Two hours to clip toenails? That's disgusting

What does Kevin mean by "trainwreck?" Obama did not do well on content, but he has a great voice and a mostly pleasing demeanor. I thought it was pretty uneventful.

Man, just those couple seconds used to pan the debate were wasted seconds. I don't think I've been so angry since the race baiting in South Carolina.

Kevin,

You really should watch the first few minutes of the thing. Not for any great insight into the candidates. Barack is defensive (understandably so when everyone is attacking him relentlessy for for he entire time) and Hillary is on topic and relentless in her attacks. But for the mendacity of the questioners and their questions.

Honestly, these people need to be removed from the Public's airwaves and given ordinary jobs doing something useful like following the horses at Mackinac Island in the summer with a wheelbarrow and a shovel. It is painfully obvious that they have no skill at being "Journalists."

Oh, Kevin, you're absolutely right. This debate was absolutely horrid.

Where in the hell do they get off asking a Presidential Candidate whether or not he believes in the flag?

It was an abortion in American politics. I've already left a complaint on their website and will try again to call them soon.

I think what really must be addressed is that the nation is confronted with any number of potential crises, and ABC abrogated its responsibility in exploring these issues. It was truly a god awful shame.

Unfortunately, I forgot about it (and I did check the newspaper, was it not listed?). Did read that it took an hour before they got to a single policy issue and that the audience lost patience with the moderators, who were apparently inane.

I'm rather disappointed in Geo Stephanopoulus, if that is true, cuz I kinda like him. But, even so, these anchor types really are not journalists much any more. It's all about ratings, not about reporting.

I had hoped George was above that, but if it took an hour to get to an issue, apparently not.

The fact that the audience booked the moderators says a lot, and it is encouraging. People do not want this media drivel and realize they are NOT getting the issues and are not falling for the main-stream-media-owned-by-five-rich-corporate-men stuff.

What's really fascinating is how television commentators on different stations avoided heavily criticizing the vacuous questions and gotcha format of the debate. Did they fear being the pot to ABC's kettle?

The debate was enlightening.

A glimpse into the wingnutery gleamed general. Obama clearly stumbled when confronted by retardican like questions. And was way too defensive.

I understand why people hate that type of politics, but that's just the way it is...nay...has been, for centuries...

Call the New York main number and ask for

212-456-7777

David Westin - President of ABC NEWS

I called and told him what a sham of a debate that was. Disgraceful.

George

"it's obviously such a trainwreck that I don't need to bother watching it"

Obviously. If the candidate you've "voted off the island" wins a debate, by all means don't watch it.

Why would there be a need to ask about policy when they agree on most everything? Apparently, people think Obama did bad, but I thought Hillary pulled her punches and, while his content was weak, he seemed to get away with it. I don't think there was a moment that will make much of an impression.

Once they reached some policy substance, they were relentlessly pushed on "pledges" not to raise taxes. And they both took the bait! Then guns and flag pins! The nation may not survive the republican mindset.

:
Obviously. If the candidate you've "voted off the island" wins a debate, by all means don't watch it.

Honestly, what is with this opinion? It has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary has won or lost it. Frankly, Hillary has won other debates and people haven't complained about it quite like this one.

This debate was an abortion. The first hour spent on stupid non-policy things (which were pretty partisan in which president they attacked). The second hour spent in gotcha mode.

The moderators were terrible and the questions ("Do you believe in the flag"?!?!?!) were without merit. The audience even booed the moderators.

This isn't a "I'm sad Obama lost" thing. This is a "What a miscarriage of a potentially interesting 2 hours"

Petey: Don't be a dick. The trainwreck everyone is complaining about is the questioning from the moderators, not anything the two candidates said.

I tried to watch it, but the snow built up in my satellite dish and I lost my connection just before it started. Saved by the snow! In April, no less. That's the advantage of living in Colorado.

Hey check out this kewl website:

http://firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com/

If I were you, I would attend to other personal grooming matters as well--trimming ear hair, for instance--once you're done with the toenails. You'll learn more than watching ABC ruin its own reputation.

My suggestion: The DNC should choose its own moderator and produce the debate in house. Screw Charlie Gibson, Tim Russert, et al.

If the cats are getting on your nerves, make them watch. If that doesn't scare them straight, nothing will.

Gibson is a fucking whore.

Joan Gout, per your comment, including Kevin acting like a conservative blogger (yes, that's deliberate snark) and turning off comments in advance of publishing his post, here’s my thought, including McArdle and Amy Sullivan being blog-twit twins separated at birth.

That’s why Kevin turned off comments, because he knows its true. (Read the post for what I’d like to do to both McArdle and Sullivan, together.)

And, Kevin, if you have a post that you’re afraid to accept comments on, instead of being a conservative blogger, don’t post it in the first place.

Based on what I saw and heard, and on the comments I've read about what I missed, I sure wish this had happened:

Sen. Clinton: I have a question for Sen. Obama. Senator, I've reached the conclusion that the questions we're being asked tonight will do little to help voters reach a decision in the Pennsylvania primary, or in the general election. I wondered how you felt.

Se. Obama: Senator, I completely agree. I believe that we are doing a dis-service to the American people by continuing to deal with the questions we are being asked. What I would propose is that we leave, find a quiet place to have a conversation about the real issues facing the American people, and invite to join us any members of the press who wish to accompany us.

