George Stephanopoulos and ABC News Should Be Embarrassed

Exactly.

Come to my small town in Oklahoma where I see people everyday who barely have enough damn money to buy food, and these beltway pundits want to obsess about hot-button, right-wing issues.

No wonder very few people have any faith in our political process any longer. This country is falling apart economically due to an incompetant president and these celeb news guys want to play along with all the sensationalizing crap that has ruined politics in America for the last 20 years.

Very disgusting to watch.

help State Sen. Andrew Rice beat crazy Jim Inhofe!

---

by: blueokie08 @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 22:30:40 PM CDT

"I prepared for this debate by playing bumpercars

at the Iowa state fair"

It was Obama's response when he finally got a chance to speak after 45 minutes of Obama bashing at an Iowa debate.  Remember who the moderator was?  George Stephanopolis.  This wasn't a coincidence.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 22:37:28 PM CDT

Glad I didn't bother to watch.

Given the comments here and elsewhere, I'm glad I was doing other things.

A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: wmlawman @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 23:11:57 PM CDT

WOW.

First off, having a moderator (Stephanopoulos) who once worked for the spouce (Bill Clinton) of one the candidates (Hillary Clinton), might just be a tiny conflict of interest.

After nearly vomiting after the debate, I decided to go to the ABC website and read the comments of those that watched the debate, and tally the number of those that thought the debate was garbage vs. those that liked the debate?

My findings?  Out of the over 8000 people who posted comments, I read 118 of them (the lastest ones).  A fair sample.  108 of the thought the debate was garbage, 10 liked the debate.

Most of those that hated the debate also vowed to never watch ABC again.

gg.

---

by: Sean @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 23:46:15 PM CDT

Second off...

What was the point of bringing up "Bittergate", Wright, Ayers, "Lapelgate" and "Bosniagate" all in the first 40 minutes of the debate?

Few care about these tabloidish stories anyway, but 4 of them dealt with Obama while 1 dealt with Clinton.  Fair?

This debate also came at an inoppertune time, and hurt the weak reputation of journalism in this country.

However, it could be argued that this debate helped Obama, because whenever Clinton goes negative, Obama seems to get a bump in the polls.  Also, this was good prep for the garbage McCain will come after Obama with.

---

by: Sean @ Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 23:55:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its not even that Stephanopoulos works for the Clintons

Which he still does if you ever watch his Sunday TV show, it's so Clinton slanted, it makes Olbermann's Obama slant look like its impartial.

It's that his show is terrible, it's by far the worst of all the Sunday Talk Shows. He asks the dumbest questions in the history of the world on his show and acts like he knows what he's doing.

So I figure, if you ask dumb questions on your TV show what makes you think he's going to ask questions on a debate that have any relevance when it's not even the guy's regular job and his employer is one of the debaters.

I watched the first 20 minutes of the debate, saw it was going to be bullshit and went back to the Yankee Red Sox game. At least their was a winner and loser in the game and my IQ didn't slip a few points..
 

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:12:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The debate...

While I share just about everyone's sentiment that ABC threw a really discourteous curveball of a "debate" last night, I want to play a little devil's advocate.

As insipid as the questions were in the first hour or so, these questions are bound to be asked again and again by either the MSM or swift boaters or whoever.  While most clearly didn't expect such questions to be brought up on live national television, in a way, I think Obama got a good taste of what he should expect in the GE.  

I would rather get all these non-issues out in the open and as Obama put it "beat it to death" now than in say September or October when there is even more on the line.  One of the positive factors (if you can even call it that) of a prolonged primary is to season Obama up for the GE and this was IMO one of his first big test.  Unfortunately, like most rookies in their first playoff game, he struggled a bit.  I hope this experience will allow him to better prepare for such tactics for future GE debates.  

One should also note that Hillary pounced on Obama whenever she had the chance and from her past negative attacks, the general public does not receive such vitriol with open arms.  It was also nice to see that Obama tried to take the high road whenever he could.  For example, when Clinton was asked about the Bosnia debacle, rather than going negative on Clinton, Barack asked the moderators to move on as it was a non-issue.

Also, even though we find non-issue questions inane, to few viewers and voters, these are important issues and they want straight answers from the candidates.  On Andrew Sullivan's blog last night, he posted a picture of an elderly white man who held up a sign that said "Vote for Hillary Clinton, NOT Barack Hussein Obama".  As one can see, there are still people who question Barack's patriotism and as unfortunate as that maybe, there will always be folks who will question his patriotism even if he is elected president.

