The Defense of David Brooks

David Brooks wasn't the only fan of the most recent debate.  Bill O'Reilly liked it too.  

But the New York Times has produced a sterling defense of Brooks' position that trivia is what you really want to know about the candidates.  

David Brooks is no longer alone in defending the ABC moderators of Wednesday’s bloodbath. Carl, one of the bloggers at the liberal-leaning site the Reaction, feels that "the debate was clearly structured to try to draw some drama out of the proceedings, to put both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the hot seats about something and to let people see how they handle the stresses and strains of the campaign trail. In that respect, it was a bit of an eye-opener, from nearly all accounts: Hillary Clinton handled herself like a pro, while Barack Obama could barely contain his frustration and contempt."

I have to admit that I was unfamiliar with "The Reaction," which is probably my fault more than theirs, since I don't read as many blogs as I should.  So I went over to the site and found this.

Admittedly, I did not watch the debates last night (Go Rangers! Go Mets!), but how many debates have we had on the issues since December of 2007? 20? 30? 300?

Have any of them drawn any type of sharp contrast between the two candidates?

No. So what's the point?

So the New York Times defense of Brooks' position lies on a blogger who didn't watch the debate, whose reporting of Clinton and Obama's comportment was secondhand, and who thinks creating drama is more important than talking about the issues.

•  They're Pushing Their Candidate

  It's just business.

  by Gooserock on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

  •  Not really.

    It's more that they are defending their in house idiot.

    by Mike S on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM PDT

    •  With what is apparently

      the Rabbi Korff of blogs.

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM PDT

    •  I'm going to be sick...

      the debate was unspeakable and the fallout just keeps getting worse and worse. WTF is going on????

      by merryberry on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM PDT

      •  Debate Defenders

        The defenders of the debate (Brooks, Carlson, etc.) woke me up to a disturbing issue in the press. What frightened me is the fact that the MSM press truly believes that they are acting properly. The press is lazy; I know, nothing new there. I understand cynicism. I understand engaging trivialities as a sideshow and a distraction. However, I believe the cynics have had there way for so long that they are no longer manipulating the news process. The news media have been so indoctrinated to that way of thinking that they really and truly think that bowling scores ARE important.  

        by heliosfootball on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:14:01 PM PDT

        •  I think they are all carrying water...

          for the forces of the status quo. The msm and the Democratic corporate establishment would rather see McCain in the White House than the new forces that Obama represents. (and through the years,I have been a Clinton supporter...tonight I am ready to faint I am so furious and upset re: the moveon.org activist comments...Both Clintons have throughly trashed any legacy or good image they had...it is simply mind-boggling and it gets worse and worse and worse!)

          by merryberry on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM PDT

    •  They got 2 of them now, I thought.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM PDT

  •  It's Judith Miller Sourcing

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM PDT

    •  Which makes it oh, so credible

      One has to wonder how the New York Times happened upon http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/

      According to Alexa the site ranks 467,215 in terms of global traffic, and 123,116 in the U.S., not what one would consider a top source of liberal commentary.

      The Daily Kos, by contrast, ranks 3,997 worldwide, and  908 in the U.S.

      Incidentally, just for perspective, yesterday MYdd ranked 37,127 globally and 6,676 in the U.S., Taylor Marsh 93,319 globally and 14,357 in the U.S., Talking Points Memo 4,409 globally and 2,439 in the U.S., Drudge 516 globally and 111 in the U.S., Democratic Underground 6,048 globally and 1,516 in the U.S., and the Huffington Post 687 globally and 131 in the U.S.

      by rontun on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:17:27 PM PDT

  •  No, they're defending the indefensible

    It's the role the paper sees for itself.  Brooks, who can't argue himself out of a paperbag, needs all the help he can get, and his employer is doing all they can.  The fact that the defense is so poorly sourced is a product of the quality of Brooks' position.

    by GOTV on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM PDT

    •  Brooks Really Is Quite Dumb

      There are cons who I find loathsome, like Bill Kristol or Byron York or Tony Blankly and some others, who are capable of decent arguments.  They're usually wrong and full of shit, but they're at least clever guys.  But Brooksie, he's just not the sharpest spatula in the drawer.  