Sen. Clinton: Perfect. And let's ask one of the camera operators to join us as well.

Sens. Clinton and Obama: Good-night, panel, and no thank you for your questions.

In my dreams, I'm afraid.

Lucky for ABC that here on the West Coast the debate is going up against American Idol, so I doubt anyone other than seriously strung-out political junkies are watching.

It is interesting that you do not want to see the debate...you, like like other Obama supporters are so used to fawning over your candidate that the one time he is given unflattering treatment you run and hide...This is what should be thrown at him. He is so used to not answering, and turning things around. Well tonight he got caught short...you seem to have lost any sense of objectivity...too bad...I used to think you were interested in having discussions...you too, seem to have drank the cool aide.....

Well, gosh SocraticGadfly, why don't you run your blog the way you want and let Kevin run his blog the way he wants?

You can bravely keep your blog open for comments. Maybe you will get more than three. Total. For all your posts put together.

I visited your blog only because you shamelessly plugged it twice here. To save others the eye-bleach, SG wants to know why we can't kill Amy and Megan. Umm, because it is generally not nice to kill people just because you don't like their blogs? It may even be illegal in many places?

"Petey: Don't be a dick. The trainwreck everyone is complaining about is the questioning from the moderators, not anything the two candidates said."

Right. I'm sure the complainers don't have any ulterior motive, Kevin. I mean, it's not as if the complainers tonight don't overwhelmingly support one candidate over the other.

And I'm sure the complainers aren't trying to deflect the astonishing poor performance of the candidate who bashes universal healthcare.

Nothing to see here, right?

After all, the General Electric run Clinton hit-job debates raised all kinds of objections in the "lefty" blogosphere didn't they? Oh, right. They didn't. I'm sure that had nothing to do with the General Electric debates favoring the candidate the twits like Kevin haven't "voted off the island".

By the way Kevin, how is that "Civility in the comments thread" thing going?

I disagree with you over a lot, in fact just about everything, but I gotta admire you for keeping hope alive that some semblance of decency can exist in on-line political discussion. ;-)

OT: This morning I had a discussion about politics with someone who disagrees with me on many issues! Somehow, we managed to be civil throughout our exchange! We even shook hands and parted on good terms!

Do you think that maybe the world is going to end now?

Sweet Lou, other people made comments on other threads about Kevin shutting off comments.

As for my comments, Kevin hasn't censored me, so deal with it.

Oh, and find a sense of humor while you're at it. And a clue.

Oh, and how's that for civility in comments? (I might as well go for the smackdown trifecta while I'm at it.) If the world ends, I can throw you in the same bag with Amy and Megan.

Right. I'm sure the complainers don't have any ulterior motive, Kevin. I mean, it's not as if the complainers tonight don't overwhelmingly support one candidate over the other.

In my case that is exactly right. I'm voting for the Democratic nominee - but I called ABC to complain. The icing on the cake? No time limit on the whole flag non-issue, but they get a minute apiece to address gas prices?

It was a travesty. It was a trainwreck. And Gibson and George Steph ought to lose their cushy gigs for that embarrassing display. If they don't pay for that promenade of perfidy, ABC should just close down the news division.

Never even turned it on.

I cant believe that an important issue is a flag lapel pin that was probably made in Hong Kong or China is 'patriotic'

Patriotism is not blindly following some lying ass politician, or backing a government that has lost its bearings.

The United States is a continent floating on a ball of molten material, its the people that make America what it is, and its caring for the people of America that makes one patriotic, and as I recall I was born in America WITHOUT some cheap cheesy flap lapel pin stuck into my chest.

Wow. Iraq not mentioned once? How is that possible that the most important issue facing this country doesn't get a single mention in the comments? Did the issue come up in the debate? Or do flag pins, "bittergate," sniper gate, and so forth, trump reality?

Once again the Democrats have a found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of a possible victory. None of the two front runners is capable of beating McCain's biography, especially after all the baggage that just got loaded on Obama. Hillary of course just for herself, so even if she wins it won't matter anyone to but herself.

as I recall I was born in America WITHOUT some cheap cheesy flap lapel pin stuck into my chest.

Um, Jet... I wouldn't say that too loudly. I hear the Department of Homeland Security is trying to locate folks with your um 'history'.

By the way, I have my flag lapel pin! Looky here! I luv America! Go team go! Bring em on! etc...
(there. that should keep them off my trail for a while)

FWIW I thought Hillary won the debate. She fielded the horrible questions more skillfully - taking bad questions and giving very well rehearsed answers that not only showed her depth of knowledge but also hit all the right buzzwords. It was classic Clintonian - a little something for the wonks, a little something for the bubbas. She also was very good at inserting random pain point messages (identifying topics that everyday people are upset about or hurting over), pinning the blame on Bush and/or implying she would fix the problem if elected.

The worst thing I could say about Hillary's performance was that it sometimes seemed too mechanical (the pauses after every few words was almost like clockwork on some answers) and her intonation suggested a little more irritation than during some of her past debates. Otherwise, she came off more knowledgeable and assertive than Obama.

Obama seemed to fumble the start to many of his answers - more than usual. You could also see his approval rating decrease (I watched a feed that showed an instantaneous reaction of approval/disapproval by undecided voters) when he tried to go into more detail or balance an answer with his own downside/counter-points.

Personally I still prefer Obama's performance because it felt like you were watching someone's thought processes rather than performing an exceptionally polished and memorized answer, but there's no denying his performance was less impressive than Hillary's.

