I think Obama handled that stupid comment by Hillary well. he dismissed her complaint as silly while also being witty.

Typo in your post, 10th line.
and yeah quite silly.

I believe that the wheels have all come off of the bus at this point. Commercial break could not have come at a better time for HRC. Initially I thought that the tax return question would have been the sound bite that signaled the end of the campaign.

I was wrong. She has lost it.

birds

"...in her rejoinder"?!? She practically tripped over herself trying to jump in so she could puff herself and try to attack Obama at the same time. And all over semantics. It was a cheap shot, and desperate overreaching.

OK, it's his turn tonite to be magnanimous and gracious. Too funny! Good answer on the vote that he regrets - the Schiavo issue is a good one to go with. Boy, he did really well tonite.

What's he supposed to say?

I hope he dies in a fire?

She can complain about being asked questions first but with the campaign on the line, she's gotten the very last word for the Texas and Ohio debates. Not that important to me but she's the one who threw a fit.

Does anyone else think that Clinton seemed like she lost her edge in the second half the debate? Usually, she tries to use all her speaking time (or more) and get in a rebuttal to every response. This time, she seemed less animated and enthusiastic.

Hmph, I think Obama missed an opportunity at the end. He was trying to be gracious, and forgot that Clinton doesn't have any problem with going for the jugular. He spent his time talking about how qualified she is, and then she spent her time doing the same. The question she has to answer, by the way, is how she can bring about change when she is such a polarizing figure. Obama might be, in her view, a lightweight, but she is a lightning rod.

My word. I must say that I am surprised at how the debate went. Nothing new was covered. We have heard it all before in previous debates.

I was really surprised that Hillery brought nothing new to the final debate. Her campaign looks like it is bankrupt of new ideas to throw in the mix. She sure has been ill served by that bunch of incompetents that have run her campaign.

Amen, OhioGuy.

I think that Hillary did Obama a big favor by getting him to reject Farrakhan. I think the Republicans won't be able to make a big an issue of this.

It was not a gratuitous question. It was not a stupid question. This dopey story has been repeated over and over and over again and it has had a bearing on people who are looking forward to a November election.

I thought Senator Obama hit that one out of the park and that Senator Clinton, frankly, looked silly. I would guess the Obama campaign and certainly many Obama supporters were both happy with the question and pleases with the answer.

I think people are missing a subtlety in Obama's Farrakhan answer. Overall, he did extremely well, but there really is a difference between saying you reject someone's views, and saying you don't want their support and want nothing to do with them. If a white supremacist had come out in favor of Hillary, she would have to say much more than that she disagreed with his racist views. It would not be acceptable for her to say "I can't help it if he likes me," which is basically what Obama said of Farrakhan. It was a bizarre mistake by Barack to be less than categorical on the subject.

Yes, he denounced, and yes, he renounced, but WHY DIDN'T HE REPUDIATE?!

Tomorrow's Fox & Friends:

Steve Doocy: BARACK OBAMA WAS ASKED POINT BLANK ABOUT FARRAKHAN ANDHE FAILED TO REPUDIATE HIM! We'll be joined later by Ann Coulter who will explain why Obama's failure to repudiate Farrakhan could spell trouble for his campaign. [Cue Osama picture for Obama, which will be "regretted" by Fox three days later in a murmured apology during the overnight shift]

Will some one PLEASE open a can of Whup-Ass on both Tim Russert and Brian Williams. Never such a pathetic set of debate monitors than these two peas from MSNBC's dysfunctional pod than these two.

If only there could have been tought "clouds" above the heads of Russert and Williams during the questioning. Maybe we would have seen what really on their minds: "I'm wearing pantyhose and only I know it.", or "After this is over, I'm heading for Swingo's in downtown Cleveland and I'll belt down my dinner.", or "Is Hillary really a blonde?", or "Damn, why does Barack always uptage me by wearing better ties?"

This was a real snoozer and no matter how Mssrs Russert and Williams did their dam best to mix it up and throw curve balls at both candidates, both of these bozos demonstrated why they will never aspire to be more than talking heads who have difficulty in reading a teleprompter. If truth be told, Sen. Clinton seemed tired, like the same type of "tired" George Herbert Walker Bush exhibited when he debated William Jefferson Clinton back in 1992. Sen. Clinton is a fighter, but me thinks her inner self has told her the truth... not this time Hillary.

I don't agree that the Farrakhan question was gratuitous. It is one of the things that is going to dog Obama, so he may as well confront it and deal with it. Russert did him a favor by asking the question, and Hillary did him a further favor by trying to one-up Obama, and then he clinched it with the "reject and denounce" bon mot. It was the best laugh line of the night, and that always helps. In that little exchange, Obama showed that he has a quick and ready wit.

The other big laugh line was when he said "Sounds nice" to Hillary's "everything will be perfect" antic.

My opinion: the debate was fairly even on debating points, but Hillary seemed forced and edgy while Obama was relaxed and confident. Hillary needed a lot more than she gave tonight to knock Obama off momentum. Advantage: Obama.

My point was that she wanted credit for bravery, as if she might pay a price for rejecting the support of anti-Semites, when in a state with a large Jewish population, the exact opposite is true.

It seemed like she was trying to find a way to attack him, but that was a real stretch. Especially since, as Josh pointed out, she started off sounding like she was going to say something classy but instead took a cheap shot.

"What in the world was Russert's point?"

