home

Post Debate Thread

(Update (TL): Our server got overwhelmed by the number of people trying to log on to the site. Even I'm having trouble logging on. Our webmaster is working on it.If you can't get in to comment, try back in a few minutes. Thanks.)

By Big Tent Democrat

My take? NBC stinks. Tim Russert stinks. Brian Williams stinks. Keith Olbermann stinks. Chris Matthews stinks. Who won the debate? No one. Who lost? Everyone.

NBC's coverage of its coverage? We are fair. We are great. How could anyone complain? What a joke.

< Hillary -Obama: Ohio Debate Live Thread I | The Ohio Debate's Farakhan Segment >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    10 minutes for Farrakhan, not two seconds (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:33 PM EST
    for global warming.

    Thank you, MSNBC.

    It was junk (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:58:44 PM EST
    and BTW, so was what Hillary did wrt that question.

    [ Parent ]
    You expect General Electric (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    to give time to global warming?  

    [ Parent ]
    not just that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    I swear 3/4 of the time was spent on the most trivial garbage they could dig up. Even on the substantive issues, they were clearly more interested in playing gotcha than discussing policy. Just an utter disaster all around (even the video streaming on their website was a mess). Which is sad, because other than health care, I think Obama was doing a decent job.

    [ Parent ]
    You gotta be worried about NBC (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    turning on Obama big time against McCain.I know I am.

    [ Parent ]
    More Than Even NBC . . . (none / 0) (#228)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31:10 AM EST
    . . . I am worried by the increasing sloppiness and uneveness in NPR's reporting!  There will be nowhere left to go in US media.  If it weren't for BBC, . . .   .  We should all start paying in to them.

    [ Parent ]
    I expect it. (none / 0) (#236)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM EST
    Not incredibly worried about it--this crap sticks to some candidates and doesn't stick to others.  

    [ Parent ]
    Silver lining (none / 0) (#142)
    by KellyK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    The Farrakhan/Wright questions are being played out now, they won't have legs in the general election.

    McCain and co. and bring it up, and get the "been there, done that" response and hopefully we can move along.

    [ Parent ]

    Sillyballs All (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:59:07 PM EST
    No more NBC or MSNBC debates EVER they really are poor.  

    They don'tknow how to recover (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    and return to journalism, they've gone so far afield from it. Olbermann's psychoanalyzing was the low point when I thought it could get no lower. And Russert has really got to get some help, he's blowing gaskets, so red in the face. Brian Williams . . . meh. Best thing that can be said is that he is not the disgrace that the others are.

    [ Parent ]
    "They don'tknow how to recover (none / 0) (#76)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    and return to journalism, they've gone so far afield from it."  bingo.

    [ Parent ]
    Russert did cut her off (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:34 AM EST
    once....that I noticed.....He said he did not address the Putin question directly to either one, but that Hillary grabbed the question....Have to see the tape....

    Russert did grandstand on at least one question...

    [ Parent ]

    haven't watched it, but recorded it (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    sounds like hillary was right, all along- shouldn't have even participated in an msnbc debate. no better than faux news.

    Russert got the green light (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:04:09 PM EST
    to go after her.  MSNBC apparently doesn't mind if the whole world sees that they think it's their right to influence elections--they seem to be doing some payback for the Matthews/Shuster screw-ups.

    I saw David Gregory speaking afterwards and the image of him dancing with Karl Rove at the correspondents dinner popped into my head.  We're fools to take these people seriously.

    It might have been kinda cute to see them (none / 0) (#42)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    all fluffing one another--if the fact they haven't provided decent coverage of issues wasn't so damn sad and bad for the country.

    [ Parent ]
    So we stop doing business with Parent GE (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    and Microsoft..I have.

    [ Parent ]
    It took 10 seconds (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:01 PM EST
    after the debate to flip to CNN.  Matthews is unbelievable and Olberman has been a huge disappointment!  Can I say they suck?

    KO (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    Keith has been vicious these last few weeks.  Lost all credibility in his zeal to join the Tweety club.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the Tweety club--he's joined at the (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    very least the anti-Hillary club, if not the Obama Fan Club.

    [ Parent ]
    joined? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:11 PM EST
    He's the long-standing president of the Anti-Hillary Club.

    [ Parent ]
    Olberman has been a huge disappointment! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by DemBillC on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:32:52 AM EST
    He was the only oneI coul stand. CNN from now on.

    [ Parent ]
    Horrible debate but I thought it was nice of (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    Barack to endorse Hillary so nicely in his closing remarks. I hope it helps her at the polls on Tuesday.

