "tv shows" holds anyone to their answers actually asking for factual data.
These "activities" are nothing more than spectacular forums for hairspray companies to make even bigger audiences.

Having prefaced my remarks with the above:

"This drives educated and independents away from dems. If dem-candidated cannot follow the rules that they signed (MI/FL) why should anyone vote for them.
Please comment.
Posted by: DrCha | April 3, 2008 06:16 PM"

First of all you assume that everyone who is an independent or educated agrees with you. It would be wise and and display your own education in a better light by realizing that you speak for yourself and no one else. Please come down from the mount and allow that someone may well fit the description that does not agree with you.

Secondly, research your statements instead of accepting verbatim that which comes from the talking heads and media. In any case the agreement had nothing to do with removing your name from a ballot. It was limited in the respect that it simply applied to advertising in those states which neither candidate did. In FL the Republican state legislature moved the Primary date after the DNC statement by a few months. The Democrats had no say in when their Primary would be held. If the situation were reversed the Democrats would have done the same. Anyone with any sort of long term interest in politics should have known that the Democratic party would not prevent these major swing states from being seated. It would be, and should have been apparent, political suicide. The fact that Senator Obama did not realize this simple but basic fact speaks to his lack of political maneuvering without further comment. This could lead to fatal mistakes in trying to "cut" deals as a President. We do not have to look further that our current President to see what a disadvantage this places the disenfranchised in the country.
"http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Florida_primary_found_noncompliant.html"
Over and out.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | April 3, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

It's time for a debate with substance. Katy Couric does not have the wit to do it. We need answers to questions that deal with policies each candidate will pursue, not more about the horserace. The media need to help everyone become informed about what really counts, not all of those stupid distractions. We cannot afford to elect another individual to the presidency who lacks the capability to do what we want and need. There are too many big issues to be resolved because the media helped elect the poorest president of all time, the one we have now. Let's have a real debate, using a moderator who is capable of asking the right kinds of questions.

Posted by: bjbprice | April 3, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

The Obamates still sound caustic and uneducated. What do you expect from these people? Everything is negative for them despite the support they get from the press. I hope the press will turn on Obama just like what they did to Clinton. There are a lot of expose' enough to investigate Obama but the national press are still deaf and blind to it.
A debate might not be the real gauge but it is still important to see the candidates' point of views concerning important issues.
Obamates wake up! These includes the politician supporters. See for yourself. If Obama wins the presidency (God forbids)it will be a long time before another Democrat gets elected to White House. Obama will be a disaster.
To former President Carter: please don't endorse Obama. I respect you very much. Obama is nothing like you.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | April 3, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching this campaign unfold since it began and I have heard so much lately about it being about race and that is just not so. It is about gender. When the campaign began, Hilary Clinton had a commanding lead and the republicans were wondering how in the world they could beat her. At the same time the high power business interests did not want her as the democratic nominee for president and the old boys club who run this country did not want a woman president. What would happen if she got elected? More women running for office? Women would just about take over. Especially if she did a good job and with Bill Clinton helping her things may be as good as they were in the 90's for the working people, health care, and social security just might improve. Now we can't have that can we? So now we had better pick someone and build them up to beat her and never mind the lies that we have to tell about Bill Clinton to get there. Who do we pick? John Edwards- No he is too much into the poverty end. Obama- Seems he is your answer. All the News programs would hammer Clinton and build Obama up to Rock Star status. Chris Mathews started the ball rolling and has not stopped yet. I am not a woman, my name is James Smith, but if I were a woman I would be very disgusted in the fact that a woman finally had the support to challenge this Men's Club that runs our country and they use every trick they can to beat her with an inferior candidate. They know it will be a long time before any woman has the guts enough to challenge them again.I have one more thought--wonder where all that money is coming from?

Posted by: jrs6776 | April 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching this campaign unfold since it began and I have heard so much lately about it being about race and that is just not so. It is about gender. When the campaign began, Hilary Clinton had a commanding lead and the republicans were wondering how in the world they could beat her. At the same time the high power business interests did not want her as the democratic nominee for president and the old boys club who run this country did not want a woman president. What would happen if she got elected? More women running for office? Women would just about take over. Especially if she did a good job and with Bill Clinton helping her things may be as good as they were in the 90's for the working people, health care, and social security just might improve. Now we can't have that can we? So now we had better pick someone and build them up to beat her and never mind the lies that we have to tell about Bill Clinton to get there. Who do we pick? John Edwards- No he is too much into the poverty end. Obama- Seems he is your answer. All the News programs would hammer Clinton and build Obama up to Rock Star status. Chris Mathews started the ball rolling and has not stopped yet. I am not a woman, my name is James Smith, but if I were a woman I would be very disgusted in the fact that a woman finally had the support to challenge this Men's Club that runs our country and they use every trick they can to beat her with an inferior candidate. They know it will be a long time before any woman has the guts enough to challenge them again.I have one more thought--wonder where all that money is coming from?

