no, this will become attacks on the talking about the awful debate. not about how awful the debate was and the asswipes that conducted it. more distractions instead of real discussion about anything meaningful. puppets can't talk about anything unless the guy pulling the strings is there. hey look over there! people dreaming about!!_________ fill in the blank choices:obama,clinton as for the puppets---stop giving them any attention. ignore them. they don't fucking count. they are little more than boils on the ass of society

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does everything have to be seen through a Clinton vs. Obama lens? Can’t an awful debate be described as such because it really was awful,

THANK YOU. Yes, yes and yes.

The two worst debate questions in the history of American politics:
1. "Does [your ex-pastor] love America as much as you do?"
2. "Do you believe in the American Flag?" (what does this even mean?--especially when followed up with "I'm not questioning your patriotism"--um, yes you are.)

If they'd both been directed to Clinton I'd be equally outraged.

Not only are the questions nonsense, but they invite the kind the worst kind of bullsh*t answers. ("My father taught me to believe in the American flag while crouching in a duck blind one Sunday...")

But MOST IMPORTANT:

The reason the public is outraged has nothing to do with whining for any political candidate. The public is being lied to and manipulated and mainstream America is just starting to catch on that we have all been had. People are paying close attention in this election year and ABC and others can't just keep handing us the same old pablum.

This crap they pass as news is failing to pass the smell test, and ABC really showed its ass with this debate. They must think we're really really stupid that they cover questions about nonsense and yet ignore serious substantive issues.

ABC--we are very informed and this crap won't cut it anymore. Evolve or die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As another classic example of this general phenomenon, the British tabloid press went after the British Royal Family in a big way after the death of Diana - because they desperately wanted to direct attention away from their primary role in hiring the paparazzi that hounded her to her death.

Likewise, all manner of press skeletons will come out of their closets in order to defend the reputation of their rotten institution... even if that means writing admiring puff pieces about that dynamic duo, George & Charlie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem isn't just that the 2 Stooges jumped all over Obama - it's that Hillaryactionary chose to attempt a pile-on. When they went after Clinton, Obama refused to join in.

It's a class thing - having it vs. not.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....to hear HillnBill telling Obama to stop 'whining' over the debate (he was complaining about substance but whatever), after all the whining they have themselves done. Geesh, seems like all the Clintons do is whine and lie while throwing the kitchen sink.

I wonder why ABC didn't ask Hellary about Mark Penn's and Bill Clinton's support of Nafta and their relationships with Columbia? I don't think that is an unfair question? It is a very good thing Hellary can call so many different places 'home'. Arkansas, PA, NY, etc. etc. at least her multiple personalities have lots of places to reside.

Barack Obama has a hell of a lot of class, that is what the ABC so-called 'debate' showed me, affirming what I already knew. He picked his way through the muck and responded well the next day. He continues to amaze me.

Ludicrous to even call it a debate.

GO BARACK!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That wasn't a debate, it was a Hillary infomercial. With all the baggage Hillary has, they could have asked her some tough but relevant questions, but she got softball and Obama got swiftboated. Nobody asked about her elitist, right-wing, highly secretive religious affiliations, even though she has attacked Obama for his involvement with an economically diverse inner city church that does immense humanitarian work. Nobody pointed out that she claims to be a friend of working people while her background includes stints as a corporate lawyer and Wal-Mart board member. Nobody asked about Marc Rich, or about her firing from the Watergate investigation for unethical conduct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thesis; Antithesis; Synthesis. Hegelian.

At the pinnacle: The Absolute Idea and the Primacy of the Corporate-State.

Clinton; Obama; Clinton-Obama; McCain.

November, 2008: The Primacy of the Corporate State.

Power corrupts and has absolutely corrupted.

Not about Clinton-Obama, not about McCain. About: Power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time to stop trying to destroy Obama for Hillary. Depending on who wins the nomination the important part is to defeat McCain. I can't believe the Hillary people are not figuring this out. The debate was a joke at the beginning. No one is interested in the trivial with gas and diesel prices going up and up. Oil hit $117 a barrel the other day and regular Americans are in trouble.

