The MSNBC moderators played a dirty trick on Edwards and I'm calling them on it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

MR. WILLIAMS: Now to that segment we promised earlier. We asked the candidates and their campaigns to come here tonight prepared with two questions, one for each of their opposition candidates. It's not our intention that these be novelty or at all throwaway questions, but that they be real questions. And we should know right away here whether this was a good or a very bad idea. (Laughter.)

Senator Edwards, I would like to start with you. A question for Senator Obama and a question for Senator Clinton.

MR. EDWARDS: I get to do both to begin with?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.

MR. EDWARDS: (Laughs.) Okay.

Edwards then proceeded to ask his question to Obama about campaign finance and receiving money from drug and insurance companies.
AFTER this happened,

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, I've been told in midstream here, Senator Edwards, I have to take away one of your options. We were -- we apparently told the campaigns bring one question for an opponent, which now brings us to you, Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: (Chuckles.)

MR. WILLIAMS: So you get your choice on, either side.

So basically, they told Edwards something incorrect WHICH he questioned initially (that he would have one question for EACH of his opponents) and then they changed the rules midstream. My point is that by telling him he had 2 instead of one, he lost the opportunity to ask his question of Hillary which he may have chosen to go with instead of what he asked Obama. Notice Hillary "chuckling" seeing Edwards losing his chance to ask her a question.

Russert and Williams were just a complete disgrace from start to finish in this debate. I was so disgusted with their pot-stirring in the beginning that I just doubted whether I could get through it. But THIS PISSED ME OFF!

[Mass]

1. They paid a similar trick on Obama who never got his question.

They considered a followup question on something one of the two other candidates had said as his question. So he had to choose between clarifying something that was unclear and asking a real question.

Only Hillary Clinton got to choose her question. I noticed that too.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. I agree that they screwed Obama as well. nt

[aquaman11173]

4. Obama screwed himself when he asked the question

Not following the rules of the debate.

[Zueda]

6. Hillary asked Edwards a question later on in a rebuttal.

On the topic of the bankruptcy bill.

[mrdemocrat78]

19. he was just looking for clarification

it was a "debate" right?

[Diane R]

22. Obama did not ask a question....he was just discussing with Edwards.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Why do Reknucklian Operatives run Democratic debates?

I hadn't noticed that Keith Olberman was hosting the Reknucklian debate, they wouldn't put up with that shit for one second. Do our candidates not understand that Russert and Williams are partisan Reknucklians?

[Triana]

7. The corprat-owned media wants Reknucklians in the White House.....

...more 'business-friendly'.

They're gonna screw the Dems (esp those that threaten their robber-baron status-quo) every chance they get. They have their marching orders. They'll carry them out or get fired. In the case of Russert and Williams - well, they are also Reknucklians.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. "dirty trick"?

:rofl:

[niceypoo]

8. What do you expect in a debate that at all involved Russert?

Questions like, "What's your favorite color," and, "which is more important, the old testament or the new testemant."

[iamahaingttta]

9. Why do you people watch this crap?

Don't you know that YOU talking and complaining about this is EXACTLY the divide and conquer diversionary tactic that is the ENTIRE reason why the MSM does things like this? You're giving them your eyeballs, and falling into their trap, and playing EXACTLY the game they want you to play?

If you would just turn off the fucking TV and not play this game, we might actually someday be able to pick our own candidates.

Seriously, every thread you start complaining about the MSM gives it more power. Because they know you are paying attention. Stop paying attention to the smoke and the fireworks, and maybe we can finally get rid of the man behind the curtain.

[Apollo11]

11. For a chance to see how the candidates deal with tough questions.

We are discussing here if the rules of the debate were applied in a fair way.

Nobody is saying that the whole debate was a waste of airtime.

Sheesh! It's not like we were watching American Idol ... :eyes:

[stillcool]

12. I think watching the debates...

is important. For me anyway. But I try to focus on what the candidates say, rather than what the moderators do. It is interesting how the actual words spoken by the candidate do not become the story, but rather the interpretation of those words by our expert-top-notch media talking heads.