This is part of why Hillary's negative campaigning and lies are so damaging. When she's on her game, she's an exceptionally capable candidate (better than Obama by a bit, better than McCain by a mile). But it's hard to trust someone who has the perfect answer when they've been caught lying so many times. It's hard to warm up to someone who speaks with confidence when they've made so many ugly and untrue comments about an opponent from the same party.

Hillary is about as loyal a Democrat as Joe Liberman and not much more decent or honest than Karl Rove. What a terrible waste of so much talent.

If Obama needs to prove his patriotism, five flag lapel pins should more than do it. Five lapel pins acting with a combined 5X patriotic force will imply the cumulative patriotism of five actual patriots.

But then what do you do, when Hillary sees you wearing five flag lapel pins and is seen everywhere the next day wearing six? I mean the attacks are predictable. "Why does Obama only wear five flag lapel pins, when Hillary wears six? Does Barack Obama hate America?"

When caught in a meaningless patriotism showdown with a maniacal bitch, one has to accept the reality of a perpetual arms race. Obama has to hide extra flag lapel pins up his sleeve. When upstaged by Hillary, he just casually pulls back his cuff and reveals precisely as many additional flag lapel pins as he needs to overcome Hillary's flag lapel pin count and wow the crowd. Then at home he relocates those flag lapel pins to his lapel, and reloads his sleeve with replacement hidden flag lapel pins. You can't let yourself get caught by surprise with too few flag lapel pins!

Obama had better formulate his flag lapel pin policy fast, because the Republicans are going to really hit him on the flag lapel issue hard in the general.

The ultimate election-winning outfit would be a suit of chainmail created out of thousands and thousands of interlocked flag lapel pins. So many flag lapel pins that you can't see the person's face. Every single square inch of skin would be covered by patriotism. How the hell is McCain going to run against that? And that flag lapel pin suit wouldn't even need to have Obama inside in order to beat McCain in an election.

I agree with Donald... wish the candidates could have said that.

That being said, I only saw a portion of the debate (replayed). I didn't get the sense that anyone won. Obama was a bit hesitant, but Clinton didn't hit any home runs either. Both seemed to agree on a lot of stuff, which, actually, they do.

Yeah it would have been great if when asked about the flag pin they walked off the stage, refusing to "debate" such a non issue.

I agree with Donald... wish the candidates could have said that.

That being said, I only saw a portion of the debate (replayed). I didn't get the sense that anyone won. Obama was a bit hesitant, but Clinton didn't hit any home runs either. Both seemed to agree on a lot of stuff, which, actually, they do.

Yeah it would have been great if when asked about the flag pin they walked off the stage, refusing to "debate" such a non issue.

Just once I'd love to hear a candidate say something like "What? Just what the hell does that mean and what difference does it make?"

Goddamn, I miss the Horse.

I didn't watch it - too busy with volunteer activities. Anyway, I am trying very hard to guard against cynicism but between completely unnecessary, internecine warfare and the usual right-wing media attacks, Barack Obama's candidacy seems doomed. How sad that someone with such great potential and vision is being smothered in the cradle.

My one ray of hope is that young people, who are beyond the reach of pollsters with their ubiquitous cell phones, will rise up and give him the nomination and presidency he so richly deserves.

Am I the only one who thinks that it was about time that someone asked Obama some of the questions that we read and hear about all of the time? After all, if he is the nominee, he will get more of the same.

I don't think that he did well under the grilling. That was an incredibly weak performance. He looked tired, but maybe he just isn't used to being asked difficult or uncomfortable questions.

Petey: Don't be a dick.

Hoo boy. I sure picked the right time to check in.

I was watching the Red Sox-Yankees game last night and only switched off to the debate as the despicable Charlie Gibson spewed ARE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS ON THE GROUND at Hillary, thus missing Chien-Ming Wang's 5th inning debacle. I thought Obama answered that one well but obviously missed the lathering he is said to have endured during the first 40 minutes.

As I was dropping off to sleep after the debate Gibson snarked that "The crowd is turning against us!" Or was I dreaming?

Disgusting. And not just the questions for Obama. That Bosnia stuff is so idiotic it hurts. Welcome to the 2000 election, all over again. Why do they do it? Really, why? I just don't get it. Are they just too lazy to come up with real questions? Do they think this is what viewers want to hear? (the steadily declining viewership of network news broadcasts suggests otherwise) Are they just congenital assholes? The behavior of the press corps in election years is utterly mysterious to me. And please don't anyone say that it has always been like this. It has not. It has gotten much, much worse in the past 15 years.

Programming note from ABC "News." Fresh from spending two hours peppering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with inane gotcha questions, George Stephanopolos will spend an hour this Sunday morning lobbing softballs to John McCain.

If St. John falters, Charlie Gibson will spend next week telling us there is nothing to see and we should move along.

In the long ignoble history of consolidated corporate "journalism" there has never been a worse example of inane questioning.

Yes I used the word "inane" twice. That was the word my wife used as she turned the channel. ABC news should hang its collective head in shame.

I can only conclude that Gibson is jealous of all the attention Doug Feith has been getting lately and decided to compete for the title of Stupidest Fucking Guy on the Earth.

I didn't watch it because I regard debates as less useful than paid-political broadcasting. But from what I've read, it was a Clinton/media-led lynching of Obama. You read that Clinton operative Stephanopoulos was coached by Hannity???