    God, you are so right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by vigkat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    We all lost, in a major way.  The shapeshifting going on in the MSNBC aftertalk is grotesque.  What they wanted to do was to take her down, and they are now self-congratulating themselves on having done so.  The Inside the Beltway Bubble is amazing.

    They both had their good moments... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    ... and their not so good moments.

    Hillary struggled a little with the tax return question, fairly or not. Personally unless there's a line on there about income from drug trafficking, I'm not sure what the big deal is.

    Obama needed a crisper answer on public financing. Perhaps he was thrown off guard by the overly aggressive way Russert phrased it.

    He also was weak when asked about why he hasn't held any oversight hearings of his subcommittee. "I was too busy campaigning" is not a good answer. He's probably guessing that most people don't care.

    Over aggressive (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:14 PM EST
    Nice way of putting he was angry and nasty. Wish he had been this tough on the Bush Administration people when they would be on Meet the Press. He always tries to come across as laid back and nice easy going. Whew, that one went out the window tonight.

    And the thread is working well now.

    [ Parent ]

    Forget the Bush Administration (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    He should've been this tough of Bush the candidate in 2000.  

    Which, IMO, is part of what this is about.  They hate Hillary for many reasons, but partly because her election would be the closest thing to a rebuke of the media for the past 10 years - the American public telling them they were wrong about Bill and wrong about Bush.  Obama is less objectionable because his Unity schtick implies everyone is to blame and so no one is likely to be held accountable.  McCain is even better because his election would not just let them off the hook, it would confirm they were right all along.

    I've believed since the beginning that one of Hillary's strengths as a candidate is that a win by her has the potential to break the media once and for all.  Of course, the risk has always been that they would break her first.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    that his answer to the committee question may hurt him badly.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think people will care? (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    I do. It was lame to say it was because he was campaigning. Especially with the video making the rounds online and on tv of him saying he was NOT going to run this time because he was not experienced enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Guess what we may see in the next (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:00:38 AM EST
    3 months or so?

    [ Parent ]
    Generally... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:18 PM EST
    ... I think these won't hurt him in the primary, where 1) it's late in the calendar, and 2) Hillary Clinton will be somewhat restrained.

    In the general, though, all bets are off. There will be TV commercials featuring Rezko, Exelon, and anything else that comes up.

    The stuff about committees might be a little too dry--a lot of people probably think committees don't do anything useful anyway.

    But if McCain decides to take an experience and seriousness approach, he might say something like, "You know, running for president is often about big speeches and photo ops. But being president is different. You have to do a lot of hard work, and a lot of it is boring, but important. Senator Obama doesn't do that--he said he was too busy campaigning to do his job. Etc."

    [ Parent ]

    More Likely (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    McCain will use it to rebut any attack by Obama to challenge McCain's positions in the "War on Terror" - well, that's all well and good, but if you really believed that Iraq took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, you'd have held hearings on it.  

    [ Parent ]
    They both had their moments.. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    though I wish they had thrown the Russia question to Obama first. He doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about there, if his answer mimicking Clinton is any indication.

    Also, I think MSNBC is telegraphing their intentions to go rough on Obama later. (Just telegraphing, mind you, because it seems to me he was lobbed many softballs, as per usual).

    Hillary seemed to me to be very strong about (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    healthcare--Obama seemed a bit defensive, bit off, especially trying to interrupt her so often in the beginning. I liked that Hillary was willing to say to Jack Welch's Boys that she would not take their next question, she was going to talk about healthcare bcz it was so important.

    Brian seemed amazed that 16 minutes had been spent on the topic!

    Dear boy, it should have been 16 minutes per item of the healthcare proposals!

    [ Parent ]

    Russia (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    Obama had no clue and it was clear he copied fromher answer. I have been teaching for long time to know when students do that. Russert on purpose asked Hillary first and gave Obama the opportunity to think about the answer. Russert also tried to trip HRC up with the name. HRC did not get the pronounciation correct, but neither did Russert and  he had notes in front of him. SNL should do another skit.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh brother (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:23:14 AM EST
    Yes, I am sure that Barack Obama had no clue what was going on in a backwater country like RUSSIA!

    If he didn't know full well what was going on in Russia, at the generic level being discussed at this debate, he should fire every single member of his debate prep team.

    [ Parent ]

    Russia (none / 0) (#191)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    Obama had no clue and it was clear he copied from her answer. I have been teaching for long time to know when students do that. Russert on purpose asked Hillary first and gave Obama the opportunity to think about the answer. Russert also tried to trip HRC up with the name. HRC did not get the pronounciation correct, but neither did Russert and  he had notes in front of him. SNL should do another skit.

