Debate Video Highlights

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


< Post-PA Debate Thread: I | PA Debate: The Morning After >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.

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

    (course I was in class...)


    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.

    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.

    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.


    "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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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."

    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!

    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....


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


    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.


    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.

    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!



    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    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.)

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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...


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.    


    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:


    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.


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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.

    My thought exactly! (none / 0) (#87)
    by kaffied on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:23 PM EST
    Or, woman standinf her ground= (none / 0) (#95)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:35 PM EST

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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 . . .

    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

    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
    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
    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?


    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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:


    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?

    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!

    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."

    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


    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?!

    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.


    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.

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

    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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>

    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.

    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

    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
    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:


    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.


    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 aware of all the swarming campaigns they do.

    1-818-460-7477 Comment Line (none / 0) (#103)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    The lady I talked to at the first number was very grateful for the support, said it's just been awful tonight. They've been deluged with nasty calls. She wants us to please call the comment line with any support, which is where they're getting hit hardest.

    please, don't (none / 0) (#108)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:13:39 PM EST
    This is really unseemly, imho.

    I find it very difficult to be happy about a debate in which the questions were so free of substance and focused on non-issues (or at least what SHOULD BE non-issues).

    What made tonight and ABC stand out was that the pathetic questions were aimed at both candidates.

    While this may represent an improvement over other networks' one-sided lameness, it is still lameness, and I find it very, very difficult to get excited about that.

    I'm struggling to find a way to praise equal opportunity stupidity.


    I praised (none / 0) (#128)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    the moderating and questions during the second half of the debate, which was focused on issues. Good questions and followups for the most part, (although Gibson misrepresented some facts there) which allowed our candidates to talk about their policies as they would affect real people. I liked that half the best of any of the debates so far. The gotcha opener sucked, but it always has before too.

    fair enough, (none / 0) (#134)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:51 PM EST
    i guess. the second half was better. but despite the clucking from Big Orange et al., I still don't think the overall effort was particularly meritorious.

    Everyone wants to know (none / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    Where were the "two wrongs don't make a right" people back when the first wrong was being committed?

    two wrongs (none / 0) (#208)
    by dws3665 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
    What on earth is your point? Is there some presumption here that because I think that this debate was an embarrassment for its focus on asinine non-issues that I did not think it was an embarrassment when NBC ganged up on Hillary? Do two wrongs make a right?

    Seriously - what is your point?


    I don't know (none / 0) (#241)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:21:09 AM EST
    How much time DID you spend on a pro-Obama blog telling them it WAS wrong for MSNBC to gang up on Hillary?

    I honestly don't know.


    Bill Ayers facts (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by onemanrules on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:48 PM EST
    From what I've been able to find out about this fellow and his relationship with Obama is:

    1. The board they both sat on was an anti-poverty board in Chicago. I guess it's a matter of caring who is on the board or trying to help poor people.

    2. The attacks Ayers group were responsible for were between 1970 and 1974. Obama was probably not even to puberty yet.

    3. They cant be too good of friends, Ayers has donated a whopping $200 to Obamas campaign. Ayers is a distinguished professor now who makes a considerable salary.

    4. Ayers was never convicted of anything. It's hard to argue his group wasn't basically a terrorist organization though. I guess the question is whether it's better to sit on an anti-poverty board with one of them, or to commute the sentences of two of them (as Bill did).

    Below is my source:


    Bill isn't running for President (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27:28 AM EST
    Hillary is -- as your guy likes to say, you can't have it both ways.  Hillary had nothing to do with those "pardons."  And that is another thing -- get your facts straight -- they were not pardons, their sentences were commuted.  The two people in question actually served jail time and apologized for their actions.  Unlike Ayers, who expresses no regret and lies saying he was found not guilty, when he got off on a technicality. Even though he told people to "kill their parents" when he was caught, he let his rich daddy get him off on a technicality -- that is why he "served no jail time."  Yes, the Vietnam war was horrible, but that doesn't condone killing innocent people here at home and/or putting their lives at risk. Hillary  -- and those of others -- participated in peaceful protests against the war. Obama knew who this guy was and sought him out to give himself some "hip" factor.  So don't  compare it to Bill's communing of sentences of people who served time and expressed regret, especially when Hillary had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, why can't your guy stand up and take responsibility for anything? He says "the buck stops here" but he always throws blame around -- "Bill did it" "My staff did it" etc.  That is not presidential, that is cowardly.

    I know (1.00 / 1) (#247)
    by onemanrules on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:34:47 AM EST
    you can't blame poor little Hillary for this, even though she talks a lot about the 90's and how good it was. She doesn't mind taking credit for that though does she.

    Axelrod (none / 0) (#222)
    by bigbay on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM EST
    described hem as 'friendly'....

    yeah, that's going to play real well.


    Since I am from that era... (none / 0) (#122)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:15 PM EST
    I am not at all troubled by any association with Ayers/Dohrn.

    Obviously the Republicans will make a big deal about this.

    The thing I thought was curious was that Obama claims not to want to fight the wars of the past but he came loaded/prepared to smear Hillary with Bill's pardon/commutation of Rosenberg & Evans.

    Clearly none of these people constitute a danger to Americans now.

    Whatever happened to the politics of hope?


    I actually remember the 60s (none / 0) (#138)
    by badger on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:00 PM EST
    even though I was there. If you've seen Across the Universe, the radical group that blows itself up was Bill Ayers and friends. His girlfriend and a couple others died when their bomb factory blew up. He was never charged because of problems with the prosecution.

    His partner, Bernardine Dohrn signed a declaration of war against the US. Ayers is on record as not regretting the bombings he did. Mugshots of both  are available online.

