Childish, Spolied-Rotten Left Reacts to Debate in Childish, Spoiled-Rotten Fashion

This is the most unhinged reaction I've seen, but the day is young.

The post looks rewritten. Last night when I read it, the poster accused Gibson and Stephanopolous of a "conspiracy to Subvert Democracy" by daring to ask a presidential candidate why he pals around with terrorists.

That line isn't quite there anymore, but the gist of it is still there:

Below is the history of how we saw the Okie-Dokie coming a mile away and how a network Subverted Democracy. President Barack should pull their Broadcasting License.

Cuffy Meigs puts the live-blogging of Jim Geraghty and Andrew Sulivan side-by-side. Geraghty thinks the questions were good and fair, Sullivan is having conniptions. But let me address his whine:

Because she's shameless, she's doing better. The appropriation of small-town life as part of her autobiography was a particularly brilliant.
...

On Wright, again her shamelessness helps her. His affect is total exhaustion, alas, as if being pummeled with every Rovian tactic has beaten the life out of him. And he is being pummeled by the ABC hosts as well. One reason I like the guy is that he is still human; politics hasn't killed his soul.

...

So far, neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos have asked a single policy-related question. They seem utterly uninterested in foreign or domestic policy. After the past eight years, we have had half an hour with nothing but process questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos are clearly part of the problem in this election and part of what has to be reformed.

...

I'm just pointing out that we are now almost halfway through this debate and ABC News has not asked a single policy question. It's pure Rove, sustained and hyped and sustained by Stephanopoulos and Gibson. It's what they know; it's easy; and it will generate ratings. It is not journalism....I have to say I am actually shocked at the appallingly poor quality of the questions: the worst of the campaign so far. Pure MSM process bullshit. Again: it's now halfway through and there has not been a single question on the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, terrorism, Iraq or any other actual policy issue in this campaign. How much longer can ABC News avoid the actual policy issues in this election?

The whole why-don't-we-talk-about-the-issues whine is childish. Obama and Hillary have extraordinarily similar declared programs by this point. The only real surviving differences between them are what parts of their declared programs do they really intend to follow through on, and which unstated agendas will they also pursue.

Simply allowing them to blather for an hour each about nearly-indistinguishable programmatic posturings does not advance the debate whatsoever. If you want to know what crap they're claiming they'll push as President, check their websites.

What distinguishes them among Democrats are issues of character (Hillary's lying, Obama's discomforting comfort with radicals and terrorists) and the widespread belief on the left that Hillary is a "neocon" moderate who lies about her liberal leanings, whereas Obama is the general article and really believes in old school big-L Liberalism, and is in fact lying about his moderation to preserve his electability. Only by asking about issues of character and background and a candidate's real, unexpressed political thinking can possibly shed light as to whether those readings on the candidate are true or not.

In Sullivan's case, he has an exceptional lack of self-awareness, as usual. He despises Hillary, and, per Christopher Hitchens, wants to have Obama's baby almost entirely on the basis of character and authenticity. Over and over again on his blog he slams Hillary for her shamelessness, dishonesty, lack of integrity, inauthenticity, overweening ambition for the sake of power alone, etc. So Sullivan himself rejects an analysis purely on "the issues." He rejects Hillary and champions Obama almost entirely on questions of character and presumed genuine political agenda, as opposed to the stated political agenda.

But when an actual debate breaks out at a presidential debate -- one that is somewhat effective in exposing Obama's character flaws and also hints at his real political agenda (not-moderate-at-all left-liberalism), he shrieks it's all so "Rovian" and that we should talk about the "real issues."

Right. A debate on the "real issues" where both candidates say they agree with each other for two hours, except on the point of who can better execute the exact same program.

Michelle has a good round-up of the left's collective, coordinated freak-out and of course Hot Air's headlines have more. The typical liberal suspects -- Tom Shales, Greg Mitchell from E&P, etc. -- are all screaming about ABCNews' "despicable" performance in not giving The Media-Chosen One the pass he's enjoyed for most of the past year.

Oh, the Unfairness of It All: Cranky points out:

At Cuffy's Kos link: To put it bluntly, should a Former Clinton Official be the one asking GOP questions to Barack Tonight?!?

Was Stephanopolous a moderator at any Republican debates? Goose. Gander. Good stuff.

Oh, it's funny stuff, all right.

After 50 years, Hillary supporters are finally complaining that when the press falls in love (as they always do) with the more-liberal candidate, they are flagrantly unfair to the less-liberal one.

And suddenly Obama supporters realize there might be some small conflict of interest in former Clinton official George Stephanolopolous now acting as an "impartial" media talking head.

Welcome to the party, pals.