Debating the debate: How bad was it?

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopalous did a good job.
The Obama pastor is anti-white, the William Ayers story was festering in many accounts and the Tony Rezko trial is live in the media.
If Charles and George had not of asked B Hussein Obama about his strange friends they wouldn't have done their jobs and the media could have criticised them for this.
Now Obama is a big kid a wild eyed whiner and complainer used to getting his way as a law instructor.
But guess what Obama can't nor should he control the media.
His wife says she wasn't proud of America until Barack was campaigning and Obama waxes on about hope and change, hope and change. For 15 months this candidate was not vetted by the media he literally talked about nothing daily its time the driveby media holds him accountable.
Frankly his Ayers-Dohrn connection, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright it just goes on and on and includes Nadhmi Auchi cited for fraud in France. These are strangest bedfellows a candidate for President has ever had.
It was a good debate and people are talking Obama doesn't like it tough! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

The debate was a sham and an insult to America.

Americans deserved better than two ABC hosts playing political games.

The purpose of these debates is for Americans to decide where candidates stand on the issues.

Sadly......for ABC it is probably 'Mission Accomplished' ...to smear and slime Obama.

I quit watching ABC last year because of their false documentary about 911 and Bill Clinton.

I can see it was a good decision....too bad they can't see they not only lost the debate they also lost any credibility.

Calling what happened Wednesday a "debate" is asinine.

Stephanopoulos and Gibson ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Their punishment?

They should have to watch their own performance every day until the swearing in of President Obama.

They did a great job. Obama might as well get used to some personal , hard questions and thicken up and quit whining.......This is the real world..The public has a right to want answers on these touchy subjects..Wright,Rezco etc. Seems Obama's name came up again this week in Rezko's trial..How much involvement was there?.Look at You Tube. There are also some links to sex acts and dope..He could also have been asked this and will be I feel sure if he gets the Democratic nomination..Better to find out now than later..GOOD JOB GEORGE...Keep the questions coming........

VOTERS DEMAND Obama tell about his relationship with Ayers/Iraqi crook Nadhmi Auchi/Hamas TERRORIST MOUSA ABU MARZOOK and TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER AIL BAGHDADI who write articles for Obamas church. It’s important because voters are realizing those relationships, coupled with Obama’s longtime relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a pattern which Obama seems quite comfortable with people who really, really, really don’t like the United States of America or white people! NOT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL!
Obama shows he is not ready to lead out country!
Quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama's shortcomings. Instead, blame is Obamas for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility hurting the very people he thinks he's going to help
Did someone say inexperience?

During the debate, Obama bungled on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To liberals in the media, Get over it. Obama proved he has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.
Another blunder Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners, eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations. Fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's cap-gains tax increase.
This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It's another cultural misstep by Obama. I can't help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.
Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in the general election.
Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message. And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. As Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it -- after tax -- to invest in those new businesses and new jobs. That's exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing.
This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn't read much history either. Did someone say inexperience?

Meanwhile, the media never reports on the right-wing blogosphere's complaints that longtime Democratic Party staffers turned "journalists" such as Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert and Chris Mathews, are chosen to "moderate" Republican party debates.

Stop calling these JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITIES "debates." As long as the MSM sponsors and runs the JPA's, we will focus on gotcha and horse race issues that sell dead-tree media and hype TV ratings. Time to return to League of Women Voters moderation or, better yet, let the candidates ask each other questions with time-keepers but no news-seeking MSM "moderators" who want to steal the limelight...that would lead to true debating.

This debate probably is good for Obama because it may show that people do want him as President and since they did not show any issues for the first 45 minutes, it shows that people already know Obama can do the job. The purpose of this debate was probably to build trust in Obama that some people lack due to certain associations.

How bad was it?

It was revolting and an insult to the intelligence of not only the debators but everyone watching.

The Hussein Obama idiots never compaint about the previous debates when Hillary Clinton was slammed and the debate carried in a biased way. Now that finally two great anchors ask the true real questions, they are slammed and told of a bad debate. The truth is the way debates should be ran, any other approach could be considered a comercial.

I think it's high time that we start to take the moderators out of the limelight during "debates". Let the candidates ask each other questions, so you can see the fireworks that news executives hold so dear, while it can actually be about things that matter to some of us.