Posted by: jrs6776 | April 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching this campaign unfold since it began and I have heard so much lately about it being about race and that is just not so. It is about gender. When the campaign began, Hilary Clinton had a commanding lead and the republicans were wondering how in the world they could beat her. At the same time the high power business interests did not want her as the democratic nominee for president and the old boys club who run this country did not want a woman president. What would happen if she got elected? More women running for office? Women would just about take over. Especially if she did a good job and with Bill Clinton helping her things may be as good as they were in the 90's for the working people, health care, and social security just might improve. Now we can't have that can we? So now we had better pick someone and build them up to beat her and never mind the lies that we have to tell about Bill Clinton to get there. Who do we pick? John Edwards- No he is too much into the poverty end. Obama- Seems he is your answer. All the News programs would hammer Clinton and build Obama up to Rock Star status. Chris Mathews started the ball rolling and has not stopped yet. I am not a woman, my name is James Smith, but if I were a woman I would be very disgusted in the fact that a woman finally had the support to challenge this Men's Club that runs our country and they use every trick they can to beat her with an inferior candidate. They know it will be a long time before any woman has the guts enough to challenge them again.I have one more thought--wonder where all that money is coming from?

Posted by: jrs6776 | April 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching this campaign unfold since it began and I have heard so much lately about it being about race and that is just not so. It is about gender. When the campaign began, Hilary Clinton had a commanding lead and the republicans were wondering how in the world they could beat her. At the same time the high power business interests did not want her as the democratic nominee for president and the old boys club who run this country did not want a woman president. What would happen if she got elected? More women running for office? Women would just about take over. Especially if she did a good job and with Bill Clinton helping her things may be as good as they were in the 90's for the working people, health care, and social security just might improve. Now we can't have that can we? So now we had better pick someone and build them up to beat her and never mind the lies that we have to tell about Bill Clinton to get there. Who do we pick? John Edwards- No he is too much into the poverty end. Obama- Seems he is your answer. All the News programs would hammer Clinton and build Obama up to Rock Star status. Chris Mathews started the ball rolling and has not stopped yet. I am not a woman, my name is James Smith, but if I were a woman I would be very disgusted in the fact that a woman finally had the support to challenge this Men's Club that runs our country and they use every trick they can to beat her with an inferior candidate. They know it will be a long time before any woman has the guts enough to challenge them again.I have one more thought--wonder where all that money is coming from?

Posted by: jrs6776 | April 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

This is just another ploy by the main stream stenographers to get a piece of the ratings they never got in recent debates.It's about time to move on and crown who ever is the nominee to challenge grand daddy Mccain with his 100 yrs war and the pillaging of the American economy.
We have got to move on and stop these nonsensical debates that benefit no American.
Thank you
Nyanfore Jappah
7942 Janna Lee Ave Alexandria Va 22306

Posted by: Muyenneh | April 3, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I read all the comments and watch the commentators on TV. In my opinion we don't have all the facts only what Obama and his supporters wants to tells us. He speaks well has great charm but I won't vote for him. He seems to be a welloiled snake charmer. The media has avoided calling him on a great many issues. I wonder why? If Hillary does not get to be the nominee, I'll sit this one out or write in her name in Nov. She is the better man. It's a shame everyone is blinded by the media and the need to stay away from branding Obama the kind of person he really is - ambitious, self-seeking and inexperienced both as a presidential candidate and senator.

Posted by: smilema | April 3, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Why more debates? What new information will we learn from a second debate. Senator Obama does not have to dance to every song that Senator Clinton is singing. She is already writing the lyrics for MI & FL.


Posted by: felicitymason | April 3, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

NO MAS! Please, please, please no more debates. Let's save it for the GE. Then we can see McCain puff out his chest full of medals in response to every question. Love Obama, Like Hillary, but DEM in Nov. in either case!!!

Posted by: Ginny7 | April 3, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

dl569,

Your comment is a perfect example of inflating false information from the Far Right blogs -- as if they were written by the finger of God rather than GOP apparatchiks -- to attack Sen. Obama.

You can assemble sentences, but you have assembled no facts. You simply repeat lies gleaned from other hateful sources and interpret Sen. Obama's motivations as if you were omniscient enough to peer into his conscience.

How dare you to twist truth? How dare you to invent facts? How dare you level accusations as if you know anything other than the garbage you fill your mind with?