Barack has improved greatly as a debater but clearly, this was the first debate during the primary season in which he underperformed.  Hillary will likely get a small bounce from last night's atrocity, but Barack will be fine.  He has rebounded from mistakes in the past and the fact that Hillary showed her shrewd side by siding with the moderators whenever possible will hurt her as well.

Like most Democratic supporters, I wish things would have turned out differently as the GOP clearly won last night.  But in a sick and twisted way, I think Barack needed the seasoning last night.

I end off by quoting an observer who emailed Andrew Sullivan last night- "Has Barack's call to change the old-style politics looked ever more attractive?"

---

by: blueandwhite31 @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:39:06 AM CDT

On a positive and unrelated note...

Greg Fischer sent an email out to his supporters saying his campaign drew in...(drum roll)

close to $550,000 all from individual donors and none from PACs!! (Q1 only)

He also noted that Lunsford only raised about $278,000!

---

by: blueandwhite31 @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM CDT

But Lunsford

Is far richer and will self fund and starts out 35 points ahead.

We still have work to do.

---

by: Populista @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know...

it's a really long shot and Lunsford will 95% win the primary, but I like Fischer dammit haha.

---

by: blueandwhite31 @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 13:21:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lunsford is the nominee

Sadly, I like Fischer better as well, this race is such a wasted opportunity.

Well Kentucky will have to wait until 2010 to have a democratic Senator. Which should be Ben Chandler barring any huge gaffes.  

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 13:29:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You folks are embarassing yourselves

After twenty-one debates you wanted to hear the same old questions asked again?

Obama was pinned down and vetted to a greater extent than ever before, and the Chattering Obamatrons won't still still for it... and have called for a hangman's noose for ABC.

No surprise - they aren't used to their Messiah being put in the spotlight by the press. The free ride slowed for just 90 minutes, and the legions of followers are up in arms.

Off-script and on his heels, Obama failed miserably. And this putz thinks he can sit at the table with Ahmadinejad? Spare us, superdelegates - and put an end to this travesty.

---

by: LeeWard @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 15:04:07 PM CDT

You realize . . .

. . . that the inane, idiotic questions were pitched to both candidates, and Hillary looked just as pissed off as Barack when faced with these trivialities. Those "gotcha" questions were designed to drum up controversy for controversy's sake.  There's no way that either candidate could have come off well answering such stupid questions. It was a travesty of a debate, and nobody here is pointing the finger at Hillary.  We are aghast that the media boys are really just high school "mean girls," turning everything into a substance-free popularity contest.

---

by: The Caped Composer @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 17:38:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know Obama's won the nomination, right?

It's just a matter of time before he's the Democratic nominee for president.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 18:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I should also add.

Obama had a few chances to hit Clinton, over Bosnia for example, and he didn't.  Why?  Because he understands that we need to stand united come November, to elect a stronger Democratic congress, a stronger Democratic senate, and a Democrat to the White House.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 18:19:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is the nominee

And all the Clinton Supporters that dilute themselves into thinking different are simply hurting the democratic party. She lost, end of discussion. While Neither have enough delegates to win, the super delegate swing would have to be so dramatic that its impossible.

Obama is the nominee and to bring this back to Senatorial discussions,  is a better presidential candidate to pick up Red State Senate Seats than Clinton.

Obama will be the next President, and because of him we will have a near filibuster proof majority.

So you Clinton supporters get on board or go throw the Democratic Party under the bus like you all usually do, we will win either way. If anything the Clinton's know best is to throw Democrats under the bus to win.  

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 18:53:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a gentleman!

He didn't "hit" Clinton because he was too busy trying to preserve his own messiah-like image. This debate demonstrated Obama's inability to face the tough questions, not about health care or the economy, but questions of leadership and ability to represent. If he faltered here about "clinging" and flag pins, what happens when it is about Rezko parties and house sales, let alone foreign policy experience - ALL of which will be hurled at him by McCain and the Republicans.

Obamaniacs - be careful what you wish for. There is NO guarentee of an Obama victory in the fall if he gets the nomination...his performance in this debate proves just that.

Standing united is the issue then? He throws just as much mud as Hillary, but gets away with it because the media gives him a pass. He is a politician, just like the rest of them - so take off the rose-colored glasses and get him off of that pedestal. The party will be united, but I'm not so sure the voters will follow...

