Democrats Debate Republican Talking Points

posted by John Nichols on 04/16/2008 @ 11:19pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (81)

Subscribe Now

And the winner of the 21st debate of the Democratic presidential race is...

Right-Wing Talking Points.

At a moment when even John McCain agrees that the American economy is in a recession, when the U.S. trade deficit is breaking records, when the vice president and the secretary of state stand accused of organizing torture parties in Washington, when the president has gotten us bogged down in two foreign quagmires, and when official gaming of globalization has stirred up food riots around the world, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent most of the last debate before the critical Pennsylvania primary trying to out-FOX one another.

Instead of engaging in a needed discussion about economic issues -- especially the trade policies that are devastating the Keystone State and so much of the rest of the country -- the Democratic contenders sounded as if they were reading outtakes from a particularly lame Bill O'Reilly program.

To be fair, this was not entirely the fault of the candidates. The line of questioning from ABC "News" personalities Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- Wednesday night's moderators, who pummeled Obama for most of the night -- almost made a viewer long for a long-winded intervention by the CNN's self-absorbed but reasonably serious Wolf Blitzer. And the questions from viewers appeared to have been selected with the purpose of raising doubts about whether these people may be spending just a little too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh.

There were, of course, inquiries about the Rev, Jeremiah Wright Jr., including a demand that Obama explain whether he thinks an ex-Marine who raised legitimate questions about U.S. foreign policy should be considered "patriotic." Clinton made a bad moment worse by bringing up Hamas and Minister Louis Farrakhan in an obvious attempt to link Wright -- and by extension Obama -- to groups and individuals who do not get an especially free ride in U.S. media.

Clinton's trip to Bosnia was revisited, as was a comment she made 16 years ago about baking cookies.

Obama got asked why he does not wear a flag pin.

And both candidates were prodded by millionaire media personalities to talk about "elitism."

But the absolute low point of a debate that rarely left the low road came when former Clinton aide Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his meetings with Bill Ayers, a 1960s Weather Underground radical who went on to become a college professor.

Obama said he did not think he should be held to account for something someone he knows did "40 years ago when I was 8 years old."

Then, sounding more like Sean Hannity than a former anti-war activist from the '60s, Clinton said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after (Ayers') reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more... I know Senator Obama is a good man, and I respect him greatly. But I think this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising."

Remarkably, Obama went down the Hannity hole with Clinton, complaining that Clinton's husband, when he served as president, "pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

This was an ugly, unilluminating debate that neglected meaningful concerns because so much time was spent introducing what had been the silly side issues of the far right to the mainstream discourse. It was especially rough on Obama. But there was no winner, except, perhaps, John McCain.

Comments (81)

Sorry but I do not think this assesement is at all fair. Obama tried to take the high road to get back on the issues and rather than form solidarity with him and do so Hilary took the low road so he had NO CHOICE but to walk the low road with her. He was giving cues and she should have picked up on it and it would have been the perfect opportunity to try and unite the party particularly when ABC was clearly doing McCAins work but NO she couldnt and didnt instead she let them played her and since it was 3 against 1 Obama had NO CHOICE but to defend himself however he can.

Not only were they McCain supporters they Clearly wanted McCain and HIlary to face off in the general. It was an obvious AMBUSH against Obama.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 04/16/2008 @ 11:37pm
A truly awful debate. Vapid, petty questions from "elite" "journalists". I would have spent my time better watching reality TV.

I would add the Sen. Clinton seemed to enjoy herself sliming Obama every chance she could get. She disgusts me.

Posted by trabaris at 04/17/2008 @ 12:31am
Fortunately, I avoided watching even one second of what I suspected would be a piss-poor "debate".

But, maybe I should have tuned in. After all, David Brooks (in the NY Times) gave ABC an "A" for their performance!

What a twit.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/17/2008 @ 01:18am
I agree, John...

Obama was ushered into the coliseum tonight, for the 'entertainment' of the lions.

Rome looked on.

Clinton showed her fangs.

Obama saw it all... and walked out alive.

It was too obvious.

Posted by ttr at 04/17/2008 @ 01:26am
April 15, 2008, 7:10 pm

ABC Restricts Debate Clips to 30 Seconds; Cable Channels May Cite ‘Fair Use'

By BRIAN STELTER

Maybe Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton can sum up their policy differences in 30 seconds or less on Wednesday night.

They will have to if they are going to get their points across well on networks other than ABC, which is sponsoring the hotly anticipated Democratic debate that evening. According to the usage guidelines circulated by ABC, other news organizations are only allowed to excerpt half a minute from the broadcast.

