ABC managed to embarrass themselves even more than Obama and Clinton.
As for why, questions like this might explain it. Hey George, the English language phoned in a request that you stop assaulting it. Jeebus, what kind of question is that? Heads, I win; tails you lose!
Oh, and memo to Charlie Gibson: If you're going to invoke the United States Constitution, try to have a *%&$ clue what you are talking about. When asking about the possibility of a joint ticket, he referenced, IIRC, Art. 2, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. This dealt (more on that) with the selection process for POTUS & VPOTUS, and said, in essence, that the candidate with the most electoral votes would be President and the candidate with 2nd most electoral votes would be VP. Gibson concluded by saying something to the effect of, "If it worked in colonial times, why not now?"
Where to begin? For one, colonial time? I never realized the Founders wrote the Constitution BEFORE the Declaration of Independence. After all, colonial seems inappropriate when discussing an INDEPENDENT NATION.
Of course, the whole premise was an atrocity. Apparently, 'ole Chuck Gibson never heard of the 12th Ammendment, which repealed the very section he was using to justify the question. OOPS!
Finally, the Constitution has NOTHING to do with a political party selecting a VP nominee, beyond the basic requirements for POTUS entailed in the document. Remember, the document was written BEFORE political parties formed, so using it as the basis for this particular question was, ummmm, puzzling.
As for teh awesome, read this John Cole rant.