Back to the sewers with you.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey rippermccord, why don't you ask the BO man about his Communist mentor, the first one?

Ask him why he let poor black people in his district suffer without heat in the dead of winter? The answer there is because his buddy Rezko owned the building.

Ask him why he told everyone at an Iowa rally that he passed a bill so the public could be informed about nuclear plant leaks? Why would he say that when the bill didn't pass and he had actually backed away from it? Could it be because the execs at that company (Exelon) donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to him and the CEO was the head of a nuclear LOBBYIST group in Washington DC?

His biggest supporter Oprah walked away from Obama's church in 1990 because they were already controversial. So he never asked her why he didn't see her at church anymore? I mean his wonderful Rev. Wright even criticized Oprah for abandoning them.

Ask him about his statements that he wanted to do more about supporting the PLO (while attending a former PLO activist's house) but couldn't say anything because he needed to get elected first?

Ask him how his buddy Tony Rezko got all of that money to go in with a real estate deal with him when he said he didn't have any assets? Why don't you ask him, how just before they bought that property together, Rezko got $3.5 million wired to him from an Iraqi businessman who was also the money launderer for Saddam Hussein?

Ask him why he felt the need to actively campaign for a Socialist candidate in Vermont (Howard Dean's old state)?

Ask him about his Socialist and Marxist ties too while you are at it.

Instead you are upset because Clinton got one more minute than BO even though she has a heck of a lot more history than BO. You want to know why CBS didn't talk up Obama? Maybe because there's not that much to talk up. And, according to Obama, he wants it that way. He purposely sought out senior senators in his quest to rise above the masses. He said he thought about running for governor but decided to go straight for president because he believed he had a very small window of opportunity before he would be seen as having too much baggage. Makes you wonder what else he's packed out of sight. But we'll probably never know that because the rest of the media is so biased for Obama that you won't know that you've been duped until it's too late.

Posted by: dl569 | April 3, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

DrCha,

Per your request for my comment:

The tone of our political discourse has never been quite so good as our memories might lead us to believe, yet it has, in my opinion, sunk to an unprecedented low in this campaign.

One of the Far Right's pet projects has been to inject race, religion and patriotism into the campaign, just as it has used these levers to manipulate its base in past elections.

Obama, the likely Democratic nominee who has an unusual name, darker skin and diverse background, is a natural target for the kind of attacks drummed up by the Far Right and perpetuated even by some Democrats.

That he has weathered such a angry storms thus far as well as he has is a testament to the strength of his message and candidacy.

The major media, including the medium we use here, has been complicit in the trivialization and thus, growing coarseness, of our politics. Every minor blemish, incident or rumor is magnified a thousand-fold (just one example being The Fix article today by Chris Cillizza asking for reader thoughts on Obama being hounded for a photo).

Yes, Obama has some vicious enemies. And some wolves in sheep's clothing waiting for his slightest falter.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

A dress for Obama since Hillary's wearing the pants.

Posted by: brewstercounty | April 3, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It seems that the first commenter (rat-the) really has it out for Sen. Obama. Yes, you're right. Sen. Obama's middle name is Hussein. For some strange reason, I sense some very bigoted overtones in your statement sir (or ma'am).

We've all gotten over his really, ultra scary middle name (sarcasm, just in case you don't know). Don't worry, at least it isn't Walker. Because I know people with that middle name accidentally bomb the wrong country, weaken the military, and cause America's influence in the world to suffer.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Another boring debate?

Posted by: nikolausrimsky | April 3, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Mack1-LOL!

I am looking forward to Loosing my Virginity all over the place!

Just consider me ready, willing, and loose! :-)

Spelling Huh? Bet your glad you did not mention anything about contexts! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | April 3, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is running scared. He's afraid to face voters in Florida and Michigan. He's afraid to debate Ms. Hillary. Might as well put a dress on him.

Posted by: brewstercounty | April 3, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey Rat
Would you vote for a democrat if it guaranteed you at least a chance of loosing your virginity in 2009? Please respond with an abundance of emoticons, exclamation points and misspellings.

Posted by: mack1 | April 3, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

...with credibility even, interesting

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

rippermccord:

I definitely appreciate your analysis. You didn't simply state an opinion, but you went into nice detail to support your statement. I will indeed watch more closely. I definitely quit watching Fox. That is a very interesting analysis you have posted here.

I am waiting on an analysis from others whom see otherwise, followed by details to support their claims.

Yes, that is very interesting.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 3, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Dimocrat4ever-YOU have insulted Vermin of all kinds!