That means choosing only one 30-second clip to use on television and the Web between 11 p.m. Wednesday and 5 a.m. Thursday.

any questions?

Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 01:32am
"ABC Restricts Debate Clips to 30 Seconds; Cable Channels May Cite ‘Fair Use'"

Every F**king utterance of any candidate or moderator is fair use.

But, I'm guessing that competing networks will simply use this as an excuse to say they had to run the same little clip over and over.

Posted by Malcontent at 04/17/2008 @ 02:00am
I didn't watch the Obama-bear-baiting/low-road-show put on by ABC and its elitist corporate minions Gibbet and Staphylococus. I apparently missed nothing but the booing of the fatuous "moderators" as the self-indulgent media grandstanding ended. My respect for Senator Obama has only increased as a result of his even showing up and patiently enduring the cheap hazing. My loathing of John-McBopmb-surrogate Senator You-Know-Her, on the other hand, fell no lower because my disdain for her desperate and cynical opportunism has no lower depths to plumb.

Posted by mikemurry at 04/17/2008 @ 06:15am
It was an obvious AMBUSH against Obama.

Carol

Posted by HARRISCRL3 04/16/2008 @ 11:37pm

I second that. I am sorry to say that I voted for Hillary, but would change that vote now after watching that circus last night. Obama tried to go back to the issues, but between Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asking questions about everything but the issues this country is facing, they turned it into a freakshow.

Obama could have slamed Hillary on the Bosnia thing but didn't while Hillary on the other hand try to throw mud at Obama multiple times when given the opportunity.

Then there were the pathetic questions put forward. My favorite one was when George Stepphanopoulos put a clip of some idiot woman asking Obama why he doesn't wear a friggin American flag on his lapel. What a stupid God damned question to ask and even more stupid question to have put on the air on primetime televsion.

It really boils down to this. What are people going to vote for in November? If you want your job outsourced and wish to continue giving tax breaks to the wealthy and doing nothing about Iraq or the rising gas prices, then by all means vote for McCain. If you would like to see America actually get some jobs back and try to find alternatives energy sources and focus on education and health care, then vote for the winning dem who will hopefully be Obama.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/17/2008 @ 07:22am
imagine that tact with w or cheney...no exclusive interviews for that network...

Posted by ultvio at 04/17/2008 @ 08:03am
I'm sorry, Mr Nichols....seriously, I apologize.

All these times you've done your "impeachment is imminent" columns, I've also included the possibility that you were simply trying to hawk your book.

I now see (from the above)...that you truly are hopelessly NAIVE when it comes to politics and that your idealism blinds you to the way the game is played.

This is IT. This trivial stuff is how "debates" work these days. Linclon-Douglas....Kennedy-Nixon....hell, "there you go again" and "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" don't exist anymore.

Get used to it.

BTW, it was a wash and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed will still Pennsylvania.

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 08:44am
MASK:

The only reason why we are "Used" to such vapid, petty, policy-free debates is because the establishment media spins it that way. Imagine if they asked substantive questions of candidates instead of really pointless drivel like last night. I recall Sen. Obama repeatedly tried to point the questions back to more relevant topics, but was unsuccessful. Of course, "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed" loved every minute of it. Is there anyone out there more like "W" than her and her husband?

Posted by trabaris at 04/17/2008 @ 09:05am
Posted by TRABARIS 04/17/2008 @ 09:05am

Sorry, but you need to make up your mind. You blame BOTH "the Media" and Hillary for the triviality of that "debate" (i.e. "she loved every minute of it").

If SHE wanted it "back on issues", she'd have pushed Gibson and Stephanopolous to do that as well.

And she and Obama could have called for a different forum or even both opted-out of ABC's debate and held a joint appearance with some Penn State political science professors moderating and YouTube covering the video.

They both need the Media and (given their relative preparedness) BOTH knew the questions that they'd get.

I don't like the way "the game" was played...but not going to blame the "arena" or the "refs" or complain about the "rules". You just take it for what it is. Hillary and Barack did.

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 09:31am
Terribly meaningless shallow debate. Most of the people i know don't own a lapel for a pin. .I use to wear a suit to teach, that was the required dress code. We were eventually allowed to go, "street dress". A little metal pin made in china isn't patriotic. I also hate flag draped coffins. I know what death looks like in a family that has lost a son or daughter, mother or father. There is no recovery from that.

Posted by julien38 at 04/17/2008 @ 09:54am
'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' -- Harry Truman

'The buck stops with me.' -- Attorney General Janet Reno (after the Waco, Texas incident)

Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/17/2008 @ 09:57am
MASK 04/17/2008 @ 09:31am

-You blame BOTH "the Media" and Hillary for the triviality of that "debate-

When the chips are down, Mask... you inevitably side with the duplicitous.