    [ Parent ]
    travesty of network sponsorship of debates (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by noholib on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:12 PM EST
    Whatever happened to the League of Women Voters' sponsorship of debates?  They moderated debates out of a sense of civic duty.  Now we get debates that serve the corporate interests of the media conglomerates--yes as noted in another comment, there wouldn't ever be a question about global warming on the GE - MSNBC network! -- and the puffed-up egos of the so-called journalists, each one more biased and self-important than the next.
    In so many senses, this IS the time for a new League of Women Voters.


    Ah, for Amy Goodman... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    to have moderated this debate instead...

    Either Russert was fishing for 'gotcha' moments by rehashing the latest campaign controversy or he was cutting Hillary off in mid-sentence (though, granted, she does use that old high school debate tactic of talking FOREVER).

    Are we surprised? No. We must cease to expect anything from the infantilizing, celebrity-rotten institution that passes for journalism in this country.

    Ahem - Just to Point Out (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST
    They BOTH talked forever.

    Frankly, as I noted during debate, I warmed a tiny bit toward him tonight when he cut off Russert going after her. But that could have been the fear of what's coming next.

    If only this could have come at the 10th or 11th debate. Then both of them - along with the other democratic candidates - could have walked off the stage together in protest.

    [ Parent ]

    Any HRC supporters.... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:57 PM EST
    ...willing to explain this? Senator Clinton's non-issue "rejecting vs. denouncing" attempt to undermine Senator Obama.  Her "rejection" of the Independence Party was more than a little "nuanced" to say the least.  As background, Senator Clinton was waging a campaign and the Independence Party was considering selecting Buchanan.  Senator Clinton rejected the idea of running on the ticket if he was on it.  Fair enough.  But she was not "rejecting" the Independence Party that chose to put him on the ticket:

    At a news conference afterward, Mrs. Clinton did praise the Independence Party for its "important and constructive role in political dialogue," particularly with its support of campaign finance reform, but she said pointedly later that her criticism of anti-Semitism in the party was meant to include Ms. Fulani.

    "In recent months, internal battles have cast a troubling shadow over this party, raising questions about whether it will be hijacked and led in a wholly different and dangerous direction," Mrs. Clinton said.

    There had been disagreement among Mrs. Clinton's advisers about whether she should speak to the party at all, but they said she decided that she might appear aloof or politically timid if she avoided the gathering. She and her advisers also decided that an attack on the party could promote her as a principled candidate in contrast to the mayor.

    Hmmm...so she is principled in rejecting bigots and their enablers when it helps her win elections...to a point? Ridiculous and it appeared very petty.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    This is funny. HRC screwed up with her answer tonight but you screwed up with your comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Flogging a Non-Issue (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    This is the Obama campaign's big theme for tonight. She unfairly accused him of being anti-Semite. Wrong, that was Russert who used the smear.

    What Hillary gave him tonight - intentionally or not - was damn good advice. Obama needed to strongly reject, denounce, and scream when someone like Farrakan came near him. If he doesn't the MSM will eat him alive.

    Hopefully, he will learn from it.

    [ Parent ]

    What-huh? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    she said his answer wasn't forceful enough -- don't you think that's a wee bit different from branding someone as an anti-Semite?  I happen to think she was right, but she opened the door for Obama to give a nice strong denunciation, leavened with a touch of humor.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the issue... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Alec82 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    ...because it was clear that was an attack.  Senator Obama handled it very well, but it was meant to be an attack.  The context reveals good political manuvering on Senator Clinton's part, but that is all.  It does not reveal that she was especially emphatic in rejecting the support of the Independence Party.  In fact it reveals the opposite.  And I should have added that it comes from an April 2000 issue of the NY Times.  

     I do not read it as an attempt to mark Senator Obama as an anti-Semite, and that was not my point.  My point was that it was an attempt that failed when Senator Obama had the opportunity to respond.  He responded as he should have.  She could have said, I agree with Senator Obama that we should reject support from bigots, an issue I faced when dealing with the New York Independence Party.  Instead she attempted to suggest that he was somehow being wishy washy by denouncing instead of rejecting, when to denounce means to condemn openly or publicly, not merely "reject."  Or do you honestly believe Senator Obama, of all people, wants to be associated with the Nation of Islam and was, in fact, being wishy washy?

     There's a reason she's floundering with highly educated voters, including voters like myself, who apparently are only welcome in the Democratic Party when they are lining up with the Clintons, if the more rabid supporters are to be believed.  

     Look, I like Senator Clinton.  And to point to just one example, I think that Senator Obama was not as forthright as he should have been on public financing (although I also think he has a point about the problem of loopholes, given that conservatives might not be energized for Senator McCain but they might be energized to give money to groups against Senator Obama or Senator Clinton).  But when I read Senator Clinton's apologists (who seem to dominate this site) I think many are all too willing to ignore the harsh light of day.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, he was being wishy washy (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:14:40 AM EST
    by saying he can't prevent someone from saying nice things about him.