"It takes alot of money to look this cheap." - Dolly Parton

---

by: furiousdee @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If he gets the nomination?

He's leading by over 150 pledged delegates, and 800,000 votes.  The chances of Hillary overturning either, with her likely 6 wins and 4 losses, are impossible.  

Unless you can break out 30 point victories.  Break out 30 points victories, or break out of the race for the nomination.  

The stuff about house sales have been factually defused, and the fact that you are still clinging to that to bring Obama down is pathetic.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Face the truth...

You miss the point, as usual. It doesn't matter if his involvement with federally-indicted Rezko is benign or not, if he has distanced himself from his marrying/baptising minister or not, if he's apologized for his condescending remarks about small-town America or not; these are statements that Republicans will feast on during the general.

Clinton, while far from perfect, is correct when she says she is better prepared to fend off the attack machine.

150 pledged delegates? It seems to me that neither candidate will reach 2024 by the convention; there's not enough left for either of them to win without super delegates. So relax on the calls for her to withdraw - she has no reason to, there is still a race on, still votes to be counted.

I understand your anxiety about getting a nominee, if it is Obama he'll need all the time he can get to learn how to win a tough election...this ain't Alan Keyes!!


"It takes alot of money to look this cheap." - Dolly Parton

---

by: furiousdee @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is laughable

You know what's going to happen?
Pennsylvania ~ Clinton 55 - Obama 45
Clinton +25 P.Delegates
North Carolina ~ Obama 59 - Clinton 40
Obama +20
Indiana ~ Clinton 53 - Obama 47
Clinton +5 P.Delegates
Guam ???
Only 4 delegates.  Not sure here.  
Oregon ~ Obama 56 - Clinton 42
Obama +5 P.Delegates
Puerto Rico - Clinton 60 - Obama 40
Clinton +15 P. Delegates
Montana - Obama 58 - Clinton 42
Obama +2 P. Delegates
South Dakota - Obama 60 - Clinton 39
Obama +3 P. Delegates
West Virginia and Kentucky go for Clinton a little over 60%
Clinton +25

You're left with...Oh, yeah.  Obama still wins.  You'd be ignorant to rely on superdelegates overturning the people.  It isn't going to happen.  Period.  

Why would superdelegates overturn Obama's candidacy?  Obama has created the largest donor base in the shortest amount of time.  He expands the electoral map beyond a 51-49 victory.  He has raised almost 300 million dollars and he isn't even the nominee yet.  (Most people kick off fundraising AFTER they win the nomination - John Kerry raised 290 of 330 million as the nominee)  

Again.  You need some realism here.  I don't care if Clinton stays in.  Registering a shit ton of Democrats will do wonders downticket.  What I don't appreciate is you trying to tear down the future nominee, the future of the Democratic party, refusing to accept that he is likely to be the nominee.  It lacks realism on your part.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Say your right

And Obama has less of chance in the general election because of his questionable associates and lack of clear political debating chops.

What is your solution?

Obama has the most delegates and votes, you honestly think if the super delegates gave it to Hillary, everyone in the Obama camp is gonna shrug and go ok. It will be a civil war in the Party and we will have no shot at the race.

Not to mention their is doubt in my mind you will have a well funded third party candidate that will build on that support to totally screw the democratic party out of votes.

Obama's strong point is not debating, as anyone who watch any of the debates can see, he performs much better in speeches and retail campaigning. However look at the benefit of debates have had on our last two election cycles. George W. Bush goes up and sounds like a drunken monkey and still wins the election against John Kerry and Al Gore. And as much as you don't think he is a good debater,unquestionably he is more intelligent and articulate then George Bush.

I don't think his debating is a fatal flaw. And Clinton is going after him pretty good right now and he hasn't faltered enough to be taken out. I just think that if McCain goes to the race baiting it will bite him in the ass and in the end it will have such a backlash with independents that it won't matter.

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh?

So if Clinton wins the nomination it will be her fault that Obama supporters will walk away from the party? Take your ball and go home? That really shows the spirit of Obama supporters alright...if it's not my guy, I won't play.

Your point on a third party candidate is a good one and either candidate will have to deal with such a scenario.

My point is not that a bad debator makes a bad President, it's that if he can't handle the relative soft-balls thrown Wednesday night, how will he handle the big leagues this fall? McCain doesn't have to race-bait, all he has to do is play that Wright clip over and over and wear his American flag pin; I'm not saying it's right, I'm satying it will play that way.