...and very predictably... you come out of the closet, again.

Go back to your T.V... nothing the see here...;^)

Posted by ttr at 04/17/2008 @ 10:36am
George Stephanopolous is a snotty little ho, pimped out by the Clintons. May he rot in hell .. EV

Posted by EnviroVarmint at 04/17/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by TTR 04/17/2008 @ 10:36am

TTR, bitchin' about TV 'debates' is like complaining about the weather.

Has there REALLY been a "good" one yet? Between Russert's or Matthews' or Blitzer's or Gibson's? Have the candidates stopped participating "until it becomes more like the Harvard Debating Society"? Any demands from Hillary OR Obama that they bring in Walter Cronkite to moderate or a panel from the Kennedy School of Government to ask questions?

HRC and BO are not helpless here...except in the sense that every candidate is, when it comes to their opponent using their refusal to participate or demand for change as a bludgeon against them...though lately the onus would be on Hillary as the 2nd place candidate.

So...what's the point in whining...or even condemning poor Snufulupucus to eternal damnation?!?!?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 10:48am
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 04/17/2008 @ 09:57am

What color is the sky in your world?

Posted by Benchrest at 04/17/2008 @ 10:50am
Only one question was left unasked: "If elected president, what would you do to speed up the Heath Ledger death investigation?"

Posted by alweber at 04/17/2008 @ 11:18am
As posted on ABC News' feedback page:

I just wanted to let you know what a sad excuse for a debate it was last night in PA. When given opportunity to talk about the issues, the moderators instead joined in petty, tabloid-oriented mudslinging. It served no purpose other than to draw focus away from real issues like the economy, the war, the environment, education - and instead served only to troll for "gotchas." One of the sadder days in Network News I'm afraid.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 11:22am
Although Obama had a harder time with the questions, and did very little to help himself, the real loser was Hillary. The few undecided Pennsylvanians left are more likely to support Hillary if she shows herself to be above the fray, trustworthier, and less smug. After Obama was grilled about his Gun and God comments, Hillary was given a golden opportunity with a rebuttal- she could have said although she thought his comments were misguided, she believes he's not elitist and would rather discuss real issues that truly affect the people targeted by those comments, like financial security or better education and infrastructure. BUT, she showed her true colors and rebutted with that ridiculous canned response about growing up shooting guns with her Methodist Grandpappy- seriously, she BLEW it.

Posted by phillymark at 04/17/2008 @ 11:31am
Oh how I wish those two hours were retrievable. These two "moderators" acting like two teenagers late for the party. This, after it was established where they were going with the line of questioning. was unwatchable. What a waste of time.

Posted by jvoboogie at 04/17/2008 @ 11:31am
this crap will ALL be forgotten in a few weeks time. everyone is just treading water.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 11:37am
People aren't asking the President about the recession because they come and go and the President can't do anything about that economic reality.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 11:33am

So Bush gets no credit for the pre-2007 economy?

(stand-by for back-pedaling)

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 11:53am
when the U.S. trade deficit is breaking records, when the vice president and the secretary of state stand accused of organizing torture parties in Washington, when the president has gotten us bogged down in two foreign quagmires, and when official gaming of globalization has stirred up food riots around the world

Mr. Nichols. you forgot to mention that the sky is falling also.

Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 12:16pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=abell12ct

your contribution to this thread is highly valued. keep up the good work. I can hardly wait for your next nugget.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 12:25pm
Let us stop waisting time on Obama and Clinton and start seriously paying attention to the one, true, BLUE warhorse, Ralph Nader. He's the only significant political figure speaking seriously to the issues. Don't dismiss is campaign as a vanity project. The man has been fighting for all of us his entire life. Let's reward his commitment with some serious attention.

Posted by raaustin at 04/17/2008 @ 12:46pm
Mr. Nichols. you forgot to mention that the sky is falling also.

Posted by ABELL12CT 04/17/2008 @ 12:16pm

it is.

Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:09pm
I can hardly wait for your next nugget.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

I guess you can.

Posted by abell12ct at 04/17/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by RAAUSTIN 04/17/2008 @ 12:46pm |

Nawww....let's not.

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 1:17pm
I agree that this was a great opportunity lost, and also with some of the analysis as to what was truly pathetic and what aspired to be informative.

The most interesting dynamic was between the questions and candidates' responses - and I'm not so sure about bias so much as I'm sure the questions were in general petty and sound-byte oriented rather than well formulated to shed some light on the important issues of the day and why one candidate vs. another deserves our vote.