    He teaches education at the Univ of IL - Chicago, she teaches law at Northwestern. His father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison, which owns the nuclear facility Obama and Axelrod have ties to (Exelon?). It's a small world.

    Ayers and Dohrn held a house party fundraiser for Obama's first campaign for state senate, and live in Hyde Park.

    All of which makes no difference to me - if Obama really did hang out with leftist radicals, I'd give him points for that. But I don't think the GOP or most voters will.


    This one is definitely silly (none / 0) (#146)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:36:23 PM EST
    If I were Obama I would have given back the $200 but I doubt he has any control who is on the antipoverty board.  And I would not have pointed the finger at Bill, this was about Obama.  He just needed to say he was not his friend, he does not condone the violence, and I gave back the donation.

    pro-Obama blogs attacking ABC!! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:46 PM EST
    Oh my - the media was finally tough on St. Obama and his supporters are WHINING!!!  which only serves to confirm - Obama is a weak candidate!

    These questions for Obama should have been asked months ago!

    that's what they are about (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:24:32 AM EST
    they kill messengers. Witness Mayhill Fowler, Elizabeth Edwards, Paul Krugman. Anyone who dares to disagree with Barry gets attacked.

    You should the hate mail I've gotten. And Obama supporters are vandals. I have had my Hillary sign on my garage vandalized six times. I live in San Francisco. I finally had to get a lucite covering and deadbolted to the garage. $75 for lucite and $40 to handy man to install it.

    Some of them are simply insane.


    That's such a uniting act (none / 0) (#107)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    Attack...scorched earth tactic.  Burn down the village to destroy it.  After all the slash and burn from the Obama supporters, there will be no room for ANYONE at the White House.

    Destruction of the Democratic party...brought to you buy MSNBC, CNN and the good people over at DNC, Inc.

    We bring you back to your regularly scheduled programming of Disneyworld in FLORIDA...ya know, the state Barack ignored?


    I did battle with the core... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    Obama bloggers back in spring.

    They reminded me of Trotskite militants in Labour UK back in the 70s.  They'd wade into a meeting with clubs and start thrashing other people.

    A real socialist like that has at least the courage of conviction to back left wing policy.  

    Obama fans are doing it with no particular policy aims.  It's just about getting their guy into the whitehouse.  Nihilistic claptrap sold as change.

    it'll probably end in violence in Denver.

    I'd forgive Obama and them the broken skulls if there was a real revolution afoot.


    Obama: Not ReadyFor Prime Time Player (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:02 PM EST
    This guy is no more ready to run for office than I am.  I watched the videos and Clinton seemed poised and articulate.  Obama's disfluencies are nerve-racking...sounds too much like Bush 43: "uh...uh...uh..."  If I was in class with him as a lecturer I would have told him to take a speech class.  I never notice Senator Clinton doing that.

    Like Judge Judy says, "UM is not an answer!"

    The best clip from the debate... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    ...would be afterward, when the local live feed accidentally broadcasrt an engineer sounding panicked that she had to put together the best parts of Obama's performance.

    It only lasted a moment on the live feed, but she said something like, "But, he never had any highlights!"

    Did anyone else catch that? I'm crossing my fingers it'll be uploaded somewhere.

    That is priceless (none / 0) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:39:39 PM EST
    someone has got to have that somewhere.  Aren't they recorded?  If not, please, please, please tell me someone was recording......

    Focus group picks Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Josmt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:43:22 PM EST
    This is great. (none / 0) (#166)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:54:21 PM EST
    I just spent a few minutes at Huffpost. They are acting like someone just dropped a bomb on the US.  They are hysterical and furious.  It is kind of amusing in a way because it is so over the top.  Someone needs to tell them to grow up over there!  

    Why are Obama's supporters upset? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by LCaution on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:43 AM EST
    I read many comments before watching the debate out here on the left coast and am baffled by the outrage  of Obama's supporters.

    I thought he handled the gotcha questions quite well.  He even managed to insert Hillary's cookie-baking statement into an answer (quite slickly done).

    I agree that 90% of the questions, as in all the previous 20+ debates, were of the gotcha, feel good, etc. type which don't require that the questioners (they can't possibly be called journalists) know anything about anything.

    I'm a Hillary supporter who thinks Obama can't beat McCain and could go down in flames.  But I think it was 50/50 tonight.

    However, I am worried about Obama's supporters.  If tonight's questions gave them apoplexy, I'm not sure they could survive a General Election.

    Upset... (none / 0) (#236)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:07:17 AM EST
    Are any Hillary supporters upset?  NO,  I frankly think they can throw anything at her and she will handle it.  When you have to worry about your candidate, give it up.  

    I don't get it either (none / 0) (#237)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:08:54 AM EST
    He was well-prepared and won the debate imo.

    Wow...imagination lives. (none / 0) (#240)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:10:37 AM EST
    What I love about Hillary:  first time I see a Dem in a hot seat that I know will not say stupid stuff.  

    Imagine (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:21:34 AM EST
    If a woman had had a performance like Obama's tonight -- Would they still be in the race?  Would they have been in the race in the first place?

    YOU. HAVE. TO. ADDRESS. YOUR. SCANDALS. AS. A. PRESIDENTIAL. CANDIDATE. Obama really hasn't had to.  The media hands him a pillow, he writes and reads a fluffy speech and the scandal goes away.

