home

PA Debate: The Morning After

Now that you've had some time to reflect on last night's Pennsylvania debate, what did you think?

Some journalists are outraged over the the questions. Of course, the questions in this debate were no different than those in previous debates that lacked substance and seemed designed to put a candidate on the hot seat -- the difference was that this time (for once) it was Obama, not Hilary getting the heat.

I've watched the debate twice. The second time I tried to view it through the lens of a Pennsylvania voter who wasn't familiar with the nitty gritty details of William Ayers and lapel pins. (I figured even they knew about Bitter-Gate and Rev. Wright and Bosnia.)

It was unfortunate that the substantive portion of the debate didn't focus more on issues of importance to PA voters. The PA polls have shown PA voters of both parties are very concerned about immigration, the economy, health care and terrorism. They are less concerned about the war. By economy, I don't think they mean capital gains taxes for the wealthy. I think they mean creating new jobs, maintaining the jobs they have, how to avoid foreclosure, feed their families and put something away for their retirement and their kids' education, and how to be able to deal with having to take care of elderly parents.

[More...]

Immigration is an issue neither candidate has been stellar on. Hillary's crime plan came out this week, there's a lot more to it than 100,00 cops on the stret, a measure Obama also supports. I would have liked Hillary to describe her plan, Obama to critique it or agree with it, and say where he'd be different. I think they are as close as two peas in a pod.

I don't think a typical voter was looking for a "got-cha" moment. To my voter's eye, Hillary explained her detailed plans, with enthusiasm and in words we could understand, such as her plan for putting more cops on the street -- while Obama was kind of like a bump on a log.

On guns, they both skirted the issue.Their positions are identical. They both believe, as do I, that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms. With the Supreme Court about to decide the issue, how credibie were their answers that they didn't have an answer because they didn't know the facts. That's just doublespeak. They have aides prepping them for the debates who could and should have expected this question and briefed the candidates. so they could have answered the gun question directly.

Bottom Line: Obama seemed more hesitant. In trying to choose his words so carefully, he appeared either indecisive, uninformed, and weak.

Hillary walked miles around him with her plans. She has one for everything and you can tell details and rationales for each.

A debate over the differences in their agenda would have been a debate worth watching. Instead of showcasing two bright candidates, they showcased how both might be weaker than John McCain.

Hillary was stronger, more confident, likable and, most importantly, more presidential. You could see her in that role. Obama came off defensive and a tad angry.

The nominee's job is just beginning at nomination. After that, she or he has to beat John McCain.

AS the voters are watching to see who they like the best, the super delegates watching are asking themselves, not just who can beat John McCain, but also after that, who has the knowledge and capital smarts and experience to get their agendas past Congress.

The problem with Obama is he's too inexperienced. He won't have enough clout with Congress if elected.

Hillary tonight showed she has what it takes. Obama was more, "Let me think on that, I'll get back to you in the morning.

Update: Comments now Closed

< Debate Video Highlights | Boehlert's Revenge: Part II >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am curious as to why ABC (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:22:38 AM EST
    personalities Gibson and Stephanoupolous decided to take this tack in their moderating--what made them step back from the MSM chorus which up to this point had seemed to be the main cheering section of Obama's candidacy. Was it a network management decision?  Is this a signal of closer scrutiny of Barack from Pennsylvania until Puerto Rico?

    Because I have really been waiting for something like this from the media that might be an indication of a shift in the thinking of these big boys.

    I've been thinking about that... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:32:50 AM EST
    ...it may just be that all this time had elapsed since the last debate and in the interim their had been so many "flaps" and most of them involved Obama. And also now he is definitely the front runner. It was his turn. Still, it is rather amazing that they did it because if you listen to the coverage of the debate this morning on NBC, you would not have gotten any kind of picture of what happened.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto NPR (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:44 AM EST
    They highlighted Clinton's Tuzla apology and her "Obama can win." reply.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't help thinking that it is not (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MaxUS on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:42:46 AM EST
    good news for Obama that they're focussing on Clinton. Doesn't that send the message to the soft support that what Clinton says is what's worth reporting.

    Positive or negative coverage at this point is pretty much just noise except to note that when both candidates speak only Clinton's remarks are well...remarkable.

    [ Parent ]

    Selective Media Outrage (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by STLDeb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:57:14 AM EST
    Wow some of the media (link in article, huffpo, dkos, etc.) is going just BALLISTIC over this debate.  

    I look at this through an unbiased lens (as I'm  on the McCain bandwagon), however that being said, I thought the debate was fair.  Hillary scored some points, in my opinion.  I was upset that ABC didn't follow up when Hillary brought up the Hamas connection with regard to Obama's church.

    I did mention to my husband last night though that Barack is a VERY charismatic speaker and therein lies the problem for Hillary.  BUT, Hillary was definitely on her game last night and did a fantastic job.

    I mean, come on, do these people not realize that Barack has totally gotten a free ride up until now.  

    [ Parent ]

    Right. Obama could read the phone (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:59:01 AM EST
    book and people would be mesmerized.
    He gets away with a lot of muddled-headed answers because people aren't really listening to what he says.

