crt12;

Yes, for once the debate was fair and Obama didn't get a free ride to say only what he wanted. While on MSNBC (Is that and NBC the stations Oprah put a billion dollars into?) Hillary was pressured, interrupted and rudely told by Brian Williams the commercial was more important. That is unless Obama was talking.

However, on ABC, several times Gibson let Obama ramble on about himself and his positions, unfairly. I believe it you count the time, Hillary came up short.

Note is was three to one against Obama. Not surpised at George S. who was a former (Bill) Clinton staffer, but Charlie? They have shown loyalty to Disney by making ABC news a Mickey Mouse operation.

It was shameful for George Stephanopolous to have spent valuable air time to give such importance to a clip of someone asking why someone does or does not wear a flag pin. Is George that shallow to suggest that the wearing or non-wearing of a pin is a measure of loyalty and patriotism? I am reminded of the number of courageous Dutch during the Nazi occupation who chose to wear a yellow star to neutralize the stigma to Jews who were forced to wear the yellow star. Perhaps we should all wear the flag pin to neutralize the right-wing attempt to define themselves as more patriotic because they wear the flag pin, and some others do not. Shame on you George!!

"Whahhhhh, Typical White Grandmother, Georgie and Charlie picked on me. They won't let me be president! And Hillary was egging them on!

There, there, Barry, Typical White Grandmother will make it better. Now drink this koolaid and take your Hope pill.

How could George Stephanopolous be the moderator of this debate? A conflict of interest maybe? He was White House press secretary for Bill Clinton. He worked on the 92 Clinton campaign. Now he sets the mood and tempo of a debate that could either save or sink the current Clinton campaign. Those that allowed this to happen should be ashamed. Why did Obama's people agree to participate. Stephanopolous will soon be joining Katie Couric on "Wait, I used to have a news show" Island.

Couldn't agree more with most of the commentors above. Charlie and Georgie were an embarassment to ABC. To waste nearly an hour with such moronic fare questions the legitamacy of the affair. Hillary must have paid them well.

Disgusting assault on Obama from two Clinton lovers i guess - but i want to know what Republican would be so supportive of what Hillary says that they would think badly of Obama when these clups are shown - Hillary has no cred, and once he beats her - she will have even less than 0

Stephanopolous cohort James Carville called Governor Richardson Judas because he endorsed Senator Obama. After last night's debate, Carvile and his Clinton colleagues from their White House days are surely resorting to scripture once again, "well done good and faithful servant".

I disagree with Mr. Last on Adlai Stevenson and Obama. When Adlai Stevenson spoke, few people could understand his convoluted phrasing and high-minded themes. Stevenson was never much of a politician--and certainly not a candidate who could bridge the growing divide in the Democratic Party between North and South. The more he talked, the less you knew. Obama is a much more gifted rhetorician and he will lead a party much less divided than Stevenson did. Obama has broader appeal in the party than Stevenson did, and, unlike Stevenson, Obama will not be running after two decades of Democratic presidents.

The news from the debate should be that Senator Clinton wants to ramp up US military commitments in the Middle East. "Massive retaliation?" What the heck is that? How does it differ from what is going so wonderfully well for us right now in Iraq?

Will the MSM even ask her about this comment? Or will they wait for some new YouTube clip showing that Obama was late returning some books to the library in the tenth grade--and he wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin when he paid the overdue charge either, as you can almost make out on the three hundredth viewing of the clip.

PRAYING FOR A MIRACLE at this point that PA puts the rest of us OUT OF THIS MISERABLE PRIMARY ROMP !!! FINISH THE CLINTONS OFF NOW, SAVE US SOME FURTHER MISERY FROM THEM..we've been there and had to do all that befor with the Clintons and want NO MORE ....get them off the stage, get the hook, something PUH.LEEZE !!!

FWIW, while the Fix continues to have this no login policy for this blog, my policy is to not respond to anonymous posts.

CC: Please fix the login!

Pardon my french or political speech. Could someone take the rose-tinted glasses off of Lynn. what debate was she watching? Both Clinton and Stephanopolous took jabs plenty of jabs at Obama, all to make not point at all but to perpetuate the gritty Rove-smear-style of politics. . .to the Dems detriment, unfortunately.

Dave!,

You say, "al-Qaeda may well continue to recruit, but it was the recruits that were brought in under Clinton that were responsible for 9-11."

This actually began under George H.W. Bush. When we put US troops into Saudi Arabia, is when bin-Laden decided to attack us.

Also

Obama did say, "This will require a new era of American diplomacy. To signal the dawn of that era, we need a President who is willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I'm not afraid that America will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant - we need to go before the world and win those battles."

But Hamas is not a nation.

Speaking more generally, it DOES matter what the rest of the world (especially our allies) think of us: our motives, our intentions, etc.

World opinion, like public opinion here at home, does matter.

The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away
Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the "the culture of corruption" mantra and, onto President Bush, the "I" word - impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary's latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary's current nemesis, Peter Paul - the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign - has filed a suit against her and President Clinton - among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is "for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars."

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case - except Hillary - have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

NOTE: SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are recognized in California as lawsuits that are brought against individuals, corporations or organizations in an attempt to silence defendants who speak out on matters of public concern. An anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike all claims against a defendant - in this case, Hillary herself!

Initially, Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion appeal was denied by both trial and appellate courts but then sent back to the trial court to clarify a discrepancy. But on February 3, 2006, the judge changed his original ruling. He ignored the tardiness of Hillary's original filing and agreed to allow her to argue that her 1st Amendment rights (to conduct her senatorial campaign) included her own and her husband's right to defraud her largest contributor. This action will allow Mr. Paul's lawyers to depose Hillary. [Read more about this case in Part II of this series].

As the disposition of Hillary's appeal approaches, the Clintons, their lawyers and spinners, as well as their echo chamber in what used to be the "mainstream" media - but is now known as the Old Media and even the Antique Media - are using all of their formidable resources to make sure that Hillary dodges yet another scandal.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what the leftwing media did when they tried to smear Paula Jones when she accused the Philander-in-Chief of sexual harassment. What they didn't count on, however, was that Mrs. Jones had the truth on her side and believed so fervently that justice would be served that she refused to knuckle under to their unceasing assaults.

Today, Peter Paul (http://www.hillcap.org) also refuses to be intimidated by the Clinton machine and is equally assured that justice will out. He has become yet another Clinton nemesis who won't go away.

JohnLocker,
Our HORRIFIED friends don't vote in US elections and the American public as well as every politician should not care one iota what they think or believe. It is not their election, it is ours. I don't care if the French or anybody else approves or disapproves of who we elect. They will or will not work with us based on what they think is in their best interest.

al-Qaeda may well continue to recruit, but it was the recruits that were brought in under Clinton that were responsible for 9-11. In fact, al-Qaeda and radical Islam have never had a problem recruiting terrorists. You want to know a good recruting tool? How about Obama supporter Jimmy Carter legitimzing the terrorist organization Hamas by meeting with them? Now I know that Obama has said "I know that I've said consistently that I would not meet with Hamas". But doesn't that conflict with his description of an Obama foreign policy where he would be willing to talk with anybody and has said the following:
"When I said that as President I would lead direct diplomacy with our adversaries, I was called naive and irresponsible. But how are we going to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to our adversaries if we don't have a President who will lead that diplomacy?"

AND

"This will require a new era of American diplomacy. To signal the dawn of that era, we need a President who is willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I'm not afraid that America will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant - we need to go before the world and win those battles."

"Hundreds of thousands of new voters -- US citizens who never participated in the political process before -- are Marching to Obama's words."

It is hundreds of thousands today... but the Fall general election, it will be MILLIONS.