Charlie Gibson was obnoxious, worrying about his Capital Gains tax increase. Boo Hoo for him. He seems to think Fire Fighters are making over $100,000 a year on average, he needs to get his head out of his a**! George carried the water for Sean Hannity that tool. That was the problem, people so out of touch and don't tell me Hillary wasn't thrilled to be out from under all the scrutiny and then to bitch about it. Ridiculous!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From an ex-Obama lover:

April 18, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
How Obama Fell to Earth
By DAVID BROOKS

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I say Bravo to George and Charly..I think its been one of the best debates ever. There were questions that millions of people wanted to know the answers. Clinton was brilliant, she answered and gave her opinions without hessitations.She brought up many things that I and millions wanted to know. We were tired of the media giving Obama the fee pass. The media has created a monster, thinking he could slide thru to the White House. It might be to late now however at least we will know and then we can not blame anyone but oursleves from the Despair Obama will bring us.
Obama fell apart,he seemed weak, his stumbling, stuttering and his answers were vague. Yes we American's should know Obama's association with (see below). Obama only proved to be uncontrolled, weak and somehow unconfortable and we wonder why? I also wonder why his supporters are feeling like he was picked on? wait this is nothing and McCain will prove who the real Obama is. His continuous litany of complaints against America is just to much. Obama says nothing. He calls for change and what change..has he told us yet?
His associations are very scary and we can not risk Him for the most powerful position of our country.OBAMA WILL BRING OUR COUNTRY DOWN
Obama’s firends, mentor and Connections:
————————————————
William Ayers - American Terrorist
Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist
Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord
Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter
Reverend Wright - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/Preacher
Louis Farrakhan - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/ Faux Preacher
Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire
Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire
Rea more here: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com
CAN WE REALLY RISK OBAMA???? HIS RISK IS TO HIGH... TAKE OFF THE HALO AND PUT A BIG QUESTION MARK ON TOM OF OBAMA'S HEAD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BRAVO!!! TO KABC-THANK YOU GEORGE AND CHARLY..IT WAS TIME TO ASK ..
I am truly amazed as how easy it is for people to try and divert faults and not take responsibility for thier own actions! Obama's relationships with Anti-Americans are his responsibility and saying that ANYONE has smeared Obama is ridiculous. He has smeared himself by having such associations. Obama thinks that all American's are idiots. Having the notion that we believe him about not knowing Wrights positions and comments is absolutely ludicrous and insulting. In regards to Ayers, I as a lay person would never serve on a board, or accept a fundraiser at Ayers home. I would not even shake Ayers hand now or never and I am just a lay-American!!!.So please don't start blaming anyone for smearing Obama. They all had the right to express thier concerns because they are all of our concerns, They represent millions like me and million Americans feel that the questions asked to Obama should be answered.Obama Having the following Associations (see below) should be something that all Americans must question and reject. We must all remember that Obama is applying for the most powerful position of our nation and having associations of this sort is something we must think again before considering Obama for our Next President of the United States. If Obama and his supporters do not like the questiones it is too bad. That Obama fell apart at the debate and demonstrated weakness is the reason that there is so much hallabaloo with the questions. The question here is Why did Obama fall Apart? He usually is the aloof and the standing kool candidate that is so honest he will answer anything, for he has been given the free pass for a year and certainly no one would dare ask him anything for they would be characterized as Racist....but Sorry Mr. Obama the questions needed to asked and needed to be answered truthfully...But no he demonstrated a weakness that was really not attractive and it was very concerning! Obama was being ask a simple question that if there was nothing for us to worry about he could have answered eloquently and truthfully and move on. Yet he fell apart, seemed flustered and actually stuttered more than his usual when questions are a little to touch for him that he has not gotten the lead from Clinton. This was a direct question just for him.. And frankly to no ones fault he fell Apart! WHY? Obama continually on the road had to resort complaining about the questions and pointing the finger at Clinton and everyone else to make him look like the vitum-shame on him. Obama seems in diverting the real questions and blaming Clinton just like this writer to the real issue here: HIS ASSOCIATION WITH ANTI-AMERICANS and even more deeply continued with the Litany of complaints against America. Could Obama be the new Bill Ayers just a more sophisticated Ayers? I ASK AGAIN!............So our (Americans) questions in regards to all this is why is he getting so upset if there is nothing to all this??? I personally admired Clinton now because she expressed millions of peoples concerns? Well Yes I and millions of others like me are very concern!!!..After all this is the position of the President of the United states !!Obama should not have any connections to people that hate us, have hurt in the pass and people that would like to hurt us in the future. Diverting the real issue is unfair! We need to know and that is the bottom line Why has Obama associated himself with such sorts?????? Obama’s Connections: William Ayers - American Terrorist Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter Reverend Wright - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/Preacher Louis Farrakhan - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/ Faux Preacher Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire Rea more here: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com
OBAMA IS A RISK! CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THIS RISK?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The MSM in this country has to be the worst in the world. Even in China the media must be better: You KNOW they have to toe the party line or they'll be canned and thrown in prison. With this crowd, you have an ILLUSION of fairness. Most people in the ill-educated USA are too dumb to realize they are getting all corporate bullshit all the time. That is why we get dreadful leaders like W. and Dick every election.

