The Problem with These 'Debates'

re: The Problem with Debates

Maggie22 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:52:47 GMT

Interesting analysis. But I'd add one thing. If the justification for the tenor of last night's debate is that Clinton's last stand is on the electability issue, then true journalists should also have explored her electability issues. Tuzla is not hardly the only item on that menu. We have a rather large outstanding question about the potential conflicts of interest within the Clinton household arising from the sources of his income. We already know there's an issue with respect to the Colombia free trade agreement. But what other big donors might have a particular interest in paying Bill large sums of money to "give a talk"? Bundled up in this line of question would be the large elephant in the room, which is the question of what role Bill is going to have in the Clinton II administration.

We also have a chance to hit the question of campaign style head on -- since Obama has made it a part of his agenda to change the style of politics. Clinton has clearly opted for the old style. Would that not also be a worthy subject if our question is electability? (She won't contrast well with McCain on that issue).

And even on one of the topics -- Ayers -- the knife cuts both ways, since Bill pardoned some of the same sorts of folks as Ayers.

Given that these sorts of questions weren't also pursued it's hard to see how the debate was a responsible journalistic exploration of the question of electability. Because surely we all know that it is not Obama's electability that is in question, but rather the relative electability of the two candidates.

re: The Problem with Debates

Thevail — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:38:13 GMT

Media bias at an all new level. Here's why.

George Robert Stephanopoulos (born February 10, 1961) is an American broadcaster and political adviser. He is currently ABC News's Chief Washington Correspondent and the host of ABC's Sunday morning news show This Week. Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton's communications director.

Clinton administration

Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of the 1992 Clinton campaign. His role on the campaign is portrayed in the documentary film The War Room.[2] At the outset of Clinton's presidency, Stephanopoulos served as the de facto press secretary, briefing the press even though Dee Dee Myers was officially the White House Press Secretary. Later, he was moved to Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy, when Dee Dee Myers began personally conducting the briefings and David Gergen was brought in as the new White House Communications Director.

re: The Problem with Debates

timrogers — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:01 GMT

As a frequent viewer of this campaign and related media coverage, I have to agree with your analysis. The exhaustion factor is starting to overwhelm the interest in the candidates and in the people who talk about them. The same news is recycled, rehashed and repeated by all the media types. I don't blame them for doing their job, or think they are biased toward or against a particular candidate. It just all gets boring. The candidates, the campaign staffs and the commentators get boring. By the time the actual predidential election is held I will have long since stopped watching or listening or blogging.

re: The Problem with Debates

steverino9 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:22:34 GMT

Mr. Stephanopolous, were you ever employed by a man named William Jefferson Clinton? Did you ever cover up any misdeeds during his administration? Do you know a man named Richard Gephardt? Was your father a minister? What is your religion? Did you ever date Jennifer Grey? Have you ever witnessed any illegal campaign fundraising activity? How close is your friendship with James Carville? Have you ever cursed at anyone in the Starbucks on Connecticut Avenue?

re: The Problem with Debates

jy2008 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:33:29 GMT

It is so funny to think the debate is only about him and her.

Why so angry on those long-due questions?

Except you and you and you, how many else know what he really is?

You are like bunch dictator, do not question me but just follow me otherwise you are lalala lalala.

That is shame.

What do you think what you are? Are you GOD trying to save bitter people?

re: The Problem with Debates

revolved — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:38:02 GMT

While Hillary has committed to another debate next week, Obama hasn't, and is supposedly considering not participating. He shouldn't participate.

Everyone in every state has had ample time to look at and consider both of their personalities, policies, strengths and weaknesses. Another debate isn't going to tell anyone anything they don't already know or can't find out on TV or the Internet. Another debate isn't going to help people decide who to vote for.

Obama shouldn't participate in any more debates. He should spend his time campaigning, and be focused on coming as close to or beating Hillary in all the remaining primaries.

And...I usually like George Stephanopolous. But last night, he seemed like he was sitting at the kid's table while Charlie sliced into the Thanksgiving turkey. What the...?!?

re: The Problem with Debates

Tahoe Editor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:58:43 GMT

Stephanopoulos is misspelled all five times. If Newsweek is seeking copy editors, let me know.

Cheers,

Russell

re: The Problem with Debates

Westcoastwoman — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:59:36 GMT

Nothing to talk about anymore? What about the issue of torture? Executive privilege, criteria for choosing judges, rebuilding US infrastructure? How about more on ecology and global warming? How about a little talk about respect for science vs religion?

For Hillary: how can a "fighter" work with the Republicans? We had a "uniter" who turned out to be totally inflexible, and isn't that a potential danger again? I think there are plenty more questions that could have been asked instead of just the ridiculous issues like who's wearing a flag pin.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

bluethunder1962 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:02:55 GMT

That was the most ridiculous debate I have ever seen. Whether or not you think that it seemed like a chance to do a Freddy Krueger on Obama by the ever glib Gibson or not-so-curious George and give-me-another-shot and make it a double Clinton, is beside the point. This was like watching a fourth-grade stage production of waiting for Godot. The other debates were so much better and even the compassion gig on cable showed me something about the two candidates. As for bringing up William Ayers, the weatherman 60's anti-establishment guy was about as creepy as it gets. Enough already. Could we have found out more about where they both stand on the positions? It was so bad that even the audience booed Gibson. Nice job Walt Disney and thanks for a cartoon of a debate.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

naturphillic — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:59:13 GMT

Andrew is right, the issues have been discussed to ad nauseum. It was interesting to see how Obama handled the heat. This the the type of scrutiny one gets in a Presidential Campaign. If Obama can't take the heat get out.

I couldn't blame him, in truth, the heat is unbeleiveable at times. Goerge Bush gets the Heat everyday...................

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

sanrioscenario — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:49:19 GMT

An underinformed, overstimulated Wesleyan sophomore liveblogs the Democratic debate:

\"8:22: Gibson poses a question to Obama about Jeremiah Wright\'s anti-American comments. But has anyone considered that Wright said some pretty true things about pervasive racism in America? Read your Cornel West, folks.\"

http://www.236.com/news/2008/04/17/the_democratic_debate_guest_li_5926.php

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

RENEA — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:18:22 GMT

WHY WAS HILLARY NOT ASKED WHY SHE DOES NOT WEAR A FLAG PIN?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Integrity first and foremost — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:43:19 GMT

I'm actually sick of hearing that the media is doing it's job each and every time some bullcra* hits the fan like it did last night. The questions were inane, and except for the weatherman question, have been covered over and over and over and over . . . making George's explanaion that he wanted to cover new stuff, well, stupid. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had slapped both of them with inanity; it just so happened that Billary got one soft question about her Bosnia "lie" and an apolology for being left out of the rest of the scalping!! Actually, she was allowed to join in. I don't care how different or how much the same the two of them are, smart journalists can figure out a way to ask intelligent questions.

I'm not home right now but am taping the subject program that I understand is showing the tape of George being told on Tuesday by Sean Hannity to ask about the weatherman guy. This should be investigated!!

It's really quite simple: let us get back to real news and perhaps some of the complaining will stop. Oh, and stop treating us as if we're stupid and don't get it. The thing we wanted to get last night was a real debate not one-sided gossip and innunendo. Six days from the PA primary, a rehash of issues would have been welcomed. Let's face it, all the white journalists (and I'm white) just don't know how to deal with that real smart black guy. It's "keeping him in his place" all over again. I have a mind of my own and I'm sick of it. Stop trying to force feed me nonsense--I just want the facts, please.

Last point: White journalists talking/complaining/pontificating about the Rev Wright/Obama connection has gotten so bad that I actually heard a dittohead on MSNBC today sounding off because Obama didn't complain because the NAACP invited the Rev Wright to speak there. Since when does a candidate for the Presidency get involved in criticizing invitees to speak at non-governmental organizations. He even said Obama brought all this on himself. HUH? Brought what? Endless questions that he's already answered endless times? As I said scared white men . . .