This debate was a disgrace, and that's coming from someone who doesn't intend to vote for Obama. ABC has been touting its ratings for the debate, but at what cost did they earn that viewership? If ABC news wants to be Entertainment Tonight, then I ask that they go all the way and just leave those that will actually affect us to the legitimate information sources.

We should comment Charles Gibson and George Stephanopalous for doing Americans and Democrats a favor by open the hellgate earlier than November. If McCain or the GOP Press will to do it then, I believe most Dems would be migrating to Canada... seen I mentioned GOP Press, most of them would or already actively pushing Obama to win the nomination. Dem should be blind for not knowing that.

For Obama's supporters, be thankful and now the time to win back all the Clinton's supporters including me if you don't want another 8 years of GOP rules.

lets get this straight. the Obama Pastor is not anti-white. Ayers has nothing to do with Obama. I am sick of racists like the poster below. People like "Jerry White" are running a campaign for Clinton even though they are likely fascists who wont even vote for McCain because he is too left for them. These fascists postings are all over the place. Graduate high school and get a real education and stop thinking mein kamf has any validity except in the dreams of scared white boys from rural towns who have nothing better to do than create a "tough" identity for themselves. People who talk about "Hussein Obama" need to get a better hobby. Stop smoking meth with your grandma and read real books.

We should comment Charles Gibson and George Stephanopalous for doing Americans and Democrats a favor by open the hellgate earlier than November. If McCain or the GOP Press will to do it then, I believe most Dems would be migrating to Canada... seen I mentioned GOP Press, most of them would or already actively pushing Obama to win the nomination. Dem should be blind for not knowing that.

For Obama's supporters, be thankful and now the time to win back all the Clinton's supporters including me if you don't want another 8 years of GOP rules.

For Change Vote Obama!

John Mellencamp Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8

Bruce Springsteen Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q

Obama 08!

That was no debate that was an ambush! It did prove one candidate actually did have to duck sniper fire. That was Obama on stage not HITLERRY in Bosnia!

GO OBAMA 08!

It's not about Obama "whining" or "not being able to take it" - the whole thing was dirt off his shoulders.

What's sad is that this nonsense is what passes for political "debate" - who knows whom and who loves their country more. Give me a break.

The problem was not that it was such a bash-fest on Obama; it's that there was no real dialogue about the issues that matter.

And for the people who think this level of "debate" is appropriate, I can't wait to watch the "debates" with McCain being asked about his temper, sexual escapades, and lobbyist ties.

The real but hidden story is not the debate or the questions but the way in which so many media people whined about the questions asked Obama. Any pretext by these newspaper and television so-called journalists that they are approaching their profession fairly and objectively is so laughable it's ludicrous. If Obama can't have a backbone of his own, he doesn't deserve to be a candidate and he doesn't need a biased press cheering section.

Oh boy, you call this a news story? It is new organizations such as yourself that feed the fear driven politics of the past.

Clinton pardoned two of the weathermen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm

Wake up America, this is simply mud being slung, mud that has no substance what so ever. It is a shame that some "news" organizations would even repeat it.

How about the Wright "controversy"? Well lets check some facts shall we. Who did Clinton call to the white house for spiritual advice in the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/jeremiah-wright-was-bill-and-hillary-clinton-white-house-guest/

The wording of Mr. Clinton’s thank-you note to Mr. Wright, dated Oct. 28, 1998:
Dear Pastor Wright:
Thank you so much for your kind message.
I am touched by your prayers and by the many expressions of encouragement and support I have received from friends across our country.
You have my best wishes.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton

Hey how about McCain? Lets take a look at him shall we?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing"

Hagee said this above. Guess who is defending this ludicrous comment among others this lunatic has spewed? Who else? John McCain.

Why don't you run a story on what Americans are concerned about? Like the difference in their economic plans, health care plans, war plans or foreign policy plans?

For example McCain says he wants interest rates brought to 0, this he says will curb inflation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaR1CnfyrEo

Of course anyone who knows anything knows this will cause an economic collapse of epic proportions.

But to write a real story with substance you actually have to do some research right? Too hard to do that right? No Americans will listen because they would rather listen to a 20 second endless sound bite loops right?

