home

Debate Video Highlights

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM EST
Tags: Democrats Debate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here are video highlights from ABC on tonight's Pennsylvania debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

More...

< Post-PA Debate Thread: I | PA Debate: The Morning After >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Debate Video Highlights | 250 comments (250 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If George Stephanopoulos can hammer (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    Obama so easily on his associates and friends.. think what Right wing 527's will..

    KO can furious NOW, but he should educate the viewers the reality also.

    New charge against hillary on MSNBC (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    she was sticking there helping moderators on those questions against Obama..

    Now what was she supposed to do? And what has Obama been doing when things are thrown at her.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama rulz (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    Obama can slam Hillary and/or Bill (as he did several times tonight) but Hillary must DEFEND Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    sticking where? (none / 0) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:47:52 PM EST
    ::confused::

    (course I was in class...)

    [ Parent ]

    well, if she had any class (none / 0) (#54)
    by onemanrules on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    she would have done the same thing Obama did when Hillary was asked about Bosnia. Obama refused to comment, he didn't throw her under the bus. I don't understand why she does this because everytime she goes on the attack, the only numbers that go up for her are her negatives.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see. Hillary went to Bosnia (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:34:27 PM EST
    as a representative of the US in a war-torn country; Obama went to the home of a terrorist and murderer who is completely unrepentant for his crimes.
    I'm missing the equivalence.

    [ Parent ]
    actually, he did throw her under the bus... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    ...with a passive-aggressive attempt to resurrect the "mommy wars" of the '90s by bringing attention to the to-do over her "baking cookies" remark.

    His campaign brought that up the other day as an official talking point in response to ClingGate, and he tonight he skillfully wove that into his "defense" of her.

    If that's your definition of class, I'll take a gallon of crude.

    [ Parent ]

    "If she had any class." (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:13 PM EST
    Typical statement that pisses me off.  

    [ Parent ]
    She showed it too (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:53 PM EST
    when she said all ex-prez's have a role, whereas Obama was tacky for stating his preference for GHWB over his son.

    [ Parent ]
    well, if he had any class (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:18:50 PM EST
    he would not be running for President in 2008.

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by progrocks on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    seriously, huh?

    I think he should have ran in 1996 also, if that is what you mean.

    [ Parent ]

    He could be preparing himself for 2016 ... (none / 0) (#226)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:48:48 AM EST
    ... when he may have enough experience to do the job. Instead of claiming he's ready now, when we can see that he isn't. Someone with "class" does not try to put on an act and pretend to be something they are not. That's what I mean.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama exploited the Bosnia thing (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Just another person on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    for weeks in the media. And now he gets to take the high road because he denounced it in a debate? Sorry, I'm not biting.

    And there's the equivalence issue pointed out - those issues aren't on the same footing.

    [ Parent ]

    oh that's rich (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:41:27 PM EST
    you want to talk class -- how about the class Obama had at the Ohio debate "taking Hillary at her word" that she didn't "leak" the Somali garb picture, and then turning around and telling MS voters at his rallies that he did. PUH-LEASE. Obama supporters should stick with the unity goobly gook and stay away from "class."

    [ Parent ]
    she did, not he did (none / 0) (#151)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST
    I wish we could edit!

    [ Parent ]
    According to myobama (none / 0) (#90)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    A lot of people think she had the questions ahead of time....

    sigh.

    Someone did say they thought she was a seasoned politician in response...but that she had the hope boiled out of her.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd rather have a cynical candidate (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Just another person on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    who knows what she's doing, than a hopeful one that bungles his way through.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporters have difficulty (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    accepting what's been obvious to those who don't support BO: HRC is a better candidate.  Watching her response on whether BO can win against McCain, it's a great example of HRC being put in a difficult position, but masterfully answering the question.

    Great job.

    [ Parent ]

    Great Quote from National Review... (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    I know, I know, its National Review, but I like this quiote from Jim Geraghty:

    I don't like Hillary Clinton. But I respect her as an adversary. And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to "go there" in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I'm tempted to say, "I like the cut of your jib, Senator." It's like watching a linebacker perfectly execute a blitz and flatten a quarterback from the blind side. It's brutal, and tough to watch when it's your guy being hit, but it's within the rules and almost artistic when it's perfectly executed.



