I tend to agree with your assessment of the issues. Hillary did her self some good and Barack seemed to be struggling to control his frustration.

although, I will be interested to see if there will be backlash that helps Obama if he is viewed as being attacked issues the public has already made up their mind on. Hillary might have cost herself more votes by piping in on Wright and elitism and the weather underground.

ABC should really be embarrassed. Torture, the economy,telecom immunity, lobby reform, election reform, and many Issues were just ignored. Maybe healthcare has been talked to death but there is still new ground to cover and many issues that were just ignored in hopes of brewing scandal.

Where have the intelligent journalists gone, how did we get to this point, mindless 24 news asking over and over about one sentence in a campaign, one little mild exaggeration about snipers, silly tv adds (both candidates), massive and i mean massive amounts of money spent, think of how much good could have been done with all that money that has been spent by all the candidates. Do we have a total of all money spent so far by candidates?. All that money and what do we get?? Silly, silly questions being asked, no real substantive talk about issues.

Obama gives a god damn brilliant speech about race in america and we go on talking about geraldine ferrara, and don't talk about the issue. Hillary has a better health care plan (but less likely to get support from the right) but we cannot discuss this incredibly complex issue with any intelligence, just stupid sound bites and name calling. Then our fine journalists go ahead and spend valuable time asking idiotic questions.

Anyway, all of you, pretty pretty please, consider voting for either excellent candidate the democrats have, who, make your choices, stop acting like it is the world cup..... and promise me to support either candidate.

I apologize for my sins of writing negative things about my second favorite candidate...... I will try and not get baited into posting by you know who ....... and i promise to not attack john mccains wife over her recipes.

Where have the intelligent journalists gone, how did we get to this point, mindless 24 news asking over and over about one sentence in a campaign, one little mild exaggeration about snipers, silly tv adds (both candidates), massive and i mean massive amounts of money spent, think of how much good could have been done with all that money that has been spent by all the candidates. Do we have a total of all money spent so far by candidates?. All that money and what do we get?? Silly, silly questions being asked, no real substantive talk about issues.

Obama gives a god damn brilliant speech about race in america and we go on talking about geraldine ferrara, and don't talk about the issue. Heath care is incredibly complex but what do we get? My plan is better than yours??. Then our fine journalists go ahead and spend valuable time asking idiotic questions.

Anyway, all of you, pretty pretty please, consider voting for either excellent candidate the democrats have, who, make your choices, stop acting like it is the world cup..... and promise me to support either candidate.

I apologize for my sins of writing negative things about my second favorite candidate...... I will try and not get baited into posting by you know who ....... and i promise to not attack john mccains wife over her recipes. Finally and most importantly i will not watch any cable news station during the entire race.....

I'm still watching--but this is infuriating--it's just all soap opera. 'Is Rev. Wright as patriotic as you?' WTF!!! (And of course, Clinton thinks this issue needs 'further exploration', and then links it to HAMAS) 'Oh, Senator Obama, do you think patriots wear pins on their lapel' This is BULLSHIT.

And in just case you think I'm bias--'Oh, Senator Clinton, 6/10 voters say they don't think you're honest. Were you really shot at in Bosnia?' Again, bullshit.

No comment on those Americans who, we learn this week, no longer have fixed co-payments for prescriptions that they need, and can no longer afford them .

There is no comment on those men and women who fought for this country, under false pretenses and lies by our leaders, who are not getting adequate medical care.

There is no serious discussion of the simple point John McCain keeps fucking up--the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

This is no comment--no SERIOUS discussion--on the current state of our economy. No honest discussion of how we got here, no honest discussion of how we might get out of it, other than this ridiculous fucking Republican talking point about who's taxes are getting cut.

No serious discussion of torture.

No serous discussion of...

I am upset and ashamed that this is a "democratic" debate.

As a former Clinton supporter I'm mad as hell at her. Why is she forcing us to wad through this endless mud of non-issues again and again and again? She's lost, goddammit! If she wouldn't insist on tearing Obama down and handing talking points to McCain we would have to endure only three more debates in the fall. Three more travesties of journalism.