As good a man as he is (if he gets the nom I will support him to anyone who'll listen), Obama has major vulnerabilities going into the general. It's a long way to November folks...be careful what you wish for.


"It takes alot of money to look this cheap." - Dolly Parton

---

by: furiousdee @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

His point, was

That it is near impossible for Clinton to win.  So Obama's a weaker GE candidate in your eyes.  What are you going to do?  Win a bunch of 30 point victories, complain about it, leave the party, what?

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah that's pretty much my point

I don't think its a possibility that Senator Obama can lose the nomination without a civil war in the party that will destroy our chances in 2008.

So What's you path to the nomination that doesn't involve super delegates overturning the will of the voters.

And the Florida and Michigan arguments are absurd, especially Michigan where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. We all agreed to the DNC rules and now that you guys are losing you want to change them, doesn't seem very fair to me.

Just show us the realistic path to the nomination without that and I will agree that She should stay in the race.

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It will involve Super delegates, you can't ignore them.

The super delegates were created for just such a scenario as this. The party "elders" decided that in order to avoid nominating another George McGovern they would create super delegates who would NOT be beholden to the pledged delegate count, eliminating one wing of the party from hijacking the nomination.

Those are the rules I didn't make them up. Super delegates were not designed to follow the will of the voters, right or wrong. As for Florida and Michigan? I feel the delegates will be sat as is. You run a risk of throwing them in McCain's column if you do not seat their delegations.

The party wants to win an election; don't be fooled, it's a business like any other, they just deal in power, not money.

That is realism. Moreover Obama does NOT ensure a more than 51-49 split. You think just because he won caucuses and primaries in places like Idaho, Georgia and Mississippi he has the ability to turn these states? Impossible.

He did not carry states like New Jersey, Nevada, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and most likely Pennsylvania. These are must wins for any nominee and because of their demographics, they could easily go with war veteran McCain vs first-term Senator Obama. Hillary has a much better chance at winning these aging, down-scale Democratic states.

That is reality. I appreciate you have found something to beleive in and as I've said, I will back Obama if he is the nominee, but winning is the reality - I don't know if Obama can hold all of the states Kerry took, plus one.

"It takes alot of money to look this cheap." - Dolly Parton

---

by: furiousdee @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 13:34:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand the Superdelegate Arguement

And I agree that you are correct this is a method where you can win, I just want to reiterate the backlash the Obama supporters would have towards this. This method would cause cause a civil war in the Party. And I do not believe the party is willing to risk that. It would viewed as a shame of democracy and the overlords of the party would override the voice of the people.

As for the Michigan being seated, it is absurd in my honest opinion to seat these delegates when Obama was not even on the Ballot. He was asked as were all the candidates to remove his name from the ballot, to secure the integrity of DNC rules which Michigan violated. While I agree that these rules are inane and ancient and that Iowa has no right to be first in the nation over any other state, these were the rules that were laid out at the beginning of the campaign and it would be unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Florida I think is a much better argument, however I would also argue is unfair due to Hillary's huge name advantage in the state at the time of the election. Obama's ability to cut huge leads in states that he was originally down in by large numbers to small loses or victories is documented in states like Texas and Ohio where he was down by large margins and managed to mitigate the loses. So I think it is inheritable unfair to Obama to allow those votes to stand.

I just think all the scenarios where Hillary wins, causes a riot on the Obama side of the caucus and will cause mass defections to a third party independent that will surely come along, which would result in a huge electoral victory for McCain.

I think the argument to Hillary voters about here losing is much more simplistic, she lost the most states,votes, and delegates. I think Obama' argument to convince Hillary Voters to come over is a lot easier then vice versa.

I think after Pennsylvania if she doesn't win by a margin of at least 10% she should withdraw.

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."-Will Rogers

---

by: Conniver @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 14:17:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ZOMFG He can't win new york!!!!!

I can't believe how low you are bringing the level of intellectual discussion here.  First you talk about how Obama isn't more capable of winning states he won in the primary, and then you run on about how Clinton is more capable of winning states she did win the primary, and how losing them in the primary, has made Obama incapable of winning them in the GE.  That is the dumbest thing I have ever had to read.  

The outcome of individual primaries isn't a signal for the GE.  Obama's been polling better in New Hampshire and Nevada even though he lost both those states in the primary.  Obama also has polled competitively in Alaska, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, etc.  States that Democrats aren't normally competitive in.  

---

by: Jeremiahthemessiah @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 17:22:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]