Why didn't you ask him why is took his cues from Hannity?

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate."

very Clinton of you, keep on doing what YOU think important for the republican party.

Why didnt you ask him about going on Hannity? That is the question I think most of us Obama supporters want to know.

I wonder how he'd like to do that on prime time tv! Have to stand up and take the heat for his behavior. With clips of his interruptions and so on. Questions about the whereabouts of his own flag pin!

How easy to just defend yourself on a phone call! I challenge the guy to defend himself on TV!!! With 2 questioners!

"Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."

So in other words, the right-wing smear machine says "jump", and you say "how high". Pathetic.

HOW THE FUCK IS A LAPEL PIN RELEVANT YOU STINKING GASBAG?!

Yeah, I'm pissed at that puff-haired slime ball. Sorry everyone.

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate."

Dude, that crap has "been at the center of the debate" because you jackasses make it so!

A reminder of this seems appropriate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

"You can't help but be shaped by your experience"-GS

Apparently Charlie Gibson wasn't shaped by any journalistic experience. But then maybe he's just a script reader. I'm not really an insider. I just think they might find moderators with a different set of priorities.

"Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate."

Huh? I'm sorry, but wasn't the VERY FIRST question about the "dream ticket?" Wasn't that question asked by Wolf Blitzer in the last debate?

Maybe my memory is bad...

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in Novembber."

"This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it."

"Also, Sean Hannity told me to bring up the all-important Bill Ayers question that's on the lips of every real American, and to keep pressing on this critical issue. And I took notes from Sean. That's my job. Getting criticized for playing stenographer to Hannity just comes with the territory."

Sure, none of the Democratic issues were discussed, just "gotcha" questions. Fuck you, George.

What a douchebag. Whatever his background, he has become just like the rest of the MSM -- ego-driven, self-absorbed, into money and out-of-touch.

I feel your pain...way to go ABC. No MSNBC poor babies...

Simple answer to his BS.
If the goal was to explore all the silly controversies that arose since the last debate, there should have been a question about Mark Penn and Colombia.
Since there was not, I feel absolutely entitled to consider Stephanopoulos either incompetent or biased

Republican and former Nixon administration official Ruckelshaus endorses Obama:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/watergate-era-republican-backs-obama/#more-6511

Doesn't "Electability" mean "which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" Isn't that how Bush got elected? Look at how well that turned out.

All these talking heads just love the sound of their own voices. I could give a rat's ass if someone wears a lapel pin or not. In an election race that's been marred by shitty reporting, Stephanopoulos and Gibson outdid the rest of the sorry bunch.

It's unfortunate that this interview even took place. I think, TMP, in some regard you have validated his performance last night with this. He didn't deserve this opportunity.

I dislike him even more after reading this. The audacity to defend that shithole debate is not something I can respect.

That debate was a joke.

This former and current Clinton apologist needs to have a size-14 work boot applied to his backside.

Now we all know who is really out of touch. Most voters I know are concerned about Iraq (you know our trooops are being killed over there), healthcare, gas prices, job loss, home loss, climate change to name a few issues.

For Georgie to think that we are more concerned about whether or not some is wearing a flag pin (which neither Hillary, George or Charlie were wearing) is insane.

PEOPLE ARE DYING, PEOPLE ARE LOOSING THEIR HOMES, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PUT GAS IN THEIR CAR OR BUY FOOD FOR THEIR FAMILY YOU FRICKIN IDIOTS!

Now we all know why Barack says we need to change the way things are done in Washington.

We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate.

To quote Glenn Greenwald:

Our nation's coddled, insulated journalist class reaches these conclusions about what Regular Folk think using the most self-referential, self-absorbed thought process imaginable. The proof that the Regular People are interested in these things is that . . . the journalists themselves chatter about it endlessly.

She lied and she will tell the SDs she lied.

Hey George,

I read "All Too Human." You're such a hypocrite.

I hope you never host a debate again.

Glenn Greenwald says it much better than I:

"Last night was a perfect microcosm of how our political process works. The Right creates stupid, petty personality-based attacks to ensure that our elections aren't decided on issues (where they have a decisive disadvantage). Media stars -- some due to sloth, some due to ideology, some due to an eagerness to please the Right and convince them how Good and Fair they are -- eat up the shallow trash they're fed and then spew it out relentlessly, ensuring that our political discourse is overwhelmed by it, our elections dictated by it. That happens over and over. It's how our media and our elections function. Last night was just an unusually transparent and particularly ugly expression of it."