    [ Parent ]
    Funny video (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:15:12 PM EST
    from NoQuarter.   Leave Barack Obama aloooonnnne!

    link

    [ Parent ]

    That is so funny!! and so true.. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM EST
    totally caught the flavor of the fervor for Obama. And the bottom comment about the diary over at "the orange place" is even funnier. Apparently, it's all Disney's fault that Obama got creamed in the debate. So, DKos is calling out Disney for being mean to Obama. I guess they are going to add Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to the troll list. I can't believe that they think this was a hard thing to deal with. Hillary has been dealing with it since day one of the campaign, and she isn't whining. Neither are her supporters. We are mad as hell about it, but we aren't whining. I can't wait to hear Obama's reasons for doing so poorly in the debate. I dare him to blame it on Mickey Mouse. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    That was mean?! (none / 0) (#91)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:47 PM EST
    The word you are looking for with Kos is infantile.

    [ Parent ]
    No, I thought the debate was (none / 0) (#133)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    a normal political debate. At DKos they are having hissy fits about how their idol was set up and made to look bad by ABC, who is owned by Disney, so they are going to boycott all of Disney's advertisers, or something. I was laughing too hard to really read it. I don't go there anymore, but I had to see that.  The people over there are simply out of their minds. But sometimes they do amuse me. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    so funny so true....good end (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    National Review or not (none / 0) (#155)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    at least they understand that this is politics, not a tea party.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#187)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    oh, it's a party.

    a tea-bagging party.

    ah, i kill myself.

    [ Parent ]

    great find Exeter (none / 0) (#192)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09:02 AM EST
    I missed the debate, and just started reading comments to see what happened.  But regardless of what i find out about the debate this post of yours made my night even better which I didn't think possible (went out with my future wife for the first time tonight. I'm going to have permasmile till I watch KO or read kos to see the other side of the debate reaction---but I'm saving that for tomorrow...tonight?  I'm basking.)

    [ Parent ]
    Well that is a problem KO has been so biased and (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:17:46 PM EST
    told so many lies on his talk show about Senator Clinton, its like KOS who will believe them now, not me I can assure you.  And it doesn't matter, voters don't trust his patriotism and they have every right to question him, I never believed Rev Wright would be about Race but about love of Country, do you recall how nuts we all went when Robertson or was it Falwell who said something similar after 911, and add the never proud until now comments, Ayers association come on it's a fair question and its better the question is asked and some maybe accept the answer given vs not turn out in Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    100% Correct (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    If Obama folks think this is bad just imagine what the GOP will do. It was hard, sure, but these questions needed to be asked because they are (1) on the minds of many voters and (2) aren't going to go away. It's not doing the GOPs work for them either -- this stuff is out there already and people want answers.

    [ Parent ]
    This reminds me of soccer (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    Bear with me here...

    But you know, how in soccer, when player B brushes player A with his sleeve, player A drops to the ground, starts writhing and clutching a limb, and then the game is halted while they carry him off on a stretcher?

    Well, player A is the Obama campaign. Grow up, guys. Politics ain't beanbag.

    [ Parent ]

    Italians! (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:14:24 PM EST
    The English don't really go in for that garbage.

    Phoney bastardos.

    [ Parent ]

    exactly right (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by jpete on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:56:09 PM EST
    Compared to HC, Obama was unprepared and unimpressive.  His foreign policy is a matter of a few basic ideas and few details.

    And this was a friendly forum, comparatively speaking.

    [ Parent ]

    He either doesn't care... (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:21:22 AM EST
    ...or he just doesn't get it. The issues. The controversies. Once again, he reminds me of George Bush. He seems to think that character will pull him through anything - he doesn't have to do the hard work of learning about the issues. Sadly, many Americans feel the same way.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, agreed. nt (none / 0) (#269)
    by jpete on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:14:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ABCs own headline (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    Clinton Concedes Obama can beat McCain.

    They just couldn't resist the temptation to use "concede". A-holes.