And that flag pin issue. Why didn't George/Charlie/Hillary wear one? How many times does Obama have to assure you dittoheads that he's patriotic?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Factarereal — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:27:54 GMT

Yes............the stupid moderators ever......shame on them.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Factarereal — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:30:11 GMT

How can people be paid for doing such shoddy jobs. I pitty ABC

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Concerned US_Citizen — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:23:29 GMT

I think Obama should ignore insults, refuse to respond to anuything except what HIS plans for our economy and future will be with Obama at the helm. To continue responding to Clinton and other antagonists is futile and counterproductive. 45 minutes of quality air time LOST because of ABC hosts.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

ankitkr — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:41:03 GMT

"It's illogical for Dems to claim that simply because Republicans are likely to raise certain issues and associations in certain ways, the press should be prohibited from raising them as well. "

NO! You must have left the logical side of your mind somewhere else to be able to argue that. It is illogical for the media to raise certain issues, issues that are frivolous and do not address things that Americans care about all that much, just because Republicans are likely to raise the issues. It is equivalent to take the Republican talking points to swiftboat someone.

If you, or others, are going to make the charge that any candidate is unpatriotic and that he has sympathies for someone linked to terrorist network, please have the gumption to say that in the open. Do not do a hit job!

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

muckluck — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:43:42 GMT

Remember the movie Primary Colors - the part where Kathy Bates kills herself when she finds

out her beloved Clintons are just as slimy and souless as the people they've been trying to

overcome all these years? I'm not killing myself but I know how she felt.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

schmeck — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:13:06 GMT

Obama supporters were not complaning when the press was giving him a free pass throughout the majority of this campain. Now that he is the front runner and he needs to be tested the most to prove himself everyone is complaining. Hillary has taking ten fold the amount of rigorous testing and now one debate gets Obama supproters' underwear in a knot. This is not kindergarten. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen!

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

schmeck — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:23:18 GMT

People are complaining that HIllary is nasty and makes personal attacks. It is because she kows that Obama has gotten too much easy treatment throughout this whole campaign that he does not deserve. know that he is finally being called to task nobody likes it. His supporters just want a Hollywood picture perfect ride to the presidency for him.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

hotstuff — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:27:59 GMT

Andrew, I usually admire your column. But this article is pretty weak. If everything had been debated, well, that would make this last encounter totally redundant.

Since the nomination has not been officially decided, since Hillary is still "in it to win it",

it would only have been fair to turn the heat on BOTH of them. But that was not the case.Then, the compostion of the moderator team. George was a long time aide of the Clintons. How does that guarantee impartiality?

The voters have pressing problems. Yet, the press is preoccupied with irrelevant trivialities.

To me, that´s very irresponsible. And that´s one more reason for folks to be bitter!

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Yellow Sapphire — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:28:57 GMT

Here's a good one that I just read...I guess important info Obamaniacs should know...

Posted By: olandug (April 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM)

Obama and the Country of Doom

Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.

His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo “Roy” Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama’s military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and “Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel,” or Obama’s super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama’s most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama’s rise to power.

And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama’s life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes? The American public has been fooled before and I guess those in power know we can be fooled again. (Kennedy’s assassination, Martin Luther King’s assassination, the invasion of Iraq…).

The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.

Repo

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

laurenmort — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:42:09 GMT

Even as an Obama supporter, I believe to some degree that "you've gotta take the heat". One problem I have with the debate is the clear conflict of interest of one of the moderators. If you're going to try to stick one candidate with yet another label (now yet, 'friend of home-grown terrorist)you as the unbiased moderater needs to give equal mud slinging time to the opponent.

It is amazing to me that Clinton supporters contend that Obama has gotten a free pass. Are minds distorted that much?

I agree in a way, that Obama does tie one hand behind his back when he refuses to relish in the mud. It's ironic that it is on this very issue, mindless mudslinging, that I used to defend the Clintons against. I am so very disappointed in them. To fellow Americans, all I ask is that you do fact checking, don't let unsubstantiated accusations or soundbites make your decision.

With the exception of Bill Clinton, I have sat back feeling helpless as time and time again, as Americans elect the most manipulative, negativity creating, out of touch candidate. I am getting the same feeling now. Well America has the right to make its choice. We truly do get the president, our current level deserves.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

BacaAngel — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:07:46 GMT

The ABC Debate was a Sham and very one-sided.. ask Barack all the Got-cha questions and never questioned Hillary about Mark Penn and Columbia? What kind of fairness is that.