I take it for granted (as do an overwhelming majority of Americans) that *anything* would be better than Bush Continued, after 8 years of a ruined national pride, economy, military, and social consciousness. Though I'd been supportive of Hillary - specifically because of her consistent focus on (truly) universal healthcare - I think this was impetus for me to give up on her potential to deliver, specifically because she was so prone to "go low" but even more so, because she was right there with the "flag button" and "who your friends are" kind of "issues", while Obama cogently and repeatedly responded to that 12-year-old, na-na-na-na-na mentality of the questions. Both moderators seem so much beyond this on their news interviews; why get to the mud-slinging, innuendo & National Enquirer-type "smoking gun" level when the American public wants to hear more about the real issues, the important issues. Seeing Hillary embrace that stupidity, and ignore the opportunities to piggyback on Obama's sense of persepective and reality, turned me off fatally, while I'd been totally open to her until now, even defending her at times. She's using Lowest-common-denominator buzz words and themes now, which is NOT showing respect to those she would serve. Obama showed, and modeled respect. That's compelling to me. The fact that both agreed that the real fight is to undo all the (maybe irrevocable) damage from the Bush years was (or could have been) positive, but the 2 candidates could not, so it seems, share more than that, and by necessity are still "slugging it out", Hillary with smarmy, childish "gotchas" and Obama with unblinking composure and focus on the prize - a better, rational American personna with leadership by the President. Best part of the debate may have been Obama pointing out how Bush hides behind his proclamations that he is "just listening to the generals" rather than exercising his role as commander-in-chief and taking responsibility for policy. Hillary had a few humorous comments as well, but Obama was more consistent, more grounded, more on-message. Hillary seemed like a collection of good and bad sound-bytes, mixed with the continuous message of how much experience she's had; Obama focused on issues and problems. (My own scare is that he didn't back away from the assertion he may support raising the social security age, which would disenfranchise so many Americans who may or may not have achieved "the American Dream".

Obama is psychologically astute, and living in the real world. Hillary's heart is in the right place regarding health care, but her connection to the daily-life concerns of so many Americans was not evident, as it was with Barak. She seems petty and perseverative by contrast. That's my conclusion, anyway, take-away. I'm sorry to have lost my level of respect for her, though I've gained new confidence in the direction Obama would take us.

"Dr. Mike"

Posted by drmike at 04/17/2008 @ 1:18pm
People aren't asking the President about the recession because they come and go and the President can't do anything about that economic reality.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 11:33am

(stand-by for back-pedaling)----Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 11:53am

and I'm never disappointed...

"I'll give him credit for assisting the economy by helping push through a more optimal tax rate structure. The economy benefited from that.....He gets credit for improved tax policy and he gets "credit" or "responsibilty" for the guys at Treasury depending on whether the do a good job or bad job ultimately."-----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 12:10pm

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 1:19pm

in matters of fairness i feel it is important to also create a moniker for the obama one-timers.

(a la h.t.o.t.d.)

how's O.P.T.M.S?

obama perky team message spreader.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:26pm
So President's can't do anything about the inevitability of recessions, but if tax rates are too high or too low, they can improve growth.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 1:27pm

president paul could....

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 1:33pm
I think we had a good opportunity last night at the Philadelphia debate to see an old geezer and an ex Clinton employee take ABC news division closer to NBC's

Posted by geotenn at 04/17/2008 @ 1:33pm
ULTIVO, have you got it right! "imagine that tact with w or cheney. no exclusive interviews for that network". thank goodness i went with my gut and decided not to record last night's debaucle.

and HAPPY2 i just clicked on "ignore this person" so i won't have to waste my time scaning useless drivel on this post... i wonder if you're a plant working for HRC or for any one of the many right wingnuts commenators out there. yeah, happy2 what..... HAPPY2sowvenoumouspropaganda.

Posted by chrysanthe at 04/17/2008 @ 1:49pm
Sorry to sound too cynical, but CBS, NBC, WSJ, ABC, FOX, PBS, CNN, AP, Reuters, and other mainstream news/opinion outlets are driven by the same ultrarightwing ideology and will do anything they can to stop a progressive, highly educated African-American man (or woman!) from becoming POTUS. Fox is just more obvious about its ideology. Guys like Matthews and Russert are more dangerous than Beck and Rush, because the public believes they are objective.

Posted by steveklatt82 at 04/17/2008 @ 1:54pm
Hillary did exactly what she should have done in this debate and it's about time the media asked him some tough questions. Of course Hillary will back the Democrat because as Democrats that's what we do. However, she and everybody else who looks at the issues and his negatives, understands that the Republicans will have a field day with him in the fall. Then we will be stuck with McBush III. Hillary on the other hand, as she stated in the debate, "comes to the table with baggage but, it has been thoroughly rummaged through". These are the facts and we Democrats need to rally around Hillary, our clear and convincing chance for victory for the fall. She will beat McCain in the fall.

Posted by moblou at 04/17/2008 @ 1:56pm
Mr. Gibson, what happened? You used to be so reliable, so trustworthy that is was a pleasure to hear the most heinous news from you. Were you auditioning for a job at FOX News last night? It had to be either that or you forgot to mention the Clinton/McCain sponsorship of the debate itself. There have now been twenty-one debates in total and last nights was far and away the worst waste of time and effort of all of them. How do you spend a ridiculous amount of time on meaningless political spin and then squeeze a few questions of substance in at the end almost as an after thought? Sen. Obama said himself, people want to hear more about how either candidate could help them in the long run as opposed to more about flag pins and fake sniper fire. At least George had the excuse of working for the Clintons at one time but you - you sir were a respected journalist. How could you be apart of something so vile and still face the camera or a mirror for that matter ever again?

Posted by eldamon at 04/17/2008 @ 1:59pm
Hillary reminded me of the smug little teachers' pet while the "teachers" George and Charlie slapped the hand of the boy in the other seat who could have answered their questions, had they only asked him.

Posted by jph at 04/17/2008 @ 1:59pm
Except for the damage another Rep. administration would inflict, perhaps they should elect McCain, if only to receive "credit" for this war and economy, rather than the Dem.'s being blamed for bringing our troops home, which the Rep.'s will term "losing" the war. Is there no shame?

Posted by jph at 04/17/2008 @ 2:04pm
Spell his name right. You are going to be using it a lot in 2009.

Posted by surprising at 04/17/2008 @ 2:10pm
Spell his name right. You are going to be using it a lot in 2009.

Posted by SURPRISING 04/17/2008 @ 2:10pm

adhaminjaad

ahdahjminnajadd

ahdaminininjjidad

ahdeminjedijed

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 2:17pm
Hello all, Inasmuch I respect your Country and her people, I remain frightened by the narrow view displayed by her voters to what happens in the real World around them... In some ways I feel that most of them live in a Barbie dream and will vote for whom does promise them Ken is ready to save them... Why no one seems ready to face reality and tell the truth about all instead of hiding behind stupid arguments such as the sex of angels or slinging mud at each other and arguing about whom they eventually met 40 years ago ? The rest of the World is waiting for a responsible answer to the problems mostly caused by the arrogance of the leaders of this great Nation !

Posted by Dégé at 04/17/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

"OPTIMUS" Prime?---"obama perky team instant message ubiquitous spreader"?

"Prime" being METTEYA....heheh

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 2:33pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

"OPTIMUS" Prime?---"obama perky team instant message ubiquitous spreader"?

"Prime" being METTEYA....heheh

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 2:34pm
Oh, come on, MARYBRET/Darin....a little OBVIOUS huh?

We go into recession under Bush....you're "People aren't asking the President about the recession because they come and go and the President can't do anything about that economic reality."

Asked about the "good times" of 2-3 years ago under Bush....and you're "So President's can't do anything about the inevitability of recessions, but if tax rates are too high or too low, they can improve growth."----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 1:27pm

So let me guess....you don't blame Jimmy Carter for HIS recession....or Bill Clinton for the 2001 recession?

Or will we get further "explanation" for how your theory doesn't apply to them???

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

Can we put perky first?

Posted by Benchrest at 04/17/2008 @ 2:44pm
Wow, I am so glad that I wasn't the only one that thought that debate was a aweful. They didn't debate a thing. What a waste of time it was to watch that event. American's are not that stupid (I hope). Is anyone going to address any of the real problems this country has? I may die waiting.

Posted by nhdjlady at 04/17/2008 @ 3:06pm
I, too, was very disappointed in the inappropiately named 'debate'. The entire first half hour was nothing short of petty dribble, encouraging each candidate to bite the other. Obama showed slightly less appetite for the games, though neither Barack nor Hillary was especially impressive, even after the moderators decided to actually address a few issues.

I will ultimately support whichever candidate the Dems anoint to run, because McCain is about as appealing for president as 5-day old poached fish. His lack of understanding of the serious issues facing us is appalling. I fear that if McCain is elected, the possible depression will be inevitable, the war will drag on, we'll have no respite from the assault of healthcare companies, and we'll likely cross the line of environmental destruction beyond which the world we leave our children will be nearly uninhabitable.

When that's our choice, both the democrats look damn good. Both Hillary and Obama, when compared to McCain the Pain, are each downright wunderkind. We are comparing two highly intelligent people with a man who managed to do better than only five (or is it four!) other students in his graduating class. Good grief.

