Post Debate Roundup, Philly Edition
A few last-minute odds and ends on the debate...
* There were questions about Wright, "small town," and Obama's flag-pin (or lack thereof), and none about Mark Penn or Colombia. The Clinton camp, which has been arguing that Obama hasn't received the front-runner's treatment yet, is very happy about this tonight.
* The Obama campaign, perhaps in a sign of urgency, rushed out a statement from campaign manager David Plouffe, emphasizing Hillary's attacks again and again. An excerpt...
"Tonight we saw a real choice between the old politics of point-scoring and distraction and a politics that focuses on bringing us together to actually solve the challenges we talk about every single election. Continuing the theme of her campaign, Senator Clinton used every single opportunity she had to launch misleading attack after misleading attack against Barack Obama, which is why polls show that most Americans think she's running the most negative campaign and don't believe she's trustworthy."
By contrast, the Hillary campaign didn't send out any statement; they think they won. Instead, their official reaction to the debate was to post this vid of a Philly focus group reacting to it...
* In an intriguing post-script, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson appeared to defend ABC's silly gotcha conduct tonight. Asked on MSNBC by Keith Olbermann whether the candidates should really agree to debates such as these, Wolfson said that he thought that there were in fact some substantive questions, then added...
I think it's appropriate here for viewers at home here in Pennsylvania and around the country to look at these candidates. And how they answer some of the political questions that also come up because this is a political campaign and I think Senator Obama was asked a number of those kinds of questions, the kinds of questions that he's likely to see if he's the nominee in the fall. And he didn't handle them very well. And I think that voters watching at home will certainly take that into account.
It's in keeping with the Hillary camp's increasingly frequent argument that the Repubs are going to hit Obama with this stuff should he become the nominee -- so, hey, there's nothing wrong with us hitting him with the same stuff now.
Nonetheless, ABC is going to take a tremendous hit for this one. Obama supporters -- and perhaps some high-profile surrogates, as well -- will be expressing their displeasure with the network in no uncertain terms in the days ahead.
Now, over to you....
Yep, she won.
April 16, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
won what?
April 16, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He lost the debate, genius.
BHO even out-stammered himself tonight. I guess when you can't answer a question truthfully you just stammer out something unintelligible, then change the subject. How lame. The American people will see through this liberal-elitist fraud of a candidate.
I commend ABC for doing a fair job with their debate. CNN and MSNBC should take notes.
April 16, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's be absolutely clear...you're leaning towards Clinton?
April 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama did fine.
I thought ABC clearly lost. The first hour was absolutely moronic, and Stephanopolous asked the question fed to him by Sean Hannity of Fox News. They asked about 4 media manufactured issues before anything about the war or the economy. They asked no questions about healthcare or the environment, and bad questions about the economy.
Clinton flat-out admitted that she lied about Bosnia in answer to a voter's video question. I doubt that voter will "look past" it.
She also gave up her mastery of policy title by not knowing what the top capital gains tax rate was during her husband's administration. It was 28%, not 20%. She seemed adrift during that discussion. It was unfair b/c Charlie Gibson was trying to get them to stipulate to an untrue fact.
April 17, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone else notice that Obama called Gibson "sir?" How wierd is that?
April 17, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when John Kerry won all 3 debates against George W Bush in 2004.
It was a defining moment that marked President Kerry's surge to the oval office. No wait, it was insignificant.
April 17, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? You think that Kerry won all three debates? You've got to be kidding me!
April 17, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you thought Bush won a single debate?!?
Bush may be great at using wedge issues to win close elections.
But a good debater? No.
April 17, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were pretty much all ties in my opinion. Kerry was OK, but nowhere near good enough to significantly sway voters. Last night, the debate was not a tie.
April 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judged by any objective standard, such as mastery of the issues being discussed or answering the questions coherently, yes, John Kerry won all three debates.
Judged by who seemed like a nicer fellow, perhaps Bush held his own.
Judged by whose flacks spun the media best afterward, Bush won by a mile.
I would use the first criteria, but your mileage may vary.
April 17, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did he stammer? He had to repeat himself quite a bit because he kept getting interrupted, but he never stammered. Also, lying? He didn't lie at the debate, what the hell are you talking about? Oh wait, typical Hillbot, only sees what Hillary wants them to see.
Whatever, keep talking out your ass, I'll be thinking of you when she gives her concession speech.
April 18, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Socialists for Obama! Workers unite! Religion is the opiate of the masses! Solidarity, brothers and sisters!
April 16, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the time of writing some 16000 people over at the ABC poll disagrees with those who say that Hillary won the debate. They have Obama clobbering Clinton 3/1
April 17, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He had an off night, but it's not going to effect him or his support.
Maybe we can watch the Obama/Casey inauguration together, sweets!
April 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He had an off night, but it's not going to effect him or his support.
Maybe we can watch the Obama/Richardson inauguration together, sweets!
April 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was nobody's finest night tonight.
Not Obama, not Hillary and certainly not ABC. Perhaps George Steph can get Cokie Roberts and her Texas polygamy lady hairdo on this weekend to tell us all exactly why it was such a good debate.
I think the fallout of ABC's performance will certainly be pretty big and will undercut the off night Obama had.
April 16, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a joke.
Obama HIMSELF is responsible for the long-winded dodgey answers he gave. He STRETCHED that opening part MUCH longer than he needed to.
He should have answered the questions directly, and moved on. Instead, he blew hot air with very little sense of direction.
April 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't seen the debate yet, but judging from these comments and others, sounds like Obama's come out a little bloodied. ABC may not have been impartial, but surely his supporters want to see how he responds under fire? And it's not like he hasn't benefited from partial mediators in the past! One of the reasons a lot of us support Hillary is due to her performance when the going gets tough.
April 17, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...how she responds under fire.."
I presume that includes such tough resilience as shedding a few tears...really tough!
April 17, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talking about New Hampshire, no? Firstly, not a tear was shed. Secondly, she wasn't under fire, but responding to an empathetic question. Thirdly, my girlfriend has a bit of a cry every now and then, and she's tough.
April 17, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Margaret Thatcher cried in public almost every day.
April 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Stephanopoulos had just managed to obtain some credibility on ABC before tonight. He did, however, get Clinton to say that Obama would beat McCain, as stupid as that is as a question (when you think about it), so that was worth something, and was one of the few items that I saw replayed this morning. So that does limit Clinton's opportunity to be a naysayer over the next few days.
I am hoping that Pennsylvanians might be voting like they have a tooth ache: we might hate the dentist, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to end the pain. In this case, the pain is the primary election season. One can dream.
April 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"sign of urgency"
I agree, Plouffe saw the B.S. as all viewers!
April 16, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lucky me, I'm on the West Coast. I get to skip this train wreck since I've already read the Cliff notes.
DHinMI at Daily Kos notes that ABC panelists failed to ask anything about the following:
But who cares about any of that crap. I wanna know why Obama dudn't think he needin' to be wearin' his flag pin, dognabit!!!
April 16, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...You'd think that with the POTUS recently admitting to approving torture, that something along those lines would be hit. But nope, we got 100% bullshit.
April 16, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Those moderators took America for a bunch of gossiping idiots tonight.
April 17, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Obama had said, "You know who really displays contempt for the American people? The mainstream media--who seem to think the American people want to pick their president based on his willingness to wear a flag pin and similar inanities; and so you, in the media, endlessly obsess about these topics "on behalf" of the American people you so clearly despise.
April 17, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He would have been called a whiner then. -.-
April 17, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
He should have taken the shot. We call him a whiner anyway.
April 17, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Clinton campaign would respond by insisting that America is a bunch of gossiping idiots which is why it's so very important to vet candidates in this way.
Clinton understands that the only thing left for her campaign to do is to mouth GOP talking points and hope that they destroy Obama. Her supporters seem completely on board this strategy.
The saddest thing from the point of view of the Democratic Party is that this has absolutely zero chance of getting Clinton the nomination...but it just might get McCain the presidency.
The saddest thing from the point of view of our nation is that we have to rely on this sorry excuse for an opposition party to repair the damage of the last seven years.
April 17, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Democrats constantly blame their debauchery on the GOP? Hillary's using GOP talking points if she attacks Obama. Anything y'all think is underhanded on your candidates part you call Rove-like or Atwater tactics. When will you realize that you guys play gutter ball with the best of them? Al Gore was the first to bring up Willie Horton. Dems came up with the racially charged "Byrd" ads and "vote Republican and a black church will burn" ads. You want gutter tactics...two words James Carville! Ask one of those bitter smalltowners if you can borrow their Bible and read Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
April 17, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC, not that this will change your mind, but the very fact that you believe Gore brought up Willie Horton gives you away. Al Gore brought up Dukakis' policy of weekend passes for convicted criminals. That's it. George Bush turned it into a racial issue by making all about Willie Horton. There is, of course, a vast difference, but you'll never hear that while listening to Hannity.