George must of owed Bill Clinton a big favor & Bill got it! Is that why he never once asked Hillary about Mark Penn and Columbia? Is that not pertinent to the campaign as he says? Yes. And, Obama was 8 years old when Ayers committed his offensive act, to try to tie Obama to that is ludicrous! If America is to get to a more Positive place, we will need a leader who is positive and inspirational, one like Barack Obama. Clinton in her willingness to lie, divide and conquer has wallowed in negativity and negativity begets negativity... we don't need that kind of personality leading America at this time or any time... that is if we want to get to a more positive place. Obama, if elected, will be the People's President and much beloved!

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

HappyDay41 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:52:21 GMT

The debate, in my opinion, showed both candidates very well. The questions that were asked were valid to ask because these are issues that will be hammered over and over in the general election--they are the issues that the average voter I meet are concerned about, as well as the bigger picture. And, though the issues facing our nation are paramount in importance, we all know that the values issues have sunk the democrats in elections past. Putting Obama on the spot to defend his insensitive remarks about Americans, his associations with questionable characters, was perfectly reasonable as these will be issues to people in the primaries, as well as the GE.

I thought Hillary Clinton was very articulate, confident and had an intelligent command of the nuances that drive political campaigns as we will see when Dems go against McCain and the Republican machine. (Doesn't anyone remember how they made Max McClelland into an unpatriotic un-American and he lost his Senate seat--even though he was beloved by his constituency, and a Vietnam hero who left his two legs and one arm on the battlefield??) The Republicans are not going to play fair or easy, folks. Hillary is tough, she has been drug through the mud for 15 years, and she knows what is coming at her if she is the nominee. Barack... I don't think he's going to appreciate what they are going to do to him.

He gets annoyed, irritated, frustrated... and he has walked out on the press numerous times because he didn't like their questions. Well, that wont fly in the GE. As for his performance, I am not a fan of his, but I thought he answered several times quite well. I thought he effectively framed his answers to show how over-discussed these questions had been already, and how people focus on a sound-bite and not the whole of the candidate--their values, their history, their heart and their convictions. And, I also thought he was not articulate-- he stumbled, stuttered, and hesitated... but he always does and everyone says "wasn't he fluent?"

The sad thing about politics is... we vote emotionally. And "they" know it... meaning, those who control our opinions through the media, or through political managment. So, if you are an Obama fan, you cannot admit that Hillary has any redeeming quality whatsoever...you have to see her as the enemy and you will never admit she is intelligent, accomplished, and capable.

Those who are committed to Hillary, have difficulty seeing Obama's attributes, because we can see him manipulating the messages, being very negative toward HIllary and the former President Clinton's accomplishments, and we see him as being very associated with so many questionable people. We see his lack of a record as a lack of experience, and what we have of his record is indecisive.

Bottom line is: if you like one candidate, you will only see supportive facts of them, and any contridiction of them will be viewed as treason. (one recent student journalist went so far as to accuse anyone who didn't support Obama as being Un-American!!?!!)

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

oaksav4000 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:10:41 GMT

The debate was bias and it showed I will never watch ABC news again

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

speckelbelly — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:27:44 GMT

HILLARY NEEDS TO QUIT THE PRIMARY! AND SUPPORT MR. OBAMA!! -TRUTH-THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE IS WORKING THRU THE NEWS MEDIA! AMERICA NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST! #1 FEDRALLY REGULATE GAS PRICES AND WATCH THE ULTRA RICH GET MAD #2 FIX THE MORGAGE CRISIS BECAUSE THE SENATE ONLY HELPED THE RICH, NOT THE PEOPLE LOSEING THEIR HOMES!!! #3 GIVE A BIG TAX BREAK TO THE WORKING POOR!!! #4 INCREASE TAXES ON THE ULTRA RICH AND WATCH THEM SCREAM AGAIN !!! I MEAN REALLY HOW MUCH MONEY DO THEY NEED TO LIVE?THE WORKING POOR ARE 1 PAYCHECK FROM BEING HOMELESS #5 HELTH CARE SUCKS-FIX IT