[Apollo11]

10. I agree - that was very unfair to Edwards (and Obama)

Edwards never got a chance to ask Hillary a question. Neither did Obama.

It's outrageous that they changed the rules during the debate.

Especially after they had promised Edwards he would get two questions.

I'm not certain it was a conspiracy, but it ended up helping Hillary.

On the other hand, let's not "misunderestimate" Hillary.

I think she would have been able to deal with questions from her opponents.

Or if not, her campaign could always say that they were "piling on" ... ;-)

By the way - Hillary did a great job with her question to Hillary.

It made Hillary look like a leader and Obama look like a follower.

[kenfrequed]

14. Such BS

She stole that trick from Kucinich from an earlier debate. Kucinich used it because he wasn't getting any time from the moderator. Frankly I am unimpressed that a candidate that has had the lions share of the media attention for the last 2 years and the largest amount of time in almost every debate.

[mrdemocrat78]

20. AND YOU KNOW HE WANTED TO ASK HILLARY!

[Apollo11]

25. Too late to edit my post #10 above

But I kind of messed up those last couple of lines. I meant to write "her question to Obama". But it's just an aside (written while in a temporary pro-Hillary state of mind).

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. I hope this crap continues, because sheeple are awakening every day to the fact that the

corporomedia is trying to crown the next candidate. And, that voters, so far, have been effectively preventing that from happening.

Corpormediaists really thought they'd have seen both D's and R's down to one candidate on each side, so they could begin ripping the Democrat and lauding the R for almost an entire year. It hasn't worked out that way, and the more they try to push the infighting and ignore issues, the more they're called out. And, good on the heckler last night who called out the "race baiting" questions from Williams/Russert.

I say, the next Dem debate, let the audience have their say, hell, I'm ready to see the D's go on FAUX if they are allowed audience participation.

MKJ

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

27. Interesting. That's what I thought the was heckler shouting

"Race baiting" questions. I hear it reported as "race based". Both are crummy but one is definitely worse.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Agreed. This is not fair by any means.

[Truth2Tell]

16. If these were ACTUAL debates

and not stage managed dumb-ass fests - the candidates would all be able to ask each other plenty of questions... and follow up questions. The fact that we're even discussing who got to ask one (1) question or two (2) questions demonstrates how utterly pathetic and meaningless this whole charade is.

Anyone remember Lincoln-Douglas?

[CyberPieHole]

17. Edwards should have called an immediate "HALT" and requested assistance...

Egads, what a bunch of BIG WHINE~Y BABIES!!!:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

24. Very funny coming from someone who supports Hillary.

:rofl:

[dailykoff]

18. Ditto Obama. NO QUESTIONS FOR SHILLY.

Company policy no doubt.

[CyberPieHole]

21. "SHILLY" Who is "SHILLY"?

:shrug:

[balantz]

23. Yeah, they quickly changed that on cue from the man behind the curtain.

They saw John going for the jugular-truth-vein with Obama and suddenly the whole session of question interchange they had told us would be the format of that part of the debate suddenly vanished. I understood that it was to be a REAL debate for a while. Obviously Edwards would have nailed that format with questions about real change, Clinton would have gotten loud and scary, and Obama would have reverted into bumbling rhetoric. The corporate-elite M$M hard at work for their chosen puppets.

[troubleinwinter]

26. YES, EXACTLY! I sure noticed that. The others could choose their best 'bullet', Edwards couldn't.

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. They played a trick on ALL OF US.

And continue to do so by having debates which are very limited in the time they give the candidates to answer questions, and a lack of complete fairness in time given. If one candidate goes over, all other candidates should have time added. Commercial breaks? Shouldn't be any. Everyone has a VCR these days, they can always record it and re-view anything they missed. If a sporting event goes over, they cut into their regular show to let it play out. Ever see 'em do that for a presidential debate? Guess some things are more important than other things. And they most definitely should have all the rules firmly established in advance and not change them midstream.

[southerncrone]

29. MSNBC Kuciniches Edwards again!

Changing the rules in mid stream to insult "certain" candidates seems to be the modus operandi of MSNBC.
:puke: