Post-PA Debate Thread: I

How did Hillary and Obama do in tonight's debate? Did Hillary make the strong showing she needed? Did Obama gain support or fumble?

What was each candidate's strongest topic? Where did they score and where did they go flat or fall down?

How is the media reaction?

Update: Comments now closed.

< Hillary Obama PA Debate: Live Blog II | Debate Video Highlights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hilary nailed it (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:53:18 PM EST
    Overall Hilary looked and sounded more presidential.  She was in command of the facts and in control. I don't think she could have done better than she did.

    KO et all doing the damage control now! (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    and kos et all furious and bitter..

    If they are mad (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:20:44 PM EST
    over at Kos, I guess we know who did best.....

    It's the same (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    over on Talking Points Obama. Here's Josh Marshall:

    9:46 PM ... No Charlie. It hasn't been a "fascinating debate." It's been genuinely awful.

    On the Huff Obama:

    The Headline is Clinton Emphatic that Obama Can Win in November.

    Talk about out of touch.


    There Is a Poll (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    At abcnews.go.com abt who won the debate.  You have to look at the small print. It's in the "More Political Coverage," the second one down.  Apparently, ABC is getting hammered by Obama people who are mad that Obama was actually asked a couple of hard questions.

    So, go vote - right now, Obama is leading in the count, and we know he didn't win it!


    It is an unscientific poll (none / 0) (#190)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    worthless. Let Obama win it. We will win Tuesday in he only poll that matters. 15% is my guess.

    you're right! (none / 0) (#221)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    the obama people are hammering with the help of ABC's blog which keeps moving it and when you finally see it, it takes you to "could not find link". My friend is trying to vote too, but the sight is not allowing her to do so. We both agree she won handily.
    They're spinning it though, with other news about how much toast she is. SAD!

    Gergen says it's the statement of the night (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    that Clinton said he's electable, when she's telling super-d's that he's not -- and that it will come back at her every time she says it to them, on the campaign trail, etc.

    I do believe I heard Obama say she was electable, too, but apparently that will hit the teflon armor and just slide off when he talks to super-d's. . . .


    Closing thoughts (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    Hillary directly asked the people of Pennsylvania for their votes.

    But, Obama didn't -- he never asked.

    Could be a very serious mistake. People don't vote for you if you don't ask.

    He didn't say anything (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    She talked about how she wanted to change the nation, providing specifics. He didn't make any sense in his closing remarks. Where is this legendary speaking skill? I've heard he is a bad debater, but this is the first debate I've actually watched. Is this unusual for him? She seemed to be completely in control of every question.

    I don't know (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    I've never been impressed with his speaking skills.  But, he seemed especially off-balance tonight.

    I was surprised on the closing remarks thing, because he followed her (didn't he?) and it sounded so great when she said she couldn't do it alone, she needed the people of Pennsylvania.


    you think this was bad (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:59:46 PM EST
    he has improved by leaps and bounds! I can't believe he is still in the race after his past performances.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:11 PM EST
    never asks the people for their votes.  Hillary is much more humble and says that she's asking us to hire her for the most important job in the world.  IMO, Obama is all about himself.  

    Just wonder if BTD still thinks that the media (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    darling status will hold up?

    They both lost..... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by aequitas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM EST
    ....for not walking out after the first 50 minutes.  

    If only this was the first not the last debate (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    Obama would have been a history.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    This is how I thought he was in all the early debates.  He has only been better in the last two.  People don't seem to be voting so much on debate performances.

    its the question that have changed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    KO is furious !! (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    I can smell fire under his pants!!

    The Obama network (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    is nothing if not predictable.

    KO looks the one who is bitter !! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:11 PM EST
    Tell KO to sit on his flakjacket (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:15:51 PM EST
    like Hillary did, as this was only sniper fire.

    Wait 'til the GOP drops bombs on Obama, if he's the nominee.


    I agree with BTD (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    that the second half of the debate was far better.

    Overall, I think this went better for Hillary, but we'll find out what the people of PA thought (or if they even cared) on tuesday.

    what the heck?? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    as i tried to read the live thread it made this crazy clicking sound and would scroll automatically to the bottom?  sorry if off-topic but that was crazy!  i couldn't read the posts coherently.

    btw, sounds like HRC knocked it out of the park.

    Where are you going for reaction? (none / 0) (#10)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST

    It scrollls back to the bottom (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    every time one of the bloggers adds a comment.  Drives me crazy too. I find if I keep the mouse button pressed firmly on the scroll bar, I can keep it from doing that and it just jerks a little every time they post.

    It does the same thing to me and did in the (none / 0) (#36)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    last debates also.  I have to keep scrolling up and starting over trying to read the comments and the crazed click comes on and presto bingo you're back to the bottom. It's very annoying. I'm glad I'm not the only one. I thought maybe I wasn't doing something right.

    FireFox (none / 0) (#50)
    by Josmt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    If you use FireFox with NoScript Plugin you don't have that problem.  I don't like EI much for some of these reasons

    This is the first I've heard (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:14 PM EST
    anyone having problems with it.Was it just the two of you or did others have the same problem?

    LiveBlog skips (none / 0) (#187)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:48:43 PM EST
    for me, too. I'm using Safari on a MAC. Could that be a problem?

    I've uploaded (none / 0) (#206)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    a screen shot of the demo of "Cover It Live."  There is a blue button with arrows in the bottom right hand portion of the screen that I have circled in red.  If you can see it during the next live blog, click on the button to stop the scrolling.  When scrolling is toggled off, there will be a red "x" over the button.



    Same prob (none / 0) (#241)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    I think it's supposed to be a feature, not a bug. :-)

    Maybe it'd be good to have some consistent instruction when you start one about using the blue button.  I never noticed it, but I'll look for it in future.


    There is a way to stop the scrolling (none / 0) (#41)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    The next time, look for the button at the bottom right of center, and click to toggle the scrolling on or off.

    Jeralyn, could this tip be up on top (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:22 PM EST
    every time you used the blogging gizmo?  I love this tip -- as frankly, I have gotten so goofed by that scroll-to-the-bottom thing every time you or BTD make a comment that I gave up . . . and tonight, I waited until you two were all done to read your comments.  This would solve that problem, and then I could cast my ballot in your ongoing polls. :-)

    Because I can wait to read your take on debates, but when you do the Oscars again, I cannot wait even a nanosecond to see what you think of the dresses -- and for your photos of them.  That was a great live blog, with moments such as finding out that BTD had seen the kid flicks!


    ok I'll do that (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    next time

    I didn't think his last speech was very good. I (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    noted that the meter didn't seem to think so either. Hillary did much better on hers (plus she is clearer and uses inflection and doesn't go on and on in a monotone). But that's just me. I'm interested in seeing what everyone else thinks.

    where are you going for the meter? (none / 0) (#228)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    and are they still showing it?