Stevenson once said of JFK: "When I give a good speech, they say, 'nice speech, Adlai'; but when he gives a good speech, they say, 'let's march!'.

I submit that Obama is more of the JFK mold, rather than the Adlai Stevenson mold.

Hundreds of thousands of new voters -- US citizens who never participated in the political process before -- are Marching to Obama's words.

Obama's inspiring rhetoric is Key to reviving American morale. Stevenson never possessed this gift.

Upon first witnessing Barack Obama on the campaign trail, I thought he might be something different, or maybe even new, in American politics. The more I saw of him, the more I suspected he was a conventional figure--basically this generation's Gary Hart.

But some time around Wisconsin it occurred to me that Obama might actually be this generation's Adlai Stevenson. Events since then I have tended towards this theory and it seems to have occurred to others as well.

A Democrat Bill Kristol spoke with recently observed that Obama was "in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in."

Michael Barone did a very nice job teasing out some parallels, noting that:

Like another eloquent little-known Illinois politician who emerged suddenly as an attractive presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, [Obama] seems more comfortable with the language of diplomacy and negotiation than with the words of war.

Like Stevenson, he speaks fluently and often eloquently but does not exude a sense of command. He is an interlocutor, not a fighter.

His habit of stating his opponents' arguments fairly and sometimes more persuasively than they do themselves has been a political asset among his peers and in the press but not among Jacksonians, who are more interested in defeating than in understanding their enemies.

And George Will picked up on it yesterday, recalling that Stevenson campaign presaged many of the themes and postures the Obama campaign is using now:

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance."

They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than--in Michelle Obama's words--"just downright mean."

None of this is meant pejoratively, but only as (1) another interesting lens through which to observe the dynamics of the race and (2) a reminder that there is very little new under the sun--despite what some excitable, forgetful commentators might proclaim.

I suspect that in the coming months we'll see many more similarities between the two candidates' styles, messages, and supporters.

Jonathan V. Last

Not alone. I think that should be NATO's job. But we should keep expanding NATO eastward -- bring in Ukraine next -- all the way to the Russian border. In fact, I hope to see Russia in NATO one day. That would be fantastic power.

With that kind of power, we could force the Saddam Hussein's of the world to abide by International Law without committing solely US troops to battle.

We could eliminate the kind of genocide that we're seeing in Africa.

If we act in concert with the rule of law, the VAST majority of the world would be WITH US.

With this kind of support, we would ELINMINATE the threat of Islamic Extremism.

And isn't this what we want to do? To defeat this radical fringe of Islam, we need the cooperation of the world. This is not a struggle that can be won in the old-fashioned method of invading countries and occupying them the way John McCain want to.

So, you're saying be the policeman of the world?

It is not naiveté, Metternich.

The only reason we can do this -- be great power acting with Integrity -- is exactly because of our overwhelming military and economic superiority.

Never before has one nation been so militarily dominant. Not even Rome.

And this superiority coming at a time when technology is uniting the world.

Think about it. No country on this planet can threaten us with destruction militarily. A terrorist attack, or attacks (plural), will not bring down this great country. It would only piss us off even more!

Russia could have during the latter stages of the Cold War, from the mid-70's on, threaten us with annihilation. That threat is gone (although Bush is working hard at resurrecting that threat).

Today... no one, not al-Qaeda, not bin-Laden, not Iran, nor Islamic Extremism... can bring us down.

So, we can be magnanimous. We have that luxury.

We can do what is right. And we should.

We can Force the world to live by the "rule of law" as determined by the U.N.

Think about this: the U.N. is CONSTITUTIONALISM in action.

We have defeated ABSOLUTISM.

This is of Historic import.

Bush was a throwback to the 20th century in the way he led.

Barak Obama is forward looking. He "gets it".

Hillary and McCain (even worse) are throwbacks to the Old Regime.

It is a New Era. The Global Era. We can, and should, Lead.

And Lead with Honor we must. It is our historic obligation.

If Hillary is 'experienced' and 'knows how to play the game', is that what we need - more Stay The Course? Last I checked, it ain't workin'...

Mr. Obama is a very sharp guy and after experiencing a presidency lead by the class dunce, I'm ready for someone with a decent vision on how American can restore her elemental goodness as a world citizen. How can we expect to achieve anything globally when we aren't respected by other nations? You can't be a leader if no one wants to follow you.

The country is a mess. It will take some unpleasantray to put her on even somewhat of a corrective course. I think Mr. Obama has the guts to do just that. I suspect that Hillary will be a presidential flag that waves in the corporate largesse wind.

Well considering the major league softballs Obama got at the debate before super tuesday, it was fair.

The press has an important responsibility within democratic countries to investigate and probe candidates so that we the voters can make an educated choice. As democrats wouldn't you rather have Obama's dirty laundry out in the open before we enter the general election. I mean the Clinton's dirty laundry has been out there for years.

Honestly the press should have been more aggressive with Obama from the start. Do even Obama's supporters believe he would be ahead in this primary if all of his dirt would have come out before super tuesday?

methinks thou hast spouteth naivete from every pour, poor JohnLocker

Americans,

Let's be Leaders of the world. Let's not just be another "great power" in the world like Great Britain in the 19th century, or France in the 17th, or Spain in the 16th...

The world is "uniting" because of technology. Globalization is FOR REAL.

We, America, can be a new kind of Great Power. We can lead the world with integrity (not old world power politics) and fairness (not old world Machiavellianism).

We should use the U.N. and the W.T.O. as forces to do what is right.

Not invade and crush tiny countries BECAUSE WE CAN.

Let's be better than that.

Let's disavow torture
Let's disavow aggression
Let's disavow imperialism

Sure we must defend ourselves. But only when attacked. Never "pre-emptively".

Make Barak Obama our next President.

Let's re-establish America around the world as a force for Good.

GOD Bless America

I am a simpleton who was allowed to use the hopsitle hospitle hospital computer unsupervised, but Nurse Ratched now insists that I alpogize aplogize apologize, and upon reflection I agree. Even I would make a better president than Hillary would, and I take lithium twice a day for my sever seveir severe cognitive deficits.

Joe from Pennsylvania,

Why do you think Hillary will beat Obama?

...the Super Delegates?

My family and I are voting for Hillary.

Hillary beat Senator Obama. He's a paper lion, all roar but no experience.

Hillary will be the next President, and she has her work cut out for her.

Go!!! Hillary Clinton, Go!!!

I agree with novamatt's post above. Not exactly journalism at its best.

But...

This IS who we Americans are.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we could focus on the issues and not have the sort smear event that was the first 45 minutes, but in America, in 2008, that ain't gonna happen.

This is what we are.

So...

Let's deal with it. I just hope -- fervently hope -- that American voters do the right thing this time. Not like 2004. When we voted back in the guy who took us into an unnecessary war, beating the hell out of a tiny country with no WMD and no ties to al-Qaeda, merely settling an old score that he thought his father should settled.

Our allies across the seas (Atlantic and Pacific) were HORRIFIED that we voted that guy back in, in 2004.

They accepted that he "won" in 2000. But after the moves he made in 2003, with his pre-emptive war, the most massive military machine in the world's history pummeling a country around 2/3 as populous as one of our 50 states (California) -- we voted for him AGAIN. This HORRIFIED our friends.

It cheered our enemies, though, as it greatly strengthened their recruiting. Bush and Cheney are the best recruitment tools al-Qaeda has ever had.

So... all that said, I truly hope the American people do not make THAT mistake again. We have a "once-in-a-generation" Leader here in Barak Obama.

Let's not miss the important by focusing on the diversionary as we did in last night's debate.

We should all realize that this was not a debate. I would love to see just the two candidates, with not even a moderator on stage, just the two candidates, for 90 minutes. No rules. Just...