Greenwald's piece is worth reading today.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

This goes beyond "Clinton" framing, this was *neo-conservative* and *Republican* framing, as Bob Cesca so bitingly brings up in his *dead-on*, cogent,editorial in the Huff Post today, titled: "The Very Serious Debate,Starring The Very Serious George and Charlie".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-very-serious-debate-s_b_97231.html

Here's the opening salvo of his editorial:

We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.

On Penn and Columbia were they vetted? Also, was Bill Clinton vetted on Columbia?
"electability" BULL!

Was Clinton vetted on NAFTA? And, how many times did she repeat the Bosnia misspeak before having known she misspoke?

Geraldine?

Seems a few questions were missed!

Been looking at this stuff since Kennedy and Nixon, this is the worst and it has no competition.

Greg,
You did your thing but this one is a fool or believes the population is asleep, out of touch for Stephanopoulos on this one is too generous.

George, who is more patriotic, you or Jerry Springer?

(At least he is honest that his work is trash)

Oh, George misspoke. He meant to say "Irrelevant, inappropriate, RNC talking points and pinheaded."

And then commit seppuku.

george's dominatrix is really gonna let him have it tonight.

George, ABC staff, I am certain your are reading this, especially since you gave an interview to the non mainstream news blog.

BULL HOCKEY...You know better, the trivial ranker of where the campaign has gone as the press has guided it, for their own purposes.

George and Co., the thing is what you discussed was not what the electorate is interested in, and now your credibility is being questioned as rightfully it should

Look who George always has as constant panel member. The panel is a mix of different pundits; with one exception; George Will. He is always right there with George.
That is all you need to know about which way the wind is blowing on ABC.

There were better questions when ABC hosted The Battle of the Network Stars.

How long are you going to whine about Obama getting his butt kicked?

Lets unite with the fighter Clinton and crush their candidate mcwar.

It would be "tough, fair, relevant, and appropriate" to subject George Stepfordwifeopolous to water-boarding, homelessness, post-traumatic stress disorder, Katrina-like flooding, and Abu Ghraib photo sessions in order to help him refocus on the issues that should be at the center of the national debate.

Actually, I was watching an Obama town hall meeting today and the audience members asked much better and more intelligent questions than last night's moderators. I say we chuck the debates altogether and just air Town Halls.

It's revealing that the Clintonbots think this wingut-trivia festival was a good debate and that objecting to a Democratic debate sock-puppeteered by Sean Hannity is "whining". That of course is because they're delusional enough to think she "won". Actually all she did is to drive her sky-high negatives higher still.

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in November."

And not ask anything on Iraq, the economy, health care costs, torture, or anything else that might actually be on voters' minds. You know, the sort of question that the League of Women Voters might have asked, because it would help voters decide.

George, I have news for you: you're a fool. What you were doing was showing which candidate the GOP would prefer having.

Utter bs. Ever since this race began, I've been waiting for HRC to be asked a substantive question on her husband's role in Clinton 43 White House. This would be especially pertinent with the revelations since the last debate of the Clintons' astronomical income (mostly from Bill's "speeches"), his receipt of $800M from Colombia, and Clinton's receipt of Library donations in lieu of fees.

Not one debate moderator has dared go there, surely out of fear of losing access to Bill.

Why didn't you hit him on Sean Hannity? What about the fact he owes his career to Bill Clinton?

Dear Charlie 'n' George (and all your TV pals):

Not this time.

Love,
Cairdin

Hi George
Pitiful. Both your perfomance last night and your attempted justifications today were truly pitiful.

The so called "debate" was the last time I'll ever watch ABC "News". I'll just watch Entertainment Tonight instead.

What a weasle. He wrote an insiders tell-all book while the Clintons were still in the White House. He has George Will on as the one permanent commentator on his Sunday morning show (the George & George Show?) And he honestly believes he's some kind of journalist. What a weasle joke.

He says it is what is being talked about on the campaign circuit. This is telling in that he has his head so far down in the insider toilet bowl that he does not comprehend the intelligence of
the American citizens.
Charlie is just an asshole.

I'm sorry, George, but there's no defending this. To say these were the topics of interest since the last debate is disingenuous. I know you are just not that simple. You are well aware what garbage those questions were.

And you and your colleagues give that garbage relevance because you continue to bring it up - not because it's what voters care about.

It's a self fulfilling prophesy: If I talk about it a lot, it will get in the news. If it's in the news, it's important. If it's important, I need to talk about it a lot.

George:

On Sunday, have acrobatic coitus with Cokie while George Will watches.

Now that you're in the entertainment bidness, that is.