      by DHinMI on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM PDT

      •  Maybe I should add Brooks to this:

        Gibson And Stephanopoulos: The Keystone Flops

        

        But if I keep adding everyone who deserves to be added, it won't fit on the InterTubes.

        by KingOneEye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM PDT

      •  For that reason,

        I don't read him often.  I do, however, hear him on NPR regularly, and almost never fail to come away from one of his sessions with Dionne thinking I know conservatives have arguments like that, but I've never heard any of them say something so stupid in support of the argument.  The guy is just plain not informed; as such, he just falls into the catagory of "not even wrong."

        by GOTV on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM PDT

        •  LEAVE BOBO ALOOOONE!!!!

                                       

          signed:
          a rabid lamb

          by dougymi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM PDT

          •  Brooks' claim to fame

            is that his Atlantic Monthly article way back when (2000?) popularized the terms "red state" and "blue state."  Since then, he hasn't offered much, but for a Republican he can at least make a pretense of speaking and writing in complete sentences, as can his NYT colleague the Class A war criminal William Kristol.  He has no understanding or interest in the economic underpinnings of our present  quagmire(s), and he has no sway with anyone on either side of the aisle.  

            David Brooks is just one more example of the major media trying to demonstrate their "fairness" to Republicans by proffering a representative for stupid people.  

            by Eikyu Saha on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM PDT

          •  MST3K

            Every time I hear Bobo I think of the late years of MST3K on Sci-Fi

            by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:10:36 PM PDT

      •  He whispers

        Anyone who feels he must whisper to maintain gravity is a moron by definition

        by JedReport on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM PDT

        •  The low talking

          is about the teeth, man.  I'm telling you:  that gosh-awful maw defines him.  He's trying to draw attention away from it.

          by conlakappa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:41:50 PM PDT

  •  I really wish

    ...we'd stop calling "trivial" or "gotcha."

    These are right-wing noise machine smears and McCarthyite lies designed to stain and feminize the Democratic candidate.

    Trivia would be asking Obama if he likes vanilla or strawberry ice cream.

    A smear is asking whether his former pastor loves America.

    Naming matters.

    by Penman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM PDT

•  she looked cool?

  I'd look cool too if 4/5 of the attacks and roughly 40 of the 45 minutes were spent against Obama.

  Ridiculous.

  by qazplm on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, and she could save her "time"

    to even the score to the second half of the debate.  Suppose she knew the plan?

    by orangeuglad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM PDT

    •  Gibson kept saying...

      ...to Clinton that the time was unbalanced and asking if she would like to respond. So even he knew he was bashing Obama.

      This, from Carl, is sort of true:

      "the debate was clearly structured to try to draw some drama out of the proceedings"

      But for the wrong reasons. As I wrote the night of the debate: Gibson And Stephanopoulos: The Keystone Flops

      "The moderators had obviously decided that they were going to chase petty controversy and ratings by focusing on tabloid trivialities."

      It was all about bringing soap opera to politics.

      by KingOneEye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM PDT

  •  Looked cool? She could not maintain eye contact

    with host or audience from minute 30 to minute 45.  That ain't cool.

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:49 PM PDT

  •  She was just sitting back, rehearsing her crappy

    closing statement and trying to remember to plug her website. She so 90's with that lame assed shit.

    www.I am robot.com

    by trmasonic on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM PDT

  •  Well, she wouldn't have looked so cool

    had the question been the one I would have asked her:

    Senator Clinton, you stated on numerous times that you were--and this is your word--"mistaken" about being shot at by snipers at the Tuzla airport.  Clearly, if it truly was a mistake, and not a fabriaction, you necessarily would have had to confuse that event with some other event where you ducked under sniper fire.  When and where did this other shooting take place?

    Why has she never been asked that question?

    by GOTV on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:10 PM PDT

    •  And if they really wanted to

      "gotcha" Hillary as much as Obama, they might have asked something about the Colombia trade deals.  Oh wait--that actually is a real issue so didn't qualify.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM PDT

    •  When she said

      You get to choose your pastor. You don't choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor. And when asked a direct question, I said I would not have stayed in the church.

