How can Katie Couric who lost her husband to colon cancer be such a hurtful person?

[still_one]

[ruggerson]

1. Because she's a tabloid journalist

and a BAD tabloid journalist at that.

There was not one interesting or intellectual or thought provoking question in that interview.

Having said that, despite Couric's idiocy, the Edwards' came off incredibly well. Poised, determined, unflustered, courageous and focused.

[still_one]

3. no question about it, the Edwards' did come off well

The implications of her questions were disgusting, the responses only show what a small person katie couric actually is?

[Skittles]

27. I don't watch her because she is a bush whore

you should do the same

[MethuenProgressive]

6. "There was not one interesting or intellectual or thought provoking question in that interview."

Or answer. Edwards came off as his usual smarmy self.

[still_one]

11. I assume you mean smart self, right?

[MethuenProgressive]

15. "Smarmy" - not "smart"

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

[still_one]

22. Again I hope you are talking about his views on the issues, and NOT this personal tradgedy

in their life?

I assume you are referring to his IWR vote among other things?

Incidently, Edwards isn't my first choice, but I have nothing against his healthcare plan or his position today to get COMPLETELY OUT OF IRAQ

[MethuenProgressive]

23. Perhaps you need to look up "smarmy"?

I meant what I said. "Edwards came off as his usual smarmy self."

[still_one]

26. I thought it meant hypocritical, but looking it up ,excessively ingratiating: excessively earnest

and ingratiating in manner

Appreciate the clarification...

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Objection: Couric is not a journalist of any kind

[TomInTib]

2. Sucking up to the crazies for ratings.

Evidently she is down to freeps and Old Folks Homes for an audience.

[still_one]

5. The Edwards rose to the occasion, there was also an opportunity for katie couric

and she failed big time

[TomInTib]

10. "some people" may say...

that this was the beginning of the end for the whore.

Tonight was the first -and definitely the last- time I have seen her in action.

[liberal N proud]

4. She was doing it in the name of the regime!

Couric is a whore for the bu$h regime and will do what ever they ask. I have not watch CBS Evening News once since the day she was placed in that chair. She would be better suited for FAUX than CBS.

[still_one]

7. it sure seems that way

[Colobo]

8. Maybe I'm very naive, but...

I didn't see anything wrong with the interview. I thought the questions were good, and so where the answers!

[TomInTib]

12. Read BobcatJH's post on this.

That way, you will be spared a profanity-laced tirade from me, Katzenkavalier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3181417

[still_one]

13. about as good as glen beck asking the elected Muslim congressman if he can be trusted

I am not trying to be flipant, and I do agree the Edwards' came off well, but the questions took more of a position on her part than a question

[northzax]

14. you have to understand

that there are sacred cows that should only be treated with absolute kid gloves and worshipfullness. look at the reaction when John Stewart turned his rapier wit on Al Gore...

I have my own issues with the Edwards, including Mrs. Edwards, but they are very good politicians and they knew full well what the tone of any interview they granted to any news organization. Katie Couric didn't pick them, they picked her. And let's not forget that they brought this into the public domain, not 60 Minutes.

[Colobo]

16. I share your viewpoint

I respect those who disagree with my view, though.

[still_one]

17. you have your own issues with Edwards, I would hope it regards what he would do as president

because couric could care less for his healthcare plan, how to deal with the Iraq war and the REAL ISSUES

[Colobo]

20. The interview was not going to be about the issues

It was obvious from the start that it was about Elizabeth Edward's cancer and how John thinks that will affect his campaign (the possibility of dropping out, etc.).

[northzax]

24. no, actually

this is a real issue. Because they have made it an issue. Or did I dream the press conference they held last week? They have taken an awful situation and are attempting to turn it in their favour. Who was talking about John Edwards last week? no one. he was an afterthought. now he is back in the public eye again, on news shows, on 60 minutes, on talk shows. Do not forget that you are dealing with a brilliant litigator and a very good natural politician running for President of the United States. Everything he does has to be seen through that prism. Do you suspect that the Edwards would have been featured on 60 minutes this week without this issue coming to light? no. he was drawing a distant third among Democratic candidates. They are trying to turn a stroke of really bad luck into publicity, and publicity is the lifeblood of a flailing campaign.

look at it coldly and rationally. If you think that anything they do publically is not geared towards winning the 2008 election, then you are remarkably naive, and frankly, insulting to them and their talents.

and for the record, my issues concern how they treat the people who work for them. Ever wonder why the people from the Kerry/Edwards campaign, not the high level consultants, but the lower to mid level activists and policy people, don't seem to work for the Edwards campaign? How many of the Edwards' staff from 2004 work for them again this year?