Well the Mark Penn controversy occurred since the last debate, in in the past two weeks in fact, but we did not hear about that. Yet Ayers, which no one was talking about, was dug up.

I think George Stephanopoulos misspoke.

Oh and since when does popular opinion determine the news. If we go down that route then the standings in American Idol would...oh wait, never mind.

Terrorist endorsers flip-flop

One of the web's stranger running franchises is the conservative site WorldNetDaily's "Terrorists Endorse" theme, a readymade attack on the Democrat in the news.
Congratulations Barack Obama from his terrorist fan club.

Hamas terrorists make 2008 U.S. presidential pick

In '04 it was Kerry. And in '08, we were told they'd settled on Hillary.

But no! Mileage having run on that one apparently, here comes the inevitable Obama endorsement.

Yousuf said that in Hamas' view, Obama has "a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61631

What an idiot.

Electability isn't on the voter's mind, it's the argument the Clintons want to be on the superdelegate's mind.

Voters don't give a crap about that process nonsense. They know that the country is in trouble and they want to hear what the candidates are going to do about it. Pennsylvania voters who turned in hoping to hear issues that matter to them discussed heard Obama at least attempt that, and heard Hillary nattering on about nonsense.

What a disaster.

You know, I rolled my eyes when I heard Obama and Clinton were going to speak at a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College this weekend, thinking it would be fluff when weighed against a "real" debate on Wednesday. But as it turns out...

Stephanopolous "strongly defended" his questions?

That merits a strong response. I wont' do chapter and verse on that now.

But Gibson and Stephanopolous carried out a coordinated tabloid-style hatchet job last night.

And NONE of his excuses can account for his decision to a) dwell on baseless 'gotcha' smear tactics, which were b) posed at the expense of legitimate issues, which were never addressed.

Of course candidates must be able to withstand criticism. But Sen. Obama already did that, as voters recognized the Rev. Wright smear was just that---a smear, and one Obama handled effectively, no less.

To bring it up again, after it's blown over, isn't just irresponsible---it's a hatchet job.

The tone and bias of the questions made that crystal clear. Stephanopolous was really asking:
> 'How long has your pastor hated America?'
> 'How long have you been consorting with known terrorists? [get it? They're blurring Obama's identity---funny name, is he from here really, and now, pssst! he knows terrorists!

Knowing Will Ayers means absolutely ZERO. A hundred thousand UW students have bought juice or smoothies from Karleton Armstrong's juice stand on Madison's Library Mall---does that make them known associates of a convicted bomber???

This is absurd.

Stephanopolous never nails right-wing pastors for damning America. He NEVER damns George Bush's lack of patriotism. Or asks why he wears the flag but perverts and betrays the Constitution.

We spent 50 minutes without a single policy question, endured cheap smears about lapel flags---and Stephanopolous wants to maintain he was "just doing his job?" Sounds like a "good German" to me; they said the same thing. I was only following orders.

This was clearly coordinated. The questions were clearly strongly biased to smear Dems as ridiculous and unrealistic. And it was clearly designed to avoid critical substantive issues like the economy and the Occupation of Iraq.

Worse, they were designed to revive previous baseless 'gotcha' attacks that had failed miserably, and drag them out as long as possible on national television.

Why else would ABC black-out/limit use by other broadcasters? Duh. Not bright.

George Stephanopolous has a lot to apologize for. He's a political operative. That's been obvious for years. But nothing can repair what's left of his reputation.

You can have my lapel pin when you pry it off of my cold dead suit.

This blog focuses primarily on "gotcha" bullshit. Why the double standard?

his reputation destroyed IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I have a couple of points here:

1.) George is a member of the media and is susceptible to the media's reporting on the media. I am not excusing him, but you know that those right-wingers like Hannity are dying to go after George for not being "tough" on Obama.
2.) Obama is a front runner and front runners are always more closely scrutinized.
3.) The big problem with the debate, in my view, is that people watch this petty stuff. Seriously. Does anyone think that there's going to be anything substantive in a Democratic debate after they've had 20 such other debates?
4.) Obama shouldn't debate anymore -- at least until before the June 3 primaries. If people haven't seen him by now, they're not voting for him in Penn, Ind, and NC.

ABC is on the offensive. Obama just spoke to an audience in NC about the debate. Here's his take:

"It took us 45 min before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people...45 minutes before we heard about healthcare, 45 min before we heard about Iraq, 45 min before we heard about jobs, 45 min before we heard about gas prices."

So what is ABC's headline? "Obama Attempts to Brush Off Tough Debate". Tough debate? Try "Obama Points Out That ABC Not Ready to Discuss Anything of Substance".