      I would have challenged her on the bit about choosing her family, and asked "Why she chose to remain with Bill given his repeated philandering, his public and private lies about it, and his having put her and their daughter through so much public humiliation?"

      Most women I know would have booted his ass out the door, but then, I guess it is a matter of judgment and character.

      by rontun on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM PDT

  •  She didn't look so "cool"

    in the debate where she was complaining about getting the questions first all the time.

    Should we conclude that she is not fit to be president?

    What a load.

    by oscarsmom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:42:41 PM PDT

•  re

  BushWorld: Turning Snark into reality since 2001!!!

  by cookiesandmilk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:07 PM PDT

•  The New York Times

  From Liberal rag to Bipartisan Rag in a few short years.

  Does anyone bother reading it these days or do they just buy it for the crossword puzzles?

  by banjolele on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM PDT

  •  The crossword hasn't been the same

    since Eugene Maleska died.

    by Nimbus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM PDT

  •  "Bipartisan..."

    ...is generous.

    by nehark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM PDT

  •  Will Shortz and his crew can kiss my ass

    those Sunday crosswords drive me nuts.  I still haven't forgiven them for having "MCI" as an answer to "big name in wireless" a few years ago.  MCI never had a presence in cellular or paging, you mofos!!!!  Yeaaargh!!!

    (/geeky telecom ranting)

    by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

    •  Um... let it go

      Just kidding!

      by rini6 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM PDT

      •  You sound like my wife...n/t

        by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM PDT

    •  We need Will Shortz -- Americans will need

      something to do when they are sitting in their freezing homes with their cars up on blocks due to the $200 oil prices.

      by LRT on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM PDT

      •  oohhhh I know -

        we can burn his puzzle books to keep warm!!!

        (just kidding - i like will shortz)

        by ETinKC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM PDT

  •  Bipartisan rag that's losing money now

    What goes around, comes around.

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co posted a surprise loss [sic] on Thursday as the economic downturn added to pressure on newspaper advertising and left the publisher with worse-than-expected quarterly results.
    . . .
    The company reported a first-quarter net loss of $335,000, or breakeven on a per share basis. A year ago, it posted net income of $23.9 million, or 17 cents per share, and income from continuing operations of 14 cents per share.

    by GW Chimpzilla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:58:44 PM PDT

    •  from Reuters

      http://www.reuters.com/...

      by GW Chimpzilla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM PDT

    •  I'm very happy to see

      The mainstream media getting crushed by reality.  I'd like for, this election/recession cycle, to see at least one major TV network and one major newspaper go under.  It would be very sweet.

      by slippytoad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:12:58 PM PDT

•  Well, if "Carl" says it, it must be true.

  LOL.

  by Bush Bites on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM PDT

  •  Words to live by,

    truly.

    by jamfan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM PDT

    •  "Carl" probably believed Iraq had WMDs too.

      That's why the Times let Judy Miller knock her socks off.

      by Bush Bites on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

  •  Ah yes, Carl...

    by Skid on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM PDT

•  Didn't watch the debate?

  But still offers opinion?  That just doesn't measure up.

  by bloomer 101 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM PDT

  •  Hey now, them's fightin' words

    I offer my opinion on tons of stuff when I have no fracking clue what I'm talking about.  It's fun, you should try it sometime.

    by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM PDT

    •  Seriously!

      I care less about the blogger that commented on a debate he didn't watch, than I do about the NYTimes quoting him.

      by KingOneEye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM PDT

      •  Well, yeah...

        As somebody downthread already noted, if I knew the TradMed was going to come to me for quotable reactions, I would certainly be a LOT more careful about what I opine about.  Yeah, that's just common sense.

        But they don't, so I'm not.

        by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM PDT

      •  I didn't watch it either.

        But the New York Times isn't contacting me for quotes.

        I guess "Why are you focusing on this bullshit instead of what a cowardly little cocksucker McCain is?" isn't discourse lofty enough for the Paper Of Record.

        by Moody Loner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM PDT

        •  That explains it.

          I was wondering why the Times hasn't been calling me for quotes.

          Obviously it's because they found out that I actually pay attention to the things I write about.