Yet, I still can't help being profoundly disappointed in both of them. I felt each of them had so much promise, so much ability to return hope to the US. Now, I feel it's simply a choice between Democratic mediocrity and Republican disaster.

I wish we could get the candidates and the media to concentrate on the issues, and not whether or not Hillary decided to forgive Bill's philandering, whether or not Obama's pastor's opinions are so deeply emblazoned in Barack's brain that they cause him to stop thinking for himself, etc. Why are these ridiculous things being discussed at all?

How are we going to extricate ourselves from a war in which we destroyed a country? Where does our obligation end, and our self-preservation begin? What is the plan and why... WHY do they think it's the best we can do?

How will people afford the health care they need?

How will people manage to keep their homes, feed their children, pay for the ever-escalating round-robin of cash-sucking monsters on the doorstep of so many of us?

How will we return to a rational, scientific approach to medicine, instead of bearing crosses and garlic to hope for cures to the diseases we endure and die from?

How will we stop corporate megalomania from fullfilling the promise of despairing science-fiction?

What IS the line between freedom and rape?

Let's hope that once in the White House, whomever is President manages to produce some of the desperately needed changes they so easily promise during these campaigns.

Posted by Caraleisa at 04/17/2008 @ 3:18pm
Your criticism of Obama having gone down the "Hannity hole" is ungrounded fodder. Look, he can only take the high road for so long until he has to remind people of what an unadulterated hypocrite Clinton is. The truth of the matter, in regard to the Weather Underground situation, is that Obama had a powerful point.

Posted by Moth at 04/17/2008 @ 3:38pm
I agree with all those who found Nichols's piece far too even-handed. Yes, Stephanopolous & Gibson were dreadful, training their sights wholly on the diversionary and inflammatory. But Clinton's obvious interest, indeed delight, in claiming this territory as her own only deepens my disgust with her and her campaign. Obama was clearly pained by all this guttersniping, and not only, I think, for the obvious reason that most of it was aimed at him. What came across plainly, even plaintively, was his discomfort & impatience with this style of politics and the disservice it does the American people.

I regret that John Nichols's coverage of this debate did not pick up on this. Admittedly Obama's performance did little to redeem or rehabilitate this debate, which sadly exhibited nearly all that ails American politics. But give Obama credit for at least trying to establish an alternative.

Posted by jra at 04/17/2008 @ 3:43pm
I didn't watch the whole "debate", but what struck me from the little I did see was the difference in body language between the two: BO always (again, from what I saw) responded directly to the moderators, all questions. HRC, on the other hand, would look at them only when giving an answer that pertained to her directly or personally, but when she was attacking - excuse me, critizising - Obama, her eyes were all over the place: to the left, to the right, at the lights above, down, etc. I know that skilled interviewers can tell when a person is lying by their eye movements, but I'm not one of them. What to make of her demeanor?

As for my preference (disclaimer): I think Hillary's negatives are too high, she is the one the rightwingers want to face in November because she can motivate their followers to come out and vote against her. I also think Obama will rejected by too many on the basis of race: let's be honest here, the US still has a deeply entrenched racist bias which most will not admit to in public, but which will be a determining factor in the booth. Which is why McCain will not pick Condi as his VP.

Posted by jdmb at 04/17/2008 @ 3:53pm
God,--Nation readers do come off like a bunch of candy ass liberals! Obama assaulted, ambushed, getting beat up by George Stephanopolis!?! Oh, please! For myself, I was mostly listening to the Yankees beating up the Red Sox which was far more enjoyable, but when I did pay any attention to the debate, Clinton just sounded better--more forceful, more confident. Granted, the subject matter was definitely a D+ but then again, it's not like this campaign started yesterday. If Obama supporters actually think this was rough going, it only undescores why their candidate is simply not fit to be president.

Posted by deMOCKracy at 04/17/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by DEMOCKRACY 04/17/2008 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

go back to the game.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 4:29pm
Our planet is on the brink of carbon-induced catastrophe. Our sons and daughters are killing other's sons and daughters in an insane war that is costing us trillions. Our economy is collapsing, our health care system is in shambles, our ability to educate our youth to compete for critical jobs in science and mathematics is dramatically diminished, and the foundations of our democracy have been shaken to the core by the Bush/Cheney administration... with barely a whisper of objection by the Congress, the media or your everyday Joe........ I'd say we have a few, rather important issues to concern ourselves with..... and the purpose of the debate should have been to help the voters be clear on what the candidates propose to solve these dire dilemmas.