    Ha Ha. Olbermann is now bashing Stephanapolis... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:06 PM EST
    He looks furious.

    Now he's upset? pffft (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    Hee! (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:14 PM EST
    I can't stand to watch Olbermann, but that makes me ridiculously happy.  

    He always looks furious (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    That's his schtick.

    it's the eyebrows (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Klio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:59:14 PM EST
    they're so censorious

    Obittermann n/t (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    If Hillary wins the nomination I would not (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    be surprised of O'Reilly and Olbermann co-host a show---their views will be perfectly in sync then.

    about time Obama & his supporters (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    found out what it was like, imo.

    Thankfully I missed the first 30 minutes... (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    But this was the weakest showing I can remember seeing from him in a debate.  Watching the debate with the real time response from the undecideds was interesting as well.  He consistently got around 70% when he was talking but rarely got anything substantially better than that...  Meanwhile she was maxing out at times on nearly every policy question.

    Hillary nailed it (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    on the economy and foreign policy.  She went much more into depth on the issues.  Obama spoke in generalities and stuttered when questioned on specifics.

    Moment to Say Huge Thansk (5.00 / 31) (#14)
    by cdalygo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:55:51 PM EST
    Talk Left has emerged as one of the best sites on the net this election.

    You not only provided the easy link to debate but balanced coverage during it. Thanks for putting in the time, effort, and money to set it up.

    For once I'm happy about the Daily Kos meltdown. It's introduced me to some wonderful new bloggers.

    Amen. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    Double amen! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    true dat. (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:36 PM EST
    thank you so much.

    Absolutely agree!! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    Kudos to Talk Left!!

    Ditto! (none / 0) (#209)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    It was pretty cool.. Thank you!

    NBC/MSNBC Was Shamed Tonight (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    The contrast between ABC and NBC/MSNBC is SHOCKING!

    Mostly better than MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by cdalygo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    But not until the second half. Even me - a crazed HRC supporter - cringed a little bit during the first half of the debate.

    On the other hand it may provide evidence that his free ride in media is over. Let's see how it shakes out after Pennsylvania.

    I just worry that first half turned off a lot of folks. Second half on policy was great for showcasing Democratic advantages to run country.


    interestingly (none / 0) (#54)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:11 PM EST
    HRC had a negative response when she apologized about bosnia (for the majority of her statement time), but I don't recall Obama's meter going negative when he didn't apologize.

    Of course, she could have done better by focusing on 15 years ago instead.  Regardless, interesting that apologies don't go over well.


    Why the heck (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:20 PM EST
    doesn't she just say, "I got carried away in telling about what was to me a pretty dramatic and scary experience"?  All this yada, yada, yada that makes little sense about how she knew she was wrong, over and over again about having written about it in the book-- yech.  It just makes her look worse.

    Everybody in the world knows what it's like to get carried away telling a good story and exaggerating the details.


    When she used the word (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    'embarrassed' she had a great spike, then she erred and kept talking.  She and all politicians need to see that meter and learn... apologize and then shut-up.  We little people want a person who says 'I screwed up'

    I actually commend NBC to have guts to ask (none / 0) (#92)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    some really relevant questions.. and he gave lots of mis-statement like .. I did not have handwritting on that paper.. I asked Rev to not join because of some other statements.. etc.

    I sure wonder (none / 0) (#157)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    what those other statements were!  Almost expected them to ask him to share this info, but they dropped it.

    I agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    Despite the ridiculous questions at the beginning.  But maybe even those were good b/c it balanced out the idiocy of the MSNBC debates and put Obama on the defensive for a change.

    Absurd (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    ABC was just as bad as NBC.

    ABC shamed itself (none / 0) (#193)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:52:02 PM EST
    just as NBC did during its debate.  If you can't see that you are as blinded by your partisanship as the Obama supporters who thought the NBC debates were just peachy.

    Obama's negative history just doesn't work (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:14 PM EST
    He keeps harping on failed government policies, but forgets SCHIP and Hillary's fight for health care, ignores Gore's work as VP, and re-visions the prosperous Clinton years.  

    It just seems too wrong.  He wants to paint himself in contrast to the past, but it's a hell of a risk to downplay democratic achievements while talking positively about Bush Sr.

    I noticed that he continually focused on (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    negative things (ie, "people are cynical because nothing is going well," kind of thing)  Hillary focused on the positive. There was no "Yes we can!" coming from him at all and his negativity didn't seem to be working  too well (acc. to the meter).

    I kept getting a vibe from Obama of strong anger-- (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:13:37 PM EST
    unfocused, but very much there. Then I began to think about the words he uses and anger, frustration is very much up there.

    If he doesn't speak of hope and change, he speaks of anger, bitterness, and frustration.


    clearly we are all angry (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    at least all Democrats are angry so it's hard to find his trying to tap into that anger as a really bad thing but it does make me wonder how he becomes the candidate of hope.

    What I find difficult to deal with is his continual forays into the ethereal aspects whereas Hillary gets to the point, gives her take and it is understandable. It's often a much better connection.

    I also find his waffling to be troubling. The capital gains tax is one very good example. Obama clearly didn't want to answer the question as Gibson framed it (which I understand), and then he noted the fundamental unfairness of people who make their living trading hedge funds or stocks and paying 15% on the capital gains while the American public pays 33% (approx) on their wages. So after he acknowledges this unfairness, he equivocates on raising it to 20%, to 28% (pre-1998) or raising it at all.

    Clearly this issue demonstrates the fact that neither Hillary nor Barack are actually progressive because a progressive simply would not equivocate the issue at all and the issue of people paying taxes equally should be a core issue.

    My own gut feeling is that I would have a hard time having to watch more campaign or a presidency with Obama's stilted speech patterns and continual equivocations. You can tell I'm really focused on the issues   ;-)


    the objectionable negative history (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by noholib on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:09:19 PM EST
    Yes to hear him tell it, there was one long terrible
    Clinton-Bush administration for decades.  The only relief came with Ronnie Reagan's intuiting how people were fed up with the "excesses" of the 70s and with Bush I's sound foreign policy.  You'd never know there was a two-term Democratic administration in the 1990s during which the economy was pretty good, there was no federal deficit, and there weren't two wars going on.  
    And there was a highly intelligent person in the White House who could actually put thoughts and sentences together coherently.  Hopefully the Democratic nominee will win in November so we don't have to cringe with embarrassment as we do now every time the POTUS is heard speaking.

    This is why (4.83 / 6) (#82)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    I really don't think I could ever vote for him.  When he denigrates the Clinton years and praises Reagan and Bush I, it makes me question his core beliefs (if he has any).

