interesting that of all the good and substantive remarks that Obama gave during this debate, that this is the clip that shows up on 1gm, and you didn't even include all of his response.

even the commentators after the show dropped it altogether as far as I could see, so what gives here?

Stuff like this always makes me want to initiate the self-destruct sequence.

Maybe they should do a SNL skit about it.

But yes, Total BS. Otherwise I was impressed with the content of the debate.

I've seen Tim Russert do good work like when he is with his own kind, in a den of spitting cobras. Watching that lunacy that passed for a debate, I felt sorry for both candidates who had to be there. The questions were often out-of-line like the one asked of Clinton to withdraw from NAFTA in six months or the one asked of Obama over public financing. It was as if Russert and Williams wanted to make public policy on the air. They should run for office if that is their game.

Tim Russert got caught (along with Donald Rumsfeld) telling us lies.

Have a look and a laugh. Go here: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html

Scroll down to "Rosie O’Donnel 9/11 Truth Video Seized In Tora Bora Cave"

Was Tim Russert duped or was he trying to dupe us?

By the way, I believe the question is "have you stopped beating your wife?"

just a small correction: the "impossible yes or no question" is, i think, have you STOPPED beating your wife.-

jonathan, in for pedantsareus

It's more like the network would ask how Obama would get away with beating his wife. Very leading questions.

Television has bastardized the fourth estate.

I agree with Norm that this is bullshit. The public financing stuff was more bullshit, as Charles pointed out. Obama explained his position--I'm not the nominee yet; agreements have to be made so it's fair; evidence suggests McCain has not been entirely honest with his use of such funds in the past. Russert: "So your going to go back on what you said? you're going to break you word!"

WHF! In addition, although I agree with argument Obama made on Clinton's first lady experience just prior to this non-sequitur question, I thought it was incredibly rude not to let Clinton respond. But Russert changed the topic to this bullshit, and then when he finally did get back to Clinton, changed the topic again to her tax return.

Half of this was not a "debate" at all, but an airing of often empty accusations, including ones that as so far as I know neither candidate has really pressed against the other. If the charges had some merit, OK. But...Whomever you support, this is bad for the democrats. John McCain and Huckabee aren't coming under this kind of bullshit, public, live reaction-time scrutiny.

It was as if Russert and Williams wanted to make public policy on the air. They should run for office if that is their game.

Exactly.

I think the simple question "Do you welcome Farrakhan's support?" would have sufficed. What is so disgusting here is that Timmeh tries it over and over and over again: "So, you are really, really, really sure you're not an antisemite, deep down in your heart of hearts..?"

And, even though I'm fairly pro-Israel, I think we're over this servile: "How do you asure the state of Israel of your lock-step support of any policy coming out of the state of Israel?" True, they have an issue over there with Obama and his second surname - but that's their problem.

Ah, the MSM! I tellya we've seen nothing yet.. It's gonna be so much fun when the swift boaters start in earnest come August.

Norm, I applaud your editorial instincts. This clip is indicative of what was odd and disturbing about much of the debate. Lil' Russ really interjected himself into the campaign.

Moderators should pose questions and then moderate the candidates' debate. Moderators should not attack, insinuate and provoke.

The MSM certainly won't criticize their venerated colleague, so I hope the headline that emanates from the blogosphere will be

BIG DEBATE LOSER: TIM RUSSERT

I thought he answered the question just fine. You can't stop someone from supporting you and he repeatedly said that he does not agree with Farakkhan, calling his views "reprehensible". What other response would have been "more correct"?

"jonathan, in for pedantsareus"

Than you jonathan, I've only just got up today!

On the McCain and public financing issue, this article explains in detail his potential dishonesty, and how distorted and misleading little "Timmeh's" (tip to Frenchfries) question was.

He borrowed federal campaign finance--and once you do so, you can not opt out if you use it. But he then may or may not have used this money draw on public tax dollars as collateral for a loan to his own campaign, which locks him into a publicly financed campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603328.html?hpid=topnews

McCain applied for public financing last year, when his campaign was faltering. In February, when his campaign had turned around, he wrote the FEC seeking to exit the system. But to do so, McCain needed to show he had not yet received any federal funds and had not used the promise of those funds as collateral to borrow money.

Should the FEC or a federal court force him to remain within the system, he would have to abide by a $54 million spending cap until September, when the primary season ends. His campaign had spent $49 million as of Jan. 31, reports show.

So much for Mr. Integrity. No wonder he keep pushing Obama on this point.