April 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I prefer Neal Boortz over Hannity.
April 17, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and while Al Gore never said "Willie Horton" he did talk about the Governor's resistance to shutting down the furlough program even after the "horrific incident" speaking about the attack and rape by Willie Horton.
April 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that I'll never select a candidate without understanding their commitment to the bill of rights, the constitution, and to basic rules of justice. Of course, we didn't learn about any of that tonight. Worst debate ever.
April 17, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did if you were paying attention, Obama said:
"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right,"
Does that apply only to the 2nd? What about freedom of the press? Free association? Speech? Religion? Voter rights? Religion? Redress grievances?...
April 17, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn Dude,
You're not paying attention like you claim to be. Last I checked you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so yes rights like free speech have limits (see also libel and slander).
April 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and how specifically does me owning a gun infringe on your rights? (which is the argument for your examples)
April 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I didn't say it infringed on my rights. The reason you can't yell fire in a (crowded) theater is because it endangers other people. So your ownership of a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but what you do with it might endanger other people. That isn't to say you shouldn't be able to own one, but that there probably should be some limits on your right to own one, just like there are on our other rights.
Your point (above) seemed to be that only the 2nd Ammendment was being singled out for limits, when in fact we have limits on most of our rights. So are you in fact saying the 2nd Ammendment should have no limits on it whatsoever?
Further, Obama actually got an endoresement from a moderate gun owners group:
April 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supports the D.C. ban on handguns and says he thinks it is Constitutional for local governments to ban them. You don't ban speech to prevent libel or ban publishing to prevent slander. How is it Constitutional to completely strip a citizen of a constitional right to attempt to prevent them from participating in an already illegal activity? Seriously, banning Catholicism would prevent any child from being molested by a priest...somehow I don't see that being proposed.
April 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it Constitutional to completely strip a citizen of a constitional right
Banning handguns isn't completely stripping a constitutional right since shotguns and hunting rifles are still allowed in DC. You're really making quite the strawman out of this in which any limit on guns is interpreted as "completely stripping" a constitutuional right, so again, I ask you to respond to my previous question:
Why is placing certain limits on gun ownership equivalent to stripping a citizen of their 2nd Ammendment rights? We have limits on other constitutional rights so why is the 2nd Ammendment the one right that needs to be unlimited?
April 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why wasn't Hillary wearing a flag pin?
April 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same reason Obama wasn't, most likely.
I think Obama sucks, but it would've been nice of the ABC pin-heads had asked her the question at the same time they asked Obama the question.
April 17, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why wasn't Hillary wearing a flag pin?" Outstanding comment! I'm amazed I never noticed. This is a sexist smear campaign. Girls don't gotta cause we say so. GAG. I'm a female and it gags Me big time. How can Washington politicians wear our flag on their lapel and brag about their patriotism and do the things they do every day with a straight face. They wear the pin and send our kids to die and when they come home broken, the pols don't provide the money to take care of them.
THREE TRILLION DOLLARS FOR BAGHDAD BUT NOT ONE RED CENT FOR AMERICANS. AND THEY CALL THAT PATRIOTIC!!!
April 17, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know that Obama has Special Superpowers and can see into the heart and soul of another human being and state definitively that the person loves America.
If he cannot look into another's soul and find patriotism, he does not deserve my vote!
April 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
A really canny answer to this question if you were trying to pander to Pennsylvanians would be to note that he thinks the real sign of patriotism in a president isn't to wear flag pins made in China, but to start working on the serious economic and other issues that have arisen from the de-industrialization of America. Kind of answers the question but highlights the inanity of it at the same time it panders to a real voter concern.
April 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the debate was pretty awful. Apparently they think the most important issues for PA voters are
*Flag pins
*Acquaintances from local neighborhoods (Ayers)
*Bittergate
*Wright
So who exactly is elitist and condescending. Hillary was sounding like a freeper. It was pretty bad.
April 16, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Texas polygamy lady hairdo"
Omigosh! That is the best!
Tonight the moderators were auditioning for Shame Across America.
April 16, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm here all week. Try the ribs.
April 16, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC now stands for Assault Black Candidate.
April 16, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"assault black candidate"
What an asshole you are, "liam". Are you really this stupid, or are you just here to pick up guys?
April 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't debate moderated by journalists in some thoughtful manner in an effort to discuss (or debate, even!) issues, it was a hit job.
April 16, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for debates than Barack Obama.
April 16, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you related to idiotic?
April 16, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator, I served with idiotic: I knew idiotic; idiotic was a friend of mine. commenter, you're no idiotic.
April 16, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ughh 24 more hours until i can see Jons take on this, i really could use some of his comedy to vent.
April 16, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that some of the Supers that are referenced here are going to step up soon.
April 16, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
integrity: I'm hoping those Superdelegates noted well the part of the debate in which, after Hillary again said something about how she's been attacked for 15 years by the Republican attack machine, Obama said that she's indeed been attacked by the Republicans, but she came away with the wrong lesson, and has taken to using Republican tactics.
Yes, I hope they consider that carefully.
April 17, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, you're all just used to MSNBC and Clinton haters such as Tim Russert, Tweety and Keith Olbertwit. It's so funny seeing the Obama Cultists cry foul now. The MSNBC/NBC debate was a hatchet job on Clinton. If Barry O wants to be POTUS, he's in the big leagues. Stop crying, be a man, grow a pair.
April 16, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, calling him "Barry" doesn't at all make you sound like a petty, embittered crank. It's really quite clever and scores huge points for your candidate.
April 16, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally switched my vote next Tuesday. (Sheesh.)
April 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really. Call him by his real name: The Dear Leader.
April 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - I could care less that Obama lost this debate, and he did but this has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the issues and the absolute ridiulousness of the MSM and the insane topics of this election. I am SICK SICK SICK of it. I am sick of talking about rev Wright, I am sick of talking about Bitter-gate and yes, I am even sick of talking about Bosnia.
None of those things make one friggin bit of difference to my life. Lets talk about the war or even Hillary's bread and butter health care but lets talk of something of substance.
No one is whining, we are just sick to death of this stupidity by the media and marginal players like yourself.
April 16, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I seem to remember some stuff about ABC polling to find out what was on the minds of Pennsylvania voters. So maybe -- just maybe -- they were asking questions based on those polls. But what the hell, we all know those small town Pennsylvanians are morons. No? So maybe we should just agree the questions just reflected the moronic values of Pennsylvanians. What the answers reflected, I'll let you decide. Good debate. Obama must really be depressed. But it's not his money he's blowing. Why should he worry. Dig deep. You'll all feel better if you make a contribution.
April 16, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I seem to remember some stuff about ABC polling to find out what was on the minds of Pennsylvania voters. So maybe -- just maybe -- they were asking questions based on those polls. But what the hell, we all know those small town Pennsylvanians are morons.
So, let me get this straight. ABC -- and apparently Billy Glad -- think that:
-- the minds of Pennsylvania voters, particularly small-town Pennsylvania voters, are focused far more on a perceived slight (which, if read in context, was a hell of a lot more sympathetic than the Hillbots, the Republicans, and the corporate media -- all of whom are on the same side -- make it out to be),
-- rather than:
o The banking crisis brought about through 30 years of Republican and Clintonian rule
o The collapse of housing values
o Afghanistan
o Health care
o Torture
o The free-fall of the US Dollar
o Education
o Trade
o Pakistan
o Energy
o Immigration
o The decline of American manufacturing and the shipping of our manufacturing capacity (and jobs) overseas, to be sold to the lowest bidder
o The Supreme Court
o The exploding world food crisis
o Global warming
o China
o The attacks on organized labor and the working class
o Terrorism and al Qaeda
o Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance
o The expansion of the imperial presidency and the President's assertions that he is above the law.
(h/t Daily Kos and afferent input)
I guess for ABC and for Billy Glad, such concerns are off the radar of those simple small-town Pennsylvania folk. ABC, and Billy glad, think that they would much rather talk about a perceived slight from one of the candidates. ABC and Billy Glad think those simple folk don't care about all those wonky policy issues (are they too stupid, perhaps? Or lacking in education?), the ones that will define our lives for the next hundred years or so. No, according to ABC and Billy Glad, it's a comment at a fundraiser, and 30 seconds of words from a pastor, that really matter to the voters of Pennsylvania.
