Waaaaaah!
Posted by: Jubal | 04/17/2008 10:07 AM
That sound neatly encapsulates the lefty-blogger reaction to last night's Democratic debate -- or rather, the questioning by ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. They're upset because poor Sen. Obama had to answer questions that weren't softballs.
You'll get a good dose of it by visiting Daily Kos. One of the lefties even compared Gibson and Stephanopoulos to Lee Atwater.
You'll get a good dose of it by visiting Daily Kos. One of the lefties even compared Gibson and Stephanopoulos to Lee Atwater.
CATEGORY:
Making of the President 2008
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Give me a break. People are upset because the questions were asinine, not hardball.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/16/attention-abc-youre-hurting-america/
Like I said: waaaaaah!
God forbid that John McCain might be asked a tough question like what's the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. The press gives McCain donuts and still cal Obama, "Osama."
Let's see who's crying come November OK?
Love ya, Dan -- but could you possibly make a more logically-unrelated comment?
lol, yeah. Great response man. Glad to see you take this seriously.
Glad to see you take this seriously.
Ha! And we're suppose to take seriously a reporter who cites a left-wing blog as "proof" the questions were "asinine"?
Obama boasts about his wonderful judgment as one of his qualifications to be President. He gets asked questions that go to his judgment, and you lefties have a hissy fit.
God help the Daily Pilot if that's your attitude.
Um. The only thing relevant about evidence is its pertinence, not its provenance. I didn't cite a "left-wing blog", I cited a video montage of the absurd questions sent in that they happened to host. That is, I referenced the absurd questions I am referring to.
I suppose I could dismiss this post by simply pointing out its a conservative blog? How is that a legitimate argument? What does that even mean?
I don't remember saying "proof" either. This isn't something you can prove, but, I think you're kind of full of it if you think that debate was a serious approach to the issues. Given your reply here, I can see why it might not have struck you as unusual.