          I'm either going to have to stop doing that or keeping it a better secret.

          by KingOneEye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM PDT

  •  To be fair

    This is not uncommon in the blogosphere.  But it speaks volumes how readily "mainstream" "respected" journalists will simply quote bloggers these days to support defunct positions without even a modicum of fact checking.

    by The Termite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:16 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like

      we need to convene some sort of ethics panel.

      by Moody Loner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:24:01 PM PDT

  •  Unless, of course,

    you are one of the Very Serious members of the MSM in which case, an opinion is all you need.  

    by meg on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:37 PM PDT

  •  Whoa now, most of us reserve the right

    to form opinions based on second or third-hand sources.  But most of us don't expect to be picked up on it by national media and made to look like fools.  Maybe we ought to, though.  

    I for one would post less rashly (and probably a lot less often) if I thought I entertained any serious risk of suddenly landing in the spotlight.

    by lgmcp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:52 PM PDT

•  yeah but

  dude, the rangers and the mets were on

  by vivadissent on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM PDT

  •  And "by all accounts"

    you mean TM accounts, Carl?   Sheesh.

    by Dragon5616 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:33:37 PM PDT

•  Well, they certainly did as much research

  as Brooks has done.  Ergo - they must be right, eh?

  by klnb1019 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM PDT

  •  Word.

    Same effort they put into checking Miller's bogus "Run Up to Iraq" stories.

    by Snarky McAngus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

•  Oh, THAT liberal media.

  I've always wondered who the right was talking about when they talked about the liberal media.

  Now I know.

  by Mike S on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:33 PM PDT

  •  It's like GHWB said

    The Washington Times is a force for balance.

    by The Termite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:52 PM PDT

•  LOL

  I do hope you've forwarded this info to the relevant Times editors.

  by ActivistGuy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM PDT

•  lol, we should email this post to the NYT

  ...does anyone know where to email their paper?

  by Tetris on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM PDT

•  What Nonsense

  We all know that Americans want a president that shows frystration and contempt.  How else do you explain the past eight years.

  by maxxdogg on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:24 PM PDT

•  Look at you...

  expecting the MSM to do some actual investigation...

  How silly.

  by MingPicket on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:26 PM PDT

•  The big guns are getting scared

  They really are finally beginning to realize that they may not get either of their acceptable status quo (Party designation actually doesn't matter that much to them) candidates in the Whitehouse.

  ABC now the NYT are showing their fear, many more will follow over the next few months.

  by stevej on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM PDT

  •  As Melody Townsel put it...

    ...in a yesterday's diary: "They blinked..."

    by nehark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM PDT

•  It looks like the NYT picked the wrong week

  to quit sniffing glue.

  Seriously, Grey Lady, stop huffing and stay off the drugs...

  by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM PDT

•  Clinton said anything goes

  under that vague doctrine we can ask her about monica or cattle futures. Seriously someone should take her up on that, not because we really care but just to remind her of her baggage and how it feels to have that happen. remember, the republicans will do it so its our obligation.

  by Liberal Youth on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM PDT

  •  Just think about the list

    you could draw up of her "friends" and "associates."

    by Dragon5616 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:30:37 PM PDT

•  This should make anybody

  doubt the sourcing of every single story ever published in the traditional media.

  by Bipolar Disorder Democrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM PDT

  •  You say that

    like Judy Miller didn't prove that point already.

    by Moody Loner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM PDT

•  David Brooks needs a swirlie.

  And that's the nicest thing I can say about him.

  by Mumon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM PDT

  •  He needs a perma-swirlie

    I'd pay scalper money to see it, too.

    by The Termite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM PDT

    •  man, I think swirlies all around

      Stephanopoulos! Wooosh.
      Gibson! Woosh.
      Brooks! Woosh.
      Matthews! Woosh.
      O'Reilly! No, you'd make the toilet dirty.
      Broder! Woosh.Woosh.Woosh.Woosh.

      That makes my day, just thinking about it! Thanks, mumon.

      by bubbanomics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM PDT

•  Shoot...

  You know, one of these days I'm going to be the obscure blogger they pick.

  by ek hornbeck on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:14 PM PDT

  •  Yes. You. Will.