    [ Parent ]
    Cultural differences? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:06:02 AM EST
    I hear that preacher-style oratory and I immediately become suspicious, not comforted.  Perhaps you have to be raised to associate that style of speaking with warm fuzzies and not someone who wants you to feel more and think less.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus, the religious cadence is another (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    example of Obama's fraudulence. He wasn't raised in the south. He is a very good mimic. Here he's miming MLK. Most of the things he says on the campaign trail, not to mention his policies, are lifted from others. He doesn't have a core set of beliefs, as far as I can tell from watching his actions and how he ducks and weaves when cornered to try to spin whatever he says in such a way as to placate his listeners.   Although Hillary sometimes does this too, i believe that she does have a core set of beliefs that she has been acting on   for the last 30+/- years.   I believe that because I'm a little older than her and have been watching her for the last 30 years.  Obama is just in this for himself. That's really the only subject he's comfortable with.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it any surprise he identifies (none / 0) (#160)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    so strongly with black preachers?  If Obama wasn't a politician, it's easy enough to see him as a minister.

    [ Parent ]
    You only think that because he speaks like a (none / 0) (#204)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    preacher and he only does that because he is trying to associate himself with religion and with the Civil Rights movement and MLK, so he can get votes.

    This doesn't make him likely to take up a religious vocation. The man is into power, not self-effacement and hard work on behalf of God and the poor and downtrodden.

    [ Parent ]

    Donnie McClurkin? (none / 0) (#211)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    Being an entertainer is not an easy way to make a living.  Being a preacher with his own flock and his own church - that's stability and at least some power.

    Look at the mega churches.  Look at the Right Wing Power of God machines.  There's power in it.  There's money in it.  No doubt.

    The truth is that there is more potential in politics than religion.  You are right there.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking Style (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    Interesting you should bring that up.  I was talking to a neighbor a few days ago, a good lifelong Democrat.  He told me that he and his wife watched an Obama speech and felt uneasy and couldn't quite figure out the style.  When I said preacher he shouted "that's it, a preacher."

    Now these people attend services (Roman Catholic) weekly without fail. It's not that they're offended by religion, quite the contrary, it's that a politician using that style is completely out of place and in large measure insulting. It sounds more like a scam than a civic declaration.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is the problem with that thruth, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#130)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:05:09 AM EST
    called it Obama appeared weak to many of us.  To be mesmerized by the predators or Us speech, only I Obama can change your feelings of helpless to wondrous hopefulness, you would need to start with a shared belief system a cultural pathology of dependence that many women have long ago rejected instead choosing self-efficacy a belief that our own contributions influence the events that affect their lives.

    [ Parent ]
    The deal is the debate was fairER (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    most of the questions were actually in bounds and relevant...the problem is that since the last debate, the "issues" raised, predominately surround Obama.

    Was ABC supposed to ask irrelevant questions of HRC to counter balances those such as Ayers, Wright, etc. asked of Obama? I know that the Obama supporters would say yes (although not in the words of my construction)...but the HRC supporters by and large are saying..."this is what should have happened months ago, no more pass" or "see how it feels? You don't like it either."

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see his charisma at all (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Just another person on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    not in 2004 at the DNC, not in this campaign /shrug.  Hillary isn't that great a speaker either, but at least she has substance. And her debating style is far better.

    [ Parent ]
    The slowed down roller coaster won't loop de loop (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    You can't have upwards and forward momentum forever; something's gotta give. I thought that once the avalanching combination of "news", a few quick and heady successes, a whack of donations and bandwaggoning -- all topped up with the slobbering excitement of a chance to bash Clinton AKA "The Clintons" -- stopped feeding each other, Obama's weaknesses would become apparent.

    Lately, the news has had more soundbytes of him hemming and hawing than the earlier, daily, enthralling ones showing him yelling to screaming crowds (the kind of clips that spike into the background drone of the 'snooze' and make people stop and pay attention.)

    Except for the most shameless Obama cheerleader, trying to pump up this dud of a candidate when it's leaking air is like the futile exercise of Michigan J. Frog's handler when he tries to take the act on the road. (Free beer and a shot anyone?)

    I missed the whole debate and only caught some clips.

    [ Parent ]

    they say they attack the front-runner harder (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    At least that is the excuse MSNBC gave when they went after Clinton in that Oct. 30 debate.  DailyHowler showed that no front-runner was ever attacked like Clinton was that night, but that is their stroy anyway. Maybe it is ABC's too.

    [ Parent ]
    BOs flaws are just too (3.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Talktruth on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:54:15 AM EST
    bad to ignore.  Sure George Bush was an idiot-shill for corporations.  But he wasn't an anti-American who fraternized with terrorists, stayed with Wright for two decades, etc.  Here's the note I sent Charlie:

    "You rocked last night, Charlie!  What an even-handed debate.  You asked the hard questions.  And now, even if the extremely unqualified, and possibly dangerous, Barack Obama becomes the nominee (God forbid), you will have made sure it's not because of you or ABC News.  You asked the questions that needed to be asked.  Please hammer him on why he doesn't want FL & MI counted next.  Thanks!"

    I gushed a little, but we need to strongly encourage that kind of behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'm about ready to break the TeeVee (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:43:06 AM EST
    ABC is now framing the first part of the debate as if Clinton brought up the issues. They did that the previous hour also and on Dateline. Oh, and there was "no clear winner", lol!~

    I thought Hillary rocked. I liked her answer to the gun issue when she talked about it on a NYS level. I thought her responses on the war and economy were solid in delivery and she also stood her ground. She delivered several good Dem party unity responses in a positive manner and was very believable. I agree with your assessment of Obama's delivery/responses. He's running too soon and trying to be everything to everyone. McCain is more solid in his delivery of flip flops, oy.