Have at it.

For 90 minutes. No breaks.

If by some miracle (or political machination) Clinton wins the nomination, the clip the McCain campaign will play ad nauseum is of her admitting she was embarrassed that she lied. And however much her attacks on Obama will hurt him in a general election, that lie would doom her.

JD, I understand your point. A good debate would have more of the kinds of questions like the one about Tel Aviv. The debate format should, ideally, show how a candidate thinks on her feet about the important issues that could face her without a gaggle of advisers feeding her answers. That's good stuff. More of that, please. Two hours of that each week on all the channels.

Instead we get stupid stuff like the Bill Ayres non-story, the flag pin non-story, the Reverend Wright stuff that people use to gauge "character" when more complex and revealing stuff about "character" makes their little brains hurt. Little Stephy and the Good Morning America guy wanted to make news last night by asking a gotcha question that a candidate (preferably Obama) would fumble, resulting in that Holy Grail of political reporting, The Gaffe. It's alarming that this is what journalism has sunk to.

I did not get a chance to watch the debate unfortunately. I will say that people need to realize that a president is not elected based only on their policy positions. I read many comments about "tabloid name calling" and "the media's obsessive sensationalizing of the horse race tit for tat that has been going on for the past month". Presidents are elected partially based on what people think and how people feel about the candidate. Many say that Obama's ties to Rezko, Wright, Ayers, etc make no difference in the scope of the election. I submit that they do in that they help define who Obama the person is. Obama can claim that this is politics of the past but he runs the risk of being defined by it. That and it's not politics of the past - it is who you are as a person. He has these relationships. If they did not exist, the questions would be off base. But they do.

I really want to go back and watch this because, based on the comments, I think that it might be problematic for Obama in the general election because this might have helped to define him, and not in a good way.

Chris:

You talk about the Bloomberg/LA Times poll and claim that it shows something it doesn't show.

From a methodological standpoint, polling registered voters instead of screening for likely primary voters makes this poll more or less irrelevant. Obama has been able to draw atypical voters, but if he's getting a ton of bad press, a minor drop in the enthusiasm level could be devastating to him in the upcoming primaries.

I'm not saying that is necessarily what is going to happen, but you can't diss small town voters and not pay a price for it in PA and IN.

Obama was quite right to question those kinds of questions. They have nothing to do with what kind of president he'll be.

Posted by: novamatt | April 17, 2008 9:05 AM

Novamatt, I get your point, I really do. However... I would say that his reaction to attack has *everything* to do with what kind of president he'll be. I believe that the next President of the US will have to deal with any number of issues and emergencies, including a likely nuclear Iran, what to do about Iraq, how to react to an attack on Tel Aviv (which they were directly asked last night), to financial issues, SS solvency, etc.

While a liberal might see those questions as 'unfair', I saw them as a crucible to prove they can make the hard decisions, deal with the tough issues.

Obama has pretty much been given a pass by the media so far. I think he needs to be put through the wringer a time or two; it really highlights his unimpressive performance under pressure. How will he react to the incredible pressures he'd endure as President? I say if he can't stand the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen.

Anointed One got his butt kicked - by a girl. Cool!

I don't what's more pathetic and disappointing - ABC's hit job last night or the denial and spin coming from Clinton's supporters today.

The real story is that ABC botched that debate and insulted the American public. Check out their comment board for proof. Big media like ABC, Washington Post, NYTimes better learn to be critics of themselves too, or they'll continue to see their audience disappear to sites like the Huffington Post which already is fully covering how horrendous that debate was.

The worst of the worst. What a pathetic spectacle.

A debate? It was a fascist smear campaingn. it was revolting. ABC has completely slipped the righwing edge now.

CALL AND COMPLAIIN!

ABC Switchboard: 212-456-7777

The words that stuck with me is the ones that he changed. This guy gets away with everything and there is no one to challenge him. I've seen various comments all over the web and I must have been watching something other than what was on CBS and called a "Debate".

It seems that Obama may not only be fighting Politics of the past but the media approach of the present.

What ABC focused on was embrassing -- they wasted two thirds of the debate promoting and rehashing tabloid name calling.

Do they do it for ratings or because they think the that is what we care about? They give us no credit for having brains or wanting to hear about real issues -- when are they going to become real news jounalists or is that a dead profession?

That was a splendid debate and Clinton excelled in her answers.

Obama, as usual, spent more time bashing Hillary and dodging commitments than providing substantive, knowledgeable and workable answers.

Clinton nailed this one, hands down....

Posted by: Lynn | April 16, 2008 11:16 PM

I agree with Lynn. It was splendid.

Hey George Stephanopoloussuosus,

Who gives a rats behind who wears a flag pin, you little Clinton pimping who-er.

Hey George Stephanopoloussuosus,

Who gives a rats behind who wears a flag pin, you little Clinton pimping who-er.

A Clinton I staffer moderates the debate, and all the "scandalous" questions go to Obama.

I'm shocked!

Nothing I like better than the Obamaniacs when the Obamassiah screws up. They get their panties in a wad, throw words like "fascist" around.

Chris, are those the "better angels" than BHO is appealing to?

That was not a debate. It was a slanted, barely disguised, tawdry Obama Roast. Hillary faced a couple of tough moments too, such as the video from a gentleman who said she'd lost his vote over the Bosnia debacle, but Obama was clearly the target from the first moment. Gibson & Stephanopoulos were patently idiotic and embarassingly non-neutral. In large part it was more a cheesy tabloid format, rather than an informative, substantial debate. Shame on ABC....ick.

All of these debates have become a joke. The idea of a debate is to establish the debater's position on a subject as well as show how he/she thinks on their feet. The questions chosen by moderators are calculated more for their newsworthiness the next day than they are to provide genuine information on the candidates.

If they want a REAL debate, let them pick a series of topics (economy, health care, Iraq war, foreign trade, immigration) and hold a debate on each point. Flip a coin to see who goes first. Fifteen minutes each to state their position, then another five minutes each to rebut.

End of story. No more ignorant questions from moderators. The questions will carry MUCH more weight if the candidates ask them of each other.

Until the campaigns adopt a meaningful debate format, the rest of us should just change the channel.

After that, how could anyone vote for Hillary. What a lying sack of (...). All she did was make herself look very un-Presidential.

The trivialization of politics continues. congratulations to ABC.

I am wondering why anyone would take offense at your comments. I don't agree with you that Obama sees the world as he wants it to be, I think he sees it as it can be if everyone would just grow-up. He is indeed pragmatic, he has always worked both sides of the aisle to get bills passed. He believes in everyone's right to their own beliefs, which is different than legislating beliefs for people.

As to Hilary, did you miss how many times she referred to the 90's? Whose running, Hilary, or Bill?

What noone ever calls Hilary on is to get her to answer a specific on any policy that she is stating. I think she can understand information but it's the application I am concerned about. She kept saying it would depend on revenues. She should have known approximately what hte math would be and how to interpret it. They didn't give Barack that question, and he could have answered it more specifically.

And as for beng on the grille, I wish news would return to news and skip ratings, if 50% of the peeps want drama, then let them get it somewhere else.

We need responsible stable, brilliant, energetic people in government, and I think we should be putting the two of them to that test, not who their friends are. It takes a true gentleman not to bring up Bill's indiscretions when Hillary is being such a @**** about walking out of a church.

Think about how you would feel about that in a conversation at a party, you'd walk away from her to get a drink, because it would be so annoying.

The guy is smart, he's for real, why aren't there more specific questions, he was the one that had to point that out about the Capitol Gains tax.

And where were the questions on foreign policy and renewing our diplomatic strengh?

Did they skip that because it is going to be one of Obama's strengths, his ability to listen, negotiate, and act.

I am proud to be a supporter of Barack Obama!