    He's not a Democrat? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33:53 PM EST
    There's an interesting article that Obama is attracting those that are attracted to independent candidates.... (Greater New England)

    Have you read The Rubes and Elites by Michael Lind?  Obama seems more of an independent to some.


    I've called him a third-party candidate (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:24:22 PM EST
    from the start, exploiting the Dem party and taking from it what he wants but not its principles.  His is a third-party campaign within the party.  Very clever of him, but it is taking the party down the drain.  You may have noticed some concerns by the largest demographic group in the Dems, the mainstay of the party for decades, a certain gender base.:-)

    third party candidate... (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    his closing statement addressed just that: that he succeeded in and will put together a new political coalition; doesn't this mean 'political party'?

    Jake Tapper (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:29 PM EST
    is confusing Clinton with Stephanpolous (sp?) and Gibson.  The relentless attack came from them, not her.  I guess the honeymoon is already over!

    That ticked me off at Tapper (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST
    as she did not take the debate there, ABC did.

    Is even Tapper tanking?


    Oh, this is rich (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:30 PM EST
    KO is complaining about the questions that were asked.

    haha! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    I guess they should have asked, "Senator Obama, why is Hillary such a b*tch?"

    Yes, then called (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    Edwards, Dodd, et al. to come back and ask them too.

    Fair Fight (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:10 PM EST
    Tonight, Hillary, ABC News, and Sean Hannity Conspired to Dupe the American People and Subvert Democracy

    That's over at Kos.  Pathetic.

    While the ABC balance may have been against Obama - that's because everything else has been so out of whack.

    People are not used to seeing Obama challenged.


    My internet feed had the undecideds live response (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    thing on it.  Clinton's weakest moments were in the first round, especially on the Tuzla answer, and was the only time either candidate was in the negative range.  Obama's weakest moment was on Wright, but stayed above negative range. They did not like Clinton going negative.

    Clinton was stronger in the second round.  The closing arguments were tied.

    If these undecideds are the judges, it was a tie.

    My thoughts are that if Clinton stays negative throughout the weekend, she's only hurting herself and Dems overall. That seems borne out by the ABC poll today, the polls showing zero movement on bittergate, and the undecideds reactions to her attacks on Obama in the first round, compared to her beating Obama in the second round.

    No way a tie (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:08 PM EST
    you're right on some of the peak highs and lows, but she was ahead overall, at least with that group.

    Once the media reframes it all, of course, he will have won tonight.


    The media reframing (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    has not worked yet.

    People who watched know what they say, and they'll make up their own minds.

    To be honest, I'm looking for a backlash against the media and in favor of Obama this time, though I think the second half almost made up for that.


    Actually the undecideds chose (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    Hillary over Obama by a huge margin.

    Clinton 50%
    Obama   23%


    The same group (none / 0) (#115)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    that had the dials?

    If so, then I'm wrong.


    I don't agree that it was a tie ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:14 PM EST
    You may be right for the first 2/3 of the debate, but I believe the undecided meter was consistently higher for Clinton in the last third. From the Gun Control question onwards, Clinton was ahead.

    They just now showed (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ghost2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    the after debate response, 11 to 5 says Hillary won.  

    Someone has some sense at least. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    The pundits are sure clueless.

    Well, Im an Obama 5%'er (none / 0) (#106)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:50 PM EST
    so you may be right.  

    But my verdict of tie is based on how poorly she was received in the first part. It was like Obama got a 'B' through the whole debate, while Clinton got a 'C-''A-"A-" over the three segments.


    About the polls... (none / 0) (#246)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    the media: ABCs,MSNBC,FOX, etc. have all been cherry-picking the polls to boost and support their relentlessly biassed baragge against Senator Clinton.
    Other more objective, with more accurate projections throughout the campaign season such as Pollster.com, SurveyUsa,just to name two. They both have Senator Clinton with a much broader lead.  

    Obama weak but the MSM doesn't think so!! (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:56 PM EST
    The media MSNBC, CNN are all already giving the debate to Obama. LOL -- this media circus in favor of Obama is amazing! If people don't wake up .. there's no hope for this country.

    did they wait for it to end (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Klio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    before they declared him the winner?

    What a surprise! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    I can't remember where I read it, but somewhere on one of the pro-Hillary blogs, there was an "MSM write-up" of the debate earlier today declaring Obama the winner.  

    Yeah. It was Riverdaughter. She had it up (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    this morning. It's really funny. I hope it's okay to copy this. Here it is:

    Obama Post-Debate Congratulatory MadLib

    Posted on April 16, 2008 by riverdaughter

    As we all know, Obama has won tonight's debate.

    Congratulations to him! Now, the only question is, does Tweety need help writing the predestined post-debate script? I think we should give him a hand.

    Post Debate Script

    __! Was that ___ or what? Obama just ___ the ___. He was __ and fresh. Hillary just looked ___ today and off her ___, wouldn't you say Howard? I just felt a _____ in my ___. What a historic ___. His response to George's question on ___ was ____, ___, and ___. And she just couldn't deliver the knock out blow that she desperately needed. What an amazing response on ___. Do the voters of PA see what they have in this guy? His supporters are all so ___ and ___. I think he's finally put their fears of __ to rest once and for all. Andrea, you've been on the Clinton campaign bus. Have her __ and ___ supporters come to accept that she's proabably ____?

    Ok, go to it! We'll send the best one to MSNBC so Tweety can take the evening off and just relax until after the debate.


    I guess they don't have to watch the meter ... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    ... but it will be hard for ABC to ignore it.

    Did you see the afternoon post (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ghost2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    at The Confluence?  

    It's great.  


    They are? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    What is their reasoning...he won because everyone else was mean?

    Seriously?! O.M.G. n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:21 PM EST
    Reagan had teflon (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:09:23 PM EST
    but Obama has reality warping field that works through teevee. MSM has bought the story that he got bashed unfairly (CNN / Candie Crowley) and MSNBC drones (KO et al) kept saying -- 'there weren't any serious questions on the economy.. and as Barack says it's all gotcha politics'. Were they watching the same debate?!  

    I have two explanations: either they just watched the first two questions and had to "go do their reports" or are suffering from serious ABC-envy!!! LOL. As I said in the other thread, this debate was moderated the best  (I ssp. loved Charlie rebutting and pointing out Obama never answered the questions).

    Please write to them and let them have it. Go ABC! Go TalkLeft!


    you tube (none / 0) (#159)
    by isaac on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    link to that part please!  sounds rich

    Media Darling (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    All they are talking about is the first part (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    with all the gaffes.  I can't take it anymore.