    [ Parent ]
    i love how (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:18 AM EST
    you seem to suggest with your self-congratulatory analysis that clinton supporters here are not highly educated voters.  great first impression, pal.

    quibble with semantics if you like, but in my mind, there's a pretty big difference between failing to reject/denounce--take your pick, i don't care--(1) an entire political party because one of its reps made allegedly anti-semitic remarks by expressing sympathies for palestinians, and (2) a man universally known for his radical and undeniably intolerant (anti-semitic, racist, or homophobic--take your pick) remarks.  

    hint:  one's a lot worse than the other.

    [ Parent ]

    No... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Alec82 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:09:51 AM EST
    ...I was suggesting that the Mark Penns of this world blundered badly.  

     I am not suggesting that Senator Clinton is not supported by plenty of highly educated voters.  Clearly she is.  But exit polling is not on your side with the percentages.  

     My point was: why bring up the example as a need to somehow "fully reject" (and I presume denounce) anti-semitic figures when that was simply not what happened?  The non-response of the campaign to accusations those photos were released by it? But I'm supposed to believe the fliers are out of Karl Rove's playbook?  Really?  Because trade is just like...racial politics?  Or thinly-disguised cult of personality slurs?

     The problem is the tone of this campaign, and I hold the Clinton campaign largely responsible.  I did start out in her camp and needed to be convinced.  It sure wasn't the "Yes we can" video nonsense that did it; it was the campaign mismanagement and my lingering doubts over Iraq and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard resolution.  Senator Clinton's campaign has certainly failed to inspire me to want to campaign for her in the GE.  She'll get my vote, but unless she fires her staff forget my participation.  

    [ Parent ]

    Is this (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:08 PM EST
    what Obama calls "silly season". I think so.

    [ Parent ]
    Again with this? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    But thanks for shortening to only half my screen this time. The server is having trouble enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I'll take a crack (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:49:53 PM EST
    It's one thing to denounce and say you don't approve of what Farrakhan says but then, wink, wink, nudge, nudge expect him and his followers to vote for you.  It's another to say, "I'm not kidding.  You're remarks are reprehensible and I don't want an endorsement from you or your votes."

    See, one is much stronger than the other.  I'm guessing he thought he could get away with option a.  She made him change to option b.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, I had to say the Russia question (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    immediately pissed me off because this idiot Russert started out with Hillary, of course, who had to demonstrate that she was keeping fully abreast of things. Obama was allowed to utter simply, "What Hillary said."

    I felt like he might as well just have said to Obama, "could I get you a pillow?"

    I mean, didn't the fact that she was asked that very question first as good evidence as you can get that her sarcastic remark at the beginning about always getting the first question and the SNL skit was 100% on the mark?

    I wish (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    Obama would have gotten that one first. I doubt he would have known the name and it would have been fun to see him flounder a it.

    She didn't flounder and I was proud of her answer. Russert seemed surprised and downright angry with her answer.

    [ Parent ]

    Protecting Obama (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM EST
    He didn't dare ask Obama - wouldn't be fair to actually put him on the spot, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't go back... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    ... and watch it, but Russert claimed (in the "post-game" show) that he did not address that question to anyone, and left it open for whomever to answer it, and Hillary answered the question.

    [ Parent ]
    It was certainly my impression from the way (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by frankly0 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:18 AM EST
    I heard the question being asked that it was being directed toward Hillary. I definitely assumed that it was she who was going to be expected to answer it. I never had any doubt on this point in real time while I was watching it.

    [ Parent ]
    Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    is perhaps the most disappointing, glomming onto that bus in the ditch metaphor (which she couldn't even get right even though she apparently wrote it down???)  I loved how she kind of gave this outraged shrug over the seemingly unbelievable fact that Ohioans seem to be most interested in healthcare, so maybe that's why so much time was spent on it.  Am I seeing that half-shrug she gave, like "wtf?  whatever."  Live out in the real world for a bit and you'll see why people are so interested in healthcare.  


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    I think she was chiding her colleagues.I think it was a good moment for Mitchell.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    Man, I must be off tonight.  I didn't read it that way, but I was so sick of the one-sided crap by then I was well on my way to watching Jericho on my Tivo.