What transpired last night under the guise of a debate is downright criminal when this country is in crisis. How dare these so-called reporters waste the time of both the politicians and the public by engaging in their inane, childish, and just plain stupid display.

What this country needs desperately is leadership from someone with wisdom and courage to help this country pull itself out of the ever-deepening hole were in. The debate should be about raising the bar, and asking smart, tough questions to the next leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

I think the voters of this country deserve an apology from ABC News. I think this should also serve as a wake-up call to the media, that it's time to take a long, hard look at what they have been calling news and reporting.

Posted by gjdenk at 04/17/2008 @ 5:35pm
MASK 04/17/2008 @ 10:48am

K... I owe you an apology. Excellent answer BTW... I understand your 'get used to it' better now... as a part of historical realism that many 'idealists' forget to consider.

Guess I was a little trigger happy this time...;^)

Posted by ttr at 04/17/2008 @ 6:14pm
I too was shocked at ABC. What a mess! By the way if I'm not mistaken, I believe Hillary was not wearing her flag pin. Shame on you Hillary!

Posted by concitz at 04/17/2008 @ 6:17pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=concitz

she wore it on her bra.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 7:22pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/17/2008 @ 7:22pm

i heard she's had a piercing.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 7:45pm
Come on guys - quit fighting - what I want to know from someone here - who in the world is LARRY SINCLAIR - I have seen his name everywhere lately and even radio talk show hosts are referring to him - but I don't know anything about it - HELP.

Posted by wizard101 at 04/17/2008 @ 7:48pm
The economy was a basket case because of 70% tax rates.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/17/2008 @ 3:33pm |

When was the previous (pre-Carter) economic boom, MARY/Darin....and what were the tax rates then?

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 7:49pm
Posted by TTR 04/17/2008 @ 6:14pm

NP...and not to sound like HAPPY, but.....whoever wins the Democratic nomination....better "gird their loins" for MORE of last night, when it comes October and it's with "Maverick John" or "Bush-44" as I like to call him.

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 7:50pm
Pardon the "multi-post" all, but am leaving a message for Frankgrits re: (but all are welcome to view) his good old "Dubya's Pre-war Fireside Chat" on my ISP at:DUBYA

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 8:18pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=wizard101

try the Google. it's a right wing smear.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 8:43pm
Bad news was that the debate was disappointing, disingenuous, dishonest, disgusting and depressing.

But the good news was that more people will be disappointed, disgusted, and depressed by election time.

What a great time to be America's most renowned, recognized, courageous, effective, and incorruptible 'democracy advocate' running for the presidency from outside of these two 'Vichy' parties.

Clinton, Obama, and McCain are super-charging Nader's recruitment drive. The more these bought and paid baffoons embarrass themselves by talking, the more voters desert their 'corporatist empire' and come over to Nader's democracy alternative by the droves.

Nader's poll numbers, while he is being ignored or slandered by the 'Vichy' corporatist press, keep sky-rocketing thanks to these three blind mice shills.

Posted by amacd at 04/17/2008 @ 8:56pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=amacd

comedy, right? hahahahahaha

Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 9:00pm
Posted by AMACD 04/17/2008 @ 8:56pm

Droves = Fifteen or so

Posted by Benchrest at 04/17/2008 @ 9:10pm
Posted by AMACD 04/17/2008 @ 8:56pm

Geez, maybe in the spirit of bipartisanship we can stop calling Hillary supporters OR Obama supporters "cultists"...

and apply it where it REALLY belongs!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 9:59pm
Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 9:59pm

N.A.D.A

nader android delivering alpo

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/17/2008 @ 10:19pm

N.A.D.I.R.

Nader Automaton Delivering Inane Responses....plus the acronym is somewhat homonymous with Ralph's and the word itself a good application to where the whole Naderite movement is.

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 10:25pm

great! that's two new ones.

thanks for the cleans ups. they both came out great.

OPTIMUS and NADIR. perfect.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 10:42pm
oh, and for the general (cause you know they're coming):

M.O.P.E.

mccain operative panders (to) everyone.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 10:43pm
HAPPY2 04/17/2008 @ 10:27pm

Nonsense, Happy...

The line of questioning was 'off topic'... giving a bias that at the end of the day, was biased against the American people... and biased for the MSM.

It's not so much that they were 'going after' Obama... it's that they shelved the issues facing an America that's finally embarking on the 21st century, in favor of 'shock jock' jabber.