[iamjoy]

30. Not True - You Are Being Unfair

First of all, I know plenty of volunteers from the Kerry campaign who are supporting Edwards this go around.

But even if they weren't, you can't take that as a negative on Edwards (him not treating people well). First of all, it is the primary, so maybe there is another candidate they like better and they are supporting that candidate. That's not a bad on Edwards. It just means they felt there was something better out there. Also, many people may think it's kind of early.

And while I see your point about politics and publicity, if you were to magically give Edwards a choice between not getting that news he got last week versus getting it - which do you think he'd pick? If it is overly naive to reject the possibility of him using the publicity, please do not be cynical as to think he'd prefer the current situation to Elizabeth being cancer free and him getting less coverage.

I would also argue that this could hurt his campaign as much if not more than it helps because I have read the opinion (here on DU, no less) that he is callous and selfish to continue with the campaign. Others have questioned whether he could do the job with a wife who is ill. So, using this for publicity is a gamble.

I'll just see it as trying to make lemonade out of lemons and leave it at that.

[northzax]

32. lemons from lemonade is a good term

and ask how many of the people who worked the closest with them, the ones who know them the best, who are back. I know many of them, do you? how many people who worked for his senate office are on the campaign?

I don't think I am being unfair at all. and yes, if he is the nominee, I will support him, again. and i wish Mrs. Edwards nothing but the best in her continuing fight against cancer.

[JohnnyLib2]

18. Why couldn't the general format have been agreed upon in advance?

I thought her questions set them up well, particularly via her personal experience. Maybe this point will be addressed soon.

Meanwhile, we are certainly in a new era in politics and survival as a cancer patient.

[mediaman007]

9. Once again I can't understand why the media and the right-wing

are interested in the decision of the Edwards. John Edwards is trying to win the nomination of the Democratic Party. If he succeeds, then Couric and her ilk can talk about their perceptions.

While I didn't seen the interview, but I have read several observations here. I haven't read anything about Democrats denouncing the Edwards for their decision. I suspect that Democrats will examine the issues and make their decision based on those issues. If they choose John Edwards, I think it will be due to his stance on issues and whether people think he is the best person to lead this country.

Let the Republicans make their own choices. I don't tell them who to choose.

[edwardsfeingold08]

19. "some say" Katie Couric is a right wing propogandist whore

[devilgrrl]

25. A ten+ million dollar a year salary.

Money trumps compassion

[Zomby Woof]

28. A rare defense of Couric

I am forced to defend Couric, since the general reaction to the interview is the usual over-the-top hand-wringing and ideological projection which passes for criticism in blog-world.

Couric had to walk the fine line down the middle. Not just because that is what a journalist strives to do, but because she knew
she would be scrutinized by ideologues both left and right for any hint of bias or the pushing of some insidious 'agenda'.

I imagine the conservative bloggers are up in arms about the 'softballs' she tossed John and Elizabeth, and saw her purse-lipped expressions of empathy and intent listening to surely brand her a 'flaming moonbat liberal' or other nonsense. Enabling the campaign! Practically forcing us to vote for them!

So it came as no surprise that not only would there be a dozen or so threads about how horrid Couric is appearing within 5 minutes of the broadcast, but most of them containing histrionics which mirror the imagined right-wing example above.

She must have done the interview as fairly as possible, since such polarizing reactions were guaranteed.

It is a journalist's job to play the devil's advocate with hypotheticals and those infamous 'some say' lead-ins. Stylistically, I am of the opinion there are more talented journalists than she, and ones which can frame the questions more gracefully, but she did what she was supposed to do, and although I was not overly impressed with her conduct and control, neither was I chagrined. It is rarely that I ever defend her, but the charges that she was cruel, or deliberately antagonistic, just beg to be refuted.

[Cleita]

29. I asked myself a question when I watched the interview and

I guess I'll ask the same question here.

Why did they dump Christianne Amanpour on "Sixty Minutes", who is a real and high powered journalist and put Katie Couric on instead?

Imagine if Christianne had done the interview.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. There's literally millions and millions of reasons why.