    He seemed unsure of himself (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:00:54 PM EST
    and she seemed presidential. She had specifics and he was terrible on Wright again. I had never heard abut his relationshp ith a '60s radical bomber.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    Chuck Todd... Clinton says he's still not fully vetted.  KO, weatherground... pardoned 2 women.  CT: Obama supporters will say it's not about issues, is debating radicals good for the party.  Clinton will say he needs to be vetted. Obama supporters angry, will say primary sinking to new lows.  She went through rough round he needs to go thru it. (mocking flag pins)

    Taxes: CT: both raise some, McCain will use it. SS back and forth, he hit back about commission, this could percolate back up.  CT: middle class taxes? wiggle room to break pledge.


    KO is now discussing turbulence.  Ferraro, Wright, speech, bosnia, $109 mill, penn, Bill, bosnia, bitter, 16 down to 6 pts.

    Look away, look away...

    I'm finding it harder to listen to Obama lately-- (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    but I did think she had more contact with her audience, more energy, more snap to her responses, better organized replies, just all around better tonight.

    Again, I'm having increased trouble relating to Obama--and I started out for Edwards, but thinking toss up between Hillary and Obama. His early move toward the Repub SocSec-in-crisis talking points bothered me, then Krugman's analysis of his healthcare plan's shortcoming made me look more closely at Hillary and also Barack.

    When I read about his "seeing the light and you will have an epiphany and will realize you must vote for Barack Obama," I was flabbergasted. I could not believe someone would say something like that. Yikes!  

    Now, I'm committed to Hillary--and I had only a couple twinges of disappointment tonight during her answers, thought she nailed it.

    Right on (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    My evolution exactly.
    We have our eyes wide open. I cringe when she makes a mistake. I don't go and attack Obama supporters for it.

    I noticed the audience (none / 0) (#234)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:59 PM EST
    Towards the later half when he was talking the people seemed distracted, when she was talking they seemed generally more engaged. Granted this doesn't necessarily reflect home viewers.

    NBC's hypocrisy (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    will know no bounds.  I refuse to watch them, so I like reading the comments here  :-)

    It's bad. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    I can't watch MSNBC anymore (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    I just had one of my near panic attacks where I have to race for the remote to turn KO off.

    I can't believe anyone is saying he won this thing.  Truly BTD is right - he will always be a media darling.

    Local focus group.... (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    ...gave the debate to Clinton 2-1. A quarter said he won, and a quarter called it a draw.


    was this only a local broadcast? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    do you know? thanks

    same feed as I was watching during the debate (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:17:38 PM EST
    the local news station is doing a one-hour followup, including the spinmeisters and focus groups:



    "Keith Olbermann is the most... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Cal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:04:32 PM EST
    ...shameless ridiculous hack on TV."  AMEN!

    The first 40 minutes (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kayla on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:06:16 PM EST
    were ridiculous.  I would go as far as to say that this was the most unfair debate so far.  Even more so than the last debate.  In the beginning, anyway.

    But after we got past that, I thought it was one of the more substantive.  They both did well.  Hillary did much better of course.  I wish she hadn't pressed some of the earlier issues against Obama, but I guess she did what she had to.  

    Ridiculous, maybe. Unfair, no. (none / 0) (#163)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    Unfair is when one candidate is confronted by ridiculous attacks while the other is served ridiculous softballs.  

    That was appalling (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
    We all lose.

    The Fairest Debate Of The Season! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    Put down the Kool-Aid!  The debate was one of the fairest debates of the season!

    You're just used to the anti-Clinton BS that permeates NBC/MSNBC and the rest of the MSM!

    Meter (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    The undecideds who were doing the feedback on ABC gave it to Clinton.

    Clinton 50%
    Bo 28%

    Well what do they know? (kididng) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
    Now that's a score I can respect :-) (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    Really? Interesting. (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    Is the a link to this summary? (none / 0) (#120)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    here (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:19 PM EST
    Fineman admitted it wasn't a good night for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    I am stunned. Although he said it wasn't a game changer.

    Fineman is such a pathetic creature. (none / 0) (#102)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    He is so in need of a new colorist.

    Obama spinner's spin (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    "Hillary's always been a good debater, but Obama held his own."

    That's about as closest a tacit admission you'll get from them that she won hands-down.

    FIneman and Robinson on with KO now--let's see, (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:45 PM EST
    none of them support Hillary right?

    Fineman on body language--that Obama was the leader overall! And moderators and Hillary were piling on.

    BO's body language, to me, did not look like felt like the front runner.

    Not great night for BO said Fineman! Quite an admission.

    Robinson--debate not that fresh. Thought second half better, new info from people. Noted that first time Robinson had heard Obama say guns were an individual right. Hillary on protection umbrella.

    Now, interesting that Robinson who is a political pundit did not know about the candidates' stands--deep intensive research, right?

    the creative class point of view (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:48 PM EST
    The debate is over now. I watched all of it. The question on my mind, even tho I think Obama won, is when have we had a major debate moderated by someone i.e. George Stephanopoulos, who worked for the Clintons. Clintons are slime. The superdelegates will not be fooled by this.

    Well, I guess that summarizes the other sides point of view, this is from Huffington Post, comment, an article by Stein about something Hillary allegedly said in 1995 about the working class.  

    Oh, huge contradiction (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    She said he was electable!!!  You can't trust her!!!!

    So says CNN.

    college kids... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    ...they're interviewing on the local news feed: only one said Obama won, the rest said Hillary.

    Oh god...Olbermann just called Hillary a stand in. (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    ...for McCain! What an a-hole.

    Well, (5.00 / 11) (#109)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    if he cant win a debate with McCain's stand in, he has zero hope for Nov.

    Best comment of the night (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    You cracked me up.  I started to laugh out loud.

    But then I stopped because, sadly, it is too true.


    LOL..................... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    there are no words

    Put the remote down... (none / 0) (#235)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    And walk away from the evil TV. No need to get your blood pressure up....

    IMO she was forward looking (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    while he looked and sounded down on everything. Where is this famous HOPE I keep hearing about??
    Oh... sorry, silly me, SHE'S the hope candidate. Ooops! Gee, how did I get that so wrong?

    hope (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by noholib on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    Clinton does project an optimistic spirit, a sense of competence and knowledge, an ability to get into the details of the hard work that will be required ... a can-do, hands-on, let's get to work approach.
    Obama has spoken a lot about hope, but in vague generalities; he doesn't tell us the specifics of why we should be hopeful, unless of course we have the conversion experience and place our trust in him to change big bad old Washington DC. -- otherwise bitterness and soulessness is our lot. That's the Gospel according to Senator Obama.

    Clinton is the stand in for McCain tonight,. (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:13:42 PM EST
    Dear Keith,

    I apologize that Hillary hasn't quit for you yet. I didn't understand this isn't a primary,

    Love ya,


    If Hillary is the stand in for McCain (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    then the Dems just lost the white house.