Posted by ttr at 04/17/2008 @ 10:52pm
I think once again the Nation is doing a bad job, and John Nichols holds the reward for reductionist progressive journalist of the year. First off, I don't think either candidate looked very good. They looked tired, unsure of themselves, and uncomfortable with the tone. And, I don't think Hillary is that comfortable being negative. She is too much of a policy person. They each made errors. They both embellished. Hillary made a gaffe about the Weatherman--no one but their own members ever died in the blast. (Although, killing yourself in a blast leaves behind a devastated family that is wounded forever and leaves the rest of the parents of America unsupportive of children who enter into radical, progressive politics.) Secondly, this is not a nasty debate,and to most recent standards, a rather clean campaign. I don't think that either one of these people truly dislike each other. They just both want to be President. It could be much dirtier. I think all the points brought up were fair except for the lapel issue. That was stupid. But I do think that Reverend Wright, the bitter comment, Bosnia, baked cookies, William Ayers are all fair topics and I think each candidate was fair to call the other one out on issues. That is what a debate is. I fault Barack Obama for not taking her to task on the Bosnia comment, and I don't respect his restraint. It is a debate and calling out your partner in the debate is fair. I think the bitter comment is one that needs to be discussed. Hillary indictment of her own party on the issue was quite brilliant, and she, if anyone was listening, was not making the point just about Barack but about her party, her colleagues, and, I think even, herself in the past. Barack's comebacks about some of her hypocrisies were good--her husband's pardoning of some of the members of the Weatherman was a good example. These are two similar candidates who don't seem to dislike one another. Hillary Clinton came out (again) and said she would support him and that she respects him as a candidate. She just wants the job herself. I for one like this fight. I think it has been fair and healthy for the otherwise complacent Democratic party. At first, Obama and Edwards attacked Hillary. She ran a mostly positive, if not overly confident campaign, in the beginning and focused more on Bush and the Republicans. It was Edwards and Obama who attacked her first. But, some of their points were right and she needed to answer them. I would like to see a better analysis looking at where they differ, and how, contrary to reductionist journalism, in some areas she is more progressive than him, and in others areas he is more progressive than her. That would be worth reading, and would be useful to remember when one of them wins in November, so we can work with other progressives to persuade them back to the progressive side. I think we must respect Hillary's influence in this country, and to ignore this is a big mistake. It could lead to ruin. She is not Joe Leiberman. She does not want to ruin the Democratic Party. It has been her life. We should point out where she has taken a more progressive route, for, if she is not the nominee, she is still an important Senator, and with a tight Senate, her vote and influence is crucial. To call her Republican is stupid. Sometimes she acts like a conservative Democrat, and sometimes she acts like a progressive Democrat. I think to call her out on her embellishments, her vote on Iraq, her vote on the flag burning amendment is right on, but also, would a Republican even consider universal health coverage? Would a Republican have voted down Roberts nomination? Would a Republican have voted against the Class Action bill? While I voted for Hillary and do believe in her, I have a definite spot on my shirt for an Obama pin if he wins. And I will pull the lever not just because he is a democrat, but because he, with all his faults--they are both human, a respected politician who, with a strong Democratic Congress, can make change and help to improve people's lives. This kind of fairness is what progressives should be pushing.

Posted by Michael P. at 04/17/2008 @ 11:03pm
N. A. D. E. R.

Naturally Adept at Distorting Election Repercussions

Posted by ttr at 04/17/2008 @ 11:05pm
I'm at a loss as to why Obama doesn't clarify Hillary's hypocrisy. She's been FOR NAFTA forever and FOR gun control forever. If he wants to stoop to her level, he could do it with a few quick bows.

He's almost too polite to "debate" with her.

Have to hand it to him, though, for keeping his temper under control. Throughout the tabloid section of the debate, I would have been saying things like, "Surely, you've got to be kidding Mrs. Clinton. You paint me with guilt by association? Am I more closely associated to my pastor than are you to an impeached president?"

Bob

Posted by RJClawson at 04/18/2008 @ 12:00am
Posted by MICHAEL P. 04/17/2008 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person

Mike, do us all, and yourself a favor, hit return twice once in a while to create paragraphs. without them your post is unreadable.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 09:08am
Seems to that George S. talked with HRC before the debate and got the inputs to ask about will A. is George S. still on the Clinton staff? or is he looking for a position with HRC should she become a canidate?

Posted by dpeace at 04/18/2008 @ 11:02am
Posted by DPEACE 04/18/2008 @ 11:02am | ignore this

she's already a canidate, she's looking to be the nominee.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 1:32pm
The 'debate' on ABC should be an embarrassment to all news organizations and is an insult to all Americans. I've come to believe ABC actually did the public a favor by providing such a crystal clear example of the methods that are used to divide and distract us from our common interests. These methods only serve the status quo which enriches the few at the expense of all of us.

Rose Bowser Hereford, Arizona

Posted by RoseElien at 04/18/2008 @ 6:32pm