    It will be interesting to see how this spins out tomorrow.  Maybe Russert got annoyed when he couldn't pin down Obama on the campaign finance pledge.  Could be he is beginning to see that the big O is a politician.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton's two missteps (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    1. Her complaining about always getting asked the first questions during debates and referring to SNL as a media bias reference. It seemed like she was waiting for the right moment to use that refernce. It just didn't ring true for me at that particular moment. It seemed awkward and uncomfortable, kind of like the xerox line in the last debate.

    2. The "me too" moment after Obama was asked abut Farrakhan. It seemed desperate and he made her look a little silly by contrasting denounce and reject. I see where she was going to go with it, I just don't think it worked.

    Other than that, she seemed pretty strong. The spin after the debate (if people who sit on the fence watch) was an Obama love-fest. I think I saw some slighht drooling and a twinkle in Olbermann's eye when he referenced Obama's performance tonight. None of that after spin will bode well for a Hillary comeback.

    On 1 (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    The rest of the debate made the comment work.

    On 2. Agreed.

    As for the spin, NBC spinning its own debate when RUSSERT and WILLIAMS and NBC and their awful performance are the story is not worth noting.

    Hard to tell who gains from this debate. I think no one.

    I think NBC loses.

    [ Parent ]

    On 2 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    That actually could have turned bad for Obama, if he hadn't laughed it off and said "reject and denounce."

    It could have gone very well for Clinton if she took the opportunity to dress down Russert for asking the question, as she seemed to be doing when she got going, but then decided she would take a swipe instead.

    [ Parent ]

    NBC won when (none / 0) (#217)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:59:08 AM EST
    Clinton plugged SNL as again important.

    [ Parent ]
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    Keith O seemed a little odd tonight.

    I must say though...Obama had far more "me too" moments to her one.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    I only saw a portion of tonights debate, but I noticed in the last debate that when Clinton went first, Obama would often respond with a comment  saying there is not much difference between our positions, however I'm the better candidate because....
    When he was asked a question first, she responded with additional details on how their positions are different.
    Did anyone notice that happening tonight?

    [ Parent ]
    First Question (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    I thought it was good when she pointed out about always getting asked the first question in the debates. I hadn't noticed it before, and I realized how much he seems to copy her answers, or at least get off the hook about coming up with a lot of his own original ideas. I thought that was smart of her to point that out early.

    The SNL reference didn't bother me at all. Come on, these MSNBC guys are so terrible it was a good reminder of how silly they are.

    [ Parent ]

    The spin after the debate (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:42:25 AM EST
    I watched Matthews and Olbermann hyperventilating over what they and their guests (all unfriendly to Clinton) summarized as a clear 'win' by Obama -- with Olbermann salivating (with a creepy grin) at a future ad by Obama drawing attention to Clinton's regret over her Iraq vote

    I turned to FoxNews's focus group using Ohio Dems.  Four of the group were pro-Hillary at the start of the debate. There were maybe 30 or so of them.  Almost all of them (except for two) felt Hillary had won the debate to that point (first half) because she was so effective with detail while Obama seemed vague though agreeable.

     They also noticed his halting delivery (while MSNBC folks agreed among themselves of course that he looked more 'presidential' than ever).
    Most of the focus group agreed they'd like a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Hillary as Pres.

      The 2nd half of the debate review by that focus group will be seen on tomorrow's Hannity-Colmes show.  Watching that show is like taking a particularly bad-tasting pill but the results (of the focus group) last night were worth it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary probably helped Obama on Farrakhan (none / 0) (#163)
    by sonya on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    Although many, if not most, black people disagree with Farrakhan's views, they don't like to see him dissed in public.  Obama knows this.  Hillary forced him to say what a lot of his white supporters needed to hear.

    There is a difference between denouncing what someone says and rejecting the person altogether.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess they ran out of time (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM EST
    to ask Obama if he's actually a Muslim terrorist, and to ask Hillary to tell us more about her sex life.  That was the worst "debate" I've ever seen.

    Russert almost seemed to channel Darth Cheney (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    while asking both of them if they would really get our troops out of Iraq, and what would happen if Al Q came back! OMG! The children, the fear!

    He almost seemed ready to cry, the horror of it all.

    Now, I was typing at the same time, so I may have missed something, but, good grief.

    Hysterical that they messed up one of their let's-go-to-the-videotape (gotcha) questions, the one meant for Obama but was of Hillary and her riff on seeing the light.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    Why does Matthews keep inviting this woman - Bernard - from the anti-feminist group Independent Women's Forum - to be a commentator?  

    answer is in your question (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    even more depressing... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    It's clear to me that main stream media wants Obama so he can get beat by old white McCain and then main stream media can feel good because we had a black candidate, even though he lost.

    This is just too depressing.

    Rachel Maddow had an interesting take...that this debate managed to kill all of the enthusiasm that Democrats had for their candidates.