How about taking a peek at who is actually behind these candidates?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Shame on you. Senator Obama has my vote.

What debate? Two politicians with softball answers; our eyes glaze over as we listen. When is the real debate coming? Obama promises wonderful changes when he becomes Mr. Biggy. Do we really believe this boring stuff?

Good thing for Obama, he isn't Catholic! He might have had a pastor involved in a pedophile complaint. Then he'd have to explain all the times he talked to the priest, trusted him and listened to his sermons.

The best recount of the debate is here http://thembonez.blogspot.com/2008/04/wrap-up-of-democratic-debates.html
not only does it show just how horrid the debates are, it proves once more that these individuals show complete lack of patriotic love for our country. I am not a Bush fan, but at least he loves this country in some sick twisted way

Frankly, Stephanopolis has always been a Clintonite. HE WAS THEIR PRESS SECRETARY in the white house! That conflict of interest should have had him removed from the get-go. No matter what you think about Barack Obama (and the person above who only used his middle name is a bigot), or Hillary, this is a conflict of interest. Period.

For the first 50 minutes of the "debate" to focus on tabloid journalism instead of issues that matter to Americans tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ABC: create controversy and jack up ratings for the network. The moderators were too cowardly to ask the most outrageous questions and brought on "citizens" to ask those questions instead. Of all the citizens of PA who might be concerned about lapel pins, why could they only find the one (Nash McCabe) who had already been interviewed on this topic by the NYTimes? Is there only one voter in PA who cares about lapel pins? Actually, the answer to that may be "yes".

Almost nothing posted before this post is relevant.Nobody can remember simple facts anymore. George Stephanopolous is no journalist. He was Bill CLINTON's chief advisor for many years and one of the Clinton's closest and most loyal friends. This is not politics or journalism. It's corruption at its most disgusting on their parts, and complete and pathetic stupidity on the part of the American public.

For the first 50 minutes of the "debate" to focus on tabloid journalism instead of issues that matter to Americans tells you all you need to know about the priorities of ABC: create controversy and jack up ratings for the network. The moderators were too cowardly to ask the most outrageous questions and brought on "citizens" to ask those questions instead. Of all the citizens of PA who might be concerned about lapel pins, why could they only find the one (Nash McCabe) who had already been interviewed on this topic by the NYTimes? Is there only one voter in PA who cares about lapel pins? Actually, the answer to that may be "yes".

I fail to understand why media is so much obsessed with the course of the debate. If the bloggers and media personnel are so much worried about the focus on personal issues, and worried about national issues that have not come up why should they waste their time further in discussing the virtues of the debate. After all it is projected by most of the people that the two candidates policies on many issues do not differ much. Then what to debate? Character of any individual is as much important in the elections as that becomes the prime force in making decisions in a public office. There is nothing wrong if the moderators tried to bring out personnel traits of the candidates so that general public understands what type of person they are going to support.

Looks to me like MSNBC edited the ORDER Of the video---he did not do the knife gesture first --he did the flip off gesture first (or maybe he reversed order later in the day--as he did do it twice).
Remember why MSNBC would be in the bag for Mr. Dick Cheney's cousin? Obama voted for the 2005 'energy' bill---and GE doesn't bring good things to light, folks.
He flipped her off. Find both videos, swamp, and repost them here.
What a great story if MSNBC edited the order to present Obama 's nasty dig.
He mentioned her name, flipped her off, then went on to explain the 'knife' move (only I think he is gesturing for the intercourse meaning, not the knife move as his audio states.)
Not statesmanlike.
Remember what GE/MSNBC/NBC will get from his cousin Dick Cheney's energy bill--Obama signed the thing in 2005--29 new nukes will be built.
When and IF Obama is the otp of the ticket (he might get the super delegates--or Hillary might) expect the flip off speech to be played in it's full 40 seconds or so.
The context is undeniable. He was saying f to HIlary, just as his cousin Dick told Congress to go f itself.
Jon Stewart has inserted himself into this by allowing obama on his show tomorrow. Will be interesting to see if this media critic whom i normally have great respect for talks about--and forces Obama to acknowledge--what he did.
I"m all ears.