    Obama Conceded Clinton Can Win, Too (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:32 PM EST
    but the media chatterers are not mentioning that.

    I cannot find words to express how awful pundits are, and how much better we were served before 24/7 cable news had to fill time with such crap.

    Where is our Cronkite, our Huntley and Brinkley?

    And no, I won't even ask where our Murrow is, but you can bet he's not that hack on MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]

    Well what could she say thats politics (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:28:08 PM EST
    and she is Party loyal. But my guess is that neither answer nor question is what will move voters in PA and SDs know she had no choice but to say yes even if it is or is not her belief. KO of course probably believes it's a big deal and that guy on CNN thinks now she has a secret pinky ring oath and can never change on the topic, and Icky must be silence for ever more, amazingly.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Tough Out There (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    I guess scrutiny becomes "unfair" when Obama is not treated with kid gloves.  I say that George and Charlie provided some needed correctives to the coronation in progress.

    I'm sorry but I had no problem with the questions (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:36:40 PM EST

    none, they were no where near as bad as that inane Russert - Williams crowd, those two should have been fired I still will not purchase anything from GE I will not view NBC or MSNBC, this has been the nature of the debates all twenty some and will be the nature of the debates in the General.


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, Correctives Needed (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:40:36 PM EST
    George and Charlie were trying to level the playing field.  To many, that may appear to be bias.  But the balance has been so hostile to Clinton that we don't know what balance looks like.

    ABC also was getting us more information about Obama - because the MSM won't do any investigating.

    Panicked comments over at Kos: plan to march on ABC; get George fired by Sunday.

    [ Parent ]

    In the mean time (none / 0) (#135)
    by Just another person on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:54 PM EST
    they sit back contentedly while Rhodes pulls her disgusting remarks and smirk.

    Hah!

    [ Parent ]

    Atrios says Rendell complaining about ?'s (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    I don't think there should be any more debates unless it is moderated by someone other than the mainstream media.  

    PBS (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:39:18 PM EST
    With Bill Moyers moderating.

    One can dream...

    [ Parent ]

    League of Women Voters did a good job (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM EST
    for years, and media simply set up cameras and sent out the feed.  Then media decided to take over the debates or they would not cover them, and the parties and candidates played along -- and debates have gone to heck ever since.

    Bring back the League of Women Voters, and tell the media to serve as the conduits of news again, not the ones making the news the way they want it to go.

    [ Parent ]

    I wish we could go back to debates .... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    ... sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not?? Do them on the web (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
    and MAKE the MSM cover them. Do them by streaming video. People can watch it on the net at net cafes, or at a bar with a tv that is hooked up to the computer, or at home the same way or just on their computer. And they can save it and rewatch it if they want to. I watch horse racing on the web. All the big races that aren't televised. I get all the replays I want. Don't need TV anymore, we have the internet, in all it's audio-video glory. F**k the MSM, let them go back to reporting the news, that is their job, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Net cafes? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
    Are you serious?  Yeah I can see my Dad, a 76 year-old Chicano hanging out at a "net cafe" to watch debates. That's not realistic.  A lot of Dem voters barely have tvs, much less computers and time to hang out in 'net cafes'.  I worked for Howard Dean for Latino outreach in TX.  We found out the hard way with black and hispanic voters that directing them to "www dot..." was pointless.

    I say let's get the debates on PBS and have the LOWV do it there.

    [ Parent ]

    Debates aren't justabout issues (none / 0) (#104)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM EST
    The whole point of debates is putting the candidates before the people in an open format instead of canned speeches and 30 second television spots. They get a chance to show that they aren't just cardboard cutouts, and the public gets a chance to see them perform unscripted. There are no rules saying that the candidates should only have to deal with policy questions. Why should there be? I want to know what kind of person I'm voting for, not just whether they support tax cuts for rich people. PBS interviews are very nice, but the debate isn't supposed to be an advertisement for the candidate. It's supposed to be a challenge.

    [ Parent ]
    It's also supposed to show how (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:47:15 PM EST
    the candidates can think on their feet, and handle questions they may not expect. It can showcase their sense of humor, and their ability to handle opposition with grace. Tonight Barack Obama did prove something. He proved that he is not ready for the big leagues.