    I think Rachel's incorrect about that-- (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    They're two good candidates, and so much better than McCain (or Romney if he gets back in after more comes out about McCain's history with lobbyists).

    [ Parent ]
    Who's she blame for that? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:44 PM EST
    Did she have the ovaries to call out the culprits?

    [ Parent ]
    that's rather crude (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    but I would say that she was careful not to overly criticize Russert/Williams because she wants her own show on MSNBC and she's being teased with the possibility

    [ Parent ]
    that's rather crude (none / 0) (#159)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:30 PM EST
    but I would say that she was careful not to overly criticize Russert/Williams because she wants her own show on MSNBC and she's being teased with the possibility

    [ Parent ]
    A stab at the Farrakhan follow-up (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
    First, I want to say that I am an outsider to the communities with stakes in the debate over Farrakhan. I cannot speak to all of the nuances of the issues, so please educate me when necessary.

    I of course give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt because I see no reason to disparage her character as she loses this race to the extent to which TPM, MSNBC, and dKos would like. I suggest we consider the full exchange and her careful words without injecting Clinton Rules.

    First, with regards to Senator Obama, he was asked two questions about Farrakhan. First, did he denounce Farrakhan's antisemitism. Second, did he denounce Farrkhan's endorsement. On the first, Senator Obama made it clear that he denounced Farrakhan's toxic statements. On the second, Senator Obama hedged and mentioned that he could not stop somebody from supporting him.

    When Senator Clinton spoke, she did not make any direct charges against Obama. She used an analogy she experienced with the Independence Party (?) in New York. She specifically mentioned her New York senate race, perhaps thinking that Senator Obama was not as familiar with the stakes of at the debate in an election (coming from Illinois).

    I think she did so in order to point out to Senator Obama the seriousness of making a tacit and public rejection of Farrakhan's support. I would like to suggest that she helped Obama there to make a more explicit rejection of Farrakhan. Senator Obama seemed to get it to an extent and then both denounced and rejected (while maintaining his composure). But, I think she felt it was important for Senator Obama to reject Farrakhan on that stage.

    Senator McCain could easily exploit any opening Obama left on the issue of rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement as part of pro-Israel platform or message. As New York's senator, perhaps Clinton saw the need for Senator Obama to make an explicit statement of rejection on that stage (I know repetitive). But, note that her follow-up to Senator Obama was very senatorial (as in ginger and polite--many bloggers initially thought she was being gracious, or "classy" at TPM).

    Thus, I think it would be uncalled for to leap to conclusions about Senator Clinton's intentions here. In the past two days, and with the obvious divisiveness that MSNBC wanted to stoke, we should be careful not to provoke a war of words between our candidates. Let's not full for the high d[r]udgeon again.

    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:57:08 PM EST
    This is a very nice and insightful interpretation of this part of the debate. It is refreshing to hear someone interpret Clinton's statements without assuming the worst about her motivations.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary definitely helped Obama with Farrakhan (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sonya on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    Although many, if not most, black people disagree with Farrakhan's views, they don't like to see him disrespected.  Obama knows this.  Hillary forced him to say what a lot of his white supporters needed to hear.  

    There's a big difference between denouncing what someone says and rejecting the person altogether.  Tonight, Obama rejected Farrakhan.  This was major because Obama's political persona is based upon not offending anyone, which you simply cannot maintain if you have any kind of principled beliefs.  

    I don't think this will lose him any votes from black people in the remaining primaries, but it did offend more than a few.
     

    [ Parent ]

    moderators, please delete this comment (none / 0) (#166)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13:33 PM EST
    I wish to retract my inclusion of TPM and dKos and other blogs. I ask to stop a war of words between the campaigns, but then pick one with other blogs.

    Hypocritical. I do not want to make warrantless attacks on other blogs that are our allies as progressives.

    I will post a clean version that clearly places the onus on MSNBC. You can leave this as a record of my edits.

    [ Parent ]

    New Version of (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    Stab at Clinton's Farrakhan Response

    First, I want to say that I am an outsider to the communities with stakes in the debate over Farrakhan. I cannot speak to all of the nuances of the issues, so please educate me when necessary.

    I of course give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt because I see no reason to disparage her character as she loses this race to the extent to which MSNBC would like. I suggest we consider the full exchange and her careful words.

    First, with regards to Senator Obama, he was asked two questions about Farrakhan. First, did he denounce Farrakhan's antisemitism. Second, did he denounce Farrkhan's endorsement. On the first, Senator Obama made it clear that he denounced Farrakhan's toxic statements. On the second, Senator Obama hedged and mentioned that he could not stop somebody from supporting him.