    I really hope the voters in the upcoming states saw the debate for what it was, not what the spin is telling them they saw.

    If the American People... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:43:40 AM EST
    ...cannot connect the clear dots between the murderous 300 million dollars-plus PER DAY wasted in Iraq and the sinking US economy, well, there's little to no hope.  Is there really that kind of dunderheaded disconnect?  Are people actually incapable of seeing the two as inseparable?

    I am out of the country this week, (none / 0) (#20)
    by 0 politico on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:52:26 AM EST
    so I did not see the debate.  But, what is the context of your question?  Was there a debate moment or not which struck this cord.

    Generally, I do not believe most people think of economics on the macro scale, so there is the potential for many to miss the interconnect between war expenditures and the economic trade offs incurred back home.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, they are (none / 0) (#149)
    by BevD on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    incapable of connecting the dots and if you wonder why, look at the performance of the debated moderators last night.  This is the state of our political discourse and it has been in this state for quite some time.

    [ Parent ]
    Debate and Guns (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by owenaprhys on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:55:33 AM EST
    Personally I thought Hillary did great. Nice to see Obama twitch for once in the debate.

    Re: Guns. Even in stilted 18th century English, phrasing it like "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    To me that screams "Join the National Guard to get guns."

    I have no problem with six-shooters and shot-guns as those are perfect for self-defense and hunting. I draw the line at semi-sutomatics. You do NOT need anything like that for self-defnse or hunting. Period. Fighting a war? Sure. Stopping a riot? Maybe. Just so Joe Sixpack can say "Hay, Lookee here whut I kin do!"? No Way!

    I'm going to disagree... (none / 0) (#216)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    in that a semi-automatic pistol only shoots one bullet at a time...just like the six shooter. And many of your shotguns are also semi-auto these days.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]
    I'm most disturbed by the New kind of Old politics (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:08:43 AM EST
    Until today, I wasn't aware how badly the internet mob had been behaving.  I mean I'd seen the spam on the nytimes, but didn't know what was going on.  Now that I browsed facebook and kos, I'm horrified and worry it's going to swing the primary and lose the election in November.

    One-Ballot stuffing for optimum spin.  Both ABC and MSNBC polls are within 2k of each other on votes and very much favoring Obama. Of course they are...because kos, mybarackobama, and facebook groups are all encouraging 15k plus young folks to go to every site that has a voting option and click away.  Taking "not scientific" to an all new level.

    And that brings me to Two:

    There are multiple posts, one with 550+ comments just focusing on spamming ABC with disapproval and trying to get steph fired.

    I have a serious problem with people spamming phone/email.  I mean, organizing a boycott is one thing, but it sounds like an angry and very undemocratic mob--especially when dealing with speech issues.  Not to mention it reminds me of the conservative group that made almost all of the complaints about indecency to the fcc.  Is this the whiniest generation? Is this how you deal with debate or dissent? By shutting out the voices of those that disagree with you?

    Make your statement, make your vote, hold a protest--but don't harass the hell out of people.  And spinning the vote counters to make your candidate look better sure doesn't lead to a new kind of politics.

    ---------------------------

    It's interesting though that AOL shows Hillary leading in all their online polling.  But I haven't seen anyone linkbombing them and they have CAPTCHAs on their straw poll...whoops yes they HAVE been stuffing them, but they can't overcome the AOL demographics

    This thread is hilarious in its frustration at not easily being able to stuff the AOL polls.


    Ah, welcome to my reality. (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:57:45 AM EST
    I didn't watch the debate.  My bedtime is early - I was up at 3 am today.  First I checked here - hard-to-read comment threads make me read posts only.  Heard about the outrage at dkos and went over there.  Almost every. single. reclist. diary was AttackTheNetwork! .  

    Okay.  There was a debate.  There were candidates and questions and all the usual stuff(unfortunately) and dkos is breaking out the torches and pitchforks.    Issues?  Substance?  Detailed and gritty analysis of the debate?  Not any more.  

    Is that the face of the Five Percenters?

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:08:36 AM EST
    When Glenn Greenwald says that we should let the right wing frame the issues and our candidates("elitist" is a RW brand), I think he means we should fight back against the dishonest framing and those who use it specifically - no matter which Democrat is portrayed that way.

    I could go for some serious Unity on this particular fight.  Unity, not hypocrisy.  If the netroots think that it's bad when it happens to Obama and storm the castle, then I expect them to scream outrage just as loudly when it happens to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    No OBama supporter (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:40:37 AM EST
    should EVER say that anything is a right wing frame.  Not after Obama himself has been auditioning for Republican house manager for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Amazing. Obama must have done poorly (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:44:41 AM EST
    To see so much outrage, they must have thought that Hillary did well with her questions and BHO did not. I feel that no matter how much we point out to them that they have become the silly season, it will not matter. You know in mob rule there is that point of frenzy which they are at now. After that subsides there will be a lot of carnage left to bury. I personally hope it will be Hillary and that will calm them down to be able to attack McCain. Hopefully in a more professional manner. They might as well be on that space ship with Applewhite in Rancho Santa Fe.

    [ Parent ]
    [edit} should NOT let the... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:44:37 AM EST
    sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:42:50 AM EST
    up at 3 am!  well, i'm headed to bed at 3:40. i dunno what time zone j is in, but us elite-coasters err i mean SF'ers are a few hours behind.

    actually, im p'offed with the equating of SF with billionaire row (thanks BO).  There are plenty of reasons to trash SF (classism/racism), but this city  can't be that elitist as a whole when it has day-to-day class issues and isn't doing too shabby on the murder front.  