    Yeah cause McCain cleaned O's clock. (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:21 PM EST
    He's appalling isn't he? I'm switching to Top Chef (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:43 PM EST
    10-4 totally!!! (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    Obama was pwnd (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    pretty much.

    It's the first time he wasn't given an advantage somehow by the media.

    MSNBC, of course, already has Keith on the job, talking about how terrible it all was.

    Damn those level playing fields.

    Hillary appeared presidential (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    Obama was striving to look presidential and fell short. Obama is purposely obtuse on Wright while Hillary apologized for Bosnia.

    Her strongest showing was on Iran (foreign policy) Obama looked good until she spoke, she just seemed to have a better grasp overall of the Middle East.

    On Domestic policy (including economics)it was obvious Clinton has  a better grasp on policy and how to administer it than Obama. His lack of governing experience is glaring.

    As a conservative Hillary's stance on guns, was outstanding and will endear her to independents like myself(it did.)

    It seemed the moderator's spent the first half on electibility issues, as if it were an interview, or sales pitch to the Super Delegates, which Obama fumbled. Hillary can have only helped herself tonight.

    I haven't seen any media reaction yet.

    Thank you guys for an excellent place to blog

    So glad to get your take on the gun (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:26:49 PM EST
    issue. I thought she did really well on that, especially with the protect the rights of law-abiding citizens but respect the "common sense" of gun-owners part. But I'm pretty biased :)

    Not only that.. (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:18 PM EST
    But what I found appealing was how she wove in states rights in there, and how there are certain things that the Fed. gov. should stay away from. And  it was surprising that the constitutional law professor opponent -- who kept raising his finger on other issues, didn't wade in.

    Goes to show you how the chattering class -- that claims he's 'intellectual' etc. just doen't get it. Obama proved that he can't think on his feet today.


    She did well on that, imo (5.00 / 0) (#231)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    I liked the way she brought in the different aspects we are dealing with and using the state as an example. Made it pretty clear.

    I used to (none / 0) (#236)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:30 PM EST
    dislike her, I certainly respect her and even admire her guts. She's running for president, not to become my friend

    As my Senator, she's changed my mind (5.00 / 0) (#237)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    I wasn't thrilled she was coming here on her way to the WH, but, she's earned my respect. And NYS's. She won a second term quite easily for a reason.

    Obama is going to have some work to do outside of certain areas in NYC if he gets the nom. I don't think he gets that . . .


    I posted on the (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    live the live thread about a liberal standing up for states rights........amazing

    New form of Masochism (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    Watching MSNBC.  

    It's hard to watch them.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    ...cling to their kool aid.

    Turned off CNN (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:20:10 PM EST
    Turned off CNN. Spent 30 seconds on Obama's issues and they were in about 5 minutes on Bosnia and her negative polls that I just turned it off.
    With coverage like that is there no wonder her polls are off? Most folks get their info from TV.

    I don't know where to turn for news anymore.

    Here. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:11 PM EST
    Yeah, and where will 'here' get it? (none / 0) (#182)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:46:21 PM EST
    I miss the good old days of yore.
    All the president's men and such.

    Obama said it (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    I will go back and check the tape again to see if there is any confusion but it seems that Obama made a mistake in discussing his plan for payroll tax. In response to a question from Gibson, he said, in order to defend his tax plan, that only 6% of population earn more than $100,000. In reality it is about 20% who earn more than $100,000.  He made similar statements before.

    wolfson needs to... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:49 PM EST
    ...issue a press blast pointing this stuff out.

    persons vs households (none / 0) (#142)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    Not the best source perhaps, but check out the pretty graphs on Wikipedia. For $100k+, it's 7% for persons, 17% for households.

    The Big Orange (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Coldblue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    had this;
    Post-Debate Open Thread
    by MissLaura
    Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:59:31 PM PDT

    In a few minutes DHinMI is expected to post some more substantive analysis, but for now, keep on talking.

    Given the historically poor quality of the questions tonight, I'm not going to put up the standard post-debate poll about who won. The answer is that democracy and the American people lost. I suppose if ABC sold some ads, they'll feel like they won.

    No Miss Laura, democracy is about fair play.

    HAHAHA.. they can't even say (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:58 PM EST
    Obama won?? That is really bad.

    lmfao (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    He lost pretty badly in their eyes otherwise that poll would have gone up faster than you can say arugula.

    Icebergslim says Hillary won. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    She has her moments of realism.

    I'll give them the first twenty minutes or so (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    being unfair (not that the reverse wasn't true before), but how does that explain the rest of the debate? She ate his lunch.

    Yes she did (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Coldblue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    and she did in previous debates as well.

    It was after one of the early (none / 0) (#210)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:14:06 PM EST
    debates where I gave up on the Orange. Before they were utterly in the tank. Well, publicly anyway.  I was reading a debate analysis and they were saying the most ridiculous things about what I had just seen. I knew then my time there was over.  They were in the tank already.

    As a Clinton supporter (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    The first third was a bizarre experience for me.
    I'm so used to Clinton getting trashed by debate moderators that I sat up in my chair in amazement.
    That said, I still was able to recognize that the questions weren't fair to Obama.
    Thatsaid, he didn't handle the unfairness well--and that is nota good sign for the GE should he win the nomination.
    Sulking and pouting will not work in GE debates with McCain.

    That was pretty much my reaction too... (none / 0) (#215)
    by sander60tx on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
    For once I felt Clinton was treated fairly or even given a break.  Obama was grilled harder in the first part of the debate, but it felt to me as if they were making up for some of the imbalance of the past that has been in his favor.  They asked tough questions and even followed up when the candidate did not answer the question sufficiently.  I thought that was good reporting, though perhaps more appropriate for an interview than a debate.

    Maybe the reason it seemed "icky" to people was that it was more like what might be thrown at our nominee (either one) by the republicans in the general election.  It was as if they were trying out some of the attack angles that republicans might use in the general.  I found it very interesting to see how each candidate responded.  

    The second half of the debate was much better and Clinton was very sharp on policy questions, as usual.  


    the Democrats lose (5.00 / 6) (#134)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:08 PM EST
    Because they do not tell their politicians that there's a third rail -- called.. loyalty to your own party!! Obama nonchalantly keeps calling out the Clinton Presidency as symptomatic of old politics and universal badness, and doesn't seem to realize that he's from the same party.. and the voters like me are going to say 'a -- and you are going to do better/different? how exactly? and b -- if you can't make friends within your own party, or say good words about them, how exactly are you going to get Congress to work w/ you?' He kills his own candidacy when he does that in my mind, but the dems don't seem to be noticing since not one party big-wig or even Clinton has called him out on it!

    more from the focus group... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
    45 percent said it changed their mind about whom they support.

    focus group (none / 0) (#144)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:28:20 PM EST
    Where can I get info on that focus group???

    here (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:29:12 PM EST
    Wow, I have my suspicions... (none / 0) (#149)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:31:05 PM EST
    Let's just say that most Hillary supporters weren't born yesterday... We've been sticking it out through thick and thin for quite a while so I doubt that a single debate, and especially a great debate performance (from her) would make any of them switch away now.