I wonder how Clinton and her supporters can imagine that such viciousness, alienating half the Democratic party base, will result in any good. Obama has the nomination at this point unless she can inflict such damage that the superdelegates will override the process. Maybe she just figures that the chance to get the power back is worth the destruction of the Democratic party and the likely election of John McCain. But I regard it as just another example of her poor judgment.

Answer to this is obvious - BOYCOTT DISNEY!!!!!!!

For some reason - the self-proclaimed "liberal" blogosphere will not use their reach to do anything more make money on ads.

Call the New York main number and ask for

212-456-7777

George

Not easy, george, called and was told they don't take calls and that I could leave a comment.

Then I was transferred to a maze of voicemail options, none of which allowed me to leave a comment (and I had to listen to all the disney/abc propaganda too).

CAN ANYONE PROVIDE BETTER CONTACT INFO?

Shouldn't we really be calling DISNEY?

Hemlock for Gadflies: LOL!

kokblok:"Why do [the media] do it? Really, why? I just don't get it.

BagnewsNotes has a droll recap that suggests one answer to your question: This election is brought to us by our corporate sponsors. We think media-sponsored debates are about democracy, of government of, by and for the people, but it is really about selling product.

Stephanopoulus was well trained.

PENNSYLVANIA DEBATE

In the debate last night far too much time was spent attacking Obama on trivial issues such as wearing flag lapel pins, one bitter misstatement, and remote associations. The two moderators and Clinton put him on the defensive for much of the night.

He did OK and Clinton was her usual competent self. About the only news was the conviction of candidates that each would set the strategy and mission for Iraq and not be necessarily bound by opinions of the generals. Also, each conceded that the other was electable in the November election.

Mostly ho-hum. Where are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich when we need them?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Does anyone know what editor is talking about? My um 'history' is fine, I have the greatest patriotic symbol one can get, a birth certificate that has USA on it. Want me to wear that around? Would that make me more patriotic?

Here we have people wearing flag lapel pins that support outsourcing jobs to other countries.

So, editor, look below me.

Socratic Gadfly: Oh, and find a sense of humor while you're at it.

You keep using that word "humor." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hemlock for Gadflies: I can only conclude that Gibson is jealous of all the attention Doug Feith has been getting lately and decided to compete for the title of Stupidest Fucking Guy on the Earth.

Now there's a Gadfly(ies) with talent.

I think we're missing the point here. The mainstream media is what it is: a national disgrace that would be funny if it weren't so sad. I know it, you know it, and every candidate for office should know it. The real disgrace, though, is that election cycle after election cycle, Democrats have no strategy for exploiting the media's foibles for their own benefit. Republicans have this figured out. They know the media are lazy: so they develop talking points of their own, spoon feed them to friendly reporters, producers and editors, and repeat them relentlessly until they take on legitimacy. They know the media are cowards: so they bluster, insult, and threaten access to overcome any temporary embarrassments. They know the media are addicted to "scoops" and gotcha moments, so they gin up "scandals" out of nothing and perpetuate them until mainstream media has to cover it because "everybody's talking." They know the media is full of prima donnas, so they stroke their egos. They know the media compete against one another, so they present a united front that moves as one entity to favor some outlets and ignore others. They know reality shows them in a poor light, so they create their own frames for discussion and adhere to them like barnacles, no matter how absurd those frames might be. When are the Democrats going to come into an election prepared to deal effectively with the media? Apparently, never. It's so much more fun to complain about the media than to learn how to use it to their own advantage.

Right on, Jersey.

Honestly folks, let's get a grip. BO just got a taste of the inane gotcha-bullshit that HRC's been up against all along, and now people like Olbenmann are suddenly getting the vapors.

Let's relax. The media are whores. We do not have independent press in this country.

BO better get used to this and use it as batting practice because it's only going to get worse in the general.

I thought he did OK, not great, but to be expected given how much bait has been around lately with Wright and Clinggate and so on. HRC was her usual hard working self.

Blaming the media is a huge copout.

Blame Hillary and the democrats who support her.

No matter how much we howl, media will never be wholly supportive of the Democrats, as the disparity between the financial status of the those who the Democrats represent and the TV journalists like Gibson will always be very huge.

The trick is to have leaders who are cognizant of this and are willing to and actually push back against these millionnaires' shenanigans.

Good-night, panel, and no thank you for your questions.
I also agree with Donald. Halfway through the first hour of "let's see how you react to this particular right-wing-noise-machine talking point" (mostly but not entirely directed at BObama), I was ranting to my wife that the candidates should just tell the moderators that they refuse to answer non-issue questions. It would have been nice even if just Obama was blunt about the nature of the questions - his oblique criticisms of the questions were just not adequate.

Once they got to the issue questions, it was a pretty even debate. The major difference was Obama reiterating his promise of a complete withdrawal from Iraq with no permanent bases, and his statements that the CiC makes the decisions about the mission, and does not delegate the definition of the mission to the military.

"Blame Hillary and the democrats who support her."

Oh, please. Grow up.

Another quote from McArdle:

(quote)
My discussion of failure in the context of the Iraq discussion is part of my broader beliefs about innovation. I saw a great speech a little while back by the guy who's in charge of designing new products at Palm. He talked about an excercise that he does with various groups, where he gives them pieces of spaghetti and some tape and tells them to build the tallest structure they can.