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod is an "astroturfing" specialist (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:18:12 AM EST
    Faux grassroot organizing is just one of the services he offers.

    Spam polls, then use the polls as evidence your client won.

    "Work the refs" by telling the OFB to make calls to a news network and complain about them treating your client just like the other candidate.

    It's all part of the OFB haka routine.

    [ Parent ]

    Then shouldn't we be sending kudos to ABC? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:52:06 AM EST
    It might be nice to send a note thanking them for their professional journalism in conducting the debate in a fair and balanced manner. I suspect that they are accussing George of being easy on Hillary because of their past association.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you seen these demographics? (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:16:38 AM EST
    I'd love to know your thoughts on this nytimes op-ed that points to rural working class as voting less on social issues than suburbanites.  Or some such.

    link

    bedtime for me.

    eh sorry if the above is OT (none / 0) (#8)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:19:47 AM EST
    There was no overnight thread, but it seems relevant and highly interesting.  Haven't seen the numbers though, but it makes sense to me.  I trusted gov't more before moving from NC to SF.  And getting an MPA just made it worse.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean Obama was WRONG??? (none / 0) (#62)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:56:22 AM EST
    I"m not shocked. I thought that the small town voters were against Obama because they are smart, myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! (none / 0) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:38:46 AM EST
    Those are stunning statistics!  I'd like to see how somebody would argue he's not right, just as a reality check.  I wonder if this author has said anything in the past about "What's the Matter With Kansas?" which I confess I haven't read, but I think the whole book is based on the opposite premise.

    EVERYBODY shoudl read this op-ed.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm working on a book called (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    "What's the Matter with Marin?"

    [ Parent ]
    It wasn't like other debates (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jr on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:20:33 AM EST
    The questions may have been similar to the superficial and vapid ones asked in previous debates, but I can't think of another debate EVER that started with 45 straight minutes of them without touching on a serious policy question.

    And I'm sorry, but there are simply not enough minutes in a debate to waste the first 45 on inside baseball and horserace analysis.  We're in a recession AND a war, and the best they can do is three-quarters of an hour on Wright and Tuzla?

    I'm not surprised that David Brooks liked the questions, nor that the rest of America seems to have thought the whole affair a travesty and a disservice by ABC.

    The "rest of America?" (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:27:05 AM EST
    Don't you mean the "rest of the fanboiz?"

    The polls say Hillary stomped Barry into goo.

    The OFB are just upset because Barry finally got treated like a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    Apparently they didn't get the memo (none / 0) (#197)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    This election is about politics, not policy.

    [ Parent ]
    It was just like the other debates (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:59:55 AM EST
    except this time Obama got some questions designed to put him in the hot seat too.  The Obama boys are outraged! pfft.  Those questions -- Ayers, Wright, "bittergate" were not tabliod -- they are questions about flaps that are out there and ones that will surely be used against Obama by the GOP if he is the nominee.  In fact, it was all pretty "soft" compared to what he would face in the fall.  Don't believe me? Well, just remember that the GOP made Kerry -- a man who at least went to Vietnam, regardless of his actions there, look like a traitor and a coward against a guy who didn't eve bother to show up for his National Guard duty.  Just imagine what they can do to Obama next to a guy who spent 5 years getting tortured because he was serving his country.  I have always felt that the Obama camp was doing him no favors to try and protect him, pretending these things "are over." Last night I was proven right.  He knew these questions are out there, and he should have been better prepared to answer them, because they are  going to get worse. Crying "unfair" now isn't going to change that.

    [ Parent ]
    Swift Boating (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ricosuave on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:19:37 AM EST
    The swift boating worked so well against Kerry that even sympathetic folks like you will couch mention of his Vietnam service with saying he "at least went to Vietnam."  The man went into combat and got three purple hearts!

    But I agree 100%.  If Obama is the nominee, McCain can start measuring the drapes.  On the plus side, we will get diversity.  He is the only Scotch-Irish white guy in the race right now (outnumbered 2:1--a real minority!).

    [ Parent ]

    key word here unfortunatly "crying" (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by moll on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:17:28 AM EST
    Democrats have got to get over the idea that they can whine and yet still be considered leadership material.

    There is a legitimate point to be made if there is bias, but it cannot be overemphasized often enough that whether it's fair or not, the candidate must take it in stride, look strong and in control. Must must must.

    Obama didn't come across as strong or "Presidential". Ultimately, whether it's biased or not is beside the point (and that's true for Clinton too: fair is nice but unfair cannot be treated as an excuse).

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, they restrained themselves. They didn't ask (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    about Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton was the one doing the swiftboating on this (none / 0) (#67)
    by slr51 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:02:50 AM EST
    Clinton tried desperately and dishonestly to misapply Ayers interview answers that were given BEFORE 9-11 and had absolutely NOTHING to do with those attacks is also despicable. The chest thumping, flag waving, "my city", "I suffered more than you did" bullshit was sickening. She should be ashamed

    From NYT article this morning:

    "Mr. Ayers did not make the remarks after the attacks on the World Trade Center that day. The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with a memoir that he had published, "Fugitive Days," and he was referring to his experience in the Weather Underground."

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary said the remarks were published (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    on 9/11, which is totally accurate. And yes, the Senator representing NYC does get to talk about her reaction to the attacks. Would you be happier if they had hit Chicago as well, so it would be "fairer"?

    [ Parent ]
    Defending Hillary (none / 0) (#93)
    by STLDeb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    Well Mr. Ayers might not have said those exact words, HOWEVER, he still is TOTALLY unrepentant for his bombing of the Pentagon over 40 years ago & he said he wished he could have done more.

    Regardless of whether he said those words on 9/11 or not, to me he is a despicable human being.  

    Isn't there a phrase "you are the company you keep"?

    [ Parent ]

    Ayers did say those exact words (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    and they were published on 9/11/01 in the NY Times -- yes, he said them before the WTC tragedy, but by bad luck (or karma) they ran on 9/11.  And the justification that what he said was somehow "ok" because he said it before 9/11 and not after is rationale only an Obama loyalist can embrace.  There is NO EXCUSE for anyone wishing they had bombed more places -- that goes for Osama bin Laden and it certainly goes for William Ayers.
    People can try to blame Hillary all they want to deflect from Obama's bad judgment when picking his associates, but if he is the nominee, Hillary will not be there to distract from Obama's short comings.  He will be on his own, and he will be lucky to carry the same states Kerry did -- and we know where that got us.  GAH! What is wrong with Democrats -- instead of siding with the only Democrat to win 2 terms since FDR, they are listening to Kerry, Kennedy & Daschel -- the losing side of the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Precisely (none / 0) (#119)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    Ayers lamented not bombing more. Talk about not showing regret and Obama did away from that relationship then. Frankly he should away from Senator Tom Coburn as well.

    [ Parent ]
    When you are planning to run for president (none / 0) (#209)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    of the united states...you should certainly be smart enough to know that you should not associate with unrepentent former domestic terrorists.

    It's a no brainer.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you hear (none / 0) (#136)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:08:41 AM EST
    ...the GOP made Kerry -- a man who at least went to Vietnam, regardless of his actions there, look like a traitor...

    Did you hear Kerry's own words when he testified before congress?  Those damn swiftboaters replaying Kerry's own words.  How unfair.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    you left out the relevant part (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    which was "against a guy who didn't bother showing up for his National Guard duty."  And that is the relevant part because Obama will be up against a real war hero, which will make the GOP's hit job that much easier.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, don't you just know it!!! (none / 0) (#212)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    I can see the ads now.. opening with McCain's service and capture, torture in Viet Nam, and at the end of the ad, Michelle Obama saying this is the first time she has been proud of her country. McCain doing a state fair visit chatting with farmers with the "bitter" quote from Obama at the end of the ad.. I mean, it would be so easy. What the Obamas don't seem to realize is that in politics when you open your mouth and say something stupid, your opponent gets to use it against you. And since neither of them seems to be able to say anything without inserting foot into mouth, it's going to be a massacre in the GE if Obama is the nominee. And speaking of Michelle, she hasn't been around much lately. I guess his advisors told him to muzzle her before she single-handedly scuttles his candidacy.

    [ Parent ]
    That is, the rest of America... (none / 0) (#10)
    by jr on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:24:18 AM EST
    ...except, apparently, Armando.

    Really, this was worse than what NBC did.  At least their unfair and immaterial questions at least vaguely touched on issues of substance.  ABC didn't even pretend that they were doing anything but pitting the candidates against each other for the sheer amusement of the moderators.  This wasn't a debate so much as a presidential cockfight, and everyone was destined for the stockpot by the end.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm done watching debates (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MaxUS on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:11:40 AM EST
    at this point, I'm so in the hole for my candidate that I'd be watching for sheer entertainment value, and I can get that elsewhere.

    What's interesting at this point is something that was hinted about upthread about the shift in the reporting.

    ABC seems to be going the way of Fox in their "balanced" bais against Democrats. Love her or hate her, Rosie O'Donnell did manage to expose the politics of a successful ABC executive producer in the news division, so the reports on the slant of this debate are not really a surprise to me.

    It will be interesting to see if the blogger boyz pushback has any effect. If they don't manage to shift the coverage while Hillary is still in the race, then, I think, November is lost if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    I e-mailed a thank you (none / 0) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:28:46 AM EST
    And I told them to please not pay attention to the hit that they are taking because of some progressive blogs as they do not represent the entire USA. Honest journalism should prevail.

    [ Parent ]
    Blind loyalty in the mass media (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:39:26 AM EST
    I went to sleep soon after the debate ended confident that a few of the troubling things about Obama had been finally discussed in front of millions of viewers and that his pandering and side-stepping had been pierced.

    I turned on the computer this morning to find all the news agencies had headlines with the only news they deemed worthy from the debate:

    Clinton thinks Obama can Win!

    Swept under the rug after being aired:

    Exelon, Farrakhan, Rezko, Auchi, family and other racial Muslim ties, Wright, Hamas, Ayers, Blago, and a host of corrupt allies from the cesspool from whence he sprang. Mi and Fl, flipflopping on the environment, guns nafta etc. depending on whom he was speaking to at the time and his lack of a strong stance as well as his backpeddling on dozens of issues and his total unpreparedness to lead anyone but the sheep, the handing of legislations to him to bolster his shabby record, his prior senate races and the dirty politics associated with them all, his lack of any actual unity history summed up so potently by his wife in her "finally proud" moment... and all those other things for the core democrats to balk at let alone the republican spin.

    Thanks to Charlie and George for numerous attempts to shine some light on my concerns and hold his feet temporarily to the fire.

    While it might be too little too late, it was at least a momentary comfort to know somebody out there is paying attention to his many devils in the many details.

    One of the "Got ya" moments was certainly O saying he disowned Wright and his being called on it by George politely but swiftly.  Also it came through to me loud and clear when Hillary said she had specific plans FIRST although she didn't out him for copying her campaign programs strongly enough.

    Overall it was certainly better handled and hopefully put some spirit of researching those issues into the media and the public minds.

    It left questions unanswered and merely led the way to further discussion without resolving any of the charges.  On further investigation it is clear he is not who he claims to be and his Oil ad and his other ads are devious lies...

    The debate sent the message "caveat emptor" and the tide is hopefully turning before we are all washed out by the flood of O!

    Right on (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:30:21 AM EST
    Or, to rephrase, yes, yes, yes

    With the whining the Obama fans are now (belatedly) doing about the media, they are missing the fact that the media is still on their side.

    All the news I have heard this morning opens with a variation on 'the big takeaway last night was that Hillary thinks Obama can win.'

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    what does "family and other racial Muslim ties" mean?

    I REALLY don't like this kind of insinuation.  I don't even know what "racial Muslim" is supposed to mean.

    [ Parent ]

    All that time... (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:54:51 AM EST
    ... the media was ganging up on Hillary Clinton, the Obama people stayed silent or eagerly urging them on.

    Now, for one night, the tables were turned. How can they be surprised that the tiger wasn't tame?

    We told them so. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:00:44 AM EST
    Sorry - had to get it out of my system.

    (BTW - some still insist that Hillary has been getting a pass from the media.  Yes, the same media that looked at her schedule to find out where she was when.... )

    [ Parent ]

    Was this debate really any different (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:57:38 AM EST
    from the previous debates?

    I miserably confess that I have not watched even one in full.  But even back in January, the complaints were:

    Too many "gotcha" questions.
    Ridiculous hypotheticals.
    Not enough, if any, issues questions especially health care and the economy - people's top concerns.
    Serious format problems.

    Was this debate any different from the previous ones, disregarding partisan complaints?  Because that's the new cry at dkos and I suspect it's nonsense - but it may be worth discussion.

    The Boiz had no complaints (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:11:52 AM EST
    when the MSNBC goons were piling on Hillary.

    Now that the shoe is on the other foot, their heads are exploding.

    [ Parent ]

    It was different (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:29:00 AM EST
    This is the first debate where Obama has received the treatment that Hillary has been subjected to for months.  I agree that many of the questions were unsubstantive and related to character and baggage rather than issues, but that's the vetting process.   Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, the flag lapel pin, Bittergate - all this stuff will be used by the Republicans against Obama if he's the nominee.  

    It's mind-boggling that many Obama supporters seem to think that he should just be handed the keys to the White House, no questions asked.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has baggage? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:47:25 AM EST
    You don't say!

    I thought Clinton had all the baggage - or so I've been told.  [smirk]

    [ Parent ]

    We all know the issues by now (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:41:13 AM EST
    We know the few differences and there are few. BHO has mirrored his platform so closely as to blur the differences for the voters. Good move for BHO. At this point, I believe that discussing the elephants in the room was refreshing. Putting it all out on the table told us more about the person. Better move for HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    I really wish people would stop (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    referring to Obama's San Francisco remarks and Rev. Wright as insubstantial tabloid fodder. The flag pin stuff, OK. But last night was the first time that I've seen Obama asked directly why he told Wright a year ago that his sermons can be a little rough, if he never heard any of the remarks that caused the controversy. This was the first chance to really question him directly, and as we've seen once again, he's terrible dealing with questions that he should have fully anticipated.

    I said this in another thread, but I also think that a candidate's comments on what he thinks are the beliefs of the voters, and what motivates them to vote, are completely relevant. The problem is that Obama's supporters think once they tell us what he really meant and his campaign applies its own spin, his original comments somehow disappear into the ether, and are no longer a fit topic for discussion.

    And can we please stop referring to it as "bittergate"? Besides the fact that anything-gate is so overused, the continual focus on bitterness plays right into Obama's spin, that the whole controversy is about whether people are bitter, which as we know is not the issue at all. The press is doing enough work for Obama, I hate seeing Clinton supporters falling into the same trap.

    [ Parent ]

    BHO cut Charlie off on the one Wright thing (none / 0) (#208)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    BHO made his remarks and Charlie started to say, but why did you disinvite him? And BHO just cut his sentence off before he could finish it. That would have been a good question. If you think he would be ok and you knew nothing, why did you have to tell him he could not be there at the first ceremony. Interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't watch the debate but I gather that (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:20:04 AM EST
    Obama was treated roughly by the moderators. And the Obama supporters are up in arms about this.

    They Do Not Get It. And I do not think they ever will.

    First, he's a Democrat and they are the media. Welcome to the real world.

    Second, when it happens to Clinton you guys cheer. If you are going to encourage an unobjective, goal driven media don't get all outraged when it comes back to nible on you.

    You are so right (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:43:47 AM EST
    When Hillary was getting her butt kicked by the media every single day, it was okay and the Obama followers cheered every time.

    Now Obama gets roughed up and there are screaming bloody murder.  But I thought bringing up Ayers and the Weather Underground is ridiculous.   How does this matter to the American people?  Hillary was in her right to address it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary was the clear winner (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:20:05 AM EST
    clear to me, anyway!  I don't expect to hear about her victory in the MSM, though.  I don't know how many voters choose a candidate based on debates, but that's how I ended up supporting Hillary, from watching the debates.  I want a strong President who has a full grasp of the issues, a commitment to Democratic values and the ability to think on her feet.