But Billy Glad, of course, is no elitist. No sirree. And neither is Charlie Gibson, or ABC.
Riiiiiiight.
April 17, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were still posting at DailyKos and saw this comment, I'd give you a 4...no a 'rec'.
April 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And... hmmm... I remember the days when our friend Billy Glad preached to the world that he had "got beyond cann and response when I was a teen", and how he therefore found the Obama campaign "incredibly entertaining."
Not that that was elitist, or anything like that, mind you.
Or when Billy derided Obama's emphasis on faith and religion in his campaign as "building a campaign on the ignorance of the electorate."
Funny, Billy didn't seem to like it when Obama said:
Billy quoted that speech, in the same thread I linked to above, and then dismissed it all with "I guess we can't say he didn't warn us. In a world where more people believe in angels than in evolution, what can we expect?"
My, my, Billy. How times do change, eh?
Not that Billy is elitist about religion, or anything like that.
It's pretty clear that for Billy Glad, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
April 17, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really not know where the candidates stand on those issues by now. This is about character now. Period. You believe Clinton lacks it. I believe Obama lacks it. There is really nothing left to debate, is there? So don't be tedious. Obama displayed his character for everyone to see last night. If you like what you saw, celebrate. That is your candidate unwired. But please don't hide behind the fact that he didn't get to give his stump speech on the "issues."
April 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is about character now. Period.
Spoken like a true Republican. The history of modern Republican campaigning is to tell people to ignore the things a president actually does that affect their lives, and instead focus on the idea that their candidate who traded in his supportive wife for a younger and more politically-connected model "shares their values."
Fortunately for the country, the polls this time seem to be showing either that this isn't "about character, period" or that voters aren't stupid enough to believe that flag pins and whose party you went to constitute "character."
April 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that was one of the most incoherent rants I've heard in the echo chamber. I can't tell who or what you're talking about. Republican? That's an argument? Tedious.
April 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He means, "Get back to the issues like I'm multi-ethnic/cultural, younger, and speak of hope and change, and the press likes me better so there won't be 4/8 years of divisiveness". Though perhaps he'll scratch the last part off his stump spe... oops, debate responses.
April 18, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the marks of a shill is the ability to pivot, change the subject from what you are talking about from what you want to be talking about. Another mark of a shill is that what you want to be talking about changes constantly, sometimes 180 degrees, depending on what's advantageous in the moment.
Billy Glad claimed that ABC's questions were based on what they determined small-town Pennsylvanians wanted to hear about... substantive issues like flag lapel pins, 30 seconds out of a preacher's career, comments at a fundraiser. Billy Glad therefore attempted to make the case that small-town Pennsylvania voters care more about those "issues" than a 30-year history of attacks on organized labor and the working class; the Supreme Court; food crises; a President asserting powers of a king or a dictator; farm, health, and industrial policy; and much more. For Billy Glad to claim that small-town Pennsylvanians don't care about these issues, the ones that actually will affect their lives in ways that flag lapel pins won't, insults the intelligence and savvy of small-town Pennsylvania voters and is, therefore, elitist.
Billy Glad also made a 180-degree turn on religion. Quite recently on these blogs he was mocking the "call and response" aspects of Obama's delivery, claiming that he had "gotten over" all that. A highly elitist slam on other people's religious practices and faith, as I pointed out in the relevant thread. Now, all of a sudden, Obama is an elitist when he points out that people who have been slammed economically sometimes seek refuge in faith -- despite Bill Clinton having said very similar things in his 1992 Presidential campaign.
So now, all of a sudden, Billy Glad doesn't want to talk about any of that. Now Billy Glad wants to claim that it's all about "character." (Of course, it's all about Obama's "character," rather than what, let us say, lying about an experience in Bosnia about supposedly running from airplane to shelter under enemy fire reveals about Hillary Clinton's "character," or what lying about her AND Obama's positions on NAFTA reveals about her "character", or hiring a union-busting, Big Oil/Big Tobacco shill as her chief campaign strategist reveals about her "character".) Billy Glad's own playing fast and loose with history, including his own; his own elitist beliefs about small town Pennsylvania voters -- what? Oh, look -- over there -- quick! A character! Look closely, and look hard, or you'll miss it... and don't pay any attention to any of the other stuff coming from Billy Glad's keyboard.
It is, in fact, Billy Glad who is revealing his "character."
April 23, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
More from Billy Glad on religion:
That post is followed by a longer one from Billy, in which he quotes Obama's words that I reqpute above.
You see, when Obama discusses religion in positive terms, for Billy Glad, that's "building a campaign on the ignorance of the electorate." Not that that's an elitist comment or anything. When the media takes a comment by Obama that's actually sympathetic to small-town voters if you bother to read the whole thing, and spins it into a comment that, at absolute worst, agrees with what Billy Glad wrote in the material I quoted, that, to Billy Glad, is elitist.
Breathtaking.
April 23, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call the Whaaambulance.
Too funny.
April 16, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hammer and Sickle are vote getters too.
April 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to Obama as it seems to reflect his friend William C. ("Bill") Ayers who held a fund-raiser for Barry O after he had stated: "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."
April 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why kill the messenger? It was a good debate, Obama by all account lost. He was resentful and lacked clear answers. He still doesn't get the problems with some of his recent comments. And its about time we get some new questions at a debate instead of the policy discussions that have been exhaused in the past 25 debates.
It is entertaining to see all the whining here. If Obama can't handle this how in the world could he handle a general election?! Obviously he can't and a lot of you are shocked to see your candidate fall flat on his face.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 16, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone minds the questions. I'm an Obama supporter, and I know these questions'll come up, and need to be answered.
But when even Pat Buchanan calls it a biased debate, and Ed Rendell goes on a tear w/ABC over their conduct, you have a problem. I mean, the flag pin, really? Come on, man!
Questions are fine. A witch-hunt is not -- and that's exactly what this was.
April 16, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, if thats a recent picture, congratulations!
Well, I guess congrats even if the pic is old.
April 16, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think he's going to eat them
AARGH CLINTON SUPPORTER HUNGERS FOR INNOCENT BLOOD
April 17, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall writes:
Reject and Denounce!
For once I agree, it is time to reject Barack Obama and denounce him for the fraud that he is.
April 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am skimming all most of the usual blogs and Gibson and sidekick George is getting killed on all of the blogs.
the fact that tonight's debate was so poor on substance is what will be remembered the most and talked about the next few days, so the gains for Hillary wont be much
April 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much the Times take. Though they point out that Obama held back from taking low blows at Hillary while she....well, was just that inimitable Hillary we've all come to know and hope we dont' have to vote for.
April 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
George and Charlie decided that they were invited to debate Senator Obama. They both kept interrupting him and tossing in counter point comments. They never did ot HIllary.
Barack did great against the debate tag team of Hillary, Charlie and Smurfanopolis.
April 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most disturbing thing that occurred to me tonight (and maybe I'm way behind the curve, here) is that there seems to be a developing consensus that the GOP will always win by default; that the Dem nominee's only path to victory is to hold up under the barrage of nonsense attacks from the GOP.
While there's a shred of legitimacy to the GOP-defense argument, it completely discounts the idea that fundamentals, policy positions, count for anything. The MSM seems to be treating policies as beside the point. This debate tonight was the most clear, unequivocal evidence of GOP Victory-bias I've seen.
And on the issue of Obama's performance, I thought he was pretty awful, and I'm a supporter. But to be fair, a Kos diarist made a really valid point; were this actually a general election debate, Obama could turn and pivot on McCain and blast away without restraint. He's really boxed in having to answer these general election questions with a fellow Dem for an opponent. I think that reality was written all over his face tonight.
Sigh.
April 16, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually worse than that. It's not only that the Republicans are supposed to win by default. The DLC Democrats have so internalized that idea that they believe they must BE Republicans to win. They don't even want to contest the election on issues and philosophy. All they want to do is compete to see who can run the most negative campaign ads.
April 16, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight's debate was a Republican-style piling on--4 against 1: Stefanopoulos, Gibson, Hillary, and the ghost of Sean Hannity vs. Obama.
Hillary was sickening in her pandering to the right-wing, with her phony self-righteous comments about Wright, Farrakhan (!), William Ayers, Obama's "elitist insults" against people of faith, blah, blah, etc. Jesus. It's getting difficult to remember Hillary and some of her most devout followers are supposed to be Democrats!
