I seem to recall that Stephanopoulos once worked for a presendential campaign.  Now, whose was it?  Hmm..

Having read that it took 45 minutes until any substantive question was raised (luckily I watched that press shindig, I gotta admit Cheney was pretty funny) I have to imagine this will go down as one of the worst moderated debates ever.

regardless of anything else or who the candidates were, 45 minutes will hang over Stephhy and Gibbons neck the rest of their careers, like the few seconds that Rather stormed off the air. How much do you want to bet that neither of these guys will be invited to moderate another Dem. debate ever again?

Obama: Noun: Human Being; American Politician; (ant.) Messiah

exactly exactly exactly.

That one question was the worst by far, and, just as the 13th strike of a clock casts doubt upon the credibiltiy of the previous 12, this one question shows up the motives behind the rest of the 45 minutes of garbage.

Marty, your criticism of that ill-conceived question is spot on. I cringed for the entire first half of the debate. The only thing I have yet to figure out is which of the moderators proved themselves more obnoxious. It is truly a tough call.

Hoe liberal is a person that chooses Barack Obama rather tha Barry Soetoro has his name?

Jonathan, does anyone every call you King Lear affectionately? I'd totally make people do that if Lear were my last name!

mabar2000:

That Barry Soetoro is a joke, right?  Are you really saying that an Indonesian surname is more palatable to American ears than a Kenyan one?  I know many men who struggled with having their father's name as a child - only to embrace it as an adult; how does that relate to being more or less liberal?  Do people refer to you today the same way they did when you were seven?  Are you insinuating that a man is more liberal if he chooses to use his father's name, instead of his step-father's?

What are you saying?

Oh, boo hoo!  Obama brought it on himself by claiming to be the proverbial piano player in the brothel who didn't know what was going on upstairs.  Yes, he gave a good speech on race relations, but that was beside the point. An honest response to his relations with Rev. Wright would be that he joined the church to gain "street cred" in his work as a community organizer and became emotionally attached to the congregation even after he had spiritually and ethically outgrown the reverend's rantings upon running for statewide office. Had he been upfront about this before Wright was exposed as a hatemonger, he would have been spared this ordeal.

Naturally, Obama supporters would prefer the kind of whitewash jobs he was getting in prior debates, but as more and more of his connections to the radical left were revealed, such media free rides became untenable.

The questions were appropriate: Pennsylania voters, for whom the debate was organized, want to see the person for whom they're voting.  Just because the media has fulminated over the comments and moved past them doesn't mean they're off-limits to the people who go to the polls Tuesday.  The idea that ABC "stooped to a new level" betrays the elitism that's plagued the Democratic party for fifty years and kept out every Democrat from the White House except for the two Presidents who understood the value voters saw in "personality."

If the PA voters are convinced that they "saw" Obama after a series of questions designed to strangle with a pillow anything resembling intelligent and thoughtful responses, that's their affair.

Also, I'm getting good and sick of the use of this term "character" in a context in which it means nothing.  Whether you wear a flag lapel pin or not, whether you shoot deer in the woods or work for the SPCA, has little to do with "character."  The former has to do with style and the latter has to do with the social milieu you feel at home in.  Character, in contrast, has to to with a lot of mostly quiet, interior things:  how well you've lived your life in relation to others, how often you told the truth rather than fudged, how you've put your hopes and ambitions into practice, how you've dealt with the major crises of childhood, of youth, of marriage, of parenting, of family bereavement, of professional challenge.

By all these measuring sticks, however, Obama comes out reasonably well, and at least as well as HRC or McCain.  Having a pair of trained monkeys lob rotten bananas at you on TV for almost an hour reveals nothing except your capacity for patience.  Now that I think on it, that's a valuable character trait, which PA voters may well have seen clearly.

I suggest that whether he intended to or not, to a certain extent Stepanapoulos did Obama a favor.

I know it sounds off the wall, but bear with me.

First, he forced Hillary to acknowledge that Obama could win against McCain.  Her whispering campaign to the super delegates has all been: "He can't win the General.  I can."

Well Stephanapoulos publicly made a liar out of her one way or another.  Either she was lying when she said.  "Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  I think he can."  Or she is lying to the super delegates when she tells them he can't.  A lovely game of heads I win; tails you lose on the part of Stephanapoulos, who after all knows the lady well.

Second, all those Gotcha questions in a sense inoculated Obama for the General.  All those things are out in the public domain and they were so overdone by Step and Gib that they may have less purchase in the General.   Anyone who is convinced against Obama by those issues probably would not have voted for him for other reasons in all events.