    (Passing out Self-Esteem Cookies. Anyone else want one?)

    by scrape on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

  •  Only if you do like carl did

    and not bother to watch current events (go rangers, go mets).  Those are the types that invariably support david brooks.

    You know, the uninformed.

    by dougymi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:35:25 PM PDT

•  Fuck me...

  they found the 1 liberal blogger who DIDN'T watch the debate, then quoted him.

  Not sure what else to add... this pisses me off.

  by weelzup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM PDT

•  You're not supposed to question

  the motives of the grey lady. Or is it the iron lady? No, that was Thatcher. Sorry.

  by Nimbus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM PDT

•  Barack Obama has em runnin scared

  Amazing.  His candidacy is turning into a wedge in the gut of the traditional media.  The conventionally wise have no idea how to process.

  by The Termite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM PDT

  •  I hope you're right...n/t

    by merryberry on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

  •  It will be Obama and the People vs

    traditional media and McCain.  

    This will be the first internet driven election.

    by EvasDad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM PDT

    •  If only we had Internet-driven voting

      we'd be sitting pretty!  Well, maybe someday.

      by lgmcp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM PDT

•  Clearly,

  this bozo had made up his mind beforehand.  Like Bush, who already knows he's right about everything, and doesn't have to study up.  But, by the same token, taking Brooks' word about anything having to do with Democrats is a fool's errand.  He lost his credibility years ago, when he swooned over Bush, calling him a real leader.  He's only out to make trouble for us.

  by SottoVoce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:36 PM PDT

•  Isn't Carl

  the hirsute, eternally perplexed neighbor of the ATHF gang? I am just surprised to find out he is a blogger.

  by lurxst on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM PDT

  •  Not only didn't he even watch the debate

    Not only didn't he even watch the debate, but he is a very passionate Clinton supporter. And has made some very questionable entries about Senator Obama.

    1. Does Barack Obama have a shred of dignity left?

    2. Nice touch. In front of a room full of children, too, and have you ever noticed how he starts this whole "gangsta rap" rhthym when he's talkin' 'bout Hill? Like he be Will Smiff or sumpin' sumpin'? And to think everyone got all rowdy when Biden be callin' him "articulate," an shi'likedat!

    3. Disgraceful. Simply disgraceful.

    This is referring to the ridiculous claim that Obama 'gave Hillary the finger' during one of his speeches.

    It's laughable that Obama would do that, much less in front of cameras and the crowd.

    If you look at the video, it kind of looks like it.

    

    Kind of, if you're a conspiracy person.

    But if you take it frame by frame, you can obviously see he has two fingers there and he's just itching his face.

    

    

    I wonder if the NYT will quote me for this post.

    If they are looking, here's my quote. Fuck you David Brooks.

    by DAVE DIAL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM PDT

    •  A different angle

      A different angle

      by DAVE DIAL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:45:18 PM PDT

•  "Frustration and contempt"

  Seems like the right reaction to me.  

  by Do Something on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM PDT

•  Why

  Why on earth should he have watched the debate? Real Beltway Insiders form their opinions without regard to pesky things like facts, or "reality". Only far-leftwingers thing facts and reality matter!

  Stenography Today! Stenography Tomorrow! Stenography Forever!!!

  by Dagoril on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM PDT

•  Common Clinton-Supporter reaction

  It may be short sighted, but there are plenty of Clinton partisans on the web who are making the exact same argument. "It was a great debate, this is what they should be.."

  And being forced to listen to Hannity at work, he was thrilled by it to. And is planning on launching a "Million Man March" attack on Obama tomorrow.

  You would think Democrats might realize that when Hannity is cheering a Democrat, it's not because he/she is good for the party. But instead, I bet Clinton's camp picks up and runs with the Million Man March story.

  by DJ Adequate on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:34 PM PDT

  •  This is what I tried to explain

    to Democrats in the 90s about the Clintons, but all I got in response was red-faced, spittle-flying tirades.    Eventually I was browbeaten into silence, but I never for a minute considered that I was wrong in my perceptions and analysis, and it feels great that  others are finally seeing it too.

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM PDT

•  I found carl!