    ABC proved tonight that what he was experiencing wasn't reality....certainly not GE reality

    I think after this debate the difference (5.00 / 3) (#248)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:53:10 AM EST
    between Clinton and Obama is obvious, don't know why I didn't see it until now. Clinton is a leader and Obama is a politician, it's that simple. Politicians don't force you to think or make hard choices, they play both sides against the middle. Leaders force choice and action upon you, you have to take a stand. This why HRC's plans have substance, specifics, like it or not, there is a course of action put forth in them. With Obama you have platitudes and feel good statements, "Hope and Change" everyone gets to feel good. Who doesn't like feel good notions, it's hard work and struggle that people shy away from. With Hillary you get the hard work and struggle, from Obama, you get a pony. So do we chose a leader or a politician? We'll probably end up with a politician and no pony, because even ponies take work and sacrifice and no one wants that.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Clinton's worst moments with the undecideds (4.00 / 2) (#88)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:31 PM EST
    were when Obama was being asked horrible questions and she piled on.  Today's Wash Post poll showed that she is hurting herself more by going negative.  TPM says she is only showing her negative bittergate ad in W. Penn.  Obama has not lost any ground in the polls over bittergate.

    If Hillary stays negative and the electorate sympathizes with Obama the same way the NH voters sympathized with Hillary after she was piled on, Tuesday may be a shock to Clinton.

    Gee the media disses Clinton (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:41 PM EST
    that's shocking.  They have never treated her like this before.  I can't believe they are discussing her negatives.  I wonder when they started doing that.  I have never heard that her negative attacks (like the 3am ad were going to backfire and then actually got her the vote) was going to backfire on her.  All of these positions are so new for the media and actually so unusual for an Obama supporter to think that Clinton is mean.

    I'm sure you've seen the the Wash Post poll (none / 0) (#140)
    by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:43 PM EST
    she's tanking in favorabilities and character.  She's been negative all month.  

    She did great on issues tonight, and poorly when attacking.  If she stays negative, she may lose on Tuesday. Maybe I have a case of PPP intoxication, but her poll numbers were disastrous.


    Just keep telling yourself that (none / 0) (#127)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    and we'll see how it comes out on the 22nd.  Your weak candidate can't take a punch without looking pathetic.

    I don't believe those polls (none / 0) (#223)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:38:14 AM EST
    I think they are trying to protect Obama hoping that she reads the polls (which she does, cause she's a pol) and lay off. Yeah, that's right, I said it  -- that is what the coverage of this election has made of me.  The only "poll" that is going to count is coming on April 22.

    Come on people (1.00 / 0) (#239)
    by indy33 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM EST
    How could anyone defend that debate tonight if you are a democrat! The first part which prob. was the only part a lot of (imo-sickos) ended up watching because of Idol was a complete hit job on both our canidates! With questions direct from Fox or Drudge or Instapundit that tore down BOTH of them. I have watched all the debates several times and I would love for anyone to point out anything like this! On network prime-time! Yes other debates were pro Obama at times but almost all of them stayed around policy. The general public learned nothing about our candidates stands an the issues till almost an HOUR into it. There was only one canidate who brought that up. More points in my opinion. I know that the common wisdom is that MSNBC and assoc. are in cahoots with Obama which their slant is hard to argue, but having a Clinon White House employee moderate takes it to a different level to me. I have never beilived that Bosnia meant anything nor this guilt by association stuff either. Also, it is disingenious to say that Obama has brought up all he could about Clinton. The kitchen sink is absolutley out against him now. Hidden in the guise of "well the repubs will do it" is awful! What they will do is run ads showing that even Sen Clinton thinks Obama is all these things and its important. This is starting to seem to me like at least a 2012 strategy if not a 2008 one.

    Sorry but you're wrong. (5.00 / 0) (#244)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:31:06 AM EST
    If Clinton was never in the race Obama's "baggage" would still have been brought up, to think otherwise is foolish.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    These subjects (Wright, Obama's patriotism) are (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    just the tip of the iceberg.  Throw in Rezko, the Weather Underground guy, and who knows whatever else they find between now and November, and Obama is toast in the general election.  

    Thanks for the clips (none / 0) (#4)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33:49 PM EST
    I usually watch the re run on the cable news channels but no joy for it being ABC.

    David Brooks (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:58 PM EST
    being an idiot. (as usual).

    This just in! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Klio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:11 PM EST

    Drudge (none / 0) (#29)
    by CytoEric on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    Drudge has a poll up at the top of his page asking who won the debate.  It is currently up for Obama 60/40, which is insane.  Hopefully he will leave it up long enough for Clinton supporters to make it to the site...

    Clinton supporters aren't likely to go there. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    That's why these on-line polls are off so much.

    the focus group called it 50/28 (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:43 PM EST
    Clinton over Obama -- even though I know absolutely nothing about how the focus group was selected, etc., I'll take their word for it over those who frequent Drudge.

    CNN Gergen (none / 0) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:13:37 PM EST
    Here's a good one.... Gergen says that Clinton said Obama is electable.  Now, if she goes privately and says to the delegates that he isn't, it's hypocracy.  uuuhhhhmmmmm really?

    Can you imagine if she would (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by leis on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    have said he was not electable? Gergen really seemed confused by the tactics of a politician.  

    Gergen and the rest (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:26:44 PM EST
    must be very confused.  The consensus on CNN and MSNBC (eww) is that being Obama wishy-washy is best, being Clinton strength is bad.  Everything is backwards.  It used to be you couldn't get a candidate to give a straight answer, she does, it's now bad.  Looking weak is the new sign of strength.  If you don't committ to anything, you can't be held accountable.  Now, I have put in my time on CNN and MSNBC, I need a drink.

    Isn't that how we got John Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:29:50 PM EST
    on SCOTUS?