    [ Parent ]
    I was impressed by her ability... (none / 0) (#190)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:23 AM EST
    ...to think on her feet. For example, when the moderator tried to challenge her on supporting New York Citie's stringent gun control laws, she explained her position quite well in a way that few gun advocates could argue with: let the community set the standard.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how Reagan (none / 0) (#111)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    destroyed Mondale by just being himself. The age comment didn't hurt either

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is no Reagan (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:47:51 PM EST
    I was really hoping otherwise, believe it or not. I don't want McCain to be President. I have been reading about this inspirational candidate and assuming that it was at least partly true. But it isn't. He's just a young politician with a weak grasp of the issues. I think that Democrats really want to see a Dem version of Reagan, or even another Bill Clinton, so they are taking what Obama has and blowing it up to fit the mold. It won't work. He's not Reagan, or JFK, or FDR. He's Barack Hussein Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#217)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27:23 AM EST
    I agree, Diane. I saw Obama at debates before I ever saw him giving one of his speeches. That had me scratching my head wondering what people were smoking that they thought he was so eloquent. What I saw was someone stumbling around sometimes never even finding a point, not an eloquent speaker. Then when I finally heard one of his speeches, I probably was a lot more skeptical. There was high-flown prose, but most of it was empty of any substance, so I still wasn't impressed. Sorry, but this guy hasn't impressed me in any way. He may be book smart, but I don't see someone who is street smart and has common sense. All the problems he has that were finally brought out in this debate just underline that. Someone who knows they are going to run for President doesn't have ties to Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Ayers, or Rezko.
    I think those questions were fair, particularly considering the extremely hostile playing field that Clinton has had to play on all this time. This was basically the only time anyone has ever challenged him in a debate, and what are we up to - 18 so far? That's pathetic! This stuff was known clear back to the first debate. About time someone asked some real questions about stuff the Republicans are going to crucify him with. And he should have known it, too. He should have been ready for those questions.

    [ Parent ]
    His eyes don't smile (none / 0) (#220)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:31:53 AM EST
    I finally figures out why I don't like him. His face smiles, but his eyes don't reflect the smile. It's as if he is showing emotions because he should, not because he feels them. You see this a lot of Texans. It creeps me out.

    [ Parent ]
    I've said this before, but (none / 0) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:39:51 AM EST
    I saw Obama on KO's show before he announced -- quite some time ago.  I figured, I'd better watch him, I'll probably be voting for him.

    So I watched.

    Then I thought, uh-oh, maybe we don't have such a good candidate there.  I figured, I'll bet he won't run, or if he runs, he won't get very far.

    Silly me, yes.  My instincts were telling me something far different than what the media spins.  Didn't figure the media would prop him up so much.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't see anything special in the 2004 debate (none / 0) (#229)
    by Just another person on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:57:25 AM EST
    when everyone was raving about him. But that kind of rhetoric has never done much for me. I'm all about the facts and figures, I guess. Or maybe I'm too jaded.

    [ Parent ]
    It wasn't just the media (none / 0) (#270)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    Axelrod is reputed to be very Roveish. If you look at how he has run the campaign, you will see similarities. Constant, subtle, underhanded digs at the competition - untraceable to the candidate himself, but unrefuted by him as well. Taking the oppositions biggest advantages (Bill Clinton, popularity with Blacks) and turning them into disadvantages. Turning your candidate into a messiah for the people by focusing on abstract, positive issues (hope, change, unity)instead of boring policies, and writing the policies in such as way as to offend the minimum number of people whose support you need. Speak in "code" so that people in target groups know what you mean but the words sound innocuous otherwise. For example, a lot of Obama's speeches sound a bit like MLK, and I've read several quotes from him in speeches and commercials to black audiences that they should vote for him because of how they would feel watching him being sworn in. If that isn't code for "vote for me because I'm black", I don't know what is.  A lot like Bush using words and phrases that connect him to the Christian fundmentalist movement. Unity is a word not usually used on politicsrecently. He expresses it as reaching across political divides, but it is more commonly associated with the Black Unity movement. And anybody who doesn't think that they have a team of people sitting at computers waiting to attack anybody who supports Clinton or criticizes Obama, ready with campaign "talking points" at hand, is naive in the extreme.