This debate was rediculous, has anyone taken the time to check in on McCain's "spiritual leader?" Didn't think so. The man thinks that the US exists solely for the destruction of islam..such cultural sensitivity. Rev. Wright and Barack Obama are two different people. You have to take the time and ask yourself, how many "reverends" have you met who weren't crazy? Wright is no different, he's just a typical insensitive protestant preacher that anyone with half a mind would ignore, until someone in the media discovers that some high profile figure such as Mr. Obama had been in the same room with him before. The most humorout thing about this, the Neocons want us to believes the Obama is some sort of islamic terrorist in disguise. They discover that he acutally identifies himself as a protestant christian, and yet they still attack him because his protestant preacher is insane (along with every other protestent clearic I've ever met). God Bless America.

The entire coverage of this election by the MSM special interest groups has been a joke. Responsible journalism no longer exists and the major network news channels no longer serve a useful purpose. What you get are twisted views by semi-literate proponents of issues that they themselves create and misuse of their national spotlight in order to marginalize issues and people in support of their corporate and bank ownership.

They have the nerve to claim freedom of the press when they have long forgot the purpose of the right that was bestowed upon them. There is no redeeming value in what they do. What they have created is a new medium of PG rated tabloid porn that should be banned from public consciousness.

The very idea that the incompetent handling of this debate is a story or issue of any importance that needs to be discussed is representative of MSM special interest group self importance and arrogance.

I can not believe people are actually defending ABC. This was supposed to be a political debate about issues important to the US. Not weak relationships, lapel pins, and pastors. I want to know what the candidates will do in office, not which breakfast cereal they will eat when they get there. This is our country not a soap opera or CSI.

Obama's refusal to debate or answer direct questions about his behavior highlights his arrogance. He doesn't think he has to. All he has to do, in his mind, is start talking about "change and new politics and being positive" and most people forget the original question. How this is different or "Change" for the old politics "Dazzel them with BS" I can't understand. Can you?

It amazes me how lightly the republican facists like "jerry white supremist" take on important debates like the one ABC pretended to do. There are more important issues facing our country. For one I am worried about what Dwight D. Eisenhower the last great republican president foretold about war profiteering and how it will lead to endless wars. McCain's own words "Sorry to tell you but there will be other wars"

Contrary to Obama's silly remarks, this debate raised very important issues -- those of character and ideology. For the most part, people know where the candidates stand on the "visible" positions; what they don't know is where they stand overall. On several issues extremely important to the American people (such as Second Amendment rights), both of these candidates have hidden becuase they are completely out-of-touch and against the basic, foundational American principles which made this country great. Obama, for instance, avoids discussing this anti-Americanism; nor does he address his leaning ideologies or character (which are, in fact, similar to Bomber Bill Ayers). The commentators did in excellent job in raising the important "character" questions. Anybody can say anything, but actions speak louder. These candidate's (expecially Obama's) past have not yet been scrutinized, and at least this debate brought some of those to the forefront.

Politico.com has a fascinating piece on "Obama's Secret Weapon: The Media," which covers the very real bias in the campaign. The two people who wrote in are incredulous at the reporters' complaints about the debate.

Very interesting reading:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

It was very bad, for Senator Clinton, it showed just how desperate she is becoming. Nobody expects, other than the Republicans, for Senator Obama to be a saint and that is because they can show that he is not a saint. Well, any reasonable person knows that politicians are not saints. Look at Senator McCain and the Keating scandal that he was implicated in, years ago! He is no saint, just as Senator Clinton is not a saint.
I say to the Republican voters, be realistic this time and don't vote for another dud! Vote for Senator Obama, he will bring America back, her glory!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

I was pleased with the job done by Charlie, George and ABCNews.

Too many Obama supporters are way too stressed out that Obama was asked questions that were either too rough or, alternatively, not relevant to the issues.

Do people think that after all this time on the campaign trail Obama has never had an opportunity to put forth his stance on the issues?

Do they think that Obama has not been able to articulate his take on the issues so that America understands them?

Do they think that Americans care too little to check his website to learn his position on the issues?
Or is it just possible that Americans still have a lot of nagging and troublesome feelings about some "petty" matters that might tell them a lot about this candidate?

I, for one, was glad that Charlie and George and ABC had the courage to raise matters that really bothered a lot of folks. If that weren't so, why would there be all this hysterical reaction?