To create an opening for the Republicans to insert the Farrakhan "issue" into the campaign -- so that the corporate media can spend the next week insinuating to their suburban white viewing audience that Obama is actually the reincarnation of Malcolm X.

I mean, DUH.

On the other hand, I guess it's a sign of how far we've progressed as a nation that the ruling elites only try to tear down strong black leaders through character assassination -- instead of the real thing.

Knock on wood.

I cannot watch the debates that include Tim Russert. He makes me break out in hives. Judging by the live blog, I'm glad I didn't turn it on tonight. My eye started twitching just watching the Farrakhan clip buffer.

Bring on Obama-McCain!

I thought Obama missed a chance to correct the record on the campaign finance "pledge" he supposedly "signed." Obama never agreed to limit himself to public financing in the general election. He should have told Russert plainly that he didn't have his facts straight, and was simply repeating a right-wing talking point. Instead, Obama simply defended the idea of pursuing an agreement with McCain, and left himself open to the McCain campaign's continuing baseless attacks.

Obama also fumbled in describing McCain's current FEC woes, missing an opportunity to point out that McCain seems to be having a big problem with both the letter and spirit of McCain-Feingold.

I agree with frankly0. I think the entire Farrakahn issue was drawn out by Russert, but Obama's refusal to denounce him at first with the excuse that "I can't tell someone who thinks im a good guy not to like me" and then follow up with an arguement that makes Hillary look like she's playing the semantics game was completely bogus. The media has an uncanny way of making Obama their golden boy.

It's not the media who makes Obama look good, it's Obama (in this case with some help from Hillary). I was cringing as he initially refused to reject Farrakahn's support. He was going to end it that way, which would have been bad for him. Hillary would have done best to just stay out of it, but no! She has to step in and try to show how much better she is; she *rejected* the support of antisemites. So then Obama comes back with a nifty jujitsu move that (1) elimnates the bad taste left by his initial refusal to reject, and (2) makes Hillary look petty. A brilliant recovery.

Actually, there is a difference between denounced and reject. Denounce is stronger! Check any dictionary. Clinton not only was wrong politically, she was wrong linguistically. She gave Obama a chance to show what he does so well: defuse and deflect, with good humor. I think these are very important tools in the arsenal of a president, and that exchange made me respect him more and her less.

Russert's Farrakahn question to Obama came at a time in the debate when the candidates were being asked very specific questions. No response from Clinton was sought or necessary. She interrupted and volunteered her perspective, trying to distort what Obama had said in hopes of creating trouble for him with Jewish voters. Wedge politics ala Bush-Rove.

I hope the Farrakahn question, mutiple Russert follow-ups, and Hillary's intervention to try and confuse and distort the exchange, is recognized as ample evidence that Hillary is not the only candidate scrutinized by the media. And this is the type of attack that a Democratic candidate might well expect from the right. Obama was calm,resolute, value-grounded, presidential in the way he handled it and the persistent prodding from the moderator and his opponent.

I think Obama will do fine against the McCain. I think he will do better agains the "Republican attack machine" because, unlike the Clintons, he does not view political attacks as sport or go out of his way to turn politics into a mud fight.

In the Clinton spirit, I would suggest that "lost her edge" is not nearly strong enough. "Lost her every loving mind," would seem to me to be more accurate.

The brilliant, hillarious Maureen Dowd says Hillary has turned into the multiple-personalitied Sybil:

"After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.

Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/opinion/27dowd.html?th&emc=th

Good try, but it is very hard to perceive Hillary as logical and noble on this question or any other.

Try "calculated", "contrived," "desperate" for a better fit.

New entry in Webster's English dictionary:

Asshole (n): Tim Russert.

It's because Obama is intellectually honest. By definition, you can't reject praise from someone who has done nothing more than state that praise. If Farrakhan offered to campaign with Obama, do publicity for him, etc., Obama would then have something to reject. But Farrakhan has not done that. In fact, he's only made a few sparse comments that the media picked up on. I think that it's much more reassuring to have a president who, by default, views dilemmas and presents them to the public with the honesty and analysis that the public deserves. Hillary's vacuous resoluteness on this matter was only reassuring in the very short term. I would add that no one in the media has really pointed out how faulty her comeback, "we can't let people say these things" was. We all know that in this country, you can't stop someone from saying [most] things. This only further demonstrates why Obama is in no position to take any harder line on Farrakhan, who has only, to this point, 'said' things.

Most ridiculous hypothetical question asked by blowhard Tim Russert....to Obama I think, "What would you do if the New Russian President uses troops to help the Serbs retake Kosovo?" Well Tim, I would reject and denounce it.

Am I the only one that found the Hillary response to the describe the new Russian president question posed by Russert to be vacuous? She has been pushing her credentials as a defense and international relations expert. Then when he closed in for the kill, asking what's his name, you know the president of Russia, she mumbles "mevde something" followed by an uncomfortable laugh. What was that?

This has been said by others, and more eloquently, but I want to reiterate the point:

Hillary should have remained silent when Obama refused the "rejection" formula presented by Russert. Whereas technically Obama was correct in his thinking about the distinction between denounce and reject, from a political perspective, it's more powerful to reject. Therefore, if Hillary had kept her trap shut, she would have had a talking point today with legs, but she couldn't resist attacking him (bad political instincts). As a result, Obama "extended and revised" his remarks to take into account that he "denounced and rejects" Farrakhan's endorsement. She provided him with the necessary cover to deflect the right wing noise machines inevitable attack that Barack was soft on his position vis-a-vis Farrakhan. Well done Hillary!