    John Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by noholib on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:55:04 PM EST
    Yes and let's not forget that Senator Obama was going to vote in favor of his confirmation until he was advised that it wouldn't look so good politically if he was planning to run for higher office. What was the priniciple there other than doing what pols do?  Oh, I forgot, this is the holier-than-thou non-politician pol who doesn't do any of that old-fashioned political stuff.

    if Hillary had said Obama was unelectable (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    Obama supporters would be screaming!
    Displaying unity, Hillary said he was electable - and Obama supporters call that hypocrisy because she's been telling the superdelegates something else!
    It takes silly people to make a silly season.

    Ever heard of a united front? (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    I know it is something Obama supporters don't seem to care about with their constant attacks on Clinton  (maybe of which were made by Obama himself tonight), but it is valid.  It is one thing to hash things out and be brutally frank behind closed doors, but you don't air it in the street.  That isn't hypocrisy. It is good politics.  

    no, not really (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    Not anymore than it was hypocritical of Obama to refuse to criticize the top of the ticket at the 2004 convention for their pro-AUMF position.

    He has been questioned about how, if he were REALLY anti-war, he could say in an interview, "well, i wasn't in congress, so i don't know..." how i would have voted (paraphrase). His explanation of that wishy-washy comment was that he was speaking to the media, at the nominating convention of the party, in public, and it would be political foolhardiness to openly criticize the ticket. I happen to think that is a perfectly legit answer.

    The same logic would apply here: If Hillary were to say that the man who has AT MINIMUM a 50% chance of being her party's nominee was not electable, it would be horrible politics and she would be (rightly) castigated for it. She could give no other answer.

    For Gergen to pretend otherwise lets you know where he stands. He is not foolish. Neither are the super-delegates.


    I think she couldn't have (none / 0) (#79)
    by jpete on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM EST
    made it clearer that she was  saying what she had to.  She spoke carefully about what the dems couod do together, what  had  to be done, etc.

    Ha! for once the NY Times has it right. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jpete on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:15 PM EST
    I just checked and saw this insightful bit:

    "Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that Barack Obama would be deeply vulnerable in a general-election fight."


    Why would SDs care? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    They would give her points for NOT making the party look bad.

    Bad is bad (none / 0) (#31)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST
    Being unfair to Obama at this late date cannot make up for being unfair to Hillary all these months.  Two wrongs don't make a right, nor 20 nor 100.

    Most of those hypnotized by Obama never saw the unfairness to HRC. They only see what happened to their guy.

    This may, in the end, hurt Hillary!

    BTW the voter who thought the Bosnia gaffe worse than the clinggate gaffe... you gotta think his scales are off.

    This is unreal (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
    Of course this was going to happen.

    They abused edwards and Clinton for months.

    Now it's Obama turn to get his guts ripped out.


    Well, he is the uniter! (none / 0) (#39)
    by leis on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:18:47 PM EST

    OOPS, replied to the wrong post. (none / 0) (#42)
    by leis on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:19:40 PM EST
    Trapper is totally giving it to Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM EST
    and putting all the dirt on Hillary.

    note to self: you cannot afford a new TeeVee right now.

    Tapper not trapper {typing while ticked} (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:41:51 PM EST
    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    says Obama was "pummeled" and he did not step up it was a terrible performance. He has knocks for Clinton too, but mostly his point is that she never seems to win in the long run when she is strong on his negatives.  But overall, he thinks Obama blew an opportunity.

    Luckily they ended on issues (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
    not the character questions. Also, how many times did Charlie mention that they owed her more time, lol!~ all the um and pause takes up time along with the trying to formulate an answer that will fill all the pander angles.

    She never hesitated when it would have hurt. She stood solid in her convictions and policy.


    Just like Bush "won" so many (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:42:37 PM EST
    debates in 2000 and 2004.

    They're moving to the Pope now (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM EST
    so the TeVee may survive. Heh, I can't believe it made it through the Bush debates, much less the past 7yrs.

    I'm totally floored at how BAD the media has become. I thought propping up Bush was bad, but this primary season has reached an all new low.


    It was predicted (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    That the media honeymoon with Obama would end.

    He's just now receiving the abuse that edwards and clinton were forced to suffer at the hands of Russert and Matthews.

    Obama's had soft serve after soft serve and HELLO now he's the presumtive nominee the media gut him.

    Moyers and Smiley should have been the only mods the Dems ever talk to.

    Media unfairness to Dems (none / 0) (#129)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    should NEVER be celebrated.

    Yes, Hillary has been untreated unfairly.

    Yes, it would be great if the media treated both candidates fairly.


    Mostly the far left (none / 0) (#137)
    by phillhrrll on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:27:15 PM EST
    turned on her really quick. They're as good as the supposed VRWC of the 90's and they exist.

    Capital Gains taxation... (none / 0) (#92)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:50 PM EST
    (cross commented at Suburban Guerilla - perhaps someone can correct me here...)

    Considering that there had not been a `debate' since the Wright controversy or the `gaffe' - I suppose that it probably wouldn't have started out much differently had any other network had hosted this debate. NBC's last couple of debates were somewhat pathetic too.

    The capital gains issue is interesting because that does speak to the issue of taxation fairness and it does seem extremely unfair that someone making their living trading stocks/hedge funds pays 15% on their income whereas the bulk of American's pay over 30% on their wages.

    Watching Obama equivocate and ultimately fail to step into the footprints that he had made earlier about a substantial increase on capital gains taxes was rather disappointing. I was glad to see that line of questioning myself.

    WWJED (What Would John Edwards Do?)

    Raise the tax rate on capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers - taxing the investment income of the wealthiest Americans similarly to the wages of the middle class.

    Hillary - a little less clear but committed to raising the capital gains tax...