Posted by: rat-the | April 3, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Heavens NO. The last thing in the world that I want to hear and be tortured through is a debate moderated by Katie Couric. I am sure it is because she needs some ratings. She cannot even read the news. I tried to support Katie by watching her on the evening news when she got her new job and finally I just could not take it anymore. Then of course, there is not need for another debate. Katie is "johnny come lately" in the debate series and she should just count it that she missed out of the historic event of a woman and an African American becoming POTUS. I hope Barack says no and not even give second thought that he will be faulted for it because he will not. Everyone knows that there has been enough debates. There is nothing new to debate. It would be soooo boring for (1) Katie Couric as the moderator, and (2) no new anything to debate.

Posted by: ddraper81 | April 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Dear rippermccord,
Thank you for your post.
I interact frequently with professors, students other academicians who are honest and hard working American patriots. They cannot understand the amount of concerted hate that is directed towards Obama that too by supposedly Dems!. On top of that there are reverse accusations.
The consistent rhetoric has been "he is a man of words we need actions" and "get real". The dictum used by campaigners/hate mongerers (who could be smart republicans posing as dems) against Obama is better kept away from our kids.
I am worried where this all leads to. We are losing civility.

This drives educated and independents away from dems. If dem-candidated cannot follow the rules that they signed (MI/FL) why should anyone vote for them.

Please comment.

Posted by: DrCha | April 3, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

You know there's nothing substantial left to debate when Katie Couric asks to chime in.

Posted by: swalker3 | April 3, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Rat,

After electing a rat-fink like GW Bush, I don't see how you or anyone else can have objections to Obama or Hillary. Neither is stupid--unlike Bush. Neither has run the country and the economy into the ground--unlike Bush. Neither lied to get the country to go to war--unlike Bush.

And frankly, if you don't question Bush's patriotism, I certainly don't see how you can question that of anyone else.

Stop drinking the Koolaid and start thinking for yourself.

Posted by: democrat4ever | April 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Ohhhh Stop Crying AB68!

Despite our Elected numbskulls incompetance, I have possibly found a Job that will actually enable me to survive.

With anything close to any luck, maybe I will be able to wake-up and have a Normal, Stress-free, day ahead.

Then, I can change my Moniker to Sheeple and Baaaaaa, baaaaa all day like some many others again!

Nah!

Posted by: rat-the | April 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Roy3,

Here's why I say CBS, especially Couric, are blatantly biased:

For instance...

There were clear differences in CBS's two most comprehensive reports on the Democratic candidates in "For the Record," which ran in late February, prior to the Texas and Ohio primaries.

For the story on Clinton, CBS (Evening News Managing Editor Katy Couric) assigned Nancy Cordes, a reporter with under 10 years of national experience, primarily in Washington and New York, who has covered one presidential campaign and now covers Transportation and Consumer Safety -- not exactly a seasoned pro.

For the story on Obama, CBS assigned Dean Reynolds, a 23-year veteran of national and international news, the son of legendary broadcaster Frank Reynolds, and the recipient of three Emmys, who has covered multiple presidential campaigns and is based in Obama's political birthplace, Chicago.

The story on Clinton was much more positive and more than a minute longer than the story on Obama -- a lifetime in network news.

Not until nearly five minutes into the eight-minute Clinton profile did Cordes interrupt the fawning tone of her piece for a few mentions of Clinton scandals, which Cordes quickly dismissed, never to revisit them for the remainder of the piece. Her tone was glowing, comparing Clinton's U.S. Senate persona as "work horse" to Obama's "show horse" persona. The piece began as it ended, on an upbeat note, with barely a trace of criticism aimed at Clinton, and that bit primarily on her closed-door health care planning. There was no mention of her Senate record or her anti-union service on the Wal-Mart board of directors -- curious omissions, given that Clinton's Senate record nearly mirrors Obama's and that Ohio is a bastion of pro-labor sentiment. The only mention of any charge leveled against her in the campaign concerned her vote on Iraq.

In the first 30 seconds of his report, Reynolds called Obama a "traditional liberal," citing such non-issues thus far in the campaign as "marijuana use" (huh?!!). Then came was a left-handed testimonial from Illinois state Sen. Bill Brady that began with Brady noting "I can't think of a tax increase he didn't embrace." At just under one-and-a-half minutes into his piece, Reynolds repeated the Clinton campaign's attack that Obama voted "present" more than 100 times out of over 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate, offering a source's "It's not that unusual" as the only explanation. From there Reynolds barely noted Obama's accomplishments, citing only a few in less than 30 seconds. Then followed a litany of criticism that ran virtually unabated for the remainder of the report. Reynolds raised unproven charges, questionable dealings and provocative innuendo that he never addressed, rehashing such questions as "Is Obama Muslim," providing Obama's own words as the only evidence he is not, rather than any of the considerable body of supporting evidence already on file at other news organizations. On the patriotism questions "no flag pin on the lapel?" and "no hand over the heart?" Reynolds never even bothered to give any answers to his own questions, not even Obama's own explanations or CSPAN footage of Obama leading the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Reynolds then linked Obama to Louis Farrakhan and to Tony Rezko, providing no evidence that Obama has done either of these two men any favors or committed any unethical wrongdoing. Contrast this with Cordes' complete omission of Clinton's million-dollar bundling from questionable supporters, including one wanted for three years on a warrant for arrest.