Third, let's admit it.  Obama did not shine last night.  He seemed genuinely surprised by the inanity and endlessness of the attack.  He seemed flabbergasted that Hillary was joining in it with such relish.  He knew he had to restrain himself in any counterattack since he has much to lose in November while she, not able to overcome his delegate lead, has nothing to lose.  He looked downright uncomfortable.  Ill at ease.  Well most people would when they are in the middle of a mugging.  BUT he now knows exactly what public muggings are going to feel like and he can prepare for them all.  And his answers do need to be crisper, cleaner, more definitive.... They will be.  Practice makes perfect.  This was the dress rehearsal for the General.  So in a funny way Step and Gib... were preparing him.  Here is what it is going to feel like.  Here is the type of questions you are going to get.  Now you and your buddies get together and clean up those answers.

Fourth, subliminally Obama got sympathy from fair minded people.  It was a slugfest of three against one.  He was pummeled.  He was on the ropes... or to mix a metaphor and get sort of hyperbolic, he was being lynched or crucified... as I said... hyperbolic.  BUT he showed that he didn't like it but could take it and take it with some grace without really getting down in the gutter with the lot of them.  

Fifth, Hillary may have "shone"... and I'll admit I have never seen her answers better and less blathering.  BUT.  She stood there and was enjoying seeing Obama being pummeled, lynched, crucified.  And rather than being appalled by it, she joined in the fray. Didn't she remind you of a little girl, jealous of her brothers, standing bye and getting real pleasure out of Daddy jumping all over them, while saying:  "But I am a good little girl, Daddy..."  Considering how utterly abusive her Goldwaterite father was (throwing the toothpaste cap into the snow if they forgot to screw it back on and making the kids go out into the snow to hunt for it).  Yah that kind of behavior builds character in a child and we got a really good look at the character it built in Hillary.  And her deep, deep trouble is that she has never looked at that abyss in her.  She has identified with and turned into the aggressor.  Just as she has morphed in Karl Rove,II.  Her motto has become:  "That which you really hated when it was done to you, make sure you do unto others."

Annabelle, to expand on your innoculation point, I think Obama needs to talk about Wright, Ayers, and Michelle until we are BORED STIFF with it. He needs to craft a pithy paragraph on each and drop them overtly on the stump, on TV, in debates. He doesn't like this, it is clear, but the only way to innoculate is boredom...

"Character, in contrast, has to to with a lot of mostly quiet, interior things:  how well you've lived your life in relation to others, how often you told the truth rather than fudged, how you've put your hopes and ambitions into practice, how you've dealt with the major crises of childhood, of youth, of marriage, of parenting, of family bereavement, of professional challenge."

Well, I'm for Obama now, but shouldn't this standard cause us to miss Edwards?

Well....it seems to me that Obama's "debate" problems did not arise from the questions the moderators asked him. Rather the problem is that he did not leave the church in which he sat for twenty years listening to a racist, anti-semitic and black nationalist.  Instead he made the looney preacher his closest advisor (his words, not mine), asked him to officiate at his wedding to  Michelle, and also asked him to baptize his children. And when asked about that, he changed the subject to why can't we talk about race, rather than how looney do you take the pastor to be and what were you doing there for that long.    Don't blame the moderators for asking questions that Obama has still not answered and which have been glossed over by a liberal media that has annointed him president.

If Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, may I suggest that those of you who feel he was treated unfairly had better line up some effective mood stabilizers for the general, because you ain' seen nothin' yet.

Debbrodie: Well said.  And of course, it's a nasty world out there.  All of this is nothing compared to what ill-wishers will throw at him, no mention friends and trusted allies.

But, it seems to me that most people who objected to the treatment were rather concerned about the low level of discourse and the distractions rather than any "unfair treatment" that might have been meted out to Obama.  In a sense, after what Dowd did to "Girly man Gore" - may she marry a He-Man W in the end - and after what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry, this ain't nothing ... the question is whether Pennsylvania voters really are as screwed up as Scottlooper suggests - the condescension of low expectations working on steroids here - or American voters are as loopy as rfaris.  

As to the former, we'll find out tomorrow, but I have a sneaking suspicion that at the end of the day, the average American voter really does care about health care, jobs, the economy, an end to the War, respect for American abroad and respect for Americans at home, civil liberties, and a government that functions ... I think eight years of W and Rove and Cheney might well have taught some valuable lessons about the stupidity of ignoring all the problems of the US and concentrating on such important character issues as whether you wore a flag pin or how you replied to stupid questions in your 21st debate after an eighteen month run ...