    I read that questionaire last night.  Obama was quite explicit that he supports affirmative action for minorities, homosexuals, and women (in two different places). But in the campaign, he said that he only supports it for poor people. Nobody challenged him on when he changed his views. He implied that he supports parental notification laws for young girls, but nobody has, to my knowledge, challenged him on that. He has said many things that indicate that he has either dramatically changed some of his views or is saying he has. I'm guessing that Axelrod has studied Rove explicitly and turned Obama into the perfect candidate, even as he used Rove's slime techniques to tear down not only Obama's opposition, but anybody who threatened him in any way.

    [ Parent ]

    Fantastic job by ABC (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:42 PM EST
    This is how a debate is supposed to be conducted. HUGE props to ABC for showing CNN and MSNBC how it's done.

    They hit both candidates hard, and did no fawning.

    I couldn't disagree (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:26 PM EST
    with you more on the conduct of the debate.  I prefer Hillary but I am tired of the media doing the work of the Republican party.  

    Obama got a good sense of how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot tonight.  I have no doubt the media will take the same approach with who ever ends up being the Democratic nominee.  We need to let the media know that favoring one party over another is unacceptable.  This is true for not only for candidates but the way the media covers Dems in Congress when it comes to bills, nominations or any other issue.    

    [ Parent ]

    I totally agree, standingup (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:16:14 PM EST
    This is how professional moderators approach their job: You come hard at both potential nominees.

    They hit Clinton hard, too. As they should.

    I wrote up something on tonight's debate and ABC's performance:

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=457#457

    This debate tonight should shame MSNBC and CNN. Obama was not the only entity exposed this night; MSNBC and CNN should do some hard looking in the mirror after ABC's magnificent work.

    [ Parent ]

    Good write up n/t (none / 0) (#194)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    huh (none / 0) (#114)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    The media is the Republican Party.
    Has been for some time now.
    Oh, yeah, an occasional loose cannon will write a real story, but for the most part it's all propaganda.
    Can't say some of the top blogs are better after these last few months. Only they are the Obama party. It's not really different. Folks hungry for information get nothing but opinion.
    The teller of the story has become too much a character in the story.

    "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

    [ Parent ]

    They were doing Obama a favor (none / 0) (#120)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:58 PM EST
    The problem isn't that the media are asking these questions now - it's that they didn't ask them before now. Obama knows what all of the controversies are, and he should have been able to use this as an opportunity to answer all of the charges at once and put the matters to rest once and for all. But he couldn't, or at least he didn't. I can't believe that he didn't have better answers for those questions - he should have been completely ready to deal with any of them.  If Obama were half as good as his reputation he could have used this debate to lay every controversy to rest and cement the nomination, instead he chose to attack Clinton and give weak talking points. If he doesn't do better, McCain is going to wipe the floor with him.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure he'd been prepped on them (none / 0) (#215)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:23:25 AM EST
    about five months ago when the campaign thought that some of them might get asked...each week that passed without serious questions being raised probably put them in a comfort zone...probably started to think they wouldn't have to visit those questions or the tough questions on Wright etc until the GE debates.  And truth be told they probably wouldn't have.  I haven't seen the debate or read the transcripts but everyone on here, including BTD, thought the debate was tough but fair...so kudos to George for not playing the shill game (but i'll bet comments on dKOs are:  Stephanopolous is one of THEM, he worked for the Clintons..so biased it was bs....oh well, fair to them would seem biased as Clinton has bore the brunt of media backlash.

    [ Parent ]
    My thought exactly (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:39 PM EST
    This is what news/debate is supposed to be. Present the tough facts, let candidates answer, then hold them to what they said. I thought they did it to both pretty equally. It just looked like they slammed Obama because he couldn't stand up. So it looked bad for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Calling All C-Span Callers! (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by dazedreamer52 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:42:30 PM EST
    C-span is taking calls from viewers right now.
    Let them know what you feel.