ABC was obcene. Clinton was as charming as a snarling, chomping, biting street rat. How could anyone contemplate someone with so little grace or humanity or compassion or justice---for the President of the United States. I was supporting Obama before this debate, but I never Hated anyone before. Today, I am working very hard to talk to myself about being like Jesus. But, so far Mrs. Clinton has finally manifested rage in my heart. A thoroughly repulsive display.

What doesnt kill you makes you stronger

novamatt -

Ditto. When Obama referred to his "bet" in his closing statement, I think he also included a bet that the voters really are tired of this irrelevant noise, tired of having their intelligence insulted, and able to see through the crap and think about the issues.

Of course last night, thanks to George and Charlie (as in "Bob and Ray," "Abott and Costello," and "Burns and Allen,") there was precious little talk of issues.

I was disappointed with Obama's performance; he could have buried HRC once and for all with a strong outing. My guess now is that HRC wins PA by 10 or so (now deemed a "landslide" by Rendell). The polls suggest that BHO will swamp her in NC, and that means, as he has said, he has to finish her off in IN, or we're in for a long, hot summer.

I am sick of hearing and reading that because some of us do not support Hillary, we are sexist. I have great respect for such politicians as Feinstein, Boxer, Olympia Snowe, Janet Napolitano, Katherine (?) Sebelius, and the list goes on. My issue with Hillary is that she is blatantly, nakedly ONLY about herself and her husband, NOT the Democratic Party and NOT the U.S. She lost my vote when she supported George's Big Adventure in Iraq, and she has since done nothing - NOTHING - to win it back. She has demonstrated a willingness - learned from her husband? or taught to him? - to do or say anything in order to further her own political goals - including, but not limited to, lying to the press about her trip to Bosnia. People, that was not a case of stretching the facts - she MADE THEM UP. What's even more astonishing to me is that she seems to think that having been shot at - with her (at the time) young teenage daughter in tow - would somehow make her seem more able to serve as chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth. I'm sure she lists this as part of her much-celebrated "35 years of experience," which says something about its value or lack thereof.

JD, process-y obsessions might be fine in a forum like this, but it's a little weird to make them the focus of a debate. Electability, the most process-y obsession of all, seemed to be the central contention of the first hour last night. That's the charitable view of the early questions from last night.

The moderators took electability to mean the ability to run the gauntlet of the little mini-scandals that modern political reportage specializes in, and so they asked the kind of gotcha questions that have come to dominate the way the media covers elections. Can Obama be elected in the fall if he's been associated with Person X? If he doesn't engage in the lazy patriotism of sticking a flag pin in his lapel every morning? If he occasionally plays amateur sociologist?

Obama was quite right to question those kinds of questions. They have nothing to do with what kind of president he'll be. And they're only one slice of the whole electability pie. Where were the questions about how the candidates plan to arrive at 270 EV's? Where were the questions about the nomination endgame? Some voters, certainly, will base their vote on the silly stuff. Most won't, though, and many are likely quite appalled that the whole process, as exemplified by the performance last night, has been dumbed-down to this sort of garbage. That wasn't a debate last night. It was an extended dual press conference conducted by a couple of celebrity non-journalists. And it was appalling.

The problem the Republicans have with using Clinton question clips is that she ALWAYS gets the facts a bit scrambled. She may be able to get away with that in a debate or other one-time situation, but the Republicans won't be able to use that in an ad that runs over and over - they'd have to pull it as soon as someone pointed out the obvious untruth(s).

(No, I haven't the slightest idea if she's doing that on purpose.)

To characterize these affairs as "debates" is to mangle the English language. Where was the debate?

More accurately they are "Broadcast Media Talking Hairdo Inquisitions".

Will the real journalists please stand up if we have any left? This is the extreme result of what happens when news is made to be a revenue stream by corporate media, instead of funded to act in the public interest. Obscene.

George Stephanoulos is a smart guy, so I don't see how he cannot spend the next month completely embarrassed by this dreadful "debate" . Chris, if you read this far, you should say something about why you apparently do not think this debate was dreadfully shallow.

One more person insulted by the foolishness perpetrated by the "moderators." And CC, is the press guild so incestuous that you won't denounce the travesty of last night? Kinda like bishops seeing and say no evil about predator priests? Is that part of being a "stand-up" Journalist?
Flag lapel pins? That poor woman was just shamefully used by the moderators.
Shame on them and on all other journalists, even Balz and CC who won't yell foul even when the foul stinks to high heaven.

As we noted earlier today, the L.A. Times/Bloomberg surveys showed that voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina already believe she better understands a number of domestic issues than Obama and yet still opt for Illinois senator.

Now we wonder why in the hell we are in such sad shape.

2000 elected GW over Gore. Gore understood domestic and international issues but GW was likable so he won. Guess what happened.

2004 elected GW again over Kerry. War president didn't want change.

2008 Elect OB based on idealism. Morass continues.

Idealism is great for social work but doesn't solve problems, especially significant problems that requires understanding and pragmatism.

Idealism well suited in Academics and social theorists not fit for managing. Mind you, US Federal Government is the biggest enterprise in the world. Anyone thinking someone walk-in, hire few consultants (essentially cabinet posts are) and run the Federal Government is delusional.

Bankruptcy on the other hand is a distinct possibility.

Why does the number of clips available to use against Obama matter? (Of course it does NOT matter.)

Why are the press so fixated on the "destructiveness" of the Dems primary? The Republicans' was far more personal and bitter, with dozens of simply wonderful clips -- which we will never see, since ABC news will be so busy hammering Obama about a guy he met on an airplane once who knocked over a liquor store.

Instead of important issues like telecom immunity/FISA, US torture, and the financial/housing crisis, ABC gave us idiotic gotcha questions like bittergate, snipergate, and lapel pins. Instead of elevating the substance of the debate, ABC stuffed it down the drain.

You people embarrass me. Do not you realize that HRC is the minion of my arch enemy Lucifer? Barack, my other son, is taking licks for sure, but he will endure and become the 44th President of the United States.

Obama got crushed. Simple as that. Don't take my word for it:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/16/905215.aspx

And for all you whiny Democrats complaining about the unfair questions from those toughie, meanie moderators; sack up or shut up. This is hardball politics, and people play mean.

We already have heard ad infinitum on the very minor differences in policy between the two. Enough of that. Time to see if they can take a punch.

Otherwise, if they crumble after getting their feelings hurt, what's going to happen when they have stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? When they have to get the Chinese to back down from an invasion of Taiwan?

Anyway, Obama failed that test last night. Let's see if the elites running the party want to execute a little buyer's remorse now.

Disclaimer (for those of you who do not visit this blog regularly): I am an avid Obama supporter.

I agree with all of those, of both allegiances, who say Obama had a bad night. No objective view could conclude otherwise.

Obama looked rattled and tired, and his up-to-now "crack" campaign team did not prepare him well enough, if at all, for this debate. He may have been taken aback by the intensity of the grilling by the two moderators, with HRC frequently (and a tad too gleefully, to my admittedly biased eye) piling on, he should not have been surprised by the questions themselves. Yes, I know he has answered most of these questions before, but he should not have allowed his annoyance show through so obviously at having to answer them yet again. As he has been whenever he has felt he was in a superior position in the campaign, he was a bit complacent and appeared to be "looking past" Hillary at the g.e. -- just a wee bit prematurely, IMHO. Although I support him, the debates are, plain and simple, not his best forum, and they have been Hillary's all through the campaign. Even when she allegedly stumbled in the last Philly debate on the driver's license question, she has not come off as badly as BHO did last night. He needs to shake it off and move on. The only silver lining I can hope for is that the viewers saw him as being unfairly ganged up on.