This piling on did put Obama on the defensive, but I think he did a good job reinforcing one of his main campaign messages: that the American people are sick of the phony distractions that make up this gotcha! style of politicking. He said it every time one of these bullshit "issues" was raised. It seems like neither Hillary nor the debate moderators understands this.
This is a different election. The old-style crap isn't working any more. It's a little sickening but amusing to watch the Hillary campaign and the lazy, brain-free MSM help Obama reinforce his message.
Hillary's hangin' herself with her own rope. It'll be the same during the general election, when the Republicans try pulling the same insulting crap.
April 17, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because eveyone knows that Republicans don't have policy positions or ideas. P.S. You shouldn't follow a sentence belittling religion with a superfluous use of the word "Jesus." It's not good form.
April 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree about the attitude of some democrats.You just have to look at the negative campaigning and underhand tactics from the one camp on these primaries.In fact, they come through as quite Bitter and cling to their negative campaigns in the hope of salvaging whatever is left of their chances of winning the nomination.
April 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking along similar lines. Some one on another blog was saying it was up to Obama to turn the inanity of the questions back on Stephanopolous and Gibson. Hell, Clinton was following their lead as it was. She just wants to drag this thing out more.
Anyway, I wonder how many people actually watched, especially how many undecideds.
April 16, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point! The entire media is covering the campaign now from the stand point of how badly the GOP is going to slander and "swiftboat" the Dem candidate and not whether the American people are going to vote based on actual issues.
They just assume that the GOP is going to be able to define the conversation to their advantage in every turn and the hapless Dems are just going to have to try to stand up against it. As Rachel Maddow said tonight; this is Hillary Clinton's entire point to her campaign. That the only chance a Dem has in the fall is to stand up to this amazing GOP onslaught and that she is the only one who they have already kitchen sinked and the media is covering the campaign as such.
April 16, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They played "guilt by association" for a half hour with Obama but didn't make a peep about Bill or Mark Penn's adventures in Colombia. What a sham.
April 16, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I am at a loss to understand my fellow Obama supporters saying what an awful night our guy had. I thought that neither of them did very well with the drivel questions at the beginning and then suddenly with the advent of the Iraq question things started moving more and more towards substance and both of them acquitted themselves very well at that point. The post-debate focus groups mean nothing - does no one remember the wonderful focus group response to Romney's NH debate performance? Our guy did just fine, as did Sen Clinton. They both have reason to be proud (although, as you might imagine, I was more impressed by Obama's performance than by Clinton's).
April 16, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has made Hillary, George and Gibson look like fools so far....half way through on the W. Coast.
April 16, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you're a blithering tool.
April 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite possibly, yes. That said, I am sticking to my guns - Obama did not lose this debate and I cannot see where folks on my side of this divide are getting that impression. Nobody had a great night (how can one, with questions as silly as we had tonight) but he did fine all the same. I will be very surprised if the voters of PA were not impressed by his performance tonight.
April 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
You are never a tool. However, as usual, you answer an insult with dignity. Good for you! (What a tacky statement, LeroyS! )
FWIW, I agree with you completely about Obama's performance. But I disagree about your assessment of Sen. Clinton's performance. I was truly disappointed in her pandering to those ridiculous Republican-style attacking points--and even adding her tacky little right-wing punches. Sheesh!
The moderation of this debate was downright embarrassing. I heard someone describe Stephanopoulos's and Gibson's performance as tabloid style. I think that's appropos.
April 17, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you and I are in greater agreement than you think, but we are talking about different things. I agree that, considered from the perspective "who behaved honorably here?" that the answer that Obama did and Clinton did not. Her performance reflected poorly on herself as a person.
Considered, however, from the perspective "who behaved well as a candidate - that is to say, whose performance tonight served to win him/her votes which s/he did not previously have?" the answer is that both of them did well. Her tiresome retreading of silly Republican talking points surely does win some democratic votes (witness Matthew Weaver and his ilk), just as his desire to set aside such silliness wins some democratic votes. Considered from this perspective (which is probably the more important one) they both did fine last night.
April 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you totally. I think they both did far better in the last third of the debate, and I found Obama impressive and fluent. Not long winded and rambling at all. But I'm impressed with erudition, which I think showed. As far as the earlier part of the debate it was hopeless to me. And how do you feel about that stupid low blow attack that everybody's already over? Hm. Really? Then how about this one? Can we revive that? But so okay. This is what happens to front runners and I accept it, but it wasn't what I tuned in to hear about. And perhaps it's just because I support Obama, but I found Clinton's enthusiastic participation in this way little fish fry stuff just unwholesome. Moreover, the paper of record apparently didn't find it too pretty either. The times debate piece indicates the Clinton came off like part of the little dick kinda guy gotcha gang. Not exactly gravitas, you know. And maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think her standing there looking like she'd just been sucking on some lemons is going to help next Tuesday with the undecideds who probably don't give a crap about Obama's flag pin. And while we're on that, why doesn't Sen. Clinton wear one? I mean she'd never not in a suit jacket, the girl's got lapels, lapels for says. And they sell those really bling littl flags made out of rhinestones for the little ladies. They sell big, in the heartland, and I thought Sen. Clinton was really down with these people. So where is that sparkly 100 percent made in China fake Swarovski red white and blue, Hillary? I think you need to answer for that. Or do you capitulate to the apparent connventional wisdom that only men have the moral fiber to be real patriots?
April 17, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't think he "lost" the "debate" (if that's what you want to call that silly little event). If anything, George Steph. and Gibson "lost," and HRC ended up looking unserious and desperate. Obama, on the other hand, looked like the only adult on screen.
Maybe ABC is just trying to sell Glenn Greenwald's new book?
April 16, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've told them and told them to stop whining. But if you want to see the whiner in chief in action, take a look at Josh Marshall on the front page. He is completely inarticulate in his fury and fretting. He's smart enough to know that Obama looked exceptionally bad tonight. Did he really just find out tonight that raising FICA and raising the capital gains tax is raising taxes? Oooops. Did he really think he was going to get a pass on his attitude toward the yokels? This is the first debate I've seen in a long time that had an obvious winner -- as evidenced by the dismay in the echo chamber tonight. Will she win the nomination? Maybe not. Did we see the candidates tonight for who they really are. Definitely. I'll take Clinton any day. Compare "massive retaliation" to "appropriate action." That one exchange says it all.
April 16, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to call what ABC News held tonight a 'debate,' you're either delusional or suffering from awe-inspiring cognitive dissonance.
April 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Massive retaliation" alone is enough for me to vote for anybody but Hillary.
April 16, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say Obama supporters just got a reality check.
April 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, glad you are glad. I thought the whole thing a joke. Irrelevant questions, poor moderators, and let's not forget George got where he is due to the Clintons.
April 16, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama was suffering from lack of teleprompter.
Look. There was some stuff you can feel good about.
She said Obama can beat McCain.
She apologized for messing up her Tuzla story a few times.
She didn't wear a flag lapel pin.
Get some sleep.
April 16, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
i sleep very well as an Obama supporter because my guy has won.
now i wonder how hillary sleeps these days?
btw..is ANYONE actually giving her money these days?
in any event try to save up for the concert the BOSS is sure to have in philly for Obama.
good night.
April 17, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
billyglad, I think she did poorly and it's going to show in the polls. I don't know how old you are, but there are tons of voters who were 13, 16, 18 in 2000, so to think playing the game now the way the Republicans played it then (or even in 2004) because that's what won then is dumb as dirt. The voting demographics really have changed, the country really has changed -- and anybody with a half a brain has to know this simply because of the very fact that Obama is the front runner. The calls are coming from inside the house, kiddo. And not you, not me, not the gas bag talking heads have a clue how what's going on with Obama has happened, and nobody really knows how to call it going forward -- except to say that Hillary Clinton can't win. Playing a Republican game against a Republican loved by the press, she's toast. She's got no cards to play in that game he can't trump her on. And, unlike Obama, she doesn't have any aces down.
April 17, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, do you really agree with Charles Krauthammer on an umbrella, NATO-like agreement that forces the US into military action in a region as unstable as the Middle East? That's good foreign policy to you? God help us all. Not even Pat Buchanan agrees with that.
April 16, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
April 17, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that was an interesting propostion, because she's making it to the Sunnis. I suppose it is preposterous to think of a NATO style alliance that includes Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example, but I'm not sure I'd tar the idea with the neocon brush.
April 17, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
compare the lier and panderer to the man of integrity.
see a difference?