    Washington Journal: Support Democrats (202) 737-0002
    Washington Journal: Support Republicans (202) 737-0001
    Washington Journal: Support Others (202) 628-0205

    The Precious Finally Gets Some Scrutiny (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:58 PM EST
    It is HILARIOUS that the media, new and old, is in such an uproar over the fact that Obama finally received some long-overdue scrutiny.

    We need some adults to tell these "journalists" to stop coddling The Precious.

    actually (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:54:58 PM EST
    it's being painted in the NYtimes that clinton was on the attack "helped by moderators."

    So he isn't getting scrutiny, clinton is attacking him.

    sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Time to start fact checking the MEDIA (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    NOT the candidates.

    That's just freakin' insane to say she was attacking. She was actually pretty pleasant and positive, but stood her ground and yes, was not a wimp when it came to his 'issues'.

    I thought it was a good debate for the SDs, as long as they weren't clutching their kool aid.

    [ Parent ]

    a woman "standing her ground" = (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:35:38 PM EST
    attacking.  This election has proven that.

    [ Parent ]
    My thought exactly! (none / 0) (#87)
    by kaffied on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Or, woman standinf her ground= (none / 0) (#95)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    nagging.

    Political woman standing her ground = attacking.

    This election has left me thinking that sexism is a greater cause of inequality in America than racism.  Or, they're at least equal.  I used to think it was the reverse.

    [ Parent ]

    If they paid attention to both equally (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    I think we would bridge the divides much quicker. After all, women come from all "races, religion and region".

    In my experience, I've seen more discrimination towards white women in the work place vs a woman of any other background. This is not about pay discrimination, but just your 'basic' day to day discrimination. Sexism is accepted. Racism, not so much.


    [ Parent ]

    Fact checking the media (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:18 PM EST
    Isn't that how Left Blogistan originated, at least in part? Sad to see how (much of) it has devolved into hero worship and unthinking acceptance of media themes for its preferred candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    What's hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
     is that after all of this the take away line is that Hillary says that Obama can beat McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm guessing they lost the clip (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    of him saying Clinton could beat McCain pretty quick . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Since Obama (none / 0) (#150)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    is winning the nomination, her view about his chances to beat McCain is more relevant

    [ Parent ]
    You mean all the dancing before she said yes? (none / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    whatever gets you through the night, bud n/t (none / 0) (#164)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:53:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    all of a sudden... (none / 0) (#165)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    she's now being truthful?

    Can you really have it both ways?

    [ Parent ]

    IMO if they hadn't been coddling him (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    all these months, this debate wouldn't have seemed quite as hard on him as everyone would have already talked about his issues and it would be old news....Protecting him all those months did him no favors for the general...

    and may yet (none / 0) (#118)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:34 PM EST
    doom the democratic party this fall. If that was harsh, someone ought to show him a tape of Khrushchev at the UN.

    [ Parent ]
    What "scrutiny"? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by s5 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    Sure, give them both all the scrutiny in the world over actual legitimate policy matters. This wasn't about policy. It was reinforcing right wing narratives against Democrats. The only winner tonight was John McCain. Truly disgusting stuff.

    I wonder if someone in the (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:37 PM EST
    Senate or House will introduce a resolution to condemn Obama for comparing a member of the Senate to a terrorist and murderer. I think that was a bit impolitic of Obama, myself!

    Tough Questions or Questions They Should (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    Have always asked the guy? If Hillary Clinton was "friends" and went to the house of a former terrorist who famously said "kill your parents," it would have doomed her campaign. That's a fact. It's a wake up call of the sorry state of our media (including blogs) that Obama has gotten a free pass this long.  

    It's time (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Sunshine on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST
    All of these things that Obama was asked tonite are things that you know about if you use the internet but were not hearing about through the media, its about time that it was made public... I'm sure this is the first time that many people are hearing about some of Obama's friend's and there are still more, we did not get into his Rezko friendship...

    Auchi, Too (none / 0) (#36)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    Don't forget Auchi....and the Rezko party....for a convicted criminal.  Nice image, Barack.