Engineers do all right; MBAs do the worst, because they waste time arguing about who will be in charge. But the best performing group? Kindergarteners. Little kids don't try to design a structure. They just keep trying things, and stick with anything that works. Their structures certainly didn't look as elegant as the neat frames designed by the engineers. But they did the job, which is to be as tall as possible.

To succeed quickly, he said, what you want to do is fail. A lot. Failing eliminates wrong answers faster than any possible analysis. I was reminded of the famous Thomas Edison quote: asked how it felt to have failed to invent an electric lightbulb, Edison said "I haven't failed! I've discovered 10,000 filaments that don't work."

(end quote)

Yes, I agree, what you want is a bunch of kindergartners running foreign policy. They will make unbelievable mistakes that adults know wouldn't work, and they don't even know enough about the subject to even ask intelligent question or understand reasoned objections. And they aren't appalled by mistakes, death of thoudands and thousands of people, displacement of millions, burning trillions of dollars in resultless effort. What is all of that in the search a a tower of spaghetti and tape. Heck, they have the proper response to failuire of , "So?".

Bush says, "I haven't failed, making democracy is hard work!"

Spaghetti and tape, indeed.

F***ING IDOTS!!! Liars, war criminals, thieves, murderers, despoilers of the constitution, wasters of trillions of dollars, and...kindergartners.

Any bureau chief who assigns George Stephanopolus (a former Clinton staffer) to moderate a Clinton/Obama Debate, should be immediately fired and shoved out the door without an opportunity to collect his or her belongings.

That was not a Debate. It was an organized attack. It was unfair, biased and embarrassing. If ever a formal complaint needed to be lodged against a news agency...THIS IS IT.

ABC should issue a formal apology to the American people and suspend both moderaters for 2 weeks without pay.

I thought Obama was a heckuva lot more real than Hillary, who was quite happy to keep the wingnuttery line of questioning afloat, to her detriment. He did OK in the face of it. Gibson and Georgie S., pitiful and awful in that first half hour.

OK so Obama got hammered a bit. This is old news to HRC supporters. BO supporters need to get used to it and quit trying to get the refs fired. The refs aren't going anywhere.

Shoe, meet other foot.
That's all that happened.

Lets all wear the same flag lapel pin that Bush and Cheney wear, since that is now what constitutes true-blue patriotism.

Who then in America would be in Iraq fighting if we all had the same level of commitment to our country as those flag-pin-wearing two?

No one, that's who.

The debate was the most fair and balanced debate of the entire campaign season.

The only "train wreck" was Obama and his striking inability to perform on a level playing field.

And that ain't Clinton's or ABC's fault. Is it?

The debate was the most fair and balanced debate of the entire campaign season.

The only "train wreck" was Obama and his striking inability to perform on a level playing field.

And that ain't Clinton's or ABC's fault. Is it?

I thought the same thing Kevin, why watch when I know the outcome but curiosity got the better of me so I persevered.
I'm glad I did. Considering the tag teaming against Obama and his cool demeanor under that assault showed me has the temperament a good leader should have.
The past has shown us that both McCain and Hillary under this kind of scrutiny have exhibited instances of lashing out with anger.
All in all Obama did a remarkable job.
Had it been me I'd of likely punched both moderators in the puss.

Well let's face it the playing field is tilted heavily towards McCain. The more BO looks like his opponent, the more this will happen.

Again, BO supporters, get used to it and hope your guy doesn't climb in a tank or wind-surf in flowered boxers, because that's where this is heading now that the press is smelling blood.

"Time to start praying REAL hard for the future of our country."

The time you are referring to started in January 2001. It is time to continue praying real hard for the future of this country, because the effects of Bush won't disappear right away, and there is a chance that our nation might elect McBush.

"Oh, please. Grow up."

It's one thing if you supported Clinton through most of this campaign, when she had a chance to win and sometimes cared about issues. It's another thing to keep supporting her after she conceded the Potomac and Wisconsin Primaries and focused on events that are extremely trivial. This campaign ended over a month ago--there is nothing left but the shouting.

She has the right to keep campaigning, but she is wrong to keep campaigning unless she has something to say.

Very well framed Jersey Tomato. I can only add that the some of the media really are active participants in this GOP methodology. This makes replicating GOP methods to have the same effectiveness more difficult (some even argue to not go there for this reason).

Dan Balz in his front page washpost column says:

Sen. Barack Obama repeatedly found himself on the defensive here Wednesday night as he sought to bat away criticism of his remarks about small-town values, questions about his patriotism and the incendiary sermons of his former pastor in a potentially pivotal debate six days before Pennsylvania's presidential primary.
In their first head-to-head encounter in nearly two months, Obama (Ill.) and his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), sparred over gaffes, missteps and past statements that could leave them vulnerable in the general election against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee.
But it was Obama, now his party's front-runner, who was pressed most persistently by moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News to answer questions that have dominated the Democratic race in the weeks since the last major contests, held March 4 in Texas and Ohio.
The encounter, particularly in the early stages, seemed more like a grilling of Obama on a Sunday-morning talk show than a debate between the two candidates. Obama fielded most of the questions calmly, although at times he appeared to choose his words with extreme care as he faced perhaps the toughest series of questions he has encountered since taking the lead in delegates in the nomination battle.
Balz noted that "The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action."

In the washpost style section,Tom Shales correctly pans it as a Repub hit job.

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.