April 16, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the U.S. constitution doesn't allow us to do massive action to Iran or any other nation, as she wanted us to believe, as per Pat Buchanan, she was blowing HOT air.
April 17, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. So much for reality. Stick your head outside the echo chamber and take a look at the power the President has to pretty much do what he or she wants when it comes to defending America. Did your interpretation of the Constitution stop Bush?
April 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase another TPM blogger, tyranny moves in small steps.
That's an executive precedent that needs to be stopped, not exploited.
April 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you know, Bush didn't start the precedent. When there is time, we expect the President to go to the Congress for authorization or confirmation. And we expect him to bring the people along. But Presidents have a lot of discretion in how they use the military power of the United States. I wonder if the Obama faction really understands that. Could it be that they really think the Congress had to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq? Please don't tell me that. The echo chamber is getting so tiring.
April 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to get at least a five point bounce out of this debate. There appears to be an overwhelming and spontaneous public outcry - among Democrats at least - over the quality of the debate, and the decision of its media hosts to eschew substance in favor of slime and trivialities. And I strongly suspect that Clinton is going to take the blame for dragging this campaign down into the mud.
Democrats have had it with this crap. People are worried about their jobs. Nobody but Shawn Hannity and company are worried about William Ayers and flag pins and whether people are "bitter" or just "really fucking mad."
April 17, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo you too. Thanks.
April 17, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then blog somewhere else, where you can't spend all day playing the victim. This kind of self-righteous bullshit is so played out.
April 17, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not as played out as "Republican style attack" and "GOP talking points" y'all need to take responsibility for your own mud slinging!
April 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight will be remembered as the night this Democratic campaign totally bottomed out. Clinton is going to be dragged down to the bottom because of her association with this filth, although she is not nearly so much to blame as ABC.
April 16, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
FUCK ABC AND FUCK GEORGE STEPHANOPOULUS AND FUCK CHARLIE BIGSON.
Motherfuckers should be tried for LYNCHING since that's all this was!!
April 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't even breathe the word "lynching" with regards to this. This was a fucking debate. Get a grip.
April 17, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
a high-tech lynching is the proper term to use to describe last night's debate.
I remember that term originating from Cheif Justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
April 17, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, it was a rough night for Obama, but did Clinton really "win?" She was handed a simple job of sitting back and watching while Obama got pummeled time and time again about things he has answered time and time again.
I think his point about "this type of politics" will resonate.
I also find it interesting how the HRC supporters on this site are OK with a "debate" like this. Speaks volumes.
Matt: lame website, by the way. I wish I could think the kitty pictures were clever.
April 16, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if Obama would have sucked because he didn't answer the questions correctly, then I would have no problem with this post-debate analysis.
But he was totally ambushed and that's what I have a problem with. HRC smirking the whole time as ex-Clinton war room director (i.e., Little George S.) and Charlie (Oh-my-God-my-capital-gains-tax-is-in-jeopardy) Gibson ruthless attack him with GOP and Sean Hannity talking points.
Not only will I boycott ABC News but any and all things Disney.
If you agree, give ABC a piece of your mind: (212) 456-7777
(818) 460-7477 (press 2, then 5, then 639)
April 16, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think an important issue that was just pointed out on CNN is Hillary's forced confession that Obama is indeed electable in the general. This basically undercuts her entire argument to the supers that he's not.
How's that conversation go now? "I know I said he was electable, but really, he's not. Vote for me."
April 16, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the minute Clinton decided to go as negative as possible. I saw Barack show restraint. This was his worst debate, he came out looking like a B-, and he still looks classier and smarter than all of the pundits and broadcasters and Clinton surrogates. Wolfson looks like he was cramped out of the Devil's ass.
April 16, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. He had the opportunity to go after her on the Bosnia flap and he passed - defended her actually. More class than all of them together.
April 16, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first tabloid debate I've ever seen!!!
An absolute embarrassment Charlie Gibson & George Step????? put on the WORST debate of my lifetime.
THE WORST !!! The absolute WORST!!!!
It was the most silly and ridiculous debate I've ever seen. Where were the issues that mattered to Americans! American's lost tonight!!
ABC should fire these two. The first 48 minutes was total nonsense!!!! Charlie, George, it's the economy stupids!!! Charlie & George both by stating stupid issues are making people not vote. They are disconnecting people from voting. I hear TV is in trouble and this is one of the reasons why? They failed as journalists. I was embarrassed for our country to see this completely unlevel, unequal playing field.
ABC has just lost one Dances with the Stars viewers and one Men in Trees viewers and George's Sunday is coming off my TIVO!!!
This was an appalling !!!
April 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody won that piece of shit. Nobody.
April 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who tells you that you shouldn't bitch, whine, and go shrill at ABC is a repug.
We have every right to defend our candidate.
We are two million families strong.
Tear into these assholes.
Let them know they screw with us they pay a price.
Go for the throats.
April 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not exactly scientific polls, but the drudge, abc, and cbs post-debate polls are all going strongly in favor of Obama winning the debate.
April 16, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised. Indeed, what does surprise me is the number of long faces I am seeing among my fellow Obama supporters. Our guy did just fine tonight. Sure, most of the questions were inane, but Obama parried them admirably. Meanwhile, once some glimmer of substance emerged in the second half I thought that both candidates appeared very impressive. Where are folks getting this impression that Obama lost?
April 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay.....I don't get what all the drama was about? Obama did fine. He won. He is winning the Internet vote as well on ABC and MSNBC.
Hillary has NO cred. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see that? Charlie and George did suck!
April 17, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is rich. David Brooks just posted at the Times.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
Sometimes I think he has a point. Not tonight.
April 16, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Halprin: B+/Obama B/Clinton
If Brooks gave ABC an "A" it must mean the whole night was fixed; is he still pushing Clinton for the governor of New York?
April 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, David Brooks? Consider the source. Yes, once in a blue moon he makes a good point (in the same way that even a stopped watch is right twice a day), but for the most part he is a nitwit. If he thinks that Obama did poorly and Clinton did well that simply proves my point that Obama did just fine.
April 17, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Brooks a 3rd class intellect who is a living example of the Peter Principle. His editorials are pure sophistry, he hasn't had a good idea ever. And his books are intellectually so unsound and dishonest (not to mention filled with inaccuracies) that he's a laughingstock everywhere except among hack trade book reviewers. Having said all that, the guy laughs at people like you and me all the way to the bank. Oh well.
April 17, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Hell! That was pathetic! ABC should be ashamed. I guess except for the Lehrer News Hour and Comedy Central, TV journalism is dead, rotting, and stinking. I'm surprised that neither candidate threw up, as I sure wanted to. Charlie and George's are to debate moderation as George W. Bush has been to the presidency. They all leave me with the taste of vomit in my mouth. I didn't think either candidate looked particularly good, but I'm not sure how they could of. At least they looked and smelled better than ABC News does. UGH!
April 16, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign is really sending out that video? Damn. Talk about desperate. The only audience reaction high Clinton got was from a joke. Other than that she spent most of the time in the mid-30s on the focus group gauge.
April 16, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't see it, thank god, but was Obama able to smack down these clowns, at least a little bit? Would have been great if he said something like, "I've just answered questions about flag pins, etc., for an hour, and meanwhile there are more people on food stamps, our Constitution is trashed and we've just wasted $xxx on the war..." He may have received a standing O.
April 16, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said plenty of stuff like that. And i was only listening with half an ear, these things are so awful. Second only to the Academy Awards for tedium.
April 17, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
My e-mail to ABC News (via their website):
April 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with the Governor of PA.:
"Even an Obama Kool-Aid drinking guy like yourself has to admit she scored a decisive victory tonight. A decisive victory. A knockout blow. A decisive victory. A decisive victory. Even more decisive when they started asking real questions."
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=F90AF7DB4D982BF205BA9B2861098E42?diaryId=5199
Clinton in a knockout.
April 16, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But was it decisive? I don't think that was made clear.
April 17, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. Ed Rendell. The people in Pennsylvania don't even like him.
April 17, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's an unbiased source.
April 17, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look folks. Senator Obama got mugged by Three thugs tonight, and they could not knock him down, or even stagger him.
ABC now stands for: Assault Black Candidate.
April 16, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Let's switch the subject to race. Again.
April 17, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
A National Review perspective.