    When Senator Clinton spoke, she did not make any direct charges against Obama. She used an analogy she experienced with the Independence Party (?) in New York. She specifically mentioned her New York senate race, perhaps thinking that Senator Obama was not as familiar with the stakes of at the debate in an election (coming from Illinois). I think she did so in order to point out to Senator Obama the seriousness of making a tacit and public rejection of Farrakhan's support.

    I would like to suggest that she helped Obama there to make a more explicit rejection of Farrakhan. Senator Obama seemed to get it to an extent and then both denounced and rejected (while maintaining his composure). But, I think she felt it was important for Senator Obama to reject Farrakhan on that stage.

    Senator McCain could easily exploit any opening Obama left on the issue of rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement as part of pro-Israel platform or message. As New York's senator, perhaps Clinton saw the need for Senator Obama to make an explicit statement of rejection on that stage (I know repetitive). But, note that her follow-up to Senator Obama was very senatorial (as in ginger and polite--many bloggers initially thought she was being gracious, or "classy").

    Thus, I think it would be uncalled for to leap to conclusions about Senator Clinton's intentions here. In the past two days, and with the obvious divisiveness that MSNBC wanted to stoke, we should be careful not to provoke a war of words between our candidates. {Edit: Eliminated snark about Drudge].

    [ Parent ]

    bad debate (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM EST
    Yea... that was bad.

    As an Obama supporter, I fully admit that Russert was AWFUL going after Clinton early on.  Of course, I thought some of the later "attacks" from Russert against Obama were even worse.

    I think it is quite sad that Russert, et al, had to ruin tonight.

    I felt that both candidates were ready and fired up.  Clinton did what she could to show that she was a fighter, and Obama was quite strong.

    While I think, as BTD has said, that we all lost because of this sham of a debate, that we can still get a look at how the candidates looked.

    I thought that Hillary won the healthcare portion, and Obama won the rest.  Clinton's SNL comment was awful.  And her "attack" of Obama over Farrakhan was even worse.

    Obama's owes Hillary one (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    Obama was saved by Hillary tonight in reference to Putin's successor. Russert knew that Obama had no idea what the successor's name was or much about him at all. He gave a non-answer that dittoed Clinton's answer. Had he been asked the question first, we'd have seen a replay of what Tweety did to that Senator from Texas who was an Obama supporter.

    By the way, I think I know why Obama lost Massachusetts. He can't correctly pronounce it to save his life.  :^)

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST
    they need to cloister him with a ten foot stack of of 3X5 index cards re foreign policy:  who, what, when and where....Name dropping will convince many....especially if they want Democratic economic policies....

    Obama knew about two NATO countries recognizing Kosovo, so he knows quite alot already...Most well-informed people have no clue about such trivia....

    [ Parent ]

    Why do people keep saying this? (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:36:00 AM EST
    Russia is not some backwater nation.  They are having an election shortly.  If either staff didn't prep their candidate on this issue then they should be fired.  

    Knowing the President of Kyrgyzstan?  Not too important.  Knowing the general details about the upcoming RUSSIAN election?  Critical.  

    Hillary jumped on the question to show herself as all knowing about foreign affairs.  After she talked there wasn't much for Obama to say unless he said "the bombing will commence in 20 minutes"

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe MSNBC is trying to help Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST
    They seem to go out of their way to make her look picked on.  

    Thanks to the moderators and commenters (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Paladin on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    for the great recaps.  I joined this late and missed the debate -- sounds like it was excrutiatingly painful.  I am soooo glad I missed it!

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by facta non verba on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
    you hit the nail on the head. Tim Russert trying to get Mrs Clinton to break NAFTA in six months we couldn't make changes, give me a break. To hogtie a candidate on the air like. He was petulant. It was painful to watch though I thought Mrs. Clinton handled it well. I liked how feisty she was in responding to Obama's mischaracterizations of her proposals.

    I hadn't realized how really (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    obnoxious Matthews's smirky smile is.  

    I noticed a neutral male pulled out HRC"s chair for her after one of those breaks.

    question for you (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:04:27 PM EST
    I only saw a portion of the debate tonight.  Last week I noticed that when Clinton was asked a question first, often Obama's response was something to the effect that our positions are nearly identical, however I'd make a better nominee because...
    When Obama went first, Clinton's followups were more expanded policy arguments.
    Did anyone notice any of that tonight?

    I hadn't realized how really (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST
    obnoxious Matthews's smirky smile is.  

    I noticed a neutral male pulled out HRC"s chair for her after one of those breaks.

    I should have added (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    that I would have much rather time be spent on the environment, education, etc. than Farrakan, but for those who are offended by him, it's a big issue.