From start to finish, the tone of the two reports was starkly different. Cordes' narrative lavished praise on Clinton's intrepid rise to stature as a woman who has worked hard to even the odds for herself. But the Reynolds piece called into question every aspect of Obama's rise to prominence, suggesting without evidence that his success was due to shady political connections, political cowardice, a $1.2 million donation from a single company (actually, the total from that company's employees), ephemeral speeches and "a charmed life," rather than crediting Obama's own hard work against the intimidating odds.

As a journalist of 25 years, I can think of nothing to justify the obvious bias represented by the contrast between the Obama attack piece and the Clinton puff piece.

Couric leads an appallingly transparent charge to elect Clinton. This is but one example of why a CBS-sponsored debate would only add to the network's list of abuses.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

To Rat-the
Are you a deadbeat? Your posting is always the first one to go up.
Do you just sit in front of the computer, all day, at Washington Post website and wait for every new article to pop up so you can be the first post? Cuz seriously dude, could you do that for ticketmaster. I'd like to get some choice tickets for the 50 cent concert.

Posted by: AB68 | April 3, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Why did they have to reschedule the original debate just because they "discovered" it happened to coincide with Passover? Is it "sacrilegious" to debate on a religious holiday? Don't ask any questions about leavening, and you'll be fine. They could have had the debate on Easter. What the hell difference does it make?

Posted by: ComfortablyDumb | April 3, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Roy3,

I can't speak for CNN. But CBS balanced? Nah.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Rippermccord CNN has been incredibly one-sided in favor of Obama. CBS Evening News for sure is more balanced.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 3, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It's really difficult to get enthused about another debate. After 20 debates is there anything left to say? How about dumping Couric as a moderator and asking John McCain to moderate with Seinfeld as a co-host? I am certain there is a research study saomewhere that confirms that this many debates leads to brain erosion and a host of GI symptoms.

Posted by: padricnj | April 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

CBS Evening News, managed by Couric, has been incredibly biased in favor of Hillary and against Obama. I can just hear her asking, "Sen. Obama, when you aren't taking kickbacks or hating America, do you ever dream of having a vagina? And what's that like?"

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the two beginning comments on this post are a little over the top. Debate is a healthy and important part of our democracy. No matter how many debates we've had, many voters in primary states voting in the next few months may not have been paying attention because their primaries were so late in the process. Its also good practice for whoever ends up the nominee.

I wish that these debates were a little more open and included candidates from third parties as well. Just having a Democratic or Republican debate ignores the fact that there are differing views out there that struggle to be heard.

But even if third party candidates could participate, an important voice would be underrepresented, that of the Green Party.

What happened to our Greens?

http://www.greenpieceblog.com/2008/04/what-happened-to-our-green-party.html

Posted by: crumbrye1 | April 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Yea, another debate. I am so excited that I just can not hide it. They have debated each other I belieive about 20 times.. Goodness.

kc

Posted by: kimberly.cobb | April 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Actually Obama agree last last month to do the debate in NC with CBS. Where ever does the mis-information come from.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/999622.html

Posted by: dionc9 | April 3, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh great another debate?! {SARCASM!}

I'm sure the Hillary camp was excited to get asked for another debate. It means free publicly because financially the Hillary camp has problems.

These debates don't resolve anything relevant to Americans. The debates will simply focus on issues like Rev. Wright, Bosnia Trip, Drop-out pressures, Michigan/Florida revotes and etc. I already know both their positions on the major topics.

The main stream media just wants a prolonged Democratic race fight for viewship. The more people who watch the more commercials during this timeframe cost.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

If we are tortured with another Dimocrat debate, please ask Barack Hussein on my part;

Senator Obasama, RAT wants to know:

Should God Damn America for allowing you to be a Senate Representative, for Not electing you as an un-qualified President, or for being sooooooo stupid as to allow a Socialist Racist like yourself, to actually be the President?

His inquiring little Mind, wants to know! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | April 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company