HILLARY CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA
Forty-five Minutes of Pummeling Before a Wonky Cooldown
I don’t like Hillary Clinton. But I respect her as an adversary. And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to “go there” in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I’m tempted to say, “I like the cut of your jib, Senator.” It’s like watching a linebacker perfectly execute a blitz and flatten a quarterback from the blind side. It’s brutal, and tough to watch when it’s your guy being hit, but it’s within the rules and almost artistic when it’s perfectly executed.
Tonight, she had her stumbles. Her answer on the Bosnia sniper tales really didn’t help her out that much; she needed to explain something bewildering to the average Joe, which is remembering things that didn’t happen. She made a lame joke about not getting enough sleep, but oddly, Obama didn’t jump in by mentioning her “3 a.m.” ads.
But she tore into Obama on all of his weak spots. Relentlessly. For the most part, she avoided looking nasty while she did it. She focused on the ‘cling’ comment in the context of not understanding the role of religion in people's lives. She repeated what Wright actually said the Sunday after 9/11, and probably introduced Wright’s blaming of America to a lot of people who had only heard Wright’s sermons through a media filter. She twisted the knife when she noted that people don’t choose their families, but they choose their pastor. When Obama tried to downplay his relationship to William Ayers, she brought up the Woods Foundation.
After about forty-five minutes, David Axelrod probably should have thrown in the towel and stopped the fight.
Obama got a little better as the night wore on, but the damage was done. He looked terrible tonight. He said he disowned Wright – contradicting his speech line about being no more able to disown Wright than his own grandmother — then backed away and said he only disowned his comments. When Hillary brought up Wright’s 9/11 comments, he merely lamented that some of his comments had been “objectionable.” He never quite explained why he stopped wearing the American flag pin, and he kept digging in deeper on William Ayers. He dismissed the question, then described Ayers as an “English professor.” He completely downplayed Ayers’ terrorist past, and said they didn’t exchange ideas “on a regular basis.” Then he compared his relationship to Ayers to his relationship with Senator Tom Coburn! Way to chase away the last of the Obamacans, Senator.
Hillary closed by saying she’s a fighter. She proved that tonight; if I were on Team McCain, tonight might have convinced me to hope for a showdown with Obama.
UPDATE: During the night, I wondered if Democrats would conclude she was too nasty and negative. But I don't think she ever came across as shrill or sneering in her delivery, like when she did with the "slumlord Rezko" line a few debates ago. But I suppose it's possible that tonight's performance backfires, that Democrats see her as tearing down their Obamessiah. But my first gut instinct is that she's knocking him off his pedestal with all of this...
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDNjYTVmM2UxYzNhOGViMDhhMDIzNmM2NmY2NTVhNDU=
April 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not surprising to see the National Review praise Hillary. Republicans always support their own.
April 16, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know you've completely lost touch with reality when you accuse HRC and George Stephonopolis of being Republican operatives ...Obama supporters can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately it's another train...this is gonna be good!
April 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, David Brooks loved it. The National Review loved it. The right-wingers all loved it.
But Democrats hated it. Clinton just buried herself tonight, for good. I don't think there was ever really a chance she would get the VP nod. But if there was, it went out the window completely tonight after she publicly delivered herself of this malodorous stool before aghast Democrats across the country.
Why doesn't she go join Joe Lieberman and speak at the Republican National Convention? She's got their whole game down now.
April 17, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D -- I have to agree with you on this. I did not get the sense that Obama "lost" the debate as much as that he was basically on defense most of the night as the moderators took shot after shot at him and HRC occasionally chipped in with a "yeah, and furthermore" type comment. She was OK on some of the policy questions she got, but she totally blew the question about her Bosnia storytelling and got jacked when she tried to pile on with the Ayers thing, so I would not really call it a great night for her either. Perhaps more importantly, the whole tone of the thing was the Obama was basically the frontrunner and guy to beat, and HRC was the second fiddle, and I don't think that is a message she wants being sent to primary-weary democrats right about now.
April 16, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that is how I heard it(could not see too much).
April 16, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't watch the debate. Although the name is famous, I had to look at Google Images to remind myself who we're talking about when we're talking about this "Charlie Gibson" fellow. And seeing his pics, of course I recognize him very well from the tee-vee. THAT'S the fellow who was considered an appropriate choice as debate moderator???
THEY CHOOSE A GUY WHO ISN'T EVEN A REAL NEWSMAN, WHOSE ONLY POINT AND PURPOSE IN THE WORLD IS TO BE A TOTALLY INOFFENSIVE, COMFORTABLE NONENTITY ON MORNING CHAT SHOWS PRODUCED BY A NETWORK "NEWS" DIVISION?
Why isn't he sitting in some sofa chatting with a nutritionist about her new diet book??
Why isn't he talking about steps you can take to make sure your children are safe online??
NO ONE ON PLANET EARTH WITH ANY BRAINS WOULD EVER CHOOSE CHARLIE GIBSON AS A DEBATE MODERATOR. AS HE HAS PROVEN, TO HIS SHAME.
April 16, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that George Steph and Charlie Gibson could be made to feel some bitterness at their performance tonight.
The normally smiling Rendell did not look happy.
April 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am an Obama supporter, but my impression was that Clinton was crisper and clearer on the substantive policy questions. Obama by and large appeared a bit halting and searching in responding to many of the questions, particularly his answer in having to go back to the issue of Jeremiah Wright.
On the substance, I don't think there was a difference, but on the presentation, I think Hillary appeared better.
But I have a gut sense that the reaction tomorrow won't be about Obama or Hillary's appearance and presentation, at least at the fore.
I think that tomorrow the chatter will be about the debate itself, which was by any measurable standard truly horrendous. It was extraordinarily lopsided, and appeared to be a nearly hostile event.
There is a chance this has a sort of backfire effect. While Hillary came off better in style, it may be that Obama benefits slightly from the clearly mounting dissatisfaction (indeed, in some quarters, outrage) with the moderators. This whole circus exemplified exactly what Obama says he is trying to change. Maybe he benefits from that.
I think viewers who saw this are likely to have a reaction similar to what we saw with the "bitter" thing. The things we think others may take away may be wrong, because they take away exactly what we take away: that this was a joke, and a hit job.
But then again I could be wrong and the papers could be filled with "WHO IS WILLIAM AYERS PANT PANT PANT". Fortunately, that was the only new thing tonight, and Obama handled it well. His response spiked the green line, as they say.
April 16, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, your opinion is just as valid as my own, but I disagree with your assessment. I thought that Obama was every bit as impressive in his command of policy details and I think he actually bested Sen Clinton with the mention of the conclusions of the last blue ribbon panel assembled to address social security. Hopefully this will lay to rest the inane meme that he lacks command of the specifics. She was the one who fumbled the specifics tonight.
April 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Obama was all that bad, especially in a Kennedy/Nixonesque kind of way.
Here's why I invoke Kennedy/Nixon: During that inane first 30 minutes, Obama looked directly at the questioner and answered forcefully. Clinton's eyes wandered as if she were searching for focus. She looked distracted and tired. And with the wandering eyes business, it made her look shifty.
And after that first 30 minutes, all of us wonks watched...but what average American didn't switch the channel?
Flag pins? False assumptions in the question on capital gains vis a vis actual revenue? Massive retaliation (um...Congressional approval needed on that "dome" treaty there, lady)?
I feel that Clinton seemed informed and forceful on most policy issues (& probably won that) later in the debate, but all in all, Obama did just fine in the first, inane, insane 30 minutes that average Americans watched...then turned off. Clinton seemed shifty and unfocused in that same first 30 minutes.
April 16, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The shock of the Obama Cult is priceless.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 16, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not shocked, and I won't begrudge you your glee, but I think even some comments from you suggest that this was a truly substanceless debate that focused on gotcha questions.
Anyone who is a Democrat should feel dirty after this, and any American should be ashamed that this shit was broadcast globally.
April 16, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it about character? Seems to me we know where our candidates are on the issues now. Let's just take a final look at who we're putting out there in the general. Seems reasonable to me. Until now we've been hearing Oh no! Not another debate! So maybe this one was the Kennedy/Nixon debate. Or maybe ABC screwed it up. PA will tell. If he beats her, she's out. If he beats her in Indiana, she's out. If she beats him in North Carolina, he's out.
April 17, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mathew, how did those babies you're holding taste?
April 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, Marginal changed his avatar. Your irony is lost and now you're just a guy sporting a klan hood. Unless you've decided that a pro-klan avatar is cool or something.
April 17, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, stop being such an ass all the time.
April 16, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC news rightfully should question Obama about this "cling to" comments, Fox is looking at the relationship of Obama and terrorist William Ayers and Obama (another legit question). And with regard to the wonderful Reverend Wright, the good REV will remain an issue through the general election if Obama is the nominee. Barry hasn't told the USA just who is Barack Obama?