Am I mad at people like George Stephanopoulos who should know better? You bet. American journalism really is at an all-time-low.

But Hillary? She keeps on piling on with her "bitter" ad, for instance. I'm sure Karl R. can't believe his luck! I used to like her a lot, and I'm still not very warm with Obama. But now, especially after this "debate", I'm just very, very bitter.

I felt it was a circus that will have minimal impact. I mean, how many Pennsylvanians will be impacted by the SS cap rise?

OTOH, the admission by the both that the other was electable took away the only argument Clinton had with the superdelegates.

Let's play: Predict Hillary's Next Attack Ad!

Grainy b&w still photos and decades-old newspaper clippings of Obama's dangerous associates, overlay of Obama's waffling answers in this debate, scary music fades and then a close-up of an American flag. Soaring strings begin as camera pulls back to reveal the flag is a pin on a smiling Hillary's lapel as she's shaking hands with an old guy in his military dress, or hugging a kid with a puppy or some such shit.

Gibson was booed near the end of the debate for his performance. The Washington Post is slamming both moderators for their horrible approach today. Stephenopopoppopppopoppop-Clink-ulous went on Hannity before the debate to "prepare and take notes" and it shows.

This debate will matter as much as "bitter" or "the family". (Which means it won't.) If anything, from what I'm hearing, Hillary really hurt herself by cheering on Gibson and Stephen-pus and trying to pile on.

For an interesting perspective on the things hillary is saying and how far off message she's gotten.. go here

OMG! Is it really that bad? I recorded it... should I even bother watching it?

Hillary really hurt herself by cheering on Gibson and Stephen-pus and trying to pile on.

Really stupid on her part, If she had said, "I think we already dealt with this weeks ago" about the wright controversy, she probably would have picked up a few points, in stead we got what we got.

After the weather underground response from Clinton, I half expected Obama to turn to her and say, "Nice to know you are spending a lot of time researching this, Hillary. Nothing more important going on in the world?"

OMG! Is it really that bad? I recorded it... should I even bother watching it?

It's the Deuce Bigelow of presidential debates.

It's the Deuce Bigelow of presidential debates.

Ouch.

What I hate most about her campaigning right now is, that it's sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy: "I think Barack Obama can't withstand the Republican onslaught - and here are the talking points to ensure this: ..."

What her tearing down of Obama doesn't prove is her own electability. Because everytime Obama loses against McCain she loses, too. A lose-lose situation. Except for Johnny, of course.

One encouraging note: Gibson and Steph were openly booed by the audience (and boy, did they deserve it). The people are far wiser than the MSM believes.

The most interesting part for me came with the discussion of foreign policy They both provided reasonable answers, but I thought Hillary did a better job.

Seriously? Hillary's hawkish stance didn't concern you? And don't forget. She voted with George Bush to attack Iraq.

From Haarretz.com

Clinton vows 'massive' U.S. retaliation if Iran attacks Israel

Speaking at the Democratic Presidential debate Wednesday, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton threatened to launch a "massive retaliation" if Iran decided to attack Israel.

"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel," she responded to a question on this matter. "Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States," the presidential hopeful added.

On the question of Iran Obama took a softer stance than his rival, saying "I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region" and that "I would consider an attack unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

And what the hell did HIllary mean by "create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel"?

And then there's this from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Election Central:

Debate Moment: Who's tougher on Iran?

Last night Barack Obama reminded us why his candidacy gives some in the Jewish community a major case of the willies.

Asked whether he would extend American deterrence to Israel, Obama, carefully crafting his words, promised “appropriate action” in the event of an Iranian attack:

"As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

When it was Clinton’s turn, she one-upped Obama, promising — twice — “massive retaliation” against Iran. She also laid out a three-point plan that would extend American deterrence to other allies in the region.