Annabella: great analysis.

rfaris10:  Glossed over by the media?  We've been talking about Rev. Wright for over a month!  Obama has answered those questions you pose.  Obama did not change the subject and say we couldn't talk about race.  On the contrary, he challenged us to engage in a conversation about race.  Perhaps you weren't listening.  If you reject his answers and therefore reject him, fine.  That's your choice.  But don't accuse him of dodging the issue.  You know, where is your outrage at politicians who sit in church every Sunday as their pastors preach hatred and bigotry towards gays and lesbians?  Is it simply that Rev. Wright dared to speak ill of the majority that makes you so angry?  As a gay man, who has to overlook people's kneejerk prejudices against my community every day, I suggest you learn to grow a thicker skin and get over it.  There are issues of far greater importance.  

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

This campaign season offers the unique opportunity to have a serious discussion of core cultural issues that shape the United States today: Religion, Race, Gender, and Class.

So far Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have been forced by events to address two of these four issues in venues that were not characteristic of typical political rallies. Agree or disagree with the content of those speeches, or even whether or not one or both men addressed the topics those speeches were purported to have addressed, they nonetheless provide sober reflections on particular visions for the United States today and the future of America.

We have yet to here a similar, sober exploration of the topic of gender from Hillary Rodham Clinton, yet we know she feels strongly about that issue. In what ways does Hillary Clinton believe that gender inequities affect the country today? What is the urgency of gender inequality? What are the challenges facing women in America today? How should we as a nation move forward from here?

It may too late to get a similar speech about class and poverty out of John Edwards, but it would be enlightening to do so. Of course, the difference with Edwards is that he doesn’t actually represent the working class or the poor, at least not given his economic status today. But he still might be the best person out of the major candidates who ran this year, to do so.

Again, the point is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the speaker; the point is to here the narratives on religion, race, gender, and class for a few of the major players on the political scene today.

I realize that some might ask, “What does this have to do with being president? While these topics are important, it is more relevant to hear what presidential candidates have to say about foreign policy, the economy, and the appointment of judges, since those are the key areas where they will have an impact.” Point well taken. Rather than the cheap shots and sound bites that characterize the presidential debates, our time would no doubt be better used by having each of the candidates spend an hour talking about and then taking questions on each of these three issues. But in terms of understanding the cultural terrain of the United States today it would be instructive to take advantage of this opportunity to compile a collection of sober attempts of significant candidates attempting to grapple with the four issues of religion, race, gender, and class as an illustration of part of the public discourse in the early 21st century in this country.

This,

"Obama, noun.: A Liberal Mugged By The Press"

should read

"Obama, noun.: Making love to a candidate by the narcissistic liberal Press.

Jonathan, a man is seeking the highest office in the nation.  And right now the highest office on the planet.  

Once he is in, he is almost impossible to remove for four years.  

He wields enormous power that affects every one of us individudally and the fate of the world as a whole.

The future and even the survival of our nation will depend to a possibly very great extent on the president's judgement, and, yes, his loyalties.

Obamas relationship with Rev Wright and the Ayers couple raise questions about both.  These questions need to be put to rest before many will be willing to vote for Sen Obama.

It is in the interest of Obama himself that these questions be positively resolved.  

You may not like how the questions were asked.  But before the ABC debate, the Ayers question at least was not being asked at all.

All presidential candidates run a very tough gauntlet.  McCain was accused of adultery and trading influence for sex on the front pages of the New York Times.  I don't recall if you rushed to his defense.

To Mat9982

  Sorry to be delayed in responding to your insistence that Obama has answered the questions about the good Reverend.  You're right.  Much media attention has fallen on his relation to the looney minister.  The problem is that Obama has a problem.  First, no one is buying one of his first non-answers--that he never heard the Wright say any of those awful statements.  I mean, please give me this one, won't you?  He sat in that church for twenty years and never heard him utter those racist, anti-semitic and anti-american statements?  

You think his close personal relation with the black nationalist church and the repulsive minister is a non-issue.  Fine.  I don't and many other don't as well. It speaks to his real views as opposed to the ones he's been handed by his script writers.  And the script was really cleverly written for his "historic" race speech.....He switched the question from what were you doing over there with that lunatic and why did you stay so long, ask him to marry you and baptize your children, to  "Let's have a different conversation about race.  Nice, except that was a evasive answer to a question not asked and had nothing whetsoever to do with the looney reverend.  So when the dopey liberal  media swoons and refers to

his speech as "historic", they must be using a scale measuring  collossal arrogance--an arrogance many did not miss if the Pennsylvania primary was any indication.  

So when you tell me the media has had a field day with this "non-issue", try to notice, will you, that they were busy apologizing for him the second that revelation hit the stands. Thus his media coverage was mostly generated by the liberal media who views him as a messiah.  That's dangerous, my friend, very dangerous.