April 16, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe the Weather Underground thing will get the news media to take a good long look into those great pardons Bill squeezed off in the waning days of his administration. Hey, a little more "vetting" never hurt anyone, right?
April 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill is not running for POTUS. It's the relationship with Obama and the fund raiser at William Ayers' home. That is an issue.
April 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think that response is going to work against McSame or a 527 in the Fall? Heck, that doesn't even work with 50-plus percent of *Democrats*. To hear her tell it, she was by his side making co-decisions with him and getting executive experience for his entire Presidency. Hard to sell that story out of one side of your mouth while arguing at the same time out of the other side that you had no involvement in the things he did that are not so pretty.
April 17, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we really expect anything different when The debate is moderated by her husbands former press secretary. Obama did as well as he could 5 on one. Lets not forget that Clintons and McCain's camppaigns are run by the same firm. Apparently there are two Republicans still running and ABC just joined ranks with Fox.
It was repulsive.
April 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters -- and perhaps some high-profile surrogates, as well -- will be expressing their displeasure with the network in no uncertain terms in the days ahead.
ABC had to know what they were up to and they still went there.
The negative attention they will get will only make them feel good about themselves as "relevant players" on the cultural-political scene.
April 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know Howard Wolfson worked for TPM.
Wait, that was Greg?
What urgency?
The race is over.
Why do you pretend like it isn't?
April 16, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with you Matthew.....Hope there are no sharp knives around some right now....Repeat after me....YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN....
April 16, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want you guys to enjoy yourselves tonight. Here's a fifty, go get some beers on me.
But in the end you are kind of like my buddy Jeff who was for a long time a Kansas City Royals fan, a rabid one, and one time when they played the Orioles and were down seven three in the bottom of the 8th a Royal smacked a grounder up the middle that was sort of bobbled by the shortstop, and the throw to the first baseman came too late. He went nuts, "Your team sucks! look at that! Bobbling a little dribbler like that! HA HA!" and he danced around, and then the Orioles wound up winning eight three or something, and the game was over. In fact, the game was over when he celebrated.
Just saying.
April 16, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Guess
April 17, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We had this guy Mitch who used to bet against Wichita when they were making a run. Every week Mitch would bet against Wichita and lose for maybe 10 or 12 weeks and then Wichita lost. And Mitch became the guy who had called the turn on Wichita.
April 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great debate for Clinton.
Vetting her for the general and she shined like a winner.
No whining, just fighting for the people.
Obama supporters got a reality check and their hero got knocked out proving he is not ready for the big leagues.
April 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not fighting for me. I find her embarrassing at best.
April 17, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, fear of the change candidate was expressed loudly tonight.
The debate was ABC+Clinton+Republican Party vs Obama.
April 16, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's HILARIOUS that the media, both new and old, are in such an uproar over the debate. Clearly, they are all in shock over the fact that Obama received his first serious level of scrutiny in the entire campaign season.
Snap outta it!
Don't blame Clinton or ABC because Obama failed to perform well on a level playing field. Tonight is just a glimmer of what's ahead for any Democrat heading into the general with a media darling like McCain.
April 17, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the fact that they weren't really "scrutinizing" Obama. They were scrutinizing other people and demanding that he speak for them and denounce them. Same old shit. And then asking him to explain again a comment that has been explained, and fully understood, by everyone who has heard him explain it.
They were doing the shit they always do to the Democratic candidate. Anyone who cares about seeing a democrat elected should have a problem with it, because it's just a preview of what the way they'll smear the democrat in the general election.
April 17, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be like that Jen your sounding bitter
April 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sound "bitter"? Maybe that's because I am.
You sound like an asshole, and I suspect it's for a similar reason.
April 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obamaistas rejected the Politics as Usual....Hmmmmmm.....Didn't take your happy pill tonight did you. Now just repeat after me. YES WE CAN , YES WE CAN...LOL
April 17, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for verifying my suspicions for everyone to see.
April 17, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bitter again? Oh my....
April 17, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be confused as to what the meaning of the word "bitter" is.
You confirming my suspicions that you're an asshole doesn't make anyone bitter. It just makes you an asshole.
April 17, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now now...come on Jenn. Commandant Obama asked you to please be nice to everyone. Does someone need a timeout?
April 17, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap....
April 17, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'd rather sound like i'm bitter than like i'm a nasty little first-grader laughing when the popular kid he doesn't like skins a knee.
April 17, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe "Obamanauts" catches the spirit of the thing a shade better. Clintonistas is perfect, and I hate sharing anything with the nauts. Except my take on Obama in the debate. Shopworn. Disheveled. Bloom off the rose now. What if she beats him in North Carolina? Will he concede? He keeps reminding me of Fast Eddy in the Hustler. Just comes up a little short in the character department. Don't you think?
April 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obamamite is even better. Yes. Obamamites! I like it.
There are many Obamamites in the echo chamber today.
What do you think?
April 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They threw the kitchen sink at Obama tonight, and he standing tall, smiling, and writing his acceptance speech for Denver.
BTW, where did all the Taylor Marsh trolls come from?
April 17, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonestown.
April 17, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
from some wretched cesspool in the nether regions of the Internets.
April 17, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama lost. He did a good job of fielding every bullshit nontroversy they dredged up and pointed them out in each case for what they were - distractions and deflections from talking about real issues. Meanwhile Hillary followed up in every case with the Republican talking points, and even managed to look weak while doing it.
The one thing I still haven't heard Obama say that I wish he would say, though, regarding Wright, is to ask his interrogators how many friends, family, and associates they've cut out of their lives because they've held or voiced some difference of opinion. It's just such a massive bullshit "issue". If we all went around cutting people out of our lives for every difference of opinion, we'd all be hermits.
I think wxsnoozle is right - anyone who tuned out in disgust after 30 minutes would give the night to Obama. Hillary scored points later in the game, but if you couldn't stomach watching that far, you wouldn't know it.
Most of all, they both seemed very tired. It's not surprising that neither one of them brought their best game.
April 17, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 17, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if Hillary didn't know Obama is the Democratic candidate she does now. The moderators almost ignored her answers, and concentrated completely on Obama. It was a GOP ambush. The audience booed the moderators at the end. It was like watching TMZ--tabloid crap.
April 17, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't watch until the end, I was too nauseated...I missed the last 30 minutes...does anyone have a clip of the moderators getting booed?
April 17, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta feeling we know why you didn't watch the last 30 too Jenn.....He sucked.
April 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did he? I wasn't watching.
I suspect a lot of other people weren't, either.
April 17, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good answer....Obama is ready to implode.
April 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you have very poor mathematical skills, or you'd know that rather than "imploding", Obama has already won the nomination.
April 17, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, so you keep telling us. Strangely, he seems to be taking much longer to do it than your every breathless post heralding this immanent destruction might lead one to expect.
April 17, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked the number was something like 2025 delagates? Does he have that number? ........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no he DOESN"T have that number yet. Hence, he doesn't have the nomination. Stay with me. I know when you get in the echo chamber you start to lose a bit of oxygen and it can get a little hard for some of you Obamaistas to think.
Just keep repeating - YES WE CAN YES WE CAN lol
April 17, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If mental masturbation could change the facts on the ground, Obama might have a reason to be worried. But it can't, so he doesn't.
But do feel free to continue with the fwap fwap fwap....
LOL!!!1!!11
April 17, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing but class Jen.
April 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your response is a complete non-sequitur. I neither said nor implied that he had the nomination wrapped up already. I simply implied that, while is has not decisively won yet, neither is he "imploding" as you keep hoping. This is hardly the first time you have informed us that Sen Obama is going to sink like a hot rock, and yet he keeps on beating your candidate.
April 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Greg, and not even a comment about mental masturbation. Have all the Obamaistas calmed down this morning?
April 17, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can see it here
April 17, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link!
April 17, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
A GOP ambush by the noted Republicans George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson...?!? You guys kill me with the excuses you come up with for nominating a superstar who turns into an empty suit when you take away his teleprompter.
April 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill is not running, but Hill is running on his/their record. And that includes pardons. Including pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists to help her Senate race in NY.
April 17, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? My last comment was in response to MarginalPlayer at 11:58.