It sucks when the Style section gets it right and the Front page has the fluff.

reino HRC has had plenty to say here in PA, of substance. It's my sense listening to her plans that she caes a good deal about the issues. Maybe he does too, but it's hard to get past some of his recent comments. In any case the substance is largely missing from his plans.

Point is, the outrage we're seeing here over his treatment was conspicuously absent when HRC was the target of the same specious bullshit. But specious bullshit is what it's about this time of year and if he can't play that game he's done.

And oh, yeah, the WaPo. Didn't they used to have an editorial dept once upon a time?

Gibson and Stephanopoulos are examples of what happens when shame is no longer a potent motivator of public behavior. In "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", Senator Paine is finally so humiliated by his mendacity that he pulls out a gun to shoot himself. Shame once meant something. Even if only in fiction. Gibson and Stephanopoulos aren't the only shame-free splatheels in public life, but they'll do until my spittoon comes back from the cleaners.

"reino HRC has had plenty to say here in PA, of substance."

Sarah

"In most of Pennsylvania's markets, the only TV ad Hillary is running right now is a negative one -- the spot hitting Obama over his "small town" comments, a political ad buyer who tracks buys in Pennsylvania tells me.

The buyer says that as of this morning, that ad -- and no positive spots -- are running in the Pittsburgh, Erie, Johnstown/Altoona, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton markets."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hillary_tv_ad_campaign_is_100.php

Jeff you're right, but the point is, as above, the media are whores and don't have any shame.

The playing field is tilted sharply against whoever is McCain's opponent. BO has handed the media some gaffes lately. He has to show he can recover because it's only going to get worse.

[Deleted. Further references to lynching will get your IP banned.]

One is that she has more experience than Obama. A second is that she has been uniquely and viciously maltreated by the media over the years, "Clinton rules."

Lies that you, of course, can debunk?

Number one, she's older. She has "more experience" because she was a public figure in the 1970s, long before Obama was a public figure of any kind. Number two, you cannot claim that Clinton hasn't been mistreated by the media when commenting on a thread about a debate which quite clearly shows "the media" mistreated both candidates to such a degree that it is highly unlikely that Gibson and Stephanopolous will ever escape serious scrutiny if they ever dip a toe in that water again. There are, at last count, well over a hundred books in print from major publishers that specifically attack every facet of Clinton's public life. There are, in virtually every archive of every newspaper in this country, tens of thousands of articles which repeat, ad infinitum, lies about the Clintons that have been debunked over and over again. The stack of hate is pretty doggone high, and if you can't see that, your blinders are doing a pretty good job.

Really, hate much? All one has to do is wave a Hillary doll near you and the foam appears and your fangs shoot out.

reino, LOL....anybody that thinks that ad is negative ain't seen nothing yet that the GOP will throw.

PR - thanks! The voice of sanity.

Honestly I am afraid neither of them is electable at this point, unless McCain somehow implodes.

So here's hoping.

I'm a PA resident and I didn't watch it, because I figured it would be the travesty it apparently turned out to be (rational expectations). I can't bear to watch any of these fools on the TV, anyway. But I did look at some of the stories and photos -- when did Stephanopoulos turn into Tony Danza?

Supposedly the audience jeered Gibson nd Steffie at the end of the debate. Is there any truth to this? Or just wishful thinking?

Clinton is leading the lynching of Obama...

I really wish people would think before they say stuff like this. Really.

the media are whores

Not so. Actual whores work for their money.

From the comment-free Megan McArdle thread:

"One of the most inexplicable tropes of the liberal blogosphere is its howling disdain for Megan. ... She writes a perfectly sane, opinionated, moderately libertarian, occasionally obsessive, sometimes provocative blog."

You forgot "frequently stupid" and "always self-satisfied".

Wow, PTate. Lynching? That's a bit over the top even for such a rabid Clinton-hater as you!

You know, this whole Megan McArdle thing is pretty ridiculous.

Is she as bad as Malkin? No, of course not. Go spend some time with some real hate merchants and then get back to me about how supposedly bad McArdle is.

End of story.

….people like Olbenmann are suddenly getting the vapors….Sarah at 9:21 AM

….his cool demeanor under that assault showed me has the temperament a good leader should have…..Bitter and pissed at 10:38 AM

….she is wrong to keep campaigning unless she has something to say. reino at 10:41 AM

….To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama…..steve at 10:43 AM

…. it's okay that Clinton is leading the lynching of Obama because it is just how she has been treated…. PTate in MN at 10:59 AM

We're these candidates "home-schooled?"

Every elementary student today has learned the correct way to answer these stupid pissing contests. Obama needs to say "yeah, well I patriotism infinity." "I believe in the flag infinity." "I disavow infinity."

Since the American people are ignorant of the orders of infinity this little gambit ends the argument right there.

Do you believe in the flag? I believe in the flag infinity.

Do you believe if free speech? I believe in free speech infinity.

Do you think flag defacers should be punished? Yes infinity.

Do you think flag defacing is free speech? Yes infinity.

But aren't you contradicting yourself? No infinity.

I watched the debate last night. While JMHO, I think Obama showed that he's going to have some problems if he meets the republican threshing machine.

I am really enjoying this morning however. There is a wonderful circus going on - all the Obama fans doing acrobatics over how horribly their messiah was treated and blaming Clinton and the media. Folks at the orange satan have their panties so twisted that they have wedgies.