Now, to those HRC supporters who are gloating that it's about time Obama got a taste of what HRC has had to deal with, I have to say that I cannot recall another debate in which the moderators so relentlessly attacked her or any other candidate. Yes, she was asked tough questions by Russert in Cleveland, but to my mind, last night was way over the top.

E.g., they did zero follow-up after Hillary essentially said, referring to the Tusla story, "I lied." They just let it drop and quickly went back to pillorying Obama on things like this silly flag-pin crap. (BTW, I don't wear one either, for the same reason he gave. Besides, Bush and "So?" Cheney wear them all the time, and it hasn't had any magical powers to make them remember the Constitution and other patriotic institutions they've spent 8 years trashing.)

When they finally did get to substance -- more than 50 minutes in -- it felt rushed, as if they were just going through the motions.

Big loser: ABC, trying to show that they're major-league when they are, as they have been since Peter Jennings died, bush-league.

Big winner: McCain and the GOP attack machine.

It will be interesting to see what the chattering class focuses on. Will it be the red-herring Ayers story, or the much more important "massive retaliation" comment made by Hillary. Sadly, I think I know the answer.

It seems with debate that Clinton is going to say sorry to all the democrats and join republicans (her views and outlook in these days are very close to Karl Rove's charter). She is a perfect VP candidate for McCain.

Obama should for the general debates insist on the sit-down-at-the-same-table format. These stand-up debates, for whatever reason, seem to invite antagonistic exchanges. Obama, given his style and his demeanor, does better when things are more civil.

And I really hope that, as someone else pointed out above, the fall debates are moderated by Jim Lehrer or someone of that stature. Charlie Gibson's store-bought gravitas borders on the self-parodic, and Stephy seemed more interested in creating news than in moderating a debate. I'll confess I don't watch much ABC News so I don't know if lasat night was a departure from their ordinary performance, but it was a wretched "debate." If I were an undecided voter, I wouldn't have any more information about the candidates' views on the substantive issues than I had going in.

Issues that I heard little or nothing about: the environment, the credit crunch, the dollar, trade, immigration, hunger, education, job creation. I'm sure others can add other important neglected issues. Instead we get what seemed like an hour of flag pins and Reverend Wright and Tuzla.

And even when important issues were raised, like Iraq, like taxes, like gas prices, the questions were generic enough that the candidates could simply trot out lines from their stump speech, and there were precious few follow-ups unless it involved a tax that might affect Charlie Gibson. Just an aggravating, demeaning (to both candidates) performance. I can't imagine Obama will be agreeing to a North Carolina debate now. There's absolutely nothing in it for him other than an opportunity to see if Katie Couric can be worse than her fellow ex-morning talker host.

Awfull, Awfull One hour of NY Post headline coverage...George worked in the Clinton Administration and who knows what was up with Charlie..Wheres the BEEF???

George and Charlie should formally apologize to Barack Obama for bringing sandbags rather than questions to the debate last night.

And, after her response to the question on the Middle East, could someone please give Hillary a copy of the Constitution?

Stephanopoulos, SOUNDS LIKE A FLESH EATING BACTERIA

THE MORON WORKED IN THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE

Gibson, THE FOOL IS JUST CNN Lou Dumbs STUNT DOUBLE, REALLY DIDN'T EXPECT BETTER FROM HIM

GIBSON AND THE BACTERIA STEPHA.....WHATEVER WHERE CLEARLY SHRILLARIES HITMEN. THE WOMAN HAS NO LIFE IN HER, NO BLOOD FLOWING EITHER

SHAME ON ABC!!!!! WORST DEBATE EVER!!!!

Senator Clinton is so far and above the better candidate - it is unfathomable that any objective observor could conclude that Obama "won" this debate. And Obama didn't even have to answer for the lies he told about Rezko/associates connections. He will not be able to win the general election and it is bizarre to imagine that his "explanations" about the bitter comments are believable. Remember, the comments were made in response to a question as to why the Pa. voters were NOT flocking to him. He dismissed them as bitter and clinging to those unenlightened things like religion or guns as to why they wouldn't vote for him. Now he says he disinvited Porsche-driving Wright due to a Rolling Stone article? Take a look at the article and see if you would cancel your pastor for that article ... doesn't ring true. If Obama gets the bid he won't win, period. But at the end - there's a woman to blame - in Obamaville.

Stephanopoulos, SOUNDS LIKE A FLESH EATING BACTERIA

THE MORON WORKED IN THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE

Gibson, THE FOOL IS JUST CNN Lou Dumbs STUNT DOUBLE, REALLY DIDN'T EXPECT BETTER FROM HIM

GIBSON AND THE BACTERIA STEPHA.....WHATEVER WHERE CLEAR SHRILLARIES HITMEN. THE WOMAN HAS NO LIFE IN HER, NO BLOOD FLOWING EITHER

SHAME ON ABC!!!!! WORST DEBATE EVER!!!!

That wacky media is just acting like an NBA ref once again. I wish I could say that they've come to their senses about the ridiculously easy ride they've given Obama throughout most of this race, but the truth is that they just want to keep the race as close as possible so they have something to write and talk about. A close race with lots of focus on stupid non-issues means more advertising dollars for everyone.

Too bad it also means we might get stuck with a charismatic, unqualified fraud for a president for the third time in a row.

Hillary is more than willing to talk about how she would work within the system as she's proven she can do, to push her platform. But showing policy knowledge is too boring. Americans don't care about who has shown that they can actually do the job well, they just want someone who has the best sounding promises. I wish real job interviews were this easy.

I also wish moderators would ask Obama how he plans to enact his extremely liberal platform (which is almost identical to Hillary's) while singlehandedly eliminating special interests and changing the culture of DC.

Being a great public speaker doesn't turn red into blue. How will Obama convince republicans (voters and congressional leaders) to go along with ideas that most have opposed their entire lives? Even more importantly, how will he accomplish anything at all in a capitalist society without the support of any special interests? The man is a dangerously unqualified fraud and he will run smack into a brick wall in DC if he's lucky enough to be elected.

"McCainocrat" = "svreader"?

From ridiculous television shows like American Idol all the way to presidential elections, Americans have been showing for the past 8 years that they have no idea how to vote intelligently.

The blind passion for Obama and the refusal to acknowledge his many flaws and inadequacies is just further confirmation that most Americans simply don't deserve to vote.

The questions asked of Obama last night were asked because they are the questions that MANY Americans want answers to. Obama is not beloved by all, or by most of this country. That his ongoing, bitter and negative attacks on Clinton have borne this much fruit is just further truth that negative campaigning works.

Here's the reality of last night's debate. Obama rarely gave an actual answer to many of the questions that were asked. Rather he danced around the issues and refused to be pinned down. Yet, with almost every answer, he had something negative to say about Clinton.

The man is a liar, a hypocrite and - he is woefully unprepared to be president. His supporters clearly don't want to see him placed under scrutiny or asked hard questions. Small wonder as he can't handle it well. The real Obama, who we are slowly getting to see is neither likeable nor electable.

Obama supporters aren't used to taking hits. Neither is their candidate. How would he fare in a General?

Several points to continue the thread from where LylePink and Bsimon discussed how is it possible that Obama's seemingly teflon coat has repelled any critisim of him? The polls continue to flatline despite issues that should send it into defib.

Hillary supporters are used to the bad press, the unfair treatment.

But when you see polls drop for her over Bosnia and his stay the same over lots of serious issues, you have to ask yourself, what's up.

This was a poorly conducted debate that featured the first hour or so focusing on the latest political gossip rather than the issue voters really need to know about. This truly was poorly done on ABC's part. Democrats should never again agree to debate with this company.