    [ Parent ]
    If people watched the debate for themselves, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:06 PM EST
    they are less likely to have to be told how to feel about it, or what to think - they can do that on their own - as the focus group clearly did.

    I've decided the real low information voter is the one who allows the media to do their thinking for them.

    What does that make the O-list (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:45 PM EST
    bloggers?!

    [ Parent ]
    They are their own media. (none / 0) (#257)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:50:36 AM EST
    They create their own reality/echo chamber and then live in it.  And they won't let anyone tell them differently.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton Attacks . . . (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:15 PM EST
    Oy. I didn't realize she was asking the questions:

    http://tinyurl.com/6jwh6g

    I wonder who that woman was who was actually supplying answers to the questions?

    that would be (none / 0) (#41)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    sen. clinton's evil twin, "skippy" hillary!

    I wonder who that woman was who was actually supplying answers to the questions?



    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm, if she gets the nom . . . (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:47 PM EST
    my next kitten will be named 'skippy'! I like that!

    [ Parent ]
    They're just saying that because its... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    ...the only part of the scrip they had prepared before the debate that they could still use. What they had intended to say was "Clinton goes on attack but misses mark as Obama soars above the criticism."

    [ Parent ]
    Yet another nail in my opinion (none / 0) (#46)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST
    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe...

    Tonight we saw a real choice between the old politics of point-scoring and distraction and a politics that focuses on bringing us together to actually solve the challenges we talk about every single election.  Continuing the theme of her campaign, Senator Clinton used every single opportunity she had to launch misleading attack after misleading attack against Barack Obama, which is why polls show that most Americans think she's running the most negative campaign and don't believe she's trustworthy.  Barack Obama spoke about the issues that actually matter in people's lives, like how he plans to end the war in Iraq, cut middle-class taxes, help people stay in their homes, and provide a secure retirement for our seniors.  That's why more Americans are putting their trust in Barack Obama to bring about the change we need in Washington.
    Tired of this kind of slash-and-burn politics?

    link to Obama's web site

    [ Parent ]

    Dear Mr Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by DEM on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:35:15 PM EST
    Did we watch the same debate?!

    [ Parent ]
    This is the first (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    anyone in that audience have heard of Rezko Auchi Ayers etc etc.

    Three/four months after the first vote.

    The media were sandbagging the Democratic voter ABOUT Obama's biography.

    [ Parent ]

    Hah that's rich (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Just another person on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    And who was that woman giving us all those assured answers on all those issues, answers that trumped Obama's a$$?

    Of course, we'll forget Obama's cheap shot about Clinton's off-camera remarks - he rises above it all. His campaign is disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    ummm Hillary control. Dig it ! Great Job tonight (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by drewohio1 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:18:55 PM EST
    Hillary was just great and we saw another um um um um night with barry. oh lord was it tough looking at him trying to string a thought out and just avoiding questions and not taking them straight on like Hillary did.

    My God Hillary was good, very good, yep she is ready America, as a male I am very much in favor of her leading this great country of ours.

    and a brief word about the stupid questions ...

    ABC stands for garbage, looked like a game show and the gop snipe machine is getting real real old. who do they think we are children , clearly far from substance and meaty on yellow journalism national enquirer gossip crap.

     GIBSON REALLY HATES HIS CAPITAL GAINS WHEN HE SELLS HIS DISNEY STOCK OPTIONS THAT HE GETS FROM ABC, he made a quote on 100million americans owning stock, this is a falsehood.

    I don't understand the 1996 survey (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    I thought it was Obama's handwriting, but tonight he said it wasn't.
    ?????
    Anyone know the facts about this?
    politico says its his handwriting (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM EST
    Charlie asked it, but let Obama off the hook with a flat out denial that it was his handwriting.  I wonder if the msm will pick this up -- yeah, right.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG..another Gary Hart moment. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thought that his handwriting... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:07 PM EST
    ...was on the margin of the document, in some comments. Are you saying that the answer was actually in his handwriting? I think it's pretty sad, either way. In his story, he let an aide fill out a poll, looked at the document and commented, but didn't bother to read what all the positions were supposed to be even though he had the document in his hand. I hope that if he wins the election he is a bit more "hands on" about national policy.