    Restore fairness to the tax system. Hillary will return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s - rates that were consistent with a balanced budget and economic growth. She will level the playing field when it comes to taxing the income earned in investment partnerships. Right now, some Wall Street investment managers making $50 million a year could pay just 15% on their earned income - while someone making $50,000 a year pays 25%.

    Obama - ??? - I simply couldn't find any reference to `capital gains' on his web site including the ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf. Apparently Obama had a `Tax Fairness Plan' last September but it seems to have vanished but it is referenced in the NYT here.

    I was uncomfortable with his waffling the question tonight and am uncomfortable with the fact that this seems to be one of those policies that may have gotten lost.

    Off topic, (none / 0) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    but I got a real kick from this Monty Python video, with the perfect title of "What did the Clintons ever do for us?"

    link to video

    Question (none / 0) (#144)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    Has BTD or anybody else tracked polls following the debates? Is there a history of a response?

    A debate that did not allow BO (none / 0) (#152)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:30 PM EST
    to say me too.

    Who won depends on who you support (none / 0) (#158)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    I think Obama won. And I didn't have a problem with any questions posed to him because they allowed him to shine. I can see how a Clinton supporter might think that she won. But one thing that strikes me in these debates is that Obama always appears much more presidential than Hillary. Hillary always seems to me to come off like a librarian or a hospital adminstrator. She is just not presidential. It has nothing to do with her gender. There are strong, forceful women who too would appear presidential.

    Name one. I'm curious. (none / 0) (#162)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    Which woman do you have in mind that looks presidential to you?  Just to get an idea of what you're looking for in these female leaders...

    I think Clinton looks very (none / 0) (#175)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:29 PM EST
    presidential. But I can think of one other woman who also does to me, Janet Napolitano. She is our governor in Arizona.  People probably would not like her either though, her style is similar to Hillary's.  she is smart, tough, matter of fact, not the best speech giver in the world but extremely competent.  She endorsed Obama. She may not be ready and there are "questions" about her sexuality she would have to face if she went for the big office.  Other than Janet, I don't see any other woman who could stand next to Clinton and even come close to pulling it off the way she does.

    I agree but I wish Seth would answer (none / 0) (#196)
    by diplomatic on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:12 AM EST
    Now I see his answer (none / 0) (#200)
    by diplomatic on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:11:38 AM EST
    meh, I still think Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and most presidential woman I've ever seen in politics.

    Oy . . . n/t (none / 0) (#169)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:56:24 PM EST
    Ha! Is there something (none / 0) (#177)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:31 AM EST
    stereotypical about librarians or hospital administrators?  Name 10 women you think would make a good President?  OK, five..... tick, tock, tick, tock.... yeah right.  You don't even get the irony in giving gender negatives to jobs you stereotype as gender specific work and then claim you make an analysis absent of gender bias. pffft

    p.s. Your guy didn't do well.  Don't believe me?  Go check out Kos.  Check out CNN, Chuck Todd says he bombed.  Check out MSNBC, they said he had a bad night, he was angry, defensive, it was his worst, etc...


    ABC News Website (none / 0) (#191)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:08:13 AM EST
    not scientific but 17K say Obama won, 6K say Hillary.

    Yes its being slammed (none / 0) (#193)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09:14 AM EST
    By Obama supporters, along with massive calls that say they did a terrible job.

    But hey, internet polls are always right.


    Still waiting for an answer to question (none / 0) (#195)
    by diplomatic on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09:59 AM EST
    which woman looks presidential to you?

    What did you like about the debate? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Josmt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:01:25 AM EST
    The hope or the change?

    To me, someone who stutter and looks like they have no specifics (I don't want general ideas, I want specifics) does not look so presidential to me.


    I think these debates allow Obama to display the (none / 0) (#198)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:55 AM EST
    myth that he has no specifics or that he can't engage in policy discussions. That is his only true weakness as a candidate. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama did not talk specifics tonight?

    dispel the myth* (none / 0) (#219)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27:40 AM EST
    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#186)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:43 AM EST
    At first I thought that it was just my bias that led me to think Sen Obama did poorly. Then I started reading around. So even looking outside of my own bias it is obvious he had a bad night.

    Seth9012 (none / 0) (#197)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM EST
    You say it has nothing to with her gender, then compare her to a "librarian or a hospital adminstrator"... lol

    It's sexist to suggest that only (none / 0) (#202)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:13:39 AM EST
    women fill those roles. In my age group those are not gender specific jobs.

    what is your age group (none / 0) (#227)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:51:11 AM EST
    where you have a flood of male librarians?  

    Obama won? (none / 0) (#212)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:20:09 AM EST
    He couldn't even answer a simple yes or no without circumnavigating the earth.

    Rambling....out of context remarks....just God-awful he was.


    Obama was well prepared (none / 0) (#221)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:36:22 AM EST
    and got a couple of moments you rarely see in debates:

    A. When Hillary tried to exploit Ayers, he reminded her that Bill had pardoned a couple of Weather Underground terrorists. She was left speechless.

    B. Hillary stated that Tip O'Neal and Reagan set up a commission to fix Social Security. He observed that the commission raised the retirement age and raised taxes. She was sneakily trying to have it both ways. Again, she had no response.

    I don't know why Obama supporters are upset. I think he did some serious damage to her tonight. Obama supporters have to realize that as the front runner and likely nominee he is not going to be very aggressive. She is the one swinging for the fences on the 3-2 pitch, she is the underdog. To expect him to go for her jugular is ridiculous.