April 17, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loved the fact that Obama looked resentful, he should have. Anyone being subjected to that line of inane questioning should have. I mean that what this guy is all about, demonstarting how dopey this process is. WE CAN DO BETTER! Did anyone in America enjoy or get anything out of this debate tonight?!? Hillary, always at the ready with her perfectly rehearshed answers came off like Tracy Flick. Hil, Step aside and let Obama have at that geezer McCain already!
April 17, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was some news in tonight's debate. I just read a new piece on Slate, Did Obama Just Pivot?, that notes Obama's dismissal of race-based affirmative action. I didn't pick up on this earlier and it appears most people here are more in shock over the debate than some of the statements made. Obama is pretty clear that affirmative action cannot continued as a race-based entitlement. It will be interesting to see where this goes and its impact among his core supporters.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won, if you can say that about a travesty like this. Hillary was dreadful in the first half as Obama batted away the onslaught of trivia; she was better in the second half once her hard-drive was rebooted and she robotically recited her soulless, rote policy answers. Obama confronts questions, formulates careful answers, and tends to be dismissed by rank and file observers who think he's halting and not polished enough. But it works, and he wears well. A win (and a bump) for Obama; a wash (and a lost opportunity) for Hillary; for ABC? A very heavy blow to whatever credibility a corporate news organization like that has. Gibson and Stepfordwivesopoulous? Losers, bigtime.
April 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of air time.
My impressions:
1. ABC lost tonight, but they took the audience with them.
2. At least the first 45-50 minutes were a complete waste of everyone's time.
3. Style-wise, Hillary looked like she was trying to make eye-contact with the audience, but the camera angle it made her look like she couldn't look us at home in the eye - her eyes were jumping around all over the place for the first 30-45 minutes. It was very disconcerting to watch. Obama looked composed and attentive.
3. Hillary's attacks were expected, but still disgusting to watch. She should change her ever-changing campaign motto to - "Guilt By Association was Good Enough for Atwater and Rove, It's Good Enough for Me!".
4. Obama was the adult tonight in pointing out the silliness of the questions and that it was silly when Hillary was attacked over her "cookies and tea" comments 15+ years ago.
5. I can't wait for the YouTube and FaceBook generation to put up a candidate for President - "40 years ago, in 2008, your BFF was a girl who put up this tasteless video! But now you say you don't agree with her. Why are you flip-flopping, huh?!"
6. I don't think the debate will change too many minds. It's hard to imagine that undecided voters sat through the whole thing. Sensible people who aren't political junkies would have destroyed their TV if they had to watch till the end. Supporters will see what they want to see.
While he wasn't the smoothest in answering some of the questions, Obama's answers made me feel good about my support for him. He's going to make a fine president.
My $0.02.
April 17, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear that sound? It's Obama's donation button being hit over and over and over tonight. I donated after the first hour. Obama wins.
April 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. As uncomfortable and disgusting as this was to watch, he was still standing by the end.
Also? He didn't vow "massive retaliation" against Iran. I'd kind of like a NON-war president, for once.
April 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If someone is out to destroy ANY public person, they can go through the contents of THEIR ENTIRE LIFE from kindergarten to dredge up at least a few hundred details, a childhood friend who is now a felon, etc., to beat them relentlessly with. This is surely DISGUSTING to anyone with the faintest idea of fairness and justice, and a new form of the Salem Witch Hunt and McCarthyism.
Of course Hillary can't prove Obama's guilt-by-association, that's NOT the point for her. Her aim, like her supporters', is to REPEAT OVER AND OVER UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS, to saturate the media and blogosphere with this TOXIC GARBAGE, so that people who have no time to pay any attention will just make the MENTAL WORD ASSOCIATION - Obama, Muslims, Hussein, Terrorists, 9/11, Angry Black Guy, Wright, FlagPin. Another set of words - Elite Snob, Empty Suit, False Hope, Rezko, JUST TO TAKE THE GUY DOWN.
It is NOTHING to do with Reason or Truth, Obama's innocence or guilt - it is SLANDER to plant tiny seeds of doubt in voters' minds and it works, boy, it works, as we have witnessed with Gore and Kerry,.
Hillary supporters are intelligent enough to know how abomninable this TACTIC is, what this has COST the country, and that Hillary is throwing the door wide open to this "Politics of Personal Destruction" for the election season when the Repubs are going to use the same tactics to PERVERT the political process against the eventual nominee, yet they can HOLD BACK THEIR CONSCIENCE to justify this.
Yes, IT WILL WORK. UNLESS US ANGRY DEMS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. It is much easier to destroy than to rebuild trust in Obama and future honest politicians who refuse to stoop to this garbage. it is much easier to tar and make these unfounded word associations in peoples' mind than to undo the damage.
And this dirty politics ultimately hurts the country, as this is a weapon of the politically corrupt. Our political process is corrupt beyond our comprehension at the hands of BOTH parties, and we all sit helplessly typing into our blogs.
April 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
I mean, I'm an African-American who graduated with honors from an Ivy and has a nary a traffic ticket - but damn, I have a cousin who did a bid and despite the fact he actually came out rehabilitated and became a family man, he also became a Muslim. I'm screwed.
When are we going to become a serious country again?
April 17, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim; there's nothing wrong with serving your time. There is also nothing wrong with sitting in the pew at church clapping and waving your hands while the preacher screams "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" well that is unless you want to get elected President of "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"
April 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While this was certainly not Obama's best performance, Hillary's was terrible in terms of her willingness to pile on along with the moderators--adding to the Ayers BS and bringing up Farrakhan in her attempts to jump on the Rev. Wright BS. She generally did OK with the substantive questions, when they finally got to them, but made what I think will turn out to be a serious error in promising a nuclear umbrella for the Middle East against an Iranian attack. Obama's answer was much more restrained, along the lines of we'll make an appropriate response, not threatening massive retaliation. How does her response demonstrate the effects of her alleged superior foreign policy experience?
April 17, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won. Not by a knockout. But by enough to move the polls. She combined self assurance with a comprehensive agenda for the way ahead.(Just check her web site).Leadership!
He offered...consensus. That match up is a no brainer.This country ,like most, always aches to believe daddy (or mommy) knows best. Until we're knee deep in the big muddy. Again.
The story line of the evening was :she knows what she's doing ..... and he's not sure.
I'd prefer Obama for Presdent, I've had enough of the big muddy. On tonight's showing,however ,not only isn't he going to be president ,he isn't going to be the presidential candidate.
April 17, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
He already has won the nomination. Good laugh for fantasy though.
April 17, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call the New York main number and ask for
212-456-7777
David Westin - President of ABC NEWS
I called and told him what a sham of a debate that was. Disgraceful.
George
April 17, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll
April 17, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, if he refers to Obama as BHO, clearly he supports Dick, George, Karl, Rush, Ann and their little monkey, John.
April 17, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
8,640 comments so far on ABC, and the moderators are getting ripped into.
April 17, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will do fine. Stop worrying, he is a good man and an excellent candidate. He will have another day and frankly, I thought the clip they played during the debate where McCain could not even talk straight was too funny.
McCain is too old. No one at 72 should be President. It is just too taxing.
April 17, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an open letter to Gibson & Stephanopoulos from Attytood.
April 17, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great night for Hillary! Obama completely crumbles under being asked questions which everyday americans, not liberal bloggers, have about him. Hillary can beat McCain because she's vetted, tested, and can push back against the right wing noise machine. Obama proved tonight what an stuttering and empty suit he is.
April 17, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, click on this Pennsylvanian link*! What you see as the main headline is "Clinton: Obama can win. Perhaps Obama "won" this debate after all.
* time-sensitive
April 17, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup...Obama won the debate...It pissed me off sooooo bad...I'm donating to the OBAMA campaign...I was thinking maybe to support both, But good ole Hillary...Tried to stick it to him every chance she got...3 against 1 Hill is not a fair fight...Oh I forgot, you've been covering Mcain's back too make that 4 vs 1....
So I will donate to the only worthy Democratic candidate remaining...
B Obama!
Thanks ABC for showing me where the elites are aligned!
April 17, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great night for Hillary! Obama completely crumbles under being asked questions which everyday americans, not liberal bloggers, have about him. Hillary can beat McCain because she's vetted, tested, and can push back against the right wing noise machine. Obama proved tonight what an stuttering and empty suit he is.
April 17, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, I believe he is so smart that at times there is so much he wants to say, and how do you do that in short spurts? This guy is very bright. Too bright for types like yourself, sadly. I believe the racist card is still strong, even on blogs such as this.
April 17, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jenn all this pent up anger. Just doesn't become an Obamaista. I thought you were gonna bring us all together not drive us apart......
April 17, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap.....
April 17, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink