There was a debate tonight

Both candidates were vastly inferior to John McCain

 

Great, then our countries going to go to hell. Might as well start packing for Canada.

 

Clinton owned Obama tonight. Obama kept was on the defensive and seemed pissed off during the whole debate.

 

Didn't watch it, but I heard that Hillary said "yes, yes, yes" when asked if Obama was electable in November. This contradicts the reports of Hillary and surrogates arguing privately to superdelegates that Obama would get "crushed" and wasn't electable. Just another example of why people don't think she is believable. She is pathological.

 

Uh, has it ever occurred to you that "reports" are frequently wrong? If you want to call her pathological or cite her as not believable, that's fine -- but why can't you do it using her actual words, instead of second and third hand accounts from sources who are sometimes ridiculously biased?

Obama is absolutely electable, and I have no doubt that assuming this doesn't turn around that Hillary will support him all summer and all fall.

 

I watched it. The moderators insisted on starting off with 45 minutes of the Reverend Wright, Bosnia airport, Obama as an elitist etc. I think Obama did well by pointing out over and over that this type of stuff is a distraction from what is important to the American people. Obama did looked pissed in his quiet way as Hillary tried to extend this part of the debate and declined several times to end it.

Finally they got to a bit on the economy, the war, social security. The moderators tried over and over to get no new tax pledges from the candidates, with limited success particularly on capital gains. Why they thought this was the most important economic issue is a mystery, I think they were just stuck on trying to replay what happened to Bush I.

Both Hillary and Obama said they would withdraw troops no matter what the situation on the ground in Iraq and would not do a Bush and pass off Commander and Chief responsibilities to Petraeus.
Obama, and surprisingly Hillary would both be totally different from McCain.

My wife who is a Hillary supporter and I both think Hillary did not help herself by aiding the idiot moderators who were trying to keep the focus on the Reverend Wright and various 'gotchas".

 

My thoughts are why do we need 5744 debates. If you ain't decided by now, you haven't been paying enough attention during the last 12 months of nonstop coverage.

 

I didn't see it, but the consensus opinion seems to be:

1. ABC was terrible. The moderators mostly went into the weeds with weird issues and a lot of the back-and-forth non-sense instead of issues.

2. Clinton looked pretty bad.

3. Obama looked far worse and got his ass kicked.

All in all, it seems people think it was a win for the GOP and all the networks not named ABC.

But lets not forget how quickly these things change - McCain's had his share of terrible debates too. Not sure how it will affect PA, but it will be long forgotten by the general election.

 

BTW for all the Hillary haters, yet Obama supporters, who love the gotcha type stuff, I think we saw the dangers of this. The moderators did a number on Obama with the Reverend Wright, over and over, the "bitter" stuff over and over and even a professor Obama knew who was in the SDS and made wild statements after 9/11.

Obama will lose the debates with McCain if they do the same one sided stuff against Obama.

I found Obama convincing as he said this type of stuff is a distraction, but the media seem to think this is what the American people want and maybe they are right.

 

Mark Penn was actually quoted publicly saying this in March. Why is it such a stretch to believe recent reports? She was asked point blank if she ever made the statement to Bill Richardson and her answer was "no". Later, her aides said she misunderstood the question and (in essence) retracted her denial. Is George Stephanopoulos "ridiculously biased"? He's the guy who reported her as saying, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win" to Richardson.

The latest example of pathological Hillary.

 

Actually the tax issue was a key policy difference between the two candidates. Hillary is much more of a centrist on the issue -- she promised no cap gains taxes higher than 20%, whereas Obama's tax hike promise did not change from the 28% level -- almost DOUBLE today's 15% rate on long-term cap gains. Gibson was right to point out that history shows that when you raise the capital gains taxes, revenues from that tax DECREASE. Obama stumbled around on that topic, then lurched off into some hedge fund manager demagoguery. Very weak answer. Hillary and Obama also had differences on the payroll tax question -- Obama favoring a bigger tax increase there.

But yes, Obama sounded like a bumbling idiot on stage tonight and was on the defensive the entire night. His biggest awkward moment was when he said he 'disowned' Reverend Wright, only to take it back seconds later when pressed by Stephanopoulous -- then obama said he disowned 'the words'. Freaking pansy. Obama is at his worst when he is thinking on his feet. He sure is good at mouthing teleprompted speeches though! When will the left wake up and realize that apart from a well mouthed speech at the 2004 DNC convention, this guy has done nothing to merit the Presidency. nothing. What a marketing campaign they have bought into...

 

No, but he didn't report that himself. He reported anonymous sources telling him that she said that. Are anonymous sources around Washington ridiculously biased, for both candidates? You better believe it. I talk to them and deal with it myself every day.

The latest example of an undocumented, unverified source spewing random crap and the Obama camp deciding it's all true and all Hillary's fault without any proof or due process.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Mark Penn isn't Hillary Clinton. Obama has had plenty of campaign workers make regrettable statements as well. Part of the game.

 

Take care now. Buh-bye then.

 

i don't agree with you often TJ but you stated perfectly why obama is completely flawed. i'm not going to call the guy a farce but his followers are simply out of touch with reality if they believe obama is some shining ray of light that will magically change things. obama and his campaign have done an excellent job of marketing him so far but now that he is getting pressed the facade of magical hope and change is starting to crack. at least with hillary we pretty much know what we are getting, but with obama who the hell really knows.

 

I only remember her is being a presidents wife just like Laura bush, and Nancy Regan. I guess since your so in touch with reality; what will we get with Hillary?

 

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013_pf.html

 

So will the liberals now all boycott ABC debates, just like they did in cowardly fashion by running from Fox News? Man, this is hilarious!