Did Hillary swallow after servicing George and Chuckles after the debate? Inquiring minds want to know! I hope both the Hillary supporting mods got something for their efforts.
If only she did the same for her hubbie there would have been no Monica Lewinsky scandal or impeachment.

First thoughts:

*While debates are excellent at showcasing her extreme wonkieness, Hillary Clinton's answers were all focus-grouped to the maximum of human ability.

*However, an ever-growing number of voters can agree with everything she says and still not believe a single word of it.

*Hillary Clinton proved yet again that her gut instinct is to go for the jugular; she wouldn't be able to come across as gracious in a disagreement if Martha Stewart was coaching her through an ear-piece.

*Highlight for those who remember the Clinton administration: George Stephanapolous must have high hopes for a deal with CBS as he made a point of emphasizing how Hillary says one (vicious) thing in private and the exact opposite in public. (Seems the next Clinton WH position he was playing for has developed a decided tarnish to it.)

*On a more personal note: Mr. Gibson has just lost me as a fan - permanently. (NBC will be my exclusive home for broadcast news from last night on.)

ABC should be boycotted. Those pathetic excuses for "journalists" Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are probably mopping up the floor after the hit job they did on Obama.

But, despite being an Obama supporter, THAT IS NOT WHAT BOTHERED ME THE MOST. My chief complaint: it was a shallow, tabloid-style circus act of which the main purpose was to make news when, after 20 debates and countless controversies, there is none.

Those moderators are stupid, unprofessional, shallow and desperate for ratings.

ABC: Just send them to Disney. They can entertain the children. Obama will be all right, but your network will suffer if you keep those clowns and call them journalists.

Wow you Obama supporters have unrealistic expectations for what is fair. Stephanopolous got Hillary Clinton to say "Yes, yes, yes" to whether she thought Obama was electable! And you guys accuse him of somehow being in the tank for Obama?
Let's get this straight - if you remember the NBC debate moderated by Russert and Williams you'll recall Hillary got grilled over and over. Why? Because there was meat on the bone at that point and they took a big bite.
Why did Obama get grilled last night? Simple. He is inches away from being the Democratic nominee, the Rev. Wright controversy has NEVER been addressed at a debate, the "bittergate" comments have not been addressed at a debate, and moderators are going to ask questions on issues that have not been addressed in this forum. Or are we just to listen to every candidate's stump speech as the final word on every matter?
Yes it's true! Obama got most of the tough questions today. Of course he did for all the issues raised above. They asked Clinton about the Bosnia thing too. And they asked about Iraq, taxes, Iran, and more.
I thought it was an excellent debate. With all due respect, I think you Obama supporters are just too used to seeing this guy worshipped on tv by everyone but the Clinton campaign that you don't know how to handle what was a pretty standard debate. Of course he got the tough questions - his minister was shown to be controversial and he called a whole class of people bitter and explained their religious faith as being related to their economic woes.
Get real! What did you expect?

urban4,

I am not happy about having to support a Republican (there are many issues that I disagree with McCain on, most importantly the make up of our courts), but I can not support anyone who uses JFK's challenge of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" as yet one more rhetorical punch line - and has no record of accomplishments or sacrifices to back it up.

I trust McCain - for all his flaws - because he has a record I can judge, and on balance, I approve of it.

There is very little record to judge on SnObama - and what there is - I strongly disapprove. He is perhaps the least qualified individual to ever seek the Presidency. I don't think he is qualified to lead a platoon, much less to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. SnObama is fatally flawed because all he has is his relationships with others who vouch for him, and I don't like the company he keeps. I don't trust them, and I don't approve. And I will not be alone among the Democrats who abandon a party that has abandoned their constituents and their values.

If I ever needed any reminding of why I can't stand so much of the mainstream media political coverage, that first hour of the ABC "debate" between Obama and Clinton was more than enough.

The entire hour was wasted on the stupid crap we're all sick of. It was all Obama could do to try and steer the discourse to the issues that matter to us most: the economy and jobs, the Iraq war and occupation, health care, education, energy alternatives, the environment, corruption, the power of special interests, etc...

Instead, the focus was entirely on the media's obsessive sensationalizing of the horse race tit for tat that has been going on for the past month, with Hillary's disingenuous "I will do everything in my power to ensure Democrats win the White House", while doing everything she could to continue to raise questions about Obama, essentially doing the Republican Party's dirty work for them.

If you're going to waste a hour on covering the horse race, then at least make a point to mention that Clinton is trailing in states won, trailing in popular vote, trailing in delegate count, and hasn't got a hope in hell of winning unless she somehow finds a way to destroy Obama, and as a consequence, the Democratic Party as well.

Just a small issue of note you'd think would be brought up.

Pathetic stuff.

That's right - a McCainocrat! My party has taken leave of its senses, so I have no other choice - I can live with a genuine American Hero, who has a long record of being a Maverick within his party and has worked across party lines to pass landmark legislation and values the input of men like Gen. Zinni, Gen. Shinseki, Gen. Newbold, and Gen. Petraeus - all of whom understand the military, its capabilities, its limitations, and have a working knowledge of places like Iraq because they have been on the ground for years.

It was civilians - Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, Bremer and a few other's, who were as arrogant and dismissive as the Harvard educated SnObama on creating a strategy that was destined to fail the Iraqi people and our troops - (who's lives were not WASTED as SnObama so disdainfully equated their sacrifice) - who failed us with inadequate planning and establishing a strategy in Iraq. It has been four painful years till McCain and others in our legislature finally convinced the civilian leadership to listen to the advice of our Generals to change the course in Iraq and establish a strategy that might, MIGHT, get us out of the mess created by another a Harvard grad who dismissed the concerns of the military and established the horrific failure of a 'strategy'.

I fail to understand the difference of SnObama and Bush - both have less-than-impressive records in a statehouse that they claim gives them the ability to restore honor to the Whitehouse and bridge the partisan divide that is ruining this nation. There is nothing in SnObama's record to justify his claims of being a change agent - he lives in, and has benefited from, the most corrupt and ethically challenged political cultures in the US - and he has done nothing - nothing - to change it.

I will not be alone. There are many McCainocrats out there - they may not blog - but they vote, and that is what matters.

But I actually do wish they had talked a bit more about the Bush/Cheney energy bill that SnObama voted for - and that both Clinton and McCain opposed. Even on the issues, SnObama will disappoint his poor, duped cult members.

Oh please! That wasn't a debate, that was the early edition of The National Enquirer! ABC should be ashamed of themselves...I thought Charlie Gibson was better than this, Peter Jennings must be rolling over in his grave...

your comment that Hillary was well prepared - hmmm... could it be that she was given the questions beforehand by Bill's boy George and was ready and poised.

The attacks on Obama were just too obvious and sad to say ABC has lost all credibility with this debate debacle. We as voters deserve better from our news sources. They tout being the referees for the American public and this is what they gave us?

My family will miss Boston Legal - but they are no longer welcome in our home.

Why on Earth didn't ABC broadcast this live? On the West Coast, we got it on tape delay. Proof that ABC saw this as entertainment rather than news. Ignoring whether Clinton or Obama got the edge from the moderators (which I don'r believe either did), I'm more disappointed with the state of television journalism in this country.

I'm hoping print journalists from around the nation take ABC to task for this egregious series of events. We are talking about the likely next president of the United States, the next leader of the free world. And ABC decides to hold the live event until it matches Prime Time in each geography? WTF?

I know you're sick and not firing on all cylinders, but you have a problem with one of your premises:

"she has been through the wringer that is national politics before and knows how to play the game."

Clearly not, as all the recent polls show. I'm not talking about the polls that predict votes, but the ones that ask about Americans' perceptions of her. Her negatives are higher than her positives. 60% of Americans don't trust her or think she is honest.

How does that equate to "knowing how to play the game?"