"You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

This comment from the JTA sight says it all:

“appropriate action” gives you “the willies” and “massive retaliation” without thoughtful consideration doesn’t? Now THAT gives me the willies

from the JTA sight

Duh.. That should have read, "from the JTA site"

When I reflect upon Hillary's comment about dodging sniper fire and compare it with what she said in the debate, I have this awful feeling that she feels the need to prove how tough she is. I'm sick and tired of our president being "tough". I'm sick and tired of war. I am yearning for diplomacy and peace.

Simply that we are willing to protect other friends in the region not just Israel.

And protect them with "massive retaliation"?

Does not her hawkish stance concern you at all?

And I'm not the only one who is alarmed by her comments. There is article after article by many different people.

Hillary Clinton pressed the red button.

Dick Cheney in Democratic clothing, indeed. In her rapid-fire response, Clinton declared war and committed the U.S. to treaties that do not exist, all without even considering she would have absolutely no constitutional authority to do so, much less any determination of facts before launching a “massive retaliation.”

If that is Hillary Clinton’s reaction at 9:00 p.m., voters are supposed to believe it is better at 3:00 a.m.?

I think in the case of Israel and Hamas he's demonstrated that he's at the core a political animal and that it is the politics not his conscience that guides him

Fine. Believe what you will. But it is clear that the Jewish press is delighted with Hillary for her Hawkish stance and worried that Obama is not militaristic enough for them.

Hillary voted to attack Iraq. That's a fact. Obama may have only given a speech, but that's a hell of a lot better than voting to wage war on Iraq.

Hillary frightens me. Obama is a politician, no doubt about that. There is no way to win the nomination for the president of the U.S. without being a political animal. But that said, Obama is much more measured about war than Hillary is.

but I don't see Barack as that much different

No, he is not that much different. But he is marginally better as concerns foreign policy. And he spoke out against the war at a time when most Americans were beating the war drum and HIllary did not. And HIllary did not speak out against the war at a time when many of her colleagues in the House and Senate did speak out against this war. I cannot, and will not, forget that.

I hear ya, tovarisch Rutherford! No more "one neo eon",

"Hillary frightens me."

Hillary frightens me too. And I have a long history of my fright being confirmed. I won't move to Antipodes (but just might.... seek employment on cruise ships) if she succeeds, climbs her political Everest, I think I can vote for Nader with a clear conscience. I've seen enough. I'll vote not-democrat (not counting an off-year, post-riot, non-presidential election) for the first time since '64. I hear the "9/11" train whistle...

My pitchfork,--lying out on the rail-cross-roads? Yikes!-- is not just tuned to B, F (Background/Foreground), I'm tired of them sour grapes being squeezed out, running down her leg, trickling on down, etc. Tra(i)nscend!

She's DINO-might. I'm all about calling the bom squad. No more Donnervogel whining and dining.

No on one neo eon, oenophile Dionysian weenies! Ich bin kein Vienneser Anschlusser scheisskopfer! Friss frischen Fischscheiss, Unterweindunkelseeulyssesunobamas!

So this has me asking, what are good questions?

1. Questions that go to character. Who they are as people.

2. Questions about what they will have power over as president.

And for the love of gaud. Why have there been no questions about cabinet staffing? After the reign of terror with Bush Co. I would think that who your thinking of putting into those seats would be very important!?

ok, i'll bite.

First of all, George Stephanopoulos completely came off as the Clinton shill that he is. If there was ever a doubt that he would try to distance himself from his previous role as the communications director for Bill Clinton, it is gone. I thought Obama wanted to smack him.

Obama looked tired and frustrated. He didn't answer the gun ban question well. I think anyone looking for a little Obama love for Israel didn't get it in his response to George's "do you care about Israel" question. And, like Norm pointed out, his response to Charlie's pseudo-attack about payroll tax caps came off as defensive and snobbish ie "you don't understand the fine details" even though IMO he is correct.

Anway, Hillary always does better at these types of events.* They remind why I supported her to start with - she is clearly very intelligent, very well informed, very well connected and indeed - very politcally savvy. Ironically she came of looking more presidential then Obama.