You guys know me, always looking for the positive, and here it is: never mind the MSM vermin, focus on Obama. One of the essential traits of an excellent leader is the ability to deal with difficult or irrational people. Believe me, in corporate America, it sort of comes with the territory. Obama was superb here: he did exactly what a good leader should do with an obsessed individual: patiently, quietly define the boundaries, enforce structure, and let it be known that he will not be lured into a confrontation. Very promising indeed.

Interesting that you point to this question show the kind of baseless attacks on display that night, because shortly after answering this question Hillary jumped in with a 'me too me too' piece about how Jew-friendly she was. She then insinuated that Obama was soft on antisemitism or is an antisemite himself. He immediately made her look a fool with the 'I renounce and reject' soundbite.

How can you expect the media to stop these unsubstantiated character attacks when the candidates themselves are happy to join in with the mud flinging?

Regardless of your views, I am happy the MSNBC had questions like this one and the patriotism one. Essentially they allowed the candidates a chance to defend themselves in front of the nation and dismiss the charges once and for all. This makes a refreshing change from how these charges are discussed in conservative shows.

He should have reacted by saying he wasn't going to answer and validate the question in the first place.

Or, he could have explained that candidates have never before been expected to explicitly reject the support of anyone in the past. They never have because they never felt the need, and they have never felt the need because the concept it irrational.

Same thing with the question about how to assure the Jewish community concerning Louis Farrakhan and Barack's pastor. It is simply unreasonable to expect candidates should have to single out any person that feels the need to support them, simply because they have no control over other's decisions for support. It was almost as if Tim were asking Barack to go on record demanding Farrakhan and his followers not vote for him. He could have said EVERY American has his assurance that he will listen to EVERY American as much as humanly possible, talk to his advisers, and make sound decisions after careful deliberations, while never following the agenda of any single person to the exclusion of all others.

Maybe he could have suggested that Tim was being a little unpatriotic there, insinuating that Barack should alienate an American in the first place, because that is in essence what he was asking. We are never going to agree with everything every other person says or does, but that doesn't mean we completely disregard someone when we do. The notion is absurd.

Why is nobody mentioning that Hillary was cheerleading Timmeh after this question with her "denouncing isn't as good as rejecting" garbage. It's the only time I saw Hillary's desparation, swinging wildly, hoping to get in the fight.

As covered before by one of Bill Maher's guests, AMERICA SHOULDN'T BLINDLY SUPPORT ISRAEL OR ITS MILITARY ACTIONS against the Palestinian people.

Besides, as documented by the book The Israel Lobby, and by the blog post by Glenn Greenwald, those who claim to speak for Israel in American politics don't actually represent the views of most American Jews, and actually pursue policies dangerous and costly to America.

See http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-israels-war-also-our-war.html

and

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/index.html

The current zionist support for Israeli's illegal actions go against America's interests and in fact, threaten our future since our weaponization of Israel is a sore point for most of the rest of the world. Let's face it, a candidate running for Prez of America has to have America's best interest in mind, not the warmongering interests of a few neocons or zionists. While obama's pandering comments to AIPAC last spring in Chicago may've been alarming, I think his answer his was appropriately restrained and honest, despite Tim's baiting. Obama played this perfectly.

If a candidate chooses to publicly associate with religious hucksters, doesn't this kind of questioning become par for the course?

Just as it was with Romney, isn't it a legit line of questioning, to understand the depth of influence a religious leader might exercise over a president's views and decision making?

Can you imagine taking Hillary to task over her Hispanic support. "Do align yourself with Hispanic voters who in part are uncomfortable, some would say racist, about the idea of a black president. Are you prepared to denounce your Hispanic support?"

And as for Hillary's reaction - it was a far cry from "I take Hillary at her word".

I didn't get to watch the Debate last night. Were there even any questions about the tanked economy or housing crisis?

Every report on the debate that I've seen has either been non-issue, character-based stuff like this, or yet another exchange about their healthcare plans.

I couldn't disagree more. I thought Russert did a relatively good job. I've only heard negative feedback from those with a clear candidate axe to grind.

And speaking of hosting intelligent debate, what's with: "Tim Russert you're despicable, what's that Sunday Show you host, Meet the Asshole."

If that were any more clever, it would make up for its lack of class.

It did sound like something an elementary school child would write. Sorry, Norm....

Anyways, what I find disappointing is that this clip cuts out the important part of this exchange, namely when Hillary tried to jump in and continue with this idiotic discussion on semantics and word choice, and ended up looking rather stupid. If anything came out of that discussion, it was an insight into the character of these two. Hillary, here, could have either jumped in with Russert on attacking OBama over petty things, or she could have said, "This is ridiculous, Tim". She made her choice....

Word. Theowne hit it on the head.

I know that Norm has already admitted that he has stopped beating his wife, but the editor in me can't let this go . . .

no one's got it right yet!

the correct wording of the leading question was . . .