It was not a debate. ABC, Staph, Gibbon, should be ashamed of themselves.
It would have been nice if halfway through Hills and 'Bama had looked at eachother, shook hands and walked off.

It is truly amazing how people want to point to who the candidate knows and say "see, he supports terrorist". or "see, he knows people who say outlandish things". Look at Bush, he is a personal friend of the Bin Ladens, does that make him a personal friend and supporter of Osama Bin Laden? Or, even more suspect, he went after Hussein on trumped up WMDs while he let Osama entrench himself nicely into the hills of Afghanistan.

How many questionable people do McCain or Clinton know or have associations with? You can go on and on and on about who knows who or who has had associations with someone notorious in the past. If you are going to question Obama's judgement feel free to show how your candidate of choice has never made any questionable decisions. Then feel free to show how this should not disqualify them from running for president of the United States. If that is a qualification then we would have to get someone who was just recently born.

These "judgements" and finger-pointings are a waste of time. Get on with the issues that are directly affecting the average American and realistically tell us how you are going to at least try, (Tthe Senate and House will have a say in this), to solve them!

Great job ABC. Finally Obama was pinned to the wall and we saw how he reacted, not to mention his crybaby supporters. If the man can't take tough questions how the heck would he perform under the pressures of being President? He's been exposed and his minions are terrified. About time.

I enjoyed the debate. Charlie and George asked questions the american public wants to know. Too bad that Mr Obama struggled to answer to things he would rather sweep under the rug. He is a stranger to millions of people but he continues to be evasive about matters the public need to know. I have always found him to be a weak candidate and my feelings were once again confirmed. We need a strong, experienced candidate to put America back on the right track and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that person.

Why didn't the commentators address Hillary's connection with Mr Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council or her husband's questionable business deals in Dubai and beyond? The questions did appear to be planted by the Clinton campaign.

The bottom line for me is that, given his associations with the likes of Bill Ayers, Barack Obama almost certainly would not be allowed into the U. S. Navy's nuclear power community as an enlisted man or as an officer. Why then is he being considered for an office in which he would literally have his finger on the nuclear trigger? Why are we more careful about who is allowed into the military's nuclear power community than we are about whom we elect President?

Even hard-core Clinton supporter Ed Rendell thought the first 45 minutes of the "debate" was a farce. If Obama's lapel pins were a legitimate subject, then why not Clinton's use of color-changing contact lenses? It couldn't have made the debate any more ridiculous. For how a debate should work, look to last year's election in France. Sarkozy/Royal really got into it, and each other.

How bad was it?

It was revolting and an insult to the intelligence of not only the debators but everyone watching.

"The bottom line for me is that, given his associations with the likes of Bill Ayers, Barack Obama almost certainly would not be allowed into the U. S. Navy's nuclear power community as an enlisted man or as an officer. Why then is he being considered for an office in which he would literally have his finger on the nuclear trigger? Why are we more careful about who is allowed into the military's nuclear power community than we are about whom we elect President?

Posted by: Bill | April 20, 2008 4:22 PM "

Bill is indeed a most astute and important observer.

Any background investigation
of Sen. Obama and his "associations" should preclude him from a security
clearance.
When are the media
going to follow up
on ABC's excellent and probing debate questions?

Only when the media finds out what Sen Obama believes in
and whether he embraces Black Liberation thinking and what it implies will the media
be on the road to vetting him.

I don't understand why Democrats are so divided. There's one post calling Hillary "Hitlery," which is offensive and terribly uncreative. Comparing a woman to one of the worst dictators in history is absolutely horrendous.

How do the Democrats expect to take the White House come November when they are all so against the other candidate?

Bring yourselves together and you might stand a chance to beat McCain. But, until then, McCain is going to get a quarter of the Democrats to vote for him, which will give him the White House on a silver platter.

I am a young Republican male who would rather vote for Ron Paul rather than McCain. But, if I'd like to see my party in office (to help balance the Senate and House which will most likely be Democrat). The in-fighting in the Democratic Party has to stop if you want to see your candidate elected.

Flip of fate writes "Jon Stewart has inserted himself into this by allowing obama on his show tomorrow."

Did you complain when Stewart and SNL had Hillary on right before the last primary?