  

  by bubbanomics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM PDT

  •  Carl, meet

    My Pet Goat

    by Dragon5616 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

•  How Hillary can still win

  by Joe Beese on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM PDT

  •  ROFLMAO!

    by Dragon5616 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:25 PM PDT

•  Who needs fact-based news?

  by ProduceMan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM PDT

•  You have no right

  to criticize this most excellent example of thoroughly checked and certified expert journalism from the paper of record.

  No matter how fucked up it seems. You are a lousy blogger. They are the great gray lady. They have ink on their fingers. What do you have? Nothing but lowly bits of electronic impulses floating through the noosphere of the internet's intertubes. See? You can't compete. So please stop pointing out that the bitching gray lady is walking around with NO FUCKING CLOTHES on ....it's just well...embarassing....metaphorically speaking, of course.

  by DelicateMonster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM PDT

•  FYI, that blogger is a Canadian

  Michael Stickings is a Policy Advisor with the Ontario Government in Canada (source Asia Times). Not that there's anything wrong with being a Canadian, but perhaps NYT could have found someone eligible to vote in the US, ya?

  by whenwego on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:43 PM PDT

  •  Seems that might be his least egregious offense

    by The Termite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM PDT

•  As someone who really didn't mind the debates

  while I get the general principle that the debates should focus on the major issues, I also think the debates should also serve to contrast the candidates.  Having a ninety minute forum of the two of them going back and forth saying "Me too!!" might serve Obama and the Democratic party well, but really isn't a debate.  The reality is, there just isn't much difference between the candidates at this point on the issues.

  Think about it this way- when the time for the McCain-Obama debates rolls along, do you want the moderators asking questions about topics that they are in agreement on, or focusing on the issues where they disagree?

  Oh, and Go Mets!

  by JakeC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM PDT

  •  Which begs the question...

    Having a ninety minute forum of the two of them going back and forth saying "Me too!!" might serve Obama and the Democratic party well, but really isn't a debate.  The reality is, there just isn't much difference between the candidates at this point on the issues.

    Without granting your premise (which I don't), then why have the debate at all?  Surely no debate is better than Worst.Debate.Ever?

    by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:15 PM PDT

  •  Uhh, what?

    by Snarky McAngus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM PDT

•  I only see Barack growing from this.

  This debate only reminded me that once upon a time, he was indeed bad at debates but then he grew so good so fast, only to have this one stupid debate throw common sense out the window in unbelievable, despicable ways.  There might be no more debates for him to show how he's overcome it, but he's already given a classic response by "getting the dirt off his shoulder."

  People know what they see in Obama, and a frustrating debate won't change anything they feel about the man they believe in.  Inside, he's a kind of unselfish hero and genius that Hillary can't even recognize and will never be.

  by LJW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM PDT

  •  OH, there will be more debates.

    But instead of it being Obama and the wicked princess of the beltway, it will be the man vs. geriatric republican guy who supports Bush's war and tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.

    That's when the fun starts.

    by trmasonic on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM PDT

•  Senator Obama, you're walking alone in the

  desert when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you..

  Senator Obama: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Stephanopolis? Or do they write 'em down for you?

  George S: They're just questions, Senator. In answer to your query they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response.
  Shall we continue? Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.

  Senator Obama: My mother? Let me tell you about my mother.

     (blasts Stephanopolis into next room)

  by the fan man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM PDT

  •  Blade Runner is more reality based

    than Hillary's chance of getting the Nom.

    by kitebro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:19:19 PM PDT

•  Tobin Harshaw lays a brown nugget.

  Completely, totally inexcusable pseudo journalism.
  NYT needs to tighten ship.

  He references a blog that opens with "I don’t know what I am talking about"

  Looks like it is improv hour at the times.

  by Tchok13 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM PDT

•  who the fuck is 'the reaction'?

  by saguaro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

•  "Some people call it a sling blade" Carl?

  "Fried taters and potted meat" Carl?

  Oh, wait. That was Karl with a K. Last name Childers. Um-hmm.

  Seriously, let's take "Carl" up on his proposition...

  "the debate was clearly structured to try to draw some drama out of the proceedings, to put both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the hot seats about something and to let people see how they handle the stresses and strains of the campaign trail."