Since I haven't posted here in a while, let me quickly point out that most of the Obama supporters who I know - especially those at 1gm - do not consider Obama the "second coming" AT ALL. He's merely seen as minimally different on issues from Hillary, probably more electable and absolutely capable of effecting more substantial changes post election.

she probably would have picked up a few points - RedSeven

*When she belabors nonsensical issues like Wright and patriotism, it helps her with her target audience (people who are leaning away from obama but uncertain) regardless of how it may annoy you and me.

side note: WTF w ABC? aside from the questions themselves, the ABC production staff was doing some interesting camera framing of the candidates which heavily favored Hillary. It might sound like splitting hairs, but go back and look at how Obama and Hillary are panned, framed and focused on. You can be positive it was intentional if I (with my relatively little film school training) noticed.

I am upset and ashamed that this is a "democratic" debate. - Adam

agreed. no discussion of the situation in Africa (Darfur, Zimbabwe), Katrina, NATO expansion, etc.

This debate would have been magnitudes better with Edwards still in the race.

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I’ve seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he’s up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully. Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn’t just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process. In some ways, I’m glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again. But this is still the arena we have. It is what it is. ABC News is what it is. The MSM knows no other way. Obama has to survive and even thrive under this assault if he is to win. He failed tonight in a big way.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

WTF? What is this, Hillary's axis of evil? She would resort to "massive retaliation" against "other countries in the region"?

if she succeeds, climbs her political Everest, I think I can vote for Nader with a clear conscience.

I never thought I'd go there, but I'm beginning to change my mind.

Or perhaps HIllary meant that she would resort to "massive retaliation" if Iran threatened other countries in the region?

But does that make sense? Hell, it's the United States, not Iran, who has attacked other countries.

Oh, wait. She would resort to "massive retaliation" if Iran "threatened" other countries. She doesn't even say if Iran attacked other countries.

Hell, I'm not exactly sure what she means, but however it's parsed, either way, it's frightening!

This is what really frightens me. As much as I don't want to believe the Clintons are this self absorbed, the numbers are kind of convincing evidence that Clinton accepts her inevitable loss and attacks Obama anyways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/no-more-debate-why-clinto_b_97113.html

Just a correction to your post. Clinton's exclamation "Yes. Yes. Yes" was her response to the question from Mr. Stephanopoulos "do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?" NOT whether she would support him if he won. This basically defeats Clinton's super-delegate argument that he is unelectable. Just thought you would want to correct the misstatement.

My take on the debate: exactly what Norm said.

The difference between raising taxes in general and raising payroll taxes is that in the latter case you are also going to be increasing their eventual social security benefits. Short term it will be a boost to the system, long term those people making $100,000 are going to get a lot of it back when they turn 65. So it's not the same as simply raising income taxes.

I've never had any doubt that Clinton would support Obama--once she loses. She is all about winning, but not about spite. Once there is nothing more to be gained, she'll support the cause she believes in, and that's the liberal candidate. Her attacks right now are not proportional to her chances, but she does still have some slim chance.

interested: A TV critic noticed as well what you called 'perhaps splitting hairs':

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

It's a nice review--of the many available--exposing the absurdity of this alleged 'debate', camera angles and all.

JoAnne: Hillary meant by 'security umbrella' allies whom we consider ourselves responsible to defend. Ergo, if Iran attacks a country under our 'umbrella', we would retaliate or aid in retaliating. It's cold war talk--and maybe she thinks it sounds tough, but to me it sounds both naive, phoney, and batshit crazy-- because Iran and the United States do not represent ideologically extreme poles in a struggle for the preservation of democracy in the world.

interested: A TV critic noticed as well what you called 'perhaps splitting hairs

As long as we are splitting hairs, On my TV the graphics were terrible. All those flying stars, looked like they had been recycled from a Christmas ice skating special, and the lame quotations at each commercial break. It was like a local TV production. Doesn't anybody with skills work at networks anymore?