    [ Parent ]
    why would you let a staffer (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST
    just randomly jot in responses on something like that?

    Wouldn't there be some sort of agreement with regards to the essence of the responses?

    I can't imagine just jotting in any old responses for my boss...

    [ Parent ]

    I thought (none / 0) (#142)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:33:44 PM EST
    his handwritting was on reproductive rights issues. Unless its a different document or the same one with multiple issues.

    [ Parent ]
    I just read the document (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    It's linked to on the Clinton site.  There is only one place with his actual writing, but I'm having a hard time imagining that he let somebody else answer all of those questions. Some of the answers even have "modifiers" (i.e. do you support parental notification for abortion: no, but maybe for really young girls, 12 or 13).  It's just a 7 page document. I can't imagine a budding politician so stupid that he lets an aid fill out a document like this and doesn't even check for typos. It is obvious that he saw the document - he made corrections on the section about groups that were endorsing him. He's either lying or ridiculously sloppy.

    [ Parent ]
    on the margins (none / 0) (#173)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:44 PM EST
    his handwriting was on the margins, commenting on the questions and/or adding to the answers given.  Obama said flatly tonight that it wasn't his handwriting, which is what I was commenting on -- sorry for any confusion.

    [ Parent ]
    But, apparently, without reading them (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:11:21 AM EST
    He commented in the margins, but didn't correct the wrong answers. <sigh>

    [ Parent ]
    He's lying (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    outright, it would sink him in thr GE. I don't believe he's a viable national candidate, for the dems yes, for everyone else, no.

    [ Parent ]
    WEATHER UNDERGROUND? hannity via fox tip.fox=abc (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by drewohio1 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:25:14 PM EST
    I PREDICT A MILLION HITS IN 24 HOURS FOR WEATHER UNDERGROUND.....

    sounds like impossible to have underground weather...

    wow (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    finally a fair debate where both candidate where ask tough questions. I hope MSNBC was watching tonight because this is how its done.

    Hillary says Obama lied re 1996 survey! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7136

    The big orange is fuming (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    Why? The questions reflected what is going on in the political race. They covered both the current controversies (Bosnia, Wright, electability) and issues of general interest to Americans (Iraq, gas prices taxes). Both candidates had chances to answer all of the questions. It didn't seem as if they were throwing too many powderpuff questions. So... why are Obama fans offended? He didn't handle the controversial questions very well, but this was his chance to do so. It's not the moderator's fault that he blew it.

    Obama, imo, took some cheap shots. He worked very hard to not say that she was truthful. He called her a liar at one point. Clinton stuck to the issues. The debate made her look better, but only because she IS better.

    Hillary was right on! (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:58 PM EST
    She had specifics:  First I woould do this, then I would do this....

    He had trouble even speaking in generalities.  He practically circumnavigated the eaerth to come up with a simple yes or no answer.

    She completely humiliated him with her knowledge of the issues....my gawd he is so unready....embarrasing

    She should have said: (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    "Of COURSE Senator Obama can beat Senator McCain. In a game of 1 on 1 basketball."

    To all Clinton suppoters: ALERT (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    This is an immediate alert, and I'm sure it's been posted here but I will repeat it.

    Call ABC and tell them you were happy with their professional coverage and moderating of tonight's debate.

    The number:

    1-818-560-1000

    I just got off the phone with a woman there. I explained to her why she is receiving so many negative calls (Someone posted ABC's number over at The Great Orange Satan's and now it's on the rec list), that I loved the debate, etc. She had no idea about Markos's site, but she now is going to look into this and spread the word around the Disney offices.

    We must get this message to them and support them now. Please help. They are being deluged with calls from Obama people.

    This is the kind of tactic we have seen throughout  the campaign. If you care to help balance things out, please act now.

    Thanks,

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" :)

    In the morning (none / 0) (#94)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:09 PM EST
    I will call in the morning.  I can't believe media is not aware of what his supporters have been doing.  What a bunch of morons if they aren't