George Stephanopoulos works for the company that produced Path to 9/11, a veiled attempt to tarnish Bill and Hillary Clinton. That company also worked to undermine labor and screenwriters and now frames questions like a Fox News hit man? How the mighty have fallen.

Jesus "Hannity Talking Points" Christ! Where's my flag pin?

Shame on ABC for allowing a former Clinton staffer to moderate this debate. His bias was all too obvious, and it has damaged the network, hopefully beyond repair.

George:
Electability is a Hillary theme. Where is its basis in reality?

You have built McCain into a tiger that he is NOT. Look where McCain and the public stands on the war and the economy. The Democratic candidate is mightily electable over McCain.

I cannot adequately express the depth of my rage at the ABC moderators AND Hillary Clinton for what they are doing to my country. They have no idea how lucky they are that emails and comments can only convey thoughts.

Count me as one person who says he won't vote in November if Clinton is the nominee and means it. Far better to let McCain bring the whole shebang to a well-deserved end than to extend its life any longer.

Obama, on the other hand, can make a real difference. I will crawl through broken glass to cast my vote for this true American.

Hey Hillary Supporters... you can now officially quit your pissing and moaning.

ABC addressed all your imaginary grievances and whines of "Clinton hating" last night and put them to rest with their tag-team Obama bash. You crybabies have nothing to bitch about anymore. Obama got the lynching you've all been shrieking and braying for.

Now you losers will have nothing whatsoever to cry about when the Bride Of Frankenstein In A Pantsuit gets her fat ass whupped and sent to the dustbin of history with her lying, sexual predator husband .

So which one again was the Nedermeyer obsessed with flag pins, Chuck or Boy George?

I'll be interested to see, going forward, how ABC news does in the long run. Network news is in a bit of flux these days and it seems that, losing this much respect at once is a pretty big deal, especially when respect is your stock in trade.

I know I'll be skeptical about ABC for a long, long time after this, and my relationship with Fox News is any indication (I literally never even test the waters anymore, not even a passing curiosity), then that's a lost viewer for ABC. One less choice to make on Sunday morning, which is welcome actually.

I'll be interested to see, going forward, how ABC news does in the long run. Network news is in a bit of flux these days and it seems that, losing this much respect at once is a pretty big deal, especially when respect is your stock in trade.

I know I'll be skeptical about ABC for a long, long time after this, and my relationship with Fox News is any indication (I literally never even test the waters anymore, not even a passing curiosity), then that's a lost viewer for ABC. One less choice to make on Sunday morning, which is welcome actually.

To: Barak Obama
From: George Stephanopoulos

Quit whining a grow a pair!

And the same goes for all of you other Obamessiah acolytes. If your candidate is going to continually insert his foot is his mouth, he has to expect this kind of questioning. If he can't handle it now, his is going to get his ass kicked in the general. Deal with it!

The issue isn't that the debate focused mostly on Obama or that it was "tough on Obama". That's fine with his supporters I'm sure. Some of these things will be brought up. It was the stupidly vapid gotcha level of so many of the questions.
It is so elitist on the part of ABC to think that the American people don't want to hear/can't understand a reasoned and adult debate on substantive issues. And that George knows this is the kind of issue that is on everyone's mind. Yes these issues are topics in the echo chamber of right wing talk radio and his good pal Hannity. Instead, we're fed superficial flash points right out of a gossip magazine.
Next it will be Clinton and only her comments in 1995 about white working class people, V Foster, Pork futures, Monica, and all the old issues. And in the fall it will be about McCain and only his friendship with a blond lobbyist, his gambling/partying in Vegas, and other important "issues". All the while the security of the US at stake.
This was an example of two DC, country club & Palm restaurant going, elites who wanted to "talk at the level of" the American people and in the process proved to America that they're clueless about what "little people" are able to hear. Or as Gibson apparently thinks..people making 200K dollars a year make an average salary...pathetic. ABC should be ashamed.
This is not a partisan issue or pro or anti-Obama. It's an example of elite media thinking that when they talk on "our simple tabloid level of politics" they can only talk about these stupid issues. George should be fired and work for his old boss. If it can be proven that he did in fact take guidance form another commentator (Hannity) at another network (FOX) he should lose his job simply out of laziness and incompetence. Maybe he was auditioning for a job with his old boss last night.

"If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument..."

So, George, when are you going to ask McCain questions that are a preview of the Democrats' fall campaign?

As usual, this is only "fair game" when it's done to Democrats.