Isn't the object of the game to win?

Voters will elect an honest scoundrel, but not a self-deluded person they can't trust. She doesn't seem to realize that by working so hard to pull the levers and spin the knobs, she's called our attention to the curtain and we've seen behind it.

Sloppy thinking like your "analysis" is part of the problem. The only group to fare worse than Hillary on the credibility issue was the media and obsession with telling Americans what they just saw and heard, in case they were too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

Fluids, rest, and remember: the key to perspective is distance.

McCainocrat,
McCain is a fatally flawed candidate on issues that matter. Economy and Iraq. Who would have guessed early in the campaign that he will be consistently on both sides of each issue just like Romney was.
1. He is violating his own campaign reform law.
2. Once for amnesty now for fence.
3. Once for no mortgage bailaout now for bailout. etc, etc, etc...

You really have a smorgasbord of issues that he fails on. It will be a tough fight (perhaps not as tough as against Clinton), but Obama has a good chance of wiping the floor with McCain.

The election debate on ABC last evening was a disappointment.

Instead of providing the public service that they are granted a license by the people of America, the people are given vacuous talking points, innuendos, and ignoratio elenchi arguements.

This debate is below muckraking or sensational journalism since the material in the first hour of the debate was not new information; It was simply a rehash of old material in the genre of a Jerry Springer episode.

Barely existing in the depths of staff and funding cuts, news departments been neutered by their corporate parents making American journalism almost extinct. America can then outsource our press to communist China - whose media is about as diverse as the American media.

This seemed like some kind of test of Obama. They hardly challenged Clinton at all. They hardly discussed any topics that really matter to voters, just tabloid stuff. I guess all in all, Obama came off looking pretty good just because he survived the onslaught. He did get off a pretty good one regarding Bill Clinton. If they want to condemn him with guilt by association then Hillary has zero credibility just being married to Bill. Here is a guy who sells influence, pardoned criminals after Hillary's brother took payoffs. Was even implicated in a murder as well as a documented rape. His list of offenses are despicable yet there she is, staying in a phony marriage of convenience.

I have a feeling that based on current results, that Obama is the candidate that the Democracts want, but Hillary is the candidate the Democrats need! What a shame it would be if - once again - the party made a strategically poor choice of candidate at a time when the White House seems so close!

.

The 44th President of the United States

President Barack Obama

.

McCainocrat?

Really?

LOL!

The SnObama cult members are all over the blog whining about their Obamessiah being asked a few tough questions.

I thought that speech in Phili that he gave five weeks ago was the beginning of a conversation that was needed on race relations? How is his qualification of the 'typical white person' who is 'bitter' and 'clinging' to 'antipathy of those who aren't like them' not part of that conversation? How are those questions posed to him in the first 45 minutes not legitimate? He makes a big deal about the relationships the Clintons have, why aren't Obama's relationships open to same kind of scrutiny?

Perhaps they don't like the fact that bloom is off his rose - I hope they don't loose any sleep - he is still going to be the nominee and the Dems will have yet one more hopelessly flawed candidate who will loose the Whitehouse. If you think tonight was bad, wait till the press starts asking questions about SnObama's links to Rev. Meeks (an anti-gay state senator on the south side of Chicago) - or how SnObama uses his religious convictions as a wedge issue to justify his opposition to gay marriage - or better yet, when they get to the bottom of his attendance to a party at his political patron and federally indicted friend Rezko's house for Iraqi billionaire Messer Auchi.

my guess is that she's blowing her wad on Penn... and after she wins by a narrowed margine...she won't have the funds to really compete in the remaining state.

I think this is the death knell for Clinton

there's no where she can go, and Obama's polls just keep going up.

......and you could wonder about her money....when you compare those poll numbers; you must have a lot of Clinton supporters who, evidently, think that Obama is going to be the Nominee, and that he's best suited to win over McCain.

It's hard to imagine donating to what you consider to be a lost cause (even if you do prefer Clinton)

Don't you think?

Thank you UM for laying out Obama's blatant lies regarding his so called high road campaign.

With the help for the largely Pro Obama media , he is able to slam Hillary on her Bosnia faux pas and then claim to be the one taking the high road.

Since the media rarely calls him on these lies the blogosphere needs to take up the slack.

Read my post about Obama's Bittergate Counterattack ad released in PA which reveals Obama lying by altering the soundtrack of Hillary and the supposed "jeers".

The sounds of protest at Hillary's words about Obama's indictment of PA's voters was altered to seem louder and include more protesters. On the actual sound tract, which I heard first on Monday, you could hear a FEW voices saying "no" and the person on MSNBC had to remind watchers that they were there.

Compare his ad to the original soundtrack please:

Fraudulent ad soundtrack

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_Represent.html

The original soundtrack of Hillary and the very few protesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp6nHrfGbaY

the most telling number in today's poll was this:

Question # 11 (of Democrats)

"has the better chance of getting elected president in November"

Answer:

Obama: 62%
Clinton: 31%

these numbers are huge. even if there's a shift, it's such a large percentage of Democrats who now think Obama's the most likely to beat McCain. That, with all the other numbers, takes away any argument that the Clinton camp can make with Super Delegates. There's no argument left. Penn will play out, Ind and North Carolina.. and the results will be pretty much the same...Obama won: more delegates, more states, more popular votes, more Democrats who prefer him, and more Democrats who think he's the more likely to beat McCain.

What other argument is left? Seriously. The Clinton camp has run out of everything but money, it appears.

Obama won

Washington Post ABC News Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html?hpid=topnews

Just look at the Conservative
Jack-A$$es that have occupied
the White House over the past
28 years.

They didn't wind up there
without the Neo-Conservative
and highly manipulative media.

We all need to wake up and
BE THE CHANGE!

Speak with our parents, peers,
and grandparents in the remaining
States that have yet to vote in
the primaries.

We, also, need to hold out election process accountable!

Liberally biased media my rear end. That whole debate was framed from the Republican wingnut perspective and the majority of the debate focused on "gotcha" empty issues. To me it seemed particularly bad toward Obama but I would argue that Clinton received her share of crap question too. It is so depressing that the media obsesses about "bitter" gate and bowling or "Tuzla" gate and cackling. It would still bother me but it might bother me less if they did similar personally hit jobs on the Republicans - but they never do. I guess it is only Republican men who we could possibly like well enough to have a beer with.

Isn't it strange how the
Neo~Cons like 'Comment'
vanish when the truth
becomes too much for
them to handle?

Get used to it
we are not
giving
up!

Ralph,
I'm still not convinced. How about "Hillary the movie"? The material is ready to launch...

Anyway, our dispute is academic. Obama will likely deny republicans the chance to swiftboat Hillary - he will be a nominee.

The unfavorables of 50% and 51% I saw in RCP just yesterday. Obviously WashPo's is much different than that, but I guess it's a matter of your poll against my poll thing.

urban, every Repub bi*ch point from the 90's was investigated with about $70 million worth of Ken Starr investigations, so it's a tired disproven chant, not fodder for swiftboaters.

The deals Bill made are not swiftboat material either. They're already reported and well known. Republicans have a hard time getting any traction in trying to swiftboat making money. That's their bag.

Hillary '08

I agree with skinsfan on ONE point: it's time to turn in.

But I have to take one final 'shot' at those who think Hillary~! is the savior (like skinsfan).

This is for those Democrats who just can't sleep without mentioning guns, the bible, and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence (not something I would have ever thought I'd say, btw):

EVER see the movie 'Stripes' with Bill Murray? Remember this line:

"This is my weapon, and this is my gun.
One if for fighting, and one is for fun."

Skinsfan: As one who has received a marksmanship medal (as well as several other more prestigious ones) from the U.S. military, there is a difference between a gun and a weapon. There is a difference between a book and a bible. And, there is a difference between 'massive retaliation' and 'measured response.'