    In any event, terrible job by msnbc, but then again, I didn't expect better.  

    let the self-examination begin (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    y'all sound like you are overwhelmed with pundit-envy.

    where were you all when I suggested that the debates go back to the Women's League of Voters origins?:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/4/1662/07633

    that said, I think the most discordant moment was when Hillary invoked an SNL  skit in her defense. (and since I called in sick to work today, I am attuned into how much her supporters were banking on it)

    so many bloggers endlessly engage with MSM pundits.then scream at the trivialization.

    I wonder how many Obama supporters regularly read David Brooks as opposed to Clinton supporters...

    hint--when the patient is in distress, take the pulse from the carotid arterey and not the wrist.

    A new thought (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:28:30 AM EST
    You know why I think media is after Hillary's guts?  

    Well, they treated her unfairly until now, and you can bet your last dollar that if she is elected, she is going to end the media consolidation and bring legislation (or precedents) that seriously undermines these clowns and also their bosses.  

    I just wanted to say 2 things (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:49:52 AM EST
    Even though this thread might be dead.

    The SNL thing I didnt think was very effective at first, but then with the softball Obama questions and Russert coming short of grabbing and shaking Hillary, then it may have made people think.

    Secondly, i think their aggressive questioning of Hillary was a good thing, Obama was clearly just trying not to mess-up, coupled with the softball questions resulted in Hillary being the one with substantive answers leaving Obama to either just agree and make a joke. It may well have backfired on them.

    As far as Olberman, I am incredibly disappointed, it started(for me) when he tried to defend the Obama supporter who couldnt point something out and it has just gotten steadily worse. I dont know if I can go back to watching him, but Im definitely not watching while this election is still going on.

    Yes, she did (4.42 / 7) (#8)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:11:30 PM EST
    After the last debate, I didn't think Hillary did what she needed to do to turn things around.

    This time, she did it. She proved to have much better grasp of policy, to take strong positions on that policy, and to be willing to fight for it.

    The media coverage, in conjunction with the debate questions, is noticeably different.  There is a sea change.

    On a related, but tertiary note, Obama was given the opportunity to explain why he is the better candidate and he floundered.  It's the typical interview question and he wasn't prepared? Seriously?

    Turned it around? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Maybe, but not enough.  I don't think she has enough time to turn this thing around, even though I think she is more experienced and would make a better president in the first 100 days, at least.  Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Excruciatingly awful (3.66 / 3) (#19)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, it was painfully clear to me that both moderators were deep, deep in the tank for Obama. And then Russert decided to make up for it by reading Louis Farrakhan's remarks into the record.

    A mediocre performance by Obama, a bad performance by Clinton (opening by referencing SNL and complaining about the format? to win votes? or what?), though she had a nice moment when she called BS on Russert.

    And as for Russert --- NBC just needs to fire him. I've never seen anything quite that disgraceful.

    I can't even evaluate the candidates (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:25 PM EST
    Who could?

    [ Parent ]
    Go Orange way (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    lots of people have opinions.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    they had those opinions BEFORE the debate so . . .

    [ Parent ]
    As does Aaron here apparently. (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    See ratings above.

    [ Parent ]
    Had a feeling this was a good evening (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    to spend with my grandaughter. Postr-mortems suggest I was right.

    [ Parent ]
    er, in a presidential debate, I mean (none / 0) (#26)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    I've seen things more disgraceful in other contexts.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    I thought the Farrakhan question was stupid and uncalled for.  But I would be lying if I said I didn't get some glee from the Clinton Rules being applied to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    The Key to the Farrakhan question... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    ...was Russert dragging Israel into it. There's been a Likudnik effort underway for a few weeks to paint Obama as an anti-Semite because Zbigniew Brzezinski advises him. There's been an effort at VDARE and similar environs to paint him as a militant black nationalist because his pastor is Jeremiah Wright. Congrats to Russert for uniting racist John Birchers and ultra right-wing Zionists.

    [ Parent ]
    The irony (none / 0) (#210)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:02:21 AM EST
    is that he threw the Palestinians under the bus to run for President.  When he started his career, Rezko got him big entree to Arab community to get money, but then, I guess Arabs were not convenient:  
    If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

    Arabs the inconvenient friends

    The great progressive.  Give me Hillary any day, I at least know where she stands.  No bait and switch.  

    [ Parent ]

    Worst. Debate. Ever. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    Not only is 20 debates too many, but they found a way to make it infinitely worse.

    I didn't know presidential-nomination debates were run like gossip mag interviews.

    It takes MONTHS to prepare tax returns! (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by dunsel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    I think the worst part of the debate was Hillary claiming that she couldn't release her tax returns, because she's too