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

anokie — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:47:43 GMT

The problem with the moderating by Gibson and Stephanopoulos was not just their focus on politics instead of policy for the first half of the 'debate'. It was the obvious bias with which they did so. Wasting the candidates' and viewers' time with ridiculous questions such as whether Rev. Wright loves his country, while failing to bring up much more serious and relevant matters such as the apparent conflict-of-interest for Clinton in her husband taking $800,000 to speak in support of free trade with Colombia while she claims to oppose it. Or why she chose as her Chief Strategist a leading Washington lobbyist? Or why she says she will fight for the forgotten middle class but has failed to pay her bills from numerous small business owners that have served her local campaign efforts?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

johnsr12 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:06:36 GMT

Hey why are you people so hung up on asking the two questions about anything. If you can't see the two as losers you are blind.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

tskinner07 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:43:00 GMT

HappyDay41... I completely agree with you. Well said

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Dok08 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:55:56 GMT

Would somebody, please, turn out the lights. While the democratics practice and practice to master the debating, the lone ranger republican can relax and wait for the exhausted American public to elect his party. How did we go from the one debate of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy (former presidents) to 20 something debates so far. hink it is time to debate debating or would this be another debate?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

hawkeye77 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:49:02 GMT

I understand why obama supporters are upset but doesn't the "CHARATER" of someone who wants to be the POTUS equally inportant to the issues being debated?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

JEBSGRL — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:15:35 GMT

I would like to know why this man is running for president he evidentally does not like america or the american people, evidentally this man has a lots of issues with america, and none are good and as an American I consider him to be a threat to our country and our people. Why is he even considered among the presidency when this man wouldn't even salute our flag, he can give all the excuses he wants, It's easy to tell he's a liar and he shouldn't even be aloud to run the country that he so evidentally despises, The way i look at it Obama if you don't like our country leave Im sure it wouldnt hurt anyones feelings..

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

jaimehlers — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:47:32 GMT

Last night's debate is a large part of the reason I don't waste my time watching most "debates" anymore. They seldom end up being anything even resembling a serious discussion about policy or issues and instead resemble a sequence of ad hominem attacks on one or more candidates. I'd rather make my decision based on the real differences between candidates than watch rehashed versions of whatever "scandal" the media has been hyping up.

It's really sad that there will be people who make up their minds based on this debate. Not because there was anything of real substance in it about either candidate, but because it either "pointed out Obama's flaws (for the thirtieth time, it seems) " or "gave Clinton a free pass just because she's not the frontrunner".

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

sketchartist — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:52:42 GMT

A predictably clueless insider's ramble that I could have written before I read it. Return the debates to thr League of Women Voters.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

chillywill — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:28:34 GMT

One nice thing about the debate is that the Clinton supporters should quit their whining about how the media has favored Obama. I suspect the whining will continue though as their leader is the Queen of victimization, just ask her. I particularly think it is very amusing to hear about all of the mud dug up and communicated through the media about Sen. Obama while when Mrs. Clinton states that she was under sniper fire which was a definite lie the media states that Mrs. Cinton misspoke. She also has numerous shady individuals and actions in her life but we really don't hear much about them do we?She's really been mistreated by the media!!! I hope that if Mrs. Clinton were nominated she'd come and have a few shots of whiskey with me and my friends since she's one of us!! I hope she'll never have to place herself in harms way again and be under all that sniper fire if she were to become president but than she can stand the heat in the kitchen.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

HILLARY4PRES09 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:50:01 GMT

IT'S ABOUT TIME THE MEDIA STARTED ASKING SENATOR OBAMA REAL QUESTIONS THAT MATTERS!! THE MEDIA HAS GIVEN HIM A FREE-RIDE LAST 12 MONTHS.....SEEMS MR. OBAMA WAS UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING IMPORTANT ISSUES ABOUT HIMSELF!!! WE HILLARY SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN PATIENT READING,LISTENING, AND SEEING THE HORRIBLE TREATMENT MEDIA HAS PORTRAYED OF A GREAT CANDIDATE BEING MRS. CLINTON...THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEHIND ALL THIS!!! THAY ARE MASTERMINDING THE WHOLE THING!!!...THEY WANT OBAMA TO BE DEM. NOMINEE SO THEY CAN SLAUGHTER HIM IN FALL!!...LET'S WAKE UP AMERICAN DEMS!!! HILLARY HAS WHAT IT TAKES TO OVERCOME MCCAIN!!!....SHE KNOWS THE ISSUES...MCCAN WILL BRING UP EXPERIENCE,RACISM, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN FALL IF OBAMA S THE NOMINEE....WE NEED MAKE SURE CLINTON WINS....SHE'S WON ALL THE BIG STATES THAT WILL MATTER IN GENERAL.....IF OBAM WINS...THE CONSERVATIVE DEMS WILL BACK MCCAIN!!! PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN...IF CLINTON WINS...IT WOULD BE BETTER...THEN ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS WOULD GO BACK TO CLINTONS...WHOM THEY BETRAYED FROM DOOR!!! (THAT'S THE TRUTH...IF OBAMA WASNT IN....HILLARY WOULD BE IN WHITE HOUSE ALREADY...HANDS DOWN...SHE WOULD HAVE LATINOS,BLACKS, AND WOMENS!!! THAT'S A WINNER THERE!!!