I'm so enjoying this morning, in fact, that I think I'll go and get Thersites his beer right now!

Thanks, Weenie, but I got to stay sober today. Big effing deadline. You guys are going to have to whack each other over the head without my help.

I am bemused by this whole hyperventilating display. I saw this lunacy coming, but I'm bemused anyway. Especially at the thought of a rabid partisan like PTATE twisting herself into a writhing mass...a very tastefully appointed writing mass, but a writing mass just the same.

Both Democratic candidates accept the media's use of conservative platitudes because they think this might make them attractive to a mass audience. Democrats are condescending to voters when they do this and it opens them up to criticism of hypocrisy by their opponents and distresses their supporters. If a progressive/liberal platform is going to be successful, the candidates must forcefully defend it rather than trying to soften its meaning by condescending to coporate media hacks. The people of PA may be bitter, but they know when candidates pander, and that will hurt Democrats much worse than being forthright.

Sorry that you are distressed this morning Brojo.

but they know when candidates pander, and that will hurt Democrats much worse than being forthright.

You may be right, but riddle me this: why doesn't Republican pandering hurt?

You may be right, but riddle me this: why doesn't Republican pandering hurt?

Because this is no country for progressive men. Or women.

McArdle is obviously better than Malkin. That's the source of the frustration. Nobody expects anything better from Malkin. McArdle gives everyone reason to expect better, then repeatedly and perversely crushes those expectations.

McArdle is an intelligent person who repeatedly makes a conscious decision to say dumb things. Unlike Malkin, she's not motivated by ideology. She does seem to be motivated by ignorance, the desire to appear contrarian, and an undying high school crush on Ayn Rand.

Not one Obama partisan sympathized. Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

If by this you mean not one Obama partisan sympathized on this blog, then you might be correct. But if you are making some kind of blanket statement, please give it a rest.

Can’t ya’ll understand that there are non-rabid supporters, of both candidates? More and more I see people getting lumped into the “bot� category. I voted for Obama in the primary, and he remains my choice. But I am not an Obama-bot. I don’t believe that he:

1) is the second coming
2) can part the red sea
3) once elected, will bring the world to some happy la la land where all is just bob bitchin.

Things are so fucked up right now, I don’t have a lot of confidence that either one of them can make substantial enough changes for the better.

Yes, I voted for Obama, and I still support him, but I don’t hate Clinton. Is there some self help group I should join? Go ahead and support and defend your candidates people, but don’t lump everyone on “the other side� into the rabid “bot� “ista� camps. It’s pretty tiring, and frankly, rather silly.

And as for Clinton and any mistreatment she has received, I do sympathize. I sympathize when candidates are routinely subjected to the bullshit that passes for journalism in this country. But I also understand that the game is on, the “liberal� media is going to try to elect McLame, and that they are going to vapidly move forward with their circuitous blather.

Buckle up.

*

McArdle's dumb starry-eyed remarks on some BS from some designer at Palm:

"To succeed quickly, he said, what you want to do is fail. A lot. Failing eliminates wrong answers faster than any possible analysis. I was reminded of the famous Thomas Edison quote: asked how it felt to have failed to invent an electric lightbulb, Edison said "I haven't failed! I've discovered 10,000 filaments that don't work.""

He's half right. But in real world engineering, engineers do BOTH analysis and testing. Building and testing is expensive in the real world -- really expensive! -- unlike the kindergarten world of spaghetti and tape, unlike the inspiring world of motivational speeches. Analysis quickly and cheaply eliminates a hell of a lot of cases that aren't worth testing.

Analysis can't do everything, but it can do a lot. You balance analysis with building and testing. With analysis, you're making use of all your previous experience and the previous experience of the smart people who went before you, instead of taking a blind shot in the dark.

Nikola Tesla, who worked for Thomas Edison early in his career, knew physics inside and out. Tesla said that if Edison had bothered to learn any physics, he could have easily eliminated over 90 percent of the experiments he wasted his time on.

Here you go, mhr - have an "*" on me...

The voters in PA and elsewhere know the naval nihilist was pandering with his gas tax holiday proposal. They also know he is being forcefully forthright when he threatens to nuke Iran and keep troops in Iraq for another hundred years.

Distressed?

On the bus this AM I was speaking to an older woman I have become friendly with and made the mistake of saying drugs should be legalized to combat the 'meth epidemic,' which my friend agrees with. Another passenger took offense and confronted me at the stop we share. She wanted to know where I worked. She said she worked in the state's Human Rights Office. It is distressing when human rights workers become KGB agents.

Supposedly the audience jeered Gibson nd Steffie at the end of the debate. Is there any truth to this? Or just wishful thinking?

It's true. See for yourself.

Funny how the audience that was actually there was pissed off at how un-substantive the "debate" was, but all anyone here in the comments cares about is if "their" candidate "won."

Nobody won the debate. Both candidates kept their heads above the sea of crap thrown at them, and that was about it. When the economy is collapsing, suicide bombers are killing people in Iraq, and the only thing the media can think to ask about is fucking lapel pins, we are far, far worse off than anyone here seems to realize.

You are right Mnemosyne. Nobody won that pile of dung debate.

My thoughts:
The reason Obama supporters are so pissed is that Clinton STILL has no chance of winning and the GOP talking points way she is formulating her attacks on Obama is creating a tag team effect that was dramatically magnified under the tidal wave of "gotcha" substanceless questions we saw last night.