Words matter. And the main word is 'trust.'

Although I did at one time, I now do not trust Ms. Clinton. She failed to provide my family with the universal health insurance she promised in the 1990s, she failed when not leaving her lying, cheating husband (who I proudly voted for, twice), and she has failed as a Democratic presidential candidate - saying the Republican candidate would be better than her Democratic opponent. What's up with that?!

Trust is not something easily given, nor should it be discarded carelessly. She has, and so I - for one - do NOT trust her.

And that speaks volumes.

good one x

.ERR, IT'S NOT MCSHAME

it's McSame

and it's not Clinton

it's McClinton

.

An unnamed participant who did not like my comment above about Hillary choosing Karl Rove or Richard Cheney as a running mate, if she somehow "won" the nomination, does not seem to understand political humor. However, the three are similar in conducting very negative, smear, guilt by association tactics against Barack.

David Gergen said tonight on CNN, Hillary and her supporters can no longer, without being hypocritical, privately tell superdelegates or others Barack is unelectable, since she publicly said he could win.

Comment,

I will NEVER vote for Hillary!!!

Reason #2 to Hate Hillary:

Exhibit A. Hillary is a filthy rotten liar
when it comes to her recollection
of her college days.

- Hillary was the President of the
Young Repbublicans at Wellesley
College. She was such an impressive
conservative, Hillary was asked to
be the first ever Student of Wellesley to speak at a commencement graduating class...

- Hillary was a Goldwater-Girl when Barry Goldwater was furious
with LBJ for passing the Civil Rights Bill.

Thus Hillary is a RACIST - and she wouldn't have been upset when she states that she SLAMMED her bookbag in anger when she heard that MLK was shot and killed. It was more like she was excited with GLEE that MLK was killed.

She is a dirt-bag of the worst kind.

So, to answer your question, anyone other than Hillary!!! or McShame.

Ralph,
I don't buy the argument that "Hillary's baggage has been rummaged through so much there's no surprises to swiftboat".

First of all a good chunk of the electorate was not of age during the Clinton presidency. Each and every scandal of the past is new for this group of voters.

Second, since the presidency, Mr. Clinton had plenty of shady deals. That will be open game for the republicans as well. Obama has really not taken advantage of any of this. It will be new fodder for the repub attack machine.

FACT-CHECKER

"Unfavorables are about the same, 51% for Hillary and %50 for Obama"

LATEST POLL

Unfavorable:

Clinton: 54%

Obama: 39%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html?hpid=topnews

"Yeah, and George was a chief strategist for Bill Clinton.'

George and the Clintons weren't speaking for years after they parted ways. It was only fairly recently that Hillary appeared on George's Sunday morning ABC show.

Of course that doesn't play as well as inside man for Hillary, so I understand why this obviously known information is ignored in the zeal to defend Obama and attack Hillary.

Hillary '08

"Do you want to win in November? Or do you want to lose?

It's as simple as that."

I agree, that's the question. Problem is, Obama is raw meat for swiftboaters. Hillary's baggage has been rummaged through so much there's no surprises to swiftboat.

Unfavorables are about the same, 51% for Hillary and %50 for Obama. Believability or whatever for Obama is higher, but still about %66 for Hillary.

Trust me, neither Hillary or Obama is going to get more than %66 in the GE against McCain.

Hillary '08

re: "He can handle every attack
and then go on to leave a good impression"

Obama won for that reason, tonight

What more can I say that hasn't be said. Nothing, but I will voice my outrage. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators (?) spent half the debate attacking Obama. They appeared to surrogates of the opposing candidate, Senator Clinton. Further, they framed the debate in republican terms offering smear rather than substantive policy or issue questions. Shame on you, Charles Gibson! Shame on you George Stephanopoulos!

The second half of the debate was fine I think although I was extremely angry by that time and missed parts of it discussing the first half with my husband.

ABC, you are the big loser in this debate. You lost at least two viewers of ABC News and This Week. You can no longer be trusted.

re: "George and Gibson went after Obama hard and fairly relentlessly. They just didn't stop"

Yeah, and George was a chief strategist for Bill Clinton.

...yeah, they tried to slime Obama...and he withstood it.

in reality, they did him a favor

He can handle every attack
and then go on to leave a good impression.

.

This is like when Reagan was running. He used to be a democrat,president of the screen actors guild, almost a communist, and nothing ever stuck.He was never hounded by the press.in later life he became a repub. He is almost a God to the repubs, and was worthless as a president. Obama keeps getting "vetted"over and over for things in his past. He is not a saint, and never said he was, he said he will tell us what we don't want to hear,but probably do and that he has misspoke, and probably will do so in the future. If you check Hillaries demographics, older white women I rest my case. People are "bitter" and they pine and try to cling to the past. The basic premis for going to church and religion is that you will have it better in the afterlife, cause this one sucks, how is that being condescending or elitist? I want my president to be an elitist, or I would vote for larry the cable guy. I grew up in a small town, and when I look at the shape our country is in, economy etc... I cling to my church and my gun, and I don't find it demeaning one iota. I have known some real lowlifes during my lifetime, but I don't hang out with them, or take counsel from them, hell I can't even remember all their names, get over it. It is kind of like the uncle everyone has, you can't disown them like everyone thinks you can, you just learn to deal with them. The worst nightmare for the republicans is "Obama",when it comes to debates, McCain won't have his puppet master lieberman to speak for him. Game over. I don't think that "O" will let himself get "swiftboated" like "kerry" did, and the money factor has McCain in a pantywad already. We need to end this charade, and get to getting this great county on the right track again for all of us,nuff said

Boycott ABC. And actually turn off all the media.

These are the aholes that got us here.

And Chris, up yours. You are part of the craphole.

Feel free to ban me. If you watched that and didn't puke, you are braindead.

Question: Why is FOX 'News' pushing a Clinton v. McCain matchup in November?

Because Clinton will lose that fight.

It's not sexist or racist - it's not anything. It's just the plain and simple truth.

Who would you rather see coming into your home (via TV) every night telling you what their administration thinks?

Fact: It's not Hillary~!

For argument sake, let's say it comes down to McCain v. Clinton. Yes, there are major policy differences - but, American voters cast their ballots on whom they trust.

McCain wins in a landslide.

An Obama v. McCain matchup is different.

Why? Not because of sex or race. It's purely and simply trust. And most Americans, sadly, do not trust the Clintons. Really.

Do you want to win in November? Or do you want to lose?

It's as simple as that.

Well, let us watch now as we vote.

It could be, just maybe, that TV ceased to control the outcome.

"It's hard to believe but I think Fox has been slightly slanted towards Hillary lately"

err, what's hard to believe

every neocon has come out of the woodwork to bash Obama...Kristol, Leiberman, you name it. No, there's nothing strange about this....they're happy with McClinton....but not with Barack.

It's the main reason I make donations to his campaign: if the neocons hate him, then I know he must be good

"Most of those posting here are more aware of geo-politics than you assume."

then let it show in the posts, Captain John. I quoted two people who were horrified and whatever at the very concept. They are clueless, and attacking Hillary in theri ignorance.

If they asked a question, I would have answered nicely.

nice try with the elitist crap.

rd

I have to admit that for Obama, this was ABC's version of the MSNBC ambush on Hillary Clinton a few months ago. I write about that on my blog.

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/the-msnbc-ambush-debate/

George and Gibson went after Obama hard and fairly relentlessly. They just didn't stop. I mean, fair is fair and I'm not going to twist what I saw to Hillary's advantage.

That said, I think given how hard and fast the questions have come at Clinton in the past and how softly they have been lobbed at Obama, it was about time. The media bias ha