    Obama has said that (none / 0) (#225)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:41:08 AM EST
    nothing is off the table on Social Security.  It's in crisis, you know....LOL.

    read my comment up thread (none / 0) (#228)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM EST
    Get your facts straight -- (1) they weren't pardoned -- their sentences were commuted -- which means they served jail time and are still felons.  also, they expressed regret for their actions -- things Ayers has not done. (2) Bill isn't running for President.   (3) It isn't Presidential to throw blame on others ("Bill did it!" "My staff did it!") to deflect from your own actions.

    He also pardoned (none / 0) (#232)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:01:53 AM EST
    a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists who had not expressed remorse or regret. It allegedly was done to improve Hillary's senatorial prospects in NY.

    If she is not running on Bill's record, then what does she have? How did she become a senator? Tonight she mentioned the 90s over and over. She cannot declare herself co-president and then try to disassociate herself from the unpleasant aspects of the adminstration.


    Interesting... (none / 0) (#245)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:31:43 AM EST
    speculation there. Do you have any actual evidence to back up that speculative leap re: pardon == senator?

    IIRC there was a meeting with Senator DP Moynihan (a neighbor of my grandfather's)...an endorsement by that same senator for HRC's bid. There was a campaign...something about an effective "listening tour" throughout the state of NY. I heard stories about it when I went up to visit.

    Seems that she was actually listening to the people she was talking to.

    I'm not in either of the two camps with regards to who will win this primary.

    But considering the fact that you were unaware of Whitman's involvement with the EPA report that told everyone in NYC that the air right after 9/11 was safe to breathe, I'm not sure that I'm confident in your credibility as a source for unsubstantiated claims and salacious speculation.


    UH...NO (none / 0) (#261)
    by Fredster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:03:46 AM EST
    A. When Hillary tried to exploit Ayers, he reminded her that Bill had pardoned a couple of Weather Underground terrorists. She was left speechless.

    UH...N O!  President Clinton commuted the sentence of two who were in prison.  They served time in prison.  And it's not like Clinton was socializing with them!


    These women have gravitas (none / 0) (#167)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:55:19 PM EST
    Christine Todd Whitman, Kathleen Sebielus, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. They are serious women with stature and bearing.

    Christine The Air is Safe to Breathe Whitman? (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:51 PM EST
    I don't know anything about that (none / 0) (#184)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:03:08 AM EST
    Could be that the problem with Hillary's candidacy is Hillary herself. I don't believe the majority of people can picture her as president. She is just not presidential. The first woman running for the office should have been someone quite different from Hillary.

    You are confusing (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:08 AM EST
    Your belief with "majority of people." I believe that a majority of people can see her as president. Even on her worst day she looks and acts much more presidential than Sen Obama imo.

    Google Whitman, 911, air quality. n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:37 AM EST
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#206)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:15:43 AM EST
    She testified in front of Congress about her EPA and the reports/assessments of the air quality right after 9-11.

    Considering all of the firefighters who died from the stuff in the air, Whitman's going to have a rough run through the GOP system should she opt to run.


    Don;t agree (none / 0) (#181)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM EST
    Christine lost all credibility with her EPA debacle.  Sebeilius's speech in response to state of union put everyone to sleep. I am not sure she could win in Kansas again!  And I love Kennedy's but Kathleen is extremely inarticulate for a Kennedy and has not been successful in very many campaigns, she is not close to being in Clinton's league.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:02:37 AM EST
    Whitman is a Republican.
    Townsend is out...that whole "dynasty" argument.



    The Presidency is NOT (none / 0) (#204)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    a Jonny Bravo pant-suit that you can thrust a random group of women into. Fortunately, with your attempt, I DO notice that Obama is completely overwhelmed and lost in Clinton's.

    Letters to the Editor (none / 0) (#168)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:55:33 PM EST
    ABC's Philadelphia Debate Reaction: Fantastic work by ABC

    ABC embarrassed CNN & MSNBC tonight, and made Saturday Night Live look dead-on with its parodies of those two networks' debates.

    Tonight, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus showed Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, Tim Russert and Brian Williams how a professional moderator conducts him- or herself.

    No fawning. No stilted questioning. Clinton was asked about Bosnia. Obama was asked about BitterGate. Clinton was asked about her position on guns during her NY Senate fun. Obama was asked about Jeremiah Wright. Clinton was asked about saying Obama would be crushed. Obama was asked about wearing a flag pin.

    I give you AND your opponent real questions. This is how it's supposed to be done.

    Many have been waiting for this moment and had given up hope that it would occur. All we wanted was a level playing field, and tonight we finally had it.

    The result: Obama was reduced to trite 'change/hope'-type lines and Clinton shone brightly. Obama even tried repeatedly chiding the moderators because it works so well with other media. But George and Charles were determined to be professionals, and professionals they were.

    For now, just a heartfelt thanks to ABC for a magnificent job done.

    Paul F. Villarreal

    Sorry, forgot to write something there (none / 0) (#170)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    The above is a copy of a letter to the editor I sent to the following newspapers:

    • Philadelphia Inquirer
    • Philadelphia Daily News
    • Scranton Tribune
    • Pittsburgh Post Gazette
    • Allentown Morning Call
    • Erie Times News
    I'm tired of the Obama spin machine getting all the coverage. It's time for Clinton's supporters to make our voice heard, too.



    Hasn't Hillary has won all the debates (none / 0) (#205)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:15:26 AM EST
    Why isn't this in the headlines?

    No (none / 0) (#180)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:01:35 AM EST
    No pillow for Obama tonight....

    Best moment? (none / 0) (#188)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:06:59 AM EST
    The lace factory in Scranton.

    Can we get a video of Hillary's "small towns cling to" response that includes that? We're agreed that was the highlight for us...

    Second best moment? (none / 0) (#209)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:16:48 AM EST
    The Republicans should apologize to the country and not run anyone.