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

amurcia — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:22:13 GMT

The debate was not perfect but at least they put OSAMA in the hot seat(first time ever) and he failed miserably, and he lied again, he is pathetic. I thanked ABC already and FOX for stepping up

for the good of the Country and try to ask the questions we are entitled to know, he wants to be our

president, he need to be held to the task, if not get out! For this piece of man and supportes to cry

fowl is absolutely irresponsible. These people want to take over our country. They are just mad

because he has shown his true colors lately and he is losing ground. The media is to blame

about the mess we democrats are in along with the big Corporations and all the Communications

Companies all suporting this piece of garbage man, they bought him and in term he is buying

supporters and the American vote, his campaign Chief Strategist is worse than Penn any day!!!!

New week has a poll now that is fabricated to make Hussein look like he is ahead, he is not!!!!!!

The tide is turning, I could never never never vote for this Muslin in disguised, for the good of the

Party I need to vote for the good of this Nation which I love, unlike the AA community which is demonstrating they are not true Americans after all. God save us all. Obama is not the Messiah

he may turn to be the Antichrist.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

NowOnlyNow — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:32:40 GMT

I think the intelligence level of 99% of bloggers is substandard. They are incapable of constructing a valid argument, post editorial without fact and leave opinion droppings like bread crumbs that lead back to their ignorance.

What happened to our education system? I'm certainly older than most people on this site but I remember being taught logic, sentence construction, the difference between fact and supposition and more pertinent I remember responsible journalism and common sense. I attempted to pass these things on to my three sons and I believe I was successful. I only wish the rest of my generation did the same.

Are the opinions I'm reading been posted in earnest or have I missed the big joke?

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

Kim in Pasadena — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:57:11 GMT

I disagree. These candidates had not previously addressed how they would lower gas prices. In this debate, they each got ONE minute to do so. These candidates have not been asked (in a debate) about signing statements, executive privilege or torture by the Bush administration. These candidates have not been asked (in a debate) about how they will regulate the financial industry and prevent future speculative bubbles that endanger our economy.

The issues that remain unexplored are many and varied. The moderators took the easy way out and stuck with retreading old ground. I did not need to hear the Tuzla non-incident or Reverend Wright rehashed. Whether Rev. Wright "loves this Country" as much as Senator Obama was an entirely absurd question. The discussion about flag pins was nonsensical since none of the Presidential candidates sport this particular fashion.

Yes, I felt Tuesday's debate was a giant waste of my time, but not because I felt the moderators were unfair to a particular candidate. Actually, it was the nightmare of "Network" come true and what is truly sad, Howard Beale would have asked better questions.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

RU Kidding — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:43:01 GMT

HIllary's gone full tilt with her kitchen-sink/garbage-disposal-campaign, yet she' s not making progress:

“There is clearly a high frustration level among campaign types and from the Clintons themselves,” said Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton, who is backing Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

re: The Problem with These 'Debates'

vakosh — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:12:36 GMT

I thought it was interesting. Obviously no one cares for the ***, but before they throw Hillary under the bus, the democratic party needs to make sure this man can carry in a general. I thought the questions were loaded, but he has experienced a free ride up until now. His responses on those issues were important to me. How a person handles themselves under pressure says a lot to me about performance. Maybe not the most intellectual way to base a decision, but something I take into consideration before I vote.