    Obama's debate performance has improved somewhat over the months, but he comes across as tentative, insincere and stumbling.  He's great (so they say) in front of a teleprompter and adoring crowds, but his lackluster debating skills do not inspire confidence in his ability to deal in a challenging situation, be it a recalcitrant Congress or a hostile foreign leader.

    I didnt watch the whole thing (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Rainsong on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:59:17 AM EST
     - just saw highlights and snatches of re-runs.
    Never been one for debates anyway, and I suspect most voters don't either, but was interesting to see Obama have moments of discomfort with his body language. Wheras Hillary did seem excited, motivated and keen to get moving on the work ahead for the future.

    But my bubble of confidence has burst almost immediately :(

    Scanning the news headlines has me depressed
    - again -. Too many spouting how she supports Obama's electability, too many still spouting polls that she has lost most of her lead in Pennsylvania, losing (badly) in the other remaining states, rumours and hints of Sebelius being running mate to give women voters a consolation prize, too many hinting her graciousness in the debate towards Obama's electability means she is building up to a cool gracious concession speech next week.

    I'm sure most here either know, or can imagine what most of the blogs are saying, because most the Obama blogs seem to outnumber all the rest (neutral, apathetic or pro-Clinton) by about 20-to-1. Newspapers, media outlets regional, national, what-have-you all outnumber 20-to-1 or more too.  

    Even re-visiting the SUSA polls isn't working for me this time, because its as if they don't exist. Nobody is mentioning them. Not even to trash them as being innaccurate and irrelevant. How does SUSA survive?

    Even talkleft isn't cheering me up this time :( Its just not enough. -sigh-

    I'm sorry Jeralyn, BTD - I rarely ever go to places like Taylor Marsh or No Quarter, but I really need some reassurance and comfort, like a huge dose of chocolate. I'll check back later.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Let me tell you this (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    and I hate saying it, but if Obama gets the nomination and picks a female as VP as a "consolation prize" I will stay home.  I've had enough patronizing for one election.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm so out-of-step with the netroots... (5.00 / 17) (#33)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:41:38 AM EST
    ABC obviously decided to focus on gaffes and electability. It may not have been pretty, but this stuff matters more, in the long run, than policy positions. If policy positions were all we voted on, Hillary Clinton would win hands down. Hers, as published on her website, are the most detailed, pragmatic policy positions I've ever seen a candidate provide. Clearly, she knows her way around governing from an executive point of view.

    Obama has brought intangibles to the fight: charisma and hope and inspiration. And he's cribbed his policies from Hillary's. Now is the danger time for him. The big question that every Democratic voter has to ask him or herself is this: which candidate can beat McCain?

    To answer this, we do have to look unflinchingly at the lines of attack that the GOP will use. Hillary's honesty and credibility will be attacked, as always. Like Obama has said since January, "she'll do anything to win."

    Obama's ideology will be assailed. Rightwing radio is busily defining him as a "Marxist" and are constructing this pointillistic portrait by  connecting the dots of Ayers and Michelle's senior thesis and her recent "proud of my country for the first time as an adult" remarks and his Muslim childhood and his "bitter" analysis of the working class, and, the gift that keeps on giving, Reverend Wright.  

    It's remarkable to me that the progressive blogosphere is in an uproar. True, Obama was on something of a hotseat--but that's because most of this stuff has surfaced in the last month. This is the first debate since most of it started bubbling. And it does matter. Dukakis in a tank. George Bush the Elder looking at his watch in a town hall forum, Kerry windsurfing--the iconic stuff of failed campaigns past is always the "silly horserace" business. A candidate can have the best ideas, the best mind, the best delivery and slip on a banana peel and lose to a doofus. We all slip on banana peels. How one recovers from the fall is extremely important, and some falls just can't be erased because the absurdity of seeing someone step wrong and be immediately upended is emblazoned in people's minds.

    So I don't fault ABC for asking questions that WILL matter most in November. And I think the progressive blogosphere is being just as silly as the rightwingers were when they went apeshit over CBS's Reagan biopic.

    In the end, these progressives--most of whom I think must be fairly new to politics--will discover that Gibson and Stephanapoulus asked some of the very questions that the 08 presidential election will turn on. These things shouldn't matter, but they do. Ice cream shouldn't be fattening, but it is.

    Electability Debate (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Munibond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:09:31 AM EST
    I thought the moderators focused appropriately on topics that go to electability.  At this point, that is the primary concern of many Democratic voters.  Obama supporters are hypocritical for complaining about ABC after giving NBC/MSNBC a pass, and they are naive to think that Obama would in the GE be permitted to simply sidestep questions or blithely lie about his past relationships, activities and political positions.

    [ Parent ]
    I went over to Orange and saw it for myself (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:43:51 AM EST
    Absolute rage at ABC for dissing their man, and calls for pitchforks and flames.
    Absolutely no admission that this role reversal was old news to Clinton supporters.
    "Maturity" is the operative word here.

    Clinton's performance wasn't flawness, but it was outstanding next to Obama's.  I keep praying she'll get the nomination and the presidency despite the Media, the fanboys, and the odds.

    OT (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:51:54 AM EST
    You should know better.  With the mood they are in now, they will not listen to anyone who points out the absurdities.