    That might trouble Mr. Obama.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#164)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    I wish I'd watched the Action News feed.

    Hillary did what she had to do (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    You go girl.

    Focus group (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    re Focus group (none / 0) (#172)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:39:02 PM EST
    Thank you! :)

    I hate biased media, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    Where was JMM when MSNBC hacked the primaries in October and March, when we at TalkLeft said these things:

    9:50 PM ... What happened to the League of Women Voters? Can we give the debates back to them? This sort of episode really sickens me. KB's point above is sadly accurate. It's stuff like this that really makes me think that whole big chunks of the established press needs to be swept away.

    And, suddenly, after 3+ months of endless blog-journamalism about the racist dog-whistling of Clinton's surrogates and campaign strategy, JMM searches for issue nuts:

    9:56 PM ... As I noted above, I missed roughly the first half hour of this debate. But from what I heard about those thirty minutes and what I saw of the subsequent ninety minutes was basically debate by gotcha line with basically no discussion of any of the big questions the election is turning on.

    It would be nice if MediaMatters and/or Somerby had the inclination and the time to contrast Olbermann's and TPM's coverage of creepy Russert's conduct, in the MSNBC debates of October 2007 and March 2008, with this ABC debate.

    Daily Kos (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    is coming undone! They are en masse sending hate emails to ABC and saying they are going to boycott ABC/Disney, that they do NOT have the journalistic integrity of NBC....crazy!

    I believe that HRC finally got something of a break tonight and BHO gotta feel for what she has gone through far more than he has.

    And who cares what Keith O thinks?  He's a shill now.  Self-important muck-racker.

    It's insane (none / 0) (#201)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    I remember when Yahoo had message boards. During Dub's first few years there were folks still defending him... as time went on they disappeared, but then, so did the Yahoo (may it rest in pieces) message boards.
    What's happening over at dailyKos is reminiscent of that. There is some real cognitive dissonance hovering over that place.
    May they soon come to their senses.

    Folks are mad as hell on the (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:17 PM EST
    other blogs because ABC didn't pull an MSNBC and go on a Clinton bashing spree. I don't know how Obamaman and tweety are going to sleep tonight? Cafferty is probably breaking stuff right nown.

    Cafferty. Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    Clinton nailed it and I understand the (5.00 / 8) (#165)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:54 PM EST
    differences now, Obama's premise is that we are helpless victims all adversely affected helplessly exploited by government, divisive politicians and businesses all evil and therefore we need him to save us to give us confidence and self esteem for us to have power over our lives.

    I certainly believe George Bush and the last two Congress's to be some of the worst in US history and that they have harmed our country.  But, I believe we are the authority in our own lives yes, governance is important but I am the one responsible for my prosperity.

    gag me... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:15 PM EST
    the local guy interviewing Casey brings up that he might be Obama's choice for veep.

    Way to destroy the "You can't choose McCain because he'll get rid of Roe!" argument.

    45 percent would vote for Obama
    55 percent would vote for Clinton

    Keith Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    Obama won because we are all focusing on his comments and how he defended himself thus basically ignoring the other candidate. Is that not a fair assessment Rachel Maddow?

    After the break.

    Please please not Rachel! (none / 0) (#198)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    I really like her. And while I suspected she was pro-Obama, her program is intelligent and fair. I have not heard one offensive word out of her on HRC. Only get a few minutes though... so many commercials and by the time they're over I'm where I was going.

    MSNBC part 2 (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:46:51 PM EST
    Pat Buchanon:  bad night for Obama, defensive, ABC noticed criticism that media is too soft ABC took care of it, weather underground, Obama an angry man tonight, I learned more about Ayers it will be big tomorrow, flag pin, Clinton surrogates need to do this, etc

    Rachel Maddow: (Obama angry) I'm angry about it, gross, constitution, tabloid, Obama defensive-best ground to say he came out on short end of the stick, silver lining, ummm, bears up under criticism (?). Rachel thinks it sucked but that Obama didn't hold up well so it shows he holds up well.  uuuhhhmmmm ok?

    KO: if this all has been thrown at him, Clinton unpopular, how does this change, GE, he's like Reagan with increasing teflon.

    Pat Buchanan: if Clinton only wins by 2 the Repubs will need to look at how they go after Obama.

    Look away, look away....

    Isn't the worst gaffee Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:50:54 PM EST
    comparison of Coburn to the terrorist-murderer, Ayers? Did anyone bring that up, yet?
    As I said in the other thread, he should have just  used his grandmother again for comparison.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#197)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    Lol, keep the MSNBC comments coming. I can't watch MSNBC because it doesn't come in on my older tv (the number is too high for the tuner).

    I wonder if being a hillary (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    basher a resume requirement in order to work at MSNBC, has anyone ever wonder about this?

    a question for BTD (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    Just noticed your comment in the post above. In what way was this debate "extremely unfair to Obama"? Can you say more? I, for one, didn't think that at all! It is a pity perhaps that you now have to defend Obama, but is there any substantive thing you can say beyond "he's going to be our nominee, so better not prolong this fight by admitting the truth"?

    Hillary radiated competency and confidence, (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    and I found myself reacting on several levels. She is so well-versed on policy and can articulate her positions so well. That's important to me as I evaluate a candidate's potential to become an effective president.

    Also, I found myself reacting on a visceral level as I watched them both speak. When Hillary was speaking, I felt comfortable and relaxed, but when Obama addressed the issues I felt anxious. It had nothing to do with partisanship, because my reactions were totally unconcious and purely physical. Obviously, on a subconcious level I felt at ease with the notion of Hillary as president, and physically uncomfortable imagining Senator Obama as our nation's leader.

    On the issues, I'm more in alignment with Hillary, but I thought my physical reactions were interesting.

    Her entire presentation--explaining her positions, comportment,etc.--projected strength and readiness to take on such an awesome responsibility. I hope it affected undecided voters the same way.

    for all the positive media about Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by wrkn129 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:00:46 PM EST
    I did not feel bad for him at all during the first part of the debate. The questions were ones that people still talk about, whether they be issues or not. We still don't know much about Obama, and he still didn't give a straight answer. He danced around the question or diverted attention away from the question asked. I think they didn't go far enough. For example, if he didn't hear those particular comments when he was sitting in the pews, then exactly what controversial comments did he hear? And if those particular comments were not the reason Obama disinvited Wright from giving the invocation, exactly what comments caused Obama to disinvite him? What did Obama feel was so compelling that he felt the campaign shouldn't put Wright out there in public?