    The lace factory in scranton should be an ad.

    This should be an ad.

    Maybe now that Penn's not around they can do something smart and original.

    Those were two great moments.

    you seem to be forgetting... (none / 0) (#210)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    • though he may not be all that left, he's still light years ahead of McCain
    • that he's still a Democrat
    • we can't have McCain picking any judges for SCOTUS
    • we can't have more Bush economics
    • we do need to get out of Iraq

    As for the DFH's (and I was one way back when...), there weren't enough of us to make things happen (legalizing marijuana for example). It's not about forgetting our ideals...we just didn't have the political clout. But we did protest, march and generally make our voices heard.

    Please (none / 0) (#211)
    by sas on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:18:21 AM EST
    call ABC and let them know the job was appreciated.

    The Obamabots are flooding them with negatives...


    Done! Thanks for the phone number. (none / 0) (#234)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:02:53 AM EST
    Another thing (none / 0) (#230)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:01:04 AM EST
    Someone said, (Digby, was it?) that you have to hit the media for bias, even if it's the other primary candidate that is the victim of the bias.

    Nobody in the Obama camp stuck up for Hillary during the stream of malicious debates (BTD excluded from this of course).

    Now the tables are turned for this one and only one debate out of the twenty-some that have occurred?  At this point, I see it as just a little balance in a stream of injustice.

    Whaaaaaa! not fair (none / 0) (#233)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:02:28 AM EST
    Us in the west coast never get to play with the cool kids.  Everyone said everything and we are just cleaning up our kitchen.  Whaaaaaa!

    He did fine, anyone who pays any attention is (none / 0) (#235)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:06:48 AM EST
    aware of all these issues, and he didn't make any errors.  Hillary won the debate but hey she is already 20-0 in that department.  It will make no difference Obama will win the nomination but thanks to debates like this, Hillary's efforts and hardening of her core voters Obama will have a huge challenge ahead.  To me the real story is the Oh Yeah! message from Pro-Clinton bloggers who are like he finally got his.  It shows the high ethics that you claim so dear and how biased moderation at an entirely new level, although it's usually aimed at her is acceptable.  Kind of goes with your campaign "do anything to win".  You build you campaign on a house of straws and the wind is coming to blow it down.  The yes, yes, yes he can win you know was a complete lie to what she says behind close doors as admitted by staff, surrogate and super delegates alike.  This will be spinned into an attack on Obama the 60% of Americans who view Clinton as dishonest will go up to 70%.  And those millions of donors including myself are reaching into their pockets, getting on those phone and moving to a state primary near you.  But if by some miracle Clinton pulls this out I will like she said do anything and go anywhere to make sure a Democrat is elected in 2008

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#238)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:09:22 AM EST
    didn't make any errors

    But he never makes any home runs and a cadre of his fans have to explain his moves.  I don't ever feel a need to explain Hillary, she can take care of herself and she proved it.  



    You know what hardens our support (none / 0) (#243)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:30:02 AM EST
    of Clinton to the detriment of Obama in the General Election.

    Idiots like you.

    Pundits like Keith Olbermann.

    And Obama himself when he tries to pretend nothing good happened during Bill Clinton's administration.

    Everyone's going to point their finger and say it wasn't me, I didn't start it, but the only person who puts "I'm a uniter" front and center about who he is is Obama.  That is what Obama CLAIMS to be.  It is his argument that he can unite people who have been divided by politics.

    So.  How's he doing with the Dem Party so far?

    Do you think he'll do any better with America at large in the General Election?

    I don't.


    You expect Obama to declare (none / 0) (#246)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:34:07 AM EST
    Bill a model president when Bill is actively attacking him in the present day? It was very telling that he would employ Bush 41 as an advisor, but not Bill.

    Long before Bill started (none / 0) (#252)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:21:59 AM EST
    commenting on Obama, Obama's surrogate Geffen was calling the Clintons liars.  And then Obama was trotting out the Lincoln Bedroom Right Wing Talking Point.

    So we do know who started it.

    Remember after Katrina when Obama teamed up with Bill to meet with survivors.

    I do.

    I wonder where it all went wrong.


    Well thanks for the idiot comment I guess I (none / 0) (#249)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:55:24 AM EST
    hit that special Clinton spot you have under your navel.  And your silly to think that he would bring up the accomplishments of an individual actively trying to tear him down.  If you listen to his comments before Clinton started ripping into him then you would see he does believe that Clinton did alot for the country.  And I strongly believe Clinton is the Greatest President we have had for over 40 years.  And I believe he is winning the Democratic election for President of United States so I believe he's doing quite well with Dems.  And yes I believe he will win a GE along as Clinton supporters get behind him.  He can pull in Independents and younger GOPs.  I also believe Clinton can win a GE but I believe it would be more difficult.  

    And I'm not hardening Clinton supporters it is her campaign she is painting a picture of victim while attacking and being careless about her strategy while doing it.  If her campaign is a reflection of the kind of politics she is promising then you need to ask fundamental questions about her ability to plan, her vision and leadership capabilities. Which is why I support Obama he does have vision, leadership and the ability to turn intent into action and sustain it.  While Clinton knows more, can get the job done those are not characteristics of a leader those are what we call management skills.  The president is not a manager they are a leader they do not do the work they set and sell the vision, motivate people into action and then plan based upon the results. In an ideal world we would have both of these individuals involved directly with affecting change to our government.  But that's looking less and less likely each day.  


    Damn (none / 0) (#250)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:18:35 AM EST
    I didn't choose the right words.

    But I meant it cause it's true.