THE MSM SUCKS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM! When are people going to realize THIS?

I'm not holding my breath on this, that's for sure!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the media was being unfair to Clinton, the Clinton Campaign made a stink about being treated unfairly. I heard nothing about the treatment of Obama by the media after the debate. Obama just took the questions and answered them, again. He looked calm and cool and collected not all put upon at all. I think that it shows what kind of president he will be. His whole campaign has been about getting out there and giving people the information they need to make an intelligent decision in the fall. He explained it very well on Saturday, I believe, when he made the gesture of brushing off a bothersome nat and said that's what you need to do when opponents and media start doing what they do to shake a candidate up or ruin his chances. I think having a president who can take on all comers without pitching a hissy fit or coming unglued or pouting about people being mean to him would be such a great change for this country. We have had a "victim" in the White House for seven years and it's time for a grown up who doesn't lose his temper over small slights. He's proven by the way his campaign has been run that he would indeed make a very good president. Organized, truthful, honest, hard working, responsible, intelligent, compassionate and patriotic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and her supporters will no doubt agree with her. But name one time that Sen. Obama has said that any perceived mistreatment by the press is/was because of his race. The Clintons and those who promote their talking points, continue to use the term "whine." Whine is a term often used by Whites when referring to Blacks in conversations about race. But Obama isn't the one whining about his color, on the other hand Hillary has repeatedly made her gender an issue. And tomorrow morning she will again claim she is the Ginger Rodgers to Obama's Fred Astaire. She will tell Ann Curry that she has to do everything he does, only in high heels and backwards. The only person who has called her on this observation is Keith Olbermann.

How can an educated White woman not know, that Black men have been hung and their genitals mutilated, for simply looking at a White woman? That was in my father's generation. Am I to believe that Hillary believes, in a couple of generations White women have lost ground to Black men?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Regarding the debate and recent comments by Republican sympathizers on the debate...

The so-called debate was a debacle because it trivialized the voter's, specifically the Democrats but also all voters, right to be informed. That is the problem. That is the issue that has caused all the protest.

We are not only protesting the shameful roasting of Senator Obama, but the grave disservice done to the American public by offering nothing of importance or substance - and of doing nothing to enlighten or inform voters.

It says volumes that the Fox News Republican neocon extremists are jumping for glee, and spreading lies, about the debate. No, it was not about "coddling Obama." No, it was not about preferential treatment for Hillary. No, it was not about a conflict of interest since Stephanopolous was a former Clinton aide.

No, it was not about allegedly touchy spoiled Democrats. No, it was not about the pastor. No, it CERTAINLY not about "tough questions." No, it was not just about rudeness - although rudeness reigned. No, Hillary, sorry...it was not about the "heat in the kitchen." No, Bill Clinton it was not about whining and how tough your wife is. No, it was not about cleavage or breasts. No, it was not just about sexism and racism although that was the elephant in the room.

What it was about is the botched opportunity to inform, and respect, the American voters who were willing and eager to learn something of value and substance about the candidates views, and intended actions when they take office!

It was a Democratic debate, and it was an appalling low in so-called journalism. No thinking person gives a rat's ass about lapel pins and re-hashing irrelevant rubbish about something a pastor may or may not have said, and who was Obama's neighbor when he was 8 years old.... and so on, and so on, as was discussed in the "debate."

Stephanopolous, especially, fell in step with the Fox News bottom-feeder type of reporting by throwing one red herring after another at the candidates, and deliberately neglecting to discuss anything that actually matters. Furthermore, Stephanopoluses tone was worthy of the Spanish Inquisition.

For the most part Hillary joined in the witch hunt on Obama, and added nothing of value to the would-be debate. As a matter of fact the Clintons themselves had called the pastor in question to come to the White House and give them counseling during a family crisis. Obama is too much of a gentleman to throw that in Hillary's face even as she continued to rudely throw mud in his.

The problem was the insulting, and collosal waste of a prime opportunity to enlighten voters in what the candidates plan to do about so very, very many problems that face this country at a critical, urgent, and pivotal time in history for our democracy.

ABC's behavior was shameful, completely beneath contempt, and ought to be criminal!

I for one will continue to boycott ABC/Disney for their right-wing Fox News approach, and their misinformation campaign.

American citizens were ill-served, and it is ABC's, and the commentator's, great and enduring shame that they took an important opportunity to inform and educate, and treated Americans as though we are a nation of Britney Spears wannabees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]