    And if you think Clinton's memory is bad on Bosnia, wait until the general election and the Republicans start in with Obama's memory and stuff he has said during the campaign.

    Or what he wrote in one of his books. Maybe he's just tricking all of us. Or maybe that's what he really thinks of people.

    As far as the issues, Clinton was much stronger and decisive on the issues. Obama seemed to be unsure. Clinton appeared more confident. Obama didn't really seem to know how to answer without stuttering or appearing to search for the answer.

    Just my take on things.

    the good thing about (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by The Realist on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    this debate is that it was on netwok television and not cable. if more people saw it, that will be to Hillary's advantage.

    Josh Marshall writes: (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:50 PM EST
    Reject and Denounce!

    Let's see their guys fumbles and we're supposed reject and denounce. Pretty sad.

    He got treated badly? (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    Maybe I've been conditioned but I don't think they went easy on Clinton.  What about that stupid credibility question on Bosnia?  No, I think the questions were evenly split.  So, why are they suddenly so unfair for Obama?  Why must he always be cut a break?  
    As for her going at him, she was pretty tame.  She only pinged him gently and tried to stay positive.  He was much more aggressive and dismissive of her.  Cookies?!  This is how you talk to your senate colleague?  As if she were just a woman who didn't like to bake cookies and didn't learn any political lessons?  No candidate has had more scrutiny than Obama?  Oh really?  
    Please, Obama people.  Get a grip.  He's a lousy debater and he's slacking off as well.  He had 6 weeks to prepare for it and he completely blew it.  It wasn't unfair to him.  He just didn't take advantage of it.  What kind of president would he make?  

    Perserverance (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by CSTAR on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    Whatever one thinks of Hillary, you've got to grant her that she's got perserverance. Obama on the other hand sounded to me like he was thinking "Why do I still have go through this, Shouldn't I be the nominee by now"

    Josh Marshall admitted Hillary won, (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM EST
    with a mininum (for him) of qualifications.

    Whoa, (none / 0) (#227)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:41 PM EST
    seriously? Better go check out the window for flying pigs.

    Well, sort of (none / 0) (#230)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:15 PM EST
    he said:

    "I don't think there's much of any way to say that Clinton wasn't the winner on points."

    That sounds like he really, really wanted to say she lost, but he just can't bring himself to completely through his credibility out the window. Baby steps.


    She (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    kicked hie arse up one side and down the other.

    He was having trouble finding words for vague generalites.

    She had specifics : number one I would do this, number two I would do this...

    she knew the material backward and forward and he was grabbing at straws.

    A complete humiliation for him....

    he is so unready.....

    Jesus, you are only figuring our KO now? (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by godfodder on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:42:29 PM EST
    The guy is a hack to end all hacks! He wouldn't know an honest debate if it bit him in the arse. He makes up his mind, then selects the facts to fit. He is not now, and has never been, an honest broker of fact, news or opinion. He's a propagandist, pure and simple. His opinion of Hillary is no more accurate, or honestly derived, than his opinion of Dick Cheney. He is pathetic, and he needs to be disqualified as any authentic voice of the Democratic Party.

    I don't care if you want Obama or Hillary. Creeps like KO debase the entire political process and are part of the reason that we cannot find decent people to run for public office. Hell, MSNBC deserves shunning for even having this narcissistic, ex-sports, helmet jockey on its airwaves (or bandwidth, or whatever).

    I've been shunning them for awhile . . . (none / 0) (#232)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    they are an insult to my intelligence.

    Let's see... (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
    Hillary never once had an entire network (e.g. MSNBC) defend her debate performance on another network.

    Therefore anything ABCNews did to Obama couldn't possibly have been as bad as what NBC's done time and again to Hillary.  What network ever defends Hillary. None.

    Say thank you to ABC (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM EST
    Via noquarter.... here's a link to thank ABC if you want...


    If it doesn't work, just go to noquarter for the link.

    This debate was exactly what it needed to be (5.00 / 3) (#242)
    by Raven15 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    ...and it was as much about the media as it was about the candidates. Many journalists--including some at ABC News, apparently--are no doubt ashamed for their profession for its abominable, unbalanced coverage of this campaign, and especially for its timidity toward Obama. Gibson and Steph. stepped up and gave Obama long-overdue challenges and followups, the kind that HRC has been fielding all along, and proved that professional journalism still exists on TV. And it's not like Hillary wasn't challenged as well, so it wasn't completely out of balance. Anyway, over the long run, things have been skewed so much his way that a debate more challenging to him is justice served. But I think ABC News was motivated as much by a perceived need to shore up TV journalism as anything.

    Obama flat out lied about the flag pin. (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:32:17 PM EST
    And let me just make one last point on this issue of the flag pin. As you noted, I wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to me, who himself was disabled and works on behalf of disabled veterans. I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people.

    He said right here that he decided that he "wasn't going to wear "that pin" on [his] chest".

    And he talks about Clinton being "unaware" of being caught on video.  I guess he just has a terrible, terrible memory for things.

    bu bu bu ,,, by by barry !! (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by drewohio1 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    Hillary gave barry a civics lesson in how to win and kick ass in a debate !! she was wonderful and charming when she needed and tough when she needed , she is ready and she will win !!

    .... and barry , man did he underprepare for this one... he had too many deer in the headlights look about him tonight....

    Summary of Summary (4.00 / 1) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:50 PM EST
    I finally got smart and put a topic in my subject line and then summarized the meter response so I have my comments to refer to... :P

    My takes, Clinton did best on...gas prices, education Iran, she had real good metering on Iraq, Economy was excellent, the moderators couldn't gotcha her, Obama on the other hand went low when he claimed Clinton was taped being less than consistent after Ohio?

    I would have to look at the metering again, but the second have seemed to strongly favor Clinton.  Someone needs to measure who talked most with best response and get an average.

    Fox is going to analyze tomorrow with 'Luntz'  I like the analysis by that guy.  He has the room of people, they do their own meter and they actually have discussions.  I will say that is one thing I like about Fox is the focus group.

    Did Obama do better on any topic? (none / 0) (#20)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    I can't recall any, but what did the "undecided meter" show? Anyone remember?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    He won overall on the first round insofar as they did not appreciate her attacks, appreciated Obama's self-defense, esp. on the Weather Undergroung, and Hillary's Tuzla answer was the most poorly received response of the debate.

    According to who? (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    Everyone needs to judge for themselves what they watched.