[In truth Clinton looked best in the few policy substance discussions rather than in "out behind the barn in Scranton" "Farrakan" discussions. I'll bet she loses a couple of percentage points in PA over this latest partnership with McCain. This whole culture-war strategy has been a failure for her and distracted from her strengths.)

What is the point of discussing right wing attacks on Clinton at this point? She can't win and discussing them is basically irrelevant. It is crazy to pin rightwing misogyny on Obama. And it is a shame that many of her supporters are doing that instead of attacking the real culprits, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton and the rest of the 51% boys, the architects of her disaster of a campaign.

Where was all this umbrage and outrage about media bias before last night and today, Obamabots, -droids, and -trons? This was all really cool, as long as it happened to Hillary and benefited your candidate, wasn't it?

"Welcome to the jungle.
We take it day by day.
If you want it, you're gonna bleed,
But it's the price you pay."
-- Guns N'Roses

Pale Rider,

Here you go, mhr - have an "*" on me...

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said "I regret I have only one * for my country?"

Man I am just having so much fun reading all the blogs today. The outrage is stupendous. Oh such irony.

Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said "I regret I have only one * for my country?"

I think it was the Big Dog. I believe he grew to understand that one can sometimes be more than enough, though.

easy by west by god virginia: "I thought Obama was a heckuva lot more real ..."

Yep. You got that right.

Last night, we saw the real Obama, and it sure wasn't pretty. For the first time this campaign, he faced real and sustained media pressure, and he proceeded to fold up neatly like a lawn chair. And today, he (and an awful lot of his supporters as well, for that matter!) compounds that dismal performance by whining about what happened. Talk about your fucking weak sisters ...

The Blonde Leading the Blind:

Try to understand this. Many of us simply do not care about Hillary Clinton as a candidate anymore. She mathematically cannot win the nomination. She will not be the Democratic candidate for president. How unfairly she was or wasn't treated as a candidate is now a question for history (and the press/GOP acceptance of undisguised misogyny has been monstrous). The relevant question for the present is whether she goes down as a self-centered spoiler willing to have her own party lose rather than have an individual who defeated her have continued success.

The debate was a travesty because is did almost nothing to flesh out substantive differences between two Democratic candidates or increase viewers' understanding of variation in Democratic policies.

What the debate did do was continue shallow "gotcha" assaults against one candidate who will be the Democratic candidate for president in November. Furthmore, since she has no chance of being the nominee, to the extent Hillary participated in those shallow assaults, non-delusional Democrats recognize that as actively working for McCain.

Talk about your fucking weak sisters

You always had a way with sexist language, Donald.

Eyes wide open:

McCain has never face a media assault like that and he never will even as the losing presidential candidate.

I'd like to see it, but all the media in McCain's entourage are terrified of the guy. He goes ballistic at the slightest pressure.

mirror,

I'll state (again) that I have no favorite, I will completely support whoever is the democratic candidate for President next fall.

With that out of the way - and please correct me if I am wrong, isn't it true that while Clinton cannot mathematically win the nomination neither can Obama? I thought it took something like 75% of the delegates to win and currently the number is 60/40 or something like that.

Or do I have my numbers mixed up.

"Where was all this umbrage and outrage about media bias before last night and today, Obamabots, -droids, and -trons? This was all really cool, as long as it happened to Hillary and benefited your candidate, wasn't it?"

Where on earth have you been? Have you really not paid attention to the furor raised after several earlier debates? Or the furor raised about issues like Clinton's cleavage or "cackle"? And this was from such places as DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo.com, and all those other supposed bastions of misogynistic Hillary-Haters.

Sheesh...

PaulB: Where on earth have you been?

Dramatically announcing that he will NEVER, EVER, post at this BULLSHIT BLOG AGAIN, and he might just QUIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF HAWAII, TOO, and don't cry for him, Political Animal, because it's TOO LATE NOW AND HE HOPES WE'RE ALL SORRY! SOB!

Except here he is again, posting as Blonde Eyes Wide Open Donald of Overwrought Hawaiian Umbrage and who knows what else.

Pathetic.

There was a debate last night?

Seriously, until the Media changes, I'm going dark - I have no use for the Media these days.

Tripp, you can't ask mirror rational questions. He has too many brain cells to see the light. You just have to push him around a little, because he doesn't have a hair on his ass. Whiney little peckerwood...

Pale Rider: Kevin "don't be a dick" Drum doesn't link to Malkin, so we don't kick his ass over it.

He does link to McArdle (and defend Amy Sullivan when he could just pass the buck to Glastris) so, we deservedly kick him in the pants over it.

Give me a signed promise by Kevin that he will either stop being a squish (or a Kaus-like contrarian, as a poster over at Roger Ailes put it), and I'll stop kicking his ass.

Bonds: No, the Slickster said, "I regret that I have but one clenis to give my country."

Give me a signed promise by Kevin that he will either stop being a squish (or a Kaus-like contrarian, as a poster over at Roger Ailes put it), and I'll stop kicking his ass.

But you've never kicked his ass. You're at best a gnat with delusions of gadfly grandeur. You're the only person who finds you bold and incisive.

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

The www.washingtonmonthly.com is good resource, good job, admin. see this [url=http://reminderroeb.150m.com/how_to_replace_thermocouple_on_state_brand_water_heater.html] how to replace thermocouple on state brand water heater [/url]