    Well that's cute and "Shame on You!" go (none / 0) (#264)
    by voterin2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:11:15 AM EST
    dodge some sniper fire, NAFTA was one of our greatest accomplishments oh wait I'm in PA be quiet about Columbia.  I promise 200,000 new jobs to New Yorkers, oh sorry we lost more jobs then we gained.  I have experience oh yeah that's with NAFTA never mind, hey lets throw the kitchen sink since I don't really have that experience to show to the American people.  2012 might be good.  

    Sorry trying to channel Hillary's internal dialogue.  Can you tell me again what exactly she's done that has you drinking the KoolAid like its crack?


    More than Obama (none / 0) (#265)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:13:23 AM EST
    I guess I'm not getting a unity pony, am I?

    Bummer.  I wouldn't know where to put it, let alone know how to take care of it.


    Hey don't be so sure if your a good little (none / 0) (#271)
    by voterin2008 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    voter you might just be surprised!

    Poor answer on Iran/Israel (none / 0) (#242)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:21:20 AM EST
    in trying to pander to the Jewish vote did anyone notice that Hillary was frightfully militaristic? I mean, do we have to protect Israel from Iran and threaten "massive retaliation?" Israel has the means to conduct its own massive retaliation. They are much stronger than Iran, after all. But even if Israel were weak, why would a U.S. presidential candidate make a wild threat like that?

    put that to bed (none / 0) (#253)
    by drewohio1 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:23:57 AM EST
    you can put that 'hillary must get out of the race to bed'  says my lovely wife !!!

    Your infighting is hilarious. (none / 0) (#254)
    by serrano on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:33:00 AM EST
    The passion overflowing here for the clintons and obama is becoming a potent double-edge sword for the progressives of this country. The more you fight the more you energize people across the land but the fear lies in how blindly wedded you become to your candidate to America's detriment.

    It is my hope that all of this passion will translate into a landslide victory for whoever wins the democratic primary because if you think and Obama or a Clinton presidency will be bad imagine four years of McCain.

    Personally I favor Obama because he did not give the neocons carte blanche to ravage Iraq and create millions of families who have absolutely every reason to despise this government and the people with no guts to reign it in. This lapse in Clinton's "leadership" is enough for me to give the new guy a chance. We could debate the guilt by association arguments thrown at Obama but juxtapose them with Clinton's enabling vote to get us into a war that now costs us 300 million each day and they pale in comparison.

    Sorry does not cut it if you have friends and family fighting and dying in an unjust war.

    Of course (none / 0) (#260)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:00:02 AM EST
    By that logic Iraqis must surely despise anyone who voted to fund the war, and anyone who voted to confirm one of the neocon architects of the war.

    That is if you want to keep talking about people who have no guts to reign in the neocons.  And all the money being spent on the war.

    Surely you don't mean to go that far, and you'll think about amending your statement so that Obama's hands remain clean.

    No?  Obama's hands are bloody too?   Obama's hands are just less bloody than Clinton's?

    I've never felt better about the Dem Party, myself.


    Clinton (none / 0) (#255)
    by chopper on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:43:28 AM EST
    If you want to see what a Clinton can accomplish go to this site Clinton 1993-2000........


    You know how I view all that (none / 0) (#262)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:06:46 AM EST
    Those are benchmarks.  I see those as goals for this post-partisan utopian Obama administration we're all now down for.

    If he's such a superior politician.  Or a superior leader, then all the things listed on that website should be things that Obama can easily accomplish during his administration.

    It's really as simple as that.


    I gave another $100 (none / 0) (#256)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:48:59 AM EST
    I know it isn't much. But it's something. It's something that might make a difference.

    So is my contribution a help? (none / 0) (#258)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:55:05 AM EST
    Or did I just throw away $100?
    I don't think so.

    What do you know about free trade? (none / 0) (#259)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:57:03 AM EST
    Start there. Then discuss what HRC says.

    Ha ha - I got banned at Daily Obama tonight! (none / 0) (#263)
    by Universal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:09:16 AM EST
    I made a diary praising ABC, and the next thing I know, I'm banned!

    Shows you how the Obama supporters are handling tonight's butt kicking.

    You go, girl!


    WAY TOO MANY NEGATIVES! (none / 0) (#266)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:21:13 AM EST
    Jesus, these guys were great.  I am ready for a real co-presidency after watching these clips!

     I thought that Senator Clinton did an excellent job of selling her candidacy, and Senator Obama as well.  Rejoice! We have two great candidates.  

    Was watching a replay, and (none / 0) (#267)
    by Rainsong on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:30:33 AM EST
    .. yes, I liked Hillary's performance, 8/10 - with Obama at around 5.5 - he passed, but was lucky enough to miss most of the first stuff -

    anyway while I was listening to the VP dual ticket issue, I checked the betting markets, to see if VP odds were up.  

    If major betting sites are any indication, looks like Obama is definitely fingerpointing Kathleen Sebelius as the hottest favorite at 3-1 or 7/2, followed closely by Bill Richardson at around 4-1, with both Clinton & Obama equal third at around 6 or 7-1. Next best seem to be either Jim Webb or Ted Strickland. A couple of betting sites have Bill Clinton at 100-1 :)

    Charlie Gibson was . . . (none / 0) (#268)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:51:05 AM EST
    . . . brought up from "Good Morning America" to make ABC News in to ABC News light and he's brought that intellect with him to the debates; however, Stephanopolous has no excuse except greed and/or mendacity or maybe even duplicity.  

    The management and owners of Big Media apparently have decreed that there shall be no substantive issues on TV unless they are so hot that they will sell tons of deodorant and barrels of beer.

    The real issue is why the candidates/campaigns will allow debates to be so insubstantial.