    Steph = Hannity now. Per KO (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:05:56 PM EST

    Good grief (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:07:46 PM EST
    I hate to say it, but I prefer Hannity to KO these days.

    4 on 1 says Fineman. Did he complain (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    in the other debates? I admit it wasn't fair in the beginning, but have the others been?

    Now Keith is hoping that people weren't watching. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST
    Poor guy. But Fineman is doing a little backpedaling.

    OT .. but Yankees are leading Sox 11-9 (none / 0) (#87)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    Sigh.. what can I do to get some Obama magic for our  Red Sox!!

    Mets win too (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:49 PM EST
    And Hillary too. A New York night. Just need the Rangers now.

    Touche! (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST
    I thought Hillary was the better debator today. She seemed more at ease, used common language and had a much better command of the issues. And she was humble -- asking for votes!

    My surprise was that Obama did so poorly. For a constitutional law 'professor' not to give a better answer on the second amendment, was bizarre. His answer on Iran was weak, but that was to be expected. He hedged on affirmative action, flubbed the payroll tax question, and got totally hammered on the capital gains tax. His cheap shots -- came across as just that -- cheap shots!

    Even his answers that didn't sputter and pivot off into digressions -- seemed like memorized, well rehearsed stump speeches, and were not at all an engaged mind's answers to probing questions. It's a pity for the Dems that they are on the path to nominating such an inexperienced candidate as Obama!


    YES!!!! (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    sorry ;)

    It was because (none / 0) (#180)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    they dug up the shirt! David Ortiz shirt.

    ah... (none / 0) (#185)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST
    But did they get the right one? :-)

    ya gotta have heart! (none / 0) (#194)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM EST
    Damn Yankee...



    Hey watch that! (none / 0) (#208)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    my youngest kitty is Yankee  ;)

    15-9 now (none / 0) (#205)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:29 PM EST
    Did I mention that Boston sucks?

    not Boston -- Timlin -- sigh! (none / 0) (#207)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM EST
    I thought I just couldn't watch CNN and MSNBC.. now got to turn off NESN too? Sheesh. :-)

    I thought (none / 0) (#147)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    1) it was the ickiest debate yet,
    2) the ickiness was fairly dispersed to both candidates.

    As many above have said, the first half of the debate was horrible. At the same time, it was good to see Obama get the same sort of miserable treatment usually reserved for Clinton.

    Why exactly were audience members booing at the end? Was it because Jake Tapper said that Hillary initiated the attacks on Obama (when it was clear that it was Gibson and George who clearly did?) Or was it because Tapper reiterated all the scandals plaguing Obama, making Obama look bad again?

    the commentator... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    ...on the live feed I'm watching said people didn't like the first part, and that people want "light over heat."

    Heh, during a commercial break they just aired Hillary's commercial about Obama's lies about the energy industry.


    oh, and the booing... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33:43 PM EST
    ...was because the debate hosts said they were leaving the air.

    Oh, ABC 6 is streaming (none / 0) (#173)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    the local commercials?

    That's a mistake, but funny.


    it's the ABC affiliate... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    ...I just saw an Obama commercial too.

    what the heck is stopcondinow about? It's running ads, too.


    StopCondiNow (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    I read that SCN is a group urging people to demand that Condi Rice be forced to step down because of the recent revelations on the White House torture chats.

    I wonder that too. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    Icky yes. Important though, imo (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    they played out part of the electability debate. You know the one that's always going on on the blogs. They didn't go to his statements that he claims about his past, but imo, that would have been fair game also.

    It is really interesting to watch this (none / 0) (#174)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    local coverage.

    The live feed (none / 0) (#178)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    is going over the focus group responses right now, live.

    Hrm, some data about the ABC PA poll (none / 0) (#188)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    It was taken from last Tuesday through Sunday, and had over a 5 percent MoE.

    It was the poll that gave her a single-digit lead.

    I just went to abc.com and voted (none / 0) (#196)
    by gish720 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:16 PM EST
    for Hillary, but she's still way behind. Not my opinion, I also watched some of MSNBC and CNN and what a comedown.  Sheesh.

    Watched the Gore vs Dub debates (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:48:21 PM EST
    It was never even a contest, and yet the press gave it the Dub.
    We must have a free and independent press or our way of life is doomed! Just ask Thomas Jefferson.

    Cue the biased coverage... (none / 0) (#214)
    by mg7505 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    NYT headline: "Clinton Employs Broad Attacks in a Key Debate." Never mind that Obama and his NBC moderator surrogates employed equally bad, if not worse, attacks -- also this makes Clinton sound like the agent, when it was in fact the moderators.

    damage control all they want (none / 0) (#216)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    most voters have figured out how biased the media is and don't take them seriously anymore.

    NYT called hers a "Broad Attack"?! (none / 0) (#226)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:35 PM EST
    Not only is that inaccurate . . . it's a hed that would get hoots on any copy desk and never make it into print.  The night crew must be still down in the bar and letting the college interns write heds.

    I didn't mind the first part (none / 0) (#239)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    It was the first debate since the Wright thing broke, and until tonight I hadn't heard anyone ask Obama to explain why he disinvited Wright a year ago if he hadn't heard his offensive remarks. Obama looked so bad trying to answer that question that I'm glad it was asked. Obama's suporters would like us to think that the Wright controversy has a shelf life, and we're not supposed to talk about it any more.

    Same with his San Francisco comments. His supporters like to treat it as an irrelevant sideshow, now that they've had a chance to explain what he really meant (although they'll tell you that any intelligent observer already understood him perfectly.) The fact is, a candidate was talking about what he thinks is important to the voters, and what motivates them to vote. I fail to see how that's irrelevant.

    The questions did seem one-sided in the first half, but I really think a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that it's the first time Obama has been hit with tough questions, and more importantly, tough follow-up questions. The moderators couldn't treat Hillary the same way, because she's been getting those questions all along. And how much can they hit her with on Bosnia, after she says "it was embarrassing and I was wrong"?

    My biggest complaint with Hillary was on issues like Ayers and Wright. I don't think she helps herself by being the one to appear to press the issue, and saying things like "we need to examine this more." Once the moderators laid the dirt on the table, there was no need for her to repeat it. Just say something like "I think these are important issues and it's fair to bring them up." Let's face it, next to the primary voters, the most important audience were the supers. For some reason, a lot of these people who have been through a lot of tough campaigns are buying the spin that Hillary's campaign is vicious and destructive. Like it or not, she needs to disabuse them of that idea.

    She also had a bad habit of looking off into space while talking. I even said to my wife that I thought she might be addressing the people in  the hall. But Obama seemed to be talking to the moderators, and it made him look more focused.

    On the whole, a great night for Hillary.