    Maybe Hunter of Meteor Blades can get through to them, but I honestly expect to see several front pagers fanning the flames.  

    I can't wait to BTD's round up of the Five Percenters' reactions and their wafer thin rationales.

    [ Parent ]

    Even the "neutral" bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:05:54 AM EST
    are repeating the OFB memes.

    Where was the outrage when Hillary was getting all the "gotcha" questions, and the media was fluffing Barry's pillows?

    [ Parent ]

    pillow fight! (none / 0) (#115)
    by moll on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM EST
    ...they're just mad cuz hillary stole barry's pillow?

    [ Parent ]
    not flawless? (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by slr51 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:09:18 AM EST
    Yeah - well her lying swiftboating attempt re: Ayers interview that was given before 9-11, feigning outrage and pretending it happened after 9-11 and was in reference to the twin tower collapse was as Rovian as anything I've ever heard come out of a Democrat's mouth.

    Though I suppose depending on your perspective that might have been seen as just one more effective tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary said (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    "published on 9/11," according to what I found.  Now tell me, please, why Ayers should be given a pass because he'd already said it.  Saying you should have done more bombing is not a good thing, before or after 9/11.    Is it a case of 2000 dead make a news story, while one person dead doesn't?  You're just as dead if you are killed by a bomb or a handgun as if you are killed by a big terrorist attack or an automatic weapon.  

    [ Parent ]
    The bias is showing in the treatment (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by badu on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:52:37 AM EST
    of the daily Gallup poll.  Yesterday all the Obama fans were screaming about how he had the biggest lead yet in Gallup's daily tracking poll.  Today - there is a 3 point change, in Hillary's favor.  And not a word from the pundits or Obama fans.

    The MOE (none / 0) (#87)
    by slr51 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:26:56 AM EST
    of this poll is 3% or more. A 10 point lead is statistically significant a 3 point point is not.

    [ Parent ]
    The poll that will count most with SDs (none / 0) (#176)
    by slr51 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    Via Economic Times this morning:

    "A poll by ABC News/Washington Posed released yesterday shows that Democrats now believe that Obama is more likely to win in November elections by a huge margin of 62 to 31 per cent. This takes away her major argument to super delegates, who are likely to finally decide on the candidate, that she is more likely to win the election."

    [ Parent ]

    Having them believe that Obama will win (none / 0) (#192)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    isn't the same thing as everyone WANTING Obama to win.  If you listen to the MSM, you would think she has absolutely no chance. But if she has absolutely no chance, why are the Ombamaites frothing at the mouth in hysterics at this very moment?  They should be calm and disdainful at the petty annoyance of this Huckabee-like minor character pulling at the hem of their anointed one.

    [ Parent ]
    The candidates could have put a stop (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:12:11 AM EST
    to it, but they chose not to.  They talked on and on and on about the meaningless stuff. Obama dug his holes deeper and Hillary piled on, which was payback for all the times Obama piled on her.

    The questions were no more meaningless then ones asked at the other debates.  Wright and BitterGate go to the heart of Obama's electablility in the fall.  Of course those are relevant topics for the debate, and that is the context Obama should have answered them in  Hillary actually 'got' that better.  Obama had a chance to say how he would fight off those attacks in the fall, and all he did was say Hillary would get attacked too.

    I am so tired of the Hillary did it too (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:07:03 AM EST
    I mean, if they said that they heard he pooped, would his response be HRC did it too?  He is not ready. He can be ready for the future but right now, he  does not have the experience. I always knew experience was a factor, but I thought intelligence would make up for that. Being able to deliver a speech well will not make a President.

    Look at GW when at news conferences. These are the type of questions a POTUS would have to face. This is a true test of how a leader would respond.

    [ Parent ]

    How many people would have watched (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:16:56 AM EST
    if they expected 90 minutes of high-minded discussion?  I'm sure haf the Kos people writing letters would not even have watched it if they did not expect the Wright and Bittergate questions to be asked.  The difference is that they thought Obama would 'rock' in his answers.  He had the chance to do that, but didn't.  

    ABC is in it for ratings, like everyone else.

    The overall (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:24:17 AM EST
    message from the debate is that Obama can't handle the heat. There's no way he can stand up to the GOP became obvious last night.

    or world leaders (none / 0) (#111)
    by phillhrrll on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:50:32 AM EST
    they'd roll him

    [ Parent ]
    My last strange thought before going to work... (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:36:40 AM EST
    ....oddly enough, even though Clinton cleaned Obama's clock, this morning is the first time in many weeks that I think I could see myself voting for Obama in the GE if he wins the nomination...and I'll tell you why...he seems more like a Democrat to me when he's bashed by the media. Isn't that funny? BTD supports him because he is a media darling and I think that I oppose him most on those grounds. Oh well, I'll ponder that one a little more.

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:42:21 AM EST
    I said to my husband that it almost made me like him a little bit.  Almost.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    I use to like him when he first started out. I looked at him as the VP person and Edwards or Hillary as the POTUS. Now, the more I know, the more I think he is just not ready and would not be a good representative of the Democratic Party. The Press would have a field day with him. If he waited and got some experience, then I would be able to vote for him in the future as long as he got better and not worse. We have no real record right now. We have stuff, but not the right stuff to be able to know who he really is. With all these private conversations he has, I am thinking we don't know him at all and he might just have a little private agenda going on.

    [ Parent ]
    Um...I dislike him on principle not because of (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    something so trivial as that the media has asked him some challenging questions for a change.

    [ Parent ]