We have all heard that old maxim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. ABC found itself in a lot of hot water during the presentation of its last debate for many reasons, one of which was having a moderator who played an active part in the administration of a former President, the wife of whom was one of the candidates. You would think most organizations would learn from such a mistake, just like the little kid who grabs the hot pan would learn to never put himself in that situation again. If you were counting on ABC to have that same learning ability, you would be wrong.
I was against this from the very beginning, as you would think ABC would want to not even give the appearance of impropriety after the debate debacle. Now some Clinton supporters might say its fair, b/c Obama got a full hour with Russert on the same day. This is true, but the difference is perception, b/c Clinton was allowed to broadcast her town meeting, which of course, was loaded with her supporters. At no time during his interview with Tim Russert did people cheer and applaud after Obama made his statement or answered a question. Russert was in his own studio on his own turf, not standing in front of a crowd which could turn hostile if the questions got too tough. Throwing in Clinton's prior history of planting questioners, this was almost too much, and came off more as an infomercial rather than an interview.
Getting back to the conflict of interest, it really did not take long for this to come to fruition in the town hall meeting which was televised on George Stephanopolis' show Sunday morning. During one of the question periods, Clinton shielded herself from criticism by including GS in her answer regarding NAFTA. Essentially, she stated again that tired old saw that she has always been against NAFTA, but this time added that GS knew that to be true, b/c both him and her were in it together. In his defense, George remained poker faced, but at that time the damage had already been done.
For example, by not replying or denying the statement, was he in fact corroborating what she said? Or rather, as the interviewer, did he not want to place himself in the unenviable position of having to testify about what had really happened during those years that Clintons states she opposed NAFTA despite all evidence to the contrary. I admit, its a tough position to be in, but that is WHY HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
How many issues were there that GS felt he could not properly question Clinton b/c they were also issues in which he participated in formation of the policy, such as the closing of the Indiana magnetics plant? You cannot reasonably expect a "journalist" to grill a candidate over issues that he played an active part in bringing into creation, as he would in fact be critical of himself as he would be the candidate.
I really don't care what ABC thinks of Stephanopolis, b/c the question is really moot. It doesn't matter how good he is, how popular he is, or what the ratings of the show are, it boils down to the fact that it is inappropriate for the interviewer to have played a part in the very experience he is being paid to critique. Is there absolutely nobody else at ABC news who could have done this? Where was Gibson or any of the other reporters? It would be no different than having the thing being done by Carville, as he is just as invested in the Clintons' legacy as George.
It's ironic that ABC is owned by the same company that created Mickey Mouse, b/c that is exactly what this network's news department has become - Mickey Freakin' Mouse.