  And what did we see? Hillary standing by or worse, chiming in, as two hacks went after the Democrat's increasingly-presumptive nominee, with some of the least relevant and most offensive crap we've seen in a long time. For 45 friggin' minutes. That's what we saw from Hillary.

  by scrape on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM PDT

•  Carl's Hillary booster Obama horror site

  http://simplyleftbehind.blogspot.com/

  Wherein "Carl" blames the earthquake on the "Obombers".

  That's some potent kool-aid the Clintons are handing out...

  by NCrefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM PDT

•  On David Brooks

  Here's what I think happened to him--

  If you read some of his earlier columns about Obama, you would not have been wrong to wonder if he had been re-converted to his old Democrat ways.  Or, that someone had slipped something into his Chablis.   He was quite over-the-top, for a neo-con, in chronicling the Obama phenomenon.  It was looking as if he might wind up wanting to endorse him--though that is not allowed at the Times.  

  He was so extravagant in his praise that it was inevitable that something would awake him from his infatuation and remind him of who he had become and pull him back to his version of reality.  

  So we see him now as intemperately negative as he was out-of-control smitten.

  A familiar psychological, and that's what it is, pattern

  by zwerlst on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM PDT

  •  You just described

    You just described the media as a whole. Then came a silly moment, SNL aired a parody of Hilary not getting a fair shake.

    Then came the memo because the entire media establishment changed. Then came Rev Wright and many more attacks.
    It really goes to show that in the end they are all in bed together. The last thing they want is for US to have any control, involvement in the process or say.

    by dynamicstand on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:31:02 PM PDT

•  Apparently, no one is familiar with The Reaction,

  judging from the lack of comments, trackbacks, links, etc.   So, the NYT is forced to go to an unknown blogger to justify David Brook's remarks?  I honestly think that there is value in the print media because they do things blogs just can't, but the last two days have been one, long WTF?!?

  by msanthrope on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM PDT

•  The Reaction?

  That's in my blogroll.

  Just sayin'.

  by Moody Loner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM PDT

  •  it's not that it's may not be a good blog

    leaving aside that it's a relatively unknown blog, they relied on the opinion of a blogger who admittedly didn't even see the debate.  That's the rub here.

    by georgia10 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM PDT

    •  Well,

      I also have the official Dungeons and Dragons site and the Order of the Stick webcomic in my blogroll.

      Just pointing out how much y'all pay attention to said blogroll.

      But yeah, good to see that the New York TImes only relies on the most impeccable verifiable sources, unlike those filthy bloggers. Or so they keep telling me.

      by Moody Loner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM PDT

      •  heh, the D&D

        link earns you a lot of respect around here ;)

        by georgia10 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:47 PM PDT

•  Did anyone follow the link to Carl's post?

  I did, it made my brain hurt.

  Can someone explain how this is a continuous stream of logic.

  Not nearly as many about the debacle in Afghanistan over the past year, I'd wager, as have been written over Obama's "bitter" comment in just these past five days.

  Even Bunch, later in his column, points out how many column inches have been devoted to Reverend Wright, and the Bosnia trip and Obama's foot-in-mouth disease... does anyone else wonder how an eloquent man can have so many "misspokes" and "inartful phrasings"? What kind of scam is Obama running on us?... but one wonders why so many column inches haven't been devoted to, say, the PTSD problems of returning Iraqi and Afghani vets?

  I picked that topic because, you know, Katrina and I at Simply Left Behind have both been all over it these past four years. I'd bet not many other blogs have been.

  It's kind of disingenuous to whine about ABC's debate format when in fact, they are merely responding to the vox populi: all of us, myself included, have harped on these niggling issues at the expense of the larger stories around us.

  For myself, I claim a lack of time and an interest in increasing my hit counter.

  If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.

  by Mickey Thunder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM PDT

  •  Jesus Christ

    Was there really, really no one else in the entire blogosphere that they could find to back up David Brooks' comments?

    Actually...maybe that question answers itself!

    by oscarsmom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:52:03 PM PDT

•  You could be watching baseball you know

  instead of spending time thinking about this.

  by jgoodfri on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

  •  Or hockey! Come on Red Wings!