"and when was it, sir, that you stopped beating your wife?"

niggly, I know

I read through the comments, but maybe I missed it... did anyone raise the question as to why Hillary would be so nit-picky about "denounce" or "reject" when she was fresh from a visit with Pat Robertson's 700 Club?? http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/328569.aspx Talk about sleeping with the devil...

alright... my bad. Obama visited the 700 Club in January: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/308216.aspx

My take is this:

The question starts as a red herring about Farrakhan, evolves into a Friend of a Friend Accusation, then becomes another red herring when Hillary nitpicks about "reject" or "denounce." HOWEVER, Obama concedes both "reject" and "denounce," and we're all back to how stupid the question was in the beginning.

Well, Russert got what he wanted. Though Obama didn't let the slime stick, at least Hillary came out looking petty. And to Russert, that's like, 20 points.

Not sure what it had to do with America, though.

Tim Russert is such an unenlightened dweeb. The questions he asks are speculative and fueled by conventional wisdom. For example, every time Nader is on MTP, Russert asks him whether he feels guilty for allowing Bush to become president. And Nader has to give him EXACTLY the same response time after time.

I really want an answer to my question, so I will ask it one more time: Can't Russert's line of questioning simply be understood as an attempt to understand how Obama's public affiliation with a religious leader might influence his thinking as the president?

Wasn't this a legitimate line of questioning for Mitt Romney? What makes it different when it comes to Obama?

Rogan:

Because we only remember the Russert questions we don't like. And we really, really, don't like it when he asks questions we wouldn't ask. Oh, and people who don't share that approach are uncool a-holes.

Because we only remember the Russert questions we don't like. And we really, really, don't like it when he asks questions we wouldn't ask. Oh, and people who don't share that approach are uncool a-holes

I have to agree with this. No one has any problem linking to articles by some right winger who they would normally disagree with but happens to agree with them during this primary season vis à vis their chosen candidate, or if that person happens to agree with them on a particular issue.

Tim Russert asked some inflammatory stupid questions, but he also posed some questions having to do with how the candidates have changed their positions or having to do with how forthright that they are, and that's fair. If the question was not fair, they are free to respond.

Any Democrat who is confronted with running for president in the General Election will end up waffling, just as any Republican who is confronted with running for president in the General Election will end up waffling. In our winner-take-all non-proportional representation system here in the U.S., this is what we have to deal with.

Can't Russert's line of questioning simply be understood as an attempt to understand how Obama's public affiliation with a religious leader might influence his thinking as the president?

Well, the question wasn't about Obama's Pastor (Like when mitt was asked about his church) It was about a controversial figure endorsing Obama for President. Timmeh could have asked about his pastor and obama's affiliation with his own church and how that influences his decisions.

Also, the tone of the question was wrong. A real journalist would ask, "You just recieved an endorsement from the controversial Louis Farrakhan, how do you react to this?"

I'm gonna have to go against the grain here and say that Russert's questioning didn't seem all that bad - it actually seemed like kind of a softball question, an outlandish accusation that's easy to repudiate. But I wish they questioned the candidates more directly on the arab/Israel question - that hasn't been discussed nearly enough.

Obama did well in handling Russert, but after Russert kept beating on it, Obama should have said, 'I'm not pleased with Farrakhan's endorsement, but it could have been worse, right? I mean, it isn't as if he's French is it? Now that would be a real problem, right?'

The question was simply inappropriate for a debate. It could've been something asked in a press Q and A, but for a debate? Maybe if Farrakhan had endorsed both of them, or Falwell's ghost had come out in support of Hillary, there would've been something to deBATE.

When I heard this exchange on NPR this morning, all I could think was "Wow; Clinton's on the ropes joining in on this BS."

Tim: lol. And then he could have added, "And, I know no one's mentioned this yet, but did you know that my middle name is Hussein?"

Why is nobody mentioning that Hillary was cheerleading Timmeh after this question with her "denouncing isn't as good as rejecting" garbage. It's the only time I saw Hillary's desparation, swinging wildly, hoping to get in the fight.

That this should be mentioned is true, because it was desperate, repulsive behavior. But there's no need to defend Obama on this score because he doesn't need it: he himself defused her attack and made her look like a stooge, giving us all a good laugh at her expense.

Jeez, most of the time we're off running banks and owning Hollywood. Then suddenly they need to dig some dirt up on a candidate and all of a sudden people are so interested in how Jews might feel about Obama's pastor? As my Yiddishe bubbe (Jewish grandmother) might have said, "nisht geshtoygen and nisht gefloygen" (i.e. that's bullcrap).